RypeL

UE3 can be hacked ? Shocking! ... If you think thats news you failed badly.

Not yet released, but yes, should come out with a patch soon.

If you can get this thing moving count us devs in in fixing up spec mode to be proper. That should be easy enough so dont worry about it.

DID you REALLY just wait ? If so how long did you wait ? Cause it is normal for the game to totally freeze till it did the initial downloads/initialization. Happened to me aswell, total freeze, but after a minute or two it continued.

I do think so and id support its integragion. That would be very good to have. A tutorial level is not on the horizon afaik so imho we should not wait for that to eventually happen. And even if a tutorial would happen eventually a picture story would still be very good to have. Ideally accessible from the main and from the pause menu I think.

I think we should just have a simple picture story accessible from the pause menu. Atleast that would be something achievable.

Yeah but whatever a team does atleast someone is accumulating VP and once they reach heroic they can make quite a difference. (Also another thing i forgot to mention above that we did to make Marathon games end more reliably: The respawn time is slowly increasing over the course of the game and we added a coolwon to PT usage. For example the max respawn delays could be tweaked further to make any game on any map end more reliably. theoretically we could even make them different per map - just theocrafting)

From what i remember from earlier discussion it came down to one goal that pretty much devs and community agreed on: Goal: "We want the game to end by base destruction as thats the more exciting way" Im in the boat that wants games to not last longer then like 45 minutes and was on the fence against Marathon for that reason. But we did two major things to the game that made Marathon more viable: Building Armor and Veterancy. Both are in line with the goal to end the game "naturally". Im not sure right now how close we are on ending games kinda reliably within 45 minutes. If too much games drag on for over an hour i think we should do more things to make it quicker. So for me im kinda neutral on this cause i have reasons for both: - basically i prefer AOW over Marathon - but i also wanna reach the goal we set to "naturally end the game by base destruction" within a reasonable time. Im just not sure if we are quite there yet

Yes, stacking shouldnt be allowed for that reason. Also i am proposing a team goal of VP that must be reached. So if someone buys a sniper and manages to accumulate lots of VP that would benefit everyone in his team just the same as it does for him. Cause if not this would create the problem of dedicated base defenders etc not getting anything. The Thread has come to a point where lots has been written and it starts to get hard to keep up for everyone. I also dont have the time to properly reply to everything so far. I thank you for your initial impressions about ideas like those but fear this thread might now start to go in circles a bit. At one point we should probably make separat threads out of it for specific ideas. But for an initial impression this already achieved quite a lot, thank you. I still have to reread the longer posts etc to get all the impressions from that, but ill do that once i have time and then again will see if we can come up with like 2-3 different approaches implemented. I dont expect this process to alter CnC mode in this way to be short or easy, but lets try.

I wouldnt suggest taking VP away from people. That would again cripple the loosing team even more for just a chance to get building functionality back. So spending VP is not an option i think for the same reasons spending credits is not an option. For VP the idea is basically: If you manage to accumulate X VP even when at a building disadvantage you unlock X to be bought like 2 times. You earn it by playing well, having accumulated that VP. But you then shouldnt have to sacrifice that VP as that would feel like demoting as you said and weird. The idea is basically to just use the VP system to measure if a team did well enough. Then they could get like 2 buy options of a high tier and a mid tier unit or vehicle. And if they would accumulate X offensive VP again they would get another 2 buy options (at normal or slightly increased price) of a high tier and a mid tier unit or vehicle.

Having to save up lots of credits to buy back a building wouldnt do good to the gameplay i think. After loosing a building it would mean you would be crippled even more on options cause youd want to save up for just a chance to revive that building. Its like crippling the loosing team even more and removing even more options from it. Thats why i think any form of rebuying a building with credits is not an option. The zombie building idea is interesting but the loosing team doesent need to achieve something to get the zombie buildings. Neither do they need to do a strategic tradeof. The VP idea i find interesting cause it offers the loosing team a reward for playing exceptionally well even when down a building. It doesent cripple them more like, having to save up credits, it gives them an extra chance if they do well and accumulate X VP outside their base. The building health trade idea i find interesting cause it isent something that the loosing team just gets. Neither do they have to earn it, but they would have to make a strategic tradeoff. They would give something to get something. So VP: Team needs to fight well to be rewarded more buy options, Building Health: Team would need to make a sacrifice to be rewarded more buy options. Both ideas dont cripple the loosing team even more neither do they stall the game. Thats kind of the type of ideas i think would work best for the sake of gameplay and fun.

For VP i was thinking of something like having to accumulate X ammount of offensive team VP to unlock like two higher tier buys per player (for just credits). The building health idea also seems very interesting! Thx for sharing your ideas and thoughts it feeds the mind and i really hope we can make something out of it!

Ah ok, moved it to be visible.

You can also grab yourself like some popcorn or icecream and read more about 60 player servers here here here and here. And probably in like 10 other topics, if you can find them. Pretty much every dev is against it and the majority of the playerbase is against it according to all the threads. Then why is it a thing ? The most strong argument seems to be that one 60 player server at peek hours is better then one 40 player server. Its a crappy situation and i understand that its hard to decide for server owners. What we would need to fill like two 40 servers again is probably something like a chat client in the launcher and ideally some sort of matchmaking.

I´m down for coding it if we find a good system. Dont worry about for now how easy or not easy it looks to code. Finding a good system is more important then coding time on this i think.

Im liking that you braught up the idea of it costing VP. Cause that is also what i had in mind and what is currently beeing evaluated. To be more precise, the idea is for it to cost/use VP that can only be attained outside of your base. But this will also mean in order to not doom dedicated defenders it would need to be some kind of pool of shared team VP that can be attained in certain situations/parts of the game and especially to the loosing team. In terms of cost i prefer to think more in percentages then in like a credit or VP ammount. Like what is the current chance for a team loosing a building first to still win the game ? Maybe like 20% for pubs and like 10% for PUGs (cause in PUGs its harder to come back as the defense is more organized) ? And what percentage would we want this to be ? Maybe like increasing the chance to 30% ? If thats decided then we could start tuning cost etc of such a new system till this percentages are roughly met.

We are discussing this internally aswell for a while now, so pls go ahead and share your ideas. Ill give out more details about what is planned (but not set in stone) eventually. I really wanna try a few things in this direction and doing so with mutators so that the core game can stay as is and its up to the mutators to get interest or not before it can be decided to include those changes into the main game. One detail that seems to be kind of a final decission is that we wont give the option to fully bring back a building, instead there will most likely be more airdrop/rebuy options but with very special rules about how those can be attained.

Yes, vehicle Husks could crash the game for reasons that couldnt be pinned down (cause it happened too randomly and couldnt be reproduced). I think even after removing pieces flying off it still caused crashes. Only deactivating vehicle husks completly finally stopped the crashes. Since they were removed for all vehicles and since turrets are technically stationary vehicles, they also lost their husks. As we dont know where the crashes originate from it maybe could be tried to reactivate husks just for turrets and see how it goes.

Maybe only give VP from harvester kills once the harv has atleast lived like 30 seconds or so ? So that spawnkilling the harv would net no VP.

Arround patch day excitement and activity in the dev team typically peaks and then people often try to get in "one more thing" and then stuff happens and stuff brakes. Also close to release of a patch testing intensives and that often results in more stuff to fix aswell. Thats just normal.

There was teambalancing for a while. But it got disabled i think mainly because people really wanted to play with their buddys. Their was always a vague idea of reenabling it when some kind of party system might get invented.

As far as i know YouTube works like this: You make your video and upload it. Then if someone thinks it should be there money cause of their content beeing shown they can make a copyright claim and make the money of the vid go their way. EA will not do that and neither will we. The only way you could get into trouble is by actually explicitly asking EA...

It is quite normal that YouTube videos get monetized. If we would be against that pretty much noone could show RenX on YouTube. So id say that of course you can use RenX content on YouTube like everyone else. Aslong as you dont do something stupid like claiming it to be your game. Just include us in the video description pls if you use RenX content in your vids and if it isent obvious enough from the vid itself.

Underlying UE engine physics. Can not be changed with our UDK license. Only thing we could try was some tricks and workarrounds like cutting your vehicles grip shortly after hitting another vehicle wich is why you couldn't push the ltank in your vid. We tried, a lot, to come up with how it's now. UE vehicle physics are designed for non serious gamemodes and most of it we cannot change as it isent our engine. Good thread though and maybe it gives ideas to try more like looking at collision boxes again. But don't have much hope. Weird physics came with the engine choice.

When a server split feature like Agent suggested could be implemented then sure higher numbers could be allowed to suppport that feature. @YagiHige: If you want to suggest raising the limit to 52 i think it should be done the proper way with a CD/Dev discussion in the CD section. You could open a thread there. Discussion in this thread could continue aswell to see if people find some proper arguments for raising it. 60 players in a server is cancer and also gave us bad press from new players. Some didnt like the decision against it back then and unsuprisingly some wont like it now. That doesent change the fact that it was a clear dev decision and that it would need a clear dev decision again to change this.