Ban4life

well, i haven't really thought about it that way. that actually would be quite a nice thing to have, if the only anti-tank character you have is a flamethrower or grenadier. Besides the fact that ragequitting at that point is a sad display, it is a good solution. Gaining just that little upgrade every time might be all the motivation you need to stay in the game (which I do regardless). I still resent the idea a bit somehow, so how about that these only get available when the hand/bar is down? I know I know. Server side options can remedy any discussion about this. Just like the mega awesome sharksquid tripod walker with lightsaber swords, anti satellite missiles and a mounted ion cannon satellite.

The bonus is exactly what a lot of people will hate. Now I can switch easily between characters without problems, but what if I have a sniper account? I would have a relative disadvantage if I would switch to anything other than a sniper. Or switching to a tank maybe?. Also the level(tier?) system would be hard to implement unless it is saved per server. Even so, lots of people want to join at any time with barely a disadvantage. If I join a server, I dont want to fight a ton of people who can rip through me with basic infantry while Im in a tank. If I fight with a normal soldier against another, I dont want to be shot to hell "because I have no ap bullets yet" or whatever. Equal units allows for all tactics alliwing for a more diverse gameplay. Specialising allows for a higher total of tactics, but is more rigid. If you join with a sniper guy, you pretty much stay a sniper. Gameplay woild get boring. Im not going to quote your last comment and pretend that you didnt say that. There is so much wrong there, legally, morally and in terms of time to release.

Hey Zerk, One of the strongpoints of having people to pay (or a level system) is simple. As they sunk some time and/or money in the game, they want to get their investment out, giving a more steady fanbase. However, as _Error rightly says, they cannot make a profit for this game due to official agreements with EA. A second thing is more personal. I hate pay to win games. It gives unfair advantages to rich players, making it no better than cheating to me. Same goes for a leveling system. I know that you dont refer to it as a leveling system, but improving yourself over time and/or with money is basically the same. Regardless if its per game or on a game after game scale. As I said in the linked post, I only condone a leveling system that awards special skins that give no advantage. Even better would be a system that awards you for doing amazing things, and not just for the time you play. There wont be payment and a leveling system wont be incorperated in the first official release, if ever. So we will just have to make due with the fanbase that actually likes the game and didnt just sink money in there. It sounds much better that way.

Then Ill remove this post when I get home. Cluttering the forum with outdated posts is not what I had in mind. Thanks for the quick reaction. Im glad there will be a website.

Right now the team is in its final stages of creation. Playtesting and altering the last details for that perfect game. More probably they overhaul some last major things to go that little extra length for a beter than perfect game. With the release so close, I can understand that the site is being neglected. It has already been stated that it isn't a priority. Still, taking on a broader perspective, it should be a major focus. The aim of the game is entertaining old-school players and gain new players from the gaming community. To be a success, they need to advertise, even with a zero/negative profit product. The advertising is now done via other sites. I'll leave out the psychological stuff, but it is better to recieve people on your own site with news(optional), video's, pictures, artwork, descriptions and the up to date download link. From how to play to the eye-candy, it should be there. Much to my regret, it is better to wait with the release until the site is ready. The community will grow much more, gaining more old-school and new players. This would provide groundwork for a longer lasting experience and more choice in servers. Im not saying that they should have a site with regular updates and such. They have shown their quality and should not be forced to keep putting time into supporting the webstite. The site should be robust with normal information. Even if the site is only up for a year, the groundwork would be much more solid.

On the subject of air-strikes, how do they hurt turrets? They are hit differently than buildings and tanks, but I'm worried they are easily destroyed by the air-strikes.

I like the community where it is. At Renegade or Renegade-X. Tiberium looked like a downgraded Renegade with higher graphics. It was more like the other fps and did little for that special feel. I'm not such a fan of EA with all the franchise destruction and their nearly sole focus on money. I'm guessing(!) they don't want to invest in something that will last. From a company perspective, it is bad to have a game running a long time. You want them to play it and discard it as soon as the next instalment comes out. If you wait with another instalment because the fans will get weary, you want them to pick up something else in the same genre. That being said, I think they would press a Renegade 2 team to "success". Which means just doing what works right now. BF, Halo and COD are all examples they will take to. This is bad because the marked is too crowded and we simply don't want another one. Or redo Tiberium Twillight with a real story, basebuilding and large fights. Bring the epic scale back! @Atlas Tasume: You said it! A team with patience for a good game is what we need. You see this only with a few titles now. They introduce either a new concept (the last of us, uncharted) or an old concept and renew it, possibly on an epic scale (GTA, although the last instalment was done pretty quickly). Also the focus on PC is a great advantage. Who wants a console for a FPS? I never understood that.

What? You mean a stalemate construction kit? I see your point, although I do want some things like that, a turret limit may be in order, maybe around five? I'm against it, again because of the balance. If one team has the attacking role most often, the defending team should still be able to attack now and then. If you remove that possibility by adding another "checkpoint" that they have to go through, it would be very hard to press your momentary advantage. However, maps might be specifically build for this. Maps that are big enough where several points have to be taken (tactically) before you can advance. Also, the tech buildings can have extra defence if they are a bit out of the way. You can spawn the defence at a few designated area's or something for a few credits. Also, some tech buildings could be specifically be for defence. Still, I think that adding more "base defences" isn't that good. The feeling of taking a sort of mini base might be good, but right afterwards you have another standstill. It would only be good if it was a more dynamic fight with coming and going of both teams. It is also difficult to balance between tank and unit advances etc.... All in all they should leave these kind of things to the community to implement.

Yeah! Right now I just want to play Renegade-X, with its higher graphics and a few slight changes and screw the rest. Some other people can create that in their free time when these people are done with their awesome creation. What? You mean a stalemate construction kit? Pay to win is a wimp tactic if you ask me. Give me a boss fight while you did not grab the sword of awesomeness, the spider-silk flack jacket and the tank of indestructibility. The Gatling gun you just picked up should be enough. FTP and dedicated sercers FTW Not really . The first 4 quotes (not counting the quote in a quote) should be from TP.

@TP|himselfXD: I think we are on the wrong track here. With skill I mean the whole picture. Skill for me is choosing the right character/tank for the play. That can be anything from repairing vehicles, defending the base, ripping through an onslaught of guys or massing at the base. It doesn't really matter, as long as the team benefits maximal from your performance. Some people aren't good with a flachette gun, so they take an engineer. Deal the cards you are best in and balance the teamplay. Teamplay, tactics, how well you aim, how well you move, the whole bunch. So that is what I refer to when I use the word skill. Gaining any advantage you can, without breaking the rules. (Noobjetting a nearly dead team does NOT give you an advantage, so it is no skill.) So basically we want the same thing. Improve teamplay over the course of 1 game. The only difference is that I do not want to give people bonuses for this, just an option for a cosmetic upgrade. I did give your option a fair amount of (biased) thought, and have to be against it. Bonuses can get out of control in every game, even in moderation. Ever played 6 hour marathon games? Or in more normal games, some people already seem nearly indestructible. If you give them more, it is just a too high advantage. See it as a (over-dramatic) calculation; No skill (1) + No bonuses (0) = 1 Skill (2) + Bonuses (1) = 3 People with skill will be better from the start and are probably better at using any bonuses coming their way. This makes the balance worse, even with moderate bonuses. Besides, these are individual bonuses. This makes for a certain point where the trade off for repairing buildings/vehicles is lower than the trade off for carnage in the field, making individual play better when you start gaining more bonuses. Especially individual play, as you can get more kills/points when alone than with "killstealers" and such. Team bonuses would be weird too, as the idea is a balanced team against a balanced team. When losing, you don't want to get the losing out of hand. The argument of joining the game late and still being able to play is flawed, but close enough. There are enough games where you can join the top ranks easily, and I want to keep it that way. If I suddenly have to repair for half an hour and other teamplay before I can even think of having the same bonuses as other people, it would be unfair. Even if there is great pleasure in destroying your betters. About the changing of the guns, I had a pleasant discussion with some people I know about it. It would be nice if there are some nearly none-existent changes there. Like giving some people a pistol without silencer, but the bullet goes through all people (it might seem overpowered but the trade-off for being heard against the difficulty of hitting 2 or more people with 10 damage is reasonable). Or just really change the appearance and sound might be nice. The laser rifle now sounds like a weak laser pointer. Still, their focus should be on finishing the game first. Oh and I do not play COD, WOW, BF or anything. If the idea is also in those games, whatever. I like the idea of having monocle because I'm good and others not because they aren't as good. @_ERROR_: Can you please give the quote about the guns to TP|himselfXD? I don't mind to get quoted and there is some truth in his argument (if the weapon feels crappy you won't use it, same weapon that looks/sounds awesome is chosen more often), but I don't want to be quoted for other peoples words. TP|himselfXD and me meant the "upgrades" to be achievable in one game only, and reset the next game. He writes "From game to game" somewhere. Also, it doesn't happen that often that there is just one (maybe 2) person that the whole team depends on. I have to say that over the years the teamplay has gotten much better. Rushes, masses and repairing in the field feels so much more natural. I can feel the change when I enter the field now. I'm not battling one person at a time and the rest is fluff. Now you battle teams or loose coalitions in the field. @You: So what do the levels mean? If you get no bonuses, is it just something to show next to your name? Just a little show-boasting? It would be cool with some characters. If you suddenly have a lvl 40 chem sprayer or something. All the snipers are just dull and I would ignore any level there. Still, what does it really add? Just a way of showing that you play more often I guess... But than the stats. Are those always equal for whatever level per character? And gaining extra money is weird. I suppose the only money you get extra is from scoring points, but you can just adjust the weapon for that. I'm dead against gaining extra money from the ref/harv for just having a certain character. Extra ammo is also a gun stat and needs not be in the character. The only character bonus is speed? But that would feel weird to me... Yeah it's a long post but I don't really have time to make it shorter

Wow hold on a minute. You can have something here! no hahano Also no. The only argument I can read here is "It would be cool if". I have to side with Woandre. You can join Renegade any time and (most of the time) can reduce your disadvantage to nothing. I like getting levels and getting stronger, but not in any multiplayer. Giving the better players more advantage? What kind of nonsense is that? I like the idea of beating other players. I like the idea of gaining the advantages myself. Buying the right character/tank, strategic insight in the situation and plain better shot... or luck if it comes to that. Just giving me extra advantages because I play longer and am a good shot is bull. Especially if you have killing streaks. Focus on tanks or start noobjetting all the time and the whole game gets f*cked up. What I do like about the idea is changing equipment. If you are very good in a game, you can choose an extra skin, or change the weapon (a wooden med or golden shotgun for example) to show your skill. The changes would give you no advantages, but would speak well with the show-boasting that the internet is. And if you really want to give people a little edge for being good, give them discounts or something. 500 less for an airstrike, 200 less for a light. The closest to a direct advantage in a fight might be more slots for weapons. No direct bonuses like "omg you just got to lvl 50, here is an auto-aim" style. Your toughness and skill should be coming from you and you alone. If you still want all the other stuff with bonuses and the like, maybe ask someone to create an extra side server option. Plenty of people will be able to add it when Renegade-X is done. Probably also plenty people who want to play only to tear though their enemies with lots of level bonuses and boast about it. So you are probably (certainly) not alone. @ You: What do you mean with trading items? Isn't the whole plan to have a character and you can discern most characteristics, like its most probable loadout, by the character? The AI thing might be an idea, but that could lead to having bad players "fight" the AI and better players gunning them down easily.

25% bonus damage!? That is way too much in my opinion. 10% would be my max, as it would mean that in the best scenario a tank is destroyed 10% faster. In big battles, which you will easily get, this can be a lot. But with 25% extra damage I would turn it off. The whole tactics change incredibly and risk taking would be discouraged too much. Well. That is my opinion.

This will make Renegade into a game like battlefield or some other horribly realistic yet still not actually realistic games. I think directional armor is for realism and you gotta ask yourselves if you honestly think renegade is supposed to be realistic down to that amount. I honestly think the people who want games to be as realistic as possible should jump off a bridge ESPECIALLY with renegade. Renegade is not realistic and is not meant to be realistic! Now if you did implement it I think it should be very minor variations in armor strength that would work and not ruin renegade. Wow chill out. If you are against it, just say so. I think I prefer without too, but I also think I'll get used to it soon enough and enjoy it more. And if not, this will probably be a server option. It sounds like that to me anyway. I do agree that if it is implemented, it should be only small, like Nielsen said. As a dev he probably thought about it too. The robustness of the tanks should not be disturbed too much, as long duals are typical of Renegade. The option of getting the drop on others does intrigue me to have that little bit more in a fight. I am against the sprinting and a few other stuff too, but I don't immediately tell them to jump of a bridge...

As usual, I don't have a short reply. Sorry about that. Overall I think the mechanic is a good one. APB does overdo it though. I think the weak points should give a very small bonus to damage. This would maintain the tanks a high survivability, but can still be exploited to give that one small boost if you are skilled enough. This can make the difference in a fight. I wonder if it will change with different weapons. An artillery flanking you could have a bigger bonus in % than a light tank. Also a difference in anti tank weapons who exploit this more than anti infantry weapons maybe? Mind you, all bonuses you get will be small. Survivability is one of the interesting things in Renegade and I want to keep it that way. Using your gun in a slightly different way and suddenly gaining an advantage is very character Renegade and taking that to tank fights is a good idea. Artillery and reconnaissance So one problem raised is that artilleries for example would get more or less useless. I disagree. The artillery, MRLS, Humvee and Nod buggy all have minimal armour. This means to me they have no weak points and will get damage like normal. This will make them slightly better then normal, as they can use the weak points and are still able to drive whatever way they want. Also, I imagine the support becoming more effective, as they shield you from being attacked from behind. Characters Characters have nearly always been trumped by vehicles when against them. That is ok, but when characters can also exploit this weakness, it would make the strategic value of characters as a weapon against vehicles much higher. As a tank driver it would be one extra thing to worry about. SBH would get more interesting too. The only thing I'm worried about is not using tanks any more. Didn't the dev's say that they used tanks less frequently and felt the characters had more power? Is this only a feeling thing because of the graphics or a real power change? Attacking/defending I saw someone saying it was a big bonus for the defenders. I disagree. I often stand forwards (ok actually backwards) when attacking, so that I can just drive backwards real quick if need be. When defending I stand a little more often sideways, so I can quickly hide behind objects in the base. Both are easily changed to the situation and sometimes the direction doesn't matter per ce. If you attack in walls, at some points you can always be hit from the side and, maybe something that does more damage, from the top. I think it will eventually just give a slightly different way of attacking. No more change than I've seen during the long years of playing Renegade, where people have been changing the way's of attacking and defending over the years. Here's to a great Renegade!

I am genuinely impressed. In my mind the airstrikes would be more or less the same for both sides, but you've created an opportunity to keep both sides unique, even if it is the same idea. One with the A-10, dealing a lot of damage in a short time when the payload arrives. The other the C-130 Hercules with howitzer cannons on it, dealing damage over a longer period of time with several shots. Possibly blanketing a larger area. Weapon history would be a problem though. Why would Nod go for a larger area and less damage against a heavily armored foe? After the strike it is still not easy to mop up. GDI would want the larger area against the less armored divisions of Nod and can mop up. Nod would like to take out at least a few larger targets at once to gain the advantage. Still, it would be a welcome little difference between the sides. Edit: it would actually fit the profile really well. GDI is a shock and awe heavy weapons. Using A-10 to obliterate targets with high precision is their signature. NOD is a mix of low grade fanatics and high end specialised weaponry. The c-130 with howitzers is the perfect mix to show this. I still dont know how you will implement this, but Im hoping. /edit I'm wondering about some things. Do most vehicles have a secondary? Like the flame tank firing from only the left nozzle and doing nearly(!) double damage? Let the MRLS fix its turret in a certain position and an option to have the rockets not follow a target? Is the recoil different from Black down? The only thing I can do is wait for an MP update and hope for more info. Nice podcast, horrible audio. I could still make out most conversations luckily. Keep up the good work!

EA never tries to force such things due to good lawyers Seriously though, just incorporating someone else's idea into your game without asking is just rude. If some Renegade player had created Havoc in the Unreal 3 engine, and the Renegade-X team would suddenly use it without asking, they would (in most cases) get mad. Your time and effort isn't acknowledged, which is a bad thing. EA not asking nor paying for the AH-1Z Viper, the UH-1Y, and the V-22 Osprey is rude. Just quoting the First Amendment and constitute fair use with everything you do is not enough. And even if you are right by law in the end, it does not make you less of an *sshole. The reason this Renegade-X exists, is because they asked permission to use all intellectual property of the original game, and being free to modify it to their best insights (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I read it somewhere during development). As this game might become a big hit in the community, EA would certainly take notice and might have sued their *sses if they hadn't asked for this permission. Common curtsy and common sense. Even if they weren't the original creators, they bought those rights. The First Amendment and constitute fair use of an old game won't help here. Something to do about good lawyers and lots of money I guess. I still have another question for the team that hasn't been answered yet. Is there going to be a vehicle kill/death count? In some games you destroy a LOT of vehicles, which sometimes makes more of a difference then kill/death count. Sometimes people are only killing, but not really contributing to the end of the match. Killing 20 vehicles in a explosive match while the rest only does 5 shows more skill and achievement which I personally crave next to my K/D ratio. It might also focus some people more on vehicle killing and making a more tactical decision than just going for killing a man instead of a mammoth tank, because you can show only kill to the others. Also, there was mentioned that there would be no global statistic count for all servers, due to individual modding of every server. It would be up to the server to keep these records, if they want it. Is it still possible for two separate servers to share their count, due to (more or less) similar settings? sincerely, Ban4life

They actually do care, and care a lot. Intellectual ownership means that the creators are the only people who are allowed to use it. If you want to recreate their cars physically or in game, you have to make a contract with them. This happens in games like Assetto Corsa a lot. In the GTA series they base their cars on real counterparts, but change them enough to not infringe intellectual property. The difference with product placing is that the owners actively want to promote their product and will contact you. The same counts for less physical stuff, like creatures from dungeons and dragons. They don't think its free advertising. Its theft (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0032.html). Also, design is very expansive. If you could just design the new attack fighter Joint Strike Fighter in game, other countries could save millions in design costs. same goes for (nuclear) bombs and all that stuff. If you create a game right now with just the name JSF on a plane, you will get your *ss sued. The Apache name can be used, as it is a public name for the AH-64A to AH-64E type of helicopter. The Apache design in Renegade is very different from all of these, so there is no infringement there either. The design of the medium tank is different enough for sure, and maybe the M1 name isn't protected by these laws (some names and designs get released to the public), so there might be no problem implementing the real name. The name medium tank is still sufficient for me though. Besides, I think most people don't want it changed. They are used to the Med. Sincerely, Ban4life

I think it will stay medium tank. Its a cnc kind of way to name the tank, and avoid lawsuits and whatever in the process. A better example might be the car industry. In GTA they don't use the exact cars and names. This would cost way too much. Also, I'm too used to Med. If I have to change to M1 I would lose my precious little mind.

I did not mean to offend or anything. I will try to get some proof. Its hard to tell what is what sometimes.

Ok I'm done with discussions like the one's below. Can anyone direct me to a program to record your screen? I'll make a video to show the difference between alt-fire and normal fire in a flame tank. As I already stated before in this threat: Normal fire shoots from both nuzzles, whatever you do. You can see this in damage and scorch marks if you have the graphics turned up high enough. With alt-fire you will only fire from the left side. It is double or nearly double damage, amounting to (nearly) the full damage of normal fire. You can also see this, again, by looking at the scorch marks. Flame on a wall and you will see only scorch marks on the left side, even if you see two fire cones. You can really notice if you try it on an enemy APC. They suddenly die A LOT quicker. I get the notion that to prevent only using alt-fire, the normal fire is a little stronger in comparison. So if anyone can direct me to a program to record my screen, I can just post that video whenever such a discussion is formed about the magical ways your flame tank works. While I'm busy, I might give an overview of all alt-fire's, as there seems to be a lot of confusion about normal fire and alt-fire. The Renegade team can also consider these alt-fire's for in the mod too. At least I'll have my tactical advantages then. Lots of weapons and vehicles have a different alt-fire, so just experiment for half a day and you will figure most of them out yourself. Some are more difficult to detect but are certainly a help if you know the difference. Sincerely, Ban4life ps. the frank question of Lomztein is ok. Its the weird discussions that are based on nothing that grind my gear This is actually because of the way how the Flamer works in Ren. I think I heard some time back that it ACTUALLY just shoots from one side of the tank. (We all know, WW were lazy ) Westwood wasn't lazy they just had other things that were more important to do renegade was an extremely impressive game for its time. They did a whole lot for what they had to work with. Sure there are a lot of bugs in the game but they had accomplished something great.

@Lomztein Have you tried alt-fire? The damage (nearly) doubles on the left side and is zero on the right. Even though the graphics show two beams, you are firing one stronger firehoze on the left flank. This makes dealing with infantry (and tanks that are not optimal to hit with both beams) much easier to deal with. I know it still isnt the killer you expect from a flame tank, but its surely not weak. Also, it doesnt seem to exactly double, so normal fire on all targets that you can hit with both!

To answer your question, I quote [NE]Fobby[GEN] in the "beta preview" post (http://renegade-x.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=51084&start=15) "6. Spotted System: The radio commands will still be available, but another system will be added in Renegade X. Instead of hitting ctrl, alt, ctrl-alt and a number, you'll be able to hit Q at a friendly player or structure or an enemy player or structure, and it'll initiate a general radio command. For example, hitting Q while targetting an enemy will give an audio, text, and radar indication to your allies that there is an enemy that has been spotted. This increases the teamplay in a game, but it'll be designed in a way where it's not too hard to mount a covert attack." I think they also mentioned it in the last podcast. This is to mirror clan/lan games more, as in those games people had good communication via headsets and could just say "spotted one NOD soldier at GDI ref". To make this easier they wanted this bound to "Q". I hope they give the command to give the vehicle gun to the passenger to another letter ^^

Another quick question. Will there be a vehicle kill count? As I sometimes hunt vehicles very specifically I would like to know how much I killed.

Thanks for the answers Drummerx and Atlas! For all beta testers, be careful with divulging information. I think you aren't allowed to do that? Don't get kicked out of the beta because you wanted to answer my questions! For Drummer: they talk about the air-strike in the podcast (check the 17:20 mark for the whole items talk, 17:50 mark for the air-strike mark) They also mention it on page 2 of the "beta preview" http://renegade-x.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=51084 The mammoth tank in Back Down could not fire simultaneously, but switching to firing the barrage when it's loaded and switching back to the main guns would increase the overall damage a LOT in comparison with only firing the main guns. That's my feeling at least. With normal Renegade the rockets felt a little stronger, but switching from one to another did not give a large advantage in damage. That said, it is now a better tank for its (used to be) too high price. Welcome changes. The delay on the rockets of the Stank is only a minor disadvantage when giving the finishing blow, but a large advantage against units, as you can "blanket" a larger area. I think its a good thing. I really thought they would give the option to lock the turret of the MRLS? It would be a very welcome addition, making it a much more versatile vehicle. Shooting around blockades and rocks would be nice, as you could shoot everything with a small horizontal arc. If I would just press Q or F or something to lock it down and make it rotate again, I would be very happy. Its added value against aircraft is a needed one, as they will be harder to hit from the footage I saw. Much more manoeuvrable and a more hit and return tactic based vehicle. That and the MRLS isn't dead the moment you encounter an aircraft. What you told me about the AI is enough for now. The rest will be interesting to hear/watch as they develop it more. The rocket trooper will be interesting to watch as it is developed. I never saw a lot of use in the gunner or the rocket trooper, but I think I have a new favourite low cost unit for later in the game. I'll check in more often for updates. See you at the release! Ban4life

Heyy everyone, After just watching a lot of footage of renegade-x of the last years, I had some questions. I don't know if they have been voiced before, nor could I find the questions in other topics. AI So my first concern is the AI. It is a great idea, but it can have some really bad side effects. I suppose that AI is being replaced if more people are joining the game. What if this happens when the AI is in a vehicle? or supporting/attacking? It would mean that a bot/vehicle that you where counting on suddenly disappears, and the vehicle might be left empty or be completely removed from the game. You'll get a broke real player, while the opponent might still have a rich bot that might have been set to a high difficulty setting. How are these issues going to be solved? Also, can you order AI around, like asking to repair you? And if you can, is it restricted to admins and team leaders or for everyone? Will they do that until they are killed, they fulfil their objective (you are repaired), after a certain time or will they do this until ordered otherwise? Or is the AI control more general, as in "defending", "attacking", "supporting"? Rocket launcher The new rocket launcher is a good idea, but I'm wondering if it won't be too strong for a low cost unit, even with a long downtime. In walls for example. If you have 2 rocket units in the hallway leading to your base, they can just wait around the corner and sometimes fill the hallway with a large heavily damaging rocket, while staying mostly out of harm. I would not attack that, even with the large downtime on their part. Also, their range, damage and usefulness against moving targets might outweigh the value of a gunner or most other anti tank units. I still like the change though. Air-strikes and the like Its great to have a good way to deal with stalemates! This goes both ways though. My concern is that is easier to use against the defending team, as the attackers often have more money and often more manoeuvrability to deploy such things. Only a minor thing though, as I guess that the losing team won't be much behind on credits at the start of the camping. It spawns so many new tactics, like letting the enemy come close to your base early on and counter with an early air-strike. Are they also going to cost 1000? Are they going to do damage or is it a kill-zone? I hope it won't work very well on buildings, as APC rushes might get a bit overpowered with everyone an air-strike (and ion/nuke for double trouble) and no1 has to enter a building to take it down. Overall tactics I've seen some changes in the units, like the mammoth tank able to fire normally and a barrage of missiles at the same time. Though the downtime has been changed, I still feel that this is a great tactical advantage for the mammoth tank. Needed though, as it was a pretty overpriced tank. The MRLS would get a rotating turret that you could lock in the position you wanted (right?). This means at least two large tactical changes for GDI in their favour and I've seen none for Nod yet. The biggest change I've seen so far is the laser rifle that has a less distinctive sound, the artillery has a fire arc and the rockets of the stank firing just after each other instead of at the same time. Can we expect more changes for Nod? Are the vehicles handling so much different that it balances out? Also I've seen something about the blue Tiberium. It said more valuable, so I guess it gives more money? It also said more dangerous to units and vehicles. So vehicles get damage from it too? Or only the low armoured vehicles? Final remarks Most of the concerns above are just that. Concerns. The mod is just getting awesome. I left out tips and suggestions, as this is not the topic for that. The orca/apache look to be handling well. Lots of changes that will add tactical considerations I normally see in RTS. The ambience is awesome. The less stale aiming will be hard though, as you'll get more damage from random scatter. If this would come out in stores, I would have bought it without hesitation. I guess I just have to wait for the release, but I hope some questions will be answered before that. I had some more concerns and I'll post them when I remember them. Sincerely, *Edit 1* some grammatical changes *Edit 2* With downtime I mean all time between firing. This means reload times or times between shot one and shot two of the same clip