RoundShades

C'mon, we are asking for a Saturday, one after they already took a break from the week prior. Is Saturday asking too much anymore, and if so, do we have any takers for hosting a PUG server for those of us still interested, or do I need to look into hosting? EDIT: Drinking too much, Voltex, don't bait me when I'm drunk and make me need to apologize, the damn DDOSer is just being very active atm, give it a week for him to fucking drink bleach or lose interest (idc which) so we can have a proper game.

...Just gunna grab a cup of Kahlúa and a separate one of tea, sit down, fire up Teamspeak 3, and... it's cancelled. Why is it cancelled. DAFUQ! WHY WOULD SOMEONE DO THIS TO ME! GRAAAHHH!!!

Oddly enough, I am probably more keen to participating in the PUG today than I am most other weeks. See you there.

We wanted it, but not all in the same moment.

I know a lot of people would pray for rain these last 6 years. Well, not all at fucking once now. Please, we got our rain, just stop now ffs. A message from Houston.

I am confused what I am looking for, even after watching the video. Is there a timestamp or backstory I should be aware of?

HAHA Who was my commander then?! Or was I Team 1 then and Team 2 after the shuffle? Dunno.. Total confusion ftw I think it was the other way around. He was on team 2 first and moved to team 1 later. I definitely know that I was on team 2 first and moved to team 1 for the last game, where freak was the commander. So what you are essentially saying, is that after 3 games, and the teams getting shuffled, the PUG did in fact improve. Well, I guess both sides of this situation can pull valid support for their arguments then.

Sniper servers are implemented, but nobody's hosting AFAIK. Free aim isn't implemented. Can see why some would want, but was kind of a pocket way to break LOS fairness. I sort of miss the 180 turn key more.

I did try hosting the server, and it did work. I may have only connected to it via console command "Open 192.168.0.xxx", but I did it. Was hell on my toaster-computer. I also did see what looked like a really dim minimap in the corner, seemed "off", too far "left" and too "small", but I could clearly see "blue tiberium" on the minimap generally where it was located on land. I don't know why you can't join. My firewall is open (not that it matters locally). If you want later, I will allow you connection through Hamachi, acting as LAN, to try to join using "Open 192.168.0.XXX" yourself.

Sorry, one of those were me, and I live in Northeast Houston where we are flooding a lot in the area. Happen to had something that needed my attention. If you need proof, use Google, it checks out, trust me.

So, to once again encourage balance this week, can we please have a few of each type of player on each team? That way, neither team is high and dry a sniper, infiltrator, or leader-type? For instance: Leaders: Yosh, B0ng, Quinc3y, Jeff Anti-Infantry: Canucck, Ks.ol, Minji Infiltration: Quinc3y, Vertiso, Minji Could any one of the list of people above, not get put all on the same team? I tried expanding on the list, but it was harder than I thought and I had less time than I thought to deal with it (a lot of other frustrating issues this week). I felt this way fine for the moment to ask for.

I was guessing "Program Files x86" in Win10 was causing it's usual series of permissions errors, suggested installing to C: rather than Program Files. If that doesn't work, this crash is a little weird. The logs suggest a pretty updated computer. Sure your graphics drivers are up to date? Sure you have the latest virtual C and junk (EDIT: And Kenz suggested .net framework in his link)? These are just ballpark answers, but I don't have very many other ideas unfortunately. In my experience, if you can get any Unreal3 game to run, there is a good chance they all should. Then again, I had my own recent issues with Borderlands2 lately, so who knows. EDIT: You and Kenz both had a separate thread recently. Know it was likely a bump, no harm no foul, but probably more tidy if I merge them above. I think Kenz' link is a pretty good approach, it is likely an external dependency that Microsoft commonly uses, a .net framework or a visual c or a directx.

Well, I mean, the only maps that need it for sure, are Under, Field, and previously Gold Rush, but now not so much Goldrush, and then Tomb also, so... oh... wait... all those maps already have them, that is cool, isn't it?

Could Silo's be the only way to recover a dead structure? That would give them purpose in the game. Also, a reason to leave base. Maybe also give silos an offensive ability as well. Then, just stick them in stalemate maps. They mostly already are anyway. 5th way i'd support wholeheartedly.

My favorite suggestions were: 1) At team score of 20k, every 1k of score increases damage 2%. Eventually, the lethality to buildings breaks the threshold. Teams with even score, have nearly even odds to increase damage threshold. Camping teams, risk not being able to apply their damage threshold. Even so, score needs rebalanced less in favor of camping. 2) Building simply get less armor and more health. Thus, a single timed c4 breaks the armor, tanks get through it easier, even chipping it by alternating buildings is easier if you even get down to what old armor would be 20%, you'd already be doing permanent damage. You could even display it as 100% armor and 150% building health if it helped convey it by scale, or 80% and 120%, or 40% and 60%. You know, whichever. 3) I am in favor of other's ideas for Veterancy, same reason as #1, increased lethality to a structure, as long as veterancy is done right and can actually threaten a structure. 4) I am also in favor of other's ideas for changing repair rates for hotwires to 90% their current repair rate and engis up to 120%. That way, repair rates aren't a massive difference, being 1.2 for engi and 1.8 for hotwire/tech. Lower repair even at max, slightly higher repair when crutched (not that engis are effective ingame atm anyway, just barely functional)

Shame that spambots are such a pain.

I'll try to make a minimap for this, in case someone wants to make an update, perhaps fix score imbalance, maybe update Tomb, TrainingYard, GrassyKnoll, and other ones that may need it?

I Have the same with my voice when I recorded idk why. Your video quality is very nice. What do you use and on what setting ? I'll give it a watch. As far as chiefs and indians, the thing is, you need to throw more manpower at things when you have 20 people, but way fewer people have to defend to thwart it. 1 person defending, can take out a 4 man rush, 2 can take out 8, 3 can take out 12. At that point, the enemy team has 9 other people on offense, while your team is out of base being massacred by 3 people. This is more of an argument for "why 20 or 32 player teams, why not 14 player teams" than it is "why so many chiefs". Even if it were a problem, there is nothing that remixing teams cannot do for "morale" and "team composition" at least. I am not insisting it can even always balance skill. I am insisting that it'll at least give team B0ng a taste of what it feels like, for Canucck to humvee gunner their entire early rush down, like they did us, so it won't be a "just us for all 5 games solid" sort of problem, which again, I shouldn't have to explain why I'll leave.

They are a believable spy character, for an enemy to believe they are going to base. But that isn't why, they are all believable. Non-spy hotwire-tech are capable of 1 hitting buildings and diffusing mines retardedly fast. They can also place mines. However, the latter is the real problem. When a team loses the bar/hon, and their last hotwire/tech, their repair and most importantly mining abilities are reduced. Hotwire/Tech spy, would be a massive undoing, allowing mining again, or repair of vehicles enough to keep them alive. Why it'll hardly be considered, unfortunately.

1) We tried. Me, Yosh, Vertiso, and Ryz tried many angles of attack. Under, we did tanks, we did "kill repairmen", we did "sbh wf", we did "push tanks now that they retreated to defend base", we did "LCG PP", we did tanks again, we did "chem rush AGT", we did "chem rush WF"... AND, respectively, you guys simply "put Canucck in a humvee killing harvester", then "Profane Pagan stood literally on the WF with chaingunner for 20 minutes later-game", then "simply took field again since you are GDI on Under", then "defended 12 chem warriors with 3 guys and c4", then "Pagan again". We weren't worse, the teams were just stacked, and 20 people on Under will always see GDI win. 2) You had Quinc3y, Mamba, Canucck, B0ng, Jeff(?). We had "players" but what were we supposed to do? No Ks.ol, no snipers, we had Vertiso but he was trying to infiltrate (AND DID DO SO SUCCESSFULLY AT PP IN UNDER BEFORE BEING CAUGHT BY 6 HOTWIRES DEFENDING, R U SERIUS?), and we had a bunch of other people that can entirely compete on even ground if they have a foundation to do so on, and not being able to repair or counter vehicles with infantry because an unopposed sniper is completely nullifying. 3) We asked for Canucck in round 3. We asked for him again in round 4. We got... someone... I think. I can't remember, all I remember, is leaving when it WASN'T Canucck. Apparently, we still ended up with Quinc3y as well. We could have used Quincey... the round prior. I will leave when games are like this. I shouldn't have to explain why, I shouldn't catch flak for it, I shouldn't have to defend flak, I should "be banned from future games", and I won't be the only one that'll do this. Minji has done it before, people WILL leave if teams can't shuffle by round 3 when things like this happen. Even if I were banned, you have 44 interested players on a good day, updates promise growth, 38 players today, 37 without me, 29 by time I had left, and while PUGS will quite honestly function even better with 28 players instead of 40, when happenstance ties up at least 4 of those people, population is jeopardized. Just. Balance. And. Shuffle. Teams. I'm not the only one asking. #MakeThePUGGreatAgain

There was. Played 3 games, first one was campy but alright, next 2 weren't, but then... I had a terrific match... on SuperMNC, after having left the PUG early. Teams were 17-18, making it 16-18 couldn't make it more unbalanced than it already was, and might have actually encouraged someone to move players around. Wouldn't know, didn't stay around to find out. Wasn't the only one that openly suggested we rank and balance PUG players at this point. Last one was good, so I belayed it, but I'm doing it this week. If nothing else, it'll give me an accumulative score to give PUG teams and if one side dominates I will have obvious numbers to flaunt. #Balanceteams #RemixTeams

Nod harvester gets stuck enough to ban the map from PUGs. Not overreacting either, last 3 PUGs had it happen. Not sure why it gets stuck, just fiddle with it if nothing else. Also wish there would be some stuck-harv fix in-game, console or vote or automatic detection or otherwise. The landscape on the non-harvester path should also be lower at the very least on the Nod entrance. The height of those meds make them undefeatable once they mass, it would be better if they were on-height with the Nod base so Nod tanks, mainly flame, could push them out of base.

If we could get anywhere near 60 players at game start, we could make 4 teams of 14 players in 2 separate servers. No reason why we couldn't, but I don't see us getting 60+ players in a single PUG day.

Someone fired at the harvester, but it getting stuck is bad anytime that it happens. It is already fixed but needs to be updated with the fix. It also moves the silo. I REALLY HOPE it moves the height-advantage for GDI tanks on the non-tiberium side outside Nod base entrance. They CANNOT be uprooted once there. Nod can't consistently hit with shells, GDI can hit with shells from complete safety, 3 GDI tanks can engage while Nod cannot get more than 2 tanks in position. If the height was less sharp and more gradual of a hill, then at least GDI would have a height advantage without it being a sheer cliff. It would also reduce some of the angle on the PP, GDI has a lot of angle advantage on that PP