RoundShades

I would be more in favor of more/better positions for SAM sites in Lakeside. One watching the ref cliff entrance, one watching the forest entrance, and the remaining ones remaining where they are. More air-specific defenses. Maybe even make those suckers respawn on a long delay like Whiteout manned defenses. Aren't you the guy that just spams for orca/apache rushes all game instead of doing literally anything else? Removing helis will make the map kind of decent, or at least a lot better than it is now, but the double silos (that are in terrible positions) will still keep the map pretty bad Before you consider removing air vehicles from the few maps with them, remember that discussion was serious at one time about condensing all infantry into just 6 classes or so, because some were useless and others were overused. Perhaps simplifying the game down to 3 vehicles for both factions is the answer, or perhaps we can just balance the health, damage, and damage-percents, to the existing vehicles.

Hate to repost, but could I possibly ask for a newest latest SDK? The SDK has had a lot of changes to it since the last one was posted, could use an updated one if one exists, since I need to install a fresh one anyway.

Fuck the doomsayers bro. You are honored for the work you did do. If you need someone to see through the last bit of work and promote the map seeing the CT server in full action, I will adopt any additional work your map needs, starting with the minimap. I will make sure to give you full credit, and let you rest easy with whatever you are currently investing your time into. I am sure it is worth it, and can only hope to see you play the occasional RenX still, maybe do a youtube video occasionally, maybe the PUG or when new updates or game mechanics come out.

Can we test City soon? That, and another map, don't really care, either Cliffside, Beach Head, or something.

You're saying you're dropping development? I think he is saying he is dropping development, but it should be done and functioning and he hopes if there are any bugs, hooks to endgame camera, loading screen, or minimap, that needs taken care of, that he hopes that it is small enough for someone else to take care of. I am at least willing to do the minimap. Anyone else willing to test it for collision and endgame camera and such? I am willing to make a minimap. Then it can be compiled and submitted. If someone is willing to test collisions and other bugs, if they are small I or you can fix them, if they are big then we can consider options based on how much time it'd take and how much is complete.

At least from what I heard on Under GDI was getting their ass beat the whole game, and the score reflected that. If killing two structures isn't enough to gain a point advantage, it's clear that one team played a lot more efficiently that the other and deserved the win, despite making errors at the last minutes of the game. Mesa seems to be a different story though, and that is the reason why I want infantry kill rewards to be increased. Under wasn't "last minute". What it seems right now, a loss of a tank is 200 score, and shooting at a building for over a minute is 200 score. So, the tank on the offense, has almost no chance to do enough score damage, before it's repairs are ran dry by a defending team, who can repair at their own structure doors. It isn't skill, it's obvious gameplay happenstance, that a defending team will die half as much as an offensive team, and if unit loss is worth more than 50% of the score, then defense will always score more. You can't even attempt an offense without costing the team score. APC, if it doesn't score 200 points of damage, which is like literally emptying building armor 3 times or more, then it gave enemy score. It needs to kill like 10 tier 1 enemies to make up near it's cost. If they are free infantry, it's like 40 of them. If a tank doesn't score 200 points of damage, it gives the enemy points. if 8 tanks commit to that, then you need 1600 score, and when it fails to get any building health at all, that gave the enemy 1k score. You attempt this rush 6 times, and the enemy's "skillful defense" earns them 6k score, when your organized offense was supposed to be the point of the game. And Under, well... it was Under, and Nod won from score... ಠ_ಠ do you really think Nod had farmed enough score in the first 18 minutes, to represent a large enough percent of "efficiency" to make up for a building loss, followed by contracting like a cold scrotum in their base for the next 18 minutes? Because if you do, then maps like Under should be removed from rotation because it has a base defense for the love of God, defense is impenetrable and you can't safely shell anything for a positive ratio of credits. That base defense is a tower of defensive credit farming at a higher rate than offense can ever hope to get. I am still in favor of tanks getting a lower score reward in ratio to what building armor had got. Whether it was calculating "pre-5.15 score" or calculating less per tank death, Under and Mesa would have both had different winners. I am also in favor of just getting rid of score and adding natural game-end mechanics so that killing a base and not "doing more damage per tank value" is the actual game goal. I was under the impression this was supposed to be an objective shooter, not "World of Tanks", but score measurement proves me wrong so far, the objective is get the highest kill streak in the same tank-life, it is quite literally, World of Tanks.

I frequently really wouldn't mind this.

By Structures, we won 3-2. By Score, we lost 1-4. Despite the win screen deciding victory 4 times for the other team, it is made by humans who are just as capable of clerical error as everyone else. I know I am not the only person who disagrees with the algorithm for scorekeeping, or how it decided some of the matches in this PUG, and I am confident more people probably disagree with the score system, so in the eyes of more people than not, it was 3-2. I raise a beer to those people. Maybe oneday soon a patch can calculate endgame score more agreeably... Well played anyway everyone.

I have destroyed more structures with Grenadier than most other players have. Not a particularly influential fact, just means I got lucky in early game rushes in pubs. Truth be told, morale would help, but mixing teams occasionally mid-pug would help morale. Having a worst week than last, but I am actually awake and in front of my computer. I can see about joining, but won't be as sharp and energetic or of high morale, and thus might not stay. Won't leave "just because I'm losing", never did that in Ren-X or even SMNC or Old Ren for that matter, but won't stay for the 4th and 5th game when I doubt it'll make a difference and know it won't be good for my use of time or real-life morale.

Better question. To be fair, why not let players pick up beacons, disarming a beacon or picking up a dropped beacon gives points, but if you kill an enemy and another enemy comes along they can pick up the beacon instead. At least that way, the investment isn't a one-way loss, as teammates can pick up a dropped beacon just as good as an enemy can.

Gin Tonic, and Mojito, I hear good things from Sex on the Beach too, but not from the same sort of crowd, so...

Field. The map you can legitimately play afk with "startfire 0". Just grab an arty, startfire 0, aim at tunnel entrance, watch anime. Stand in HoN, repairgun, startfire 0, watch anime. Literally, it's that easy.

Minimap done? Just say the word and I will make one.

Just stick a building-sized camera-blocking volume just inches below the roof of the ceiling of both buildings. That way, the camera doesn't clip through it. Bullets might still collide, but who is shooting at their own feet anyways? That happens on every map.

Doesn't hit 100%. Guess I will seek a redownload of the newest version. Have 2 machines so will try the other as well. If new reinstall fails to play walls, then I know win7 might have re-borked UDK.

Sounds awfully cosmetic. The minimap would probably still work, but jeez chief, I could have made the minimap based off the new cosmetics if I had known Hell, if the minimap works and is to acceptable scale and precision, screw the cosmetics, it'll do the job for anyone needing navigation, so I am hella excited.

Well, kills for a unit is fine. Bonus points for the beacon is my argument. Then again, vehicles also grant too much score right now, throwing them away suicidal-like can also cost your team the game.

I will consider that. Oi, according to this site, a Win7 update did the same thing to many people 5 years back, something about .Net Framework being changed. Oi, that couldn't be the problem this time, could it? It did start failing to run around the time of a Win7 update... https://forums.epicgames.com/threads/79 ... -in-editor

My SDK has locked up 3 times on 3 different maps, after attempting to "Play from Here". The first one, I assumed was because it was a very rigged map. The second one, had me worried that both were too jerry rigged to make run. The third one, was stock Tomb. Now I know, it has to be my SDK having an issue instead. Anyone have any tips, where I would find logs or what would cause this or how to fix this?

This is what I have for a minimap. Testing this now. Will edit this with world properties for minimap when testing completes. [EDIT] I cannot test it. My SDK is acting up. However, I have adjusted it to what ought to be the 39900 world size, and built it around a center point of x600 y-40 z0. You may need to increase or decrease world size to match the walls of the GDI structures, don't align it off tunnels because they may actually be rough estimates and should be tested after GDI structures line up perfectly. Let me know if it works, or it doesn't mount, or if it is off center, or if the tunnels are too inaccurate. Use the link, not the inserted image, different "sizes" and the link is the proper TGA and size. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxV7tw ... sp=sharing

Should be about those rare gameplay mechanics you get by working as a team as opposed to a group of randoms. Such as 14 man rushes, coordinated beacons with a tank rush to defend, air-war mindgames. The attitude is important because the attitude should be fun and most people find crazy tactics cool. Shooting the bull isn't the biggest problem, if the chatter was completely cut down and a team was fully coordinated for a rush, they may still be unable to dent one team as their base is burned in their absence. Then it is unfun because it is morbidly silent and serious, and is also unfun because it's a shutout no matter what they do. The players should be coordinated, focused on the goal, and still light-hearted and lively. Yet, when morale drops so fast for one team, swapping some players should be a fair solution to, if nothing else, improve morale. So even attitude, can be improved, if teams are shuffled when it might be helpful, a few matches into the PUG. They can also be improved, if you have the same amount of coordination for each team, by balancing the chatter with the coordination, and I think this can be done by balancing teams as well, so you don't get too many quiet people on just one of the teams.

Building up veterancy is not a bad idea, but doing so by punishing chance investments, means that team leaders could blame people who even so much as buy them during a PUG. "4 SBH bought beacons and went to GDI base and were caught before planting, that cost us the point lead, what the hell is wrong with you guys!?!" Veterancy that would make progress towards lethality during a stalemate, would be good already, even if beacons don't influence points.

Technically, The MLRS uses mrl system, which is multiple rocket launch system. So I think they didn't want to use the original name of the vehicle for copyright reasons, and they came up with this clever solution. GalaXion24, he even cited the user manual, so it apparently once was misnamed in C&C. As to why, who knows, but apparently in TS and beyond, they wisened up and used the actual acronym. I know for a fact that C&C Renegade definitely used MRLS, and pretty sure C&C used MRLS, and since a lot of this game is based off that, so is the acronym.

Didn't sound fun. Couldn't chance it, had a long day prior and things to do anyway. For appearance in TS3, it seemed more password-y and while the games sounded longer they didn't sound matched. Nobody remixed, did they? I am assuming if that is the case, I saved myself the trouble of leaving no later than 40 minutes in after asking exactly once to remix teams. Team balance be important. The leaders, the infiltrators, the snipers, and the filler, especially those that reply when in-game and those that don't. One team getting all those don't-reply kind of people is bad, some want some vetting process for the PUG but I just want them to balance the darn people. Make a list of usual attendees and categorize which of those 5 categories they belong to and make sure each team has even amounts. Everyone knows everyone else's playstyle at the PUGs, and if they are new to a PUG or something then just balance then as a "responseless filler" player until you know better. Who here wants to make a list, of just 4 of those categories, assuming unnamed falls under 5th, of every regular attendee of PUGs? Serious request, and I will do it sometime before next Saturday if not. Mind you this is not some ranking thing, this is literally whether someone: Coordinates players to location, snipes, infiltrates, or fills the field requests. If they do 2, put then as the prior. If they defend, either a new category or list under fills numbers. This way, I will literally suggest this be used but will accept if it isn't used, but I will personally eyeball the teams using this list, and if numbers don't match or snipers are stacked or something silly, I literally will know to not play and bail instead, but at least I will have a grading rubric.

I know where you are coming from: 1) Your maps rarely get on rotation or played. 2) Fixing ideas, or building the same map a second time around just to adjust some stupid spacings, isn't as fun as making an actual map. 3) Assets are sort of in short supply, and aren't the same as building a map itself. 4) Aggressive criticism destorys work motivation (and I encourage you not to let it) Still, here are suggestions if you do feel on doing some touch-up work for your maps: 1) Tomb has sticky walls. Make invisible blocking volumes just big enough to provide artificial contact with the wall that won't stick to your character. Not fun, but one of the last major improvements Tomb needs. The harvester occasionally gets stuck, but it does on Lakeside too and idk how that happens. 2) Training Yard is a short map with seemingly random gameplay. The outside edge path only contributes to "cheesing" as it is out of the way of combat, either remove it and leave the map as a 2-lane, reduce the outside paths or ways to get in and out of them, or make the also connect mid-field like a ramp to the tib field. The middle infantry path is a slam-rush path, it could use some complexity on both side base entrances, a concrete divider or boulder, and perhaps something in that field that gives tanks between two lanes and the infantry some cover. Even consider putting rocket emplacements in base to instill SOME form of anti-vehicle defense because once tanks are in-base there is seemingly no way to get them back out again. 3) City looks promising in gameplay and the fact that it's friggin' City, but it doesn't look visually appealing. I don't expect you to be able to do anything about that, and want to make this the next map frequently played in rotation, so if anyone else does have assets or the desire to add assets, they can do so after this is being played, assuming it has no gameplay bugs. Assets can always be added after the fact. This is a very acceptable "early release" play-in-dev map, barring any gameplay bugs. 4) Uphill I honestly didn't get to see enough of. Straight up outright. All I can say about Uphill, is that you should do Tomb fixes first and get the newest silo-moved version ported to the hopefully 5.17 (#yosh), then you should figure out how to make TrainingYard back-and-forth. If anything comes up with City meanwhile, move that to the front burner when it does, and if 5.17 takes a while, maybe that can make it. If not, just as momentous. Uphill and river and others can come into the picture after these already existing maps are tweaked so they climb the rotation popularity. 5) Not just you, but "other mappers" have made maps that need full release as well. Eyes was fully released, but he said he is working on a new version that cuts out some of the no-man's land, and I can't wait for "Glasses". Crash Site had it's own share of development problems, but he is taking it very professionally. Siege would be nice when it does make progress, I'd welcome it any day it'd come. Someone needs to tweak Under and Field imo, like Goldrush was tweaked, and I did work on it before major base defense rebalance made me really need to restart. I could honestly work on it again, the linear tunnels were the main problem. There is a lot of RenX works that have exciting prospects.