RoundShades

Technically, it is the auto-updater's fault and the internet's fault. Won't lie. The internet, particularly packet loss and inconsistency in speed fluxing up and down, is what corrupts data in any file you can download from the internet, usually more frequently with files over 1.5g. The auto-updater is the bland man's script for getting the files on your computer, written in spare time by unpaid devs. Luckily, B0ng does have a side-link, and zips can also corrupt but you know immediately when they fail to unzip. Come to think of it, I know at least 1 other game that downloads packages in a zipped form before extracting and applying to the game folder. I will ask about that. EDIT: DoctorB0ng has a good point though: There are 3 bars when the update starts. Downloading, applying, and checksum. If it corrupted, it is very much supposed to detect it during checksum. Don't know if it did or not or if Windows is to blame (it has been in the past, between admin privledges when installing and installing as a read-only directory for some unpredictable reason). So there may still be things to do, but glad to hear this link helped you fix it on your end.

Large downloads have higher chances of corruption. Can try another download. Alternatively, iirc, there is a link to direct download the update, let me find it and you can try overwriting it into your game directory, letting those files replace anything they request. Here it is, the link to a zipped full version of current game, courtesy of DoctorB0ng of ConstructiveTyranny. Assuming you are able to unzip it, it shouldn't be corrupt. If it says "archive is empty" or "zip folder is empty", that really just means it got corrupted in download. Hopefully, it won't get corrupt in download, but update this thread as to what happens. http://constructivetyranny.com/renx/Renegade_X_5.14.zip

This, is an excellent idea actually. Submission forum, and tracking forum? Condenses section into 3 areas (feedback, bugreport, and tracked), public can post into first 2, while moderators can move them into 3rd. All while still using bracket tags like [Char.Bug] or [MapBug] , which we should make a sticky on what brackets submissions should use so we see everyone use the correct and same brackets as each other for categorization. For instance, beacon placement was discussed recently. Submitted as a bug, that you can drop beacons in game-breaking places. It was recently "noticed by senpai Rypel" but since even when submitted by Jeff and company it was a very well-detailed bug report that included instructions to replicate and suggestion to fix, it would be the kind of thing to move to "tracked". Agent has ability to make this happen, but have to discuss first, and ultimately a decision will be made.

After all those sniper-notorious players and their recent use of rail/pic, this is also glaringly obvious, for same reasons as sniper. Insta-kill lethality in a low-lethality game, is way too durastic a difference in lethality. Since it takes 40 shots to kill on average for an autorifle, theoretically, a sniper with that sort of damage should actually have a rof 1/40th of an autorifle. Now, if an LCG or Volt fires 4 rounds a second, that means snipers should get 1 shot every 10 seconds given their dps? Troll logic. Or, we can just decrease their lethality to headshots on low infantry and/or change the way they function at range. Really, the current changes are already better, you act like snipers still don't make all the difference in servers. If nerfed to uselessness, why are they still abundantly used? Really, the fact rail/pic is what is fallen back on, means that maybe it's infantry damage should be equal to ramjet, while maintaining it's huge tank damage and AT equipment and speed. Still better than ramjet, minus a limited range compared to limitless. I mean, it makes sense, that insta-lethal snipers in call of duty where SMG kill in 2-5 bodyshots, don't belong equally in Ren-X where 10x the bullets for other weapons are required. I am not saying it should take 10x the bullets for snipers, but the marksman is a lot more sane, and in that wake, severe damage with a single shot sniper is fine without it being insta-lethal. Being brought down massively in health, is a huge debuff just in itself, a little splash from a tank shell or a run-in with any enemy at all is a guaranteed death sentence.

Please provide some constructive criticism. How can he improve the map if he doesn't know specifically what you don't like? I think the map works just as it says on the tin. Very simple, usually short, fair for either side. It doesn't really need changed. Now, if I were to approach roundabout what he is trying to say, then he'd probably suggest that the terrain could be slightly raised and/or curved on the sides so you can't almost base-to-base.

I support this idea as long as the damage of whatever the c4 is stuck to is not reduced. I was thinking grenadier range for the higher part, and anything outside grenadier range gets literally 30 damage. Slightly better than giving it just grenadier range, and anything outside range gets literally fucking nothing. At least it tickles the better part of a mass of enemies when used on a mass.

Also, Chinooks are SIGNIFICANTLY more cost effective. ONE person pays 700 vs 3 people dropping 900. Quit being a drama queen (as per usual) And, to compound what Yosh and B0ng said TOGETHER into 1... If you get 2 Chinooks, 1400, and fill it with 10 LCG/Gunner, 4000, it is disturbingly cheaper and more damage and 3/5th total health, 5400 total... Than 5 orcas, 4500, filled with LCGs/Gunners, 4000, which totals... Do I dare say it? OVER 9000!!!!! (9500...) If you argue with the one fault, equal health, then just distribute 10 to 4 vehicles, still not 2/3 the cost of orcas, but in fact 1 orca additional in armor.

Actually, the silo besides Lakeside because there are 2 and ref dies too easily, is usually left neutral now for like 4 minutes into the beginning quite commonly, even in PUGs on Complex and Under. I mean, why risk troops to a 1 credit tick increase, instead of a building kill?

The map seems lovely to either battle to the death in armored treaded mortal combat, or to frollock around to the rivers and grasslands and cliffs and enjoy the nature.

Just an open question, Radeon and company. Would it be better, if Structure Armor Damage and Structure Armor Repair, rewarded less points, while damage directly to structure health is increased in score (the percent of the building that you killed, the primary game objective). Just for shits and giggles, for AOW's sake, also give the silo 10 team-score a second while it's owned, so it's tactical value can rival structure shelling in score, so you can either negate shelling damage on structures, or capture it and give the team a chance to field tanks again? Then would you feel the appropriate people would be rewarded score-wise, and that the appropriate team would be crowned victorious in AOW?

I thought this too. Tbh, this was asked before, and I prioritized c4 when asked, and that made it into the game thank goodness, but I also need to make sure this is taken note of too.

If the zip is being coy, then it's a faulty download. Besides, it's supposed to be a self launcher. Try again, perhaps from another download link, but if it fails consider using the Torrent link. Reason this happens, is because any download over 200mb is pretty much at risk for corruption when they download, depending on packet loss the risk can get higher. It basically loses track of what it has already received in download packets, and continues to accept them out of order, and it has some correction for margin of error, but too large of a file and too many times this happens, and you end up with a file that doesn't function or even knows what it's own self is. Torrent download by a torrent program (utorrent for instance, although I dislike them but any one will do) is able to scan itself as it downloads consistent to what the file should look like, and then run back over where it's missing data and download it to correct it. Roundabout anyway...

Gunner is a perfect example of a utility character, a character you buy to specifically do just 1 thing. LCG is a perfect example of an enforcer character, a character that generally provides "presence" for their team against all threats. LCG does his job damn well, with only 1 weakness really being his speed which makes him very vulnerable to direct infantry encounters since they can dodge around yet he has to stand there and take all the gunfire. Really, Patch does his job damn well too, he is pretty good against LCG if used tactically with cover, range, and speed, choose 2 of the 3. He just isn't quite as good against everything the LCG is good against, the LCG just does better damage against vehicles and infantry while Patch does acceptable damage against them, similar dps but lower RoF and bullet speed and clip size and thus less frequent damage. I will just leave it here, that it has been brought to me with great confidence, that next update, Patch may get a mild buff to one of his utilities, while LCG may get slightly nerfed against one of his many effective targets. This should make 450 easily equal to 450, although still very opposite.

I wouldn't mind this, or just dividing off the more frequent community members into a stronger-level pug server, or even just having a large game again but with permissions set to where people don't hear each other and just the commanders, and speak goes only to commanders. Either way, honestly, we were told changes would be announced early-ish this week so we would know what's different in next PUG. Either the change won't be that durastic, or the change won't require any work on the players themselves, or the changes probably already should have been announced by now.

I think it's just better to only have a couple of screenshots as reference instead of re-filling a mesh (basically) The CNC-Ren gameplay is a lot different from RenX, thats why I'd just not refer to much to the old map. I prefer starting with what Thommy showed me before is possible, but using it as shape yet not identical. For starters it needs 20% increase to work with sprint anyway. Even besides that, I also recommended to make multiple break-offs on the infantry paths so it can't be bottlenecked and defended by a single sniper aiming down the path. As well as rotating the PP to make the doors more accessible like they are in Under (under needed so much more than that though). It can be identical to the original, in every way that doesn't cripple gameplay. If a change benefits gameplay, then change it, but so far the base layout itself is fine, the field layout is fine, and the LOS of buildings open to tank-fire should be fine if you really can't hit the Nod Ref from safety on the wide path. Especially since WF is open on one side, and HoN is open from the same side, and Nod has HoN and Air both open on same side, but Nod has multiple paths they can likely make use of Stanks and Flamers as well as functional infantry openings so they have 100% use of their utilities like they should. Therefore, this looks like a GDI groundwar map that is in Nod's favor slightly just because it allows Nod full use of their strategic arsenal. Basically, it is like a large version of Complex with a totally different layout.

Little late, but I just realized this map is almost done, but this thread isn't the maps thread is it? Should I move it to WIP FFFreak9999? Or should I leave it here and we can use it FOR the map's official thread? Anyway, feedback from last testing session: 1) The infantry path in middle, is clearly able to fit a tank and has no visible barricades. Easy fix, just listing. 2) The infantry path on the side leading up the narrow edge, has blocking volume or barricade, can't remember, but I do remember it being relatively easy to drive up the side and bypass. Needs a wall-like blocking volume covering across the whole way like the middle infantry path already has. 3) Map testing session didn't really do justice to how balanced it is, but without base defenses Nod has a strong use for their Stanks and Flamers, while only very little of a LOS for shelling with artillery from decent range, while GDI also benefits from mid-range of LOS at base entrance and lack of defenses to just stroll in and wreck up the place. Without a real game to test it, I can assume this benefits Nod more, but I accept this map nonetheless as it won't end in stalemates at least, and should last a little longer than an average game of TrainingYard (not a bad thing but definitely a unique feature of a map).

The last link was in fact a chicken dinner of a winner. That's what we're going to stick with. Don't thank me, thank that site's existence because I simply wasn't going to create one every week...

Thanks for you having hours of your life to do this. Also, if you are sure about your LOS, then it's perfectly fine. Looks like a 54% win-rate Nod map if all of that is considered, which is honestly good since it is quite easily a GDI land-war map. I give it Nod-tipped only because Nod actually has "options", which compared to Under is something they have absolutely nothing of the sort. Also this. If you wanted to have a layout of the old map, to do detailed placement, find the old map, either get GMax or 3dsmax, and get it imported (youtube videos exist, some of them linked in this site somewhere), and export it to fbx or whatever you can get to import into UDK. Then, upscale it exactly 20% because Ren-X size and sprint speed differences (or place a structure in the map and make old ref fit new ref). This is already good if you want to wing a remake, just showing how textureless models of old maps W3D geometry are entirely possible to import to use as shapes to build atop of.

Actually, it is more like 4-6 of you want to keep the sniper, and everyone else who has ever played with these 6 people want the sniper to be removed from the game. Luckily, you're wrong and this isn't a democracy. You have to trust that Yosh and company aren't the facists you make them out to be. If you want all-sniper-all-day version of Renegade, then look up W3DHub where the classic Renegade sniper is still 1 of the only 4~ units you can legitimately play with, and it alone can destroy the entire enemy team. As it stands, there needs to be something to lay support-assassination. The sniper can't be removed from the game. However, it needs not have fair odds against tunnel enemies. Why can you simply not use an autorifle for that? I wouldn't mind if Hav/Sak could, and lo and behold they have a carbine to switch to, hit or miss or bodyshot or otherwise. Besides that, snipers weren't made for killing all infantry all ranges in 1-2 shots, they were made for generally acceptably high burst damage at distances they cannot be attacked back at, and killing tank engineers with acceptably low total health. I won't take down a poll if you made one though, in case you are curious. I just simply do not promise a poll will decide the balance of the game, but I can promise it will be taken into consideration. The devs don't intentionally bork up the gameplay, but there are so many good reasons beside poll numbers not to make snipers instant-encounter-lethal, and gameplay results of current sniper show the players STILL have the dominant K/D in the game, which means nothing to gameplay except that they kill everything that remotely threatens them without dying to it. The deaths they do accumulate, are because other snipers are a thing that exist sometimes, unless only 1 of those 6 are present in a game, in which case they go unopposed.

I wouldn't mind LavaDr4gon's suggestion either, except slightly more complicated. Tank stuff has to do with "Tank Repairs" so should include tank repairs, and everyone needs to be able to call out split-second warnings. So, leaders should have "global listen" and "squad chat", squad members need "commander listen" and "commander chat". That way, a callout can be relayed by a leader, and individuals can call out things. Text chat can be used as normal to chat to both enemy and between squads. This also makes it easier to facillitate "using tank people for infantry rushes", as a tank commander can tell roughly 2/3 of his command to just grab a gunner instead of a tank and deploy with infantry for 1 life.

You just described a high-level clan game. Hell, you basically just described A1Game Servers circa 2005 where they played 5vall on Renegade, and would beat pubs with a 5 man team. Probably because, they can take field 1v3, never lollygag with their man-power, if struggling with field a person still has a shot getting in with APC, and if field is eliminated they can communicate a 5 man flame or stank rush literally instantly, suicide and purchase and enemy structure gone-in-60-seconds. Now, that is great and all, but between lesser numbers on teams opening defense for more structure lethality, and the fact that it may not be the best to organize games with too high an entry requirement, we really just need a commander to gather the people who are "subordinate to the cause", and evenly balance "lollygaggers" between the teams. If you want, with 2 separate servers, you can even balance one with higher level players versus themselves, and one with lower versus lower. "High-Profile" PUG, and "Entry-Level" PUG. Either way, like Ryz said, the Commander is both not necessary, but infinitely more helpful than not. I have organized successful rushes in pubs without commander, it's possible to rally support, but it's definitely not as easy, and it's possible to be successful with your own manpower management (1 good defender against sbh is all it takes to win walls on pubs). We need to integrate Commanders into game if possible, but players need to do critical thinking themselves too and not put the Commander on the pedestal.

Pokedex 132...

Sorry for your MRLS if you were the guy that practically paid for that teamhampering in today's PUG Volcano Match...

There will be none from the official test group, as there was no Tomb in the testing session today. Sorry m8.

There's Goldrush too Yuh there is Goldrush AND MesaII, to be fair those maps are a lot better than people give credit, yet we still play Field and Under every damn time it's voted...