RoundShades
-
Posts
2595 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Downloads
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by RoundShades
-
-
9 hours ago, Agent said:
I should probably get around to revoking delete permissions, since flag as spammer hides them anyway.
Right, and it was pretty stupid that it happened.
14 hours ago, YagiHige said:I flagged a spammer, clicked back a single click, and went to delete, just to realize at the last moment, I clicked it while in the wrong thread. It was the "Bandwidth Bug" thread, it's deleted. Is it not recoverable from your side? It was entirely by malfunction that it happened, be assured.
Web-browser malfunction, took me to the wrong forum topic. Bloody bait-and-switch. Clicked flag spammer, then back once, and then by time I clicked to clean it up, it wasn't even the same page. Afterwards, I was like...
On that note, I checked wayback for a copy of the content, but Agent had a cache instead, so I was trying to fix it.-
1
-
-
I have some exciting news (for me). I always liked the Sunday more than the Saturday tbh, but was not able to do Sundays for a while due to work schedule. However, next week I have an off day, so I can actually attend. Can still attend the usual Saturday one too, until 3:30 when I need to head to work.
-
On 2/24/2017 at 6:54 AM, Agent said:
I've removed the mutator from the downloads section.
I had written that mutator originally for a specific purpose (experimenting with high player counts in the PUGs), and specifically intended that the mutator not be publicly available for other usage. We'll raise the MaxPlayersAllowed if and when we desire it.
On 2/24/2017 at 3:25 AM, ShrewdTactician said:I'm just not a fan of hard limits, and I actually have a real need for it to be higher. I have a 50+ lan tomorrow that I'm setting up the servers for, and I'm trying today to raise the (what I thought was 32) limit.
Really, I'm entirely against sticking it to Lan-players. We're not EA.
After taking a shower, I just thought, since CT already has it, and it would in fact be unfair to keep it from other servers or lan players unless CT will volunteer not to use it for public servers... if you can't provide a download link, can you at least create a "download" that's a text file with your email so you can personally provide the file upon request? I don't know what more that would do, but it'd at least make it accessible by people seeking it.-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Denuvian said:
Yeah, you have to be lucky then, because overall I would assume, especially if there are more people like that on a low player count, that there are more matches lost due to this behaviour than won.
In "real" games I play (I jest, but there ARE more games out there than RenX), there are "break-the-mould" classes and utilities, such as ones that break "territory" enforcement and can do damage from within. It's much weaker in RenX unless lucky, HOWEVER it is good when possible, to have an SBH to pick off a weak tank or keep base-pressure. 1 SBH is capable of doing perma-damage against just 1 defender, 2 more easily so, so that means they have to use less players in the field against a greater opposition. Also, if you happen to be there, you can take the opportunity to draw repairs away from a building about to be hit, or hit a building while repairs are tied up elsewhere.
No, the entire team cannot be SBH, the team and the individual players have to be aware, just because a squad is doing it, doesn't mean the rest of the team shouldn't be 100% committed to field.8 hours ago, CampinJeff said:Officially starting now, the commander with the first pick must always allow the following commander to pick two straight players as well as the first map choice. Whoever gets the first player pick is up to them to decide.
So, schoolyard-picking-pro? Suggested this a while ago. Thank fuck we're finally doing it.
-
5 hours ago, Denuvian said:
For my taste there is too much trash-talk going on again lately, so important information gets missing and it's likely more difficult to command.
It's also remarkable that there are often people, who for example shout out to get tanks, don't get tanks themselves and instead do something else like going solo-inf and therefore are of little help. How people are ignoring orders can also be seen in some of Thommy's latest ingame footages (Volcano).
Just my 2 cents regarding the latest PUGs.
I was both those things, but to be fair, as opportunistic infantry I was right-place-right-time several occasions, to pick off a weak tank, to hose down some MCT twice where the building died, to keep general pressure up so the enemy uses 6 less people for field in order to camp base. I actually almost infilration-killed Ref as tech, walked right in. Ask for the trash talk, it was end of Complex, and I was needing to leave so wanted GDI to send 1 to Nod, making it 14/14 BEFORE I left, I knew they wouldn't do it after I left. I was literally going to be late to work, and they send nobody. Offered individuals too. After 6 more minutes, stuff died, and I simply remarked that SOMEBODY could have been on the winning time had they switched.
-
5 minutes ago, ShrewdTactician said:
Set the hardcap to whatever the game reasonably supports. I think the ui can handle 64, so set it at that. Then set the normal default max to 40. and even recommend it/make it the official player count,etc. Hell, you could even make it so that you don't appear on the ladder when there is more then 40 people. Just don't force 40.
The launcher used to not show servers that exceed 40. It was what the dev wanted to do as well, to ward off the mutator raising it to 60 (the mutator lets you raise the player limit btw, look into it for your lan).
-
1
-
-
Like Jeff said, EKT was given enough rope to hang themselves with it.
Even in light of that, I still supported raising server max to 60 but server default to 40.
But realistically, could you imagine playing TF2/Overwatch/Battleborn/Battlefront/MondayNightCombat with 64 player limit "just because the engine can"? That's RenX in a nutshell...
I'd hope players would, in groups of 30, when a game fills to 50, exodus from a game into another, just to kill the cancerous 60 player match, but there's no telling how much backbone that'd take, or if an average match would have 30 viable spines among it to take that sort of initiative.
Taking a popular TS3 used EVERY DAMN WEEKEND, being FREQUENTLY EMPTY during busy RenX hours, I'd calculate the absence of sufficient backbone or initiative, to accomplish a server split without a gentle kick in the arse or a limit. I also suggested the gentle kick in the arse via closing server with 60 limit when reached so some 40 limit servers can be filled.
Sad, that players will do a 4 hour Under map to themselves, and then come to the forums to complain about what they've done to themselves.Spoiler
-
On 2/2/2017 at 2:52 PM, Schmitzenbergh said:
@yosh56 So what was the problem? Cloudflare...
Does that make this relevant?
https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/02/serious-cloudflare-bug-exposed-a-potpourri-of-secret-customer-data/ -
On 2/18/2017 at 9:05 PM, LavaDr4gon said:
We all know Yosh is always the commander. He says he isn't so he wont take the blame for his drunk ideas if they fail.
Good ideas are just bad ideas that are done really good.
-
The weirdest kill in any Unreal Engine 3 game, is a teamkill using their own weapon because some arbitrary engine decision. See those infrequently. I distinctly remember the physics of a AT-Mine launched buggy killing a teammate and giving me credit, it was on Complex trying to get on HoN in a goof-off server.. So it's technically reproducible, though fluke.
-
K
-
21 hours ago, voltex said:
For those that are into drinking games, take a shot every time a bot suicides.
Speaking of suicide, it's advised to drink WATER during that drinking game. Even then, you'll probably puke water by the end.
At any rate, it looks like a "Planetside 2 zerg" or the Grand Exchange on Runescape. Especially with the 2fps. -
23 hours ago, Wyldcard said:
AWWWWWW Man! Nothin but bad luck on my end. I got it installed, updated & up & going finally, but guess what now?...........My pc isnt the same one i played on before & this one wont handle the heavy graphics, even with everything turned down as far as they'll go i can barely move......even the music is choppy when it plays.....
I made a guide to manually edit the config for lower settings.
-
14 hours ago, Madkill40 said:
@YagiHige Your suggestion could just make players switch off, it is not a good solution
There were server crashes before, at 40 player, and the next server that people flocked to, filled to 40 players, 3 and 4 times, when crashes were BAD. Doing it ONCE a day, at 50 players, is unlikely to make players switch off. They'll migrate.
-
19 hours ago, Madkill40 said:
Wouldn't there have been a drop in players if this was so bad? As opposed to a consistently full 60-slot server during peak times? If 20 players on a 60 slot server want to fill an alternative server I think most players should welcome this.
The excess 20 players wouldn't join an empty server when they saw 40/40, so as a short-term solution to raise the limt from 40 to 60 can appease people feeling left out or unsure if there's a point in trying to fill another server. A soft split should hopefully combat this issue as a long-term solution but RenX should also consider the modern era of gaming and not be too limited to its past.
CT has the strongest community when it comes to player loyalty, other communities need to encourage the majority of their players to play on their own server to also further the population of more than one server. They can be supported in this as it's for RenX's sake.
One 60-slot with a soft-split would be a good long term goal and I really hope Agent can pull this off.
People are complaining about 60. They also are NOT filling an empty server at 40. Because people are difficult to get to listen about it.
I suggested, that while we're working with 60, keep 2 32-player servers open, and when the player limit reaches 50s, tell players the server is closing at match end so join the other servers, and then close the server at match end. Requires a server admin to monitor it and do it, but at least that breaks the 1 server curse.
Since it's easy to "watch for 50 players, then give server message, then turn off server at map-change", it could EVEN be automated. Soon. Like, real soon. I'd say, that is the most important immediate approach, while built-in is worked on. Is having some sort of automated macro kick in at 50 players, upon game-end.
Server crashes tell us, that players are willing to manually migrate. Wouldn't lose any more than who would already leave at game-end anyway. -
3 hours ago, RypeL said:
@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.
I was way ahead of you. Also, I agree with you and Canucck, i've compained about it since before. I just know there's a lot of support both ways, just because I can't stand anything more than a 16v16, doesn't mean there aren't good reasons. Which is why it does need further discussion before anything rash is done.
-
3 hours ago, Madkill40 said:
A post of this velocity comes across as a developer-only conversation needs to be made to clarify recently made changes.
Personally, the way in which you are coming across is anti-community and is borderline unjustified when you consider the initial reasons why a 60 player-slot server currently exists, especially if you consider Agent's suggestion which not only partly enforces your point but also makes the compromise of the current 60-slot server(s) existing in the first place.
We really do need the 60 player, just to sustain the community. I can see the importance of not policing it. I'd implore to not filter server listing beyond 60.
It does need a long-term solution, and the idea of a soft-limit, if Agent is sure it can be done in due time, really "grandfathers" and "obsoletes" the archaic limit of 40, it's a BRAND NEW mechanic and would require 60.
If it's to be done, it needs 60 player limit, and the "soft limit" can be used to take any game over 24v24 (I'd say 48 anyway), and split it into 12v12 and 12v12.
So effectively, to "Evolve" the game, we "Need" 60, 52 at the VERY least, for any hope of a mechanic to "Split" large servers into smaller servers, and help "Populate" the vast empty server wasteland.
At the bare minimum @RypeL, we need to negotiate to raise the old agreement, to 52. 52, still keeps problems to a minimum, and it still gives hope to divide full servers into 2 at a future date.
If we can discuss this and come to an agreement, I'd appreciate it, because the limit needs raised for possible feature additions, as well as player loss from lack of server space, and the gameplay can handle slightly over 40. -
From what I understand, and you can correct me if you want, UE4 uses some sort of C, and UE3 uses UnrealScript. To code it, would require actual rebuilding code for vehicles and armor values, literal re-implementation of code.
For models, I know another UE3 project that was able to port assets. The models and textures, may need tweaking for glossiness, but would be the easiest part. The code's just incompatible, if it were an update to an old engine, there'd be little excuse. -
I just think, as the most expensive unit in the game, it's sort of lackluster. Mainly because of cost. Stanks are 900, Flamers are 800, 1ks are 1k, Mammys are a 1k and a half.
They honestly make sense to be 1200. You'd definitely see them more. Not sure if that's a good thing, but if it's not, that means they do in fact cripple a team if you use a 1200 more than a 800, which means they could use something to tweak them. I know they've had a speed buff since the old days, but maybe another (of course keep them 1500 if you improve their speed). -
I have deep appreciation for this game and every bit of effort it took to make it, it's a massive improvement on a nostalgic love.
However, he's not wrong. First off, wanting to make a new engine, could just might maybe, invoke the wrath of an EA C&D. Second off, EA limits the effort they can put into it, as far as "what they can publish to". Third off, rewriting on a new engine takes more manpower than they really have floating around the community.
In all those instances, "it'd make more sense to make a new game instead". New property, full control of publishing, possible new talent to help with it. Doesn't stop Ren-X from being played or updated in any way, it exists right now as it is, and it is what it is. -
16 hours ago, Agent said:
Regarding player limits:
What do you guys think about raising the max players allowed to 64, and leaving the default max players at 40? This would eliminate the need for servers to run a mutator.
In addition (and arguably much more importantly), what do you guys think about adding a "soft max players"? Basically if MaxPlayers was set to 64 and SoftMaxPlayers was set to 50, and there were as an example 60 players, the server population would be split into two separate servers at the end of the match with 30 players being in each server. There would also be a check so that players will only be sent to other servers with the exact same mutator and level list; if there's no matching server, then the population is not split.
Thoughts?
Thoughts? I suggested if this was possible before. It's ambitious, but Fuck the Hell Yeah! If you can do this, then by jove Agent, do it! We need this yesterday. And I'm very appreciative if you would!
I can handle 50 and 64, if it's a one-match deal that populates a server afterwards.
This is like eating a taco, over another tortilla! If you stuff your taco too full, stuff falls out, so when you're done eating, BAM! Another taco.
ASK FOR OTHER SUGGESTED NON-PROBLEMS: If friends wanted to play together, leave and rejoin server with their friend. If player wants to play map, leave and rejoin map. I'm not saying, once split, ban them from the other server. I'm saying split it, and let nature now take it's course. It's at the end of a game, so it's not like anyone was in the middle of something when it happens. Though, a notice that it's splitting would be nice, and "telling the other server to host the map from the first server" would be a plus. I hear the bot can push maps to servers, but I heard it's to ALL the servers. Perhaps make an individual server map push feature?
(also, hate making 64 players max allowed, but there's already a mutator, so since you opened Pandora's mutator by allowing CT to use it, you might as well not try to police it, and make it in the regular game.) -
On 2/12/2017 at 7:09 AM, Xtractor said:
Something positive in Lakeside we did very good against the orcas rush ,,it was a sure shot for them we managed to save all our buildings Nice
Cool, I'm on a Thumbnail. Also, I only sacrificed on the apache because it's stupid to diffuse mines in that situation, but he was doing it anyway. Ideally, one Hotwire sacrifices on the mines, and the other hotwire/sydney go in, plant C4, and hotwire heals sydney while sydney dumps on defenders.
That's how things work ideally, anyway, but not in that game it didn't. -
5 minutes ago, Hohndo said:
It's a team based game, man. You need to queen with people and sometimes that means you can't always do what you want to do.
Since the CT server has been updated to 60 players it makes solo sneaking significantly harder, though. But, it is entirely doable. I'm going to try to make the point of it getting reduced down to 52 players because I feel that is around the point some maps like Walls and Islands start to break since they were never designed for that many players and those are two of the more common maps people like to play.
*Obligatory "I told you so" about raising it to 60 instead of hosting 32 on two servers instead*
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, SvN91 said:
I still think that your team members never should be able to harm you. Besides, 15 seconds would probably be enough to push a hottie to the enemy base in most maps anyways so the time would have to be decreased even more. The shorter the time to higher the possibility that someone get killed by accident or by purpose.
You can already kill teammates. You simply need to fly underneath the plateau, and fly under them so they land on you when jumping off, and then tilt them from walking off on their first guess. Bam, fall damage, coupled with air-vehicle damage. You've killed them.
I'm willing to "test killing teammates" in a server, just to show you, despite it being royally dickish.
Beginner Questoins
in Renegade X
Posted
1) RenegadeX/Launcher, should be path of launcher. Launcher shouldn't be elsewhere.
2) If you download the newest launcher, noting that "launcher" updates and the "launcher", are separate from "game updates" and the "game", then you should only need download 800mb or less, whatever size the launcher was again. That would be any download "mirror" from the Downloads section at the top of the RenegadeX website. There is only 1 place to download the game as a download and not "through the launcher", and that's iTweek's post.
3) So if you insist... Step 1: Go to existing RenegadeX folder, cut and paste "old launcher" folder somewhere for a backup. Step 2: Click "Download" at top of page, click Download on Launcher by Totem Arts. Step 3: Install it. Step 4: Cut and paste "new launcher" folder into RenegadeX folder. Step 5: Run new launcher.