RoundShades

Right, I forgot that was done because I never use him, but that was also a change I don't agree with. Whats up with the hitscan-ization of the game. Well, as HaTe said, 350 was the old projectile speed, and 400 is practically hitscan. Well, I don't mind hitscan or not, but a lot of times there is no good velocity given besides hitscan. If the Devs used 350 i'd bet the autorifle and officer would be fine given it would only affect the travel time against the target for the last 25% of their range, anything close the bullet is unavoidable at that speed. Also, the devs have been treating the tac rifle and chaingun as symmetrical. If symmetrical, tacrifle does need to become hitscan, but I don't agree on that. However, asymmetrically, one has to have advantages the other doesn't. If the tac rifle had the same damage, but did it fractionally faster, let's say 60 round clip, does same damage as 80 rounds of a laser chaingun, but the laser chaingun did more damage overall, let's say 100 round clip and thus more total ammo as well, then they would be balanced. Patch would be a 3/5 against infantry and 5/5 against vehicles, LCG would be 4/5 infantry 4/5 vehicles. You need only adjust the tac rifle to have 15% more damage and less ammo, and the laser chaingunner to have less spread really. Again, to diversify gunner, he needs basically tank round damage for his gun, at a slow travel speed, to make him bad at anything but point blank range infantry as he can be dodged, but great at the pyles of vehicles sitting outside base as well as equal or slightly better to volt rifle against structures. Lastly, about the ROF and the officer at close range. The SHOTGUN is FREE and it is STILL STRONGER than the officer depending on just how close. Barreltap, shotgun wins, 1 hit kill. reasonably farther away, officer wins, shotgun starts to take 3+ shots to kill. Too far away, shotgun wins again, especially with cover, as it can still kill with 5 shots as ridiculous as that is while the officer only has 5 split seconds to hit the shotgunner when he emerges from cover. No, spread would be plenty, without the damage, he is worth negative credits because the free shotgunner and free autorifle are better. Too nerfed, I would only get him if he was free and I needed to soak some landmines for teammates to get inside a base. And SFJake, spread isn't "just" a dice roll. it is programmed for a max and min. Unless flawed programming, which I sometimes severely suspect the shotgun of having, it literally prevents it from making full use of it's damage on a small target at longer range, but not a large target like an arty, or a small target at closer range. Nobody can do it, lucky or skillful, it is an actual limit. At close range, the weapon should have a spread the size of their head, meaning every bullet should hit no luck involved. I do not want flawed spread where the bullets hit the top right corner of it's spread 8 times in a row killing someone with headshots that weren't centered. I want real limiting spread, and in the chaingun's case it can be algoritmic or patterned if it has to be, like a spinning motion. On the shotgun or assault rifle I rather no pattern because it requires memorization, but sometimes on the shotgun I rather it choose from 1 of 3 evenly spreaded patterns at random so 6 random bullets don't hit the left side of the spread and decimate an enemy 40 meters away...

Here is a suggestion for a map, based on current RenX income: Would a map be really cool, if it lacked a ref for either team altogether, and instead had 4 silos? One at each base entrance, terminal facing outward to the center of the map (enemy advantage), and 2 between the entrance and map center and also facing the enemy's direction? That way, distance encourages equal capture and holding, for equal credit gain, but enemy advances can capture for more income. Or what if there was 5, and 1 of the silos was in an infantry tunnel, or just 4 but one was in the infantry tunnel? What if there was 6, and along with the other ones, one was on an inaccessible cove or something that only air can reach, so you required helis and transport helicopers to contest it, but its view was limited as a cove so you couldn't prevent helis from coming in until they were overhead? Just ideas.

No, active credit gain is what everyone should want. It's passive credit gain that's way too high. Silos and dead refs give ridiculous amounts of credits. Well, actually, it depends. Credits in general, are too high. 8 minutes in the game, you are well enough funded that if you lose something, you can fund yourself fairly comfortably for the rest of the game. Passive credits, are too high, so they should be reduced. I would start by making credit ticks twice as long perhaps, and giving 3 credits a tick instead. Then, the dead ref gives 1 cred a tick, twice as long, and the silos give 1 cred a tick, twice as long. Active credits, well let's be honest, base attack/repair is NOT active. At least, you do it for a minute or two, you have 3000 credits. No, you should have 1500 credits at most. Whatever base attack credits are now should be reduced at least slightly, at least 20%-25%. Now, active credits in the sense of kills, killing infantry should give more credits. As a high-end example, a 1k gives 100, a 400 gives 60, free infantry gives 20. I destroyed a mrls earlier, it gave 60 points. A mrls is equivalent in cost to a laser chaingunner. vehicles are harder to kill generally though, so I also wouldn't mind vehicles giving a little more, like a mrls is 100 instead in that example. I'd rather do it that way, rather than your sources of credits, being a significantly large steady income, a harvester, and milking it from the health of structures. Currently the harvester is fine, if passive income was turned down then the harvester is a big enough perk to keep alive as a lack of harvester income would actually keep a team ill-equipped. I have not felt underequipped the entire time I played RenX despite 6/10 games my team doesn't have field and thus is not recieving any harvester love.

I still barely think the chaingun's damage is that bad. The laser chaingun is still useful. If it had a tighter shot group, i.e. less spread and recoil, and the officer had more recoil and spread, i.e. they meet in the middle, and then the officer had a 100 mag clip but the same ROF, then at shotgun range the officer would still be able to kill as quick as current but that is good because everyone hates shotgunners and likes to use shotgunners so you get both with the officer (lol), the officer would begin however to have trouble hitting all bullets on an infantry head sillouette much less the center of gravity down the distance of the island short tunnels, and the laser chaingun at max range won't miss shots out the edge of it's spread on tanks because it's spread is literally larger than the broadside of a mammy... I literally think the officer chaingun is stronger than laser chaingun now is the only problem with the chaingun, and the only reason that is is because the officers chaingun is a tighter shotgroup. If they both had the same spread, between where both are now, and the same clip, then the laser chaingunner would be equal besides heavy tank damage. Now, you can then add to the laser chaingunner another clip i.e. 500 round reserve, or 20% more damage and 20% less rate of fire, or 200 round clips for the laser chaingunner instead... something like that. And the officer would STILL be useful against infantry and light armor, and especially infantry at close range but even infantry at max range would probably drop 1/8th a health a second. So... >>Lower officer chaingun to 100 rounds >>Give officer and laser chaingun same spread, between both current spreads >>Keep both their damage and rates of fire >>From that point, choose some miniscule buff to give to the laser chaingunner, like an extra clip of ammo.

The LCG doing steady damage to heavy armor is good and is it's role in legacy renclassic. Giving it a larger clip would help, while managing it's rof and spread so at close range it does acceptable damage to infantry and at long range it does some less damage. That keeps it from being an omnipotent weapon. Same with the chaingun as he said, giving it some spread or some damage reduction may be necessary, but if you dropped the clip to 100 then it can still drop most a light vehicle without being able to kill it. My only complaint, is that 125 is too random a number. The chaingun, given just a slight bit of spread, can still be only acceptably slightly OP for it's cost at 100 rounds a clip. The LCG if given a rof or damage that is worse than the chaingun while keeping it's spread, could get 100-150 rounds which keep it abusing heavy armor over the course of 30 seconds, which is a different flavor of a rocket/rail's 1 hit wonder damage. I mean, for instance, if the chaingun did autorifle stats, then you added 50% more damage and 2x the rate of fire and 2x the spread and the apc-gun's armor value, then it could still melt enemies in combat as well as dent lights and be balanced. Then, if you make the LCG the autorifle stats, then gave it 2x more damage, 50% more fire rate, 3x the spread, and a clip of 150, with heavy-armor damage, then I believe it would do 2 rockets of damage by time the rocketeer is done reloading and would kill infantry worse than the officer.

Which is? The game does need several nerfs atm. Credit income. Officer Chaingun. Grenadier.

It is. Honestly, as a player of old C&C_City_Flying, I felt the mrls fitting the narrow space that lights and arties couldn't was a good early game establishment or building kill if coordinated well enough, if not at least credit collecting cheese because it was pretty fast to earn back 450. Coordinated with an early APC rush on the bar/obby/ref (I can sorta check to see which one got mined first), and you stretch their resources to repair and defend base early thin. Later game, stanks CAN fit through the narrow openings, and flamers were strong, I felt that Nod tanks had more openings to shoot more buildings than GDI had, and that their apc rushes were more successful than GDI's were for some reason (as well as transport heli rushes although those were almost never successful even in maps with "/p" parachutes)

Yeah, I was just referring of his case where he failed to bring the building down. Also, killing the infiltrator does not guarantee safety. A tech can detonate the remotes, dies, and waits/hopes for the building to go down along with him. It's a fifty fifty chance, really. Note the following video at 2 minutes in. The engi uses his 2 remotes, his 1 time, and then the shotgunner's 1 timed. The enemy doesn't repair from outside and fights the shotgunner. It is too late once the fight is over, and they can't repair fast enough to save it. They might have, if they repaired from outside, the 20 seconds it took for the shotgunners timed c4 to detonate. But, in this thread, the point is, 2 timed and 2 remote, a la 1 tech or 1 engie+1 any other class, can kill a building "instantly" if all c4 goes off at once. In that vid, the 2 remote and 2 timed kills the building with lack of enemy repair. If it all went off at once, it would be instakill. it only kills because not enough repair over the 20 second gap the building sat injured.

...except me. I play Grenade Golf all the time in Beta 3's Volcano and hit PP, Ref or Strip. You can do this on walls now with Grenadier and McFarland now and in B1, can't you? Actually, the situation's pretty much reversed on that map, GDI have a distinct first-wave advantage with grenadier and mcfarland, compared to chem.

Idk what anyone wants anymore. Was there a breakdown of communication somewhere? But again, I agree with HaTe. You are playing right, if you are using 3rd person to position yourself in the field or move between cover or turn corners, and switch to 1st person to carry out gunfights. Beta 1 footage recorded by TheGunnRunn or whatever, he said he tried to avoid switching perspective too often because it was disorientating to watch. However, that is the most natural and beneficial way to play, and after playing like that yourself often enough, it isn't disorientating to watch. I LOVE how arcade-y it feels, like an action scene gunfight.

You going to update that guide? You mentioned having revised it, you just need to publish whatever new version you have for it, as the page still shows beta3.

...Okay look at it this way. Balanced in skilled plays, and balanced in casual plays, is different because they are played differently. Preferably, it should be as close in both. Skilleds against casuals shouldn't be such a huge shutout for one. And skilled and casuals should both be able to play with 50-50 odds between teams. That isn't always the case, because the autorifle for instance is harder to use for one than the other, so balancing it for one to use makes it overpowered for the other, or balanced for one makes it useless underpowered for the other. Really low bodyshot damage, veterans love that but casuals would not. It should reward skill to a limit. I could agree on less bodyshot damage than now by 10%, but any more would be RenClassic levels of skillgap, where if you don't headshot then the same class of enemy will kill you with over half health remaining. Same with gunner, because someone is expected to land headshots with a fairly high skill level of leading the shot. Same with per character structure damage, require too many people at once, and you encourage only skilleds, because skilleds can destroy buildings in a group of 8 but casuals can't because they try to solo. Now, encouraging group play with some sort of incentive, like assist rewards, that is a gameplay idea that encourages playing the game right and that can fix things as well. The balance between vehicles, or anything really, in single engagements versus in group engagements, is a balancing act between casuals and skilleds, because artillery in pairs with a tech is unstoppable against even numbers, but 4 artillery against 4 meds both with a couple of repairmen will favor the meds because of the health limits. This is a balancing act in itself, a good one the way it is ingame already, but some casuals think Nod camping base entrance is OP because of how strong arty are, because they don't upgrade to the skill of moving out in a group of meds. Another huge balance difference between skill gaps, is stealth. Sbh with nukes are OP in casuals, with how hard it is to see and how slow it is to react to a beacon and how good the odds are of a smart Sbh to kill a diffusing enemy. In skilled games, people look for sbh, sweep fire to detect sbh, can see sbh if they get in range, can react in swarms to a beacon, and the sbh doesn't stand a chance to hold the fight even if they plant it under a harvester coming in to dock (pro-move). Balancing stealth to be useful against skilleds, while not being the winning factor of every casual game, is hard. Often enough, you can balance stealth to be game-breaking in casuals and worthless in competitives, both at the same time. If you only balance weapons and vehicles against structure damage and other weapons and vehicles, in the situations and hands of skilled players, they might be useless in the hands of casuals, end in unfun games, and again, that doesn't retain a playerbase very well

I am bad at walls of text. However, the great thing is, I can answer this next arguement briefly: Which source is better? The source that contributes the highest player count. I guarantee you, that requiring too much aim-skill, counter intuitive knowledge of how to use something besides how you would expect to use it, and making failing an unfun experience, would result in a low playercount. Nobody wants to put up with that in a game. And if they did, that crowd is already captivated with "Counterstrike". Making it "Battlefield" would result in a low playercount because it would loose the Renegade fans but the Battlefield fans will stick to Battlefield of course, the better version of Battlefield will always be Battlefield. You got to make it play like Renegade, while not being so obscure in function, so that a newbie can play it, enjoy, understand, not do terrible. Getting credits with a destroyed refinery means a bad player can still use classes and vehicles at half the rate of a good player. Credits being too abundant means everyone can use everything all the time despite what buildings exist, which grants no feeling of accomplishment anywhere. Gunner should probably not be a single shot infantry pecking killer, he should probably be anti armor and structure just based on what someone would expect. Chaingunner and Grenadier probably also need nerfs and I agree with the ones you say because you don't expect them to be the best building/lightarmor killers based on their bottom-tier costs.

Yes. Honestly, all these gents are right. This isn't the only objective shooter neither. Play Planetside2, Super Monday Night Combat, or the original Renegade, and you know why low-lethality is necesary. Gunfights have to play out for many reasons: >>Time to react, so getting the jump on someone can still result in recieving some damage and over multiple gunfights result in death or return to base for refill >>A long match time of 30 minutes requires gunfights to last longer. If infantry died in 2 bullets from each other then kills would be in the 300s by end of games. >>The variety of weapons, if 1 hit kills were a thing then SMGs or assaults would dominate, not to mention snipers which we just rebalanced to NOT do that. The wide variety of "effect" and "armor value specific" weapons of interesting flavor would be either useless or cheese, like the chem sprayer or the rocket launchers or the volt rifles. >>The high team counts benefits from low lethality. If 8v8 infantry engagements ended in sweeps of gunfire in 6 seconds, progress and outcomes would be even more random, not less. The fact that 8v8 gunfights are arcadey and use a variety of weapons and ranges and classes and last 15-20 seconds gives it strategy over skill, using the right weapon rather than aiming the weapon "gooder". >>Lastly, if Battlefield is already definitely going to be the best version of Battlefield, with its EA publisher support and AAA title budget and huge playerbase, then why would we want to make a Battlefield clone? There has to be some reason to play this game other than the exact reasons to play Battlefield, because otherwise, you will play Battlefield. This game is entirely different, which warrants playing it on it's own merit, even if you play other games as well, you would either play one, the other, or both, based on each one's particular details and gameplay.

So, we are in consensus, that a veteran system is a mild unlocking system for equipment mid-game, where you start with locked things such as vehicle drops and secondary weapons and such, and you unlock access to them and mild passive bonuses and such by earning 30 vet points from so many points of repair or player kills or such. And the other system entirely independent being discussed is a progressive meta system across a player's career that unlocks cosmetics and cool emblems and colors and junk? I wouldn't mind either, as long as they aren't confused, because this game is likely benefiting from the LACK of a progressive longterm equipment access metagame. It is good that a new player can enter their first match with access to as much as a longtime player. Locked out things, should at most, consist of proxy c4, vehicle drops, passive health regeneration, more ammo to start with or ammo renegeration, possibly access to secondaries or airstrikes/emp/smokes. I would allow anyone to grab any class, any vehicle, most items, and in the wildest fantasy of being able to purchase better c4 packages instead of them coming with Hotwire/Tech only, allowing specifically that to be purchaseable from start. Here is an added idea. Remember that passive 1 credit a second from a dead ref? How about that becomes a perk of veterancy, instead of a God given right to every single player in the game? That might possibly be harsh/unfun, depending on how unrealistic getting the first level of veterancy/any veterancy is, but if it is realistic for anyone "playing correctly" to achieve veterancy, then that should be earned and not granted at start.

Well, in that case, I still feel if you watch enough youtube and twitch, or keep track of win statistics, you can still have a fairly good understanding of balance as a spectator. You also can NOT balance a game based on top skill. There are a LOT of newbie-friendly things that make sense, and some that dont and ruin the potential of the game, and knowing the difference is important, but in my experience, casual players will always suggest vehicle color and mine color be bright yellow and bright red teamcolored, and hardcores will always suggest automatic weapons have really low bodyshot damage and really high headshot damage and a lot of recoil after the 2nd bullet fired and everything require a 8 man team to accomplish anything. You have to know that team colored mines and vehicles ruin game fun by trojan vehicle and blending mines into enemy minefields, and that unrealistic weapon skill and group-reliant lethality ruin fun by low skill players never accomplishing anything and leaving the playerbase with the 20 diehard fans playing amongst themselves with no new blood. As far as balance goes, I think the stank needs more range for instance, based solely on the fact that an old ren player would expect it to reach the WF edge from the gdi base entrance, it would be nice if it reached air vehicles given the lack of Anti-Air options, and that it makes the weapon more useful in multi-vehicle conflicts where the stank can stay with the pack and still peck at enemy vehicles, as well as diversifying it from the Flame Tank which at current stealth tank missile range will always be better especially with it's new volumetric weapon which can reliably toast infantry with most of it's available dps at it's max range (at least 1 barrel). The chaingun needing spread would make it damage infantry less at mid range or longer, that would also be expected of the weapon being a "chaingun". Giving it less damage versus light vehicles also makes sense, it does unexpectedly high damage. Giving it less bullets a clip also makes it less able to sustain multiple gunfights which is too much value for a 175 unit that accels at a single gunfight engagement as well as the officer does. This would still leave the officer as nearly-amazing as it is now at shotgun fight range. Gunner adjustments I base entirely off the gameplay concept of "too much overlap" with Patch, rather than "balance". It is agreeably underpowered across the board, or more specifically "given strength in the wrong areas". If Patch can do consistent longrange vehicle damage on fast moving vehicles as well as infantry, give gunner more damage with a slow projectile so he can excel at structures and vehicle-fusterclucks but not at infantry except point blank in a tunnel or inside a structure (not like the currently headshot infantry down the tunnels in field). The point still remains. You cant judge ideas or people giving ideas based on the skill of the person. You have to actually chew the idea over. If you give it a thought, theorize it, and come up with a massive gameplay flaw in it, like giving tanks passenger machineguns completely wrecking balance as we know it for instance, as cool as it sounds don't get me wrong, then it's a bad idea. If you can come up with multiple reasons to do something and no servere consequences, then it is worth a try, so you can see where the consequence lies if anywhere. While I am ranting and mentioning balance together, I might as well also throw out again, that the grenade launcher can still reach across the cave in mesa, entrance to entrance, with like a 15% upward angle of aim. What is it's max range at a 45% angle of aim? Can you hit the Oblesk from the field tunnel with the grenadier which happens to have some of the highest structure damage and is a free unit? I think I make a good balance arguement there, it just needs a heavier projectile that travels as fast for ease of use, but falls shorter for a more limited range, and the fall also requires more upward aim at longer ranges which makes the projectile hit the ground with more delay giving infantry at least a chance to dodge it. As it stands currently, if you chunk a grenade at an enemy across the mesa cave, they are taking the splash damage at least.

Cod doesn't have bases where you spawn at purchase terminals. That's almost like saying cod was trying to be like renegade because it has guns lol Agreed with you Hate. The idea is different as far as gameplay mechanic. This isn't wanting to spawn mid-field or in-enemy-base. This idea is wanting to "prefer a spawnpoint at a PT". Now, I love the idea, and I know it would be semi-difficult to program, but I would appreciate this as well. The only worry is, people preferring PT spawns at WF and Air and tunnel-close PTS, leaving nobody spawning inside of buildings that may possibly have enemy personell in it. However, here is my take on that: If nobody spawns in the Ref in Islands, techies sneak in and detonate c4 in it, GG. However, if someone intentionally spawns in it, they are "smart and tactical and skillful veteran at the game". However, in the current system where spawning is random, you can infiltrate the ref, and depending on if someone dies and if the Random-Number-God favors or smites you that particular day, you may have nobody spawn despite 6 people dying during the infiltration, or you may have a single enemy die and spawn facing your dumb arse with an autorifle and light you up. So even if this possibly makes some structures like Islands Ref more tactical to infiltrate with the potentially less spawn traffic, it also makes it more "reliable" and less "luck based". Either you intentionally spawn there to check occasionally, you intentionally don't spawn there and risk it's loss, or you infiltrate it relying on the lack of traffic and get results correlating to the enemy's strategy instead of wherever the game decides to spawn someone at. I would be ok with a spawn preference system, whether it be prefering spawn at a PT, or at a structure (less fusterclucking a single PT at the front HON entrance and more distributing them amongst the 3)

Oh wow.. Even "average" players are not relevant for you? Wow.. thats wow. How can you even rate my gameplay, If the points are kinda broken? I can understand your point there, but thats kinda arrogant. And please dont say you rate it by !rec 's. Honestly, anyone that plays Street Fighter, a high-skill game, knows someone can be a "theory fighter" and/or a good game ideaist or programmer or designer, without being able to play well. Be honest Hate, how many Battlefield/CoD/Halo/RenX players go to tournaments or place top of the game? Kenz is good but even lacks macro-teamwork (he teams in 2-3 players sometimes and other times just snipes at junk in his teams way). Nonetheless, these are the people that program the game, with fundamental and essential knowledge of best ways to systematically set things up to be easiest to play. I am not the best player, and teamwork wise I play like Kenz, and aimwise I don't have a good enough computer to compete not to mention the skill. Nonetheless, even I would know that faded dark-yellow stripes around the edges of mines would help them stand out as circles on the ground where the ground is pitch black in RenX and would be light grey in RenClassic. Even I know simplifying weapon slots and infiltration and weapon usage into reliable results and comprehensive function is a good thing, such as pulling all secondaries to one slot and all item based to another slot and even different c4 setups, the main gameplay reason especially is to seperate the repairmen and structure infiltration destruction roles. As well as the smoke grenades, being able to pay to make one pass through the base defenses with an obvious visual to enemies is more balanced than running the base defences and getting results that are sometimes this but sometimes not this. Same with group mines, I am not even going to say a cluster-disarm was the only way to do that, but given that 4-16 is the average cluster of mines and disarm takes 6 seconds a piece it is unreasonable to think anyone can disarm 1 mine before taking a casualty let alone 4-16 or even make small chipping progress on them, and "soaking damage by walking into them while under repair" is counter intuitive and is another reason they should disarm at least at the speed which a unit would take damage from them and then take repair. I also made a suggestion about unit prices and scaling units so they cost the same difference apart from one another but the cheapest is 300 and the most expensive is 1k. 175 units are effective enough to use consistently without loss and are much more worthwhile 5 instead of a 1k unit, if they were 300 then more credits would be sunk out of matches and a 1k unit would be more reasonably valued against the cost of 3 cheap units instead of 5. It would also make "early game" last 4-8 minutes instead of 3-5 minutes, which in 30 minute matches is a real good gameplay change becaues playing 25 minutes of top-tier character and vehicle access is more monotonous and the buildup to get 1k units and vehicles is a blink of an eye. Having matches build up more slowly is a suggestion that doesn't take "skill" but instead "insight". I play enough Super Monday Night Combat to know good "game pacing", if you had access to all skills and buffs 4 minutes into a SMNC match, that would be 11 minutes every match of droll death-matching. Since it takes 6 minutes just to build up a significant advantage in level and upgrades, you have 6 minutes of important early game, and even then you have 2/5 of your total endgame strength, so it takes 12-15 minutes of a match to get full strength. Now, RenX matches are 30 minutes, so getting full strength at 8 is REAL bad, it doesn't have to be the same ratio but the average credits an average person should have at 8 minutes, depending on what they could buy during that time like secondary weapons and other money-sinks, is about 2200 in my opinion in current game. That is still a LCG/500sniper every 2 minutes. Except, it gives leeway to equipment and vehicles and donations. If you made money-sinks like classes cost a bit more and secondaries as well, as well as reduced base damage/repair income, then honestly it will make credits more competitive, and the ref giving a passive 1 credit income even when dead would be enough to "be fun to play and not intentionally afk like a dweeb" (I won't lie, I do it, I admit to it because I only treat the game like it treats me back), but not enough income to compete against a fully funded team like some people see in some matches currently in Beta4 where teams intentionally camp a ref-only and still fill the field with competitive cavalry somehow against a better funded team.

Theoretically, does this mean, as a protip, that you don't actually need 1 of the remotes? Just 1 remote and both the 2 timed? Just wondering, as that would mean you can place all, but if you are shot at with 10 seconds or so to spare, you can toss the other 1 at an enemy to try and flip a gunfight. That does mean though, even 1% of repair would prevent destruction, unless you intentionally let it land on the ground inside the building, which will give you 5% of overlap no?

Revised down to basically what I was trying to say.

Getting an enemy buggy or apc though, don't you think it's COOL to be able to trojan horse it? If it happens, it is the highlight of that server's gaming evening. It is practically removing a feature by doing so.

>>Stealth tank, buff good, prefer range to damage, old ren stank could shoot entrance to war factory >>Shotgun, 40 damage the length of island tunnel, needs less maximum reach and more spread. >>Game needs less creds, old ren had less creds, structure repair and damage is a good start. >>3x more points/creds for killing infantry would still be small, vehicles should get reward for kills too >>Silo locations are fine, consider putting the MCT more enclosed, like a ladder leading down to a room, or taller with longer stairs leading up just so it is too high for vehicles to shoot. We were also discussing: >>Officers possibly OP, need spread for misses and/or 1/2 the damage to light vehicles >>Grenadiers can hit across mesa cave, need slightly slower projectile or fast projectile that arcs more. >>Mines are black. Old ren was bright. RenX is dark. Mines need yellow caution striping (faded dark yellow, not really really really bright yellow)

The atmospheric change would have to be triggered by the map and not the weapon, for every map that is a lot of work. Honestly, I would be more inclined to believe Nod was at a disadvantage, if they didn't have cheap powerful siege vehicles, vehicles with terrain advantage, highest dps vehicle which was buffed to be good against absolutely anything at all instead of just structures last patch, cheap powerful infantry, many unique tools like tiberian travel and stealth, and an almost equal win-rate... Really, if GDI is too strong, it is because the grenadier and the mrls. Though rocket speed actually benefits Nod infantry because they have a harsher miss angle. In my opinion, mrls can lose lock on and that would be perfectly fine with current missile speeds or perhaps faster missiles. That would make "anti air" STILL more in favor of GDI and their Patch, but not so extremely so. MRLS can even usually hit air vehicles by spreading missiles out across the sky or waiting for it to attack and coincidentally fly in a line to do so. Still think Officer isn't that big a deal, perhaps reduce its general per-bullet damage by 15%. Still think mines are, a little yellow triangle label would do wonders because despite what some people think, people DO place them randomly in the dark just for a kill. The label itself could be dark-yellow like a faded muddy label, but the change of color is more distinct than dark on dark, and the entire reason is still based on classic because nothing in maps was "black" in that game except c4, everything was fairly-light-darkgrey or fairly-light-darkbrown.

Eh, he isn't wrong though. It is helpful to make suggestions. But honestly, what can you say was more powerful Hate? The officer in beta 4, mcfarland in beta 2, or the chem trooper in beta 3? I'd list officer at bottom of that. I still think grenadier is more a balance problem, he got way good real fast. As far as details btw, mines are technically "Proximity C4". Kind of like "tripwire bombs". They should be obviously a placed explosive, its how they make sense and how they work in many other video games including original Renegade. They were very obvious in original Renegade, they were discs that stood out. Being team-colored isn't necesary, being literally seeable through walls isn't necesary. Visible is enough. Besides that, plant them behind the lips of doors, or behind rocks, or in shrubs, or here and there amongst enemy mines. That is strategic, fair enough. To do that, proxy c4 need to either have some bright colored small emblem or sticker on them, or much more difficultly, the devs need to ween that pitch black color similar to the mines off of every map it is abundant in.

In the original, black wasn't as abundant a color palette. Needs a bright yellow stripe or sticker or something. The chaingunner is alright: 1) Anything is OP in the right hands. I hear people all the time who are like "the autorifle is OP you can score a kill on a 1k class in like 4 seconds if you lead headshots". Like, okay, the autorifle is OP then... not. 2) I also agree chaingunner and rocket soldier should be 250 and everything should get a small increase in scale with the 1k units. so 200 are 250s, 350s are 425s, 400 and 450s are 550 and 600, 500s are 725s, and 1k stay the same. Given that a 200 is often 80% as good as a 1k, and you can have 5 of them for same price, and that credits in general are more abundant. 3) The chaingunner is only OP if you happen to spit a ton of bullets right into an enemy for that brief moment they aren't reacting and walking linearly. Pretty much instant kill. It is OP as you mentioned. But a group of enemies who all are evading your shots won't get mowed down. Really, this is the same reason the LCG feels OP sometimes, it really can instakill someone if lit up into the back of their head. The video is welcome though. I loved montages back when CoD meant something.