RoundShades

@Schmitzenbergh Ren-X 5282 links please? (they are not http://denver2.renegade-x.com/Patch5282 as one would expect) EDIT: Schmitz has informed me, to my own chagrin, that it's "5282b"

I contacted @Schmitzenbergh about this, and he linked this. It sounds simple enough. NOTE EDIT: It's no longer 5281, so edit the BAT file url to say "/patch5282b" Benefits: It tweaks the launcher to do it's job, which still verifies and downloads only changes, not "the whole game again". DataLimit-friendly solution.

Depends on who's sniping. "Moving" is not an effective counter to a good sniper. If you're an engi, and specifically if your tanks screw you or you don't have any options for cover from sniper's perch, then you're simply screwed. Might as well suggest Cranky Kong's famous meme, "GitGud". Just snipe them back twice as fast as they snipe you, easy fix no? No.

I noticed that, and decided to disregard the actual internal contradiction that "people shouldn't leave because it'll unbalance the match, and people leaving was the cause of unbalance, yet the match was actually balanced, and way more balanced than many of the ones just over a month ago that caused certain people to stop showing up". Which also supports the idea "people leaving shouldn't be so volatile as to throw off match balance". Either it was, and administration is to blame, or it wasn't, and nobody's to blame. Otherwise, here's an idea: Make the PUG invite only, only active members who's IP are white-listed, and collaborate a week in advance to get it with a reputable friend who's already in, can join. That's literally the only reason you should EXPECT that level of commitment. If you want that, do that. Don't have open-attendance, and then get mad at players for "existing". Excuse the fuck outta them. When my schedule does open up on a weekend, I'll actually try to join, as I do have an interest. I'll just to request your pardons for existing, as it's a disability I tend to have, where I just "exist", and I'm taking medication for it, I promise. (Well, I'm self-medicating, if alcohol counts)

@DarkSn4ke, it was loud, it wasn't calling you out directly. You haven't wronged me. The point was that I not-so-humbly request the community set the standards a little more realistic and quit snapping at people for showing up to play a fucking videogame. If they leave, depending on how easily they did it, and how many did, it may not be their fault for leaving, leaving may have been the "sane" thing to do for anyone who has a "sane and sober" level of commitment to a game. Expecting people to have an unrealistic and drunkenly-attached level of commitment, isn't a very viable demographic to cater to.

I blew up and made valid points. You can't seriously expect to run a weekend match like this. First, your praise be almighty for the team balance, but it's often bullocks out the starting gate. Secondly, you can't rebalance mid-match? That's pretty important for basic-administration 101, if you can't do that, you have worse problems than people leaving mid-match. The fact that they DON'T push people to balance numbers sometimes, is just disgusting in and of itself. Lastly, it was simply way too hostile. I was hostile, because it was hostile, and it demonstrates how hostile it was. They didn't even need be directed towards me, they were directed at people who, if new and gave game chance, would instantly leave. You simply can't be doing this to a community, you're killing yourselves in the worst way a community can do it, I shouldn't be the only one to have seen this elsewhere. I'll probably put up with it for the long run. I tend to do that. You can't expect, with 1 person moving on here and there, over time, to be sustainable with a hostile attitude toward matches like these. If that's the case, make them AOW again, or otherwise encourage a game to end under an hour. An hour on a single map, is asking kind of sort of a whole fucking lot from a videogame participant. Honestly, at THAT point, the game could use higher escalation mechanics, or the map could use more openings since it was a particular map that was being tried out. Thought it was agreed long ago, that 39 hour marathon matches were not in the best interest of the game.

I don't know how that came off as animosity to you. I was just saying, I am trying to attend one legit, but a 70 minute map is not ideal. Should I just not post anymore? I feel like that's what's being asked of me. Seriously, fucking, hostile. I'm not a moderator to control hostility, and it's obviously a conflict of interest when directed towards me, but I don't think it's wrong of me to question what the fuck crawled into your ass and re-routed your speech skills through the anal nerve endings to get so worked up about such shite. Seriously. Chill the fuck out. Group A, thinks only committed try-hardys and authentic lumberjacks should attend PUGs. I still have a plaid jacket with a fluff collar from when I legitimately cleared land, does that count? On the other hand, Group B thinks the PUG should probably be enjoyable, not an obligation, which shouldn't be asking for a lot out of a videogame that any member here would like to feel love towards, but often cannot because of the toxic elitist community. If Group A can't avoid being toxic and elitist, how is Group B supposed to grow a spine or bushy beard and play with the level of commitment you're asking for? There, that was at least AS hostile. Not a fan of "eye for an eye", but I'm not going to even begin to pretend that the problem with the community are all the "people who easily leave a match or don't communicate enough". I just don't see it that way, it can't be everyone else's fault except for like 23 and half of 9 other people (that is, 23 & 9/2's). That's just not realistic expectations out of the average player.

Planning on returning for this PUG. Won't lie, wasn't ready for a long game, thus I'm glad I didn't. Was planning on Sunday PUG, but I forgot my schedule does prohibit me by an hour. Thus, I'll try again next week, if I can. Hope I'd get to play Glasses when it comes up.

Actually, that's a great counter, to "remote c4 defense camping doors", and to "full-kill structure", as a premature detonation allows repair between remote and timed detonations.

All can be adapted. The mines can have a priority alert, or can have a unique alert. Mines should almost never be placed outside buildings, unless supplementing mines placed in buildings. Could even create a "temporary enemy blip" on radar where detonated. Which, the radar thing can be done, with the "louder mine disarm sound" thing. So: 1) Add a cost to the c4. 2) Make mines alerting. 3) Redesign the mine or door defense system. 4) Tone down c4 damage so a surprise hit is no longer a kill on a full health building from recruit.

...Which is why I think it's fair to share some of that damage with other classes for an added cost, a cost which is also added to infiltrator-hotwires, and for stalemate reasons as well. Also, the only other option I can think of, is making disarmed mines give a "building damaged" alert like Enemy EMPs give, or a similar effect to anything placed on MCTs, rendering the "finding the building" less threatening, and "diffusing the c4" more of one. Still takes away some of the fun about the game. EDIT: Actually, I did think of one way to improve it. We have building armor now. Just don't give them enough c4/damage to kill a building. Period. If it does permanent damage, it's already "strong enough", it's as strong as anyone else's shit is versus a building.

Same opinion as before: Take 1 timed c4 from engi and hotwire/tech, and then make timed c4 a beacon-slot item for all classes. Then all classes will receive increased structure threat, and hotwire/tech can still do it for a bonus fee. Even SBH get an increased threat, which is fine because any EMP character receives an increased threat against a team with an Obby. Speaking of, making EMPs disarm Remotes, Remotes diffuse faster, and possibly even with more difficult code, making EMPs pause Timed C4 countdowns, sounds neato indeed. Jolly good show (RIP Regular Show).

DarkSn4ke shares essentially the same feelings as I. I can think of at least 1 unreal-based 5v5 game, that I'd rather play in any circumstance, to a 48v48 on a map with only 2 vehicle entrances and 3 infantry entrances. That's literally 11 people per entrance, nobody's ever getting into an entrance. If you want 32v32, make a map that has 4 entrances, lots of empty space between bases, and 4+ infantry entrances, so the gameplay doesn't blow as a result. Nobody ever played Battlefield (which I hate btw), on Call of Duty maps. If you have 32 players, but only 3 places for them to go, it's a clusterfuck, they need at least 6 places to go so they can space out to 5 players a place. I also still think, it's easier to fill up 2-32 player games, than it is to fill up a 64, and it's way easier to fill up 3-32 player games, than it is to have a 64 player game and then attempt to start another with 10-20 people.

I'm still going to stand my usual ground, and say this is a terrible fucking cancerous idea. Stalemates are reduced greatly with good gameplay improvements by the outstanding development and collaborative community. It's still disgusting to imagine playing in a 64 player server, even ones playing only new-field and eyes and such. What I'd wish servers would do, and I have no say and understand it'll never happen, is agree to host capped at 32. Everyone's going to go to reputable servers anyway, game performs slightly better at 32, and the actual gameplay is tolerable, the vehicle limits allow for reasonable infantry density, the defenses aren't harder than my dick, 9 migrant repairmen roaming the base aren't a thing, sniping doesn't pay off quite as massively, it's just generally better, and most importantly, if we have 40 players, there's a greater chance 8 will join an empty server, allowing it to fill both to 60, than there is for >6 to join an empty server, and fill it even to 20. Which is funny, because we fill a 30-40 person game during PUGs, while a near-full PUB is running. Extra-ordinary circumstances, but still think it'd work. Then again, it really sounds even better, if there was a out-of-server lobby/queue to notify how many people are looking to join a server despite one being full. Hopefully people very seriously consider 32 person servers then, just host more servers with less people for quality sake and so they're easier to start and fill. Thanks for letting me broadcast my opinion anyway though. Carry on, everyone. Carry on.

I mentioned TextureGroup_UI. If you set TextureGroup to UI, and it's still doing it, then it may be a bug. MadKill offered another minimap, it's flawed but try to install it, if it works then we can take it and start from there. I may, with his permission, just overlay fixes atop of his map at equal scale.

This was a badass speedrun done for a charity stream, of Megaman Legends. This guy knows this game on an intimate level.

I was able to get a sublime large-scale overhead image, and I mounted it and saw it to be of acceptable quality. On Tunnels, the problem was, when "Importing" into "Content Browser", the "TextureGroup" or "TextureLayer" was not correctly "dropped-down menu and select TextureGroup_UI". Possible operator error, rather than manufacturer's error. When I released minimap, I offered a replacement warranty anyway, it still stands if necessary. Assuming it is mounted as TextureGroup_UI, it should look fine, and in fact has a sloppy effort at "roofed pathing". I took 4 shots, each corner all sharing a "centerpoint", and then 4 more shots the same way after deleting the "roof overtop of paths", and then went over it with various painting tools because darkness is different in different places and make paths too obscure. Also, there are IMPORTANT map changes. New base entrances, modified field rock placement, new in-base layout. The difference would be "glaring" to "total" (total being using the "Islands" minimap on "Eyes" to navigate with as a comparison of "how different"). EDIT: Well, laying them overtop of another, not that different, but Nod Powerplant direction changes, and roofs cover tiberium field and important base entrances. Lastly, I love the way you filled empty space around the map with wasteland-plateau looking scenery. I went with a "slim" look so bringing up map left as much transparent space as possible so one can handle combat while the map is up, but yours does visually look better than mine, a lot brighter too.

I've had... a week... and quite a time working on this. No preview on page, cat keeps messing with keyboard, no map save, I just hope it's a'ight. X= -4557 Y= 6354 MapExtent= 54300 Let me know if I'ma fuckup and need to redo. I honestly didn't save frequent enough to fix mid-way, any adjustment that isn't image-wide will probably require from scratch, which isn't a problem that I mind, if I were needed to do it. I'm just letting you all know, I totally didn't save the raw images before edits. RxMinimapsEyes.tga

Oh, I am. I was just mad that it happened. I am able to continue, once time permits. Time is really the biggest constraint, I didn't have time for the map to not work with me. It's also reminiscent of Thommy's map's problems from top-down view, like the original minimap before I blended some surfaces by hand in PaintDotNet.

I was so mad that I couldn't figure out how to even map-editor a block of fog, and how simple it ended up being, that I wasted an additional 3 hours making a video of it. I'll get started on the minimap for reals soon. Just covering a lot of extra shifts at work lately.

I'd complain about my team... but even if I wanted to attend a PUG, and I know people would like me to not to... my job closes 1 hr earlier, and has me come in 1 hour earlier, so I come in 2 hours after PUG is scheduled to start. It NEVER starts right on time, so I'll continue not to bother unless my schedule allows.

Not at all, I'm just letting you know that they are aware of that whole "players waiting to join an empty server" thing, it's their workload to figure out in their own good time.

@Agent and @Schmitzenbergh haven't said anything about that, except last they spoke that they think it can be implemented in the in-game browser of how many people are pinging to the browser and to ready up so enough people can populate a game together. So it's conceptualized, but not implemented afaik.

So either F, or by going to where they are in content browser and selecting all existing ones. Both useful advice for later, thank you all!

I'm working on a minimap, that doesn't let me get an overhead with obscure exponential height fog. It appears to be a geometry volume, but I cannot edit it, in geometry mode, in wireframe view, can't even select it, cannot delete it, and am unaware of a method to turn off fog for whole map in editor. If another mapper here, would answer how they'd edit such a volume in their hands, I'd be appreciative. Or, if it were locked, how one would select or unlock it, so they could edit such a volume. Or even how to turn off fog. Please, and thank you.