R315r4z0r

As far as I know there aren't any plans at all to include any extra vehicles in the game. I wouldn't say the idea isn't in the cards at all, but definitely not in this upcoming release and probably not for a while, if ever. But who knows? There might be a tech building that provides these sorts of vehicles in the future.

From how I understand it, bots can be added to a multiplayer match in two ways. First, the server owners add them in. They specify how many and their difficulty and spawn them in. The second way is through an in-game poll. A player can create in game surveys with a hotkey. One pre-set survey is to ask if bots should be added. When setting up the survey, it asks you how many you want to add and then what you want their difficulty to be set at. When finished, it will say to all players in the match "Player A wants to add X# of bots of skill level Y. Vote F1 (Yes), Vote F2 (No)." If the vote passes, those bots will be added and cannot be edited while in game.

Well I'm a tester of the game, not a dev... So those aren't my comments. Compared to the AI in Black Dawn, the AI the new release is outstanding. They put up a fight and play the game properly as it should be played. There really isn't much more to be said about it. You'll just have to see it yourself to believe it.

Would be interesting to enable/disable sudden death mode after time expiration. Instead of winning by points, once the timer goes up, everyone no longer respawns when they die. Therefore making one team's win inevitable. (would have to have a sudden death timer though since you might end up with a stalemate of 1vs1vsbase defenses)

I honestly don't care if it just randomly assigns people to teams after each map. But there needs to be some sort of remixing feature.

Yeah I noticed your name looked familiar. I didn't wanna say anything because I wasn't sure if you were the same person lol.

Just want to point out that the original poster does have a valid point. There are swappable loadouts for sidearms and explosives that don't require you to change your character. But since your player isn't really a persistent thing in the game, I don't think having saved loadouts would work. But in all honesty, it doesn't take long to swap weapons out when you need to.

There are fully functioning AI in Renegade X that know how the play the game properly. They buy vehicles and characters. They group for rushes, the defend they repair, etc. The game comes with an offline skirmish mode that lets you play by yourself with bots. You can also add bots to online matches with the vote of approval from other players. While there isn't a "players vs bots" game mode, you can probably set up such a game just by coordinating with other players to join the same team and then just adding bots to the other team.

You just gotta wait another month and you will be able to play the brand new version for free. And you won't even need UT3 to do it. The next version will be an open beta so the more people that play it, the better the game will become.

I imagine that games wouldn't be very fun. An extra team means that the players in the match are spread that much thinner. Basically each team would have less players on it. When there aren't a lot of players on a team, destroying the enemy base becomes easier and kind of boring. You just wait until the enemy is out of their base and you sneak in and blow it up. Just because there are two types of enemies won't make the combat any more intense since you'd still be shooting the same amount of enemies regardless.. just that now some of the enemies will shoot each other (thus making your job that much easier). While having 3 factions might be interesting in theory, I just don't think it would work out very well.

Also, all likelihoods aside, if EA did want to use this game, then one of two things would have to happen: 1. EA would attempt to purchase the assets from Totem Arts. 2. EA would send a cease and desist letter to Totem Arts if they refused to sell the assets. C&C is an EA property, so either they pay Totem Arts for their labor or they force Totem Arts to stop working on the project.

LOL That's hilarious!

Topic at hand aside, that is entirely the point of those two mechanics. When a player goes prone, their movement becomes heavily restricted. Not only that, but when moving while in prone, you cannot shoulder your weapon. This basically means that yes, you are a smaller target, but you are also a sitting duck that cannot fire and move at the same time. Leaning, on the other hand, requires the use of cover and the environment to be useful. That means you must first be in a defensible location for leaning to be of use. It therefore becomes less of an advantage in the use of the control feature but rather more of an advantage in knowing the lay of the land and defending a location in the environment. Location is key and knowing how to set yourself up is a key tactic when engaging in a firefight. The person who gets to the location where leaning gives them an advantage deserves the advantage. That's just how it works.

Yeah I think not spending any more effort on BD is a good idea. Tbh, it would be another project entirely just to update BD with all of the new upgrades the multiplayer version has now. It's like a whole other game now.

Renegade combat requires you to zip your character around much more than most other shooters. So since you have to move a lot more in Renegade, having stationary stances really wouldn't benefit you much at all.

I didn't even notice the C&C 3 logo. That's interesting. Out of place, but interesting. It's a little yes and no. You can get away all match not using ADS at all. But for situations where you can lean back and take your time lining a shot up, it lets you get a closer view on your target with a more fine-tuning aiming sensitivity setting. Just rest assured that it's set up in such a way that works for people who want to use it, but is completely optional for people who don't want it.. and it's not an imbalance at all.

The trailer is real, it's even on the homepage of this website as well as in the announcements forum.

The way it worked in Renegade is probably the best option. Basically while the construction yard was up, it auto-healed any structures that were damaged at a fixed rate. This made destroying buildings before taking down a conyard a bit more difficult and required you're concentrated fire since you couldn't stop and attack something else or else the damage you did would be repaired. It shouldn't be unsurpassable healing, but definitely something that makes it difficult to deal with and at the same time a big help for your team.

The problem isn't necessarily balance, it's over complexity of something that is supposed to be straight forward and simple. You buy a character, you get that character. You buy a tank, you get that tank. You shouldn't be allowed to slightly improve upon or otherwise diversify your units and weapons simply by using them more than other people.

The game is already F2P. They aren't allowed to make money off of it. Secondly, Renegade's base gameplay is designed to be complex yet easily accessible. You can join a match midway in progress and be in the same boat as the rest of your team. It's because of that that I have to disagree with any forms of player bonuses, no matter how tiny. Everyone in the match should be equal at every stage of the game. There shouldn't be people on your team with more armor or ammo than you because they happened to be playing longer or are more "dedicated" to the game.

The thing about Renegade was that it had a pickup and play draw that made it easy to approach. You weren't penalized for joining a match late, in fact you could jump in and out as you saw fit without much of anything negative happening. If we had a leveling system, then it would benefit players who play more than players who don't. It is never fair to give more features to players with more experience. It only expands the gap between the haves and the have-nots. It also makes balancing the game a nightmare. Every character in the game needs to be equal and there should never be any sort of leveling or upgrade system applied. It would completely ruin one of the main draws of the original Renegade.

http://www.commandandconquer.com/en/new ... nd-conquer Apparently they got so much negative feedback from the closed alpha that it was decided that things weren't to people's liking.

Fair enough

IMO, I don't think you should go the route of bonus damage. Instead, make all weapons natively do more damage to all vehicle armor types across the board. Then, apply direction armor on vehicles that reduces the amount of damage taken. If you do it like this, you can adjust it in such a way that strictly attacking the most armored portion of a vehicle would take 10-15% longer to destroy than it would if you were playing vanilla Renegade. And if you strictly attack a vehicle in its least armored portion, then the vehicle could be killed 10-15% quicker than it would be if you were playing vanilla Renegade. I think doing it like this is a good idea because it allows there to be a significant 20-30% difference between attacking armored spots as opposed to non-armored spots but at the same time, it doesn't change the overall pace of vehicle combat very much (compared to vanilla Renegade.) For those who are still confused, let me put it like this. Now I don't remember the exact stats so I'm just saying this for argument's sake. Imagine that in the original Renegade it took a medium tank 10 shots to destroy a light tank. What I'm proposing is that if you attack a light tank head-on, with directional armor it should take you 11-12 shots, but if you attack it from the back it should take 8-9 shots. There is a 3-5 shot difference between high armor and low armor and that is significant... however when you compare it to how much it took you to destroy it in the original Renegade, 1-2 shots is completely negligible, imo. Also, lets not forget that vehicle repairing is also a very important and key element here that you have to consider. It doesn't matter if all incoming fire is taken from the rear if you have 4 technicians at your side repairing you as you take hits.

Directional armor is not... actually, vehicle combat in renegade has never been realistic. you must have quite some armour if your tanks is able to endure 10 hits of artillery fire. in real life, getting shot at your barrel/loop means you aren't able to fire anymore. getting hit in your caterpillars means your vehicle isn't able to drive as well as it used to. in battlefield3, you would actually lose one or more of your vehicle's funtions if it was under heavy fire, or had to fire through a smokescreen. with directional armour, you take advantage of the weaker spots of the vehicle, which somehow damages the tank as a whole, which doesn't make sense. yet, it could happen in Renegade X. actually, you can. you can calculate how effective your armour gets with all kinds of formulas, but i'm getting nitpicky here. but the main point is, you can decide which sides of your vehicle will be better protected IRL and ingame. and that's all we need to know. ??? I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing. You give off the impression that you're in disagreement but then continue to say the exact same thing I said in the quote. And in some cases you're saying something completely unrelated to what I said.. I can only assume that you either didn't read or understand what I said originally or that you simply accidentally quoted me when you meant to quote someone else? Anyway, from the second quote, that's not what I meant. I understand you can calculate the yield of an explosive and the durability of armor and the varied reactions such an explosive could have at different angles. But that's not what I'm talking about nor is it relevant. I'm saying that in real life, a missile doesn't have a 15% damage increase because it impacted a spot with lower damage resistance.