R315r4z0r

Directional armor is not realistic. In fact it's a very arcady addition to the game. It applies a very popular video game mechanic to this game: hitting stuff in the back is better than hitting it in the front. Yes it might be more realistic in the sense that actual armored vehicles have disproportionate distributions of armor, but in real life it isn't something that can be modified and balanced with stats and numbers. In a game it can be and it can bring a very rewarding new mechanic to the table. It adds a layer of strategy to the game that wasn't present before. Being able to create counter attacks by adjusting your forces postion will now be possible and successfully pulling off something like that can be very rewarding to the defenders. They are not trying to be realistic here, they are trying to make it more fun. Even if directional armor wasn't something that existed in real life, they would still be opting to apply it here because of the way it meshes with the gameplay.

It's hard to have a release date on a project that is done for fun in the free time of the developers. If they were able to devote time to working on the project every week then it might be possible to estimate a date, but when working with people's free time is hard to calculate. It's better off with a ballpark estimate of "before the end of the year" than it is with a specific date. It's true that the date doesn't have to be an absolute fact and the devs can easily change or adjust it but that would only lead to people getting disappointed and there is no need for that to happen. There's 3 months left in the year. So why not just take that as the release date being December 31st, 2013 at 11:59pm. That way, if they ever do say that it will be out sooner, you can get excited because its coming earlier than you expected it.

I know you guys will likely talk about this some time later in the year, but regarding loadouts... won't that make the definition of each physical character a little redundant? What I mean to say is that in multiplayer, if you see someone running around with Havoc, for example, then you know that they are using a ramjet and you should know to watch out for that. You could even tell your team "Hey, I spotted a havoc in the field" and they would know what you're talking about. But if you can now pick and choose what weapons you have, what's going to happen to the individual characters in multiplayer? And how do you think that's going to impact the player's ability to see an enemy player and react?

Well I know that a lot of times people prefer to use certain vehicles backwards due to their design (the artillery and light tank, for example, because their turrets are set towards the back ends of the chassis). I think that directional armor would be an interesting mechanic in the game. It will also change the way people use vehicles like the artillery .

C&C Mode+ Basically this mode is exactly the same as normal C&C mode. The only difference is that it features staged objectives to meet an ends. For example, each base might be defended by large walls and a gate. While this gate is up, it's impossible for enemy vehicles to attack the base. So, therefore it's required that if a vehicle attack is necessary, an infantry team must first infiltrate the enemy base and sabotage the gate to force it open. Another example, there could be multiple external structures that need to be captured/destroyed before an assault on the enemy base is allowed or considered practical. (I'll leave it up to your imaginations as to why that might be so.) Yet another example, multiple powerplants in one base that must both be destroyed for a base to lose power. Things like this that keep the same C&C mode formula but simply add extra twists that encourage teamwork and make the gameplay more dynamic.

Make memes using Renegade X screenshots and post them on random websites.

Since C&C is owned by EA and EA owns Origin... would they even allow Renegade X to be put on Steam?

That's probably for operating the bullet counter as well as the red dot sight that no one ever uses. lol

I was fooled by this up until the part where you said you stopped work on the multiplayer release. Then I remembered it was the beginning of April. lol.

These are less of a "gamemode" and more of a map design.. but they would play like their own modes. Assault: One team (Defender Team) has an established base with little or limited resources. There would be no power-defense structures (like the AGT or Ob) but there would be defensible points in the base as well as mountable turrets and stationary guns. The other team (Attacker Team) has no base but a large sum of starting credits and the ability to purchase units (to be flown in or otherwise created on the spot). The game has one main objective for each team. Attackers: Destroy the enemy base before the final timer expires, Defenders: Defend your base through all 3 waves of attack. During the match, there would be 3 checkpoints or "waves" in the game, each with their own timer attached. At each checkpoint, the attackers will be granted more credits to use (since they only have starting credits and otherwise no means of income). If the attackers can manage to destroy the defender's base before they finish their 3rd wave, they win. If they cannot, the defenders win. The team that attacks or defends will be decided on a per-map basis and will not be playable the other way around. --- Vehicle Deathmatch: This would take place on a large (long) map with only vehicle production capabilities per each team. Each team would be given a large sum of starting credits and a few light vehicle spawners as well as small defense structures to defend their spawn area. The object of the game is to destroy the enemy's vehicle production structure using only your limited funds and vehicle access. The reason I say it should take place on "long" maps is because it would have a much larger impact on gameplay if players needed to travel a distance to get to the enemy's base. The map should be a single path from one base to the other, without many means of deviation or alternate travel. This will force combat in at at least one point on the map and will then continue to be a tug-of-war struggle for the duration of the match. The kicker is that you have only a set amount of starting credits, so if you are wasteful with your vehicles, you will soon find yourself unable to purchase anything and be forced to use the free vehicle spawns (Buggies/Humm-vees). There would be no advanced infantry allowed in this mode. ALTERNATIVELY; Instead of a vehicle production structure, the objective could be to destroy some other (otherwise useless) structure, like a Conyard. In this case, all vehicles would be single-spawned on the map already in each base with a limited selection to choose from. Once they are destroyed, they do not come back. The only vehicles that would respawn would be buggies/humm-vees.

Field and Walls look incredible

What do you mean by it being a dumbed down version of Renegade's system? Renegade doesn't let you make custom classes. TBH, I think the class creation should be like the inventory mechanic in the Resident Evil games. You can use as much as you can fit into the box that you can. But in addition, they should make it that the more stuff you put in, the slower you move (or the faster you run out of sprint)

What do you mean by it being a dumbed down version of Renegade's system? Renegade doesn't let you make custom classes. TBH, I think the class creation should be like the inventory mechanic in the Resident Evil games. You can use as much as you can fit into the box that you can. But in addition, they should make it that the more stuff you put in, the slower you move (or the faster you run out of sprint)

There were definitely many a Renegade match that climbed to epic proportions. I especially loved any game that lasted over 2 hours... because you got to know your team in that time and were able to coordinate much better with each other. I remember being in games that were 4, 6, 8+ hours long! Now I can't say I ever really paid any attention at all to the ranking system. I just always play to win even to my last breath. But I can understand how a ranking system like this would benefit the overall metagame. It would be a nice touch to the gameplay.

Renegade X's goal is to recreate Renegade's multiplayer mode, not single player campaign. The campaign seen in Black Dawn is not a recreation of anything from the campaign in the original Renegade. Everything in Black Dawn was completely original and thought up by the dev team. The next Renegade X release is gonna be a multiplayer game. Black Dawn was just a stepping stone.

Apart from the AI controlled harvesters in multiplayer, will players be able to purchase and control their own harvesters to help their team earn money?

I agree, I always come up with either new things to say, feel like removing something I said, or just plain want to correct a mistake... and I'm never able to because of that. There really shouldn't be any restrictions on editing your own posts.

Will you guys have maps similar to Battlefield where there are different sized versions of the same map that cater to different numbers of players? For example a map that can easily hold 32vs32 players but also a version of the same map with condensed boundaries that is meant for smaller player counts or maybe even a different game mode?

The play area boundaries should have been shown on the map.

I did enjoy this very much. But I think that some people are being overly critical (such as that one guy in one of the earlier pages) on things that aren't really important or the point of the release. Renegade X is a multiplayer game and it always has been. Black Dawn is merely a stepping stone to help thrust the devs into the UDK while at the same time giving the fans something to do. That's why I don't really think its fair to criticize things that aren't necessary for the final product. For example, the voice acting. Of course it won't be on par with the acting done by professionals in other games because they aren't professional actors! They could have just had text instead of actual voice overs and it really wouldn't have made a difference in my opinion of the game itself. Now, don't take that as me being anti-critical of their work. I'm not trying to appease them for the sake of showing gratitude or anything. I'm merely only grading the work here that is required for the multiplayer release. If they intended to make a full fledged single player campaign out of Renegade X then I'd be much more critical about things in BD but since that isn't the case, there isn't any point in criticizing their work on things that aren't going to be seeing the light of day. It would just be a waste of my time, their time and the time of who ever reads my complaints. And yes, before anyone says "Well if they are going to do something, they should make sure to do it right!" I would agree with that. But the thing is, I think they did do it right. They put everything they had into it and it really does show. For a team of people who are making a multiplayer indy game, they managed to pull of a pretty decent little single player adventure. And that's more than anyone can really ask for.

Uggg, torrents are so slow..... Why do people always praise them for being more efficient? I could have had at least 40% downloaded by now. Torrent is only at 1.6%.. and it has been 10 minutes...

They should totally delay it by 1 day so we can get an extra 11th blog from Fobby!

Getting a 500 sniper, missing my intended target and accidentally killing a stealthed SBH by hitting him in the head instead. That has happened to me 3 times. Additionally, playing on an (in)famous server for years on end. This particular server hosted 4 vs all matches (which usually meant 4 vs 16-20). The team of 4 definitely had the overall win advantage in statistics by the way, and not a single one of them used cheats (I was occasionally playing on the team of 4 myself so I can verify that). Not saying that it is easy to win matches with 4 players vs 18, but it's amazing what things you can pull off in the game when you work so closely with each other.

You bring up a good point though. If McFarland is going to be the Tib Rifle guy, who is going to use the new rifle? Will it be shared by both teams?

Elaborate.