R315r4z0r

Instead of a cooldown, what about a charge up? The mechanics of the item would work the exact same way, except you have to wait for it to be ready before you can use it. This waiting period would be unique to you and would not impact your team. Basically, you spend money on an airstrike and that initiates a "charge up" period of a substantial amount... like 3-5 minutes. Maybe even more. Then, you simply go about your business, playing as normal. When the waiting period is over, you head back to a PT and claim your airstrike. The charge up timer persists through death. So if you initiate the timer, you can pick it up when it's ready even if you've died multiple times. However, after you claim the airstrike, if you die before using it, you lose it and have to buy a new one. Some damage balance would have to be made. This would allow airstrikes to be made more viable while simultaneously avoid being spammed. The only way to effectively spam them in this situation would be with team coordination... and isn't that the goal of the game?

Whenever I try to patch (install from scratch), I get stuck "pending" the download. After about 10 seconds, it says it failed because of "too many retries."

Throwback to original Renegade's balance aside... it is definitely important to have a class like the ramjet be able to counter light armor vehicles... I just wish it wasn't the ramjet that did this. Ramjets should demolish infantry as they do... but their damage vs light armor vehicles should be given to another class. Basically, split the Ramjet's effectiveness into two separate classes.

I'd like to see full defenses on this map as well. I think a lot of the potential enjoyment of this map is wasted on people camping for SBHs. With full defenses, they wouldn't be a problem any more until the tower dies. That would let people breathe a little easier and be allowed to stretch their strategies out a little more. Also, before anyone says anything, adding full defenses into the map would not make it play like Hourglass. Whiteout already has enough differences to make stalemates much harder. However, I'm not quite sold on the new infantry paths. Not that I think they are a bad idea, but because of where they are leading to. The GDI infantry path has more cover than the Nod path after entering the base. Infantry can use the WF and Ref as cover whereas Nod's base is wide-open because of the airstrip. Secondly, Nod's path puts infantry closer to the power plant while GDI's path puts infantry closer to the refinery. Thirdly, the WF has a back door, the airstrip does not. Basically, I think the path in GDI's base is more useful than the path in Nod's base. Especially since Nod already have SBHs.

I can't test this myself, but wouldn't that also remove the target painter for airstrikes? Or am I confusing that option with something else?

Sprinting isn't fine the way it is now. Because basically, you have so much of it that it becomes the standard movement speed. Even though you're performing an extra action (pressing the sprint button) the majority of your time is spent using sprint to get from point A to point B. Sprinting should be a quick burst of speed to get ahead just as you need to. It shouldn't be used constantly. And I agree completely with RypeL about vehicle sprint. That should be nerfed to hell. It should be renamed to "boosting" and only last a total of 2 seconds and have to recharge for 5 seconds. What's the point of having a base speed when everyone just constantly sprints? It's also a bad design choice because these maps aren't Battlefield maps. You're allowing players to move way too quickly around the map, and that changes up the gameplay a lot. Battlefield maps are excessively large, which is why the long sprints are beneficial. But here, you can get from your base to the enemy base in like 5 seconds. You don't need a lot of sprinting. Especially since it dramatically impacts the gunplay.

Can someone help me, please? I can't join any servers. Whenever I try to join a server from either the launcher or in-game server list, it goes to a loading screen and then just puts me back at the main menu. I've tried for 3 separate servers, all of which were not filled. I've even reinstalled the game.

I don't like the idea that Hotwires and Technicians have different weapons replaced than other infantry. What they should do, however, is break down all weapons into classes and apply "weapon class slots" to all characters. Then, allow the player to choose what weapons to replace, as long as the weapon is the same class of weapon. So, you'd have Primary Weapons, Secondary Weapons, Primary Explosives, Secondary Explosives and Items. -Primaries being all of the main weapons carried by all classes ranging from assault rifles to rocket launchers to repair guns. -Secondaries are all sidearm weapons such as pistols and SMGs. -Primary explosives are explosive devices such as timed and proximity C4 as well as grenades and other mines. -Secondary explosives are what I'd consider remote C4. I don't think anything (at least anything currently in game) should be able to replace this. -Items are things like beacons and airstrikes. Then, give each character specific weapon slots and allow the player to customize it how they see fit. Granted, 90% of the characters would have the same slots (1 Primary, 1 Secondary, 1 Primary Explosive and an Item slot. However, some classes would be different. Engineers, Hotwires and Technicians would have a second primary explosive slot as well as a secondary explosive slot. All that being said, I think some balance would need to be adjusted to make this viable, as it would insure that players constantly gravitate towards Hotwire/Techs. Perhaps remove a weapon slot from them? What if they couldn't use secondary weapons because of all their explosives? (just a random idea) Edit: another idea running from what I'm saying here: Perhaps introduce a new form of currency that's used to customize loadouts? You unlock a token to change one item, so you are then allowed to purchase a replacement.

tbh, I think infantry mobility should be looked at. Imo, sprinting lasts too long and recharges too quickly. There is also nothing to discourage rapid, random movement. If you sprint and then rapidly change directions left and right, you're character moves at a pace that's almost impossible to track. It's like how snipers in the original Renegade would vibrate back and forth... except worse. There should be a sort of "momentum" build up when sprinting, which makes changing directions while sprinting actually slower than it would be if you were moving at regular pace.

Mines are mechanical. Plus it would only introduce problems if emps could disable mines. At the moment, the way to disable mines is by using one of the lesser combatant classes (engineer units). So having a grenade that anyone could use would make infantry rushing way too over powered, since players would then be allowed to take more heavy-hitting infantry into the base and still be effective. It would also make SBHs like twice as lethal than they already are, since mines would no longer be an obstacle for them to overcome. At the moment, there is a tactic of taking a group of SBHs and taking turns taking damage from one mine at a time in order to break into a building. But with EMP grenades, that job becomes easier since now, they don't even need to take damage. Would be a very poor gameplay decision to make EMPs disable mines.

It's also ear rape.

I think it should disable SBH cloaks. It should also disable HUD functionality, especially the minimap. It should not disable buildings or mines though. I also think that the effects of an EMP grenade should not stack with another EMP grenade. If one grenade is used on a group of vehicles, any other EMP grenades used should not extend the time those vehicles remain disabled. So, basically, if a vehicle is already disabled, throwing another EMP grenade at it would be just a waste of the grenade. Also, there should be a lockout duration for disabled vehicles that makes them immune to another EMP grenade for a small amount of time after they recover. (You can probably use this to cover my last point as well). And, finally, you should not be able to EMP friendly, neutral or empty vehicles. (to prevent that immunity buff thing from being exploited).

There should be a melee weapon that you can only use when you're completely out of ammo. However, I think all the secondary weapons have had their ammo adjusted to be infinite, so I don't think a situation like this would ever come about. I might be mistaken though. If I am indeed mistaken, then the melee weapon (knife or whatever) should be about as powerful as a silenced pistol shot to the head with a much slower "rate of fire" (stab, retract, repeat).

Having the space to place it isn't really the issue. It's how easily that space is accessed by either team. Even though City is a large map, the center of the map is highly contested. You put a tech building in there and you basically just made winning the game easier... just control the field and you get the attacking advantage. That's not a good way to place tech buildings. If you wanted a tech building on City, a new area of the city would have to be opened up that the tech building would reside in. It would have to be a location in which players would not travel to if their intended destination was the enemy's base. You have to force the player to decide between attacking the enemy base or attacking/defending a tech building. You can't let players do both in one go... because it has adverse effects on the gameplay.

There are instances where you automatically voting yes would be an issue, like if you start a poll and the No option was to your favor. But, like stated above that's not completely common. That being said, it is still a possibility. I think it's better the way they have it just to avoid that uncommon voting situation.

I actually like these ideas. But the thing people neglect to consider when talking about tech buildings isn't the function of the building but the literal placement of the structure on the map. For example, on a map like field, the silo is placed right in the middle of the main battlefield. That means the team who controls the battlefield also controls the silo. It's fine to have powerful tech buildings, but they can't be placed in such a way that automatically gives benefit to the winning team. They need to be placed way off the beaten path so people have to go out of their way to capture and defend them. That causes the battles in the game to be spread out and creates new strategic objectives for each team to achieve besides destroying the enemy base. However, that being said, you absolutely cannot place a strong tech building right in the middle of the fray and expect it to have a positive effect on the gameplay. You also cannot place it in an easily defensible location, like behind one team's base. The further away you place it from the main area of action, the stronger you can make the building's usefulness. Because the further it is away, the longer it will take to reinforce. Therefore requiring teams to specifically send people out there to defend it.

One thing about SBHs vs mines is that it's easy to coordinate a damage-eating rotation for getting through a mined door. For example, you get a group of 4 SBHs, they each take turns taking damage from one mine. Blow up 4-6 mines and they have access to the building. Granted this can be done with any character, with SBHs it's kinda cheap since they can't be seen. I think there should be some sort of tweak with mines as well. On a side note, it would be cool to have a new type of weapon in the weapon list be a "Proximity Alarm." Basically, working the same way as a proximity mine but it sends off an alarm when an enemy gets within range of it... possibly even alerting to it's exact location. So, if you place the alarm in the barracks and an enemy walks near it, you'd get the message "Enemy has been detected in GDI's infantry barracks!" or something.

I agree with Jake. You can get the drop on enemies if they don't expect a friendly vehicle to have been stolen. That being said, it would be kinda cool to have the ability to enable a color scheme for it. Like, you take it back to your base and apply it to make your stolen vehicle look more identifiable. (The getting the drop on enemies thing also applies to friendlies too who think you're an enemy.)

Pressing Q on an enemy beacon should display it on your team's minimap.

That's the sort of tactic that should be coordinated with your team. Not something that should be possible by yourself.

That's the entire reason why it should remain in the game. You already have the ability to be invisible. If you want to stay invisible, you should be forced to play in a low profile. Getting healed should make you visible. If you want to get healed, take cover behind something first. Healing SBHs in the field is of a larger concern than team hampering. Also, to the people suggesting price changes... that's a bad idea. The issue with the classes goes beyond balance to the degree of enjoyment players get out of the game. If people don't enjoy playing as or against a character, then the issue has to be resolved by adjusting how the character works. Increasing the price is not only a lazy copout, but it doesn't actually fix anything. All it does is deter people away from playing the character, it doesn't actually fix it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Also, the cloak shimmering when getting healed was like that in Renegade as well. It's important because otherwise it would just look like someone randomly firing a repair gun. The SBH should need to be in cover to receive a heal efficiently without the enemy seeing.

Removing sprint is a bad idea for continuity sake. Having one class out of all of them unable to do a global ability is just confusing. They just need to make the stealth effect shimmer or disable completely when a SBH is sprinting. They also need to make it shimmer when a SBH takes damage or receives any heals. And finally they have to make them detectable at a slightly longer range.

They should just make it so that one player can't place a second beacon until the first one goes off or is disarmed. Or, they should make it that a single player can only have 1 active beacon at a time. So if they plant one beacon then buy another and place the second beacon, the first beacon should automatically disappear (along with the announcements that come with it.) The biggest issue I have with fake beacons/beacon spamming isn't the explosions or the screen shaking... it's the audio spam. I can't hear a damn thing with EVA is saying 20 things at one time.

"No" should be the default answer if you abstain from voting unless you choose "Yes." Also, you should need 2/3 of the players in the game to vote one way for it to pass, not 1/2.