R315r4z0r

I think he is saying that he wants Nod to have Urban camo because the red made them look retarded.

What's the point of the restriction in the first place? The rule on the server you were playing on just sounds pointless. Why should you hold back attacks for a certain amount of time? This isn't an RTS, you aren't gaining anything in that period of time.. so what can possibly come out of that other than boring the players for 5 min?

Be that as it may, my suggestion still holds merit. Maybe the game can't automatically connect people together, but that doesn't mean that people can't be classified into classes depending on how they play.

Haven't you ever heard of quickplay or automatch? They have it in the RTS C&C games and a lot of other games out for PC, including FPS games, such as Crysis. Quickplay and automatch are just other words for Matchmaking.

I was at work today and was thinking about Renegade X. For some reason, the idea of match making crossed my mind while I was thinking about Renegade X. I thought that it would be cool to have some sort of match-making system in the game. I was using Halo as a reference when I was thinking of it. For those of you who haven't played Halo 2 or 3 on LIVE, then Matchmaking is how you set up your matches. As every player plays the game, their games get recorded and they are given a rank based on their skill level. Obviously the higher the number, the more skill the player has. They use matchmaking to match together groups of people within the same rank ranges to ensure that everyone has a fun experience playing with opponents of almost equal skill levels as you. You might be thinking "Well that's all find and dandy, but Renegade is a lot more complex than 'run-n-gun' Halo. In Halo, you just need skill in killing the other dudes, in Renegade there are dozens of skills that you can master and still fall victim to other players who know how to counter you." Or maybe "How will matching skill ranks ensure a 'perfect game?' I was thinking those same things. So I came to a conclusion that would definitely make online play more fun and addicting. Here is my idea: Instead of taking your general skill and lumping it into a single rank that dictates what other players you play with, why not rank what you, personally, are good at or tend to do. Let me clarify: If you play the game and 90% of the time you use a sniper rifle, then the game should read that and list you as a "Sniper" player. You would be given a skill rank based on how well you use the sniper. If you tend to gear towards tank combat, you would be listed as an "Armored Division" player. You would be given a skill rank based on how well you do in tank combat. These player classifications could swap out later down the line if you suddenly start rolling out tanks instead of using snipers or something similar. Now, with these player classifications in mind, we can move onto match making. The match making would search through all the players queued and only allow a certain amount of different types in a game. That way, you won't end up with games with 10 people using SBHs, 1 person with a tank and 4 with snipers. It would balance out the player classifications ensuring that each team has a balanced mix of everything. A mix of people who like doing what they do, but at the same time are different than what their teammates do. It might even ensure more team cooperation because people will know flat out what their team is good at doing. I just thought it would be cool and ensure that all games play out to their utmost ferocity and intensity.

Project NATAL for the 360. You could insert a drawing and Milo, the programmed AI character on the screen, can tell you what you drew, what colors you used, ect. I'm pretty sure, if enough effort was put in, spam bots will be able to do the same thing with a CAPTCHA image.

SUPER STACKERS! FIRST TO STACK 5 MAMMOTH TANKS AND DRIVE TO THE ENEMY BASE WITHOUT TIPPING WINS!

I can actually say I thought of the idea to harvester walk on my own in a skirmish game, before I got an internet connection. But when I started playing online, I was disappointed to see that someone else came up with the idea first.

Harvester walking is only deemed illegal by those who don't like to think and don't like to lose.

Is the harvester's AI going to be smarter? Not "lets find a new field" smarter, but rather, "smart enough to drive around obstacles and other vehicles" smarter?

I was wondering if you guys were ever going to update the media page? The one that describes all the units. You've gotten more done since the last time it was updated (such as the Light tank and Mammoth tank) so I was wondering if you could update that page?

Or just hit tipped-vehicles with another vehicle. *imagines tipped over med tank and humm-vee ramming into the side of it, trying to flip it upright, but destroying itself instead.*

QUOTE (Mighty BOB! @ Jun 2 2009, 01:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Rebutting some points here. 1. Very slightly reduce the transparency, or not at all. That's not what the problem is here. 2. Highlights, but no shadows. Digital displays don't leave shadows. Everything else: Use each team's secondary/inverted color behind their main color. For example, keep GDI's HUD gold, but give everything a dark blue neon-glow effect. That way the gold stands against it's dark inverse rather than the terrain itself. Same thing with Nod, keep their Hud red, just have give it a black neon-glow. Edit: Something like this: [attachment=392]

Lol, did you listen to the podcast at all? They specifically said how they hate it when people demand things of the team.. lol

Lol, if it was possible to say the word "misunderstanding" any more in a thread then we would definitely win a medal.

What you're asking doesn't make sense. The question contradicts itself and I don't know how to reply to it.. Well, for starters, you don't join a "clan" that sides with a faction, I was just using the term clan to give you a perspective. Clans would be an entirely different aspect of the game. But what I'm confused about is how do you join a game mode that is based off of being competitive and not want to be competitive? If you don't want to play competitively, then join a normal server. World domination mode isn't for you because it takes all the aspects of a regular non-competitive game and adds many intensely competitive aspects. By joining a normal server, the only think you'd be missing from a WDM match would be the competitive aspects, which according to what you said, you don't want in the first place. World domination mode exists for the players who want to compete. You can't join (or shouldn't, I should say) and not want to compete.. And besides, it isn't about competing against other players, it's about simulating a war fought in real time. You fight to survive against enemy invasions, not compete with other players. You're playing the role of a soldier in the war, not a competing in a sport. You're fighting to win because of a fear of losing rather than trying to be a better player than someone else.

QUOTE (b3h1ndu @ Aug 3 2009, 12:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, no. You misunderstand. You wouldn't have to coordinate anything. Just make a server (team) and hope for people to join. However, I came to a realization that would make this not work. I was only thinking about creating a server per team on each faction, but what happens when two opposing factions battle? A battle is held on a single server, not over two... so if two factions battled it out, where would it be hosted? I have a new idea. What if WDM was actually a coordinated clan war? Except the "clans" were the factions? It would be like ranked play vs unranked play. If you play in ranked mode, you contribute to your faction's war effort. If you play in unranked, you just play for fun.

Yes, exactly. Except that each server wouldn't play host to a specific map, but rather a specific group of people. In this case, each team in a faction would use it's own server.

I was thinking, much like people with different servers can create their own games online, why not, in World Domination Mode, people with different servers be able to create different teams? That way all the servers required don't have to be provided by the main host of the match. The host of WDM would have the server that coordinates the world map. Other servers from other people would join the game as teams. Doing it that way also reduces the risk involved when a server crashes.

Going back for a minute, to when you mentioned the sounds for the commands and EVA announcements... If someone 'happened' to have a custom set of audio files, would you guys consider using them if they were half-way decent?

No, nothing like that ever happened. If you use the repair gun on a structure, friendly or enemy, then you will heal it.

The main issue with that, however, is that there would be marginal difference between a world domination mode game and a normal game server.

The outlined units do have that cool, sleek feel to them.. and aesthetically, I really like them. But when it comes down to it, like said before, it gets in the way more than it helps. There are two main differences between the boxed indicators and the outlines. 1. The boxed indicator had a maximum size limit but shifted in size when it came to size and proximity of the target. When far away, a structure would seem to be fully highlighted. However, as you get closer, the indicator size would max out and you would only see a limited size box with a name of the structure. This happened for one main reason: you can enter structures. The indicator in Renegade had the target's health outlined as well, but it was attached to the indicator. The box size had to have a limit because if it didn't, the box would get larger than the screen when you got too close and/or entered the structure and the name and health bars wouldn't be visible anymore. In Renegade X, with the outline system, how do you suppose structures will be targeted from the inside? 2. The boxed indicator didn't give specifics when it came to unit location. If, for example, you're targeting an enemy unit with a sniper rifle, they duck behind a wall but you still have them selected. You would see a box outlining them and that's all. If they were to come back around the corner, you could try and time a shot, but you would be guessing where you where going to hit. With the outlines, you can see the person's body and can plan your shots before they come around the corner. It makes surprise headshots A LOT easier. Also, there is one other factor I want to mention: The indicators for units and C4s were different from the indicators for structures. When you target a unit or C4, the indicator would stay lit up for a good 5-8 seconds (assuming you don't move the camera too far away or you don't target anything else.) When it came to structures, however, they only stayed targeted when you were pointing directly at them. If you moved your reticule off the structure, the indicator would disappear rather than stay highlighted for a few more seconds.

Like you said, it might need multiple networks, but what if it was like this: One server simply manages the macro game (ie the world map). For example, it is responsible for telling which fights are in progress, which areas are player owned, ect. The way I had it designed is that it wouldn't have to be a constant "real-time" update, because games can take time to play out. The only time the server would update is when something happens. Like, when you win or lose a battle, the server would update the world map. When a new team is created, the server would update. When a contested map is taken, the server would update. There would be no need for any real-time updates because everything would happen in intervals, rather at a steady pace. Another server would manage the individual games (battles) going on. (Or as many servers as required.. or are available). Those servers would send the information to the world-map server and then that server would update. Perhaps world domination modes could be like official Renegade X tournaments. They would only happen every so often at the discretion of the dev team and it's server source. (As I see it, these games would take a very long time to play out. Waaaaay longer than the RTS versions. As for the ideas itself, what I was getting at with the personal player achievements (like unlocking authority to use certain vehicles) was that it would give a moral reason for players to play the game. Their progress has to mean something to them because if it doesn't then there would be no reflectional penalty to losing a match. Take a flashback to a match in Renegade. The map is field, you're on GDI. There are 15 players on each team. You've lost all your structures except the AGT and WF. Nod is pounding the WF with artilleries and you have like 6 engineers repairing it. That's when you start seeing the messages. "Just let it die!" "We can't win, I want to go to the next map!" "Stop repairing you noobs!" Then they start jumping in the way of the repair beams and pushing players out of the way. In the confusion, the WF loses health too quickly and you lose it. What I'm trying to get at with the personal player authorities was to make it so that a player would have a more emotional connection to the game. They would fear losing because their progress would be destroyed. People would start thinking "I've come this far and I'll be damned if you stop me now!" It gives the players more team spirit and a better competitive edge. The games would be more intense if there was something to actually lose from being defeated. About it being "newb friendly:" A simple amount of server side options would cater to that. A server would be able to decide what new teams are allowed to use right off the bat. I was only giving an example with the medium tank. Now, about the credits. Like I said, it needs further thought because of the unfair advantages and exploits it gives. One thing I was thinking of was that all of your credits would be stored in a personal fund after a match. These credits would only be spendable in the world map and that would be do purchase things like new team formations (because forming a team would be expensive to do).

One more thing I should add: "Neutral" maps, should be different versions of a map that don't have bases set up. There should just be an MCV in your factions default location instead. (Regardless of if the map contains a construction yard or not) New idea for neutral maps: When trying to control neutral territory, an enemy team can join in the game and engage in combat. However, because the territory is neutral and no bases are set up, it would be a free-infantry style death match. The same rules apply, you would have to control the center field, but you would first have to destroy the enemy MCV (which, in turn, stops the enemies from spawning and "destroys" that team.)