R315r4z0r

But you see I think that's how it's supposed to be. They are taking the time and effort to actually defend the silo. You're supposed to have a hard time trying to take it if they are purposely defending it.

There needs to be a better stealth reveal system. The brightness of the stealth effect blends in with the brightness of a lot of maps. Walls and Whiteout are two examples of maps where it's almost impossible to see a stealth unit standing right in front of you just because the stealth effect just blends in so well with the environment. Oh Whiteout in particular, I see stealth tanks crushing infantry INSIDE GDI's base on a constant basis... because no one can see them when they enter the main entrance. Even if you're specifically looking for them. When you land a shot on a unit that is stealth, there needs to be a bright and visible flash to show their position to other people. Atm, you just get a hitmarker and that only helps you... your team just thinks you're shooting at nothing.

The best way to encourage teamplay is to have visual feedback for achieving stuff. At the moment, it's a bit overwhelming for new players who are just tossed into a game and are expected to get to work. But if they see flashes of achievements for "Player just repaired a building for 1000HP!" or "Player just destroyed 3 enemy tanks!" then new players can at least get a basic idea of what they can do. Also maybe even an objective marker system that can be used by specific players who earn the ability to use them.... but I'm getting ahead of myself here. Point is players won't learn to play the game if they don't actually have to play it properly.

Complaining to troll.

5 minutes of gameplay... not sure if trolling but... Nod now uses a male voice, CABAL, to be specific. So... of course it's deeper lol. This is to contrast GDI's female EVA. In the original Renegade, both factions used female voices... but Nod's was just a different pitch deeper. Here it's easier to tell them apart. As for prices... no they haven't. All of the units cost exactly the same amount as what they did in the original Renegade. The only prices that are different are for the things that weren't in the original game, so... they aren't actually "different" just "new to the game."

IMO, think that the thing the tech building is improving should be visually augmented on the HUD to show it's being buffed. Owning a silo, for example, would make your credits at the bottom of your HUD be a different color (green?) and possibly have a small +1 or something next to them to indicate you're getting more.

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not suggesting aircraft be countered by snipers. I've said that a bunch of times in this thread, but you keep making it sound like I think they should be the go-to class for fighting aircraft. Sure, they should be the go-to class for fighting aircraft... just as much as the chem trooper is the go-to class for infiltrating and destroying a GDI structure. You bring up other light armor vehicles, but my 7 damage to them should apply there as well. That does not give them free reign over light armor and infantry. Snipers are already good vs infantry. But even if they only did 7 damage to light armor, that doesn't make them god. And That 7 damage is for ramjets, not 500s. So not only is it a mere 7 damage, it's 7 damage that requires you to spend 1,000 credits on and makes you a top target on the enemy team's hit-list. Yeah... because the enemy team has nothing better to do than use valuable manpower to spam 1,000 credit sniper classes to fight off light armor vehicles. Alright, so lets say they do that. Well, ok, now the only logical thing for the enemy team to do is 1, stop producing light armor and 2, rush their base with heavy armor vehicles. So not only would the snipers be completely useless, but so many people wasted 1000 credits on them who may be reluctant to change to a better counter... if they can afford one. For every player doing one task, that's one less player available to help do something else. Even for something that same class can accomplish. If they are focused on aircraft, an infantry unit can get by. So if everyone is sniping, then that's a big gaping hole in their defense network. Also, let's just put this into perspective here. Assuming my 4.67% (4-5%) damage to 150HP light armor vehicles where the ramjet does 7 damage, that means it takes 22 shots from ramjet fire to down a light armor vehicle with 150HP. With that in mind, using a single Renegade X ramjet, it would take 57 seconds to fire off 22 rounds. If you had two ramjets with the same line of site and start firing at the same time, it would take 28 seconds to fire off 22 rounds between them. If you had three ramjets, it would take 19 seconds. If you had four, it would take 14 seconds. If you had five, it would take 11 seconds. Even at 11 seconds, that is still plenty of time for the pilot to find cover and repair. And if 5 enemy ramjets are crowded together like that, I can only imagine the impact that has on their team's defenses. You can get a single airstrike to take care of them if you wanted. But also, remember, this is 1,000 credit ramjets. 5,000 credits between them to fire 22 rounds into a single aircraft to kill it in 11 seconds assuming the pilot is a moron and all of the sniper shots hit their mark each and every time... seems to be a pretty obscure counter method to me. And that is also assuming all of the snipers in question have enough ammo to fire that many rounds without having to stop and refill. Now, just in case you're wondering... it takes 1:13 minutes for a 500 sniper to completely go through all 36 of it's rounds. I originally said it would take 43 rounds from a 500 sniper to take out a 150HP aircraft doing 3.5 damage per shot. So attacking by themselves, they'd actually have to go back and refill to continue their aircraft sniping. Even with aid from other sniper classes, 500/ramjet combined, it wouldn't be as quick as my above calculation with just ramjets. The only way for sniping an aircraft to be 'somewhat' useful is if they are backed up by AA fire. But... in which case, the aircraft would want to avoid the base anyway if they are taking fire from an AA unit.

A HUD update for tech buildings is being worked on. Also, you don't need to get close to the silo to check it. Afaik, there are 3 ways to check if you have the silo. 1. Target it with a weapon. Repair guns and C4 have infinite target range, so you can equip one of them and be able to target the silo to check if it's yours or not even if you're completely on the opposite side of the map. 2. Check the weapons tab. Tiberium weapons means you own a silo. 3. Watch your credits. If they go up by more than 2 credits/second then you own a silo.

Enough that you can see an impact on their health bar. I'd suggest approximately 4-5% per shot for a ramjet. So, if they have 150hp, then a single shot would do about 7 damage. 3.5ish for the 500 sniper. Am aircraft taking damage at 4-5% per shot would be able to take 21 rounds from ramjet fire before dying, granted it doesn't find cover or manages to get repaired. It would also be able to take 42 rounds from 500 sniper rifle fire. No, I did not. You missed my point, but it was my fault since I didn't specify what I meant. My point is that snipers are already a popular class that people play anyway. Being that they are already scattered on the field in numbers and because of their long range, they are already statistically in a perfect position to contribute to the counterbalance of aircraft spam. But they should by no means should be THE aircraft counter. In fact, I use the term "counter" extremely lightly here. They should be as much of a counter as an MRLS is a counter to a SBH. Yes you can counter aircraft with other weapons, and that is exactly why I'm suggesting sniper damage to aircraft be reduced. But the thing with those counters is that they are specialized to be extra effective to aircraft (bar the PIC/railgun and automatic gunfire). Aircraft would be the only unique case of vehicle where there is a large gap between effective counters and ineffective counters. All vehicles have this gap, but aircraft would have the largest. Snipers are compensation for this larger gap and allow aircraft to fall in line with the other vehicles. For example, you see an enemy tank coming but you can use a very large variety of weapons to counter it. Pretty much any vehicle you can buy or most weapons you can equip can be used to combat an enemy tank in one way or another. But when it comes to aircraft, you'd have to rely on only weapons that can lock on and track targets at long distances... and such weapons aren't commonly used for other tasks. Meaning, most of the time if you wanted to counter enemy aircraft, you'd need to stop what you're doing to specifically buy a counter for it as opposed to being able to fight it with what you are already using. Basically, it breaks the flow of the game just to add a layer of gameplay that isn't really all that necessary. If someone wants to sit in their base as a rocket trooper, they should be a super large help to keep enemy aircraft at bay. But that shouldn't be the only way to fight aircraft.

I had another suggestion once regarding voting. -A map needs to have at least 3 votes for it to be considered. If all maps only have 2 votes, the next map would be selected randomly or by rotation. -Maps that were recently played would be given negative votes by default. So the map that was just played would start with -2 votes. The last map would start with -1 votes and everything else would start with 0 votes. That way, 5 people would need to vote for the map they just played just for it to be considered... and that's not even taking the other votes into consideration.

I think they should damage them because I think everything should be able to damage everything else. Snipers shouldn't be the go-to anti-air class but they also shouldn't be ineffective vs them. You could use an autorifle to destroy an artillery if you wanted. It's not the most ideal weapon to use, but it can be done. I never suggested snipers should do a lot of damage to aircraft, but they should do some. But also, one of the reasons why I suggest aircraft do a lot of damage is because of how fragile they are with them having so many weaknesses that enemies can exploit. The larger the risk in piloting one, the better the returns you should get for a successful strike. Besides, not being able to snipe helicopters would make them overpowered. Even if you completely nerf their weapon damage, they can still swarm the enemy base and drop troops and cause confusion.

It should give a pick of 2 or 3 maps at random that people can vote. And never the one you just played on.

There isn't any stealth reveal effect in the game right now. Other than getting a hitmarker, if you hit a cloaked unit it stays stealth and other people on your team just think you're shooting at nothing. Revealed units need to flash visibly. Enough to be visible on maps like walls and whiteout, which are the worst maps for trying to see stealth.

It was happening a lot yesterday when I was playing on Goldrush. I saw it happen 3 times. And it was the autopilot driving the vehicle out, not the player. Also, I noticed one of GDI's "parking" positions after leaving the WF is right in front of the garage door. This needs to be removed since it blocks the next vehicle trying to get out.

I thought it did show up as green? Or maybe I'm just not recalling properly. It definitely should if it doesn't already.

Hit detection is still client side. If you hit the target on your end, give it a sec for the server to compute it. It will look like you missed, but a half second later your target is dead (assuming bad latency, of course)

I wouldn't mind if sniper damage vs aircraft was nerfed. I still think they should do damage to them, but not 2/5HP per shot. Rocket Troopers are now a very good AA unit. In fact, I'd even suggest making their damage vs aircraft even higher (if it's possible to increase that independantly vs light armored ground units). But either way, attack aircraft are supposed to be glass cannons. They are supposed to be able to do a stupid ton of damage but be killed very easily. Also I think the orca should be the better attack helicopter vs the apache. Sort of like the difference between the MBTs (medium tank vs light tank.) Orca should be maneuverable and powerful. Specializing in burst damage (missiles). I think it needs a bigger payload, longer range and a decent lockon rate. The light machine gun could use a nerf to keep it balanced. Apache should be less maneuverable but more accurate. Specializing in slow constant damage (heavy machine gun). It needs a smaller payload of missiles, poor missile tracking, but it's machine gun ammo should be increased and it needs a better firing angle (it should be able to shoot directly below itself unlike the orca).

The silo is teamed when it is under control. All you need to do is point your weapon at it and it will show up as either GDI, Nod or Neutral. To make it even more simple: -If it's green, your team owns it. -If it's red, the enemy owns it. -If it's grey, it's neutral.

The rate of which vehicles spawn out of the WF/AS needs to be reduced. This is especially true for GDI but do it for Nod too just to keep it balanced. The problem is that I'm frequently seeing vehicles just purchased out of the WF get destroyed instantly because the next vehicle was created before the first vehicle cleared the spawn zone. This is especially true for Mammoth tanks, now more than ever. People keep buying mammoths that are destroyed 3 seconds after creation because the next vehicle in the queue spawned. Please reduce the vehicle spawn rate by 2-3 seconds. Also, please slightly reduce the kill zone size for when vehicles are created.

The thing with flame tanks is that they are very short range units. The majority of units in this game, including the anti-vehicle ones (tanks and infantry included) all have a pretty decent range on them. Well outside of the flame tank's range. This makes the flame tank a very situational unit and the majority of the time it's just worthless. Flame tanks are awesome on maps like goldrush with narrow vehicle passages. They can close gaps pretty easily there. But on open maps like Field, forget about it. I think because of this situational effectiveness, it's intended to be a good vs all vehicle, but only if it gets close. IMO, I think the flamers are fine as they are. But I think the Mammoth's got nerfed a little too much. I don't mind their speed nerf as much as I mind their turn rate nerf. I find it stupidly hard to get out of the way of things now. Like if someone is trying to drive around me, I can't move out of the way.

I kinda like the setup they have now. But I do think they should nerf the distance you can see the spy's nametag. You should have to be in SBH seeing range to see the red nametag on the spy. Otherwise they just look like a normal player on your team. I think it gives it a strategic feel to it since you can try to maneuver your spy in such a way that you just don't get too close to the enemy players. I wouldn't be against them making the spy a SBH, but the only reason I'd oppose it is because I just think it's stupid that GDI is using Nod stealth tech. Granted it is possible for GDI to get a SBH spy currently, so I guess it's sort of a moot point.

Orca is pretty weak atm. They really need to buff it up a lot. I think it's missile RoF needs an upgrade as well as a range boost. Apache needs a little range nerf for it's missiles.

Renegade has to first and foremost be completely contained within each round. So people should not be able to unlock special upgrades because they play longer or do more things than other players. The only rewards that I'd support being awarded to players that stay with them across all servers and matches would be things like titles, medals, skins, etc. Basically anything that isn't a direct stat upgrade but is still visible on you and can be seen by other players. If an unlock system were to be made where people would be able to upgrade repair rates and things, it would have to be contained within a single round. So in that one round, repairing X amount of HP would earn you a repair upgrade. But once the round ends and the next one starts, everyone would be back to square one. I'm not suggesting they do that. I don't think they should. I'm just pointing out that is the only way I'd remotely support an upgrade system in this game.

Bringing this back on topic... I was just on a server for a few hours on a team that lost consistently for 5 maps because of one reason: too many people were defending. No one wanted to leave the base, so Nod kept cornering us and whoring all our buildings. We had a good defense, but keep the attack up long enough eventually something falls. So, I really don't think the "people aren't defending!" notion is warranted. It was probably just an unfortunate group of players.

While I'm totally against a progression system where you unlock new gear and equipment, I'd totally support a global progression system that unlocked special titles and skins. Like, if you heal friendly vehicles for over 25,000HP, you should get a special medal or title that displays on your character that you can choose/toggle. It would be a good way to give a little incentive to play competitively plus it's also a good identifier for people with good reputations as team players.