R315r4z0r

Yeah, I reported this yesterday actually. viewtopic.php?f=127&t=73167

Like they have said both sniper weapons are hitscan. They are instant hit. There is not bullet travel time. The only sniper unit that has a bullet velocity is the free marksman unit. But he isn't really a sniper, per say.

It would be nice to have a built in bug reporting system. Also a system that, after the game crashes, it asks the user if they would like to submit the crashdump for examination. As far as internal testing goes, I think the most efficient way to do it is have it sort of like a pseudo public test. Basically, you would recruit testers for each and every build and they would only be testers for that specific build. If they wanted to continue testing in the next build, then they would have to re-apply. Doing it like that means that the people who are actually interested in testing the game will continue to test the game, but the ones who are just trying to get in to see how it looks will filter away. Plus the system of having to apply to test would be the thing that tells users "this is a test and we need your feedback" rather than "this is our demo, please enjoy."

I think it be more appropriate to have a more individual touch to them. Instead of their literal colors changing, they'd have painted markings on them to signify they are now enemy owned. Like the GDI logo would be crossed out and there would be red stripes or something along the vehicle if Nod stole it.

Against Renegade or not, it evens the playing field for other classes. If a sniper had to zoom to actually land a shot, they could be countered more easily by other infantry and therefore make other infantry more common... instead of each team full of engineers and snipers. I'm not suggesting anything be done to the reticle. I'm merely pointing out that if the devs don't want no-scoping to be as prominent as it was in the original the only way to do that is with a hip-fire spread. But if they aren't going to do that, keeping the current reticle does nothing to discourage it... so they'd be better off returning it to normal.

I kinda like the way it is now, but it's redundant since the sniper is dead accurate anyway. Just put a dot in the middle of your screen and boom, problem solved. IMO, if you're going to try and limit the ability to no-scope with the sniper, it needs to have a hip-fire spread that makes it almost impossible to hit any distant target without a scope. If you're not going to do that, then I'd suggest putting back the regular reticle.

Yes, what Error said. The way that specific detail works is that models have a high poly version and a low poly version. If your Mesh LOD is set to anything but the minimum, when a character is up close you will see it's higher poly version and it will look nicer. But as a character gets further away and you can't really make out the details, there isn't much point in it displaying them... which is why it degrades to a low poly version to help performance. The Mesh LOD is basically the distance away from you that the switch from high poly to low poly happens. Having it at it's lowest setting will make it so the high poly version never appears while putting it to the highest setting will keep the highest level of detail on characters for a large distance before they degrade to low poly.

GDI can always purchase an orca if their WF is up on any map. Even though the PT says the vehicle is disabled, you just need to press the number hotkey (8) and it will queue like normal. I was flying an orca around on Islands and everyone was like "Wtf?" and accusing me of cheating.

I misspoke. I didn't mean to imply that the tunnels were easy to defend. At least not now anyway. For a tunnel like on Field or Islands with multiple ins and outs, enemies can come from all over the place to flank you. What I was getting at is that they are cramped narrow areas that don't give much room for maneuverability or cover. Not only that, but they are large; so large that trying to defend the whole tunnel network is almost an impossibility especially if you're on your own. But, if you put a static point in the middle of a tunnel that would need to be defended, that narrows down the area you have to defend from the whole tunnel to just that one fixed point. It would be all too easy to do it since enemies have to come from specific directions. Plus, a few proximity mines (if you can expend them) would go a long way into making it that much harder for the enemy to debunk your location. I can see the idea of having the tech buildings in tunnels working very well on a map like Complex, since there are a lot of extra rooms in the tunnels that really weren't necessary to travel through if you wanted to get from point A to point B. So putting a tech building in one of those rooms would be very healthy for the gameplay. But for a map like Field or Islands, getting from one point in the tunnel to the other always requires you to pass by the center of the tunnel. Meaning, if there was a fixed defensible location in those tunnels, it would be right smack in the middle of the travel route between both bases and not an optional route a player might take if they were specifically looking to capture the tech building. Defending a whole tunnel is hard, especially if there really isn't a reason to do so. But if you make a fixed spot that has to be defended, it would be very easy to do that. So, let me just be clear here. I don't think putting tech buildings in tunnels is a bad idea. I'm speaking more about how and where they are places that is the issue. I don't think Field should have a silo. Not in the field nor in the tunnel. Because there just isn't any spot to put it that doesn't give a bias to the team in control. Tech buildings are supposed to be optional control points to make the battle less focused and more spread out. Putting them smack in the middle of hotspots does nothing but hurt the gameplay.

1. I had a similar idea about a scaling vehicle limit once. However the limit isn't just for performance reasons, it's for clutter reasons. You can play with dozens of other infantry, but it's hard to move around when there are vehicles everywhere. I think that a vehicle limit scaling system should also take into consideration the map and how many vehicles it can support. But either way, there needs to be a maximum amount of vehicles allowed. I agree with SFjake, it should be no more than 14. 2. I agree that using airstrikes as an offensive weapon is kinda lame, but I'm going to be completely honest... I've seen this happen maybe once or twice since the game launched (airstrikes covering beacons I mean). While I think there should be precautions to prevent airstrikes covering a beacon, it isn't really a common tactic. Now, while I fully support the idea of a player lockout between using airstrikes, I am completely against any sort of team lockout. The actions of one player on a team should not force the options of everyone else on that team, ever. So if someone uses an airstrike, I should not have to suffer a lockout because of it. This is also important since who knows who used the airstrike? Did they use it right? Or maybe they just wasted it on purpose to hamper their team? Either way, team lockouts are a bad idea. I think that when it comes to bases, airstrikes need to follow two rules. One, they cannot be deployed in your base at all. Two, all maps should have AA defenses regardless of if flying vehicles are enabled or not. If an AA defense is active, airstrikes should be unable to be deployed in the enemy's base. Alternatively, if airstrikes really are a problem, which I really don't believe they are, they can change the deployment method to forcing the player who is calling in the strike to have to hold the laser for the entire duration of the airstrike. If they die, then the airstrike stops. 3. Agreed. 4. Someone else brought this issue up once before, but you're both mistaken on it. The introductions of tech buildings do not give advantages to the winning team controlling the field because the tech building exists. This is not an inherent issue with tech buildings. It's actually an issue with map design. For example, on a map like Field, the tech building is badly placed because Field only has one control route between each base. So, once one team takes control of the field, they will of course take control of the tech building. This is not the tech buildings fault, it's the placement of the tech building that is the issue. Look at other maps as an example: Lakeside, Whiteout, Mesa. Each of these maps feature tech buildings that don't automatically fall under enemy control merely because the enemy controls the field. This is because the maps feature the tech buildings in locations that are separate from the route needed to get to the enemy base. There are more ways for you to get to the enemy base and you aren't required to use the one that contains a tech building... and if you do, then you leave yourself exposed on the sides of the map that don't have the tech building. On these maps you need to either commit to taking them or commit to attacking the enemy, it isn't one in the same thing like it is on Field. The problem with putting them into tunnels is that it magnifies the issue you point out about the controlling team having control of the tech building. Tunnels are narrow passage ways that are easily defensible. This makes it so that the controlling team will always control the tech building. This makes it even more unfair to the losing team, contrary to what your intentions are. I don't think there are any issues with tech buildings as they are. There are issues with the placement of them on some maps though. Field is one case that needs to be looked at.

The game is advanced in more departments than just graphics. Even if you had a better graphics card, if your computer is as old as you make it out to be then it's processor and RAM probably wouldn't be able to cut it either. I play the game on max settings and it runs just as smooth as the original Renegade did... and I don't even have a super high-end computer. You need to put in the leg work if you want to meet the requirements to play the game. The game already can scale pretty low graphics wise, so if you still can't meet the requirements, I highly recommend upgrading your system. Not just to play this game, but just to do more things in general. How you're able to get by doing things on a decade old computer is a mystery to me. But you don't even need to buy a super expensive upgrade to get this game to work.

Airstrikes are in the game to keep it moving and make sure it doesn't break into a stalemate camp fest by one team. I've seen more tug of war matches in Renegade X where each team would take turns having control of the field because the controlling team stops in front of the enemy base just to get beat up by airstrikes. It gives it more action since not only do you need to plan to take the field, but you need to plan ahead on how to assault the enemy base once you have it. You can't take the field and then figure out how hit the enemy later because by then they might be able to push you back. Not only that, but the damage airstrikes do now is completely nerfed from what it used to be. I launched Nod's airstrike directly on an enemy Mammoth tank that didn't move for the entire duration of the attack. The airstrike only did 25% damage to it. The only thing I think should be looked into is being able to launch airstrikes in either base. I think airstrikes should be disabled within your own base and that all enemy bases should have AA towers that stop airstrikes from happening in the base until they are destroyed.

That's just part of the game. If a team doesn't want to lose, they need to defend. If they don't defend then they lose. They can't make the game easier just because people don't want to properly play their role. They lose enough games then eventually people will take a hint.

They need to make a sorting column that has the version of the game that's running on the server.

I was just on a server for a good while. Played about 5 matches or so and the server was full most of the time. It was a marathon server. I crashed after we played Whiteout. Of all the times that I crash, it happens after Whiteout like 80% of the time. Unfortunately, it crashed before I had a chance to start recording with fraps.

Both teams have rocket infantry in the first tier of their advanced infantry classes. For free classes, both teams have shotgun infantry. GDI has a grenadier but Nod instead has a flamethrower.

Details of how everything looks. If it's low, people and objects will have very little detail on them to keep performance up. If it's high, details will be more pronounced and sculpted with an impact on performance.

Yeah, I'm going to try and start to fraps the last few moments of a match when I can help it. Actually, it's more strict for private testers. All private testers are required to have steam authentication for security reasons. So when the game launched publicly, that requirement was actually lifted.

You have a limited number of vehicles and you're paying extra for the privilege to drive one and use its infinite ammo. Infantry on the other hand are different and it changes the gameplay up quite a bit. So saying infantry should have infinite ammo because vehicles have infinite ammo is an irrelevant argument. That's like saying cars should fly because planes can fly. If infantry had infinite ammo, maps with infantry chokepoints would become much, much easier to defend. Making it that much easier to box the enemy into a corner leaving them no outs for a comeback. And I'm not just talking about a competitive comeback if they hope to win the game. I mean just giving the team something to do. When you're pushed into a corner as a defender, the game is boring. Almost to the point where people will leave the game not because they don't want to lose, but because they could be having more fun doing something else... like painting their house lol. Basically most of the maps aren't designed to accommodate for infantry with infinite ammo. And it really isn't worth the time to adjust them. Plus I think infinite ammo removes a lot of tactical elements from the game.

They will release patch notes when the patch is available.

I don't think the movies should play if you're loading a server from the launcher. I've lost so much time in the early game of a match because I crashed and had to watch the load-in movies before I got back into the server. They should at least be skippable, imo.

I've honestly never heard of any of those. Don't confuse "origina gamel" with "modified servers." The original game only had two crates: 100 credits and refill.

I'm not trolling you. I'm saying you're using what might be a 30ft range weapon on a target at 40ft. The spread makes it hard for you to hit stuff outside of the intended range. Move closer and the spread will suddenly not matter anymore. Like I said a few posts back, there is the physical range of a weapon where the bullet will just abruptly disappear. But there is, more importantly, the effective range of the weapon, which is how far away you can effectively hit your target. It's a more practical way to balance weapon ranges.

I think it's the very core reason how the game is meant to be played. We've been fighting GDI vs Nod for over a decade now. Imagine having to go GDI vs GDI on a map like Islands? How would that play out? What strategies would be effective? It's a very good way to diversify the game and give a nice refreshing change on all of the maps.