R315r4z0r

Why should it be in the game at all? And I wouldn't call it laughable at all, it is literally impossible to hit headshots on a 40ft range target on full auto. Because you're not supposed to. Move in closer.

It was in the final game. It's sort of a euphoric feeling of accomplishment. No kill in Renegade is complete without a boink. It would be degrading to remove it. But it would be a nice touch to add different kill sound options.

Awww... you gotta leave some surprises.

I'd assume someone who contributes to the creation of the game by doing something for it besides throwing resources at it. Something like writing code or modeling assets. I wouldn't tread into those waters though. EA is being gracious enough letting them use their property, there is no need for us to risk screwing that up by trying to find loopholes.

Suicides are irrelevant. I look at my K/D because I want to. Not because I'm trying to compete with other people. It's just something I like to improve.

Tbh it really doesn't make much difference if he legitimately got the score or not... The leaderboards mean absolutely nothing in terms of defining a player. All they are good for is: 1. Listing players who have the most play time. 2. Checking your overall K/D ratio. 3. Referencing the team balance per player. When the game came out, I was in the top 10 for a few days. But then after I stopped playing as much due to work, my rank went down. So I just came to the conclusion that all it does is measure how much you play, not how well you play.

I'm saying nothing needs to be done about it. It doesn't take away from the game nor does it give it anything. There isn't much reason to have it but no much reason to take it away. I like it for it's visual effect and the occasional close range attack. It's not to add more skill. There is no skill in random pot shots. It's to give feedback to players who are trying to use a weapon at a range it's not meant for. At least that's how I'd describe it's implementation in a game like this. It's a more practical solution to having fixed bullet travel distances. Sure the bullets do abruptly disappear after a certain distance, but it's well beyond the effective range of the weapon in question. A lot of the time you can't tell if your shots are hitting the target at the edge of your range. So with recoil, if you're having a tough time keeping your aim fixed on your target, you most likely are out of their range so you should stop wasting your ammo.

Perhaps some verticality in the center? Like a couple buildings you could enter and go up a few floors to have vantage points out a couple windows. You could even have some buildings connected in their upper floors to give infantry a tertiary route between bases. It's a very compact map, so giving infantry more places to run and explore would make it seem less cramped in larger servers.

I don't get why so many people have problems with the ADS. It's completely worthless. I don't bother with it and I still kill people just as easily as I did in Renegade. It's so minor that I don't even notice it let alone have to compensate for it. While I don't think ADS should slow you down unless you're in a sniper scope, I don't think you need to ADS in the first place unless you like doing it because of how it looks.

I wouldn't be against an few options that players can choose (like different pitches of "Boink!") But the current sound needs to at least remain the default.

Only the prices of units are doubled. Weapons and items remain the same price.

Dude seriously? Gotta try this! Thanks for pointing that out. It only works in skirmish mode. Online has this function disabled.

You can very easily set up macros to change your name in game very frequently. In fact there is currently no limit or restrictions on name changing. It's very easy to just copy other player's names. This should be fixed in the next patch.

It's being worked on. The current system is only temporary.

Totem Arts doesn't own any license. This is an EA property that EA has given permission for Totem Arts to use provided they make no money off of it. Everything the devs do in terms of recruitment and development and publicity are purely because that's just how they like to do things, not because of some licensing agreement.

It's not the position of the turret, it's the opposite position of the camera. The turret just goes there regardless.

I completely, 100% disagree with what you just said. It would be skill-less if they could win the game by spamming airstrikes. If you have just basic infantry and a lot of credits, you can now at least break out of your base and do more stuff besides getting farmed by the enemy. It's not an "I win" button unless the enemy is retarded. One of the largest issues Renegade had with its game design is that there could be points in which the game would lull into a dull and boring chug of a game where the vast majority of things players could do were cut off or just unavailable. So all that was left was to just wait for the enemy to win... or quit and do something else. People are playing the game to have fun... not to stand around their base and watch the grass grow. Airstrikes let the losing team at least have some leeway to play around in the field. Plus it also gives the attacking team something to do besides farm free infantry. I don't know about you, but in classic Renegade, being on the winning team when the enemy had one building left was incredibly boring because the enemy could do nothing to stop you. So, people always opted to farm kills and it completely destroyed all essence of teamwork. With airstrikes, there is now a strong form of resistance from losing teams that makes it more exciting for attackers. I was on a match of lakeside the other day that would have been a snore-fest since the enemy just had their refinery left... but because they kept using airstrikes to fight back it was actually much more fun and exciting trying to destroy that building.

Plus, we don't know how they coded the game mode. GDI stuff might be hard coded as GDI stuff and always an enemy to Nod stuff... so it may not necessarily be just the flick of a switch allows you to attack another GDI team. I have no idea what I'm talking about here. I like the idea of having this sort of option. I'm just unsure of how easy it would be to implement.

As much as I like the thought of the implications of teamwork a team-lockout would bring... it wouldn't really work unless in the rare ideal situation where everyone on your team isn't a noob or a douche. People would just use the airstrike to purposely hamper their own team. And this would be unavoidable. No team lockouts should be implemented at all.

10 minutes is a long time. And there will never be a large enough point lead, at that point in a match, that would warrant that. It's just an impossibility. I mean unless the losing team is planting beacons and letting the winning team disarm them for the points, there would never be a lead like that. If someone is doing that... then you have other problems to worry about besides winning/losing the match. If a team was losing that badly it would because their own base is about to be physically destroyed so the remaining 10 minutes would be irrelevant. Game over by base destruction, not time limit.

Winning/losing should not be about the number of buildings you have remaining. That's totally unfair and unbalanced plus it completely guts a large portion of the game out. The points system is also a moral system. Just because you're losing your buildings, doesn't automatically mean you lose. If there was no points system, the match would just be thrown by the losing team once they lose 2 or 3 structures since there would be "no reason" in trying to fight back. People might even quit matches because they lose interest due to there being nothing that can be done. People would be like "Oh great, we lost 2 buildings... now we are going to get farmed for 15 minutes. No thanks, I'm out." then they'd leave. Points give incentive for people to keep playing even down the the last 5% HP of the last building remaining. Removing them destroys the integrity of the game.

This might be a biiiiit over complicating this but I had a random thought about airstrikes today that I'd like to share. Agree/disagree as you wish. It was just a random thought I had. I also think that this suggestion could play a roll in a lot of other aspects of the game as well, but I'll leave that up to your imagination. Basically, instead of using binoculars or smoke or any sort of targeting device, the user wouldn't actually have to go to the field at all. Now, before you start saying "WTF?!" hear me out. I think that airstrikes should be bought, targeted and used from a purchase terminal. In the PT, you'd link into the airstrike interface and it would pull up an over-view of the map. This over-view would only show exactly the same thing that is displayed on your minimap, except it would show all of the map and not just the immediate area. Meaning even enemies will not be displayed on this unless your team is properly spotting them. Additionally, the map could have an overlay feature that could highlight certain portions of the map in red as "no fly zones" where you wouldn't be able to deploy airstrikes. No fly zones would usually be radii around anti-air defense structures and active super weapon beacons (friendly and enemy alike). These "no fly zones" wouldn't just apply to the target areas of the airstrikes, they would also apply to the flight paths of the airstrikes as well. So you couldn't have a GDI airstrike in the middle of the field fly over a Nod SAM site even if the target zone is well away from the SAM site itself. Also, you could play around with the idea that the airstrike could cost more money the further away it is from the base, but I'm not really too keen on that idea myself... but I still wanted to share it anyway. Some sort of "Target Zone" indicator should be created however. Whether it be smoke or w/e, just as long as there is an indication as to where the strike is going. What's good about this idea: -Introduction of a over-view map that I've seen a few people ask about. It wouldn't be over powered since you'd have to be at a PT to use it. -Effectively placing an airstrike requires teamwork since your team would have to actively spot the targets you want to bomb (you obviously can't see enemies while you're in a purchase terminal). -Requiring a "link up" mechanic in the PT can easily be worked into having cooldowns and lockouts that are visually easy to read and notice. -"No fly zone" mechanic addresses a lot of the complaints people have about airstrikes in bases or on beacons. It also doesn't allow the placement of an airstrike in a visually identifiable location, so no "airstrike shot down" animations will need to be made since you'd either be allowed to place it or you wont be allowed to place it.

I haven't seen much airstrike spam, but the times I do see it, they merely slow the enemy advance and not stop it completely. The person using the strikes would probably have been more effective just buying a vehicle or something. Like I said in the earlier days of the game being released when everyone was up in arms about them, it just takes getting used to. People are no longer getting bombed out of nowhere unless they tunnel vision themselves or have nowhere to run to. People are learning to play the angles a bit better. Attacking from spots the enemy can't get a good line of sight on them. While I do think their price should be increased, I also think that people are learning to adapt to them more and thus making them overall less effective.

While I do think it's a bit biased to Nod, I do enjoy the map. It would be better if GDI had a more reliable means of getting into Nod's base. Nod can just stroll up to the barracks if are no mines. GDI needs to do some LOSing of the Obelisk.. and that can be finicky in a server... especially if there are Nod players defending.

It's one of the reason I don't play on that server. I don't like how the price isn't reflected in the PT. It's not specifically about airstrikes (since I honestly don't use them that much) I just don't like my money disappearing without my consent. Plus I don't know what else is modified. I'm not a big fan of modified servers.