R315r4z0r

I haven't read a single post in this thread... so if I'm repeating something already said, just ignore me. I just wanted to chime my opinion on earning points in general... so if this isn't on topic it's because it's not meant to be lol. I personally think that defenders get way too many points. It's way too common in this game for "losing" teams to win because of the defensive points they earned. This is stupid. In the original Renegade it was amazing fun to pull together a great defense to win by points in the end. Here.. it's just a run of the mill game. It's not fun, it's just boring. Defenders get points for repairing structures, killing enemy rushes and disarming enemy C4 and beacons. That should, at most, even out the score with the attackers. Under no circumstance should it give them a points lead. From what people have been telling me, in the original Renegade, repairs to a structure gave half the points the attacker got for doing the damage. So for every 100 points of damage the attacker gets, the defending team can get 50 points. In Renegade X, I've been told that defenders now get 2/3s the points the attacker gets for doing the damage. So for every 100 points of damage the attacker gets, the defending team can get 66.67 points. If this is true, I highly disagree with it. Airstrikes are in the game to prevent point whoring. So defenders don't need to be given a points buff to keep up with the attackers. While I do think that the points gained by using an airstrike need to be reduced significantly. I'm talking about like you get 1 point for every enemy that is hit. That's it. You need to realize that you're stopping the enemy's point gain (or at least slowing it down) when you use an airstrike. So giving the defending team MORE points on top of that gives them a tremendous advantage.

I think each player should get a cooldown for their own airstrikes. So if you use an airstrike, you should have to wait 5-10 minutes to use another one. This would only be your cooldown though, so other players can use theirs whenever. I also think that you should be able to counter an airstrike. Someone mentioned that SAM sites in enemy bases should destroy airstrikes before they can do damage (requiring you to destroy the SAM before you can airstrike an enemy base.) I wouldn't be against a 10 second team-wide cooldown, but that's as long as I'd accept. The problem with team cooldowns is that players who don't know better or just want to troll can hamper their team by improperly using an airstrike and then causing the team to have to wait for the cooldown.

Marathon games exist for people who like playing for hours until one team wins. I enjoy it on occasion. Not because I don't like points victories, but because marathons are just a different breed of C&C mode. I think that defenders get too many points as of right now. We have airstrikes to break enemy point whoring. Defenders don't need to get more points. As of right now, it's more common for the "losing" team to actually win after the time limit because of their defensive points. Repairing buildings, killing enemy rushes, disarming C4/beacons. At most, doing all of that should even you out with the attackers, but definitely not put you in a points lead.

Beacons should only be able to be placed in locations where the enemy can reach them. Finding clever places to hide them is fine, but if it's on the top of a smoke stack or inside of geometry that is an issue.

I don't think using sights should slow you down in Renegade X unless you're using a sniper scope. Although the speed reduction doesn't really seem to hinder me much anyway.. I still don't think there should be a speed reduction at all. Most of the sights in this game take up a stupid amount of screen space, so you're already hindering yourself with your field of vision. I think it's worth the tradeoff for the slightly increased accuracy. You don't need the speed reduction. As for why there is even an ADS feature at all... it's to provide familiarity to players who use them in other games. The way they are set up at the moment really doesn't give you much of a difference between using them and not using them. So if you're used to playing games that ADS a lot, you can do that. But people who are used to Renegade with just hipfire spray can do that as well. But that brings me back to saying there shouldn't be a functionality difference between the two. That way it's balanced between both worlds and is comfortable to everyone at the same time.

I'm pretty sure they are just placeholders.

Just because an airstrike can stop an enemy siege doesn't mean it doesn't require teamwork. You pretty much need teamwork to destroy the enemy base. Even if you destroy an enemy siege, the enemy still controls the field unless your team moves in to take it. Airstrikes don't leave that big of an opening unless the attacking team is stupid about their formation. I've honestly not seen an airstrike that completely annihilated the enemy from the field. And if something like that did happen... then they deserved to lose the field. Of all of the tanks your team has and the amount of room you have to maneuver, they chose to huddle together in a corner. That's their own fault for being such an easy target.

I honestly never look at my points until the final minutes of a match. If I'm camping the enemy base I'm doing it for the practical reason of trying to destroy the base... not to whore points. Attacking the enemy base will do two things: first it will physically damage the base which is your objective. If no one is repairing then you take out the structure and you are one step closer to victory. Secondly, if people are repairing, you tie them up and force them to stay repairing. This allows other people on your team to attack something else and not have to deal with as much resistance. I find that enemies camping your base are actually more beneficial to the defending team since repair points seem to even it out or possibly even exceed them. There are so many games I've won just defending a base from the brink of destruction even if we haven't even destroyed one of the enemy's structures. In fact, I find it happens so commonly that I thought that points were biased heavily towards defenders.

I have noticed that C4 explosions occasionally don't render. This is most common for me with remote C4. I'll detonate it but it won't visually explode, but both the nearby enemy and myself take damage from it.

Yeah, it's really lame how players are deathly afraid of the obelisk. They have 5 mammoth tanks but they just don't want to press into the base...

But also realize mammoths are slow. Think about this: The time GDI spent pushing up the field in mammoth tanks could be time Nod spends organizing an infantry rush. GDI slowly advanced, Nod moves into the tunnels. GDI arrives at Nod's base and is greated by a wall of flame tanks. Meanwhile Nod is in GDI's base with low resistance because most of GDI is in the mammoth rush.

I'm not quite sure moderation is gonna be enough. There isn't anything stopping people from simply rejoining under a different nick/IP.

I have bad experiences with vehicle lag on Field and Whiteout which kill those maps for me. I'd otherwise love them... but I just feel so helpless when I'm playing on those maps. I think it would be cool to have variations of these maps which are just slightly more open to allow a higher player count without making the match feel too crowded.

I'd like it if it was like battlefield. You hold down the spot key and then move the mouse to the desired radio command. You'd be able to do this while moving and they wouldn't hog keys used for other important movement functions.

I don't think that the original argument here is thought out all the way. Of course they sound OP based on how you describe them here. It's like saying super weapon beacons are OP because they can one shot kill any structure. But the fact that engineer classes pretty much suck at defending themselves, compared to other classes anyway, it makes them vulnerable to other said classes. Yeah you can fill an APC up with hotwires/techs and that can destroy multiple structures. But the enemy can just use their MBTs to squash that rush in its tracks. Sydney/Raveshaw as well as Gunner/LCG are good at taking down enemy vehicles. Gunner and the LCG (but more so gunner) are also good at attacking structures externally. I do not think that engineer classes are OP because they are quite frankly easy to beat. You just need some awareness and a dedicated defense. I sneak into the enemy's base all the time and destroy buildings. But the thing is, it's no major feat because no one is ever in their base paying attention. Everyone wants to leave and make things blow up. That doesn't make the hotwire/technician OP, it just makes the defending team incompetent. You can't complain that the winning team is OP when the losing team isn't even trying to do anything to fight back. Players need to defend. And they defend by using the other classes in the roster. Now, I'll grant you that the engineer classes are the go-to class for just doing idle stuff either around the base or in vehicles. It would be nice if it was a bit more diverse. But I wouldn't go as far as to say they are OP. They are just more adaptable than most other classes.

Yeah, as mentioned using torrents is perfectly legal. It's what you're downloading that can be considered illegal. For example, if you were using a torrent to download a movie or a retail game or some music, then it would be illegal. Think about it like this: If you're downloading something for no charge that you would usually have to pay for by other means, then it's probably illegal unless specifically stated that it isn't (by a reputable source). Otherwise there is nothing wrong with torrents.

I did read the whole thread. It makes no sense to have a classic mode when there is still a fully functional original game that people still play. Not only would it take forever to create, it would mean they would also neglect other things that need their attention. Plus, having such a dedicated game mode would divide the community up and the population on servers would be small. I don't think it's a bad idea... I just don't think its necessary. Maybe if no one played the original anymore... but people do so it really isn't needed here.

I'm sure the servers with players know about it. Whether or not the server owners themselves saw the post isn't really all that relevant. There are more players than server owners and therefore players are more likely to be the ones to see the notice on the forum. All they have to do is join a server and tell everyone about the fix and then get the server owner's attention. Especially if there is a speed hacker present to start the conversation on it.

I heard maybe a week. I read that on Renforums. But if there is no official news post, then I wouldn't take any estimates for real (even if it was Fobby who said it).

I do think there should be a melee weapon though. But you'd only be able to use it when you're completely out of ammo. Meaning, you switched to a sidearm that doesn't have infinite ammo and you used it all up. That way you have at least some way to defend yourself.

A long, long, long time ago, back before the UT3 mod was out they talked about having a button to lock the MRLS turret into a fixed spot so it could behave like it did in Renegade. But I'm just assuming they did away with that idea. It would be nice to have though.

Why not just go play the original then? It makes no sense to ask this here when there is already a game that does every thing you're asking for and has been out for 12 years.

I said this in another thread but I really do not like the superweapon death crates for three reasons. 1. They look absolutely ridiculous. 2. The are obnoxiously loud and make it hard to hear important announcements such as a beacon being placed or a building being attacked. 3. They harm people who just happen to be nearby. All crates should only effect the person to picked them up. Someone elses' death crate should not hit me even if I'm standing right next to them.

The thing is, if the map was played 200 times and half the time GDI won and the other half Nod won, it doesn't really matter HOW they won as long as they DID win. During war time, you don't knock on your enemy's door and say "Dude your nuke is OP, please nerf!" You make due with the stuff you have to pull off a victory. If Nod was winning 80% of the time on a single map, that means that a tactic that Nod uses is hard for GDI to counter and thus causes GDI to lose game after game. But if the win rate is equal, it means that both teams have even chances to achieve victory. The teams are asymmetrical so you have to quite honestly think differently when playing on each one. You know what the enemy is capable of so you do what you can to counter that. If you're on GDI, spend some more time fortifying your base to defend from SBHs. If your Nod, use your quicker vehicles to harass GDI's more sturdy formations. It's not a matter of Nod Unit X vs GDI Unit Y. It's which GDI units would be good to counter Nod Unit X? The dynamics of the game is what drives teamplay. If each team had the same units balanced with each other then it would just be a boring rock-paper-scissors fest.

I honestly don't even notice the recoil/spread... I use the standard soldier the same way I used it in Renegade and it works perfectly fine. Keep moving and aim for the head. You just need to be adaptive. Play from angles that the spread and recoil are mitigated by your position. Eventually, you forget they are even there. I think recoil makes the weapon less boring since you aren't just holding the button down, but you're also having to compensate for the recoil. It really puts the weapon's intended range into perspective.