j0g32

love the Battlefield / ArmA vibe of it, almost feels like map design from the original RTS (or APB?) ... but I agree that default Renegade (X) gameplay might not be well balanced on this scale... Keep it up - very inspiring How did you do the landscape? WorldMachine?

Yeah, there's a lot of open spaces. The only "constraint" is that the RepPad should ideally be located "after/behind" the WF, when the player is leaving the training grounds. I feel in the centre between AGT, PP, WF, and Ref would make sense?

some more progress on the base layout and landscape

Hm, I don't think that "dynamic" lighting per se is the main problem: in the editor/SDK you effectively have dynamic lights before you build lights (e.g. sunlight) where light/shadows move with objects/buildings when you move them around. However, casting dynamic shadows for non-dominant lights, e.g. to avoid light bleeding from lights INSIDE buildings (see Refinery) might be a lot more costly... Orig. Renegade went for pre-calculated interior lightmaps, which were already baked into the "diffuse" textures, if i remember correctly - this could be way of Anyway, dynamic structures/tiberium fields would require a substantial overhaul of the game logic. Therefore, it might be even easier to rebuild a "RTS" mode from the ground up, but at the moment there are no resources to do so...

Since we're posting youtube videos here (and to balance out the discussion) have a look at this: Quite interesting/insightful

layout of flow: first sketching out of the level:

In this thread we want to post and discuss the progress of the official tutorial level, which shall familiarise new players with the basics of C&C game mode. Guidelines: Let players learn, explore and experiment at their own pace Treat players with respect (and not as idiots), but provide guidance where needed "Learning by doing" and applying the information in practical examples Realistic look and feel within the rules of C&C game mode Setup & Flow: The player spawns in a GDI Basecamp as Tier 0 (free) soldier, i.e. new recruit, and is subsequently treated as such Tooltips give concise instructions how to do things HUD markers and objectives will guide the player to points of interest, e.g. buildings At POIs, content/tasks are explained in short monologues via stationary NPCs, or EVA or radio messages The physical layout of POI and the order in which their HUD markers may be highlighted will follow a logical order, but the player is free to explore and activate (some of) the POIs in any order POI tasks will gradually increase in scope (e.g. obstacle course, capturable tech buildings, defend harvester, mines, attack enemy outpost, commander mode, up to finally destroying the entire enemy base), thereby enabling the players to apply earlier lessons choose their preferred way of completing a task

Well there might be some performance concerns and technical issues with dynamic buildings, but turrets e.g. are just stationary vehicles anyway... so, it would be possible somehow (given enough development resources). The more difficult issue is gameplay: How to combine the RTS basebuilding and strategy elements with First Person Shooter and multiplayer mode... You might want to check out some of the existing discussions: That being said, I personally would love to see a C&C style basebuilding gamemode

Sounds very exciting! Would love to see open maps, but as mentioned before, balance between GDI & Nod, as well as between infantry and vehicles is going to be difficult to get right. You should use a varying scale/size of dunes, to give both infantry and vehicles cover or block line of sight respectively. Maybe you could have a look at world machine to generate your basic heightmap: you can easily combine different noise patterns with different scales to get you started. Good luck!

difficult, if not impossible in practice. @Ruud033 and @Schmitzenbergh were on something like that for C&C Storm, but I think one problem is that visibility is client, and post-process (including fog?) can be switched off...

Make sure that you edit different key frames: select them in matinee, or hit enter to create a new one; in the editor window you will see a text in the top left corner in which key frame you are editing.

Hi @Nesk and welcome to the forums! Yes, some sort of control points are a good way to entice player flow and avoid stalemates. In Renegade X, we have capturable tech buildings that provide a boost for the controlling team; e.g. in terms of their economy (silo) or intel (comm-centre), or other map-specific bonuses... Additionally, the "field-controlling" team will often destroy the enemy's harvesters, thereby further crippling their opponents' economy. Such a siege often drains the defending team's resources, and the attackers can eventually break through. The problem in most matches is not so much on the side of the attackers, but to allow the defending team to break through the siege for a comeback... So, you are basically suggesting an alternative way to win the game would be to simply control the battlefield (even without attacking the enemy base). This could be something like "missile silos" as seen in C&C rivals, but also in Battlefield 2142 // 4 in Titan Mode // Carrier Assault. Generally, I like the idea, because it would provide an implicit time limit for otherwise stalemate-y games, and force defenders to get out of their cozy MCT-healing-only-spots, and engage in counter attacks. However, an option like this requires map and pathing rework: as I said above, you will want to give the defending team a fair chance to break a siege. Hence, placing the CP/missile silo (only!) in the same path that the attackers already block for a siege would only amplify the problem... That's why I think that the current implementation of tech buildings, giving"boosts" to the controlling team, rather than punishing the controlled/sieged team, is a somewhat better option within the established gameplay.

@iridesence yes, more game modes (or maps with "non-standard" gameplay for that matter) would be super exciting; in fact it already is possible without too much effort - feel free to check out the SDK and give it a go ! 😉 Though, getting the balance and fun for asymmetric gameplay right, is the tricky bit... And (team)deathmatch etc. is not the reason why people would play Renegade(X), so I don't think it's a priority.

imho, lot of the above discussion focused too much on changes to current Ren(X) rather than re-imagining C&C gamemode from the ground up… I would like to summarise some of the higher-level gameplay concepts of C&C mode that I love in theory, but then highlight how it could be improved/implemented relative to current Ren(X). Mainly, I am a huge fan of the hybrid FPS-RTS concept. RTS components Economy: resource extraction (Tiberium harvesting) and control (Silos) that yield credits which enable more powerful/specialised arsenal/tactics. And personal (instead of team-wide shared) funds also has its merits. Functional Base: buildings with distinct features (credits, power, defence, infantry and vehicle production) induces strategies with greater scope, e.g. kill ref and drain resources VS. kill bar and win infantry paths/rushes (and stop re-mining) VS. kill def to enable sneakers/commando ... FPS/RTS components Combined Arms: infantry and vehicles with different specialisations, abilities, strengths, and weaknesses (rock-paper-scissors) And all of the above inevitably require a lot of interesting teamplay. Though, one of the strengths of (vanilla) C&C mode is that due to personal (not team-wide) funds, centralised organisation via commander is not required to win the game, though still beneficial. Suggestions: Gameplay choices for individual players: whether to focus on resources, base and defence building, support, offense, or technology (tbd ?) purposeful roles; e.g. purchasable harvester as vehicle or infantry kit; deployable turrets, walls, barbed wires, tank obstacles (all outside buildings); designated transport & supply logistics between base and frontline; maps with more alternative routes/paths !!! especially base building (below) would require open maps Focus on infantry gameplay - inspired by Battlefield (2142): fewer, but designated classes; e.g. Commando, Assault, Support, Engineer Loadout customization: choose from (respectively) 2-5 weapons/gadgets with different emphasis; e.g. higher damage, rate of fire, or precision; recon vs. demolition vs. support; so that players can choose according to their playstyle, rather than the size of their wallet. Some items might need to be unlocked first. While I am in favour of rock-paper-scissors for RTS balance, this might be unsatisfying in an (infantry focused) FPS. Hence, all classes could have access to default "tools" that are mediocre against anything (such as a carbine rifle and grenades), though mostly against infantry (again since this would be the focus); specialised weapons/items, however, focus on one aspect at the cost of another. Weakspots at vehicles that allow skilful infantry to counter them more effectively; for buildings this would obviously be MCTs, which should take considerable damage from any weapon. All classes for free (with default loadout) , perhaps some customizable items may have a low price tag, especially relative to vehicles. I am thinking of unit "upgrades" as in C&C Generals, or Battle for Middle Earth that could only be equipped after the units were recruited. Perhaps use existing character models (only) as customisable skins. Focus on well-coordinated squads communicating only with few players, instead of having to coordinate entire teams to pull off successful inf. rushes More powerful, but limited Ammo (lower TTK) e.g. Support class can drop ammo box; inducing supply logistics between base and frontline Slower (more inert) infantry movement, more weapon spread when moving, not scoped - which favours positioning over ping/"skill" Infantry "heals" from medi/supply kits deployed by Support; engineers can only repair buildings and vehicles, but not heal. Resource based economy: only (!) resource extraction (harvesting) and control (silos) etc. yield credits that can be used to purchase stuff. weapons are tools to secure resources; kills/damage do not give credits (perhaps points relevant for timed matches). Prices should reflect that; and as infantry is mostly free this won't be a problem. options to gather resources: players can harvest tiberium themselves, build a second refinery, build own silos that generate credits (either as tick rate, or as an interest rate on the stock of tiberium/credits) multiple Tib fields that replenish slowly, inducing sustainable and diversified extraction Base building: See 1.) more player driven decisions: whether to prioritise on resources, logistics, defences, infantry vs. vehicle production, technology etc. easiest is prob. separate building fund: whenever players receive income, building fund receives e.g. 3x the amount (depends on building prices; and whether player credits can also be used for building) Chokepoints and base layout are driven by players choices, and how they place building, walls, gates, and defences. Comeback possibility, which lowers the ultimate value of a lost structure; which ties in with allowing any class to deal considerable damage to the MCT. Barracks/HoN serve mainly as spawn point (see Empires mod); though multiple barracks possible as forward outposts; if all destroyed, respawn as airdrop above MCV/ConYard, or at the initial starting point drivable MCV spawns at beginning of round; can be built in WF; base building only with deployed MCY (=CY) possible; might be able to undeploy, and slowly relocate Base power is continuous, every building (other than PP) adds some load; PPs provide power; When load > generation "low power" for all buildings (!), but individual buildings can be deactivated to reduce the load; "Realistic" vehicle combat: Vehicles should support infantry, not the other way round; less agile vehicle gameplay no 3rd person camera (at least not with crosshair) to give infantry better chances to outmanoeuvre vehicles, and attack weakspots. role of transporting infantry more important; perhaps allow passengers to use their weapons/gadgets inside the vehicle... … ? Profit ! I guess, I envision Battlefield style combat, but (harvestable) resource pools instead of capture points to fight over, which when harvested allow to buy & build stuff...

Would love to see larger maps, but in order to make them enjoyable in current Renegade X you need to consider the difference in speed, weapons and armour of infantry and vehicles, and how the map plays when you loose your WF/airstrip. Walking for a few minutes into battle - fine. Buying a medium/high tier character and getting splash damaged to death by tanks before firing a single shot - not cool. "Return to start". This is what might get people easily frustrated on "large" maps. Note that many "successful" Renegade maps follow the design mantra of "extend vehicle path around the infantry path such that infantry can short-cut through vehicle-obstacles, e.g. tunnels, buildings, forests, etc." So, I think the key is not simply scaling up the map but (as you mentioned) giving more path options for players with less chokepoints. This combined with a clever infantry vs. vehicle layout could be very interesting! 🙂 Good luck!

Hi and welcome to the forums, @HToneill ! Great work! I have been curious about photogrammetry/photoscanning for quite some time now, and wondering if it would be useful for RenX.^^ Excuse my asking, but how long did it take you from say spotting assets in real life to producing the final low-poly mesh with detail-normals and materials ?! Keep it up!

i guess it makes sense to display the map name either on the over view map "M", and/or scoreboard (as it relates to this instance of a match)... but it wouldn't be super top priority for now...^^

Very interesting idea. After all in classic C&C RTS, you could de-activate/power-off certain structures, if you were low on power to re-establish some base-operation. First of all, I think that any such option should only be available to 1 person on the team, i.e. the commander. Secondly, instead of a single "energy" button, why not introduce a trade-off: give the commander the opportunity to power up/down any remaining structure; e.g. powering down the Barracks/HoN, Refinery, and Weapons Factory/Airstrip, (with the associated penalties) would enable the defences to come back online. I guess, it's best to only allow 1 building to be fully operational at any time without a powerplant. And powering up/down a building takes e.g. 10 sec., so you cannot immediately switch on defences when you need them. The commander thus has to prioritise: Credits vs. Infantry vs. Vehicles vs. Defences Our code would have to be re-written in some parts to accommodate that, but it could be an interesting idea. As @Interval said, without the powerplant, the defences become empty shells, and the economy takes a big hit as well.

Landscape is an optimised Terrain system, specialised for large scale environments; e.g. it supports mesh LOD, mesh normal maps, advanced material blending, importing weight maps, advanced brush tools, erosion, etc. I can see that a potential benefit of Terrain is that it is somewhat more straightforward to apply different materials to it, but other than that...

That thing looks like it chronosphered straight out of Red Alert Great find!

I think that C&C gamemode already offers a lot of variety and complexity, and incorporates elements of multiple other game modes. RenX is developed in the Unreal Development Kit, and generally/natively supports game modes that are already in Unreal Tournament 3, e.g. Team Death Match, Vehicle Capture the Flag, Warfare etc. Do feel free to experiment with that, there are plenty resources online. I personally do like and support the idea of adding new gameplay elements and objectives on custom maps. For example, we have a TechBuilding/MCT on C&C Reservoir which simply controls a set of doors. In doing so, controlling this MCT changes the flow of the map and the options available to either team. I would love to see more clever use and level design with features like this.

What's the point of playing on a new engine if you are neither making use of higher fidelity, nor of new gameplay features, nor because of active players that MPF PwnCall mentioned as well? But a "classic" mutator could be fun nonetheless...

I think there should be no option to vote against a commander, UNLESS you (edit: or someone else) volunteer(s) yourself to take their spot, i.e. compete for the position. However, a commander should always be able to resign voluntarily. The commander can only be forced out of office, if another player challenges the incumbent and wins by majority vote. For example at the start of the round, everyone interested in acting as commander can apply within the first 5-10secs. Slightly weighted by last game scores, a commander is then chosen randomly. This should help to favour experienced players take the lead, but not elitism, where only the top 4 players are able/forced (?!) to command. If no commander is active, the first/only one to apply will automatically become commander (without vote!). This is pretty much how Battlefield commander system worked.

RenX + old gameplay mechanics + old map design& visuals = orig. Renegade Why not play orig. Renegade ? ^^

Like your endeavours! Would be cool if you could design the Conyard in a way that you can tell how it was built/transformed from the MCV, e.g. by using materials that could be easily stored and preparaed in the MCV. Or perhaps something like this: crane, tyres, or parts of the mcv are still visible in final CY: Tiberium Sun: Tiberium Wars: I like the CY design in Tiberian Dawn, esp. compared to Renegade. It might be cool to only base a CY design for RenX on this concept, but design it with the functionality/background in-game in mind. Good luck!