j0g32

That looks awesome !!! Great job! Can we haz deez ingame - pleeaaze

when it comes to repetitive gameplay, I think that this might be due in large part to map-design. A lot of the maps (especially the original Renegade maps, hm shark mentioned earlier) only have 1 base entrance => bottleneck. Again the Dev's improved some of those maps by adding additional infantry paths in Under and Field, yet for vehicles you have only one way to go. having 2+ vehicle base entrances, could result in having to defend on one route, but attacking/rushing on the other. Normally, once you join a rush or whatever team strategy and it fails, you may seek for other options (because the planned one didn't succeed), yet there are only limited other options of what you can do (gameplay wise): base defence? if everything is mined and nothing needs repairs - fine. main entrance looks clear - fine. generally very passive, and no points for just guarding and being on the look out Tunnel/infantry path? it takes some time to get around the map, and is frustrating if it fails - low success rate if you go on your own. sneaking - as thrilling as it sounds - is usually not working out too well Main route? already stuffed with friends and foes... So I believe it comes down mainly to Map design, which needs to be carefully balanced, of course... Give the players more options to attack the base, and some vantage points for the defenders, that only allow to cover one direction / base entrance Communications is important - maybe streamline the chat bar, and don't allow spamming the same message "repairs needed" e.g. just refresh/display it again on the top or sth. And I would love to see the commander mod in the default game as well! Maybe even some group/squadl ike sub-organization could be helpful... interesting idea, but what's the point of playing with few players in the first place^^

Hm... after having a closer look at Savage Resurrection (http://www.savrez.com/) and Empires Mod (http://www.moddb.com/mods/empires), I wanted to add some thoughts as well. I now feel a designated/elected commander would be necessary, or most convenient for the mechanics. (=> Generally, see Battlefield 2/2142 (4?) for commander/squad mechanics) Taking the RTS (C&C Originals) point of view, let's start with the basics. Victory condition: eliminate the enemy by destroying everything (not only CY): all buildings and all units. How can this be achieved? => rush with what you got (good luck ), or => Gather, process and store resources / energy, to => produce advanced technology and more powerful weapons to attack the enemy I think this is it in a nutshell... Hence, all players pursue the same greater goal for their team. As a side quest it naturally arises to manage and protect your resources and production facilities (find resources and defend and fortify the base) Startup: MCV and human players (random tier1 classes) spawning nearby, at a random/preset location on the map. Organization (semi-optional) Elect a commander via ingame voting. The commander's role is to organize the battle, by giving orders to individual players or squads. He has access to a birds-eye satellite view (needs Communication Center), but his character would be idle and can be killed. If the team is not happy with their commander they can also vote for another Commander. A commander is thus not necessary to play/win the game, but a good strategic commander can give a tactical advantage to his team. Also a Commander is the only who can see information e.g. about the total energy supply of the base, and how many credits each player/squad has. He can ask for individuals to transfer credits to squads/players, but never force them (apart from Bots). Self-organize into Squads/Groups by players them selves, or via invitation by the commander (needs to be accepted by human players, bots would accept any orders/invitations). Every player can create (=> become Squadleader) or join a squad. Each Squad is given a number upon creation. The commander can create a squad by drawing a box around players and pressing CTRL+Num (just in like C&C) or by selecting players from a list, or some other UI-interface. The commander can quick-select squads with the respective number keys to give orders. Squad leaders can give orders to their squad as a whole (or forward as received from the commander), or more precisely to individual squad members => Micromanagement, Ghost Recon, ArmA Style. They can also invite other players into their squad, and can fill up the places in their squad with AI-bots instead. The Commander can only give orders to individuals as long as they are not in a squad (tbd?), e.g. AI-Guard-Bots (without Squad) can be positioned individually, but move or attack orders can/will be micromanaged by squad leaders. The commander could re-organize squads, e.g. if there are too many 1-man squads, or if Squadleaders - given that they have advanced capabilities - are abusing their power. Re-Spawn: after initial spawn, respawn is only possible in the next Barracks/Hand of Nod. => first (intrinsic) objective: build a base and infantry production facility in order to allow respawn and recruit infantry units (AI). Respawn is costless for human players (spawn as Tier1 unit), but buying AI-units requires the same or even more credits (e.g. Tier1 AI-units cost 100). Commanders and Squadleaders have the ability to give orders to their squads/squadmembers, and to place buildings - to be built/repaired by anyone using repairtools. The commander however is the only one who can disapprove of building placement and sell a building. This would allow multiple players to decide about building locations (simultaneously) via organized hierarchy, because I think a vote system is simply to messy, especially when voting about arbitrarily different locations. For example, squad members in squad 1 could discuss (verbally, VoIP, ingame chat) where to place the Powerplant taking outline and natural cover into consideration, while Squad 2 is discussing the ideal rotation for the Refinery. The commander might (or might not) have given the squads the respective orders to place another Powerplant in the north (rough location) and the refinery close to the Tiberium field in the West, while he himself is busy selecting the best location for the Airfield, and then directing his Engineer Minions (recruited from the HoN) to build the placed structure. As for funds, I agree with Testman, and I also think a designated team-wide building fund would be good, which is primarily* used for building/repairing. Buildings serve in an economic sense as "public goods" to the team, i.e. every player has benefits from an operating and well defended base. Similar to a government taxing individuals' income and using it for infrastructure etc. This would solve two issues: 1) individual transfers of players who don't want to bother with building the base can be easily handled/avoided, through a request by e.g. the commander to donate to the building fund (simply accept or deny, not obligatory "tax"), or manually type in a command to donate to building funds (in exchange one might get Team-Assist points). 2) the start up situation that I depicted in a post earlier where every player is given tremendous amounts of moneys, just so that all the buildings can be built will be altered as well: instead, every player would start with e.g. only 100 credits, but the team building-funds are 5000 at the beginning, or whatever is enough to build PP, Bar/HoN, and Ref. *primarily: if the building-funds are "insufficient" the team and in particular the individual player and engineer currently building/repairing a structure is informed via warning message and the repairing stops. However, if he continues to repair his private credit funds are drained. Also, Tiberium Harvests are not only 500 credits per player but also contribute 500-2000 into the building fund, as if it was a separate player. These public building funds are ONLY (automatically) drained, when engineers are repairing/constructing buildings. In that sense, nobody has to manage them, yet insuring sufficient funds are important for base expansion, and inefficient of use of building funds for unnecessary buildings can be supervised by the commander. If the commander sells a structure the remaining money is transferred back to the building funds, and not shared to individuals or only given to the commander. A public fund for the commander in general is more difficult. Allowing him to gain similarly additional resources, in order to recruit units that should support the players or to guard the base, might be exploited and the commander could use the moneys for his private equipment instead... However, guards are also some kind of public good, yet any player could guard the base as well, and his actions are not financed by public funds... and a squadleader has similarly no additional access to funds for buying AI-troops. So I would not give the Commander more private resources than any other player. Maybe the Commander could simply be given access to the public building funds (when his private credits are insufficient only?), but whenever he makes use of that, the team is informed about that, e.g. "Commander "Name" purchased MRLS (AI) for 500 credits from public building funds." - And if the team feels he is abusing his power, then they can vote for another commander. Another idea to attach more functions to the buildings and their locations: character classes/weapons (and refill) can only be purchased at PTs in the Barracks/Hand of Nod, Vehicles can only be bought at PTs in the respective facilities, and building blueprints can only be bought at PTs in the CY. Especially the latter would slow down the process of building the base, but avoid a mess where everyone would spam his placements. On a sidenote, a blueprint could be used multiple times, e.g. to build longer walls or forward outposts with sandbags, establish power supply in the back of the base, build a bunch of silos etc. without going to the CY every time. Again, the commander is the only one who could buy units/buildings from Top-Down view, once available, giving him more strategic flexibility. I like the idea of retransforming the CY back to a MCV, but again avoiding the messing around with it, I would only allow Commanders and Squadleaders to ride, deploy/pack an MCV - thus players with more authority and sense of organization. If you allow for that, then it wouldn't really make a difference if the MCV is mobile in the beginning or placed as CY. If the team or commander is unhappy with the current starting position, they can simply pack the CY to a MCV and drive it to the desired position. Looking forward to some more discussion For example Tech-level by buildings or research? Respawn-Tickets?

Looking good - keep it up, Thommy!

To be honest, I am not a huge fan of MOBA games. What I like about the idea however, is to bring a (potentially shifting) frontline element in between the usual base attack/defence gameplay. Could be cool to see little outposts with ammo/health refill and defense structures (AI and player controlled) on all these blue circles, which can be captured and converted to either side (capturable MCT spawns defense structures) My concerns: - Map will be quite big with too little players (yet, transport and logistics between base/frontline could become more important ) - resource abundance and diminished importance of economy (yet, makes comebacks easier?) - when a team finally pushes trough the frontlines, it will (with the current mechanics) find it difficult to even permanently harm a building in the base. - no stealth/commando possibilities Now that I am writing these lines I can actually imagine this idea to introduce some real refreshing RenX gameplay Good luck!

hey dogma, and welcome to the forums! Generally, I presume, any feedback is welcome - especially in your case as a new player (yet a veteran to the franchise), you seem to be willing to provide constructive and informed feedback, rather than rants and hate. Of course, I cannot guarantee how much attention from the Devs' side you will get - the core developers are currently handing their work over to the community, so I would guess that you should not expect to see great gameplay changes in the next patch or so. Yet, for that very reason some "first impression" feedback of yours could be utterly helpful - in particular because the recent endeavour to expand the playerbase will crucially rely upon the reception of the game in its current state by new players! Just give it a go!

Maybe some of you guys still remember Planetside 2 - a MMO-FPS that also featured some strategic components around territorial control and resources. I myself played the beta back in the days, but I haven't played it in a while now. Some battles were really intense and epic (hundreds of players fighting over some meters of land) - others just boring and stalematy, especially since later patches narrowed the possibilities to circumvent frontlines, and break stalemates... However, I just found out that a base-building update was recently released: QN-APg6V3co You can harvest minerals (Cortium, not Tiberium of course^^) which can be stored in Silos, and can then be used to construct bases (walls, bunkers, turrets, shield generators etc.) and to power "victory point generators" and other structures. cclHz75uITU Unfortunately, I cannot check it out myself now - my laptop would die - but I found it inspiring how such a big franchise incorporated such a huge change of gameplay mechanics (before that you could only capture preset bases which would generate (different?) resources to buy vehicles and upgrades). Perhaps, some of you also feel inspired that RenX might eventually explore new grounds and go beyond its current limits Just a thought...

Fair enough

Okay, this is exactly what I thought: good news that it is fairly easy to get the content to UE4. I was just wondering what the Developers' view is on that endeavour to move their content from UDK to UE4... However, my point is, why would you want to change from UDK to UE4 in the first place? Just because it is the latest engine build? What is the limitation of UDK that would justify the port to UE4? And I would of course support these efforts, because it might open up even more possibilities than already within UDK... I am not just saying, "plz make RTS", but what I am trying to convey is that, in case that especially the coding to implement good old C&C gamemode would have to be build up from the ground again, I would strongly suggest to - at least - consider making extensions towards RTS possible... For example, currently if you have multiple powerplants on a map and destroy them all, the price is increased for every PP that was destroyed. (not 100% sure though) I do not know how the code works, but it seems that when the "gamemode-handler" registers the event "PP destroyed", it triggers a "permanent" increase in unit prices for the team. In maps without powerplant, the prices are not (never) reduced, even though from the intrinsic logic of base operations, the poorly equipped base would lack power to produce efficiently... The way that buildings are registered and interact with the gameplay should be adapted to allow for: multiple building instances, dynamic construction and deconstruction. I am speaking of classes, objects, variables, references, i.e. how does the game "know" and "save" which buildings are online - in a static base gameplay like current C&C mode one could easily have a a maximum of 10 variables for the buildings (AGT, Airfield, Barracks, Hand of Nod, Refinery GDI, Refinery Nod, Powerplant GDI, Powerplant Nod, Weapons Factory, Obelisk) that would point to the respective buildings, and thereby allow communication from the "gamemode" to the "building objects" Hopefully, you will understand what I mean... Again using Agent's brilliant catchphrase of "subtractive gameplay": Give buildings (classes) functionality, i.e. when this building is present on the map, a team gains the respective ability (technology, vehicles, weapons, radar, and what not). Currently it feels that the game only subtracts functions, when buildings are destroyed... Although it appears to entail the same narrative, it obviously makes a difference for coding. edit: I have only looked at Savage 2, but Resurrection looks stunning. Of course not a copy, but one could definitely learn from their implementation edit2: btw, there is no CY on any original C&C Rengade MP Map, so even with RTS fully implemented, gameplay on the original Maps would not change, because destroyed structures cannot be rebuilt.

Is this a route for the future, moving on to UE4? How much effort does it take to get the visual content, models animations, sounds etc. to UE4? I am again thinking of implementing RTS and base construction in RenX and that when porting to UE4, this could be considered from the start^^

wow, stunning!!! Great work! First of, I like the fact that you went for the Tiberian Dawn design, because I really don't like CY in Renegade. And I love Construction Yards, because this is the heart of C&C: building a base anywhere, out of nothing but an Mobile Construction Vehicle... Just a few constructive (hehe^^) suggestions and ideas: Think of how the CY works, show its functionality in the game, e.g. it is the first building to be built in a base, and it should be easy to erect, because all the material should be transportable on a MCV... - Use light, corrugated metal for the hangar (storage hall), with few support beams. - Maybe use the "wing" on the left hand side as a controlling unit for a big 3D-printer, that operates in the hangar and generates building parts made out of concrete, or metal. - you could put a lot of pipes and stuff there. - the fans on the top should also appear in / be connected to the interior, e.g. they could be use to cool down said 3D Printer. - Show how the crane would be working: does the roof open up, so that finished building parts could be grabbed, or does it only help loading parts on trucks etc. - MCT on the glass wall, meh /edit: I didn't see the metal beam, sry - Use different materials for the walls on the outside. - Give the concrete base on the right hand side some functionality, i.e. why would one need this additional wing: storage? stability/foundation for the hangar? doors? Again just some ideas! Keep it up!

Hmm, generally I like story-driven campaigns or just maps. And to be honest, Totem Arts (Devs) have already released Black Dawn, which - I believe uses a lot of the content (audiofiles) / concepts (objectives) from the original Renegade campaign and reinvents it for RenX. Well done, but I guess this was a sh#!-ton of work... However, my major concern would be that singleplayer campaigns have little "replayability", especially compared to the development efforts put into it. Multiplayer instead, where human players contribute to creating a unique story and experience for every match played, features more longevity and replayability, which keeps the game and its community alive. Combining the aspects of singleplayer (story, objectives, cinematics and effects) and multiplayer (unpredictability, creativity, teamwork) one could focus on creating "Coop-Missions", or asymmetric maps instead. By asymetric I mean not only the map layout, but especially the objectives of each team. in standard C&C mode each team has to ATTACK the enemy's base, while DEFENDING their own. Why not try mixing things up a bit, based on what we have already? One could even use the original Campaign as references, e.g. take mission 1 BEFORE the GDI Base is destroyed: GDI Objectives: 1) patrol the village and protect civilians, 2) Defend the Base, in case of destruction, reinforcements could be sent (Havoc) to 3) eliminate Nod Forces / Buildings and 4) free civilians Nod Objectives: 1) capture civilians and bring to detention camp, 2) Attack GDI Base, 3) Stop counterattack / Defend HoN, Communications Center & detention camp. the chronological / conditional order of these objectives should be similar to the original mission. However, the development of the story should work in both ways, i.e. Nod could win by pushing forward and wiping GDI of the coast, and GDI could win, by effective patrolling and defending the village, WITHOUT the GDI Base being destroyed. This would give a whole new level of dynamics for a game.

Yeah, asymmetric gameplay sounds great to me, but might be difficult to balance... it would definitely be a breath of fresh air to the gameplay, though Nonetheless, you can already build one "base" (objective) for one team only using the existing structure(s), e.g. defend/attack the Nod-Tiberium Refinery. Using "vehicle factories", custom purchase terminals, Airdrops or Hovercrafts (Matinee) you could still allow to spawn and use vehicles. As inspiration one could obviously take the campaign missions from C&C Tiberian Dawn GDI Mission 1 GDI Mission 2

very interesting discussion - I think there were some good points mentioned, and I would like to try to summarize and combine some of them. Stalemates arise mostly from single-entrance/bottleneck/tunnel map design of the original maps and the imbalance between dealing damage to buildings (exterior) and repairing it from inside (being in cover from shells). I think the developers have done a good job to counter some of those mechanics: additional sneaking paths in Under, defensive platform in Field, plus smoke/EMP grenades to cover infantry rushes and disable mines capturable silos that can compensate for a lost refinery, however the defending team has to stop turtling in its base in order to acquire those resources airstrikes to break stalemates health/armour: permanent damage to buildings which rewards attacks when firepower was not sufficient to wipe out a building IMHO, the latter feature might, however, give even more incentive to immediately repair a building under attack, in order to avoid permanent damage and eventual loss of the structure. Thus, as soon as a building is under attack 5+ Engineers sprint to said structure, and will then easily out-repair a bombardment. Which renders a siege less attractive in the first place... Axesor already mentioned that in the original RTS C&C you would try to eliminate the thread instead of turtling, because the ability to repair your structures is limited to a certain rate. Similarly, epicelite proposed making repairs less effective. I would therefore suggest to cap the maximum rate of building repairs, either that (1) only a max of 3? engineers/hotwires can repair simultaneously and any additional repairs are irrelevant (you would get a message: "max. repairs reached") or that (2) the first engineer/hotwire has a repair rate/multiplier of 100%, the next 50%, 25% and so on (would be more difficult to implement). I prefer the first option, for it resembles more the original C&C feeling, and gives a clear incentive not to over-repair, but to eliminate the thread by a counterattack. If the distinction between armour and health would then still be necessary depends likely on the ability to rebuild structures: Agent mentioned the subtractive nature of the gameplay which makes it difficult for a team that has lost a building to recover and comeback. Some argue that this is supposed to be a punishment for bad teamwork/defence, fair enough. And that the severity of this punishment is diluted by airdrops and low-tier infantry although respective buildings are destroyed. Again, I think the intention of that feature is giving said comeback option partially, but I also agree with the criticism. Generally, I like the idea of rebuildable structures. In fact, I am up for all out base building RTS Style, and I secretly hope that this whole discussion might spur the support for such development efforts Anyway... ^^ I think a high price in the range of 10-20.000 credits would provide enough economic damage to the team that lost the building. Building time would not be necessary imo, as it would already take some time for the team to gather those resources and devote to the re-construction. I could imagine that every player could go to the MCT of the destroyed building, a tool-tip message would show up: "Press [E] to donate 100 credits to the Refinery construction fund." Building "sponsors" would give credits and be rewarded with score-points for their team-contribution. And when aiming at the building the "Destroyed" sub-title under the health bar could be replaced by [ 100 / 10.000 ] - only visible for the team of course. If the refinery was destroyed then clearly the team has an incentive to go out in the field to cap and defend the silo to gather more resources for the reconstruction - no need for new tech building for that purpose imo. Maybe the credit rate of silos should be even increased for that matter. When the necessary funds are reached the building is re-erected with 100% health but 0 armour, and engineers can go in and repair. The commanders job would it be, to co-ordinate and prioritise the funds. With this suggestion we would have: 1) higher likelihood for a successful attack by destroying a building (max. repair cap) 2) sufficient damage to the team losing a building, 3) potential comeback / complete restore, given that 4) the team puts in enough manual teamwork and does not waste precious resources, by defending what is left and reach out for additional resources. What do you think?

Thanks for the link - some good comments there!* Yes, starting such a project from the scratch (maybe UE4) gives the necessary freedom, especially in designing the core mechanics - and of course it would be a lot of work! In fact, I also thought about "porting" ... However, I believe, you don't have to "re-invent the wheel": the general concept (story, models, etc.) and mechanics of FPS/RTS feel fairly well balanced in Renegade (and the Tiberium universe) - also the C&C franchise has a huge fanbase. Plus, Totem Arts managed to recreate (and improve!) this concept in an openly accessible SDK - so why forget about all this progress... ? To be honest: the main feature is to develop a gamemode which enables dynamic base building! Obviously, such a gamemode would involve changes in other mechanics: victory conditions, resource management (tiberium, credits, points, vehicle/mine limit...) , organisation/hierarchy (Commander, squads, AI-bots? etc.), gameplay and balance (respawn, AI-pathfinding) ... And yes, it would take a dedicated team to code and debug such features, and I do know that these resources are not available atm. . So, why am I sticking to RenX forum instead of your post on epicgames forum? Because of the resources and the experiences from the development of RenX (some of which could be shared for extending the C&C gamemode with a "base-building module"). The overall RTS/FPS concept is already at your fingertips: no need to worry about factions, units, natural resources, buildings, vehicles etc. C&C Renegade (X) has it all! *However, the central idea, of how to combine FPS and RTS basebuilding is still to be answered/discussed (also in your thread on epicgames forum). I don't want to discourage your initiative for a standalone re-development from the scratch - yet, building on what Totem Arts has already achieved, might facilitate the progress tremendously Again, I wanted to revive this thread in order to plan and discuss (!!!) how to add/incorporate base building to the existing C&C gamemode, not to split the community, and neither to start working / coding right away... As mentioned multiple times before, it would be a lot of work to get all the code to work, to debug and balance. The first step (imho) is to think of how to combine FPS with base building - and how it would be balanced! Please, I don't want to discuss if you think such a project is worth pursuing, I would rather see, how those of you that are interested could imagine the gameplay, and the overall balance (based on your experiences with RenX or other games). Thanks.

I love it ! Great work! "I am stuck here on this island..." Can you also attack the powerplant from the outside, i.e. is the exterior visible?

Thanks Demigan, that were some intensive 5 minutes^^ I agree with you, controllable AI-bots would be quite essential for RTS with corresponding micro-management options, i.e. more than 1 all-mighty Commander. Large maps with multiple routes/cover is a must, of course! Additional defensive structures are also very cool - RenX already features a lot of objects: gun emplacements, hesco barriers (+ sandbags and barbed wire), chain link fence, heavy concrete base walls (+ walkways?), tank obstacles, gates, etc. ... However, I see some problems with your suggestions: Different players should not be able to control the same units. In fact, that is the reason why the military uses such a strict chain of command. (and based on rank within the game, results in a spiral of good players becoming more powerful, and new players never catching up...) Yet, to allow for micro-management, why not use a group-hierarchy like in other games, e.g. Battlefield, or Armed Assault: every player is free to join or create a new group/"squad". As leader of the group, one can fill the slots (max. 5-8?) by inviting other players, or buying AI-bots (same costs as if buying the character for one-self). Finally, you can give simple commands to your squad-members (individually?), such as "follow me/formation...", "take cover...", "move to ...", "attack ...", "use ... (vehicle)", "repair ...", "defend ..." Advanced units cost more, and skill-upgrades (aim?) could be bought for AI. A Commander might be necessary to coordinate the groups and the battle as a whole. Commander & Group Leader can give orders both in 1st/3rd Person view by pointing at the object/location (using a similar mechanic as "Q" radio messages), or by opening a tactical map menu, (enlarged minimap, 2D image, no 3D camera!, with fog of war) I also agree with you that perspective/Vision is important for AI-guards, but I don't like the idea of blurred vision for players, limited weapon/spotting range is better... or again map layout/design. One of Renegade's (and C&C's in general) qualities is its simplicity. Therefore the distinction between 3D-printed and "normal" units/buildings, and between personal and communal funds is redundant imho, as well as some more complicated mechanics around customization of units and rank systems - which also goes in line with your suggestion of enabling new players to catch up easily... Some of those ideas are probably relevant for a later development stage. An important point however, are funds: either communal, which are then administered by an all mighty commander, or personal - I think the hybrid makes it too complicated. personally, I prefer the idea of individual funds, as in Renegade at the moment: Every player is given (1000) credits at start, which they should/have to use in order to build a base. (everyone can get repair tool!) Keep in mind that buying heavy units is not possible, because the relevant buildings/technology are lacking! Harvester delivers the same amount of credits to every player, e.g. fully loaded +500. Tiberium fields are depletable, i.e. they regrow, but at a lower rate. Silos can be built to increase the efficiency of the refinery, e.g. +100 on each harvest, as well as +0.5 credits per second. I also thought of "interest rates" on tiberium stock, but meh... Maybe, one could also limit the maximum amount of credits per player, to 2000, which can be increased by building more silos... finally base building and energy: I would like everyone to participate in building the base, but avoiding a mess at the same time: As suggested before, 1 player buys/places the building construction site, everyone else can help and repair it (we even have personal repair tools!). I think that only group leaders and commanders should be able to buy/place buildings, however everyone could potentially open a new squad or apply as commander. Let me quickly elaborate on the building mechanics, as before based on a 64x64 (or 512x512, to be discussed!) grid: Every map contains at least 2 additional grids per team: building grid: 0 - empty and not in building range, but sandbags etc. might be placed (?) 1 - building range, can be built 2 - occupied cell, friendly structure (each building instance has - depending on its size variables to store its coordinates, which can be used to address the corresponding cells in the grid) 5 - obstructed cell, blocked by nature, unsuitable for building (has to be set by the level designer!) energy grid: a powerplant creates positive energy supply in the cells around its location (maybe with different intensity depending on the distance), whereas other buildings consume energy and reduce the energy supply. In this suggestion, every building only reduces the energy supply on the cells it is occupying, but one could think of a similar mechanic as for the powerplant. Only if the average/minimum value of power supply of all cells occupied by a building a above a certain energy threshold, e.g. 0 the building is active - otherwise low power. A building can only placed in the building range, if some of the cells are not in the building range, i.e. value > 1, they will be displayed as red, and the whole outline of the structure is red as well (see AGT on the right). as soon as the building is placed, the building grid will be updated to the newly occupied cells. When it is fully repaired and functional, the energy grid will be updated and then again the building grid (to extend the building range around it). Similarly, once a building is destroyed these processes will be reversed. For powerplants this implies that some buildings receive insufficient power supply. Also every building updates the tech tree (available units and prices), when it is active/low power/destroyed... What do you think?

Wow, a lot of progress and it looks very good! I feel, you have good sense of level design (materials, layout, lighting, effects). About the Titan: can you adapt height of the showroom - either increase the ceiling, or lower the floor - maybe just around where the Titan is (add some scaffolding/walkways like in the PT level) ? edit: although I love the idea about the castle / outpost in the middle, I cannot fully agree with the current design, it is a mixture of ruins with the Sci-Fi looking walls from UT3... maybe go for something intermediate, i.e. industrial just like the tunnels ? Anyway great work

looks great, I like the rock material ! Just one thing: if you were in a hurry and grab your gun from the rack, you wouldn't like to fiddle around with your brotherhood banner...

Will you feed us with some more pictures of the test sessions, please ;-)

Thanks for that!

@all: be careful when you post your opinion publicly (everyone can read/search this forum) about all this EA and IP infringement stuff... A slight change to the gameplay/names intended (!)to bypass the contract (?) between the devs and EA is not a way to go, imho. Yes, a new framework/universe would not alter the unique gameplay, but this is too much effort! Especially coming up with a new, consistent concept, which is not ripped from another franchise Just look at Ska-Ara's RA2 mod, who's has been working on it for a while and just recently got some support (hats off for that btw!) It takes a devoted team of (experienced) artists and designers, just like this dev team here, endeavouring to deliver this project and they have to sustain their motivation for many years - that's one of the main reasons why a lot of promising projects fail. But to address the fundamental issue: Playerbase (maybe new thread?) Why don't you guys (community) work on marketing material (mainly videos, screenshots, alongside posts) that can be spread through social media? "This is EVE" style trailer has already been mentioned. Another example, use the rypel cam tool and record "scripted matches" instead of "regular Multiplayer". Take the "squad story" trailers for Bad Company 2: 82q4EUQdHOc Notice how each scene shows some features of the game, yet aligns within this short story? Show how important teamwork and strategy are in Renegade X. Setting: Nod attacking GDI Base (e.g. Mesa/Under?). - assaulting through the front door lets the AGT wreck all the tanks, therefore - stealth units sneak into the base and destroy the power plant. - GDI puts mines at the back entrance - to compensate for the loss in defences, GDI produces tanks and puts them in defensive positions - Nod tries to attack the Weapons Factory, but fails. - Instead cut GDI funds => infantry attacks harvester - the remaining GDI tanks are being repaired by engineers, snipers get into position to take them out. - Flame Tanks roll in and leave nothing but scorched earth Flames fade out into RenX logo 2nd Trailer GDI attacks Nod (e.g. Lakeside?) - commandos blow up Sam Sites, just like in Tiberian Dawn^^ - use air strikes against Nod artillery - Orcas attack Nod harvester, while engineers capture a silo - while GDI tanks attack the front, - a chinook filled with some infantry flies into the nod base from the back and lands on HoN, infantry sneaks down the ramps, throws smoke grenade through the window, jumps into and clears out the HoN. - place ion cannon beacon - blast white fade out into RenX logo To wrap up, I know that this would usually not happen in a regular match, therefore you need a script. And whoever runs such a server has to make sure that everyone is on TS follows their script, and obeys signals (e.g. patrolling, tanks don't move forwards and backwards all the time...) And EVERYONE can already participate: all you need is to join the server and listen to what you are told, to present the game that you love in a way that it was "meant" to be played... ;-) edit: see Redline's post edit2: Those who think they have the skills/resources why don't you try to ADD to the work that has been done already? New buildings is a big topic at the moment, develop a concept for the construction yard? (might also be helpful for RTS Mode )

exactly my thoughts

thanks for the feedback! Yeah, I know this would be too ambitious - that's exactly why I would rather just discuss it, and then see: 1) how such a more complex game mode could work out in a balanced, innovative and enjoyable way? 2) how it could technically be implemented, and what would be needed, i.e. a functional specification, classes, etc. ? 3) how do people like it? How many people are interested in it? => the clearer the picture the better one could judge if it is worthwhile AND feasible? That's all - I just wanted to start this "thought experiment"...