j0g32

Or just only keep the latest message and delete the preceding calls, effectively reordering the chat history to make multiple calls appear as the most recent message.

@Vancer2 What is it that you don't like about it then? I can't help but feel that it's the exact other way round As long as the building has health >0, the building is fully functional. Health (building functionality) cannot be restored, however you can protect a building from failure by repairing the armour, to keep its health preserved

Interesting concept and layout! And a lot of good input and ideas floating around here! Looking forward to whatever you will make out of it. Maybe replace the AI defenses with 1 gun emplacement for each team?

Well done @ThommyK0104 and @CoreDefender !

Use </irony> tags instead then Still, not sure if troll or not... Btw I was not thinking of refugees, but rather PEGIDA, AfD, FN, PiS, UKIP etc. But yeah, why bother politics anyway :-P This is Renegade X. Everyone is gonna be fine .

?!?

Honestly, as little as I would have wished for it, I am not that surprised about the election outcome... Just so sad to see this "lining up" with all the recent Nationalist / Conservative movements, e.g. France, Germany, Poland, UK and now US...

@TheOlsenTwins Well, what's the point of Surrender vote then anyway. The intention of Surrender was to cut stalematy gameplay, but now it seems to be abused to obtain a restart of the match whenever a team experiences a disadvantage... Okay, so how about not 50% of votes, but 50% of the whole team has to vote in favour of surrender? And then nuke/ion the base, or some animation where everything blows up and all infantry raise their hands, and vehicles blow up. I think this is what happened in some of the orig. C&C RTS when you surrendered in multiplayer ?! Or some endgame cutscenes like in Battlefield Bad Company 2 (Vietnam) would be neat too Just to briing back this satisfaction of winning

How about a global "surrender" - calling for a tie break instead? This would (if at all) only be used to end stalemates. The scores of both teams are still displayed but the leading team is not declared winner to reflect that neither side was able to claim significant victory. Maybe only after a mutual tie break was rejected by both teams, either team can surrender. What do you think? P.s. but then the "leading" team would always reject a tie break call...

Found this mod on the interwebs: EXIMIUS - formerly known as Project Combine. Just imagine this with C&C

I fully agree with you that accruing statistics is only a somewhat more objective measure of experience in that sense. But you already made my point yourself: you don't agree with the numbers that @CampinJeff provided. Everyone derives the (im)balances of the teams/maps in question based on a different sample of matches, experiences, and gamemodes. What I was trying to say is that, unless base your conclusion that "Map X is biased and favours team Y" on a common set of knowledge/data/experience, what is the implication in terms of re-balancing the teams/maps? In fact, I should ask what is the point of discussing the (im)balance of certain maps, when the goal is not altering the maps in any way to improve balance?

Sorry, but I am struggling to hold back the little statistician in me Why are you even using numbers to evaluate the balance/odds, if you dont use proper win/loss data, other than anecdotal experience?! Doesnt the controversy in this thread highlight, how many different factors may contribute to favour different strategies on different maps. So, without objective stats (large sample), there is no way of saying that any map is biased either way...

Vehicle weakspots, anyone? ^^

EMPs should disarm (or stop/deactivate) remote/times C4s. I dont think its a game breaker. The EMP explosion gives away the incoming rush anyway, and without presuming/checking that mines/c4 have been placed around the corner, you would rather save it for entering a building...

Or make frag the default free option and smoke purchasable for 50 and C4 for 200. Might be enough to prevent tier 1 rushes?

Great job on the advanced PP. Your design makes way more sense, than the original TD one. *wipes nostalgia tears away* It would be great to have this ingame, although I do not yet see the benefits for gameplay... ... unless the base power supply is changed from binary (power / no power) to an additive mechanics: The standard and the advanced PP could generate enough to power the whole base (maybe with additional buildings?), but if either of them is destroyed, base defenses are offline and maybe some other high tech structures. While defences are offline the enemy might attack the base and destroy more buildings, reducing the base power demand, until eventually the base power suffices to supply defences. This might actually be cool, and force teams to prioritise on destroying the Defences eventhough power is offline. Rather than not care about them at all once PP is lost...

Hey @Diamant001, Danke für Dein Feedback, aber wieso schreibst Du deine Beiträge nicht auf Englisch? Die meisten Mitglieder hier in der Community sind wie Du keine Englisch-Muttersprachler; aber damit sich alle verstehen und an den Diskussionen beteiligen können, einigt man sich auf einen gemeinsamen Nenner und kommuniziert in Englisch. Die Leute hier geben sich Mühe und versuchen Dir zu helfen: @Fffreak9999 hat seine Antwort sogar mit Google Translator auf Deutsch übersetzt. Auch wenn du vielleicht nicht besonders gut Englisch sprechen/schreiben kannst, sei doch bitte so respektvoll und fair allen anderen gegenüber und versuche Deine Beiträge auf Englisch zu formulieren - wenn auch nur mit Google Translator... Danke! Um Deine Frage kurz zu beantworten: Im Spiel kannst Du mit der Taste "M" die Übersichtskarte aufrufen und davon einen Screenshot erstellen. Alternative kannst Du den Editor (Software Development Kit, SDK) für Renegade X herunterladen, darin die Maps laden und davon dann Screenshots machen, oder gleich konkrete Änderungsvorschläge umsetzen... ------- English: I told him that most of us are not native speakers, but to allow everyone to participate in the discussions, the community sticks to the most common language, English. I asked him to put at least the same effort as Fffreak9999 by using Google Translator when communicating with everyone else...

Congrats, Henk - well deserved !

If anything, make Anti-Air (SAM sites, or rocket soldiers) more deadly to aircraft by increasing their damage and/or agility. I wouldn't nerf the armour though, as sniper rifles will again become the best anti-air defence ...

Sorry, I had some issues with some cross-references and my package didn't save properly - and I lost some of the bits >.< ... Will try again - now with the latest SDK.

Wow - that did the job!!! Thank you so much for your fast and helpful response. btw the file is called "UnrealEdCSharp.dll"

I just downloaded the latest version of the SDK (updated 4 October), folder name 29-09-2016 again. The Game itself works fine, but the SDK fails to load, and it always crashes when loading the FoliageBrushSphereMaterial (see screenshot) tried the Win64, Win32, and UDKLift.exe ... Does anyone have an idea what the issue could be? Many thanks in advance! edit: please, see the log attached - maybe sth. about .NET Framework ?! Launch.log

Good idea, actually. Or you could jam them with EMP. Maybe also let infantry drop security keys/cards after being killed (not upon every death though). The enemy could then pick up the key and open doors just like a spy. This should be very limited, i.e. not every kill leads to security access, and the pickup should disappear within 5-10 seconds. Maybe certain "techniques" have a higher probability of dropping such pickup items, e.g. stealth kill with pistol and without the enemy firing a single shot at intruder, or sniper kill from a distance, where someone else would have to pick up the key in time.

Maybe we should be more clear what this discussion is about: Mining System (and how newcomers can learn its complexities about proper placement) Base/building defence in general I know that mining has become the core mechanics of base defence, but tbh mining is as passive as any other defence system that is currently in place. Once all mines are placed, nobody is actually "defending the base" - some may be "maintaining" the integrity of this passive defence system. Yet, my association with "defending the base" looks more like this: As I mentioned earlier, this whole discussion seems to stem from the fact that defensive gameplay relies to heavily on mines. Maybe it might be worth to encourage manual defence, i.e. payers who are "actively" guarding structures are given defensive points. This could be either directly (X points for every minute spent in/close to a building), or indirectly by rewarding a kill with a defensive bonus, if it was taken while on guard - some other games call this a "defensive kill". Seriously, take a step back - the problem that we are discussing here is not the mining system in itself, it#s the OVERRELIANCE of the defensive gameplay on it that we should address....

Yeah, the specular map might need some work to make it look more sandy Yep, I am using the SDK on my private uni/office notebook, and I am glad that it works at all - although with lowest settings. That's partly the reason why I wanted to do something where graphics-power is not that essential, i.e. playing around with assets