HaTe

In Renegade, there was a "dot" inside of the reticle on all weapons that told you where you were actually aiming, or going to hit. In Renegade X, that's not true for all weapons, including tanks. But the reticle will remain red when aiming at an enemy unit/building, even if you are not going to hit it because an object interferes with that. It should only be red when you are going to hit that object. Basically, the reticle color change is attached to the camera, when it should be attached to the gun/turret.

Not sure if that has been reported, but the HoN windows will not break when a tank shoots at them. Just tested with the MRLS and light tank. The HoN does not take damage at all, even if the user is aiming at the inside of the HoN through the window. This also goes for the airstrip windows, so I guess it is just windows in general. I'd also like to point out that shooting the doors gives you a red reticle and then a hitmarker when aiming at the floor on the other side of the door, but it does no damage.

Are the developers having trouble reproducing this, or is it being fixed for the next patch? So far, the only times I've ever noticed anyone complaining about it are when: A person's vehicle died, and then they go buy an SBH. You get killed while in the purchase terminal menu while purchasing something (i heard this for the first time yesterday). For some reason when you buy an SBH, the camera tweaks out for several frames as well. I also noticed that this happens when you buy a character while being an SBH (or get a character crate while SBH). It's as if the camera starts in the sky then comes downward onto the character. Note that I could not reproduce this on complex for some reason during my short testing with this.

When you move forward by holding "W" to use a PT, the terminal registers you as pressing "W" still, and enters the weapons. I often accidentally purchase an EMP grenade on accident because of this. It should not read your button presses before accessing the PT, including if a button is held down when entering it.

I have the input settings on "Tank Reverse" checked, like it is in the original Renegade. The APC, buggy, and humvee don't change though when this option is selected, unlike the other vehicles. These vehicles aren't "tanks," but it's kind of silly that all of the other vehicles it works for, besides these three...

I again appreciate a tmx moderator's opinion on the matter, and I'd like to point out that the invincibility and the fact that the base defense doesn't see you is what I am against. The actual water path itself I am completely fine with. So we are in agreement there. If an enemy can be shot and killed while underwater, and the base defense can also see them in there, then I am all for the river to remain. Some rocks or barriers to block the base defense from seeing you in specific spots would be good too, as I understand that this is a sneaking path. I personally would like to see the water level lowered there and then barriers added (that require sprinting from one to the next, not just a big barrier blocking the whole path). I also agree with you that the ideal solution would be for the water to be able to slow the acceleration and therefore damage at certain angles, but that seems highly unrealistic for a game in UE.

Just add vkills and keep deaths. K/D can always be calculated user-side if need be, so that can be replaced anyway, really.

Additional buildings could add quite a bit of functions. Having buildable support/defense structures like turrets or repair pads in designated spots in your base, for example. A comm center could make it so that enemy units are temporarily seen on your radar when in your base. I've personally always liked the concept of having the hon/barracks and wf/airstrip work quite differently. Make it into faction buildings, with one having advanced characters and low vehicles, and the other having advanced vehicles and low (tier 2, including hotwire/technician) characters. When one of those buildings die, you lose the ability to purchase those units, rather than not being able to purchase vehicles at all or characters at all, as it works now. Just an edit that could really mix things up a bit.

It kills the flow of the game when someone just sits under the water, knowing that they can't be hurt by most things. It looks aesthetically ridiculous, which is a smack in the face to an otherwise beautiful game. And it just doesn't make sense when the same effect (sneaking) can be achieved in many different ways. It's also not that easy to defend...for one you literally have to search for them in the water if they're there, which means you have to get right on the ledge of the water basically. The mines are easily disarmable there (especially with EMP grenades in the game now) because anyone can disarm with cover. It is just completely out of place in the game, especially considering that the devs specifically did not carry over any Renegade "glitch tactics" to this game, such as using a PT through a building's wall. For the love of got, Hate, it was intentional, so we can't even call this path a glitch now. Invincibility in water exists on Islands too, but considering you're only invincible from the surface, you can definitely just be killed by anyone who takes the time to figure out they can jump in with you and have a crazy dolphin fight. The mines being easy disarm-able means absolutely nothing, as if the team just fires-and-forgets the mines, they're as liable to die to an infantry rush on HON as they are to die to a single infiltrator. It's as if you're either not reading the posts or completely neglecting the facts all together.The path was intentional. The way it works is what the issue is. If you're in an APC you're supposed to leave that vehicle unattended to jump in after the unit in the water because he cannot be killed otherwise? You're telling me that makes logical sense in your head? Please provide just one argument FOR keeping this besides "it's been like this for a while and we use it to kill buildings against players that don't defend it all game or don't know about it." If being almost invincible in water was intentional (which does not work ideally, confirmed by a Nielsen), then it'd be the game itself going in the wrong direction. It's unlogical for gameplay and realism. The vast majority of people that play this game are newcomers, and seeing someone underwater not take direct damage at all immediately screams "yeah, that's a glitch." Glitches drive people away. It's really not that hard to understand. I'd like to ask the devs one more question as well: Is splash damage still calculated server-side? This would be an underlining concept confirming that the water is not intended to work this way. Having server-side damage register, but not client-side damage register is obviously a glitch. Being ignored by base defenses is because the client-side aspect of the base defense does not recognize you as in range. That's clearly just an oversight and therefore a blatant glitch, if this is the case, and would need a fix either way. If the water was intentionally designed this way (which has neither been confirmed nor denied, for you nay-sayers), then the only other question I would have is....why? Before anyone mis-quotes this again, I'm talking about the way the underwater works, not the function of the path on goldrush specifically.

The spectator bug has only ever happened to me when I was a character in a vehicle and then that vehicle died and I went to the purchase terminal before my character died, and bought a SBH. It has happened 3 times in total for me, and each time this was the case.

It kills the flow of the game when someone just sits under the water, knowing that they can't be hurt by most things. It looks aesthetically ridiculous, which is a smack in the face to an otherwise beautiful game. And it just doesn't make sense when the same effect (sneaking) can be achieved in many different ways. It's also not that easy to defend...for one you literally have to search for them in the water if they're there, which means you have to get right on the ledge of the water basically. The mines are easily disarmable there (especially with EMP grenades in the game now) because anyone can disarm with cover. It is just completely out of place in the game, especially considering that the devs specifically did not carry over any Renegade "glitch tactics" to this game, such as using a PT through a building's wall.

The river being used as a means of transportation by sneaking is what was intended. The actual way it does that is even admitted to be shaky and an annoyance by the maker. So it's not the river itself that is the bug, it's the way that it works (which I'm not sure if Nielsen created or not?). Which was what this topic is about. Nielsen even admits he'd prefer it done differently, just in a way that really can't be done. I'm not against the river being used as transportation. I am, however, against using the glitchy upstream river that makes you almost invincible being used (so going underwater, essentially). So yeah, the knee deep solution would be fine by me as it is getting rid of the silly glitchy underwater. There's honestly many different ways that it could be done differently to look and play better than it does now.

I don't see any harm in adding this, so long as the system in place also remains, as Jake said.

Beta 1 (and the following betas up to 4) had MANY more severe issues that needed to be resolved. So this just kind of fell under the radar. Now that the majority of those bugs are fixed and beta 4 is by far the most stable and balanced beta, it's about time we re-visit the logic behind this glitch, and fix it. Even if you can afford them, they are easily disarmable there and you'd have to spread them out significantly. That's assuming that your team does mine there and does not use the mines in the buildings, and therefore using up the limit. Even though you won't ask, I'll still provide the answer for you. They were being compared for sake of glitches on maps that still exist, yet could have the argument made that they were intended. How ridiculous that argument is for something like this and for something like that was the comparing point. Aesthetically, yes. As a form of gameplay, I wouldn't say so. The current is pretty strong there, actually. Not sure how you haven't seen that, as it's especially strong right next to the bridge. Swimming upstream in a river with that current is not possible in real life, and the gameplay factor looks silly as well. This whole analogy comparison went right over your head. I'm making that argument in hopes that you'll realize just how ridiculous you sound defending this glitch, and that it would be the equivalent of defending that glitch in many ways. What sense? Why are you even defending this? If it was removed, rocks or some sort of cover would take its place and provide cover anyway. On what merit are you defending this? Gameplay? It makes you almost entirely invincible, and still be able to travel. That's not good for the gameplay. Realism? It's not realistic at all. Honestly, what is your logic behind defending this other than "it's been here for a long time and we've used it for a while." ? Man, you're grasping at straws at this point. Just admit that you're upset that the guy who made the map agrees with us and move on please. I do not believe that you read his response. He clearly states that he wants the conversation to continue in order to see peoples' responses, and may edit it from there. Please attempt to read before trying to fallacize an argument. Thank you. There's also just as many (if not more) people against it just in this topic alone. The players that are new don't typically view the forums, but I assure you that the vast majority of them realize how silly it is too. I do respect your attempt to stick up for your clan, though. It is noted. What is your argument FOR this glitch to remain, bong? Besides that it was the tmx clan using it to their advantage, of course. Do you have any other justification for it other than "it's been here for a while, and we use it." ?

K/D is nice to know and nice to compare. I like to know that for gameplay and personal reasons.

Beta 1 (and the following betas up to 4) had MANY more severe issues that needed to be resolved. So this just kind of fell under the radar. Now that the majority of those bugs are fixed and beta 4 is by far the most stable and balanced beta, it's about time we re-visit the logic behind this glitch, and fix it. Even if you can afford them, they are easily disarmable there and you'd have to spread them out significantly. That's assuming that your team does mine there and does not use the mines in the buildings, and therefore using up the limit. Even though you won't ask, I'll still provide the answer for you. They were being compared for sake of glitches on maps that still exist, yet could have the argument made that they were intended. How ridiculous that argument is for something like this and for something like that was the comparing point. Aesthetically, yes. As a form of gameplay, I wouldn't say so. The current is pretty strong there, actually. Not sure how you haven't seen that, as it's especially strong right next to the bridge. Swimming upstream in a river with that current is not possible in real life, and the gameplay factor looks silly as well. This whole analogy comparison went right over your head. I'm making that argument in hopes that you'll realize just how ridiculous you sound defending this glitch, and that it would be the equivalent of defending that glitch in many ways. What sense? Why are you even defending this? If it was removed, rocks or some sort of cover would take its place and provide cover anyway. On what merit are you defending this? Gameplay? It makes you almost entirely invincible, and still be able to travel. That's not good for the gameplay. Realism? It's not realistic at all. Honestly, what is your logic behind defending this other than "it's been here for a long time and we've used it for a while." ?

A. So is the canyon bug. I'm not claiming it isn't well known. I thought that it was well known to be a bug, and therefore exploitation of a bug when people use it. When mods started using it, I began to see otherwise. B. The canyon bug is easily countered by having someone camp the back of the ref all game. Does that justify it in any way? Nope. C. Read the topic. I'm against the idea all together on any map. It's just the fact that it's the most exploitable on goldrush. D. You clearly weren't a part of the conversation/argument about this back in the day. RenX developers did not and do not want to include glitches/bugs just because they add to the gameplay experience. You also sometimes can't afford to have mines there, and they are easily disarmable/avoidable in that spot regardless. Cheats are easily counterable with a mod in spectate mode all game. Does that justify using cheats? Again, the answer would be no. E. Feel free to link me to any example at all of this claim. I'm a competitive player who doesn't like it when glitches/exploits ruin a map, and when silly unrealistic and game-breaking physics are included into a game that I truly do care about. F. Confirmed wrong by Nielsen, as it has potential of being removed with the voiced concerns here. Look at this from a new player's perspective. They see this and think "really, are you kidding me? Not only can I not damage them while they are doing this, but it also looks completely ridiculous and out of place." C&C and Renegade/X in general provide a balance between realism and gameplay mechanics. This silliness breaks realism and gameplay mechanics justification in just about every way. This would be ideal. As that seems highly improbable though, I'd say that just making the water current force the player backwards onto a land exit would be the best solution. You can always add blockade forms for increased sneaking that is both realistic and gameplay relevant, too. I feel like I'm sort of bashing the devs with this, but just know that I'm merely asking for clarification and that I love most of the map in general. That's why I hate when it is ruined by something as silly as a upstream swimming invincible current. Thanks for the clarification though; and I truly hope this gets removed.

In real life: Water is liquid and you can move through it, also it slows bullets. Wall is concrete and you can't move through it What's there more to be said? Except: A. Bullets get slower acceleration through water, not act as if it was a concrete wall (watch the mythbusters episode if you need further clarification). B. you can't swim against a strong current without any resistance. C. The wall in canyon isn't concrete. This is just me making arguments as silly as yours though. I'm speaking from a factual standpoint. Sure it's an opinion, but my facts supporting my argument outweigh yours big time. If you can't see that, then I can't say that you have the game's best integrity in mind. Meaning that I mentioned TMX players in specific? Would you rather have me had left that part out? I didn't realize that was a sensitive topic. Yes, because I just (re)-started a clan, I shouldn't be reporting and asking about glitches that are apparently being exploited in my view. Again, excellent logic. Asking for an explanation and getting shunned when no explanation can be given is not diplomatic from TMX. I agree.

GDI Refinery is actually easier to reach than PP and WF (in B3 at least, don't know if it changed in B4) I think it should stay in, you have the bridge as bottleneck, place mines there, and keep an eye on that spot, and watch mine count. Also be alert if you hear the obelisk go off. GDI doesn't have invisible characters so in my opinion Nod bases should have more cover for sneaking. It might be unrealistic, but Gameplay > Realism. Renegade X purposefully did not implement glitches from the original Renegade that were used for gameplay purposes. If you've ever played it and used a PT through a building wall, you would understand where they are coming from with that. If you want more cover, then add rocks, not a upstream swimming invincible current. Again, it's purely illogical from that stance as well...

A wall is a wall and going through it is considered a glitch. I wonder why you didn't bring this up the past beta4 testing sessions. We tested for like four weeks and two times a weekend, and you could also try stuff in Skirmish. Today was the first time I ever heard someone about this since beta1. So thousands of players 'abused' this 'glitch' all the time and even the Beta4 testers and developers did, but still it was left in unattended. Where is the logic? So because it's a wall, it's a glitch? Yet because it's water, it's not a glitch? Please clarify. Exaggerating about people using this is both unneeded and a poor argument. There's still plenty of glitches that were there since beta1 (reload glitch), so again, please try to use an argument with some real justification.

That's like justifying being able to walk through the canyon walls because both teams can do it. I'd also like to point out that you're swimming upstream through a pretty strong flowing river current to do this as well. inb4 tmx players attempted justification spam, as 4 are currently reading this topic.

Please tell me this was not intended. Swimming in the water on Goldrush (I'm assuming other maps as well) makes you invincible to anything but splash damage and flame damage. It also makes you receive no hitbox while underwater as well. The base defenses don't appear to notice you neither. There were many TMX players using this and then claiming that it was a tactic, and not an exploitation of a glitch. They were using it to swim to the airstrip and hon and eventually killed both. How in the world does this make any logical or gameplay sense to be intended was my argument, but they were persistent in their "we do it, so it is considered strategy" ways. If an argument could be presented that either provided it gameplay or realistic justification, I'd be glad to hear it. Otherwise, could a dev please confirm this as a glitch so that it can stop being considered as a "tactic" at once, please. At the very least I can understand no hitbox, but taking no direct damage and being invisible to base defenses makes this clearly a glitch to me...

We cant touch anything engine related. Beta 4 updated to the newest UDK. If the newest UDK doesent support SLI as before then you/we are just out of luck. Ah didn't realize it was the UDK version itself that caused the issue. That's a bummer

Beta 4 shouldn't have affected your fps that much at all. The only exception is the loss of SLi support, which is being looked into afaik. If your machine has low specs though, I doubt that is your issue. Maybe if you could provide more details, such as what your FPS was before beta 4, and what it is now?

"Immediately" is spelled wrong when a low health building is spotted, as well.