HaTe

I don't care about past changes, just the current situation and how to fix anythibg not balanced for the future. Right now a Nerf to the officer would balance the lcg relatively as well.

Could just have locked vehicles not be able to be damaged by teammates. Original renegade had that

I don't think a buff and a Nerf are needed when you can just Nerf the one weapon and the balance between the weapons would equal out. Doing a buff too would be overkill. Nerfing the chain gun in turn makes the lcg relatively stronger and more efficient. So the chain gun is more effective against infantry now, and nerfing that will make a buff to the lcg unnecessary

I personally think that the lcg handles itself quite fine. Its versatile and any good player can still land headshots very easily. The chain gun probably needs 150 mag capacity, but the big thing is that it needs a lower RoF. Decreasing the ROF makes the ttk anything take longer, regardless of the damage.

This is all more of an advertisement for ZH than anything else, considering that you're posting in that section of the forums...

So do I.

Yeah what did I want to Nerf?

Statistics proved that nod won the vast majority of city/flying games in the casual server in renegade. In competitive, it was a different story. You see, competitive players play both casually and competitively, whereas casual players play solely casually. That's where the larger perspective comes from, and why I take skilled players seriously (since there is no real competitive play in RenX yet). It is nothing personal. It just gets irritating to listen to average player arguments when they simply just don't understand the game yet to be arguing about balance like they are. Its so much more complex than the simple approach that they currently see (I'm not saying this is you, for the record).

I'm unclear what you want to be changed, then?

watch this. Its a community war between 2 of the best communities in renegade at the time. The coordination and skill are amazing. Most casual players would say how op nod was on city in renegade. We proved that skilled players disagree. So while the stank should have been edited in the original to fix how op it was to the casual gamer on a map like this, a skilled player understands that the game can be played in many different ways to negate that. So yeah, the stank should have been less op because of how it was affecting casual game play (which skilled players also recognized), but in competitive play, it was simply a non-factor. We see it from a wider perspective.Aiming is also more advanced.

A skilled team will beat the casual team 9 times out of 10 (and this is being generous). We even proved this in the original over and over again. Through both community wars and clanwars. Casual gamers don't do well against skilled competitive players. its a different pace, a different style. Its more advanced. That's not at all what this argument is about though. The point is that skilled players understand the aspect of balance better. Obviously the casual balance cannot be ignored, such that it should be just as easy for the casual gamer to win with either side than it is a skilled gamer. Skilled players just understand that balance aspect from a wider range than the narrow casual gamer balance.

What do I want to be removed exactly? Lol. I use first and third person. If you increase spread or recoil, you directly increase time to kill. That's a causation.

Again, I'm talking about balance. Not the gameplay or the mode itself. Both teams should be as close to 50-50 on each map as humanely possible. That's something that both noobs and skilled players want. Skilled players just understand how to get to that, better. Its literally that simple.

Protip: place proxies before remotes and after timed. Place them at the PT closest to where the enemy team is most likely to run into the building from. Possibly overmining in order to kill a building is understandable. Strategy that any pro player in renegade used. May as well help some X'ers too.

Well, in that case, I still feel if you watch enough youtube and twitch, or keep track of win statistics, you can still have a fairly good understanding of balance as a spectator. You also can NOT balance a game based on top skill. There are a LOT of newbie-friendly things that make sense, and some that dont and ruin the potential of the game, and knowing the difference is important, but in my experience, casual players will always suggest vehicle color and mine color be bright yellow and bright red teamcolored, and hardcores will always suggest automatic weapons have really low bodyshot damage and really high headshot damage and a lot of recoil after the 2nd bullet fired and everything require a 8 man team to accomplish anything. You have to know that team colored mines and vehicles ruin game fun by trojan vehicle and blending mines into enemy minefields, and that unrealistic weapon skill and group-reliant lethality ruin fun by low skill players never accomplishing anything and leaving the playerbase with the 20 diehard fans playing amongst themselves with no new blood. As far as balance goes, I think the stank needs more range for instance, based solely on the fact that an old ren player would expect it to reach the WF edge from the gdi base entrance, it would be nice if it reached air vehicles given the lack of Anti-Air options, and that it makes the weapon more useful in multi-vehicle conflicts where the stank can stay with the pack and still peck at enemy vehicles, as well as diversifying it from the Flame Tank which at current stealth tank missile range will always be better especially with it's new volumetric weapon which can reliably toast infantry with most of it's available dps at it's max range (at least 1 barrel). The chaingun needing spread would make it damage infantry less at mid range or longer, that would also be expected of the weapon being a "chaingun". Giving it less damage versus light vehicles also makes sense, it does unexpectedly high damage. Giving it less bullets a clip also makes it less able to sustain multiple gunfights which is too much value for a 175 unit that accels at a single gunfight engagement as well as the officer does. This would still leave the officer as nearly-amazing as it is now at shotgun fight range. Gunner adjustments I base entirely off the gameplay concept of "too much overlap" with Patch, rather than "balance". It is agreeably underpowered across the board, or more specifically "given strength in the wrong areas". If Patch can do consistent longrange vehicle damage on fast moving vehicles as well as infantry, give gunner more damage with a slow projectile so he can excel at structures and vehicle-fusterclucks but not at infantry except point blank in a tunnel or inside a structure (not like the currently headshot infantry down the tunnels in field). The point still remains. You cant judge ideas or people giving ideas based on the skill of the person. You have to actually chew the idea over. If you give it a thought, theorize it, and come up with a massive gameplay flaw in it, like giving tanks passenger machineguns completely wrecking balance as we know it for instance, as cool as it sounds don't get me wrong, then it's a bad idea. If you can come up with multiple reasons to do something and no servere consequences, then it is worth a try, so you can see where the consequence lies if anywhere. While I am ranting and mentioning balance together, I might as well also throw out again, that the grenade launcher can still reach across the cave in mesa, entrance to entrance, with like a 15% upward angle of aim. What is it's max range at a 45% angle of aim? Can you hit the Oblesk from the field tunnel with the grenadier which happens to have some of the highest structure damage and is a free unit? I think I make a good balance arguement there, it just needs a heavier projectile that travels as fast for ease of use, but falls shorter for a more limited range, and the fall also requires more upward aim at longer ranges which makes the projectile hit the ground with more delay giving infantry at least a chance to dodge it. As it stands currently, if you chunk a grenade at an enemy across the mesa cave, they are taking the splash damage at least. An argument that can make its point in the fastest way possible is the best argument to make. I'll start with that since reading these walls of text is more annoying than anything else. Sure, you can have an outside opinion as a spectator, but your opinion will only be as strictly an outsider. Who can explain a situation better, a primary source or a secondary source? I'm not talking about balancing the game merely based on top skill. I'm saying that these players understand the balance the best and are able to use the advantages the best. The best player can still understand that noobs often need the game simplified, whereas noobs won't understand the advantages that skill players use nearly as well. Again, who is the better source? As far as specific balance tweaks are concerned in your post, I think its obvious enough that the stank needs a buff. The chaingun's issues could all be fixed by reducing the ROF marginally. Both the grenade launcher and McFarland are op against infantry as is, but I'd attribute that to ROF as well. Reduce the ROF, and they in-turn become less effective and therefore not as OP against infantry. To not judge the person arguing about balance on their own skill level is to neglect the fact that there are different skill levels in the game, and therefore create a huge fallacy in the entire argument being made. It's like saying that a pre-schooler can have a strong educational stance on how education works, and taking that argument into consideration against a college education professor. Again, which source is better?

Renegade x isn't a tdm. Its a mission based mode (c&c). That's the difference. It's also third person/first person RTS hybrid. It's also based on a game that had similar gunplay mechanics. The original has/had many players even a decade or more after its release. Its not the guns not having recoil that are keeping people away, and if that were true then renegade wouldn't have been or be so popular for so long. You're fishing. If you use first person exclusively then you are limiting your own gameplay experience because of your own personal preference. That's not the developer's problem...its yours.

I'm not talking about gameplay. Even people with no sense of the game can feel free to comment on that. Graphics, settings, character models, bugs, physics; I'll take anyone serious about that. I'm talking balance. Which team is better, which weapons are better, which weapons are OP, etc. People who don't have skill or knowledge of the game aren't taken seriously by me when discussing balance issues. The rest of the game, I'm glad to listen and discuss with average players. Not sure if you got confused by what I was saying or were intentionally twisting it, but the above paragraph basically renders your whole post as irrelevant lol

Its the launcher. Run the actual game instead of joining from the launcher and it works. I'm assuming this is just a bug right now.

Recoil and spread are for games that are more realistic and so they have infantry die with a few hits from just about any gun. Renegade has units with more health. Meaning if there was more recoil and spread, then units would just sprint around and not worry as much about dying. Its about skill rather than estimated luck. If the game were based on real life (which you compare it to with your RPG and sniper examples), don't you think hospitals would all purchase repair guns by now? Its all alternate universe (c&c).

Cod doesn't have bases where you spawn at purchase terminals. That's almost like saying cod was trying to be like renegade because it has guns lol

I have the same issue. I set my all chat and team chat to renegade defaults (f2 and f3). I can only vote yes. Something I never bothered posting because its not too annoying, but it is an issue for me as well.

They're relevant, just not when talking about balance as is. I use "average" loosely because many players are new and there's only a select few that truly understand the game strategies and also have skill. Whereas there are lots of new players or players that aren't very good. I don't rate by points of recs lol that'd be ridiculous. I rate mostly by the strategies that the player is trying to get the team to use. Then of course by skill, both with infantry and vehicles. If they are suggesting a strategy that is just going to hurt the team, then it becomes apparent that they do not yet understand many gameplay elements. If they're someone that sits in the game and complains about team balance the whole time instead of playing, then it also becomes apparent that they are not very good at the game. Some players are solo players that are skilled too, but that's the rarest breed of them all right now.

We're getting so off topic. Not even addressing or arguing the points I brought up. Everyone's just adding in their own balance input at this point. Which all differs from style, skill, experience, team play, and so much more. Honestly, and I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I can only take the players with proven skill seriously. If I see you in game and you appear to be average or worse, then your balance arguments are mostly irrelevant to me anyway (for reasons previously stated).

Nod and GDI are advanced futuristic factions, and therefore their gun control is excellent and so their spread is very minimal. /solved

1. Reduce bodyshot damage for automatic weapons. Too rewarding for new players. 2. Make mines more visible 3. Vet system needed asap. It'll fix so many complaints. Sidearm system, vehicle drop system, credit inbalance, etc. All fixed by one universal system that gives a secondary economical income. 4. Fix vehicle physics. Too flimsy. Turning shouldn't be exaggerated like it is neither. They need to be more "clunkier," for gameplay purposes. 5. Fix points system. Killing units needs to be more points (especially infantry), so that whoring buildings or repairing isn't the only way to get to the top of the scoreboard.