HaTe

It shouldn't take too much individual skill to 4 man rush and kill a vehicle, though. SP should be rewarded for individual skill, because measuring team skill on a basis like this is near impossible. As mentioned earlier, you can do "whoever damages the vehicle in the last 5 seconds before it dying," but that doesn't award people who damaged it prior to that, and it could mean 20 people shooting at the same vehicle at once all get the SP assist. Perhaps, and I'm just winging it at this point, a script could be made that awards an assist for SP purposes when any person damages >=10% of the max vehicle health in the final 5 seconds of its life? This seems exploitable and difficult as hell to code, though. I think that the whole >=50% idea is the best way to do it, because it's a compromise to any other system that would be glitchy or exploitable, yet it is still efficient and awards what it is supposed to. The example you use wouldn't award those players, but there's no real unexploitable system I can think of that would...If you have any suggestion on it though, let's hear it lol

Yeah I know, I was just pointing out to people that they aren't useless to either game in the right hands. Also pointing it out to whoever said that they weren't too deadly in the original. They are if you know how to use them properly. As far as what character you spawn with, the soldier has always been the first character in renegade, and its always worked fine there. I think it works good the way it is, personally.

I just see any system that awards a person for doing less than 50% damage is easily exploitable. I think that only giving a person who does >=50% would be the best option (at least that I can think of). Any other system would have far too many holes and ways to take advantage of them. If it's "skill points," then it should be individually based and not team anyway, so 50% sounds the most logical.

GDI soldier was the best free character available in the original. Anyone who disagrees never played competitively, honestly. The start of the game is the most important part, and the GDI soldier gave a big advantage to GDI. I would mow down at least 4-5 kills while defending the harvester on most maps as GDI, giving my team a huge advantage. Of course having an engineer with you was always important competitively, for killing the enemy harvester, repairing you, and c4ing buildings on some maps. But it was the soldier that defended the harvester and defended the engineers. Nod soldier was pretty useless for skilled players, as the pistol was almost as good. The GDI rifle simply destroyed infantry for any skilled player though.

Yeah that was my concern with the assist SP as well. There's multiple ways that it "could" be done, but many would be exploitable and/or very hard to code. I suppose it could be calculated that if you do greater than or equal to 51 damage to the enemy unit's maximum health, but don't kill the final kill shot, that it could be added in. The problem with this is that if a unit refills or is repaired, it could be that multiple people get rewarded in some way via SP. I suppose that could be seen as a good thing or a bad thing. Something like: 1 SP for every 2 vehicle assists. 1 SP for every 5 infantry assists. 1 SP for a building assist (since many players could potentially get this bonus from 1 building kill).

There will be many updates upcoming to help balance. Its still a beta after all!

Fair enough. Shall I keep it up to continue to gain signatures for future purposes, or would you like it taken down? Btw its when clicking "developers" in the forums that the 3 "lead" devs are announced, may want to update that. I am in no way blinded. Its just clear to me that you don't understand that a petition can stay up to gain votes and then be referenced later on. Its not like it has to be submitted by a certain time. You're over thinking this WAY too much, and its making you assume you know my intentions or what I am thinking. You clearly are not understanding my posts, so you should just stop responding or take it to a pm if you really need more clarification. Edited for spelling reasons. On my phone.

The petition can run as long as necessary. It does not have to be paused and then resumed, because it can simply just stay up and keep collecting signatures. They have concentrated heavily on steam already, if you would bother to read my other posts in this topic before posting. Just going off of the forums statuses. Havoc, Fobby, and Jam are the 3 "lead" developers. The title is important for officialism, actually. I'm all for letting BF Hardline take the spotlight now and sending this into a letter after that spotlight has mostly diminished. I understand that completely, and like you said, there's no reason to pause the petition because of that (it can keep running). The "picture" is the beta release video. I'm not sure where you are looking at it that makes it appear like that? If you can provide a screenshot, I can edit that if it for some reason is appearing as such. I didn't want to put origin in the petition itself because Steam would be ideal. Don't want to directly plant the idea of origin in their minds. If they want to plant it in ours as an alternative, then so be it. Origin would still be better than nothing. Basically, I just want a lead developers support on this moving forward so that I can A. Call it "official," B. Allow them to promote it if desired, and C. Know whether to keep it up or take it down if they're against the petition route entirely for some reason.

Bumping this again in hopes for some sort of official word from the (lead) developers.

The idea was to test it out for the eventual final release. Not implement it now and expect for it to constantly be full. A simple message saying "game isn't intended for 64 players and could result in reduced or poor performance" would let the noobs know, if that really is the biggest gripe with it that you have. The fact that there IS different opinions on the matter should allow you to come to the realization that it should be a choice for servers. If a player doesn't want to join a server with that amount of people, they don't have to. If a server owner doesn't want to condone that many people in their server, they don't have to. However, if the server and the player want to, it should be their choice. Again, this is all going based off of being told that servers can indeed handle this so long as they have superb specs. This is coming from someone who enjoyed 15v15 stock Renegade more than any other games, but also enjoyed occasionally playing in 50+ servers with other people who obviously also enjoyed it.

Not sure about the compatibility of the launcher, but I do know that there is an external launcher in the sticky section of this part of the forums. Not sure about its compatibility neither, but just a thought.

Stock Renegade had crates be either 100 credits, 200 credits (on certain maps only), or an ammo refill. All good things. Mods edited it to include all of the other things. You have to keep in mind that competitive play is meant to be played on the stock game. Having crates be a good thing in the stock game is something that also existed in the original game.

So just allow 64 player servers, with a note that it will require extremely powerful specs in order to do so. It's not that UE3 can't handle it; it sounds moreso that it's the server's specs that can't handle it on the UE3. Shouldn't limit those few servers that can run it by having a lower max player count though. These are communities. Dedicated servers. They understand that people may want to join a different server because of various reasons. If they don't then they shouldn't be running a server in the first place honestly. I don't personally think it's fair to limit the better spec'd servers because they can handle it and other servers cannot. That's like maxing the gfx settings at high because many players can't handle the ultra setting.

not pulling out is a risk-reward type situation. Gotta figure out if the other team can take handle it or not first. pun intended

Agreed with Jake on this one; if it is indeed possible, then it should at the very least be attempted and tested. With vehicle limits in place, the "Vehicle lag" shouldn't be too relevant anyway. Again, it all comes down to if the engine can handle it, but Jake says that he has seen it be capable.

If the PP and airstrip are down, then Nod should be lucky that they even have the option to still purchase a vehicle, regardless of it costing more. That's just my thought. A mammoth tank would cost 6000 in this example (with the addition of possibly no harvester for a while and 1 cred/sec); so it's not likely going to be a common purchase from this system. Nod has the artillery which can be repaired to be the best glass cannon unit in the game, the stank which is ideal for larger map sneaking, and the light tank which is highly elusive and hard to kill with an experienced driver. I think 1 and 3 are reasonable until a Vet System is implemented (remember this is only a temporary solution until the Vet System).

1 and 3 seem logical from Alkaline's suggestions. 2 would render it useless entirely.

I've been seeing the 40s filled up lately. But fair enough, not much you can do if the engine doesn't allow it.

Based on your build specs, thats the only logical conclusion. I think havoc just must've read the first post. Hopefully because he's busy with other things renx related

When will this be a thing again? I know that the 40 was put into place long ago to combat vehicle lag, but I think we should begin testing 64 again. I understand that it was kept at 40 in order to provide different servers with player counts, but as is there's only 2 servers that are ever really being used, and usually 1 of them is full. With the (eventual) final release of the game, I think that the numbers will sky-rocket back up to what they once were in beta 1. Having higher player count servers would be awesome to experience with that. At the very least, will it be tested again before the final release?

I thought the issue was that something changed that deactivated/altered SLi support.

Been a bit since anything was posted here, but found a recent article promoting the game on gamewatcher here: http://www.gamewatcher.com/news/2015-23 ... x-released

I always just add in the quote code myself lol. I meant earlier haha didn't even see these 3 when i posted that. No big deal though, i just know it's in the rules and you seem like a reasonable guy

No... It is not fixed, just a temporary workaround. The goal is to re-enable SLi support on Beta 4... Well yeah but if you have one video card that can run at 60+, the need for 2 isn't absolutely necessary. You're right that it isn't a game-fix, but just a temporary client fix, but it's still a fix. Better than nothing. Oh, and the edit button works much better than triple posting

Should move this to the mod section of the forums (Level Design Discussion)