HaTe

Hard to tell, but I think he may be talking about the whole nuke disarm discussion. Meaning what it does when you disarm it and have it be disarmable when falling still. Just my best guess though.

He fixed his issue in his last post I believe. Try that if you're running a similar configuration

Interesting...not sure where the problem could be at all... In spectate mode (I believe you can access this in skirmish mode?), do you still get the FPS drop, or is it just when you are using a character model? And is it the same with first person and third person I'm guessing? Sounds like it could possibly be a game optimization issue on specs that are extraordinarily high. Not sure what changed from beta 3 to 4 on this aspect though. Edit: apparent optimization edits via the changelist: Optimized particle trail effects on various missile, shells, and bullet particles for better performance New character/vehicle shader system with cubemap reflections Updated to latest UDK version Added 3D Studio Max rig example files for weapons, vehicles, and characters (?) Disabled static decals by default in all video modes below ultra cause it uses a lot of performance Doubled ConfiguredInternetSpeed and MaxInternetClientRate which might result in smoother online play Various other optimizations to all maps, effects, assets etc Most can be ruled out as causing your issue, but some are likely at least relevant (though i couldn't tell you specifically which ones).

PP does quite a bit, even on non-base defense maps. Doubles prices (1.5x now in RenX I guess actually), makes harvester drops take more time. Increases vehicle build time. At least it did all of that in the original; haven't tested each of those features in RenX yet. Some maps also don't have a PP, so that wouldn't be too logical. Not to mention that killing the PP on a base defense map is *usually* the best first building to kill already. Making it have that additional feature would be overkill. @AP2000; perhaps you were donated?

Windows 8 I'm guessing? Don't think 7 ever even supported that much RAM capability. Wasn't even aware windows 8 could lol Edit: Nevermind, just read the 16 cores part.

Awesome and wonderful news!

Great work, thank you for that contribution! I think if fobby approves of this, adding a link to it on the FB and twitter pages could do a lot of good. A sticky or announcement would do it wonders. If those actions occur, I can see this getting well over 200 signatures quite easily.

VP instead of SP would be perfectly fine. I just wanted people to realize that they were getting them based on their actions, not just being there. "Veterancy" for many people is coined with just playing for a while, rather than skill that is self-explanatory. Not a topic worth discussing either way, since it doesn't matter all that much in the end.

As you mentioned, a vet system would be ideal to fix this problem. Rype said that he will begin working on this in the near future, so I think that the refinery working like it does it just a temporary solution. As is, killing the airstrip/WF does almost as much damage to a team credit wise as killing the refinery (the whole no harvester situation). I think that existed in Renegade on maps where the tib field is right near the refinery too. It wasn't necessarily bad in renegade, because it provided for a nice change of pace at least. I think the main problem with Ren X having this is the addition of unique purchasable weapons/grenades and whatnot. If these were purchasable by SP (via the vet system) in the future, I think that this could be easily solved in that way. Another possible yet radical solution for this is to create a sort of "mini harvester" for these maps that only dumps 100 credits at a time, rather than the traditional 300. Again, radical and probably time-consuming, but a nice thought nonetheless. As far as the silo goes (another completely radical idea here), you could always have it give the player doing the final damage the choice of 3 options. Press *insert buttons here for option 1,2,or 3* Option 1 gives a bonus to team ammo (+20% ammo). Option 2 gives +1 cred/sec for team. Option 3 gives each player 10% increased max health. Something along those lines, so that you can get credits when needed, or other upgrades when not needed. Radical, but efficient. Would/could/will be solved by the addition of a vet system. Have them cost SP rather than credits.

Bumping for both signature and developer purposes. Currently at 22 signatures without any additional advertising than this post. If the developers decided to approve of this petition going forward, they could advertise it more and I have no doubt that it will get a significant amount of signatures. Enough to not be able to be ignored. If they do not want this at the current time, I can still willingly take it down. Just would like some official word

I had sent this to jam and fobby about a week ago via forums pm. They didn't respond, so I then made it public without any apparent objection there.. I contacted fobby via the Facebook page and he got back to me there informing me that his forums inbox is most likely full and that he hasn't been able to clean it out yet. I re-sent the message to him there, so just waiting on that response now. The petition is directed at EA but I believe that they will not even view it until it is sent to them in some form of letter. So it getting signatures now shouldn't hurt anything, but will just increase the total number in the long-run. You can correct me if I'm wrong though with that; I do not claim to be a petition expert by any means. Fobby and havoc have been trying to get a response from them on this matter for like 3 years. I've got the impression that attention drawn to the game from them is what they want anyway. Not just now, but even when the game was much buggier and had serious issues. We run the possibility of losing forums viewers and renx players in the future too, so I think there is no time like the present. Again, if any of the lead developers say otherwise, id gladly adjust the petition accordingly. My best interest is for the game solely, and I trust their judgment.

https://www.change.org/p/electronic-art ... n-approval

https://www.change.org/p/electronic-art ... n-approval Please read this petition and sign it if you are for this action. Note that this is currently an unoffical petition; as the developers have not (yet) signed it. Signing it shows your support for the advancement of this game nonetheless.

I sent a PM of a draft for a Steam Greenlight approval petition directed at EA, from the community, to Jam and Fobby several days ago. There has been no response. I am tempted to just post it publicly and have you guys just go ahead and sign it, since they don't seem to want to respond to me.

I'm not talking about TTk. Talking about damage over ____ seconds. Ttk is useful for its own purposes ofc, but damage over ____ seconds is what measures everything (your patch and tech'd arty would be included in this measurement). I plan on making a chart at some point that explores the damage over _____ seconds (up to 30) to each armor type at some point in the near future. That chart would truly be able to explore the real damage, and allow people to realistically compare weapons.

Not the reloadable ones if the time you're factoring in is over the time it takes for any of those weapons take to empty one clip. Which, when you're firing against vehicles or buildings (2/3 of the shield types), is always. So your argument is that you can use DPs for a handful of weapons against infantry only. My argument is that you can use one simpler calculation to calculate all weapons in renegade. Which is the better measurement?

Exactly, which is why the dps in that chart, and 95% of dps calculations for this game, are irrelevant. The problem is that some people don't realize it and try to justify their points using that, when it's irrelevant and overall inaccurate (though I can see that you get that point, at least now).

The plan is as soon as possible, but each change sometimes unintentionally alters other things that are very important. We wouldn't want the public having a version that has some game-changing bugs, right? They're working on it as fast as they can!

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.gamereplays.org/community/in ... pic=959404 It's currently going against a canceled game and has it's poll tied at 2-2, just to show you how relevant and meaningful these polls are hahaha

I am aware. My point was that you can use "Damage over ___ seconds" to calculate the damage properly for direct hits for EVERY weapon in Renegade. Whereas you can only use DPS to calculate non-reloading weapons (of which there is only about 4 in the game). For damage per second, you have to take into account the time that the weapon is being used. If it's 5 seconds, then you need to take the damage at 5 seconds and divide it by 5. It's it's 2 seconds, you need to do the same. With reloading though, this makes the DPS vary drastically based on how much time you're factoring into the calculation. I'm aware of that as well as the flaws in it. The only way to accurately calculate "true DPS" in an FPS like this is to take the damage over each individual second (damage after 1 second, damage after 2 seconds, damage after 3 seconds, all the way up to around 30), state it, and then divide it by the number of seconds total (which isn't a necessary statistic if you already have the damage for each individual second). Sure, it is useful if you're comparing weapons that don't need to reload over the designated time period that you're factoring in. The "damage over ___ seconds" is just as useful without the need to divide by the seconds too, and can take into consideration the reload if need be. That's all I'm saying.

Its not self explanatory though. There's reload times/RoF that have to be factored in. So the "DPS" of weapons changes drastically depending on the second you're referring to. The only weapons you can accurately measure DPS for are the non-reloading weapons. So it's essentially pointless to use a measurement that can only be used for a few weapons in the game, when every weapon can just use the same measurement. That's why you have to state damage over _____ seconds instead of "DPS," because that number changes per designated time. Plus you can only accurately calculate it for a direct hit. Splash is calculated server side (at least in the original) and is based on its own separate calculation entirely. Since splash is also measured in a direct hit (but consistently measurable), the actual real damage can differ. Say, for instance, the server thinks I hit a direct hit on a vehicle, but my client sees that shot miss. I would do direct splash damage and no direct impact damage. This is why you sometimes see "ghost damage" or damage that isn't quite as much as it should be. Its either the client or the server that didn't register as a direct impact hit. Reload time for a med/arty was 1.5 in the original, and I'm assuming they followed that example for this game (since the 1.4 is just a manually done estimate). Tl;Dr DPS isn't a term used for this game for a reason. Great to know that we are being listened to, thank you.

It was considered early on, but got a ton of negative feedback. In the end, it would just turn the game into something that it is not and provide too many gameplay challenges and exploits that aren't really nessecary for a *possible* problem like this. I say possible because as of now these are just opinions and I'm yet to test it out fully myself even.

Wasn't addressing you in particular, more so the majority of posters in that topic. You just directed me there indirectly I suppose.

As far as your math goes, I don't know the exact damage calculations for Renegade X (even the ones in the chart created somewhere around here are partially estimates), but in Renegade the damage per shot against a tech'd arty from a medium tank was 2. 2 damage per 1.5 seconds. For the record, DPS isn't an FPS term and doesn't work in a game like this. You also state that the damage over 1 second for a strong repair gun is -40, yet claim that over 1.5 seconds (the RoF for a med/arty), the damage is -56. It would be -60. The damage of a medium tank in Renegade against any tank is 62, but it may be 64 in RenX if that's what you say. Either way, that would mean 4 damage over 1.5 seconds instead of 8 (even moreso proving the point). I had written this out a couple years back now (this is assuming 100% accuracy): Again, that's solely for original Renegade. If anyone posts an updated exact damage calculations chart (I think SFJake had made one, but damages/rof/velocity, etc. changes per beta update) then I can write out the exact calculations. It's something that I wish the developers here would release eventually. (Something like this excel document, along with the warhead and shield name types: http://blackintel.org/files/blackintel.weaponinfo.xls)