HaTe

Normally Nod vehicles are the stronger one in Renegade (statistically and experience speaking). That's almost solely because of how OP the Nod arty with one technician is though. On bigger maps (or maps with 3 or more vehicle exits/entrances to a base), the stank tends to dominate via a simple 5+ stank rush. While the medium tank is a great combination of speed, firepower, and armor, it simply cannot do much against a tech'd arty. The only real (consistent) way to kill a tech'd arty is with multiple meds or multiple havocs. Light tanks are basically a distraction to meds against the long-range artillery, and work well in that role as they are able to deal slight damage while being very elusive. The experienced player can self-rep his own arty mid battle and even kill a full life medium tank by doing this. I am not sure if that's possible in RenX or not though. MRLS's in the original had no rotating turret and their missiles only locked onto a target about half the time. Artillery shells didn't drop at all in the original neither. Orca and apache rockets fired one at a time before reloading (with a quick reload). Overall, so long as a technician was available to repair Nod, their tanks normally reigned supreme. However, if it was just solely tank vs tank, GDI usually has a slight advantage. As far as RenX goes, I know that some vehicles have different firing than they did in the original, and that could affect quite a bit. Beta 4 also sees to it that vehicle mechanics act a bit different and more as you would expect, according to the changelog. It very well just may be a case of people not knowing the strategies or how to play the game fully yet, which gives GDI vehicles the advantage most of the time? It seems we need someone who has experienced both games competitively to weigh-in on this too, perhaps.

You have to register just to vote?

Did you play the original Renegade? Were the complaints existent there, or is this simply a Renegade X problem in your mind, because of the different mechanics and different firing for some vehicles? I'm asking as someone who has played a ton of Renegade but haven't had the chance to fully dive into Renegade X yet. Your arguments would be shot down for the original, so I'm just asking what the main difference(s) are, in your opinion?

As soon as I get my computer built and beta 4 installed, I look forward to looking at and learning from these in order to attempt to make a pre-drawn map of mine. Thanks for these!

I had mentioned this briefly a long time ago, but was unsure exactly what you were talking about. So I did a search and sure enough found what topic you were talking about (I've been away for several months). The way most servers had/have a vet system set up in the original was that it would give a significant amount of VP to players for simple tasks (ie. disarming a mine got you 1, getting a kill got you somewhere around 3). And then there was different "levels" of the Vet system and upgrades that came with them (health increase, regen, extra weapon, cheaper costs, etc.). It essentially rewarded players that have been playing longer, almost entirely regarding the actual skill that they need to accomplish specific tasks. That's not necessarily bad and is still better than no vet system at all for a public server, but it has it's flaws in that it basically worked like a second credit system and rewarded the winning team. There were a few Vet Systems that rewarded repairing and whatnot, but for the most part it was the winning team that got the benefit (even though they already had the points and credits advantage). This system will see that the most skilled team (rather, individuals on that team) get the Vet advantage, regardless if they're winning or losing. A team can be ahead in points and buildings destroyed because of better teamwork, but the more skilled team (individually) could still comeback with a Vet system and make a game out of it. For those games when your team simply isn't doing you any favors or helping out much - one skilled player can really make a difference, so long as he earns it. That's the general idea behind the proposed system being different than the original one is/was (it's also going to be in the PT rather than a !buy command).

Jam: *Greenlight was then updated to live status* Jam: Ric: Conversations from 2012 all the way until mid 2013. Again, still planning to write a petition that I hope all members here will sign that will hopefully get this to stop being ignored by EA.

Didn't read through the whole topic, but mainly just the original post, including the updated changes. Really, really great work. I think the balance tweeks made should provide considerably better gameplay, and the bug fixes and other miscellaneous fixes were prioritized very well. I'll be coming back to this game very soon (once my PC is finished being built), and am really looking forward to playing this game. Best overall gameplay update thus far, imo.

Well no offense, but making a word document or some other text document before posting this publicly sounds like the path you should've taken if those were your intentions. Posting an ideas collaboration on a public forums and expecting people to not discuss them in the collaboration topic is like telling people they're not allowed to talk about the individual rides at a theme park if they aren't currently on that ride.

So we're supposed to rank the ideas based on our personal priority opinions, but not address, mention, or compare the specifics of the ideas in at all? That just doesn't seem like a fair request, given that each individual suggestion would alter the other ones. For example, if the vet system is added in (which rype implied would be), it would make some of the suggestions need editing. Each suggestion would affect the other suggestions, since its all in the same game. What better way to discuss the combined individual ideas than a compilation of them all in one place? I just don't think that what you asked in the OP is realistic or logical because of this, I suppose.

I'd like to think people aren't that selfish and have the best hope for the team in mind rather than getting worked up over getting an additional SP. I suppose we disagree there, but it would be the developer's discretion nonetheless.

How so? You've already addressed and acknowledged the reception of each suggestion. In essence, this is a renewal and readdressing of the old topics. Like my old topics and my new one that readdresses them. You didn't post your opinion on it in my old topics, you posted it in my new one because I was already aware of the feedback in the original topic

I'd just rather not bump old topics or make an apparent attempt at post count increase is all. If we're discussing the order of them, wouldn't it be fair to also discuss the opinions on them in attempt to establish that order? I find it more convenient to do this in one topic than having to load and scroll through each individual one (which is why I specifically liked you making this topic in the first place). If you want, I can edit the post and add in the order of importance I think each topic should see for priority reasons, then delete this one. Would that be a fair compromise to deleting and reposting the opinions?

Fair enough. Figured I'd go and individually address your suggestions with my opinion on the matters: Repair Station: I was at first hesitant to like this idea, because as SFJake had mentioned in the topic, the repair pad doesn't really represent the problem that you are addressing in Renegade itself (it's yet to be seen in Renx, but i think the result would be similar). However, the one thing that I really actually liked about this idea, and I'm not sure if I'm editing what you intended or not, was that it would have a vertical presence as well, rather than being flat on the ground. It would also be treated as a turret and not a building for end-game purposes too. I like the vertical presence because the repair pads in Renegade made it so that they were impossible to hit from a low vertical alignment, and impossible to repair without getting seen and splashed to shit. Having a vertical presence would allow an engineer to repair them without dying immediately, and tanks have the ability to shoot them from an equal or lower vertical axis as well. Though I'm not sure if this is why you presented the idea or not, I think that it would be the main advantage over the rep pad, and for that I do like this idea. Audio Feedback for vehicle weapons: Not so sure about this one. I'd have to play the game some more and really take into consideration if it is hard to tell when they are reloading or not. In Renegade it was obvious enough. So basically, my opinion is still TBD on this. Melee: These are in Renegade via mods. Not sure if you knew about that or not; they're in both roleplay mod maps and are in ultraaow modded maps too. I don't find much use for them besides easy quick kills on afkers or people talking who you just happened to have rounded a corner on. For that reason, I don't think it'd be worth it to add into the game. The only real reason they're in a game like CS:GO is to provide faster running than with a gun, and the only real reason they're in a game like COD is because it's 100% first person and there's no seeing around corners. I don't think it'd be worth it in a first/third person shooter like RenX. AI populated servers: I've always thought that something like this should be in a game like this, so long as the AI are smart enough to at least keep their base alive temporarily. I've always been more of a fan of having the AI balance the teams out more than simply acting as population though. Say it's 12v12 and a GDI player leaves. An AI bot would then join the GDI team and act as a repairer for their team at the very least. It would stay in-game doing that task until a new GDI player joined the game, evening the team at 12v12. The same would go for bigger margins too. I've always hated having a huge distinct disadvantage when my teammates leave, and at least having an AI to repair me would be much more sufficient than waiting for someone to join. Rebuildable Buildings: I just don't like this concept if I am completely honest. Having something have the ability to be rebuilt after the enemy team took the effort and planning to kill it seems to be obnoxious more than anything. I think that having a Vet System and having players earn to use a dead building's function in that way is more ideal and would make this suggestion unneeded at that point? Maybe make it like 150 SP to rebuild a dead building too for marathon mode purposes for a little fun too haha. Field Hospital: I like the idea of resupplying at a fixed cost, but I'm not entirely for the entire refill idea unless it would be rather expensive to do. I think that it would be too much of an advantage to refill in the field, even if you earned the capturable tech building. Unless it was at like 50% of the cost of your unit, I can see this being exploited way too easily for a distinct unfair advantage. Buildable Defense Structures: See my post in that topic. I like this idea, but would prefer that they be at designated spots in the base, and limited in that way. Perhaps they could be purchased by SP to avoid the winning team (via points, and therefore normally credits) having extra defensive advantages as well. Just an added thought there

Tarvin, I want you to take a look at this: http://pastebin.com/kQRSHRTV It's a new mod idea concept that I wrote several years back for Renegade (before I had even become apart of Renegade X and knew what it was about). I think you'll specifically like III, which is Buildable Support Structures. This was an entire new mod idea, so the ideas are adjusted to fit with each other and so it would of course have to be edited for Renegade X purposes, but your idea had me thinking back to when I had wrote this up. They're also all taken directly from C&C games and the original word document I typed this in included pictures, but oh well.

You're right and we've known that all along. It's highly unfortunate that their past has been like that. However, it is entirely possible that they have since changed or will otherwise view this situation differently. It's important to remain optimistic and keep persistence high in times like this.

Perhaps categorizing/organizing them on a reception grading scale would be best, then (with the best on top)? You can start with a grade of 0 and add 1 for each positive response and subtract 1 for each negative response (then use decimals for mixed responses, using your own discretion). Of course, only the suggestions over 0 would be worth posting here after that. Perhaps if this was stickied, it would then provide more incentive for people to reply in the suggestion topics as well.

May I suggest adding url coding into the title of each idea suggestion in order to save lines for organization purposes? Veteran System (<---For example, clickable). You can use the quote feature and look here if you are unsure how this is done. As far as your ideas go, I have not yet viewed them (just got back to the forums) and so I will take a look at them in the near future and give my thoughts (probably here for convenience).

I am pretty good with words and know the direction that something like this should be spun. I'll see if I have any free time anytime soon and attempt to make some form of petition that I'll pass along to the developers for approval or denial.

Full story from someone moderating and playing competitively at the time, rather than a misconstrued story of someone defending the topic who was directly involved with the program...Different perspectives entirely.

Cheats evading RG was made far less than 2 years after servers starting using RG fully. NS was one of the first to implement it because of Crimson's affiliation with the team. 0x90 had the aimbot made and eluded renguard via rgh not too much later, then eventually released it public before 2 years had gone by. I'm unsure if you are under some delusion about the subject, but the website (that will not be named) that the renegade cheats were posted on can provide logged proof of that too. All of the public versions were blocked? I'm unsure if that was a joke or not. As a moderator throughout this entire period, there was a reason that most servers stopped using RG and had to use spectate more than ever to catch aimbotters. Big head, big bodies, ROF, and many other related cheats were blocked by BIATCH, not rg itself. So while I'm sure RG did catch many people using various cheats, it also did as much harm as it did good for the community with countless skilled players getting forcerg'd from servers who simply could not or did not prefer to run RG (me being one of those). To claim that RG was ahead of UC and the cheat releases is a plain lie and honestly laughable for anyone who moderated during that time or played competitively.

While its true that EA has been focused solely on profit making, I think that this type of game is separate from those, since they had almost no involvement in the building of the game. Its a mod based on their built environment, not their own work themselves. If they can't recognize that, then they simply piss more people off and lose more fan-base. If you setup a petition hightlighting these points, it could at the very least be persuasive.

I'm a business guy myself too, so I understand that perspective pretty well too. They didn't order a cease and desist so apparently they do not care too strongly about it. If anything, it adds added publicity to an otherwise dead series, and gets people reinvolved who have otherwise left. If you spin it like that and have them recognize that it benefits everyone, I don't see them being publicly opposed (just privately, hence the ignorance). A petition would be hard to ignore with enough signatures though.

Whoever gets the final kill blow would get the SP. I had thought of assist points being given to any teammate who had damaged the deceased unit in less than 5 seconds of its death, but I think that it would complicate it too much. Simple is smarter for these types of things I find, because players want to know exactly what they are getting rewarded for, and don't want to have to look it up to do so.

Hopefully the counter will prove to be a solution that somewhat matches the intensity for players that the explosion did in the original game.

Ohh it seemed like from previous dev responses on the matter that EA was okay with it. That's unfortunate perhaps if we began to sign a petition it would prove harder for them to ignore?