HaTe

They are. They had previously been given rights to do so and were considering this, among other distributions. I just haven't seen an update on this so I was curious if it was still being considered or not.

I suppose that solution for #7 is "good enough." Better than nothing, so thank you.

1- At least a per map one is better than a set-in-stone vlimit per server or throughout the entire game. That's positive news, though I still believe the idea that I proposed is more...ideal. 2- That's good. I believe they were nerfed as well since the original release, so I'm glad to hear that. More good news there. 3- If it's indeed a feature, it's a solid one. Should be advertised more clearly so that people are aware. 4- Honestly, this was the one suggestion that I'd amend now anyway. The tech building in the field isn't necessarily bad, it just doesn't promote the type of gameplay that I enjoy the most or feel like is the best overall. That's just an opinion though, and I haven't seen many people complain about it. So I'm not at all willing to continue supporting this idea that would change too much at this point anyway. Though new maps with this implemented would be a nice change of pace and encouraging for people who like that sort of gameplay, so that is positive too. 5- Almost perfect. I believe 5 is more ideal so that GDI can at least protect their heavy armored vehicles from SBH's fully and still be able to use at least 1. Other than that, I'm completely satisfied that they decided to go this route. 6- Hopefully this will be added, but it's not something that is completely needed or necessary. It would just be nice. Random sorting or however it is sorted now is not problematic, just not ideal. 7- Considering that it was originally one of the Dev's idea (kil), I really had hoped this would've been changed. Really the first negative result I've seen that it hasn't been done yet. Perhaps it is just in the schedule and not yet a priority. I hope that the way it is now is not the final result, though. I'm not the only one that vocally dislikes the way that this is done. I believe that this suggestion is a perfect way to do it and would please everyone (though it would take extra animations and more work, so i can also see the unattraction from that aspect).

That's good. That was one of the ideas that I really thought had no reason to be opposed. Any of the others done in anyway or done differently than they were originally? I'm getting back into playing again in a couple weeks here after I finish building my computer, so just curious.

About a year ago now I had posted a topic that represented some of my ideas for the game. They were received well and had little to no negativity towards them. I had to stop playing the game since then due to getting real busy with school and work, but I was wondering if any of these ideas have been implemented in someway or altered from their original way. Basically, at the time of me posting these ideas, there were more important issues that had to be fixed (crashing) before any real gameplay change was going to take place. So I'm revisiting the ideas now. Here is them copy pasted from the original post almost a year ago:

Are the developers planning to submit an apply for steam greenlight soon? With beta4 comes a patching system I believe, which should realistically make updates much more convenient. It shouldn't be too long after that the game should be applied for steam, right? Just checking to see if this was the plan or not. Steam could increase the game's popularity drastically, and with the right advertising, the numbers could go right back up to beta 1 numbers quite easily. Except this time, with the majority of bugs fixed, there would be many more people staying.

IP and serial (hash) bans work for some. The more persistent ones require a bit more. The method for that is something that shouldn't be discussed here, but I do believe that administrators are aware of it.

I originally considered adding those in, but decided to leave them out for the sole reason of competitive play. So those could be added into a server via mod, but at the core I believe that it should be simplified to just what I had originally posted. I specifically like the ammo one for marathon servers, but in competitive play it would provide too much of an advantage.

It wouldn't be possible to distinguish between the snapping from target to target artificially and just switching from target to target naturally, no. In reality it could be possible via code, but the false-positives that it would have would bring too many variances and controversies to really solve anything. Seeing it with your own eye is really the most effective and useful way to catch it happening (minus having an anti-cheat system that could detect the third-party cheat program running, but again, that's proven extremely difficult to do with this engine). That's why the recording tool is the best option we have right now.

Anti-cheat for UDK(3) games has proven to be nearly impossible to create effectively. That's not the Developer's fault and they are doing what they can to keep them out, but it's not something that is remotely easy to do with this engine (since there have been so many games released under these engines, the cheat-creating community is pretty large and extensive for this engine). Dedicated servers with moderators and administrators using the tools that the developers have put into the game are the best way to catch and ban cheaters. The fact that the game is free doesn't help this neither, as serials are much easier to come by, and so serial banning isn't really a realistic way to keep people out. Dynamic IP's make banning IP's hard to do, and so sometimes entire Ip ranges must be banned just to keep out 1 cheater. There are other ways to ban them as well, but it's best to not go into that here. To sum it up, cheaters are likely going to be a part of this game always, and it is up to the dedicated moderators and administrators to try to weed them out and keep them out (with the players' help, of course). The !forcerg system in Renegade did not work well, and ended up banning skilled players due to whiners quite frequently, so this really would not be a realistic solution, though I do thank you for caring and making a realistic attempt to try to help.

All valid concerns had I not previously anticipated them and adapted the idea with them in mind

It's just a regular download and installation. Both server-side and client-side. How it prevents cheats from taking place is complicated and not something to discuss on a forums like this. It is mostly effective at blocking cheats in Renegade. I don't believe any aimbot has bypassed it thus far. There was one cheat that did with the original scripts 4.0, but afaik nothing has yet to bypass 4.1+. Renegade X is completely different though because of it being built on UDK rather than the w3d engine that Renegade was built on (which was originally made a bit before the year 2000).

You would get SP for repairing buildings and vehicles. It is listed in the original post: For every building repaired for 4 minutes, 1 SP is rewarded. For every vehicle repaired for 3 minutes, 1 SP is rewarded. If you're referring to camping the base, then you likely are not dying much and don't have a credit issue because of that (it also takes little to no skill to do, and skill points shouldn't be rewarded for such actions). Additionally, if it encourages non-camping behavior, then it is encouraging positive momentum, and that is a good thing for the game. If someone is cheating, credit issues likely aren't realistic for them and so this system wouldn't be used by them regardless. Cheaters get weeded out and kicked eventually, and this system will not help them cheat more effectively. To try and shun a gameplay idea because of cheaters having the ability to exploit it would be to not let the game advance in anyway forward.

RG was perhaps the worst anti-cheat program to ever be used in a game. All it did was give regular everyday whiners the power to forcerg someone and have them kicked. There was also compatibility issues galore with not being able to use it, and it blocked skins on full RG servers as well. Absolute garbage. It was also bypassed within about a month with RGH, TB, and more. Scripts 4.0+ are the new anti-cheat in Renegade, and it is built in. RG and !forcerg were a complete disastrous fail.

I highly recommend adding a Veteran System that rewards skilled players for their accomplishments per game. (Warning:) Long post incoming, but it is kept simple and organized for efficiency. Introduction: At the core this game is an FPS with RTS elements, but it feels as if the RTS part is flawed due to a one-size-fits-all economical structure that simply does not fit all. We can sit and argue about "pointsfix this" and "pointsfix that", but in the end it's the system that is flawed (and was in Renegade too), because players are not rewarded for their skill adequately. Say, for example, the Refinery is dead and you've just killed 5 players in a row in rapid succession (which takes skill). You get a total of 10% points and credits for the amount that the player spent on that character, for an absolute max total of 500, if all 5 characters were 1000 level characters (495 if we're being technical), and a minimum of 15 points and credits. That's fine and all, you get income for getting kills at a set specific amount. What is not acknowledged in this process, however, is that these were infantry kills and took a certain level of skill. Your income is not affected by the skill that it took to do this. I say it should. That's just one example and other accomplishments that take skill can be put into place of this example (such as vehicle kills, repairing, structure kills, etc), which we'll get a bit more into later. What this proposed system would do is make skilled players get more reward for their efforts, and make a dead building not immediately mean game-over almost always. It would also help to end stalemates by giving the more skilled team the tools that they require to win. The most important thing this would do, however, is stop credits from being the only economical income granted in the game, which limits so much (and makes the points/credit calculations determine far too much). Skill should be rewarded more than it is. The proposal: A Veteran System that provides Skill Points (SP) for accomplishing specific tasks within a game. For example: For every 5 kills, 1 SP is rewarded. For every 20 kills, an additional 1 SP is rewarded. For every 3 vehicles killed (including harvester), 1 SP is rewarded. For every 5 vehicles killed, an additional 1 SP is rewarded. For every 6 mines (of any kind) that are disarmed, 1 SP is rewarded. For every building repaired for 4 minutes, 1 SP is rewarded. For every vehicle repaired for 3 minutes, 1 SP is rewarded. For every 500 points earned, 1 SP is rewarded. For every beacon/nuke disarmed, 1 SP is rewarded. For every building kill, 3 SP are rewarded. Assist SP*: For every 3 vehicle assists, 1 SP is rewarded. For every 5 infantry assists, 1 SP is rewarded. For every 1 building assist, 1 SP is rewarded (since many players could potentially get this bonus from 1 building kill). *Only given to any person who has damaged greater than or equal to 50% of the MAX health of the deceased unit (refilling/repairing can cause multiple assist points for one killed unit). The person that gets the final blow on the vehicle/infantry/building does NOT get an assist point, but gets the vehicle/infantry/building kill instead (which is worth slightly more). Assist points are NOT given for harvester kills (note that they are measured for the final hit, though).* There would then be a new PT Icon called "Veteran Options" that has vehicles, weapons, and armor selections that can be purchased using the earned SP: Weapons: Basic infantry weapons = 1 SP Tier 1 Weapons (top row of character list weapons) = 3 SP Tier 2 Weapons (middle row of character list weapons) = 5 SP Tier 3 Weapons (bottom row of character list weapons) = 7 SP Vehicles: Humvee/Buggy = 3 SP MRLS/Arty = 5 SP APC = 6 SP Light Tank/Med = 8 SP Flame Tank (Nod) = 8 SP Stealth Tank (Nod) = 10 SP Mammoth Tank (GDI) = 12 SP Armor upgrades*: Basic (25) armor upgrade = 2 SP Medium (50) armor upgrade = 4 SP Advanced (100) armor upgrade = 6 SP *Max of 200 armor TOTAL* (These would all have to be tested and edited according to balance trials, but this is a starting point). Conclusion: This Veteran System proposal would: 1. Provide incentive for doing tasks that reward skill. 2. Help to end stalemates by giving the more skilled team the better chance at winning. 3. Provide a player with access to using a dead structure's resources, given that they have individually earned it. 4. Add additional income to the not-so-one-size-fits-all credit system currently in place. 5. Makes it so that a player that has been in-game longer reaps more benefit than a player that has just joined and has been donated. 6. Rewards individual accomplishments. There was/is a "similar" system added into by mods of Renegade into specific Renegade servers (ironically the only ones still actively alive), and it worked pretty well. This would be a more thorough system that is included into the PT and is laid out in full, though. Someone with UDK script experience or possibly a Dev would be able to add in such changes with no extreme difficulties. Think of it like a career. Currently, you get slight pay raises for getting kills and such. However, you earn no bonuses or extras for specific individual accomplishments. This proposal would see to it that you not only still get that pay raise that was earned, but you also get those bonuses and extras that are deserved to you.

Always wished to see a Skill Points / Veteran System that worked effectively in a game like this. Such that: A player earns skill points for completing challenges such as getting a kill, an assist (damaging the deceased character less than or equal to 5 seconds before his death), killing a vehicle, killing a building, earning 500 points, etc. Obviously there would be different skill points rewarded based on the difficulty of the challenge completed. Then the player could use those skill points to purchase vehicles (air-dropped), weapons, or increased armor at set appropriate skill point costs. Makes skilled players get more reward for their efforts, and it makes a dead building not immediately mean gameover every time. Also can help stalemates end by giving the more skilled team the tools that they require to win. The most important thing this would do, however, is stop credits from being the only economical income granted in the game, which limits so much (and makes the points/credit calculations determine far too much). Skill should be rewarded more than it is.

Whoreglass

Yes, vehicle pathways (like the side pathways on hourglass). You provided ways to sneak into the enemy base via infantry, given that the Field is already controlled or the team in the Field is oblivious (lets be honest - one arty spamming the tunnel to keep flanking infantry out is something that will be plentiful in Under as is). I'd much rather have them be vehicle pathways so that teams can actually: A. Flank an existing siege. B. Rush through 2 ways when in siege mode. C. Sneak around a siege and rush the enemy base. Right now it's just a matter of force vs force and siege vs defense (which is why nod wins on Field so often - the arty is clearly the most efficient siege unit on the map). There needs to be alternative ways to have access to attack the enemy base with some sort of rush. *note that i believe the ramp next to hon is also gone in Renegade X iirc? Essentially the same concept as your idea, except that the red lines in your image would be vehicle pathways (you can keep the green bunkers as infantry access points too, really), and the one on GDI's side would be in front of the ramp.

Ignore the shitty picture - it's the concept that's important. Edit: you can even have exits to the bunker via a small tunnel for infantry on each side.

I wrote it with the assumption that the vehicle entrances into the base would be a 90 degree angle (or an angle with a centerpoint being the obi/agt) so that it is used for rushing, and siege warfare through that pathway does basically nothing (similar to hourglass, but an even sharper angle). You can't arty or mrls whore buildings while in the sight of the obi/agt very easily at all. When i have time I may perhaps draw out a little sketch to show you if you need further explanation. You guys are trying to fix the problem of siege warfare being the only way of winning - but you aren't providing any change that would really allow it to be easier for either team to actually kill a building (which is why seige warfare is necessary in the first place).

of course you are the bad guy now. and no i didnt mean to change my own timed to grenades. i mean when i get attacked by the enemy with a timed and its sticking at my own body, why the fuck cant i just take it and throw it away? its kinda annoying... Hospitals around the world are now using repair guns to heal the sick, handicapped, and wounded.

Renegade maps were made with a smaller player count in mind than 40 or 50 per server. I don't think it is the size of the field that is the big issue. It is the fact that there's only one vehicle entrance/exit for each team, and so seige warfare is used as a means to win 95% of the time. Add an alternative vehicle entrance/exit point for each team and the map instantly becomes 10 times more bearable/enjoyable. Hell, you can even have it merge with the field in the middle and go around the hills on both sides. Meaning one entrance from each base (end of the airstrip, just in front of the WF), and each exit in the middle of the field (so that you would have to go through a small section of the main field either way). Somewhat similar to what the op suggested (and believe me, I have thought about this many times for multiple different maps), but instead of more infantry pathways, it is vehicle and infantry pathways. It's the best possible thing the map could see.

The whole point of a choice is that there are negatives and positives, and you're attempting to decide which option has a positive that outweighs the negative. Taking decision making away from the gamer is what modern games are good at doing - no need for that here.

It is no secret that the current points system is pretty heavily flawed. In renegade, the total points you get for killing a unit is 10% of the cost of that unit (from full health to death). It is also 50% repair points for damage dealt. In renegade x, the points for killing a unit are far too low. The points for repairing is somewhere around 66-75% I've been told (it is noticeably increased). It worked well in renegade, and I think the only adjustment they should make in the points system should be a slightly less point reward for damaging buildings (and repairing them, since it is 50% of that). I also think that the pointsfix being implemented needs to be revisited. I'm all for the pointsfix, but shrapnel warhead points should be increased (autorifle, pistol, shotgun) to do 20* the amount they currently do to heavy armored vehicles, so as to allow for credit earning when the refinery is dead by means of something other than just repairing (pointsfix servers all died out in renegade - let's not make that same mistake).

Technically speaking, a fuse on a nuclear missile can be one of several different types of fuses. It could be a contact or an altitude fuse, meaning it could be detonated upon hitting the ground, or it could be detonated upon reaching a certain altitude. I don't recall C&C specifying anywhere what type of fuse Nod uses on their nukes.