HaTe

Hotkeys, yeah.

A patching system is in the workings. Easier said than done for a udk game, believe it or not. It will be implemented when it is fully finished and fixed.

Don't think anything exists outside of the little thing for private beta testers. You'd just have to count it out in the server listings I suppose

For the record, renegade itself had just about the same amount of glitches as renegade x did at the original public beta release. It was patched several times and scripts were still being made for it 12 years later to fix these bugs. So I wouldn't say it has failed at all - in fact I'd say that so far, with the exception of a few things (crashes and lower server max player count), the beta has been doing extremely well. Those issues are also constantly being looked into for solutions as well. So please just stay patient and keep helping the game out - it will mean that many more players come the final release. The game would have to be greenlighted to be on steam. Meaning the devs would have to present the game, and we (the fans/supporters) would have to vote for the game and spread the news to get more people to vote for the greenlight of the game. In the end, it is in their hands on whether or not it is approved. The fact that it is non-profit complicates the process a bit and may make it more challenging, but there are free games on steam currently, so it is all certainly possible. When the devs apply for the greenlight, they will most likely add a widget to the forums and website that will link players to be able to vote for the greenlight of renegade x. That is where we all really need to spread the news and have people vote. So getting people to play the beta is highly important - without such, it makes the possibility of the game being greenlighted go down heavily. So don't go telling players to "just wait for the final release of the game." We need people for the beta testing so that it can get greenlighted and give steam players the opportunity to play the game (and thus massively spread publicity to the game).

Well, for field and islands specifically: Field: Having one on the inside of each pillar (meaning directly across from each other) would be the best possible action. I don't think it would be easy to defend on this map, because field in particular is a map where the tunnels are always a competitive place. Meaning keeping possession is hard to do, and having the field actually largely gives a team an advantage for taking or maintaining the tunnel. The credit advantage from harvester dumps plus the threat of a waterfall side tunnel attack makes sure of that. I think that it would add some awesome competitive strategies too. Early game would have to be a decision to either try and pointwhore the enemy buildings for a quick credit lead, repair and defend the repairers on the capturable mct's, or rush the harvester. It really would add something very interesting to the game from a strategic standpoint. Islands: This one is more diffuclt, I will give you that. I do not believe it is nessecary on maps where the harvester does not have the threat of being destroyed, personally. The extra guns is always nice, but really not needed on islands. The extra credits should really never be needed. So on maps like complex (eventually) and islands, where the harvester does not leave the base (and therefore credits are normally plentiful) I really don't think a "tech MCT" is necessary at all. On walls in particular, having one on each side of the mid-pillar thing would be awesome. It would make teams more willing to push up, rather then camp all the time too.

1. I wouldn't be completely against a maximum limit, but I think 14 may be a bit too low. For instance, it is 18 in jelly marathon in renegade with a 50 player max limit. There's also no vehicle shells yet in renegade x. So, I'd probably have a max of 18. 2. Fair enough about the team lockout idea. Having it be 5 minutes per player PURCHASE of an airstrike would probably be better. One sent in for every 5 mins for a player is still too high IMO, so I think the ability to only purchase one every 5 minutes is important. 4. While I see your point on having a tech building that is not in the primary path to the enemy's base, I disagree about your point on tunnels being "easily defensible." Tunnel control switches per team FAR more than any field path does. Trust me, I'm a tunnel sniper much of the time. It's much harder to take the field (any path, normally) than it is to take the tunnels. Also, this way you do actual damage to it meaning that you can help out in the tech building process with something other than a repair gun. Your point would mean that you would have to redesign certain classical maps in some way in order to have the tech buildings. I like the tunnel idea much better, and I'm not too certain that you spend much time in the tunnels based on your response to this particular issue.

Private beta forums gives us a mini server list with overall playercount on it. It is at 221 right now is and usually around 200. Occasionally it drops much lower, but I'd say the average is 185-200. Hopefully the final "gold release" version of the game will get greenlighted on steam, though. That way, we'd have a ton of players constantly.

Please excuse Iran's trolling everyone. Here we can see his desire to start an argument, but what you cannot see is who he truly is and that all he is doing is attempting to troll hardcore. Why? Well...he doesn't get out much. Here is a quote from jelly upon the original public beta release of renegade: Please don't fall for his "oh I thought it was bad but I came around" speech he will give in return to this neither. It's just a troll attempt. Ignore it and move on.

That's what this patch attempted to fix. The information that would likely be the most useful is: 1. The server and player count 2. Which map is supposed to be loading next. 3. How long the last map took and a brief summary of it and how it ended (for memory purposes). 4. System specs 5. How often this crash happens and if you have noticed any tendencies. I've heard many theories get thrown around now - from memory problems, loadup issues, voting errors, only on specific maps, etc. We need to find the real cause and unfortunately it seems that the crashing is much more persistent in bigger/longer games than it is smaller/shorter games. That's part of the reason the devs had assumed it was mostly from memory and startup issues. It's unfortunate though because it is hard to replicate, and we are unable to do so with the limited number of private beta testers. So all information will help here.

It also kills no buildings, which is the only goal you have in Marathon. If you kill no buildings, you accomplish nothing. The defending team needs much less money than the attacking team, particularly in the fairly common GDI siege example. Pointwhoring is all well and good when you can win with points or have a reason to have 6,000 credits gaining interest. So you accomplish nothing if you don't kill a building? Why bother killing enemies then? Because it helps you get to that goal. It's not just as simple as "kill buildings to win games." That's like saying basketball is "score baskets to win games." It's not that simple - you have to do the work to get there. Pointwhoring isn't even pointwhoring if you're doing it to win the game. The only time it becomes pointwhoring is when the game is already won or lost and you continue to do it. In marathon, pointwhoring is more so credit farming. If you have plenty credits and continue to do it though, you're essentially just helping the other team by giving them repair credits.

Marathon matches have different dynamics. The removal of the time limit means you can no longer win by score, IE a 30 minute siege will get you no where. People need to understand that you have to be aggressive on marathon servers, which is part of the problem. People *don't* understand this, so the matches takes ages to finish. Take the 5 mammoth tanks you have firing ineffectively on that Hand of Nod and move into the base to kill the obelisk, or take an apc or two full of people and somewhat suicidally rush a building. You don't have to be so aggressive in standard servers because you *can* win by time limit, so people take those tactics and those strategies into a marathon server and waste everyone's time. For future reference, all of the "pro" players prefer AoW because it's the standard used for pretty much any competitive shooter, timed matches, not because it's an innately better mode. The "pro" players understand how to get things done in Marathon matches just as well as AoW matches. Neither mode is better or worse, or more competitive, when played by people who know how to handle each mode. This entire discussion also has basically nothing to do with the OP. A 30 minute siege gets you credits from pointwhoring, credits from harvester dumps, and doesn't allow the enemy to get those advantages. Some people just *don't* understand this and try to just do rush after rush which all ultimately fail because the enemy has by then regained the field and have retaken the credits race. So these people aren't being anti-aggressive; they're just aware of the advantages they are maintaining over the enemy by creating a successful siege. Short term and long term, but especially long term because the game could potentially last many hours. I never said it was a better mode. It is more competitive though. Add in a whole new factor that you have to consider and of course it is going to make the game more competitive. Marathon mode ignores the presence of points and therefore simplifies the game for people. That doesn't mean one is better than the other - all it means is that one is more casual and the other is more competitive. Pro players (for future reference, I've been considered one of these players for many years in renegade and other mp games) like the faster paced games. Aow is faster paced.

Reload time is a second longer.

If you cannot handle the extra factor that is the time limit then you likely play for fun, not to win. And if you play to win and play marathon, then you're playing casually. Which is fine and all - all I'm saying is that I prefer a timed game because it is more competitive and I find it extremely ironic that you're trying to discredit it as a bad way of playing. It's so much faster paced and consequences matter. Which is why all of the "pro" players prefer aow, and which is why you've never heard of a clanwar, funwar, lobby war, or community war playing marathon.

Agreed. The fact that it's on my default is kind of silly. It was mostly there to counter bal mouses more than anything...not many people use these anymore, so it should a t the very least be set to false by default.

Then you might as well say that beacons should never be used, flame/mammoth/medium tank rushes should never be attempted, and Stealth tanks and all flying vehicles are right out, because they give the enemy team too many points if they fail. If you succumb to the tyranny of points then the game goes to shit. It's a fact. Idiots who think they've won because they've abused the score system (which has more holes than swiss cheese) are the cancer that ruins games. Clearly you don't play competitvely. A successful beacon means 750+ points, plus the enemy doesn't get to use that structure. A disarmed beacon gives that team 300 points. So no, you shouldn't plant a beacon unless you know it has a good chance of succeeding or distracting the enemy for some other sort of attack. In marathon you just place that fucker whenever you want, because there is no negative consequences to being unsuccessful - you can just keep trying. So I'll personally play the more competitive gamemode that truly has consequences. I'll let people like you play in the game mode that noobs go to to learn the game because their actions hardly even really matter. But hey, all I did was point out that mining is different based on which gamemode you're going to be playing - no need to get all offensive because there's 2 gamemodes and your post only took 1 into consideration.

Sounds like a sick City_flying V2 idea Also, siege.

It was only 200 on certain maps - so i highly doubt it was a bug.

Thanks guys! May update with a few more ideas in a bit.

I give a shit about points if I'm playing aow...because...you know, they win you the game...

with 35 you really shouldn't be hitting the limit on Field unless you're constantly mining tunnels anyway

The only place that needs to be mined in Field is right next to the tib and bar where nukes can be placed and right next to the tib and strip where ions can be placed. Place the mines where they can't be disarmed without being in the LoS of the ob or AGT. If your team has control of the tunnel and intend to camp it anyway, placing some in the tunnel isn't bad. It can't be disarmed without taking ramjet to the face, so I don't see how it does anything except help your team hold mid tunnel if pushed back by buying time/thinning out the push. Again, it depends on whether or not it is marathon or AOW. In marathon mode, you can afford to mine the tunnels all you want on Field usually. In AOW mode, it's usually best to just leave the vulnerable sections of the base mined (ref hop, ref run, AGT/Ob, Hon, WF back, etc).

Hey guys, just wanted to make a topic for you guys to post your opinions on what you would have done differently if you were the devs. If nothing else, it should be fun and possess intelligent discussion. Perhaps an idea will be posted that the devs never thought about and it could even be implemented. Just like to point out: please only post ideas that would impact the whole default game. Meaning each server. No mod ideas - that can be a separate discussion. Some of mine: 1. Vehicle limit algorithm. Such that the default vlimit setup would be a minimum of 7 vehicles per team. The algorithm will take 60% of the current highest player count team (so if nod has more players in-game, each team's vlimit is based off of their players, and the same if GDI has more players), and turn that number into the vlimit. These numbers would get rounded up at every point they are not a whole number (ex: 5 stays at 5, but 5.1 goes up to 6). Meaning that: if the highest player count team in game has 1-11 players, the vlimit will be 7 (this is the minimum amount). If they have 15, it will be 9. If they have 25, it will be 15. And so on and so forth. This is to avoid any vehicle limit being set in stone, and so it avoids having it way too high or way too low based on the current in-game player count. It should be dependent on how many players are in-game, and this is the best way to do it. 2. Airstrikes done differently. Airstrikes should not be used an offensive weapon. It's not fair to a team to have an airstrike called on them while trying to disarm a nuke/ion. Airstrikes should be used as a weapon to help break a seige. So: first off, there should be an airstrike cool down time. A player can only call in an airstrike once for every 5 minutes. Secondly, an airstrike can only be used in his team's half of the field closest to his base (and including his base). Thirdly, airstrikes should do damage proportional to where they call the airstrike in. So, it should do max damage (say 400) on the direct spot the airstrike was called in. The other planes that drop the explosives next to that spot should have a bit wider of an impact than the middle one, but do significantly less damage (200-250). 3. Self-disarming proximity mines. Often times, a building will die that has proximity mines still inside it. This screws up the whole mine limit, and you are forced to go replant up to 35(+) mines just to get rid of those now useless mines. So, it should be that: targeting your own proximity mine within its detonation range and pressing "E" will disarm that mine. This can only be done by the player who laid the mine. If you target someone else's mine on your team and press "E" it will send you a PM notifying you who placed the mine (so you can tell that person to come disarm them if need be). 4. Capturable tech buildings. I don't like the idea that these are in the field. They give the team that should already be having the advantage on points and credits, more credits. I think these should be redesigned and implemented into the tunnels in a different way. That way, it makes infantry units in the tunnel have an actual use rather than kill whoring. They can now attack, rush, or defend their team's "Tech MCTs". I also think that they should work as regular mct's - none of that neutral MCT crap. Instead, have 2 MCT's (either side by side or right across each other), and have them default at 0 HP. Once they reach 75%+ (or green health), have them give that team the bonus of the tech building. Have them take normal damage of an MCT as well, but double the overall health (so that it takes more time to repair, as well as having it have to take more damage to get below 75%). Once it gets to 0%, it can still be repaired by its respective team though. Makes infantry in tunnels worth a small something, and can give the team with less points/credits a higher possibility of retaking the tech building, as well as giving the potential for both teams to simultaneously have access to the silo's improvements. Edit: Added 3/29 5. Remote C4 limit per player. 5 remote C4 limit per player, rather than a strict remote C4 limit per team. Having a team limit on a C4 that is only detonated per 1 individual causes the potential for one player to use up all of the limit. That's fine and all for proximity mines (see suggestion #3) - but for Remote C4's there should be a limit per player, since they are only able to be detonated by each individual. There could also be a maximum put in place if needed, but the per individual limit is what is important here. 6. (Originally suggested by Goztow and Stealtheye - edited a bit for my preference). Team sorting algorithm. This may be quite complicated for some people to understand, but it is both possible and effective. The algorithm is for when a map ends and the next one begins (sorting teams). When the map ends, the server looks at 2 qualifications specifically: 1. The clan tag of the player; and 2. The place (rank) the player ended up based on his score at the end of the last match. Such that: Players with the same clan tag (using (), [], {}) will get put on the same team, so long as the number of these players does not exceed 20% of the overall players in-game. If the number of players in one specific clan in-game does exceed 20% of the overall players in-game, the members of that clan will be distributed evenly into the 2 teams using the algorithm for qualification #2. That algorithm would be: (*changes when clan members are present so long as they are under 20% of overall players) Players 1,4,6,8,10,12,14,16, etc. go to team #1. Players 2,3,5,7,9,11,13,15, etc. go to team #2. If one or more clans are present in-game and are under 20% of the overall players, they are put onto the same team. This is used to try and put friends together, whilst keeping a decent balance between the 2 teams. So, lets for example use this random made up list of players sorted by score of the last map: 1. (TiF)Brem 2. Rikl 3. Terim 4. (Kom)Tim 5. (TiF)Holi 6. (TiF)Brett 7. Himoi 8. Loitle 9. (TiF)Rolx 10. (Kom)Anth 11. Nilme 12. Rethom 13. (TiF) Retrob 14. (Kom)Tibim 15. Coty 16. (TiF)Golum As you can see, the clan (TiF) exceeds 20% of the overall players. The clan (Kom) does not, however. So, the team sorting would be as such: Team 1: 1. (Kom)Tim 2. (Kom)Anth 3. (Kom)Tibim 4. (TiF)Brem 5. (TiF)Rolx 6. (TiF)Golum 7. Terim 8. Himoi Team 2: 1. (TiF)Holi 2. (TiF)Brett 3. (TiF)Retrob 4. Rikl 5. Loitle 6. Nilme 7. Rethom 8. Coty This puts the clan under 20% all together. The clan over 20% gets split in half based on the same algorithm used for normal players (1,4,6 - 2,3,5). The rest of the normal players then follow the regular algorithm whilst keeping the team player count even. So team 1 would need 2 more normal players to fill up their roster, while team 2 would need 5. Since team 1 has a full clan squad, team 2 gets the bid for the #1 normal player. So team 2 then gets 1,4,5,6,7 to fill up their 8 person roster. Team 1 gets 2 and 3 to fill up their roster. 7. (*Originally suggested by Kil). Nukes/Ions done differently. Such that the normal time is counted down, and it works similar to Renegade in that 5 seconds before the ion/nuke is about to detonate, the ion animation plays and the nuclear strike begins to fall from the sky. The difference being that if the beacon is disarmed in those 5 seconds, an animation to "get rid" of the beacon takes place. For nukes, the missile explodes mid-air with a small explosion. For ions, the ion animation is "sucked" back into the center of the ion with a new sound played. This way there is no 5 second "no repair time" and the random disappearing animation from Renegade is also fixed. I may update this with a few others later.

FIX Airstrike LEAVE Arty

For your last point Letty; probably only a good idea in marathon. In aow it could just give the opposing team free points and credits if you don't have someone covering them at all times.

You forgot gz0ne/fnfalls. But yeah, I could tell he was cheating from the start so I posted that video and got the typical "ur an idiot hez jus btr then u" response. So I got some actual real mods (not from st0rm) to go take a look and post so that the st0rm mods could wake up. Then Evan helped me out by making his own little version of ROF and proving that the pub version of BIATCH didn't block it (and that it worked the exact same from someone else's perspective as mobilest0rm was pulling off). Never knew it was you that suggested that to wilo though.