HaTe

I'll come up with something next week along this line. I'm just not home until then and am typing this on my phone for now.

That is a good start. It makes logical sense mostly with the already built world and is somewhat creative as well. Could use some touching up here and there though - calling it "minerals" seems too bland. Using a Latin word or some form of ancient empire language could add flavor to the story. For instance, the aliens visited earth long ago to scout out our resources, and since then have created an army that is now out to extract those resources for the survival of their home planet and their species as a whole. Also could use a better name than just "aliens" too Good start though, we can definitely build off of that. I'll see what I can do in terms of a full out short detailing story that I could potentially turn into a narrative video with the new reskinned game in the background. How many skinners/modelers do we have that would like to assist? We know this is farfetched and will take a ton of time, but if we take the initiative and start now, a steam green light could definitely be in the future. We just need more help

Remodeling, reskinning, and renaming anything that has ties to Command and Conquer or Renegade. Anything not universally accepted (power plant and refineries aren't C&C original content, for instance, yet tiberium is).

Here. We have the SDK. Anyone familiar with it and art design at all can help. All reskins and remodels can be posted, then compiled into one mod from there. After that is completed, we can begin fully seperating the mod from the original, into a final standalone game I grew up on renegade. It took the majority of my time since 2002. I love the game. I love command and Conquer. But what I truly love is the gameplay. RTS fps is the best video game gameplay I have found to date. Renegade X brings that too. I want it competitively again though, and unfortunately renegade x has limitations and that doesn't seem likely. This seems like the best option, albeit it farfetched.

Twitch could do wonders as well. I was considering something like this long ago with someone like jacksepticeye, but he rarely to never does PVP games, and even if he does then it's usually a game that is very simple and has almost no learning curve. Which is not what renegade x is. Their time is valuable, so learning the game is not something they want to take a lot of time. There would need to be some real incentive for them to do this

All we have right now is an idea. What we need is a concept. If not GDI vs Nod in the C&C world, then what? We need a story that will entrance people. A war between 2 factions who have pre-built bases near a resource income that is refinable. We need a reason they are at war. An entertaining yet mostly logical story to give reason and purpose behind the gameplay. I will brainstorm a bit and see what I can come up with. I suggest anyone with a deep imagination do the same, because several different skinners without a direct path to follow could lead to huge inconsistencies. Also, for legal purposes I believe rypel is simply stating that if we do do this, it would have to be a separate standalone game. Not a mod to Renegade X. A seperate, unique, game (with the same gameplay, but legally speaking that is fine considering that TA will not and cannot take legal action). We cannot associate it with renegade x, because that is technically speaking the property of EA. It is a separate standalone game. Period.

Vehicle crates don't spawn in infantry paths though, and it seems that infantry path crates are much less rewarding overall because of that (especially since you can get turned into a character that is worse than the one you had).

I'm curious to know what the different percentages are for vehicle-able crates vs non-vehicle crates. It seems to me that in place of a possible vehicle, the death crate possibility seems increased (by default)? Making infantry crates much less rewarding on average and much more of a risk as well. Thats how it seems at least

Theoretically you could keep the same skeletons for the characters and just reskin them to look nothing alike the original concept. Vehicles are a bit of a different story. Buildings as well. Refineries and power plants could use some minor edits, but the overall design is pretty universal so wouldnt have to be altered a ton. Hand of nod, barracks, weapons factory, AGT and Obelisk would all need significant changes or all new models. Maps are fine in my opinion. All (non-generic) names would need renaming as well, including Command and Conquer mode. Anything that can easily identify the game as being a fundamental copyright infringement is what we need to avoid. I'm no legal expert by any means, but this sounds like it could theoretically work if done.

It would take remodeling, reskinning, renaming, and then some. Legally speaking at least

I would change vehicle physics to be more like renegade. Add more options to retrieving the silo. Add a vetenary system and more useful and/or entertaining bots. Increase the headshot multiplier so that higher skill was more rewarding. Add in a tutorial mode upon game installation completion that went over all the basics and then some. Have a competitive scene that was highly active and fun with both clanwars and community wars. Add in free-aim, but edit it from how it worked in the original. Have a better ladder system and afk detection. Split the hotwire / technician class into 2 viable units. Create maps like city and a smaller version of glacier and remove or highly edit field.add in a vehicle algorithm so one player can't spam the vehicle limit. Have active US servers throughout the day. These are almost all things that I have made vocal before. Just things that in my opinion would improve upon the game, but unfortunately resources are highly limited.

Not a dev, but an ex-community dev. 1. I think the developers did a great job overall, and I honestly never expected it to even get this far, so I am overall happy with the outcome. However, in hindsight, of course things could have gone better. I think that they did a wonderful job advertising the game pre public beta, but then as soon as things started coming up that were problematic, something apparently went down within the dev team or something because suddenly there was only a handful left that were continuing their work on the game. I'm not entirely sure why, but the fact that the original public beta release was so inccredibly popular, but had so many issues that were taking ages to fix, made a lot of people give up on the game for good unfortunately. Things that couldn't be detected private beta. 2. The game is fluent now and runs well, but just needs polishing at this point. Things like better UI, better tutorial, improved bot features and ladder system, afk detection etc. Its just polishing but the small things are important. As far as future of the game goes, steam and origin seem out of reach so we would have to re-advertise heavily again once the polishing is finished and the game is ready for a full release. Entirely possible and I can see numbers getting higher again if the dev team have the same connections that they used to. 3.Dream vision would be 10,000 players on steam green light. Best case scenario, but apparently out of reach now. 4. Developers are unable to make a profit from this game, as per an EA agreement.

I think using score (points) is fine as long as the points earned are balanced. So rather than working ladder points around score, itd be much more convenient to make sure that the points earned are reflecting the things you mentioned. I think that the devs and community devs have done very well with this so far and it is containing to improve in that aspect as well.

I think I edited my post just before you read it. "At the very least, how about a small bonus (*1.15) for a winning team by base destruction and a small bonus for a losing team (*.85) for base destruction (since both teams fought it out until the very end)?" That way it's providing a slight incentive to finish the game outright for both teams (since one team often just camps when ahead in an attempt to force the enemy to surrender). Could even do a 1.10 and a .90 multiplier for time running out too, I suppose. As far as populating additional servers goes, I think that your second multiplier could accomplish that well enough. If you just keep that in and then add in an additional multiplier that takes into account total number of players, it should balance it out well enough so long as the player also gets enough points. I just think it's important that the script keeps a running tally for number of players that join the server in that game, rather than just taking the final amount.

I'm glad you are taking the initiative on this, and you seem to know what you're doing. I can see that the base is 10, the second multiplier is the overall team score / client score, the third multiplier is the time-in-game / total game time, and the fourth is the win/loss multiplier. AFK issues shouldn't be as prevalent when (if) the AFK bot detector is implemented. Something that should be addressed that is not currently in your algorithm is the amount of players in-game. Currently, I believe a 1v1 would yield the highest profit margin because the second multiplier would be 1.0. You should make another multiplier that takes into account total number of players that have played in the game. The more players that have played in the game should slightly increase the overall ladder points given. I think surrendering is a fine option, but just happens far too frequently and takes the satisfaction out of winning a lot. It's an anti-comeback mechanic, and many teams use it after losing just one building. There's just very little incentive right now to not utilize it whenever even a minor disadvantage comes around, and I think a small ladder hit would help that out. At the very least, how about a small bonus (*1.15) for a winning team by base destruction and a small bonus for a losing team (*.85) for base destruction (since both teams fought it out until the very end)?

Yeah I figured it was one or the other (IP address or steam ID). I just said IP because I figured non-steam players were ranked on the leaderboard as well, but I guess not. Since it is steam ID, shouldn't this be easy to implement then? Non-Steam players can either just be put by random since that would be the easiest to implement, and that seems to only be ~15% or so of players at any given time. The ranks would still have to be assigned to teams in an alternating fashion (or an alternative equivalent) for the balance system to work regardless. Since it's just Steam ID used, it just means that the first step becomes unnecessary, and so the project as a whole should be that much easier, correct? *Slightly off topic* What are the odds that we get an XP/ranking system that provides incentives rather than just "Score"? Renegade had their own version of this. Winning team members get + XP, and losing team members get - XP. The longer a player is in the game, the higher the multiple increases (it went per client). I think we can use this to help decrease the constant "surrender votes" that are going on now too. Make it so that a surrendering team gets 150% of the losing XP. Also make it so that base destruction wins give 125% of the winning XP. Here's how Renegade's was setup (per readme file): "1. Nobody on the winning team will ever lose points in game (the minimum they can get is 0 points). 2. Nobody on the losing team will ever gain points in a game (the max they can get is 0 points). 3. On the winning team, the players are sorted in order of the number of points they achieved in the game, then the lowest scoring player is awarded 0 points, the second lowest player 1 point, then 3, 6, 10, 15 points and so on. 4. On the losing team, the players are sorted in order of the number of points they achieved in the game, then the best player is awarded 0 points, the next best -1 points, then -3, -6, -10, -15 and so on. 5. Once these ladder deltas have been calculated, they are scaled by the amount of time you played in the game, so for a 20 minute game where you played for 10 minutes, you get POINTS x 10/20. 6. The resultant number is then added onto your ladder points to determine your new ladder rank." It worked decent. Had some flaws that I can certainly point out if anyone wanted to go this route with it.

Can I just say that unless you already have a dedicated team surrounding you, the time and effort this would take are far too great. The resources just are not here for this at this time.

This is not about the faction balance, but rather the team sorting balance upon a new map beginning. This is just an edited version of the previous clan/community algorithm suggestion that I had posted, but it is still very relevant for public matches. I'm not entirely sure how it does it now (completely random?), but I've seen some team balancing nightmares. Since the global ranking system is set up by IP apparently (name changes only changes the name in the leaderboard to the most recently used one), we could just use this to help team sorting balance. Essentially, when you join the game, a script would take each player's global ranking (see Leaderboard) and rank them in the game based on it. Best ranking (closest to 1) gets ranked as #1 player in-game. 2nd best ranking gets #2, 3rd best gets #3, and so on and so forth. Then just take these in-game rankings and use them to auto-balance the next map. Team 1 gets all of the odd numbers (1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19), and team 2 gets all of the even numbers (2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20). Or you can edit this however you would like to make it so that the in-game rankings add up to equal each other.

That wasn't a bot; that was the built-in version. Having a bot that has a script attached to it sit on IRC to detect player score changes is much different. I know what you meant though

Games ending like crazy from one team having 3 or more 20+ minute afkers. Voting doesn't do much because you either have to spawn next to or go looking for an afker for the vote to even work. That and only like 5 people know to use it anyhow. Something Renegade used (pre-movement AFK bot detector) was a simple PM saying: You have not gained any points within the last 7 minutes. You will be kicked in 1 minute unless you type !here ---30 seconds later--- You are being kicked in 30 seconds for being AFK if you do not type !here Basic. To the point. Effective. I've forgotten to turn my game off and come back an hour and a half later and was still in the game. Not only is that not fair to people trying to join a full server, but it completely imbalances the team as well.

Bananas mentioned it, but the first thing I would do is resinstall your mouse driver. If it's not that then go on to the other things he listed.

I've heard several people say, and I would have to agree, that the patch grenade is OP right now. It's a noobtube on the fastest character in the game that does massive AOE damage. The splash damage needs to be lowered to infantry

Grenade's in general aren't really meant for point-black usage

Happened to me today with automatic rifle. Shooting a rocket soldier who was standing still. Gun just stopped doing damage. Had to switch to pistol to finish him off. Switched back to auto rifle and continued doing no damage to a different enemy

@ rype, the vehicle collisions with just about any object just seem silly. It makes it appear as if the mass of the object is about a quarter of what it should be, considering the armor. A tank flying into the air because it hit a tree stump looks and feels silly, and it makes gameplay hard to control as well. The vehicle delay lag seems to be an unfortunate consquence rather than a desired effect, which stinks, but is understandable. I'm plenty grateful for all of the work done on this area, but I just wanted to voice the concerns/complaints of many who otherwise would have remained silent. @jobless, that is something that I intended to begin working on when I got the time actually. I would love an in-game tutorial mode, but I suppose a video could help too. @error, f8 edit_vehicle could help you with that, just in case you didn't know