HaTe

Is it the same crashdump error message when you exit out of steam and then load up Renegade X?

EA gave TA permission to make Renegade X so long as it was not monetized. Because TA used the Renegade name, Renegade units, the command and conquer mode, and a bunch of other things, the game is considered to be EA's Intellectual Property. At the very least it would be a Trademark issue, Trade Dress issue, and potentially an Industrial Design Rights issue. That's why TA needed their permission to make the game (since standalones and mods have different legal rights). If TA were to apply for a Steam Greenlight position without EA's consent, it potentially could be very harmful (C&D) to Renegade X. That's why we need their permission. However, I do not see any legal precedent for EA to take action if Renegade X does apply. As long as the contract is still valid that allows Renegade X to exist so long as it is not monetized, then Renegade X is probably safe for a Steam Greenlight application. Unless the agreement specifically stated marketing and/or accessibility limitations, TA would still be successfully acting upon their part of the agreement. I'd like to read the original contract (whether it was just a simple reply or a full-out contract) and read all of the implications, personally. That way we can at least see if it is even possible to move forward without direct consent from EA (since they are purposefully being elusive, the case can be made that they know we are in our rights to apply and be on Steam, but do not wish to formally acknowledge it in order to insist upon Origin instead). I am no expert on this manner, but do have a B of S degree in Business Management and took a couple Business Law courses. That does not make me anything close to a lawyer, but it does mean I know the general basics.

Just googled the first line of the logs and it seems like something that just sort of happens sometimes on Steam for certain games. There doesn't seem to be any real solution in the posts I skimmed through unfortunately. This is the only resemblance of a resolution I could find: Try that, and if that doesn't work, have you tried reinstalling?

It happened to me once as well on the first day of patch. No idea how or why though and haven't had the issue since

They already have legally relevant documents where fobby/havoc have asked them permission and EA has given it to them so long as it is not monetized. I am not positive of the legal indications at play, but a reskin would be "grey-area" at best and cease and desist at worst

https://www.change.org/p/electronic-art ... n-approval I know it's nothing major, but coming from a business management perspective, a petition with a lot of signatures can really have a big pull. Its only at about 60 right now, but if the petition can be classified as official and promoted a bit, I can definitely see it getting 200+, which would add to the overall appeal. At the very least, it cannot hurt.

Grassyknoll desperately needs some changes done for balance purposes. GDI has huge advantages. GT > Turret is every way. Needs to be backed up a lot at the very least. Silo is facing GDI more than nod. GDI base probably could be spread out more as well..way too easy to defend every building, when they are so close together and Nod's are spread out heavily. The tib field being huge favors GDI as well because of more armored vehicles, whereas nod needs techs on their vehicles and cannot do so in a tib field. You can also hit Nod's base from far, far easier than GDI's because of the angles of the map as well.

I doubt a simple reskin and name change would do aynthing from a legal standpoint. EA has cease and desisted for far less than that.

Can confirm this glitch still exists.

Does console (~ or f5) and typing in "vote yes" work? Probably. Never cared for polls enough to even attempt it honestly (I generally vote no regardless since I'm a bit old-fashioned and prefer for a game to be ended naturally, and think an afk detection script works far better than voting a player out too).

Awesome. Can't wait to play that one when it is released. It was fanmap that played very much like the original maps (fanmaps typically had far too many entrances/exits to the base compared to the originals) which I really enjoyed from a competitive standpoint. I do worry about the elevation changes though, considering that that vehicles in Renegade X do not work well with elevation changes whatsoever (both the phsyics and the turret don't behave how they should).

I like it the way it is, personally. It's very similar to the original, just as it should be. I think many games are ending early on new maps because the majority of people are just wandering around exploring and figuring out the layout, while others have a clear easy path to destroying the enemy base. Give it some time before any drastic change...it played well in the original with this layout. (If anyone is looking for a new original Renegade fanmap to start on - please look at Uphill. It was one that was made later on, but was a fan favorite on servers and would play excellent in Renegade X I believe. Also relatively simple layout compared to most others).

Also the voting buttons. Had this gripe forever now, because I set my chat to default Renegade settings, making me unable to vote yes.

I stopped playing for several months and just recently played again over the past few days. So I figured I'd put my impressions in as to how I am seeing the game evolve. Balance: Excellently done. Sooo much better than it used to be. Snipers seem more reasonable with the longer reload, making them much less of a cqc threat. Units like the officer, shotgunner, and mcfarland seem to be in a very reasonable spot compared to what they used to be (either completely OP or useless depending on which patch it was back then it seemed). I believe that too many points are given for building kills (building health, in that regard) though now, and that the loss of a building makes comeback mechanics too difficult in AOW at times because of that. I do, however, like the way that the building health and armor is separate and how that works now. Overall, very impressed with the work done here. UI: Still needs work. I've seen some slight improvements, but some things that any newcomer would notice are still clearly in "beta mode." Obviously not anyone's fault in particular considering the small dev team, but still worth pointing out. Just basic things like: Not having the player's in-game rank updated without expanding the scoreboard to show all players; The refresh button in the multiplayer screen still comes up with how many servers are online (just not necessary and makes refreshing a pain to do); refreshing the servers listing resets any categorization (I'd prefer it just remain as categorized by "Players" by default, as I'm sure would most others); FOV slider still not expanding to 140 (or 130, whatever the max is), even though it allows you to set it that far via command. Some others too. Just small things that add up to be a general nuisance. Maps: Seen some improvements, but there are still some things that definitely need some more work as well. I like the Mesa II changes, but the map still has a lot of collision errors (at least with my settings), where I go through objects that should otherwise be solid. Tomb and Snow both seem very much like the original, which I personally enjoy. Though both maps did have a tendency to be either a massive "snowball effect" or a complete stretched out stalemate if the right buildings were destroyed, they were still 2 of my favorite fanmaps in the original, and look very good. Grassy_knoll is interesting and it's hard to give an impression thus far, but it does seem like a great map for snipers because of the openness of it, which is a nice change of pace. I think the tiberium field is too large on the one side though, which makes it so any team that has lost their vehicle purchasing building is in far too much of a disadvantage to comeback most times. Crash_site looks aesthetically very pleasing. The doors of the ship should probably go up and down rather than how they work now though, for gameplay purposes. There's also several areas that I frequently got stuck on as well. Overall though, looks very nice. Other: Just wanted to thank everyone who has stuck with the game and continues to do so. Very much appreciated from a diehard original Renegade fan who invested heavily into this game for a long time as well.

It's after the fourth shot that the ramjet doesn't behave like the sniper rifle. After firing the fourth shot, the ramjet then takes the fire rate time plus the reload time to reload. Whilst the sniper rifle fires the fourth shot and only has the reload time (how it should be). I'm not sure as to the consistency throughout all weapons on this, but to me it is most noticeable with the ramjet. Put simply: Reload for sniper rifle = reload time Reload time for ramjet = fire rate + reload time. At least that's how it appears throughout the whole animation

The slower RoF I can live with as that seems to have been a balance decision. The extra reload time because of the added fire rate time before the ramjet reload (and not the sniper rifle) seems like a glitch though. That's fixed, you're saying? (Also, my apologies for posting it in the vehicle section; truly thought I had pressed the weapons-related bugs forums).

RoF is added onto the ramjet before reload for some reason. Tested it with sniper rifle and doesn't seem to be the case there. Also noticed sniper rifle has a yellow reticle while between shots but ramjet doesn't and wasn't sure if it was always that way or not Only played a couple hours (for the first time in half a year) and those were the only things really aggravating me (along with the long RoF attached to snipers in general now too, but oh well lol)

I wonder if a petition would help nudge EA in the right direction... If only someone had suggested this when the game had multiple servers filled regularly in order to accumulate more signatures.. https://www.change.org/p/electronic-art ... n-approval

.......................................................................... HaTe? Only reason I clicked on this topic Yeah mate, long time. Have been real busy and unfortunately it doesn't seem as if things will slow down much in the near future. I'd love to come back if they do though

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=71085&hilit=Field I made an argument about the lack of quality on Field even before the game came out lol. Granted my argument was moreso about the inequality between factions on the map in the original game, however. The main point still remains though...the map was purely a bad design for anything over a 5v5, even in the original (though it was the most fun and skill-based 1v1 map). We tried re-designing it multiple times in the original, and even had some fan-maps trying to make it better. In the end though, it was just a dumb design for a map in the game. It was made in Ren-X because of the "nostalgia factor" more than anything. Now that that is mostly irrelevant at this point...it honestly would not be a bad idea to scrap it entirely. It has ran its course. And yeah, I was Anonymously. And yeah, I've been afk forever now (sorry, real life shit that became unavoidable).

there's no good answer

Yes, as a serverside option.

In my hand timings I got the medium tank having a 1.5 second reload on average? Closest to achieve with even numbers. I could move around fire delay from the missiles, or make reload an hundredths place number. But I felt it was close enough and had no marginal benefit as 0.5 gives you 1 extra shot every... 30 shots? You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Look at it from time it takes to kill a specific unit. Even a 0.2 second reload change when the damage is that high is very significant. Again, just my hand timings so they could be wrong, but I did do ~10+ tests and took the average for each vehicle, so I'm fairly certain it is accurate.

In my hand timings I got the medium tank having a 1.5 second reload on average?