SFJake

There's no excitment out of this compared to having the ability to disarm it until the last millisecond, which can happen. Now THATS intense, and it NEEDS to come back.

So far I see it as a map issue, not a SBH issue. -Walls has broken spots for Nod to get in the base from the side, this essentially kills the entire map. -Lakeside is too broad, -literally- impossible to defend against any remotely serious SBH force. The guard tower serves as warnings, but those towers are just WAY too weak otherwise. Just to name a few. SBH need proper map design and entry points that can be watched & mined for them, otherwise they just rule the map. There's also all the retarded roof spots for nukes, of course (and other broken, impossible to disarm spots)

Agreed, although this would make getting out of the vehicle to shoot that PIC-railgun a lot harder, but I haven't seen anyone even attempt this besides myself.

The game went from 700 to less than a 100 playing at peak times in the US, so I'd say the game effectively died already, but whatever. General consensus is there's almost nobody posting on this forum, and in game players still whine about the airstrikes on servers. I've had people on Jelly vote against airstrikes. On Jelly, with their 2500 cost. Pretty much nobody answered my question: What do airstrikes add to the game? We get crap like "it fits tiberian dawn". I don't give a damn, thats bordreline the most useless kind of thing we can say. Airstrikes break key elements of the game right now and thats hardly an opinion, thats a fact. Beacon covered by airstrikes and airstrikes that sneakily destroys vehicle is utterly game breaking. Thats a fact. They've been added to break sieges, and even then shouldn't be able to kill them, its just to force them to push back, give a breathing period and a chance for vehicles to advance. Period. It is the ONLY THING they should be good at, make enemies abandon a specific spot, and that spot should also NEVER be in base. Not based on SAM sites or anything -> never, ever. That is utterly game breaking. Give me one reason why blowing things up, denying a huge zone in the enemy base from defense, all of that at a huge distance, all taht done with a single click, is good for the gameplay. The key here, is that its not. So once nobody can answer what it adds to the gameplay (because like I said, it adds NOTHING good to the gameplay, fact, beyond breaking formations), we want it changed for it to only be good at that. As suggested, again: -No airstrikes above & around any base, ever. -Obvious airstrike markers (there's good ideas around, like the smoke-thing), should be as hard to miss as a beacon as far as I'm concerned These are the base, necessary changes for the airstrikes to not break the game. You think I'm not constructive? I'm sure angry, not hiding that, but there's been nothing, ever said by anyone, that even points that airstrikes are good for gameplay as they are, for ANTYHING else but what I just said. So lets stop pretending here.

I look at airstrikes this way: They add nothing good to the game for all they ruin. Any realistic nerf to them needs to be quite heavy. I don't even think they should kill a Light Tank. At the very least, they should be incredibly obvious. The only (and I mean literally the only thing) I can accept is that airstrikes are supposed to make people move away from the location. However, its completely unfair when it can be really hard to tell where it is, and its even more unfair that it can be done on beacons and .. well, in the base at all! Airstrikes in base should just be completely disabled. The only reason they were even introduced was to break sieges or something. Thats it. Everything else should be cut out to dry. And even that I don't even agree thats a problem, you team up and you clean it up, you don't add some weird airstrikes just because you can't handle it. Its infuriating. Why do we have airstrikes in the game?

Thats something I whined about. People can just use mumble or something and make a crosshair overlay. Bam, complete advantage over everyone in game. No crosshairs should be without a dot in the center.

And that adds... what? There's already plenty of map control and awareness, noticing a gunner rush early is big help and not noticing it doesn't have to be a death sentence if the response is fast. Having the field and having the tunnel is already very important, buildings being farther apart wouldn't change that, except that now that tech -might- have been in the wrong building and has no chance WHATSOEVER to get there in time, ever. Brilliant, maybe we should just have 1 AFK Tech in each building then, while we're at it.

I see nothing to adapt, though. I randomly don't hear a call and oh shit, my last light tank starting to get blown u... *boom*. Had full health. **** you. Airstrike coming, I guess to kill the plethora of vehicles in front. Come out, get blown up by airstrike. **** you. Beacon. Airstrike. **** you. Airstrike are easy mode suppression, they completely destroy the game. I don't know why you think otherwise. Ever had fun in Renegade dealing with nukes at a disadvantage? Yes, not in Renegade X though. You'll just be airstrike spammed, even at 2500 a piece its still worth the nuke cover, because its just that bloody ridiculous. Every single time I've been screwed by an airstrike I basically never could see it coming, and someone from a few million miles away just clicked and waited. Instead of having whatever epic standoff we could have had, the game was completely and utterly ruined. Airstrike need to go, removed from the game, or nerfed to worthlessness because they kill every fun aspect of Renegade by their existence alone. Where there was teamwork and excitment, there's now airstrikes. **** you airstrikes. Yes, I have THAT much hate for a single game mechanic I knew was clearly overpowered before the game was out but its not like anybody agreed with me then.

You have to do this even if the bases are smaller. Even small bases are ridiculously vulnerable. This adds nothing. Lets not make this game about ridiculous coordination either, because even with the smallest of bases like Field people still slip in out of every corner.

Well, lets hope they can put it officially at 2500, servers wouldn't have to modify it. Which is still too little anyway. Yes, I'm saying even at 2500 I find them utterly overpowered. Even in Jelly, I find any game where they are well used to be just plain retarded. And by well used I just mean, use them in confusion, or defend beacon. Dumbest part of the game, kills every ounce of fun of everything. GOD I hate the god damn fucking airstrikes. Sorry.

I don't -hate- the map in all ways but there's just those issues that particularly bothers me: -Buildings too far apart (this pretty much guarantees a lame game at best) -Lighting & color is not good I mean, it wouldn't take THAT much for me. Just don't make building far apart from each other, it just doesn't work at all for Renegade I find. Lakeside is an interesting and good map in theory, but every game still ends up silly because of that. And yes, I really do think its that big a deal. I also hate how defenses work when it comes to a big map and a base thats just way too big.

Timed C4 in Renegade X has definitely killed me (I fondly remember a match where this happened) as Mobius, yet you say they do only 264 damage. I'm a bit confused by that.

Sadly? Best thing to have ever happened. Should be standard.

I'm pretty sure they said they knew about this (not knowing who's in your vehicle), heck sometimes I've seen people get out of my vehicle and I was like "what the hell? there was someone inside?" People outside also deserve to know how many people are inside a vehicle. Anyway, point being I'm sure they know about it and will do something. (just don't ask me when)

I don't think the flamethrower's damage is off, only its hitbox. Against vehicles it seemed fine, it even has surprising range. Its just the grenadier thats quite powerful. (probably too much) Also, the flamethrower has "splash damage", I can't say the same for the chem. If you fire barely next to someone, it seems like it can hit and deal less damage (something I vaguely noticed in my damage testing). The ideal way to make a flamethrower is just that, for it to be mostly splash-damage centered around the flames, and I'm pretty sure its how its done, its radius is probably just very small however.

Nope, they have light armor now. Like I said, only 2 armor types for vehicles as far as I can tell. Just tested again, chinook definitely take 60 damage from ramjet

I hate bunny hopping, too. All I hate is "control" being taken away. I have a gun, I aim somewhere, it shoots there. I have the ability to move and jump, it shouldn't be changing my aim in any weird ways. Making this overcomplex can just get annoying, and most games just go the opposite anyway -> like Call of Duty, they just remove possibilities instead of adding to it. I hate when I have to fight the game to do those basic things and I hate when a game devolves into run, stop, ironsight, strafe superslowly and shoot at a very easy to aim target. I don't know if you can "get" how I see it.

It absolutely shouldn't, guns should always have the same accuracy regardless of movement, there has been no worse sin in FPS gaming than that.

The stealth tank has heavy armor. I vaguely remember it was not quite that in the original, but the stealth tank reacts the same way to damage as any other heavy vehicle. Just to clarify, if anyone has any doubts, these are the vehicle's armor in this game (they all act the same in the same category, as far as my testing went). Light Armor Vehicles: Humvee Buggy MRLS Mobile Artillery Transport Helicopter Orca Apache Heavy Armor Vehicles: APC Flame Tank Light Tank Medium Tank Mammoth Tank Stealth Tank Thats how most "explosive" damage works. Even in the original this wasn't really different. The PIC and Railgun had a little less time between shots but it still gave a sub-30 DPS. Like some said, the fact that you can do all that damage instantly on a click, nevermind having to expose yourself only barely to deal it all, is what makes those weapons powerful and what makes them win a lot more fights. They are good field weapons. They could use a small buff though (I'd bring them back to the old Renegade level, but thats just me). Likewise, a volt rifle should be more powerful, since you have to stay out of cover constantly to use it and its range is poor. Also runs out of ammo so quickly. Thats all why its really great to deal with rushes.

Its like we're constantly agreeing that no, the numbers are not that important, but just want to put a different spin on it. Take those numbers with a grain of salt, and then move on to real balance discussions, which is always done through extensive play and not just from numbers. All numbers do here is give some knowledge (DPS was actually an afterthought, I just thought "hey, why not") and at best gives something to look at and discuss further. Thats all I intended it to do. This is all giving me a headache and you'll not see me the rest of the night, but don't stop arguing on my account.

I'm not a math genius. However the true average DPS is just a DPS that considers reload time as a factor (which makes it a much more accurate tool for, say, if you keep firing on a target non-stop for a whole minute). True DPS as it is is relevant enough, it does say the amount of damage you can expect to be doing to a building or a vehicle as you assault it. There's a lot of other factor yes, but numbers are numbers, these numbers are accurate enough and represent something. I'm not trying to pretend that they have an absolute meaning and higher DPS = better weapon instantly. However, we can use these numbers to get a better idea of their damage potential, which is an important factor. DPS against infantry is most definitely a lot less important than against vehicles and buildings, for instance. I'm not sure I really get what you're trying to tell me, though.

Right, you're going at this from the concept of ties if a base is not destroyed. Well, I don't know. I'm not a big fan of ties. It could be an incentive to attack. I don't have much to add to that, though. Would probably not be against it, but I'm never that concerned with a win or lose in this game anyway (unlike many other games).

Just pointing out that I fixed a few oversights I could find (#VALUE and Grenadier was missing just one piece for the formula, as you said its damage is also higher than Gunner's on buildings), link in the first post was changed to http://imageshack.com/a/img842/5162/57wx.png

Probably. I always saw score as a mean to get money, not as a mean to be acclaimed the better member of my team. I doubt this will change, I doubt the artillery driver that could just get a good spot behind everyone will ever be beaten (I've been that sometimes, and oh I'm top, who cares). A building destroyed by a beacon goes to the guy that planted it because he paid for the beacon, so even that is fair. The only thing I'd change is give players disarming the beacons points based on the amount you disarm (same for C4) instead of just getting a fixed amount of disarming it at all. (I think its still that way in Renegade X) The rest, well, some people sacrifice their own income for the betterment of the team. Noble sacrifices that you can never expect a game to fully recognize.

But why would they rush if they WILL win just keeping them at 1 building? That isn't any more incentive, thats less.