SFJake

Lets put this in perspective and I'll add that I respect all the crazy work they have done for this game. Now is -not- the time for break. At all. They decided for an open beta release that is too early. I personally would have been against it, knowing the state of the game. It doesn't matter what you call the release, for most people out there, this is "the" release of Renegade X, call it whatever you want. And the release is not in an ideal state. It crashes quite a bit, and there's pletny of problems that can ruin someone's experience. Even early on, I got a bunch of people whine about speed hacks and say the game was trash. Thats a problem taht only existed in the early days. My point is, the game is out. The people are out on it and this is the time for the game to get up on its feet properly, as quickly as possible. The longer it takes to reach a more commonly acceptable state, the more players we'll lose. It was unfortunate that they didn't just increase the size of the closed beta to test everything properly or something. Maybe the broken release is inevitable given that this is a free game. But I think if we care about the health of the game, we need to get the big stuff out of the way quickly. I'm personally not asking it just for me, I'm saying its the best for the game. Hopefully the later "true" release will bring more players, but I can't help but think that every day the game is in its current state, some players are lost. And this game exists to have people playing it. I mean, a multiplayer project needs players, that is the whole point. Thats why the timing of a release and how its handled is so important, even if its free. This is just my perspective. I don't actually have any doubts they are working as hard as they can, by the way.

Whats the problem? What are we trying to fix with this her? I'd be much more interested in being able to "steal" the tech building reliably, which would naturally make people defend it since it would be easy to steal, and something that forces it to stay this way for a while (so having the field doesn't equal having the building forever). Otherwise in this topic I really just see weird, arbitrary changes, not wrong or right, just not sure what we're trying to accomplish here. Having a guy forced to be on the silo at all time is way overkill, for instance, and making capture more difficult isn't something I see as good.

Why the proposed change in the first place? Mines are there to stop lone soldiers from entering without requiring a person constantly checking around that specific corner. They are a vital element of base defense that can be very useful. If it doesn't stop everyone, it'll weaken or kill someone, make APC rush less effective, etc. You simply use teamwork to get around it, which is the core of the game. Mines are very useful in defense and this game very much needs a good defense. Besides, if you add ways for anyone to just destroy mines harmlessly, they would be quite useless. Setting them up and watching over them takes a dedicated defender, which can also use the mines to get a heads up when the enemy is invading. There's no reason their work should become all the more easily dispatched harmlessly by a lone soldier. The mines would become next to useless.

You can walk with Alt, actually.

I care, I'm not an idiot, you're just an arrogant little fucker is the only problem.

Then stay on your stupid pedestal and don't talk to the likes of us. Why do you even bother.

It actually really doesn't add anything at all, since this game has a lot of movement and constantly makes you change your aim anyway. Recoil & spread are terrible mechanics for shallow games that don't have anything else to make the gameplay interesting.

Why do you exaggerate it? Vehicles blockers exist pretty much only in tunnels and buildings. Thats it. Most other places, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to get there. Heck, I think Walls should allow any vehicle to go up the base ramps, because why the heck not.

There's already blockers (or even vehicle killers) in the game right now in places that are totally reachable. Lakeside puts them in places that a buggy could go through. Walls blows up your vehicle for trying to get up the ramp when its totally feasible. Etc. So I'm not sure whats the problem there. Putting a vehicle blocker on the tunnels if that wasn't done is about the easiest thing on Earth, by the way.

There were no MASSIVE EXPLOSION OF DEATH in the old Renegade, was there? Death crates are fine. Dumb, ridiculous nuclear explosions out of nowhere that also kills all your allies around (even vehicles) is just ridiculous, in every way. Gameplay wise its ridiculous, and it looks utterly ridiculous, and is just out of place. Yes, its funny the first time it happened in the entire game, but thats it. So death crates should just kill you. Bam, thats it.

You basically read nothing.

I've seen over half that didn't do anything. I'm not sure I get it.

I've been having no trouble in certain servers at 40 players cap, so please stop trying to lower it. I'm already dying for 64 to come back, 40 players was always my absolute minimum player count already. In fact, there was even 1 server that handled 64 players right and the vehicles weren't so bad. While there's room for improvement I'm sure, a good server could handle it. EDIT: Bleh, what the hell does it matter. Can't fill a 40 player server right now. Population is dwindling.

I'm personally hoping for an original reinterpretation if City Flying. The concept of a map in the city has a heck of a lot of potential. Also, I want more maps with aircrafts. (I wish some maps had a flying-version, even if the original didn't have them who cares)

You have to keep your crosshair somewhere, regardless of where, and that means you need to compensate for the recoil and keep aiming manually. You don't actually have to aim for the head? You have to control your gun in the proper place, regardless of any weird excuse you make for it. There's no luck or noob-help in recoil like this game has, assuming its not both ridiculous & random. Spread is a different story, it can definitely be luck based if yuo keep the trigger too long at a time, since its entirely random. Letting go a bit is a choice, but its also a potential lost of damage. I'm personally against all the overtime "spread" effect in the game. Doesn't fit the game at all and at best makes some gun a bit weaker and random than they should be, for no particular reason.

Nothing about handling those weapons is difficult and yes they're enough to drop soldiers that aren't careful. They don't actually do that much damage, no, but if you're predictable in your movement or standing still you're going to die quickly. With the basic rifle there's basically no reason to not aim for the head, and its not that difficult to hit it every now and then. If you start going in a direction and be predictable, you can drop in like 1 second even with the more expensive character type, but thats entirely your fault.

Uh... I'm not. Nukes get by (in Walls more than any map) way too easily. Roof nukes shouldn't even be allowed if it were up to me.

Its a good idea to open a map in skirmish with no bots and run around and get the feel of it before playing. I had no idea about Goldrush too and doing just that helped a ton.

I admit I've always been using very crappy mouses, so nope. I'll have to get a "real" mouse one day.

I wish there was like, half a dozen in-game checks that prevented beacons in any awkward spot. I don't even like beacons on roof, its quite overpowered by itself and more so when mixed with any tactics beyond solo SBH nuke. Some of those spots of course are even more ridiculous. I wouldn't know "how" exactly to prevent all the lame beacon placement, though.

They both need buffs, thats for sure. Otherwise, I'm actually one to believe that the Apache should be better. What should happen in a nutshell -> the Apache should be able to out-gun the Orca with his focus on a better machine gun, while the Orca is much better for ground assault with his rockets (both aircrafts being able to dodge each other's rockets). Thats the "theory", in my eyes. They both need to be more effective overall as well. I think a buff in range would be in order, but thats just me.

The effect of that handicap is exaggerated, and personally, I literally can't play without it. Low sensitivity becomes unplayable, you can barely turn or anything, and high sensitivity is unplayably inaccurate. I never found a good middle ground with acceleration off that I found playable. And I meant that there is more to aiming than just putting your crosshair where your target is, in a game like this no less, where it constantly changes. You can be good at your mouse on your desktop, doesn't make you a good shot.

Oh... uh.. what? Wasn't the whole point of spies to have an alternative option passed base defenses?

I'd vote for the former since I hate maps like this with building so bloody far apart.. AND easy to infiltrate too? Yeah, no, thats just way too ridiculous.

I could never play without acceleration, its incredibly painful, and shooting in a game like this is more than just being able to move your mouse over a target. That said, the option is nice for those who hate it.