Letty
-
Posts
127 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Downloads
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Letty
-
-
Yes, and it would also help to know their class.
-
As it is if you want to win by points as the attackers, simply never actually attack and place beacons or C4, instead just sit outside and shoot buildings all day long. Easy peasy.
-
Bigger bases means longer response time for defenders, which forces defenders to have players covering all avenues of attack to scout, then reporting back to their team before an attack comes so the defenders can scramble into position. This is a good thing.
Base defenses covering only part of a base forces both sides to pay more attention to infantry and mine better. Again, forcing teams to be more aware of what's going on in the field to defend properly is a good thing. Only main problem with defenses is that SBH shouldn't be able to get everywhere in the GDI base so easily. Nod Turrets are so much better placed and deal so much more damage than GDI Towers that it's almost comical.
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.
Not really.
If, say, 8 Gunners rush through the Field tunnel and start shooting your Airstrip, a Technician has enough time to run from the Hand/OB/Refinery to the strip and keep it alive. So basically as long as you have a few defenders who are on the ball and watching out, Nod won't lose the building.
In a map like Goldrush, Nod needs to have someone watching the Gunners run out of the Barracks and into the center for the Technician to get to the Hand in time to save it. This allows for more elements of map control and distraction to come into play. Of course at the same time, the GDI players will be out of their base for a longer time while running across the map on Goldrush. That means that Nod also has an opportunity to counter-rush the GDI base through the open field while a large number of their players aren't around to shove them off.
-
tl;dr
Renegade X is friendly towards bads since headshots do less damage and bodyshots do more compared to original.
That just means that bads will be lulled into a false sense of security and stay bad while I git gud and destroy them with headshots.
But seriously, I'm not adverse to, say, a 3x multiplier instead of 5x. My main issue with headshots is that they are an inconsistent multiplier. Machine pistol only gets +50% damage on a headshot? wat? That's not even worth aiming at the head, and you'd have to go on the forums and read a damage chart to find that out.
-
So...
You don't like the look of it.
You don't like the look of it.
AGT could use a wider shooting angle and being moved back a bit.
There is a bug.
It is big.
You don't like the look of it.
AGT could use a wider shooting angle and being moved back a bit.
Shit, put a little more effort into your complaints. 1 bug, 1 genuine balance complaint, rest is just "I don't like dis".
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)
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.
Bigger bases means longer response time for defenders, which forces defenders to have players covering all avenues of attack to scout, then reporting back to their team before an attack comes so the defenders can scramble into position. This is a good thing.
Base defenses covering only part of a base forces both sides to pay more attention to infantry and mine better. Again, forcing teams to be more aware of what's going on in the field to defend properly is a good thing. Only main problem with defenses is that SBH shouldn't be able to get everywhere in the GDI base so easily. Nod Turrets are so much better placed and deal so much more damage than GDI Towers that it's almost comical.
-
Eh, I might be inclined to agree that they need their shots weakened against buildings somewhat. However I don't think they need to be nerfed like crazy. Every GDI could buy a McFarland AT MATCH START and pummel a building to rubble if they were smart. I've yet to see any effective McFarland rushes like I used to see early Gunner rushes and Gunner was never purchaseable prior to the first harvester dump. Why no talk about nerfing McFarland?
I would say that McFarland is a bit too good when compared to his counterpart, the Chem trooper. However against Buildings specifically McFarland is no where near as powerful as the other options. Namely Grenedier/Gunner/Rocket Officer.
Just as a point of comparison, here are the DPS stats vs. buildings as they are now (using McFarland's current building DPS as a base point):
Flame Trooper - 52%
Mcfarland - 100%
Chem Trooper - 103%
Gunner - 142%
Grenadier - 156%
Rocket Officer - 161%
Now for a more ideal spread IMO:
McFarland - 90%
Grenadier - 90%
Flame Trooper - 90%
Chem Trooper - 120%
Rocket Officer - 120%
Gunner - 140%
McFarland should be weaker damage simply because he is so good at anti-infantry as well. But he will still stand up as a jack of all trades cheapo, just without range
Grenadier and Flame Trooper occupy nearly the same roles. Flame Trooper is shorter ranged but doesn't require you to arc to your target, which balances out nicely. DPS should be approximately equal between them.
Chemtrooper vs. buildings is effectively a shorter range Rocket Officer, but being slightly cheaper and with better ability against infantry or vehicles that do get close. I think it balances out decently. Or look at him as a McFarland who trades McFarland's insane CQC ability for a bit more damage vs. buildings and vehicles.
Rocket Officer returns to their place they were in original Renegade (I think, I'd have go back and check the numbers). Slightly less damage than Gunner for a significantly cheaper price. With their newly-added lockon ability devastating aircraft from across the map and ensuring that vehicles can't dodge much they are more than competent I believe.
Gunner stays where he is. I don't think anyone had a problem with him in Renegade and he's unchanged in RenX.
None of this refers to anti-infantry or anti-vehicle damage, just anti-building. These changes should be made to the base weapon damage, not fire speed or reload time. Doing the latter affects infantry and vehicle killing power as well, and probably in a bad way. Though that isn't to say that the weapons couldn't also use changes in their anti infantry or anti vehicle capability (rip flamethrower).
-
Tired of the theoretical bs so I ran a test of Gunner vs Rocket Soldier. Target: Hon. Zero misses for either. No return trips refill trips. Using stopwatch to get exact time.
Rocket Soldier
---------------
Total Damage To Building: HON was left at 40% health.
Time: 00:00:44:86
Switched teams inbetween to heal HON back to 100%.
Gunner
---------------
Total Damage To Building: HON was left at 31% health.
Time: 00:01:02:50
Clearly the Rocket Soldier fires through his entire ammo stock faster (once again horrible reload for Gunner was horrible to sit through) but does less overall damage for a single run. Changing Gunner's reload time slightly would fix this without either making Gunner OP or making Rocket Soldier UP. Changing damage for either of them would be a far more drastic step then merely making it so that Gunners reload slightly faster.
You don't think that much damage is OP for Rocket Soldier right now? Bearing in mind that 10 rocket soldiers can kill a building from across the map in about 7 seconds, and they are a nearly free unit that can be bought the instant the game starts?
Consider, against Light Armor and Heavy Armor Gunner does 40 damage per shot, while the Rocket Officer does 55 damage. The Rocket Officer does only 37.5% more damage per shot.
Against Infantry Gunner does 90 damage per shot while the Rocket Officer does 100 damage per shot, for only 11% more damage per shot.
But against Buildings, Gunner does 1.66% damage per shot while the Rocket Officer does 3.5% damage per shot. The Rocket Officer does 110% more damage per shot than the Gunner vs. Buildings. This makes no sense and isn't balanced. And if you upped Gunner's RoF even higher to compensate then Gunner would also receive a damage boost against tanks and infantry, allowing him to absolutely annihilate them in the blink of an eye.
Gunner rushes were already considered a very powerful tactic in Renegade. Rocket Officer is, right now, far stronger in a building rush than Gunner was in Renegade, and for a much smaller price tag. Talking about buffing Gunner to be stronger is insane. No one looked at Gunner in Renegade and said "Yeah, he needs to be 50% stronger to be useful".
-
But mining inside the base is often a worse idea than mining outside the base on those maps. The last thing you need on Field is to lose the ability to mine the tunnels because someone thought that the barracks and the back entry into the Ref/WF needed to be mined.
-
As far as I know RenX has no extra points for dealing the finishing blow to a target (excluding beacons/C4 disarming). Points go off pure damage. 99% of a buildings kill gives you 99% of the points that a building kill would give.
Repairing works in the same way, but only gives 2/3rds of the points that damaging a target does.
An interesting quirk is that overkill damage gives points. A building kill with 2 timed C4 and 1 Remote (100% exactly) will give 600 points. A building kill with 3 timed C4 (120% damage) gives 720 points. This also applies to infantry dealing headshots. A Havoc can easily get 2x as many points per kill if they finish with a headshot.
The point value of units and vehicles seem... inconsistent. At least, I couldn't find an easy formula directly relating score to price.
The addition of the pointsfix in Renegade prompted many servers to use the 2/3 credit tick system. Meaning 2 credits the first second, and 3 credits the next second (averaging out to be 2.5 credits/second). This also made the PP destruction give the team 1/2 credit ticks, rather than 1/1. People liked this because the pointsfix means less credits earned capabilities, and when the PP was down in a non-pointsfix server, people could still earn enough credits. With the pointsfix, this became increasingly impossible, and so the 2/3 credit tick was implemented. I believe Renegade X should use the 2/3 credit tick system, rather than the 2/2.God no, the last thing we need is more money. As it is there is way too much money in games and vehicles and high level characters are thrown around willy nilly because they are worthless, and all of the low-cost characters are almost never seen after the first few minutes. There's so much money that I hear several airstrikes a minute from both sides.
Income should be reduced to 1.5 credits per tick. Or reduced to 1 credit per tick (regardless of Ref existing) but with the harvester bonus at 500 credits. As it is the Harvester is very weak compared to credit tick on maps that aren't island. The Harvester certainly doesn't need to be made less important by increasing the base credit rate.
-
Mostly good ideas, except this:
- Designate an area on each map as a "base area", which is defined as the space in and immediately surrounding each of the base buildings. Mines in these areas take priority over mines outside of these areas, so that people can't go mining the tunnel and causing all the mines that are actually defending buildings to fail.This is a bad thing on many maps. Maps like Field or Goldrush benefit highly from placing outside the base in chokepoints. Mines are how you secure map control.
-
1)I agree having more buildings should give you victory,when the timer runs out,no matter what the score says.
The issue here is that it removes any incentive for the defender to continue fighting when it is clear that they can't come back to destroy the enemy base. We *don't* want one side to immediately rage quit when they lose a vital building. Which is why a graduated system of "you can't win by destroying the enemy base but you can still tie by staying alive" is better, as it maintains the incentive for the Defender to Defend while adding the incentive for the Attacker to Attack.
As of now the Attacker need not attack at all, merely point whore. And the Defender may as well rage quit as soon as the Attackers begin point whoring, because in most situations it's impossible to prevent and guarantees a win for the Attacker.
I think the possibility of winning by points the way Renegade does it is a very interesting one. If you dont like it, play Marathon.But again, the issue is that the defender can't win by points if the attacker point whores. This is bad for the game. Marathon just screws up the game far worse in a different way.
-
But if you purposely let a building die the other team's pointwhoring comes to a stop.
I remember GDI won games on Field if they let the WF die. And you could get kicked for team-hampering if you repaired it.
That's why I prefer marathon. That server can keep their "let wf die" baloney.
Or see this thread: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=72904
The only reason Marathon exists is because winning by points is stupid. Better to remove it and let games end without a winner than the extend a game forever.
-
Yes, it's obviously hard to compare DPS vs. infantry directly, and DPS vs. vehicles is still somewhat hard with dodging, or popping out to fire and reload, or w/e.
But DPS is pretty directly comparable for buildings. A building with 100% health and 5 infantry dealing 1% DPS each has 20s for the enemy to stop them before the building dies. A building with 100% health and 5 infantry dealing 2% DPS each has 10s.
Buildings don't exactly dodge or anything, and there aren't any non-beacon weapons that can one-shot a building and ignore the reload time because the building already died. The only real issue is range, which does disadvantage grenadiers in some situations but in the vast majority the grenadier can still reach the target by arcing.
You'll have to point out how I was talking about shooting Stealth Tanks when I clearly state I'm talking specifically about buildings.
-
Your point for the "Expected DPS" against a building is relevant though
OK, stop. This is all I said. Everything else you may have think I said, I did not say. I never talked about shooting stealth tanks, or using an approximate statistic for a short firefight. This is all I said. Thank you for agreeing with me. Expected DPS against buildings is a relevant statistic. DPS is significantly less relevant against vehicles and especially infantry, but it is a very important thing to know when shooting buildings.
We're through here, this has gone far enough.
-
Where is the DPS in this? You're telling me to not argue it because you know that you never included any DPS calculation in the entire thing. Your graph did exactly as I said it would - proved my point. You're not calculating Damage Per Second (Per implies a rate - which is nonexistent in your graph). You're calculating damage for each second - which is exactly what I said.
Expected DPS = 26.67. cmon man. It's your PIC that does an 80 damage shot every 3 seconds.
You're claiming that you're a mathematician and attempting to insult my math knowledge, when literally all you did is repeat exactly what I had already calculated (all you did was stretch it out and create a random percentile calculation).The percentile isn't random, nitwit. It's the differential between expected DPS and actual DPS on the specific second.
You just proved my point entirely. The chart the OP made includes a DPS rate for each weapon against each specific armor type. My point was that this "DPS" is irrelevant because it is flawed and inconsistent to measure a DPS for a FPS game.Except that it isn't flawed - assuming your time is great enough. Which for buildings, it is. A DPS statistic is always an approximation. That's what statistics are - approximations. The approximation grows increasingly accurate over time.
Let me just ask you a simple question. You are shooting a building. Do you want a 50 DPS weapon or a 100 DPS weapon? Assume that both are in range and that you have enough ammo to kill the building with both.
-
You're resorting to insulting when you still haven't given me an answer for the example. If it's that easy - do the calculation. There's no graph needed. If It's DPS - it is one set number (DPS is a rate).
If you need to do a graph listing each individual second - you're completely failing to see my point and would be supporting it even.
Here's the thing. I am a mathematician, and I see your point entirely. You don't see mine. You are literally denying the foundation of statistics in doing so.
Here's a time chart.
What you are saying: That Real D/T != Predicted DPS. This is true.
What I am saying: (D/T)/(DPS) grows smaller as T grows larger. This is also true, and means that the longer a fight goes on, the closer DPS represents the D/T of the weapon performance over the fight.
Please don't try to argue this. This is basic math. I can understand if you misunderstood what I was trying to say, seeing how it's hard to convey mathematical principles over the internet without example, but please don't argue this. If you do it will actually hurt me to see such mathematical ineptness.
-
Are you really going to make me draw a graph here? This is simple math stuff that should be learned in middle school.
-
Okay, let me ask you this then:
Given my example, what would the "DPS" be against the stealth tank for the PIC and for the Volt auto-rifle?
The point is that there is no "DPS." You can determine which weapon will destroy the entirety of the vehicle quicker, but not the "DPS" for either weapon. The Damage for the first second favors the PIC. The damage in the tenth second favors the Volt. There is no DPS, because it all depends on which second you are focusing on.
DPS stat of a weapon is an *approximation* of the DPS over any given timeframe, and the approximation becomes more and more accurate (relative to the total damage dealt) the greater the time spent shooting. This is not complex stuff here. Over increasingly greater amounts of time DPS of weapons become more and more vital compared to hills and troughs of reloading.
-
No, I understand what you are saying perfectly fine.
You are saying that HP/weapon DPS != TTK. This is true, but what I'm saying is that the difference is nominal in practice due to the high building health, and that a weapon with higher DPS = weapon with lower TTK a building, which is also true.
The gaps in weapon damage due to reloading have a constant limit, while the gaps between two weapons' damage due to DPS widens with time. Over a short time the former is important, over a long time the latter is important.
-
Yes, I'm pretty sure everyone understands how that works.
The difference between shooting units and shooting buildings is that buildings have enough health that the bumps in the damage graph even out and the higher DPS weapon always pulls ahead (unless the weapons were very, very close in DPS to begin with).
Obviously if you are fighting a soldier with 1 HP you are going to choose a Flamethrower over a PIC, because the PIC single overpowered shot is wasted. But against a building the higher DPS always wins out. Stretch your time graph out to a few thousand more HP (whatever buildings have) and the higher DPS wins, guaranteed.
-
Yes, it's obviously hard to compare DPS vs. infantry directly, and DPS vs. vehicles is still somewhat hard with dodging, or popping out to fire and reload, or w/e.
But DPS is pretty directly comparable for buildings. A building with 100% health and 5 infantry dealing 1% DPS each has 20s for the enemy to stop them before the building dies. A building with 100% health and 5 infantry dealing 2% DPS each has 10s.
Buildings don't exactly dodge or anything, and there aren't any non-beacon weapons that can one-shot a building and ignore the reload time because the building already died. The only real issue is range, which does disadvantage grenadiers in some situations but in the vast majority the grenadier can still reach the target by arcing.
-
Points are a valid way of winning because points = work done in this game. Everything that gives points is logical POSITIVE work. Damage dealing and healing.
Except it isn't. There is in fact a very easy way to show that it isn't. Killing the WF and Refinery vs. farming the Harvester. Obviously killing the WF and Refinery should be a good thing, but you can get vastly more points by killing the harvester over and over as it comes out. So more points obviously != more progress in winning.
Further more, we again have to go into opportunity costs. Farming points takes away from killing buildings, which is what the game is supposed to be about.
Point whoring is not a valid term because you can stop point whoring. It's another aspect of the game you must be aware of at all times while you're shooting, dodging, peeking, driving, healing, defending, attacking, controlling, etc.Except you can't necessarily when you are down in buildings, which is the crux of the issue.
If you notice, the teams with the most points are the one's who are usually "winning" all game in terms of control.I'm pretty sure everyone has noticed this. The issue is that they maintain their point lead by not attempting to destroy the enemy buildings, because each time they make a rush and fail, the enemy gains more points than they do. Anything that encourages players to not attempt to destroy buildings is a bad thing, because destroying buildings should always remain the primary goal.
If you are playing 4 buildings vs 1 (or any situation where you have more buildings vs your opponents) and you lose from points its because your team didn't play as well throughout the rest of the game.No, it's because your team tried to win by building kills rather than point whore, because in such a situation point whoring is a literally effortless win. Effortless wins are bad, right? Why promote them then?
-
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).
Right, I don't care much about whether we win or losing in most matches either. The problem is when I see other players who DO care about winning or losing, and to do so they engage in unfun point whoring which ruins the game for those who care about what the game should be about (destroying buildings). And unfortunately I can't even ask them to join in and help us on our flame tank rush (we might have won if we had 6 flame tanks instead of 4), because sitting in artillery pounding away for an hour is technically the "right" strategy and I'm playing "wrong" by organizing rushes and beacons.
I don't think ties are a thing that is ever desirable in a competitive game, they're generally an undesirable outcome that you use because you don't have a good way to deal with them otherwise and indicate a flaw in the game design itself. Nobody ever designs TOWARDS ties, you specifically design to avoid them as best you can because they are unsatisfying for both participants.Just because it was already mentioned... in, say, a soccer match, ties only happen because it is impractical and unrealistic to extend a match indefinitely until someone scores a point. You can only extend overtime so long.
The game already has a very robust, considered system that tracks many, many different values for each team in order to arrive at an overall evaluation of team effectiveness: the points system, which ensures that the possibility of a true tie (that is, both teams doing exactly the same equivalent damage to one another such that they have exactly the same point count) is extremely low.
If ties happen too often then you are right, that indicates a flaw in the game design. The solution is to fix the flaw in the game design, not design a second arbitrary mechanic to select winners. And especially not to make that second mechanic run counter to the primary method of winning. One could easily think up several ideas for a sort of "overtime" that would swiftly resolve stalemates if needed, but points as a winner-decider should absolutely go.
To draw a comparison, resolving a win by points in Renegade would be the equivalent of resolving a tied score in Football by number of Yards covered. Which sounds... kind of OK. Except then some wise-ass figures that if they simply run in circles for a few minutes rather than running in for the touchdown, they magically win the tie breaker. This is what Points is in Renegade, running in circles rather than pursuing the goal.
-
But why would they rush if they WILL win just keeping them at 1 building? That isn't any more incentive, thats less.
Because if they don't rush and destroy the last building the game will be a tie. That's the incentive.
Yep. You've covered this pretty well, but just to add a bit I said in a similar topic:OK, you've clearly put a lot of thought into this post so I'll try and make a similarly detailed response.
The objective is to win according to the victory conditions laid out. In Marathon, the only victory condition is "destroy the enemy base", and it will go until this happens. In All Out War, the victory conditions are "destroy the enemy base in the time allotted. If you fail to do that in time, the team that has the most points (the team who, in other words, was the most effective) wins instead".This is the objective as it is now. The issue is that the 2nd part rewards teams who play in unfun ways (point whoring against a disadvantaged team) rather than fun ways (attacking).
Like the fellow I quoted explained, a team that destroyed a building or two was NOT necessarily the most effective team. The enemy being down even a single building puts them at an extremely significant disadvantage, and their offensive options become very limited. It therefore only makes sense to bunker down where they still hold a slight advantage (their own base), wear down the enemy via attrition, and attempt to send out occasional smaller-scale raids to try and level the field again.Similarly, a team who holds the substantial advantage of being up a building (or two, or three) yet is still unable to properly capitalize on that advantage, throwing more and more of their superior units and resources and not making any substantial gain, is STILL the the less effective team overall. Thus, they lose.
Except, well, they were. The game is based around buildings with the primary objective being to destroy them. If one runner in a Marathon gets 20 miles and the other gets 10 miles, it's pretty clear who did better, and we don't need a second system of points based on how they arrived at their position to judge them. You can't say that because a team was less effective later in the game that they are suddenly a worse team when they were far more effective earlier.
In a game of the RTS, it's true you wouldn't win until the base was dead. However, after you lose enough resources that you basically can't produce units anymore. The game does not work with a reinforcement pool or require credits to spawn as a basic soldier, because it's (arguably) more fun to still be able to play even if you have limited options and the chips are down. So instead, it deals with this situation via points.This is important, because it's one of the few things in the game that helps counter the snowball effect that destroying even a single building on the enemy side provides. A team that is down resources can still win by digging in and managing to damage & destroy more of the enemy's resources (units, vehicles, etc) in total than than the enemy was able to inflict on them, even though the buildings are worth a tooooon of points all by themselves, because this makes them the overall more effective team.
Here's the problem: They can't. It is impossible for the Defending team to win by points if the Attackers point whore. This means that if the Attackers want to be 100% assured of winning, they need to point whore. This is a bad thing, because point whoring is lame and unfun for both sides. The only reason you see Defenders winning by points is because the Attackers choose not to point whore (because they want to actually have fun), but that doesn't excuse winning by points of promoting point whoring in the first place.
Now, here's the flip side with points removed and ties put in place: The Attackers have to actually attack. Attackers can't point whore and auto-win the map. This actually helps Defenders, because before Attackers had a 100% guaranteed strategy to win by points. Now Defenders can actually defend their base and have the chance to score a tie against a team with the upper hand against them, which given the situation is still a win.
Airstrike
in Renegade X
Posted
Airstrikes ontop of beacons are definitely a whole new level of stupid cheese. Some way of restricting the two would be for the best.
Otherwise the only problem with Airstrikes is that you sometimes don't receive the EVA warning, or receive it too late to be of use.