Letty
-
Posts
127 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Downloads
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Letty
-
-
Also FWIW, I tested the Grenadier and the Grenadier does about 5-10% more DPS against buildings than Gunner, which is consistent with the spreadsheet if you fill in the missing data. Hilarious.
-
Which is why it has more HP. It's only 175 credits more expensive too so let's not act like it's a 800 credit difference or something stupid like that.
It's also GDI's unique unit, in the same way that SBH is Nod's unique unit. It's supposed to be much more powerful, like it was in Renegade.
Gunner is supposed to be more powerful than the Rocket Soldier.Wrong. You assume it should based on your own opinion.
See now this is what makes it clear that you didn't play Renegade. Gunner is supposed to be a Rocket Soldier that shoots the exact same rockets, but faster. Rocket Soldier already has a buff that they don't have in Renegade (lock-on rockets), they didn't need a 2x damage increase.
In Renegade they do exactly the same damage per shot and Gunner fired far faster than the Rocket Soldier. This is the point of Gunner. He is GDI's specialized unit for killing buildings. If he is not doing far more damage against buildings than any other infantry in the game then he is not fulfilling his role. Please learn how the game works before posting.Wait, wait, wait... You're telling me you are now in favor of the gunner doing faster damage? You were arguing he should do more before. Now you admit his rocket launcher merely shot faster than the normal one? Well I'll be... So my saying that raising his Damage Per Second by adjusting his obscenely long reload time is stupid, but him merely shooting faster isn't?
You aren't even reading the thread. The issue is that Rocket Soldiers do 2.1x as much damage per shot as Gunner vs. buildings, while Gunners fire only 1.6x faster. The Rocket soldiers should do the exact same damage per rocket as Gunner while Gunner keeps their current firing rate (which is approximately that of Renegade).
Also I find it hilarious that you move on to insulting my knowledge of the game when I played Old Renegade for more than 5 years. I'm well experienced with how the old game worked (or didn't work) so save your elitist bs for someone else. Seriously people who cry "noob" when someone disagrees with them are pathetic. Yeah I just called you pathetic, go cry about it.I'm sorry but you clearly don't show it.
A $0 should be useless then? That's what it seems you want. Making money units far superior to free units makes free units worthless. The grenadier has a special role as a free high damage unit vs vehicles and structures. It shouldn't have gimped DPS just so you can feel better about your 400 credit unit. Gunners have more HP, longer range, and a straight shot. It takes far more skill to use a grenadier vs buildings or vehicles than a gunner and they die far easier. It's a joke that you are even complaining about this like they are similar at all. It's like arguing that since a Havoc costs 1000 credits Riflemen shouldn't be able to kill with their free gun. I mean that's a 1000 credit difference right? So the havoc should be a billion gazillion times better so Letty can feel good about dropping 1000 credits on him, right? Of course you wouldn't argue that, but you are essentially arguing the same thing with the grenadier and Gunner. The gunner shouldn't be leaps and bounds better for 400 credits. That's a paltry sum of credits. I've flushed thousands of credits in efforts to help my team win in a single match and you're crying about 400 and 175 credit differences like they mean the world.Oh god please stop posting. Grenadiers were fine in Renegade, they didn't need to be made 2x as powerful.
So yeah a sensible solution to the Gunner's DPS would be to reduce it's MASSIVE reload time. Not silly crap like nerfing the Rocket Soldier or Grenadier classes.Except that Rocket Soldiers and Grenadiers are clearly over powered at the moment. Buffing Gunner to be better than them vs. buildings would just make Gunner insanely OP. Gunner is currently approximately correctly powered and the two classes which are way outside their intended power levels need to be nerfed.
-
I personally agree with the mentality that Marathon is the way to go, and otherwise points should stay as they are. I actually like the intensity of being on the defense with very low building (say, islands, you're GDI and only have a barrack against full Nod base) and you win against them by point, its quite satisfying.
There's no reason that being down by buildings and surviving to the end to tie can't be just as fun, and it will encourage your enemies to actually attack rather than sit outside your base and point whore to win.
I've been in exactly the same situation and it's quite unfun for the enemy to just sit around with artillery spamming away rather than have them attempt rushes and beacon plants because they are afraid doing so will give GDI too many points. Yet the most boring, simplistic and unfun strategy is the winning one if points is a valid victory method.
-
Gunner reload time is alright, the Rocket Soldier just magically does more than 2x as much damage per shot as Gunner. And for some reason the Grenadier does way too much damage too, they have almost the same as gunner and they have large clips just like him as well. Both Rocket Soldier and Grenadiers look like they need a 50% nerf to their damage vs. buildings.
It "magically" does more damage because it's a single fire rocket. It's balanced compared to the 6 shot gunner that can spam smaller shots. It's only the reload time that makes the gunner's rockets weaker overall. They shouldn't be more powerful than a single rocket. It makes no sense for the gunner to have the ability to fire 6 rockets quickly and for them to be stronger than the Rocket Soldier's single rocket. They should do the same damage they do now at the same rate, but the Gunner needs to be able to reload slightly faster to bring his DPS up.
You are so wrong it's hard for me to choose where to start...
Gunner is a more expensive unit. Gunner is supposed to be more powerful than the Rocket Soldier. In Renegade they do exactly the same damage per shot and Gunner fired far faster than the Rocket Soldier. This is the point of Gunner. He is GDI's specialized unit for killing buildings. If he is not doing far more damage against buildings than any other infantry in the game then he is not fulfilling his role. Please learn how the game works before posting.
As for the Grenadier he's incredibly short range and not as good against buildings as a Gunner. No way does a grenade launcher compare with a weapon that can practically hit the other side of the map.A $0 unit should not be dealing DPS comparable to the unit that is designed to be the ultimate building killer. If you don't realize this then again, you have no idea how the game works. There are plenty of instances in which Gunner's range is completely irrelevant, and he should not be outclassed in killing buildings by a free character in these instances.
-
Gunner reload time is alright, the Rocket Soldier just magically does more than 2x as much damage per shot as Gunner. And for some reason the Grenadier does way too much damage too, they have almost the same as gunner and they have large clips just like him as well. Both Rocket Soldier and Grenadiers look like they need a 50% nerf to their damage vs. buildings.
-
No, it's an oversight on the devs part to let things be so imbalanced. You're numbers look correct there, I just ran a test and Gunners are doing less damage over time to buildings than Rocket Soldiers.
-
What the hell, Rocket Officer does more DPS vs. buildings than Gunner? That's got to be an oversight.
Nice work btw.
EDIT: Missing numbers on the Grenadier.
-
Accounting for the dozens of ways you can help your team outside of the direct damage you deal is intractable.
What do you give to the guy who drives the APC up to the OB/AGT and blocks the door while the engineers destroy it? What do you give to the guy who places a beacon to distract the enemy team while an APC drives in through the other side of the base? What do you give the guy who just killed someone about to kill their teammate, saving their team the loss of a $1k character?
Accounting for all of these would be insanely complex and in the end players would just be getting a ton of points seemingly out of nowhere for fulfilling random conditions.
-
They didn't win though. The objective is to destroy the opponent's base. They survived, but both teams failed in their objective. It should be a tie.
This isn't soccer. A tie should only happen if both teams survive the game and happen to have the exact same points.
You give no reason this should be the case and it leads to degenerate, stupid, unfun gameplay. Therefore a tie is the correct outcome if both teams fail to win.
Ties exist in RTS too, and Renegade is modeled after an RTS. I know of no RTS that decides wins or losses based on an obscure and stupid point mechanic.
-
I couldn't disagree more. The other team won that game because they got smart, dug in and played defensively. Meanwhile your team got overconfident, probably used a lot of high-cost units and beacons, and bashed their heads against the enemy defenses. The enemy probably only used basic infantry or did all they could to preserve their existing assets, so they're not giving away mere handfuls of points per attack, while you're giving them hundreds per failed tank rush or disarmed beacon.
It may be frustrating, but the enemy team did earn that point victory with smart tactics and resource management. Taking away point victories would make any David vs Goliath scenario hopeless, since the team with the most resources mid-game would almost always win.
They didn't win though. The objective is to destroy the opponent's base. They survived, but both teams failed in their objective. It should be a tie. Ties are perfectly acceptable and give a team something to work for over losing.
Any time a defender wins by points it's because the attacker was actually trying to accomplish the objective (killing the enemy base) rather than point whoring, which would always bring success. A secondary win objective that encourages degenerate point whoring over accomplishing the primary win objective is a shit mechanic, period.
-
Marathon just screws you the other way and makes a game drag out for both sides in circumstances where both teams have very little offensive capability.
Just suck it up and ignore what the game says about winning by score. It's a stupid mechanic any way, time running out should give a draw.
-
Points is entirely damage based, deal 99% of damage and you will get 99% of points, regardless of who dealt the final 1%.
I could get behind this, but not the removal of points; as far as I understand those actually work based on damage and repair, not just kills.But the game is ultimately about destroying buildings, while score for damage just encourages point whoring.
-
I've definitely seen it. I don't know if there is a range beyond which it's not visible or something though.
-
Shotgun and flamethrower are free, so I don't really agree. The shotgun is fine, though, really powerful already.
I've done testing of damage on GDI's side but not Nod yet (working on a damage chart). This got me interested in testing the flamethrower. (on a side note, the shotgun does no additional damage when you hit the head, so I wonder if the same is true for flamethrowers, knowing that is important)
Yes its free. As is the rifle, the shotgun, the grenade launcher, the pistol and the sub machine gun. They all outperform the flamethrower to a very large degree.
The Flamethrower actually has almost the exact same DPS against vehicles as the grenade launcher. It just sucks hard against infantry while the grenade launcher has way too much splash and destroys infantry. But in a purely anti-vehicle role it isn't bad.
-
Flamethrower and Chemthrower actually have very nice range. It's like 75-100 feet. AFAIK Chem thrower performs exactly the same as a double damage Flamethrower.
Chem thrower is pretty good for the price and performs well against buildings, tanks, and infantry. Seriously, if you roll Field on the map vote and can get the majority of your team to go Chem trooper through the tunnels the GDI base will be dead before the people who went to the silo/harvester know what hit them.
Flamethrower is... ehh. A small buff to their damage probably wouldn't be out of line. As it is Chem trooper is so much better and barely costs you anything. Upgrading from flame to chem gives you 25% more health and 2x damage, meaning an approximate combat performance improvement of 150% for only $150. No other class upgrade comes close to that efficiency.
-
Or just remove kills from the scoring entirely, since they are mostly meaningless. Points as well.
-
I've read a topic similar to this on an older forum and the issue is in the other team if they cannot dislodge the campers. I've played various games where I entered the game as Nod and GDI was camped right outside our entrance and a planned rush of arties/airstrikes took care of the problem quickly.
Good luck doing that if you've lost buildings. Unfortunately once you've gotten a building kill or two there is no incentive for to actually finish the job vs. simply point whoring to victory.
I agree that in an even situation there is no reason you can't eventually push out. But at the same time there shouldn't be an incentive to point whore over attacking for the purpose of killing buildings.
-
Repair score is worth 2/3rds of the damage score, for infantry, vehicles and buildings I believe. So if you do 150 points of damage the enemy team can only get 100 points from repairing.
-
so far, if im camping its because the enemy is doing a damned good job of pressuring us at our base and leaving it largely unprotected is seen as a risk until you can cleane your base of whatever risks are lurking nearby.
Typically such risks come form the shortcuts/alternate route a fair few new players dont know exist till later, a couple of maps have paths/routes i didnt notice till i followed some1 else wondering wth they were off too, only to find yourself springing out into the enemy base on the sly.
By camping I believe everyone in this thread is taking the term to mean camping just outside the enemy base (usually with vehicles like Artillery or Mammoths) and pummeling buildings for an hour to get loadsapoints while not really accomplishing any thing else or providing meaningful gameplay.
Defending the base is entirely smart and I doubt anyone has issue with that.
-
The annoucements are pretty clear, i'm not sure how you miss hearing it and
It's your own fault if you run into an area that's being bombed and die.
I agree with you for the most part, but the announcements are not clear at all when the announcer can only say one thing at a time and BUILDING UNDER ATTACK BUILDING REPAIRED HARVESTER UNDER ATTACK HARVESTER DESTROYED ION CANNON BEACON DEPLOYED WARNING ION CANNON SATELLITE APPROACHING YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS 20 SECONDS ION CANNON STRIKE IMMINENT 10 SECONDS blah blah blah are being played instead of AIRSTRIKE ONROUTE.
Whenever I airstrike a group of enemies to death it's quite impossible for me to know whether they were legitimately stupid and didn't move or whether the notification was delayed until it was too late or didn't play at all.
-
As far as I'm concerned if the map ends by points the map was a draw. Who cares about what the game says? We ain't playing for money, so the question who technically won or lost the map is meaningless.
It would probably be better for the game (in terms of getting players to attack properly rather than point whore) if the game officially recognized ending by time as a draw though.
I find that enemies camping your base are actually more beneficial to the defending team since repair points seem to even it out or possibly even exceed them. There are so many games I've won just defending a base from the brink of destruction even if we haven't even destroyed one of the enemy's structures. In fact, I find it happens so commonly that I thought that points were biased heavily towards defenders.Actually repair is only worth 2/3rds of damage. What usually gets Defenders the points lead is that they disarm beacons (major points), or because the attackers keep rushing in and losing a bunch of high-credit units (which is why I dislike winning by points, as it encourages the attacker not to actually attack and instead to simply sit outside and point whore).
I honestly never look at my points until the final minutes of a match. If I'm camping the enemy base I'm doing it for the practical reason of trying to destroy the base... not to whore points.FWIW, if the enemy still has their HoN/Barracks up, you are often doing directly the opposite. The reason is that the Hotwire/Technician repairs over 2x as fast as most vehicles can do damage (only about 50% faster than mammoths and flame tanks, but it's still faster). This means that if 2 artillery/MRLS are pounding at a building a single hotwire/technician can stalemate them indefinitely. This is trading 2 players and 2 tank spots for 1 repairing character, which is a very bad move.
Of course, this is not the case on maps where you can constantly switch targets to keep the enemy team wasting their time running from building to building. Whiteout for example. 5-6 artillery or MRLS can quite often take down a building if they focus fire before the enemy can scramble on over.
-
As for airstrikes, I believe the Nod and GDI are equal in dignity. Its just that GDI has so many big, heavy vehicles, it gives Nod's airstrike the advantage.
Nod airstrikes are demonstrably stronger than GDI's, though they also have a random element. A Nod airstrike will usually leave a Mammoth at around 10% health or less (with about a 30% chance to kill it) if the airstrike is targeted on the Mammoth or in close proximity. A GDI Airstrike will almost always leave a Mammoth at 25-35% health unless the mammoth is specifically moving from the first line of explosions into the next.
Of course this is mostly moot since GDI's airstrikes are normally targetted against Nod vehicles, who have nowhere near the HP of a Mammoth, but the point stands that Nod's airstrike is better.
I found rocket soldiers nice harassment against air. They probably should make them cheaper (I think it and McFarland could use a cost swap), for 150$ they would be worth some anti-vehicle power (which is more so useful for Nod, by the way). GDI has too many good anti-vehicle alternative. (or I should say Nod has too few)Nod's Laser Chaingunner is quite effective, though a bit low on range for some maps.
IMHO rocket soldiers could be free in exchange for grenadier or flame soldier. That way you could still be able to at least do something against vehicles when your barracks/HON is destroyed.God no. Grenadier and Flame soldier is your anti vehicle. Rocket soldiers as a $0 class would pretty much make aircraft useless.
-
Mines in RenX do 60-85 damage depending on whether you are sprinting into them or slowly edge into their radius. Also mines in RenX seem to do less damage if stacked ontop of each other. Dunno if it's because proxies trigger nearby proxies as well or if it's just a quirk, but a SBH can easily survive 5 stacked proxies, though they'll be on the brink of death and un-stealthed. 4 stacked mines will leave a SBH with enough HP to stealth, while 4 mines spread out will either kill a SBH or wound them enough to unstealth.
-
Field - Removal of tunnel beacons and the tiberium silo make this map wayyyyy to much of a stalemate in a 20v20 situation now. Meh. It plays well with 12v12 but there are basically no servers who aren't 40 player. 2/5
Goldrush - The asymmetry is really nice and both sides have lots of options. At the moment it's a bit too big and complex for most players I think though. Also vehicles get stuck on walls everywhere. 3/5
Islands - Always a good game IMO. My only complaint is the tiberium fields in base. 4/5
Lakeside - I've played this map 6 times and in all 6 of them one side had lost 2 buildings in about 5 minutes. So I can't really say much about it as such, like Goldrush it will hopefully get better as players get better.
Mesa 2- Never liked how exposed the Nod Power Plant was in the original. Now in Renegade X, the Mammoth tank is buffed and the best counter to massed tank sieges is airstrikes... which don't work indoors. ehh. Otherwise I like the map. 4/5
Walls_flying - It's alright. Nothing special but nothing horrible. 3/5
Whiteout - With the base defenses being way too strong it's just stupid. Nod can't do much but SBH nuke and GDI can't do much but hope the Nod engineers fall asleep and forget to repair. 1/5. I really like the map otherwise, once the base defenses are nerfed it will probably be a solid 4/5.
Damage Chart
in Renegade X
Posted
Except Gunner is basically unchanged in Renegade X from Renegade. His Reload time was equally long. His damage was exactly the same vs. buildings. I'd go so far to say that Gunner is *exactly* the same now as he was before. The Rocket Officer just got a 2.1x damage vs. buildings increase out of nowhere.
You literally don't know how Renegade works, or maybe you forgot it. Go back and play it.
Anyway, I'm done with this argument. You keep trying to put words in my mouth I haven't said and then hold them against me. It's *very* clear to anyone with experience in Renegade that Rocket Officers and Grenadiers should not be dealing this much damage against buildings. That is all.