Jump to content

sarabi

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sarabi

  1. It would be much better if 'destroyed' buildings gave softer penalties, especially the vehicle factory because right now if you lose that/airstrip, you might as well change the map there and then. The most important thing to change would be to at least let harvesters spawn from destroyed factories/airstripes, because right now the airstrip/factory effectivly destroys two buildings if it's destroyed. Pretty much not worth playing at that point.
  2. Make alternate fire toggle the beam constantly on/off. should make staring at the MCP during a bombardment more bearable, and repairing in general.
  3. As I stated this is an optional ruleset designed to make pub-play more fun for pub-players, your notion that splash damage should affect people inside buildings is very much against that since pubs are unlikely to apreciate getting hit by splash soaking through apparent steel walls. Also, do try to elaborate how my changes, well thought out and explained would somehow detriment public play, rather than dismissing them in your narrow minded fear that things will change.
  4. It seems to me, that renegade X, whiles a whole bunch of fun, is highly dependent on the teamplay that simply isn't all that common on public games, and as such leads to a lack of voted in map variety and playstyle. And so I propose this, keep the current balance as an option for more seriously minded players , pugs, clan wars and such where coordination will make it all quite glorious. HOWEVER: introduce an optional ruleset for servers which permit softer teamplay to work and encourage lesser played maps. This gamemode is open to suggestions, so please chip in where you feel appropriate and remember that this is to enhance pub-play, rather than replace competitive play. I have tried to make these suggestions as easy and quick to implement for the developers as possible. Suggestions for pub play mode: 1. Increase nuke/ion countdown timers to 90 seconds. Presently there is an issue with nukes and ion beacons on pub-play, and that is there's rarely dedicated defenders, therefore superweapons get through that would never get away in a million years in any sort of organized game. Adding 30 seconds to the timer will give pubs a chance to respawn, change class, and then hunt down the nuke in time. This should alleviate complaints of black hand stealth units winning most games on maps such as walls. 2. Reduce all stationary defences (player turrets, guard posts, obelisk and such) damage output to 1/4 present. Presently public players do not want to advance upon bases on account that towers are generally going to cause the person leading the charge to most certainly die, pub players do not want to sacrifice thier hard earned vehicle or character like this, therefore reducing defense damage and giving them a greater chance to survive will encourage more people to go 'over the top' so to speak. This should let maps with base defenses have a chance at the voting screen too, since players wills top associating those maps with dying to achieve anything. 3. Double building health, but half building repair rates. Presently another psychological barrier to pub players pushing is that it can feel extremely pointless if you do any damage to a building and be out-healed by some blighters hiding inside, thus players feel their time has been wasted, and don't bother pushing a second time. Halving the repair rate fixes this perceived issue, allowing buildings to be repaired in the long term, but offense feeling useful with the gradual, more assured destruction of base assets. The doubled total health of buildings however will allow time for active defense (or in pub -play, the next wave of players rushing out form the base in a mad gaggle of destructive mayhem) to take out besieging enemies. There are doubtless other ways that disorganised public play can be made more fun and engaging, so please put your suggestions in, and do remember that this would always be an OPTIONAL ruleset, and would not touch the beloved command and conquer gametype at all.
  5. I dont really se the issue, flame tanks are slow, large and vulnerable to anything outside of spitting range, they're countered yet again by nippy GDI medium tanks who can just reverse whiles pounding away at the armor, and are also completely wrecked by MRLS in it's respective niche of range. I recommend you stop thinking of vehicles in terms of raw killing power to cost, and instead think of the range of niche niche where that killing power can be deployed. Flame tank - effective in ambush of vehicles and taking down buildings (vulnerable vs guard towers owing to low speed and proximity required) , fodder at range and vs fast units. Mammoth - effective vs all targets at long and medium range, highly respectable building damage at all ranges, targets air units. So yes, the flame tank is very good at it's fairly small niche, but the mammoth tank is good at a much wider variety of tasks.
  6. It's no doubt because in pub games defense towers simply aren't any fun to go against since coordinated pushes are exceedingly rare. Therefore maps without defensive towers will be voted in with the most frequency
  7. spread isn't particularly nasty in hip fire, in fact compared to pretty much every other game with spread it's positively tame. And frankly not needing to ADS is a fresh of breath air, leading to more frantic, entertaining fights where people are actively dodging and trying not to get hit.
  8. a working ping function is an absolute must at least for the server browser.
  9. They have said that they'er giong to work on fixing the invisible walls, viewtopic.php?f=26&t=72426 And I share your pain, invisible walls are one of the most frustrating things in any game.
  10. 1 on 1 a mammoth tank beats the snot out of any other tank unless it's ambushed by a flame tank (which is easily countered by having a bit of situational awareness). The issue is more overconfidence gained from the beasts huge size.
  11. To Yosh56 A most eloquent and deftly put argument, I applaud and concede the point that mines in of themselves requiring hotwires may not be a terrible issue, but rather that it's pub-play that makes it seem as though something is amiss, on account that getting people to organize, group up and cooperate to surmount is often akin to herding cats.
  12. The proposed change is becase that combined with someone activly defending an area, the odds are MASSIVLY stacked in favor of the defenders, 2 attackers vs 2 defenders with mines and the attackers simply are not going to be able to advance between a. needing a specialist class with poor combat viability. b. The inordinate amount of time it still takes to defuse even when not being constantly fired upon. Simply put that it can easily stop any equal or even greater offensive force for effectively no cost outside of the initial purchase of haywire thanks to free refills at terminals.
  13. Ahhh yes, the ultra conservative tiberium knights come to lambast proposed change rather than consider there ever could be a problem, bravo, your argument is most evidently validated by it's lack of a need to explain itself, or for that matter say anything of worth.
  14. Just getting kind of irritating how most infantry classes are utterly helpless against a single highly visable mine in a coridor, perhaps if we could do what we do in every other game and toss an explosive to 'difuse' the situation? It's ungodly disheartening to see these effectively free little gits halting any sort of infantry assault that doesn't include plenty of engineers/haywires.
  15. Having spent some more time with the game, I can see where you're all coming from, however it seems that stalemates are more of a map issue than a building repair issue (though i'd still say that having diminishing return on multiple simultaneous repairs could be a notion to entertain), games with no base defenses (walls and islands) tend to have a winner in a timely fashion, but then maps like field seem to have problems owing to the obelisk of light and GDI equivelent discouraging any real assault (especially on field owing to the tight vehicle entrance). This is just what I'm seeing anyway, maybe it will become less of an issue as the playerbase matures and figures how to rush. Until then though i'm finding zero base defense maps are the most entertaining and satisfying to battle over.
  16. A. - ion/nuke being the only counter makes all over tactics worthless and therefore a stale game. B. - rushes dont work on public games (and say what you want, these will be the majority life and soul of the game unless you want it to be a husk with just the occasional clan match) because of obelisks of light guaranteeing death to the first person to start the charge, nobody wants to join in a rush where thier $800+ tank is guaranteed to die. This is simple pub play mentality that is in every online game, and being the majority of players should be taken into consideration. Make it an optional ruleset if you like, but right now pub games are simple deathmatches that are unlikely to hold much of a playerbase for long due to this perpetuation of stalemate.
  17. It is a simplistic and overly powerfull defence, not a 'good' defence, theres no effort or strategy involved in hiding inside a building and holding left click on the master control terminal. It's barely even teamwork since no real coordination needs to be deployed on account that it's HOLDING DOWN THE LEFT MOUSE BUTTON AGAINST A SCREEN. My proposal not only fixes the stalemate issue that is plaiging servers right now, but adds an element of thought and strategy to the repair process, should I repair this building? or should I spend my money getting an offensive class and try to stop the enemy hurting it more in the first place. Right now it's a no-brainer to have engineers do this intensely boring and brainless task. It does not contribute to the fun factor of the game in any way, shape or form. All it does is deter players from attempting to complete the objective and instead hover in the middle of the map deathmatching. Do not let conservative attachment to old design spoil what could be an excellent, exciting game.
  18. Right now theres one rather large problem, in that almost every game will end up in a stalemate where no buildings are destroyed at all, which leads to rather boring meatgrinder games wehre people would rather deathmatch because any attempts at takign down the base feel futile. Theres a few combined reasons for this, but the biggest one is this 1 - building repair is far, FAR too potent I do not think anyone can possibly argue against this, if you have a critical mass of engineers inside a building, it simply will not die, and even if an attacking force successfully takes a building down to say, 20% of it's health before the defence turrets take them out, it will be repaired to full health again in less than a minute, this, more than anything makes attacking feel futile, free, unlimited building repairs need to go since they sap any will to try and damage or skirmish the enemy base. There are a few fixing this, my personal faveroute is perhaps the simplest A. Give building repairs a high resource cost: Right now there is no cost at all to healing game critical structures, and this becomes a major because only paid for units can really make a dent in structures (Infantry can't make a charge until the turrets are taken down, so going for control panels is simply not viable), so having a free unit (engineers) make free repairs that equal expensive vehicles is obviously a huge problem. If it costs say, $40 per 1% of a buildings health healed, (so $3960 to get from 1% to 100*) then suddenly campign the entire game simply wont become viable, so teams will have to push forward and give action in the middle of the map the strategic value of preventing enemies causing costly damage to your structures. Also this puts a soft cap on how quickly buildings can be repaired when under siege. B. Remove active building repair and instead add a 0.5% passive regen to buildings: Not ideal as it still has the problem of returning to a building to find it's healed up in a couple of minutes, but this does stop gaggles of engineers camping the main control panel and outhealing tankshells. C. Double building health and remove repair entirely Also not ideal since it removes a tactical option entirely, but it does mean that a stalemate is unlikely as continued attacks will eventually destroy buildings. TL:DR Add a $40 per 1% repair cost to repairing buildings to prevent the massive predominance of stalemates in the game presently and encourage more active mid-field defence and enemy base assault rather than passive turtling.
  19. The most confusing thing to start with for me was how the reticule and player names are completely different colours most of the time, seeing a friendly nod is the worst since they have a green reticule (generally seen as 'FRIEND') and a red name (generally seen as 'FOE'.) Matching the two colours up would help an awful lot, and give players the opportunity to customise the colours for people that have colour blindness issues.
  20. I'm enjoying the game immensely, however it's proving a repeated frustration that there are invisible walls spread about the levels (and not just at level boundaries, the ice level in particular has lots on rocks that apear perfectly climbable at first). It would be nice if actual objects were in there place, rather than the eternal frustration of invisible walls.
×
×
  • Create New...