iovandrake

Ha.. Expect you're leaving out where this was already explained. Points do nothing skillwise. The point of the game is to destroy the enemy. Like in C&C you are part of an army trying to destroy the enemy base. How do you achieve victory because you managed to rack up more points than the side that has pummeled your base into a useless mess? It's ridiculous. Points are a number that is meaningless. I can get thousands of points by sitting back and hitting the WF on field with an arty while my team keeps Havocs and pics from killing me. When I do eventually die I've earned far more points than anyone got for killing me. How can I explain this so you can understand or are you purposefully pretending not to understand because as a pointwhore you benefit from it? You are living in a fantasy world where everything measures up based on value. Your fantasy world crumbles when you spend 1k+ credits to accumalate a fraction of the points 450 credits can get you. How is there skill involved in that? This is more lala land bullshit that pointwhores on pointwhore servers tell themselves. It creates stupid gameplay like "don't try and nuke their buildings without fifty people supporting you, that's points to them!" and encourages stupid whoring gameplay instead of any worthwhile tactics to win. Winning takes risk. Sometimes it pays off to throw away units to kill a building. When you make it about points the defending team doesn't have to worry about suicide tactics. They only have to watch for dumbed down pointwhoring activities. Pointwhoring is a dumbed down game that removes aspects of skill and daring from the equation. You aren't one building closer because all they have to do is hold out on their last building until time runs out. Most timed servers have a limit of 30 minutes. It can take a long time to bring down even one building if the teams are good enough and you make it out like taking out a building will guarantee a decisive victory. Lol... So pointwhore for 20 minutes, lose some buildings, and then win because the other team (which was trying to actually defeat you) can't earn more points in the time frame available. Oh, but you'll argue that the skill to earn those points was paramount. I'm saying that it clearly isn't when there are several cheap ways to rack up nigh endless points (ala arty whoring). Point games remove the part of the game that actually takes skill (defeating the opposing team) and replace it with earning the most points. It's an arbitrary measurement that removes skill. Yes, go back to whoring points and thinking you have skill. Whenever you want to man up and actually defeat your enemies feel free to. Maybe I'll say hi if I see you.

Using sights shouldn't slow you down as much as it does. I don't think it should be the same speed as firing from the hip though. Right now firing from the hip has very little disruption to your aim which should be fixed.

I think it should cost more than 700 (as long as it isn't tied to a Tech Building), but 2500 (a number I heard for Jelly) is ridiculously stupid. 1500 isn't too bad if the UI gets updated in the future to reflect different costs. I think 950 would be ideal though.

The thing that gives away aimbotters isn't their high K/D. It is that they pull off multiple impossible shots on different people at the same time. It goes beyond having quick reflexes and good accuracy. It is impossible for someone to be good enough to get headshots on people on opposite sides of a base without any delay between shots. To get headshots on people coming around the corner while the aimbotter has three others right on them shooting at them. Yet all aimbotters claim it is skill and nothing has ever totally stopped it. Even Tiberian Technologies' 4.0 has aimbotters who pretend they are just "skilled". If you pull off impossible shots constantly you are using an aimbot regardless of how skilled you claim you are. Whomever it happens to be. Total K/D means nothing because a careful skilled sniper can get a lot of kills with few deaths. That's the thing about being careful. Human skill doesn't allow you to know someone will be around a corner that you just ran to yourself and get an instant headshot on them even though they just jumped around that corner. Yet that has happened and that aimbotter just claimed it was "skill". I don't even hate aimbotters as much as the people who blindly defend them because they are butthurt about some idiot who didn't know better calling them an aimbotter once upon a time when it wasn't true.

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.

I'm only going to directly respond to this part because it's the only part even worth replying to. Points are all the same. They are just a number. It doesn't matter if it takes me four shots to earn the same points it took you one shot to earn, because unless you continue to do that one shot I can earn them regardless. The big earners are slow and harder to pull off than just pelting a building from range with an arty or mlrs. That means my points for successfully destroying a building with a hotty/techie, or a group of people destroying a building in like manner mean nothing to someone shooting a constantly repaired building for five minutes (which is easy to do). Thus to anyone with half a brain points are all the same. Some ways just take longer to rack points up with, but ultimately points are all the same. I could unskillfully earn lots of points and yet those points are EQUAL to someone who worked hard and skillfully to earn their own points. Unless they put in enough effort to overcome my point gaining they will lose out. Thus the fastest way to earn points (whoring) wins out. My experience with the game gave birth to my position on points. Only pointwhores think that playing on a timed server for points takes skill. It only takes skill as milking points though and not actually defeating the other team.

It's funny seeing some of you try hard to defend winning with points after an arbitrary time limit as being skillful instead of teamplay to bring an enemy completely down. Even if you keep points they should only ever be considered if both teams have the same buildings left. If you have one building while the other team has all theirs and yet you have more points it is stupid for you to "win". No matter how you try and make it about skill it isn't. It takes absolutely zero skill to drive up to a vantage point and shoot a building that isn't going anywhere to accumulate points. On the other hand if the goal is the destruction of the building (which it would be if score meant nothing) then it actually means something because your single pointwhoring attacks would be worthless in regards to the team winning. The only way winning by score would effectively matter skill wise is if destroying buildings gave a huge score boost instead of the mediocre one it does give. You can make more points whoring a building for five minutes than you can by sneaking around or using strategic rushes to actually bring it down. Don't let me ruin the illusion you've created for yourselves though. If winning by points makes you feel like you've accomplished something then have at it. I'll be having fun on marathon (unless it's a 6 hour match...)

Why? Is it because you have to try and defeat the enemy team instead of just accumulate points? So thousands of points racked up from my Arty pelting a barracks (the last remaining building) on Whiteout is a valid way to win the game? Even when both I and the defending team know I can't kill the building with their repairing, but that my team will still win because of my easy pointwhoring? Really? You "can" stop point whoring. You "can" theoretically do a lot of things. That doesn't mean easy pointwhoring isn't possible. I guess in my Whiteout example the other team could have rushed my arty. Which would have resulted in most of them dying, me retreating and repairing, or spending another 450 credits, and the pointwhoring continuing shortly after and hardly being interrupted. Pfft, what a load of bs. This is illogical. When you start winning and destroying the enemy base only to lose because time ran out and the other team has more magical score points that is stupid. The problem with score is that it's all the same. Whether I get thousands of points whoring a building with long range weaponry or get thousands of points from repairing or get thousands of points from killing expensive units/tanks. Some of those take more effort and skill to accumulate the same amount of points, but the most points still wins. So the logical choice would be to earn the most points and not to try and actually achieve victory. I've said it many times on old Renegade chat and a few times on this forum, but I'll say it again: Winning by score is stupid and only those who rely on it as a crutch would argue that it's a good thing. Marathon isn't perfect with 6 hour Field matches or whatever, but it's at least keeping the core gameplay in perspective. That you should try to destroy the enemy base and achieve victory. Not just rack up points and kills without a thought toward actually defeating the enemy.

You talking about when people are using speedhacks or people running around normaly? Cause the normal movement/sprinting isn't impossible to hit by any means.

So we should change the Rocket Soldier back? Why not change Gunner's reload time if Rocket Soldier also got a change? Is this a purist stance you are making? I don't see the logic otherwise. Here you go again not understanding what the hell I'm talking about and assuming I said something I didn't. They shouldn't because you say so and you're the grand arbiter on all things Renegade, right? As far as I knew there weren't airstrikes, tiberium silos, or a host of changes that happen to be in Renegade X in the original Renegade either. I guess your argument is that we should all just be playing vanilla Renegade then?

5-10% more DPS? What's that amount to in a real match? Oh yeah the close up grenadier getting sniped or bumrushed by the enemy while trying to slowly whittle a building down with his grenade launcher. Your understanding of the numbers is completely divorced from real game scenarios.

Which is why reducing the reload time would help his DPS. I still don't see a reasonable argument from you on why that's stupid. Just you claiming it is. This boils down to not understanding that the word "powerful" doesn't just mean each shot individually. His shots are not supposed to be stronger. He's supposed to do more damage overall. You jumped to the conclusion that I would talk about these two units like I didn't know that the Gunner was better. Did people call for Rocket Soldier rushes very often? No. They called for Gunner rushes. "Gunners meet at barracks!". I'm arguing against your claim that Gunner's need more powerful rockets. I do not agree with THAT in the context of "powerful". He has more in his magazine and fires them faster. That should be where his DPS comes from. The speed he fires them should be what makes him a higher DPS rocketman. Let me spell this out for you. If. Gunner. Reload. Faster. Gunner. Do. More. Damage. Per. Second. Understand? Rocket Soldiers SHOULD do more damage PER SHOT. Why? They only have ONE SHOT. This should be a no brainer. Gunner is firing smaller rockets. He has more of them. His DPS advantage should come from that. It doesn't merely because of his long reload time. Only because of your comprehension fail. Grenadier were not fine. They had a niche role of early harvester harassment, early money earning at the start of some matches (notably City against the airstrip), and last ditch free defense against vehicles when being rushed. They were outmatched and useless in most situations. Yeah a good grenadier (which I happened to be) could do wonders with them. A good player can do wonders with any unit. No they do not need to be nerfed because doing so makes them near useless with the current selection of classes and weapons. The only thing that needs to be done is Gunners reloading slightly faster. That would even it out perfectly without shitting on units you think should be crap. No point in arguing with you though. You're not only stubborn but you're also an elitist prick who assumes that his own misunderstanding in a conversation is someone else's inexperience.

They do have range, you can definitely hit someone from a certain distance and it'll do damage, which seems proportional to how far it was from them. Even burn damage will change according to that. I'd just have no idea how to put those range into numbers. Yeah I want Gunner to be effective for his cost and I agree his DPS should be higher. I just don't want the Rocket Soldier being nerfed (old Ren rocket soldier was barely worth using ever) and I don't think Gunner needs his damage per rocket buffed (as that will just be nerfing the Rocket Soldier's one rocket). I think since the gunner has more shots that they should each be weaker but their culmative effect should be better. The only thing ruining Gunner's DPS is his reload time. It's longer than the RS's which is what makes the DPS lower than it should be.

Okay, if you say so. 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. Wrong. You assume it should based on your own opinion. 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? 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

It's the gunner reload time. It's way too long.

You should never win JUST because you managed to get more arbitrary numbers earned than the other side. You should win by destroying the opposing force. You know like in Command and Conquer? Winning because you happened to have more points after an arbitrary time limit expires yet while having fewer buildings is stupid and noncompetitive. This is why I've chosen to play marathon more often both on old ren and RenX. The only time I play a timed match is if the marathons servers are full or (more rarely) empty. I would however prefer an alternative to marathon. I like 3 hours games occasionaly, but sometimes a match should end in an hour or less. It shouldn't end with the losing team winning simply by points though. If you have less buildings you should lose regardless of points. Points should only matter if both teams have the same number of buildings. Winning simply by points is winning without trying to achieve victory.

Artillery should be given an alt fire. The alt fire would be bombardment shell that does half damage but does it to a greater area (not through walls though). This would give the arty its true support role status. It would make it great at hanging back and dealing damage to a wider area to support the tanks up front and yet at the same time it wouldn't be able to shred tanks like Renegade arties could.

Nod spends all its money on stealth technology and can only afford thin single pane glass windows.

Winning by score is stupid. All it takes is decent point whoring to win. In fact in that scenario your team would have won easily if you had intentionally point whored like the "pros". Play on marathon where real men game. The only way to win should be by defeating the enemy completely or more by the time runs out. Artificial points never really belonged in Ren. Points are just used as a crutch by those who can't achieve final victory.

Uh as it stands you pick up a crate out in the field (where the enemy probably can see you) and it announces that someone on your team got a spy crate. It's very easy to see who and/or what class they got spawned as from the crate. This totally defeats the point as the entire enemy team will know what you are. Not to mention the biggest benefit of being a spy is having a beacon to nuke/ion with. Which means surviving to go pick it up (unless you are stupid enough to carry beacons while getting crates with how often they kill you). It's not easy to survive the return trip. I know if I see an enemy spy I pull out all the stops to kill them even if I die too. Having a spy is more useful and rare than any unit I might have (unless the refinery is dead that is). Getting teleported back to a safe area where you can buy a beacon seems like a better thing.

I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying it's funny how people TRY to play aimbotting off as merely skill instead of the obvious aimbottery it is. They pretend they are just uber skilled when it's obvious the shots they are pulling off are impossible.

It's funny how people always try to play aimbotting off as skill. It's also funny that supposedly skilled snipers no longer pulled off God shots the first week Ren X was publicly available. Maybe they hadn't found the aimbot they needed?

Bear with me as some of these suggestions may be fanciful, undesired by some, or a hassle to implement. Try to be open minded about them though. I think having a good assortment of tech buildings and incorporating them into a lot of maps will add the maximum amount of strategy to matches. Providing multiple things to engage over. Hospital: Infantry of the team that controls the Hospital have natural Mammy HP regeneration (up to half health). Repair Bay: Instead of giving each team a repair bay on certain maps (old Ren) instead make it a tech building. Make it have two pads and repair at Hoty/Tech speed, but make it so you can not fire while on the repair pad (but can still be shot). Defense Platform: A platform with three controllable turrets. In the center would be the rocket turret (sitting up higher than the other two by a little bit) and to either side of that turret would be two gun turrets. These guns would not be usable unless the tech building is captured. The terminal to capture it should be found on a lower part of the platform that is hard to defend with the turrets themselves. If an opposing team captures the platform while turrets are being used those turrets should explode while killing the occupant. Mobius' Laboratory: Two different effects based on which team controls the building. > If Nod controls this building they receive the ability to purchase Stealth Field Generator. When this is used it takes as long to set up as a beacon, only except instantly instead of a countdown. Its effect will last 10 seconds. During that period all Nod units caught within the sphere of the field will be stealth (even when firing). 1500 credits. > If GDI controls this building they receive the ability to purchase SATSCAN briefcase. When used this reveals stealthed units on radar (only) for a duration of 10 seconds for all infantry close to the one who used the SATSCAN. 1000 credits.

Hmm. Well I was just trying to suggest a relatively easy thing to implement. This new Tech Building capture process opens up a lot of strategy to be had by having a few more worthwhile tech buildings in some maps. I don't see the point in adding redundant building types though (such as Advanced Comm Center/Temple of Nod).