OfficerMeatbeef

But again, what you're saying here is the game is effectively over once a building is destroyed. If this is true, there's no argument anymore. The game is over, and should simply end. "Playing to tie" is not an incentive, it's not satisfying for either team. The objective is not to destroy all the enemy buildings; it is a means to an end. It is the most effective way to win, but the objective is to win. If a team has a 100% guaranteed chance to win at any point in the match, they have already won and the basic design fails. You really can't have this both ways. Either a team who has lost a building has a chance to win through smart play, or it's pointless to continue the match. This is a big problem if it's true, but it's a different discussion. This discussion is about "does the point system do what it is intended to do". I argue that it does. We cannot really reasonably argue this point without assuming your statement of "impossible" is inaccurate, so we will make that assumption going forward. Again, ties are not satisfying for anyone and must be designed against. Like I said in my MMA example (which I still believe is completely and totally a match for this situation beyond being 1v1 and not team), most matches end in decision, so if you went with the system you've described here, most all matches would end in ties. And this is simply not acceptable. The point system is designed to incentivize people to attack already because given a competent attack vs. a equally competent defense, the attackers will still come out ahead on points and win. This is because even if they cannot destroy them, damaging the enemy buildings and effectively destroying other defender assets compared to what the attackers lose in the attack always gives the attackers more points than the defenders. It's really simple math, when it comes down to it, and it works. Yes. This isn't an argument about "Time-limited is better from Marathon"or vice-versa, that would be rather silly and pointless because it's entirely a matter of personal preference and realities that unlimited-time matches are not practical for everyone. If you prefer Marathon, great! That's fine! That's why it exists! But that doesn't mean the time-limit system outright doesn't work. That sounds totally sensible. However, it'd only be for personal ranking purposes; the total points granted to the team remain the same, which is the important part. That's a part that maybe some people are getting tripped up on: points do not exist purely for each person to go "I did better", they exist specifically to give an overall valuation of team effectiveness. Oh hell, ok, now I see where me and Iovan is running into problems on this, so I'll give it another shot. Iovan, you need to understand me here: time-limit servers do not exist because they are "the right way to play", and I'm not trying to argue that! They exist because it is impractical to expect everyone to be able to play matches that could potentially last hours at a time. Just as it would be impractical for a soccer team to play for days on end until someone scores a point, or an MMA fight to go on indefinitely until someone is knocked out or submits, so too it is impractical to expect everyone to be able to devote the time to a Marathon match. Thus, in a time-limited match, we have a system to determine how effectively a team has fought in a match, given the time they had that did not end in a decisive victory, just like an MMA fight. This system is the points system! And just like in an MMA fight, certain actions (such as knocking an opponent down, but not out) are worth many points such that, all other things being equal, the one who is knocked down will end up losing the decision, but they will NOT lose if they sufficiently outperformed their opponent IN GENERAL beyond taking a particularly strong hit. If your problem with it is that players are able to see their own individual points, I can totally understand and get behind that. It's a matter worthy of consideration, though again something that comes down to personal preference. I generally don't really care how many points I'm getting, so it wouldn't bother me. This bares repeating, so we're on the same page: I really do not care specifically how many points I have, or anyone else has gotten. Just put it all in under the team total, and forget the individual scores. That's fine. But we still need a way to determine a winner, and "a building destroyed means a team won" is not sufficient because if you can destroy a building and STILL not defeat the enemy in time alloted AND still lose on points, you haven't proven you are the more effective attacker, because you got a TON of points for killing that building in addition to weakening the team and you've still been unable to come out ahead. As I've said, if "more buildings destroyed=wins" is sufficient, then not just the point system but the entire design of the game has to change accordingly, or there is no point for a losing team to even try anymore. I don't see how this is so, though? Your examples have been "I can get a lot of points artying a base or killing a bunch of people and not getting killed, so it's skilless and broken", but that is precisely how it supposed to work. It's the entire point. You've been MORE EFFECTIVE than the enemy at the job of eliminating and damaging them, so all other things being equal your team should win on points when the time is up! But if there's no time limit, of course points do not matter because the entire point of the mode is to enforce that a team does not win until an undeniable, decisive victory via total base destruction is complete.

Alright, I see, you clearly don't want to have a discussion here, you don't want to explain anything in terms of why it does or does not make sense for the game. You just want to pick a point that you think you can argue (and very poorly, I might add) and ignore everything else as "not worth replying to". So after this, yeah, you're not worth the time. I don't even have any clue what that first part is supposed to mean, so whatever. But I can't tell if you really aren't getting it or what, so one last try: Points are a number that indicate potential unit value. It is harder to kill a higher-value unit, and they have a higher potential to kill you. Thus, they are worth more points. I don't know how this point can be made any more clear. Skill does not matter, except so far as a more skilled player is able to more effectively kill/damage/repair things and thus gain their team points, while avoiding death/preventing the enemy from damaging things and thus denying them points. So yes, it absolutely matters. At an equal level of skill, a person with a more valuable unit will be able to earn more points by correctly employing a more valuable unit, thus being more effective for the team. Furthermore, you cannot talk about these things in a vacuum. Points are an exchange. Points gained for one team represent potential points lost by the other. A person constantly repairing a building is not making as many points as the person doing the damage that allows them to maintain that repairing. Therefore, an attacking team is always able to obtain more points than the defending team for effectively attacking their target, and they are encouraged to attack, but attacking poorly (ineffectively) will lose them the game in points. You earn less points for destroying a building than you would from just hitting it and letting it be repaired. This is absolutely true. But you still earn more points than the people who are repairing it. And if you destroy it, you are one building closer to winning decisively, they are even less effectively able to defend, and you always come out ahead in the exchange because you got more points for the damage and destruction than they got for whatever repairing they were doing, and they can never get those points again. Ugh. Yep, done here.

Oooooh, ok. Think I got your "point-whoring" idea now. So for this example, I think I can sufficiently explain why I believe you are wrong: A team who is killing the enemy harvester over and over again may be getting more points than the enemy, this is true. They are also denying the enemy credits. They are certainly putting the enemy at a disadvantage! They are therefore getting points for it. If they are able to continue doing it long-term, they will probably win.How can the enemy possibly come back from this? Well, they defend (smartly, to minimize the point deficit) for a while, capitalize on the fact that a portion of the enemy team is busy spending time killing their harvester, let their slow but steady income trickle in, and then push back and regain ground, that's how. You say it yourself: Correct! The opportunity cost! The team is getting points for killing that harvester over and over, but the opportunity cost doing is not pressing your advantage and destroying more structures, giving them the opportunity to mount a counterattack. A counterattack that, if successful, has the potential to let them do the VERY SAME THING. Maybe even destroy a building and turn things around! Killing the harvester is an immediate loss of a fixed number of credits for the enemy team, so you get a fixed number of points. Killing the WF/Refinery gives you a fixed number of points too, but the enemy team is down either their entire source of income or the ability to ever have a weapon for the rest of the match. Surely the greatly increased chance to destroy the remaining buildings is almost always a better investment in time than a few hundred points killing a harvester over and over? Put another way: the opportunity cost of "point-whoring" is that it gives the enemy a reprieve from being directly chance to regroup and fight back from a losing situation. Again, then the game should end when you are down a building. What's the point? You've already lost. Why even have multiple types of buildings, for that matter? This seems like much more of an issue than simple wins by points. Nope, the issue is that coordinating an effective defense is more straightforward than coordinating an effective attack. You'd have a point if being down a building did not effect the enemy team, but it does. A team who can't effectively mount an attack against a significantly disadvantaged opponent is not playing well, and does not deserve to win. If anything, it suggest their initial building kills were simple luck, certainly not smart play. I don't see how anything does this, because even in non-Marathon, you are always encouraged to destroy buildings because it significantly & permanently weakens the enemy and lets you decisively win the game. How is this a problem? If you were able to tie up the enemy so badly and had such an advantage that they are forced to continually repair the building and couldn't even hope to take you out, yes, why SHOULDN'T you win? That team is not mounting an effective defense! More importantly: why couldn't your team just finish the enemy off? You start this paragraph with the statement that the points system is "illogical". But I'm afraid the rest of your argument is then completely illogical. Score points are not "magical", and they are not "all the same", and you should know that if you know this game as well as you claim. Points gained are commensurate with the value of the unit killed/building damaged/amount healed. How much "effort or skill" is needed is immaterial, which is why points are entirely separate from kills/deaths. That is the whole "point" of points. It is purely a measure of how effectively a player (and in aggregate, the team) has been in damaging and destroying valuable enemy materials. More expensive units aren't just arbitrarily more expensive "just because", they are more expensive because when properly used, they have a much greater potential to effectively damage the enemy. Most importantly: all other things being equal, more points are granted for successfully attacking than successfully defending. How? Simple: unless I am grossly mistaken, healing a structure gives less points than the equivalent value the attacker gained for damaging the structure. I've just finally thought of an example of a competitive activity that's decently comparable to this game: MMA/boxing. In this activity, your main objective is to win decisively by knockout (and in MMA,submission). Either of these things will provide an immediate victory for the competitor who pulls it off. But many (most?) fights don't run out of time/rounds before either competitor can be knocked out or submission. Does the match then immediately end in a draw? It's possible, but unlikely. It only happens in one case: when the judges cannot come to a sufficient decision. And how do they make that decision? By scoring each participant, granting them points based on how effectively they manage to land blows, maintain control, and defend themselves from attack.

I don't quite get this, I'm afraid. Guess I should ask for clarification? How are you defining "point-whoring"? Eliminating the enemy's resources while they can't mount an effective attack? If I'm understanding your use of the term correctly, a team that is "point-whoring" is still outplaying the enemy team: they have the advantage and are utilizing it to destroy the enemy. A team who is being "point-whored" is not putting up an effective defense. I'm afraid your marathon example is rather flawed, for a simple reason: a marathon winner generally isn't determined by how far the opponent ran, it's by how quickly they managed to finish. And you absolutely can say that the person who crosses the finish line in the least amount of time is the overall better/more effective runner. Even if they start at different times, whoever finishes in the least amount of time for their run is the winner. You can chart at which points they were each most effective, but it's unnecessary; obviously, the person who finished fastest is most effective overall. But the marathon example isn't well-suited here, because it's not something that's generally a one-on-one thing and it's very unlikely that there will be either no or a single person who crosses the finish line. Marathons aren't designed to be something that only one person can finish. So, let's go back to the soccer example. In soccer, I think we could agree that the most effective team is indeed the one that scores the most points. But there is no objective in soccer like "score all the points", it is simply who scores the most points. There is no "break point" at which a team will have scored enough points to automatically win. So that's not very helpful, either. Honestly, I'm having trouble coming up with a game played by teams of multiple people that has a point value that straight-up ends the game, so forget any of these analogies. They don't work. And one of the biggest reasons is: In any of those competitions, getting scored on/another person finishing the race does not put the players on the opposite team at any disadvantage beyond their point deficit. I doubt teams would continue playing on in a game of soccer, if they immediately lost a player permanently the moment they were scored on! The game would effectively be over. Which leads me to: Whoa, ok, so I'm immediately very, very suspicious of any argument that states something is "impossible". You'll have to explain why this is so. Because if it IS true, why doesn't the game just end in victory for a team the minute they destroy the first enemy building? There's no point in continuing the game at all in this case, since the attackers have a guaranteed 100% win strategy. And again, may not fully get your idea on "point-whoring", so I will avoid getting into this too deeply, but I will clarify that, to me, the points in the game do not seem "arbitrary" (as iovandrake put it earlier) in the least. They are quite clearly carefully considered, weighted, and awarded based on inflicted material loses to the enemy, with a portion awarded based on preventing said losses via healing. They are very much measures of team effectiveness. Again, if it is truly as you say, there's no need for the tie option at all. The game should just immediately end when either team loses a building, because the attackers are guaranteed to win at this point if they play smartly. I would suggest that no, this is not accurate and there certainly are ways for a defender to win at this point, but probably pointless to go into that much until we're on the same page re: point-whoring.

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.

This isn't soccer. A tie should only happen if both teams survive the game and happen to have the exact same points. Yep. You've covered this pretty well, but just to add a bit I said in a similar topic: 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". 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. In a game of the RTS, it's true you wouldn't win until the base was dead. However, after you lose enough base components and resources, you'll reach the point where you basically can't even produce the simplest unit anymore. The game does not work with a reinforcement pool or require credits to spawn as a basic soldier, because it's (arguably, I suppose) more fun for everyone 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. They may have made a mistake that cost them a building, but in the end they played smartly. 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.

A solid solution, however if they can be repaired at the same rate or even faster than they respawn, not sure if this really solves the problem since the repairperson(s) can just be crouched behind the wall repairing, more or less safe from any danger bar an airstrike.

Agreed. They're very, very effective, which is good; they're static defenses that people need to be manning, so they need to do a ton of damage to be viable. But they respawn so quickly that the significant effort one needs to employ to take them out (with their fantastic range and damage output) feels virtually wasted since they will pop right back up at no cost.

They can (or should, at least) do much more than other classes except for the essential part of being effective in actual combat, which is certainly at least 50% of the entire game, but I think it could be argued to be even more. Right now, this is not the case, because of the persistent purchased sidearm bug. The only reason engineers are being viable in combat at all is due to that secondary weapon capability, and we really can't judge if that is broken or not yet because it is broken in another way, due to the bug. They have anti-vehicle capability with their explosives, sure, but any other class with reasonable anti-vehicle capability can do it better and safer, without needing to get directly next to the vehicle. They have anti-building capability, but they need escorts to actually get in there. Their only offensive role should be removing enemy mines and taking down buildings.

Now, I'm not totally opposed to the idea you suggest, and I certainly won't make any sort of statement that the balance on this is ideal right now because I just don't have the time played or data to back it up. However, I would still like to argue why the point system makes sense, as a point of interest. First, we should consider the idea of "subtracting points for buildings destroyed". This seems to be reasonable in theory, but it kind of forgets the fact that a team already gets a very sizeable point bonus when they destroy a building. Essentially, what you suggest already exists, it just goes in the other way. The net result is the same, and if you implemented a point penalty you'd essentially be "double-taxing" the team who lost the building. There's no need to reduce points based on buildings destroyed, if we want to go that route the points gained for destroying a building could just be made higher still. Second: the nature of the design is that losing any building at all is a severe setback for the team. This makes it more and more difficult for them to mount an effective attack, and thus it only makes logical sense to instead fall back to their base where they have an advantage and try to win by pure attrition. Their only other option left is more indirect, guerrilla-style tactics, because they just won't have the resources to compete unit for unit with the enemy, and in some maps (Field....) those are basically not an option, particularly in a random game which tends to have little coordination. Since the team with the advantage in buildings (and thus, units and options) should eventually also be able to more easily overcome the enemy's defenses via sheer force and numbers and destroy the base, they should also be punished for not being able to capitalize on that extra momentum. If they're just throwing unit after unit at the enemy and still not getting anywhere, this is effectively a failure on their part and should be appropriately punished. The point system accomplishes exactly this; a team who has a substantial advantage in buildings and thus tactical options can still lose the match if they are unable to capitalize on that advantage properly. This is all fine in theory. In practice, of course, it generally doesn't happen, mainly because of two things: lack of sufficiently skilled play, and simple failure in map design. Obviously, there is little that can be done about lack of player skill beyond waiting for them to get better or simplifying systems, and I don't think anyone who sees what this game is supposed to be wants to go down the simplifying to compensate for limited player skill road, because it would destroy much of the appeal. Map design,of course, is definitely controllable. However, even with a map that might seem totally broken based on how it usually goes, like Field, it can be very hard to say for sure if this is the case because the map is flawed or simply because players are bad at smartly overcoming it. Field is a lot of chokepoints, sure, but it also has very little time between bases, so reinforcing a push through said chokepoints is fairly quick. Where random teams tend to falter is in not appropriately coordinating and maintaining these pushes even if they have an overwhelming material advantage, instead clogging up the chokepoints and getting the entire advance killed. To summarize: teams who have a material advantage due to destroying a building can still eventually lose, as I would argue they should, because tactically they have failed overall. They were not able to do what they should have been able to do, given their substantial advantages. I just don't think we can judge whether the point of failure is on the map or the low skills of players, yet.

I'm not sure if the fix is ineffective, or if servers really just haven't implemented it. It's odd that they haven't added a notification in the browser though, just like the one that notified about the limiting max players to 40 requirement. Peeople seemed to see that one just fine, after all.

Just a note: the Nod Unit Guide has been completed and added to the OP. I'd love it if you checked it out!

If you quickly tap the alt fire on a gun that puts you into an aiming mode, or possibly let it go before the animation for moving into aiming completes (it's hard to tell as the time interval to generally too short to be sure), you'll be locked into the movement speed of whatever the weapon allows when aimed until you hold down the alt fire again long enough to fully sight. For some weapons this can be barely noticeable, but it's hard to miss with ex. the Laser Chaingunner or Raveshaw/Sydney. Interestingly, this ONLY happens in online play; bot skirmishes do not exhibit this behavior. And I guess in a semi-related matter as far as aiming goes: the Gunner zoom alt-fire is buggy online or off. It will only zoom in once, then pressing it again will zoom back out and you won't be able to zoom again until you switch weapons. Also, said switching will reveal it actually zoomed just a bit too FAR out on the second press because you'll notice it snap back into place once the other weapon is selected.

The game seems largely feature-complete to me. All the units appear to be in, the basic game largely works quite well, there's no reason to be worried about "pre-orders" getting cancelled because people have come to expect that "beta=demo", so I think releasing as "open beta" was completely reasonable at this time. Anyone who would give it a try and go "this is sort of broken in some ways! Well, never trying that again!" probably doesn't have the critical thinking skills necessary to make for a fantastic member of the game community. Similarly, I'm of the mind that the kind of people who see "open beta" and don't realize it means "there'll probably be a bunch of problems! That's the whole point!", much less whine or complain about said problems in an non-constructive manner, probably aren't exactly going to be much of a sterling audience/playerbase anyway. Particularly when the product in question is, you know, totally free.

And just one more important thing to consider: repairing people earns points for you and thus, your team. Unlike many games, these points are not just "xp" for your character or your own gloating rights but actually essential for determining the winning side in many (if not most!) matches. Should healing therefore be any easier than hitting a target with any other weapon? And if so, how much should the amount of points granted for the action be adjusted? This also relates to the concept of falling back for healing, as pushing too far and getting killed does not just cost you time and the unit, it also awards the enemy team more points AND denies your team the potential healing points. Again, these seem like pretty meaningful choices to me!

If it helps any more, , at least.

Like I said, I wasn't discounting the existence of a possible hitbox bug either as a result of lag or whatever, merely that as you described it (being difficult to heal people moving in general) the most probable explanation was that it is simply very difficult to maintain accurate, sustained fire on a moving target in this game. In the situation you describe, yes, I'd absolutely agree that seems like a bug if it's happening frequently in reasonable-latency situations. Though it likely would indicate trouble with most other weapons as well! So that will suck a bit if it's true. That said, I think I simply have to fundamentally disagree with much of your argument. "Fast-paced and hectic" does not automatically mean "chaotic masses", and a constant push/pull ebb and flow of attacking vs. defending is already the heart of the design without needing to be "milspec", just as in the RTS it is based on which is no more realistic than this. Vehicles are not any easier to repair than infantry because they are vehicles, vehicles are simply easier to hit with a repair gun because they are big targets. However, they are ALSO required to stick with their engineers if they want that repairing, because otherwise they will completely outpace their healers. Thus, the speed of a vehicle push must be tempered with the fact that they must be careful not to overextend themselves and be left without healing, and eventually they, too, will more or less be forced to stop to get a reasonable amount of healing done. Infantry works the same way, except that instead of infantry outpacing their engineers, they simply move too erratically during combat to effectively heal. Further, just because an engineer generally wants to be back from the front lines does not mean they cannot be part of an attack, and I don't really see why "having to drop back for a second to get healed" somehow equates to "medics are useless" or contributes to any sort of loss in "meaningful choices". In fact, going by that metric I would argue it ADDS meaningful choices, if anything. Is not "should I keep pushing forward or fall back for a second to get healed up to preserve this $1000 credit Volt Gun, plus the front line is down a unit for many seconds if not minutes" a meaningful choice? Is "is it safe enough out there for me to push up with my comrades and try to get in that building to blow it to hell" not a meaningful choice? Hell, even the choice of "it'll be just as hard for me to heal my teammate as it would be to shoot the enemy, am I up to it anyway?" is one that goes away if healing on the move is rendered too easy, though again, if it is too difficult because it's a bug, that is a different matter.

I don't think the volume should be increased because that's part of the balance of proper positioning, putting it somewhere where people won't be able to track it too soon. But maaaaaaybe an initial more distinct klaxon sound right as it's deployed as part of the general EVA notice wouldn't be a bad thing, just because all the monotone warnings of building being damaged/repaired/vehicles deploying can blend together very easily since they're generally constantly going off and possibly even occasionally overwriting each other.

It's not impossible to imagine there's some kind of issue with hitboxes on movement, but I think I'm going to go with Occam's Razor here. I belief the difficulty in healing moving people is a simple result of 2 things: 1. The repair gun fires a projectile that is no larger in the area it hits than most other projectiles, including bullets. 2. The characters in this game are proportioned in a fairly realistic way, are fairly thin and they move fairly quickly. Thus, they are hard to hit when moving. I don't think the repair gun is any harder to hit with than any other weapon on a moving target, the difference is just that with most other weapons even only a hit or two in a spray of say, 5-10 will do a noticeable chunk of damage, whereas the repair gun is designed to heal damage slowly but steadily. Thus, your one or two "shots on target" in a stream of repair gun if you're trying to heal a moving teammate will appear to not hit at all! Personally, I think this is how it should be really. People needing heals should be falling back from the front to their "triage" engineers in a safer spot to get back to good health, as It automatically gives battles a better ebb and flow and makes them a bit more tactical. Hell, even TF2 knows it and has a mechanic designed to work just in that way, though most probably don't know about it!

Sadly there are no quickies in war. Thanks! Yeah, the big thing was I wanted to show a bunch of the different map environments because I think the sheer range there is one of the particularly cool things about the game. Unfortunately, this had the unfortunate side effect of making it so that a blanket choice of font color didn't necessarily mesh well with all those different environments! Truth be told, the way I jammed the titles in there was so laborious that I kinda at some point became impatient and decided I should just get it out there and start getting feedback on how people felt about it. So it shouldn't be a problem in future, especially since I'll probably be mostly sticking to the darker maps (or the blinding white of that snow map) for the Nod stuff. Cool, your comment on my vid re: my titling issues was actually the first bit of feedback I got, so thanks, I appreciate it! I haven't gotten to watch your entire vid yet but shuffling around you're doing a real solid job getting a broad spectrum of things covered.

Thanks for the kind words! I thought about crossposting to the Strategy section also but didn't know what the board policies were on duplicate/cross posts and didn't want to overstep anything! One thing I'd definitely like to know is people's feelings on the visibility of the subtitles. I knew it might be a bit iffy but using the CnC font was too tempting and I think it looks decent in HD... Youtube compression etc. definitely can make it somewhat dicey especially at lower res. The style's probably not worth it, will probably use something a little chunkier for the future.

Hey folks, I have been enjoying RX a lot since it came out, not just as a nostalgia trip but for its unique sense of style and game design/variety barely exists in the genre anymore. I think a large part of the fun and appeal is just the huge variety of units you have access to for even a single faction, but that can definitely overwhelm people, particularly those used to the much more rigidly defined classes/roles most games today have simplified/dumbed down to. Plus, it's more enticing when you get to see exactly how a crazy gun does its making blows-ups. So I made a video. You can watch it Note: I make no claims to be an expert at the game, this is meant just to be an entertaining, basic look at the weapons and their functions, based on my experience, intuition, and vague remembrance of playing the demo of the original a bunch more than a decade ago. I'll be happy to add/correct stuff in future videos. Please let me know if you enjoy it, have suggestions/hot tips etc., and if you'd like to see me actually cover the Nod and all the other stuff. Or maybe I'll actually do it anyway who knows. Edit: I did it! . Thanks to everyone for the feedback on the first vid, I worked hard to incorporate all your great suggestions to make this one better. Since I didn't need to cover the crossover units between the two factions, I got just a bit more in-depth with the ones that were unique to Nod & also dealt with several important things I missed in the GDI vid. Please, keep that feedback coming!