Truxa

On the crashing part: I've read something before and stated somewhere else the following: DO NOT USE THE PURCHASE TERMINALS APPROXIMATELY 30 SECONDS BEFORE THE MAP ENDS! I know it's hard when you are on defense mode and need to refill a lot, but still, if a loss is imminent, just stand AFK the last 30 seconds or so (when a nuke/ion is counting down, easy timing) or just force yourself not to use a terminal. This allows for 2 things: less crashing (as stated in an update report) and faster map-ending (for those who complain about dragging stalemates etc.) I say it again: DO NOT USE THE PURCHASE TERMINALS APPROXIMATELY 30 SECONDS BEFORE THE MAP ENDS!

Bring on Field and Under More times than not, Field is being voted after the previous map was won through such an early rush. Disallowing donations in the first 5 minutes also doesnt cut it, just make starting credits 0, so no one can buy mcfartlands and chemtroopers instantly. Tactic would become (like the old ren) Harvey rush to get credits, first harvester dump allows for a rush, so attack the harvester while protecting yours. Killing the enemy harvey is more important though (to disallow early rushes). Time has passed to mount a defense (remote C4) for the dedicated defender and it's game on! It is a bit different on non-base-defense maps but hey

Say whaaaaaa... I feel this should be fixed lol I mean, "transporting" a vehicle on TOP of a chinook? C'mon, thats no where near supposed to happen. Might also be prone to abuse, say like you transport a stank on a transport, people load up the transport to assault a base, but when the transport is destroyed, there is still this invisible stank no one expects ... hmmmm

It´s part of the optimization process I think. Think about it not only how unrealistic this seems (like using a personal ion cannon is realistic anyway ) but the stress it causes on system performance. Rapid irregular movement causing serious calculations about positioning and the likes. Ever had Fraps running (for the FPS) and see what happens to the FPS when you violently shake and rotate the camera? FPS will drop due to system stress. In that regard, the game client is more prone to crash under heavy stress than it is in an optomized game. In that regard, it could help a great deal with regards to stability. This is a very minor bug and I'd rather they fix something that actually helps gameplay rather than just cosmetics

Well hidden imo. End of the day, you could reach it and disarm it, if you knew where and how to look for it. It didnt abuse physics to 'drop' behind an unreachable location, thus this is a well-hidden location imo. But it's a drawback of the upgraded graphics from Ren to RenX. Due to the increased graphics and textures, without invisible walls, beacons can be very much obscured to disallow disarming. I think that beacons are useful, but should require more teamwork than it currently requires, below a few examples: People tend to try to obscure the beacons but if your team has the advantage of controlling the midfield top section (in Walls or Whiteout), snipercover could easily pick off hot/tech/engi trying to disarm the beacons, more easy so when the beacon is actually placed in a location where people need to be exposed to the snipers. In the field map, a rush could keep forces occupied while an someone places a beacon near the WF (for Nod) or Hon (for GDI) without being killed by the base defenses. These locations are also easier to shoot at to defend the beacon without being shot at by the AGT/Obe. Goldrush map has easy acces to the bar/Hon from the infantry pathways. Snipers can cover the infiltrators easie there when the beacon is placed in such a location where the disarmers must be exposed. But thats just it, isn't it? Teamwork is the keyword here! But we are not playing a team-based game, but a game based on heroes and commandos fighting for the same team. (This was sarcasm for those who don't get sarcasm) If gameplay was team-based oriented then we'd not think of ways to glitch beacons for a win. If people do not want to play this game as a free version of the ultra-fastpaced games like BF4 or CS but instead of a team, maturity has a chance to kick in and we wont be seeing glitch abuse as we'd understand it's not supposed to be possible. 'Bad (game) design' is just an excuse to allow people to continue the abuse of glitches in order not to kick them

On the aimbot topic, few days ago I experienced being shot by a guy with a free marksman character and had many consecutive headshots, while I was a Havoc looking back at him trying to kill him. He killed me, multiple times. Sometimes it's obvious as I was not the only one experiencing this. On the glitching topic: A glitched beacon is a beacon placed in such a location, that after the deployment time expires (and countdown begins) the beacon 'falls' to such a location where it is no longer visible or disarmable by normal means. GDI barracks has such a spot (more than 1) where it is still reachable but so hard, that one must know how to. Same with the Ref and before the fix, the WF. If you feel like you are going the extraordinary way when placing a beacon to make sure the opposing team is unable to reach that beacon, then most likely it's a glitched beacon OR a very well-hidden beacon in such an obscure and irregular location that one does not expect it

Sarcasm warning: Most of them are deemed "Advanced Tactics" due to the design of the game/maps. Server owners condone them but do not advertise the use of them though, as in the future they "might" get fixed. (e.g. vehicle surfing, chopper-lift to otherwise unreachable positions, jumpshots, etc.)

Best solution yet: remove the ability to vote or remove the vote option to change/reset the map Renegade X is Renegade X and maps should be played to the fullest. If people don't like the longer games, then leave or fight harder or come up with good tactics to end the map. Or, if you insist, be AFK (I don't like this but shit) so your team is in a disadvantage, however, this also means you won't be playing while getting online in a game usually is the goal, isn't it? You want short fights? Play another game! Goodbye

whats so good or bad about free aim? It allowes for people to keep the camera still while still aiming at a person. All I think about this is he has a narrow field of vision or doesnt know about his surroundings when using the free aim option. Does it make it easier to aim or something? I get that when you look down the scope to someone who apparently is not aiming at you, but somehow does shoot at you through free aim, can be a bit offputting, but still. I think using the feature renders the person to a disadvantage rather than an advantage

How about a "Locking" feature to lock your vehicles drivers seat? Discussion in 2009: http://www.renegade-x.com/forums/viewto ... 4&start=15 Other players are still able to get into the passengers seat at any time, but the pilot/drivers seat should be lockable so your teammates wont be able to steal your vehicles when you get out to repair them. Though switching from seat 2 to seat 1 should also be averted in case of a locked vehicle, or else the people still get away with it Seen it happen again today, various people just casually hopping into any empty vehicle at their leasure without owners approval

Bots ... spambots ... -sigh-

Adressed but not quite as good as I hoped though. Because more often than not, people who voted yes to change the map, will often also initiate a mapchange when it failed, resulting in the same spamvote but distributed amongst the change-voters. Yes SFJake, this aspect can both be loved and hated, but more often than not I love it! Especially with the Islands example above. GDI trying to finish Nod off and Nod succesfully putting down (just in time though!) the GDI rushers. GDI having ref and bar makes them able to constantly buy expensive stuff like ions and 1k chars while Nod has to defend with the free classes.

With regards to crashes: I read a feedback post somewhere a long time ago where it was stated by a dev that accessing a PT about 30 seconds prior to the end of the game, would make a crash happen more often, significantly. I've tested this theory and in my experience, the crashes happen way less for me now. The only crashes I experience are the random crashes during gameplay explosions, or rarely the map-change crash. But overall, I've been playing 4 maps in a row without crashes, this didnt happen to me prior to the above knowledge

Again? Again? What do you mean by that? Well, the following: Server: TmX Map: Goldrush Pretext: GDI succesfully rushed Nod Obelisk in the first 5 minutes Complaint: Players abusing the vote option to switch/reset the map What happened before? Map: Islands I just joined Nod, only the HoN allive while GDI only lost their WF. Timer left: 19 minutes. What happened next? Vote to change maps. DAMN that "stalemate" was fun while that lasted ... GDI trying with all their might to front-gate rush to ion the HoN (failed twice) with sniper/mobius cover. What's my problem? I do not like to change the map as soon as it's no longer equal or remaining the same a long while, hence I "always" vote F2: NO. The thing is, for a vote to pass, more than 50% of the people need to vote YES for it, for obvious reasons the team ahead will not vote yes, but the handicapped team will most likely avert a loss by voting yes. Now, when people votespam (not only 1 person but multiple people) it's hard to keep up with the votes and "NO" pressing when you are actually focussed on the game and sneaky infiltrators, so occasionally a vote goes by without me knowing what it was for. I believe more people have this when they are on the winning team and focussed on the game instead of votes. When you are ahead, you want to keep that advantage thus focussing on the sneaky bstards trying to pass/rush you; ignoring the votes. What will happen? VOTES WILL PASS DUE TO THE FACT THAT WINNING TEAMS ARE FOCUSSED ON WINNING AND NOT THOSE STUPID VOTES! I agree, votes are a good addition to the game, but it's becoming a burden, atleast on the time-limited games where it's actually not needed to vote to change a map, it will happen given the time. Is there a way to "turn off" votes serverwise? If yes, is it also possible to disable a few types of votes (e.g. map change/reset) while other types of votes are still possible (like kicks and polls) ? It's realy getting frustrating when people immediately want to change the map when they lose a building in the first 5 minutes due to a rush, or when they don't like a map, or when they think it's a stalemate.

Was wondering if this is the bug when someone put a mine of C4 on a character rendering you unable to access the PT, if not, how about that bug when a tech/hotty accidentally puts a mine on another player. That player is unable to enter the PT.

Hi! I love this! Downloaded and installed as explained, but I noticed 1 thing: The serverlist does not portray the actual player count correctly. It's been a few times I've noticed this, TmX server showed 10 players and only 6 were on it AFTER I joined. Same with EKT server, 10 displayed, 8 actually on it me included. Something up with the communication between server and serverlist? When the servers are full, joining is not possible so shouldnt think it

Hi guys, here a friendly warning! The server ExchangeCore Marathon shows 20-25 players in the server list, but it is EMPTY! The server is either faking player count or is crashed during a session and not yet resetted (hardly the case as it's been like that a loooooooooooong time) Ignore that server please! Join the EKT or TmX servers for good fun.

I think it would be safe, but for all certainty, making a restoration point before uninstalling the Beta 2 would counter any uncertainties

4 mines do not stop 2 SBHs thus failing at that goal. 5 mines stop 2 SBHs but not 3 (2 SBHs taking the dmg of 2 mines and the last one taking the last dmg) I believe 3 mines do not kill an SBH though. The SBH infiltration tactic require a minimal of 3 to destroy a building so the weakspots should aim for that infiltration, leading to the ref back door and WF back door needing atleast 6 mines. To the above suggestions, 2 will be removed through the overmining principle, unless the server mod can set a value per designated area. However, reading the patchnotes for Beta 3, SBHs will be easier to spot thus these infiltration tactics won't be that viable anymore.

Whereas my idea solves the problem of non english speakers Agreed, but I'd suggest a maximum count of 3 per designated area to allow the freedom needed for normal gameplay. When there are 3 mines in the area, additional mines can be placed but when the limit is reached, only a few are removed untill the limit of 3 is reached. Problem: What if ALL mines are in the designated areas and not exceeding the max count (lets say 5 because a server mod decided that) on a mine limit of 45 mines. Designated areas being 5 for doorways and 3 for roof ramps. ((5x8(=40)) + (3x3(=9)) = 49 thus 4 mines too few for the designated areas)

Stacked silencing, when in 5 minutes time a 2nd vote passes to silence him, he will be silenced for 5 minutes instead of 1. If he still refuses to play nice, a 3rd vote in 10 minutes time (note, 5 are already gone after the 2nd vote passed) leading to a silence duration untill the end of the game. Important is that rejoining the server will reset this feature, but he will also lose his accumulated credits if he does, so he cannot continue mining until he has $$ again. Sadly, nothing can be done against non-english speakers, that has always been an issue in online gameplay

MonkeyBoy, in terms of leaving it up to the server moderators to designate priority areas, isn't that game modification instead of server modification? Because in essence, you are changing a small bit of a map. The silencing can also last for just 1 minute, when the player finds out he cant mine, he can ask, we respond and tell him what he's doing wrong aka teaching him. I didn't mean to silence him for the entire game, that would be abuse sensitive

And adding to that, this is a Beta. Beta gameplay means, we (the Beta players) are the primary feedback the Devs have for ALL bugs. This means that the players do not discriminate between bug severity, thats the Devs job. We point out the bugs so they can fix them, severe or minor alike.

I like such an idea, but with an addition: assigning numbers per area. Typically 5-6 mines per door entrance will keep 2 SBHs away, a team of 3 might overcome 6 and a team of 4 surely will, but this is not the reason why I choose a number. Lets continue with your example on walls map for GDI: Barracks has 2 doorways (NOTE: the sandbags turn it into 1 but walking up the roof will make entering possible) + 4 ramps ending in 2 on the top of barracks WF has 2 doorways and a single roof entrance ramp Ref has 2 doorways and a roof ramp (broader one) Powerplant has 2 doorways and a single roof ramp Now lets say there is a mine limit of 30 (default) there are 8 doors in total meaning a total mine count of 3 per door (thus 24 total) leaving 6 "undefined" mines, perhaps designated for the tunnel entrance or roof acces A mine limit of 40 allows for 5 mines (40/8) per door (but none for the tunnels or roof acces) A mine limit of 80 allows for 10 mines per door, but we all can agree thats a little too much. Problem: 1: If you want to make it a function of the total mine limit, the above may be the results. 2: If you want to set a certain number of mines per area, some people may agree or disagree with the amount. 3: We are forgetting the roof acces ramps. 4: Part of the tactic could be assessing the importance of a building, in my opinion, the barracks is more important to me than the refinery. You would want to have a higher mine limit to defend the barracks instead of the refinery. 5: Following problem 4, who is to say(as server owner) what building is more important than others, significantly influencing gameplay tactics. 6: Other maps have more buildings with a higher total door count, resulting in an even lower mine count per area 7: If you do not want to limit the "priority area's" to set amounts of functions of mine limit, you'd still experience overmining on servers with a lower mine limit (30;40 some might presume 3/5 mines per doorway is not enough, therefor plant more resulting in overmining of other doors) 8: Following 7: We are forgetting the roof acces ramps I suggest the following: Since we have a voting system in place anyway, add a vote option (team only) to "silence" a player from using proxies. It wont inhibit their gameplay other than proxy mining and this is not so much gamechanging or game interfering as adding priority area's. I recall this "area" issue with the airstrike topic being unacceptable by the Devs as it limits player freedom.

Hope alone will not cut it, check out this website: http://www.game-debate.com/games/index. ... ack%20Dawn It shows a table of minimal and recommended hardware/software needed for this game. Even so, I had a rig that had the recommended settings but I still needed to put the game settings to a minimal. You'd need atleast 4GB RAM to run the game with huge lags like slow mouse response or rendering issues. If you do find yourself having bought 2x 2GB RAM strips, with your windows version (being 32 bit) you still won't cut it as a 32bit version would only recognize 3.5 GB RAM, so you'd need a windows 64bit version for that, be it windows Vista, 7 or 8. I hope for you it will work out the way you think it will, but I'd still recommend upgrading your system, if not for this game, you might need better for future (nice) games. They get more and more intense as time goes on.