Radeon3

In the heat of the battle they won't notice you shooting at them. Instead of that gently underline that their relocation would be nice.

That's actually a pretty cool idea.

@Gliven You totally missed Axesor's point inspite of he expressed it many times, it's not about changing the KD players style. You can't be so naive thinking that removing a stat would change how they play the game. What matters that once again this came to the attention of the devs and they found a nice solution which apparently satisfy your point of view as well. I guess you helped to raise awarness of this by posting so many times in such a small time, so thanks. I'll let go many of your arguments as it seems you were on the edge when replying. Please don't hate me for going offtopic one last time, to elaborate a few things.

It was always a TmX/CT thing.

I'm glad we finally came to this. After I returned my first question was how to get connected with all the Reneragers.

I agree with you and while personally I don't hate them, they undeniably cause issues. Just look at how many post address them lately: I know that you didn't mean to offend anyone by calling all the players with low KD noobs, yet it might be insulting for those, who valiantly repair tanks while being under fire, defending the base with basic infantry to win some time for their team, suicide to get back to base if there's an immidiate threat or the ones who take the extra steps to achieve their objective even if it means inevitable deaths. I think this topic was made to remove something negative from the game in order to promote a more sensible approach to it. Can't be sure of the OP's intentention but I don't think it's about the KD farmers. Therefore from this point on I consider my reply offtopic:

Being a teamplay based game, the mentioned stats could be changed to assist kills. It happens often that somebody takes down ~80-90% of his/her target's HP, then another player finishes it off. In the above example, the player who made the most damage would receive the kill point, the one who finished it would receive the assist kill. Alternatively, (if calculations to determine the biggest ratio seems too complicated to code) everybody who participated in damaging the target -let's say in the past 1 minute- receives an assist kill, and the finisher takes the kill point. This way even if you are not good at killing, you still receive positive feedback that you are trying to do something. By the way the VP system already working like this, but instead of Kill and Assist Points we receive VP.

ahhh the beauties of the gamer scene... goes to Taiwan to play some games in a hotel room instead of spending all that money to lose virginity by countless of quality hookers

Hitting a target with a singe shot weapon is the risk. Aiming at the head with the same weapon slighly increase this risk because if you happen to aim lower, you still hit your target. If you aim a bit higher then you missed. I hope nobody is serious about that aiming at the top part is so risky that it worth 5X damage. A hitscan weapon which is dead accurate with hip firing shouldn't even have a x3. Want reward for deliberately headshotting infantry with an anti tank unit? Take that 1,5 multiplier which is still 300 dmg + burning damage, now go and shoot some tanks. Ravershav/Sydney was intended to counter vehicles but in reality they are primarily used to kill any kind of infanty. On top of that LCG exceeds them in their original role in any aspects besides range, but due to the map's layout that's barely an issue. I even see the logic in that Syd/Rav shouldn't have multiplier on headshots (which is 1X btw :-). OR OR (mentioned before) Add a charge up time between pulling the trigger and actual beam. The same amount of time is enough what they currently have between shots, maybe less because they need to be more effective against vehicles (higher DPS). In technical terms the idle time would be before the shots instead of after them. Vehicles could be just as easily hit as before, but infantry would be fairly protected, yet still killable with skill. Now that would be rewarding.

Thank you for all your input to address this issue, let me summarize your ideas so far: Middle road Currently there are barely any map which supports 60 players but many which don't even support 40. Set the limit back to 40 so smaller maps become a bit less chaotic and the majority of the maps become more closer to amount of players they can handle. Automatic server switching If servers exceeds a certain playercount, the next match players will be split into two servers. The endgame vote would be the deciding factor how to split the players. The two most popular maps would determine who goes where, this way friends could stay together, people who don't vote randomly get distributed. Additionally this could result in more happy people when there's a 11-10 vote for Under vs Walls. Technically this looks complex, as many factors needs to be considered like how and to which servers should be used in the mitigation. On the other hand this solution could help to populate the servers on the long run. Launcher organizing The launcher could have built in chat capabilities or IRC so we could organize server "revivals". While not as reliable as an automatic system, still it'd be something to work with. Lately a few people expressed that they'd like to see this feature to reach other reneragers in real time; it would would be a nice tool to the community. Leave as is Everthing is fine, 60 players is the way to go. Dynamic map rotation Every map would have a classification based on the "Recommended number of players" attribute. Could be small (>15), medium (16-30), large (31-45) and huge (45-60). Map rotation selection only shows maps which are eligible for the actual player base. Dynamic mapsize Maps would have different size variations for different amount of players (eg. S, M,L). After voting, the server loads the proper version of the map which suits the actual number of players. Areas could be blocked with obstacles which are only destructible if the playercount hit a certain number before map seletion. The problem with this method, that many maps would need rework and smaller maps can't be scaled up to hold more players (because the creator would have done it like that at the first place). Some solutions are compatible with another. Feel free to correct me, if I missed something.

I can fully understand why do you think that 25 players are terrible on one server, it's your golden age after all. Don't really have to care about standard tank rushes, infilrators or small team tactics which might blow up the Hon/Bar; only to focus on killing.. and there are plenty of targets. If you got used to the 60 player limit, I'm sure you'll manage with 40 once again. Probably you weren't around in the times when we had clan wars. Regardless of who won, both sides agreed on that RenX is best played between 12v12 and 15v15 players. Maps didn't feel crowded and there was a nice balance between tanks, offensive infantry, support infantry and defenders. It did matter which role you took, which unfortunatelly I can't say nowadays. No wonder that so far others suggested that the 25-30 limit would be optimal. On a sidenote just take a look at what kind of server the oldie Dragon Clan is running. Sneaking has always been a core element of the game and yes, that tactic would be viable once again with 40 players. If you really concerned about it, you can always do team orinted things like, defending the base against those pesky guys. But feel free to open a new discussion about infiltration, I'm open to clear things up about it. Btw, what trailers are you referring to? You do realize that 35 players were the max, but mostly around 30. With that many players rushes were sure something fearsome and spectacular.

Didn't want to derail the Team changing topic so created this one. @CampinJeff @Sarah! you already had an input on this matter, please share your opinion/argument here as well. Probably it's going to be a wall of text, so only read further if you are interested in the experience of an oldtimer who returned to the game after around a year. Before all I'd like to state I'm not angry at CT, but being the only server with a steady playerbase it has some global responsibilities. If there were a few other servers with noticable activity I wouldn't mind this issue at all. First off, more does not equal better. We have seen this with the debatable higher minelimit, increased credit flow, purchasable vehicles after destroyed WF/Strip (the latter two at the start of B4) and now with the 1377 minutes of waiting time for teamchange. With the increased max player limit everything loses impact on the game. The vehicle limit remained the same while the playercount increased by 50%. Tankers have to deal with significantly more mobs shooting at them instead of focusing on higher priority targets. Sieges are as boring as before but with more people! There's a bigger pool of people who constantly repair buildings under siege, which equalize the higher ranked vehicles with some exceptions (looking at you mammy). It's more convienent to repair buildings after you realize shooting vehicles with low tier units doesn't worth it. You get no VP, neglectable credits compared to repairing the MCT and dying a lot. Rushes aren't as effective as before because on avarage max 7 tanks go against possibly an additional 10 people defending the base. Don't even want to compare how difficult is to organise/build up a full scale rush and what's the chance of (even new) players realizing what is the most convienent thing to do in their base under siege. Infantry fight with this many people on maps with chokepoints is a mess. It only serves the K/D farmers and their added "value" to the game. If endless/meaningless shooting is your thing then obviously this is your golden age. Even if you shoot well, you can barely advance because you have to deal with higher numbers from the opposing force and their respawning multiply this effect. Small team tactics (SBH C4, stank rushes, fully loaded IonAPC, simultanious nukes to name a few) are less likely to work because there are more people to counter these. Many tactical aspects of the game are toned down which is a huge loss imo. Quantity become favoured instead of quality : ( Just to recap, most maps don't even support 40 players. I'd love to play with 60 players or more on maps which were desinged for it but currently many of the maps are outright nightmare for that many people. Increasing the vehicle limit is not a solution as most maps are not suitable to handle more vehicles. Just think about how difficult is to maneuver at the crowded base entrance during sieges and you might realize even the current number of vehicles aren't supported by some maps. We always say that this game has a steep learning curve and new players should get into it. But what exactly are we talking about? Sure there are the basics and getting know the maps... but currently they don't lose much if that's all they know. I'd really like know what new players think of the game after being besieged for a whole match or trying to achieve something in vain. Last but not least this impacts the perfomance of the game. Not a serious issue, but to this day we have new players who have weak computers. A few FPS for them is the difference between playable and unplaybe. As I recall, this issue was addressed before and a few developers went against the 60 player idea. How and why did we get to this? What do you think? Do you feel that something is diminishing from the game with so many players in one server or I'm alone with this?

It's been awhile I changed those setting. As far as I know the default is 60-62 FPS... anyway try these: UTEngine.ini DefaultEngine.ini UDKEngine.ini

So when will you guys reinstate the rule that 40+ ppl servers shouldn't exist? Playing on maps which don't even support 40 players (majority of them) isn't abuse by definition, yet it's clearly butchering the tactical aspect of the game. Make a max player limit for each map or something, don't want play a brainless shooter in the C&C universe. Snow with 60 players on, are you nuts?

Oddly enough, some of the higher settings you'd expect to lower your FPS doesn't lower it at all. The noticable exceptions are post processing and dinamic lighning. My advice is to disable framarate smoothing, look into one of the config files search for "MaxSmoothedFrameRate=xx" and change it to something that suits you. Also close the launcer while playing. For me, quite often it locks up one of my CPU cores which drastically lowers my FPS.

You think you can beat my killer moves?

So there's this nasty bug on fuck this, I challange you to a dance off! Show me your best moves!

Not a bad idea, although we already have a vehicle like that: Advanced Buggy.

These are my observations and suggestions: Mammoth tank: Scales badly with the vet system. Just want to add an idea which could serve not just as a nerf but it would also make the Mammy unique(ly awesome). Remember C&C3? At heroic give the mammy dual railguns, but don’t increase its damage output from elite to heroic. Obviously, remove the splash damage so cheap-ass infantry could challenge it effectively… you know… just like in any other C&C. And remove the infinite range, it’s not the Juggernaut. Light tank: Swett89’s solution is the way to go. Flame tank: Needs speed gain as it gets higher ranks. Or here’s a ridicullios idea: give it an ability of using the flames as a propulsion system so it could get a temporal speed boost. I believe the other vehicles are good as is. Patch: Sn4ke is right on this one, no need for hitscan. On top of that his noobtube is broken. I highly advise to look into its code before anybody else realize what’s wrong with it. Sydney/Ravershaw: Svett89 is spot on with this one as well. Don’t agree with him? Then add a charge up time after pulling the trigger. Don’t need much, just 250-400 ms. In technical terms elegantly put the idle time before shots instead of after them. Would fit the weapons characteristics nicely. Vehicles could be just as easily hit as before, but infantry would be fairly protected, yet still killable with some real skill. Seriously, why encountering a long range anti-tank unit at close range with infantry have to be extremely dangerous? Grenadier: A bit lower damage on MCT would be nice. Could be an effective SBH spotter by changing its alt fire to a not too fast burst fire. Poor guy is barely used after the early harvy rush, need some added usefulness. The rest of the infantry seems okay.

This is a very sound plan. Just imagine the new tactical opportunities this could give us. I can already see the hillarious situation as I put the C4s on the MCT and hear a nearby GDI soldier asking his team: GDI Soldier: Have you guys seen that shady figure entering the bar? Another GDI: Shit, might be a technician, let’s check it ASAP! Me: Erm...it was just me, no worries, the bar is clear. GDI: Ah okay, for a second there I though we lost the bar, thanks dude for checking Me: Sure thing, anytime, aaaanytime… *detonating the remotes* Or imagine an SBH in the GDI base whispering into the mic in a creepy, playful voice. SBH: Hi there little fella, I might have something for you if you don't find me very soon. GDI soldier: O_o Another SBH: Keep it quiet moron, already told you to shut it until we planted it. GDI solder: Could you guys call an A-10 airstrike on me, I think we have a situation here...

Also some people prefer listening to music instead of listening/talking to others.

Considering our options this is good idea. The question is the same as always: who's capable of learning how the gamebridge SDK works and who would implement it into the game. Don't forget the cantbeatventrilo and betaapp4betagame tags.

It's always good to see the return of old players who were here since the beginning. Welcome back lavamamama.

A better advice for new players in regards of the skillful players shooters: if you find yourself constantly killed by them, stop charging their camp site brainlessly for the umpteenth time. All they care about their kill/death ratio and not really team players. But YOU can be useful for your team by joining the tankers, providing field repairs, guarding the base against infilrators, spotting enemies, calling snipers out, participating in rushes, transporting infantry or just following the person who’s organising something. By doing so you’ll make a bigger impact for the outcome of the game than just killfarming which –you might have already experienced- barely adds anything to the team apart from the toxicity it generates. When you get hang of the basics you can try out more advanced tactics but always remember, this is a team based game. Oh, and watch the minelimit.