isupreme

Best Option. Allow the map choices to suite the player count.

I do not like the larger player counts unless it is on a large map. I really do not like 64 most days.

Awesome Share ! I enjoyed your comments. Welcome and keep up the boinking!

Great information to read. Thanks. I will go with roweboat's comment: It is especially interesting the rate of watching and joining and staying. I wonder what would be considered a success rate for games?

I really do not like this increadibly long delay in between shells for the medium. Why did it get ruined like this? Imo. Maybe if i understand why the change is necessary i wont hate it so much? I really really hate this change.

I have been reading with interest your adventures in this regard. A few thoughts: As a somewhat daily player i thought i could feel the effect of a few more new players. Maybe it was my imagination but, it seemed like there were a few more newby questions being floated and a general attitude of discovery of fun by some. While my imagination may be wrong, i think it does point to the positive effect even a trickle of new blood can create. Ofc, more developers and development of the game is nice. But i cannot help but feel the game is basicly a great, playable game as it already is. But folks like the feeling of a game progressing and the back and forth between the community and devs is always a Plus. Re: goals for players. Like you i think the best def,best off, support etc was a nice addition, and i would like to see more along these lines. BUT! I do not think starting down the path of "leveling up" is a good plan if it means we start each game at different levels of ability. In fact, i think the lack of that tactic is a real PLUS for the game. Always have. I do not play to be more uber than another - i play for the fun and to see my team win a fair battle. I wish you well on your choices for the future and congratulate you on being pro active.

That was pretty cool! Looks like you had a lot of fun. I didnt know the game could do THAT. Thanks for sharing.

I was tickled to see it in the upcoming notes. Even more pleased to see it happen. I would say it is the little things that can make you happy sometimes. BUT! It is no little thing to have game community that is alive and responsive.

I am intrigued now by the concept of tuning the length of the game. If as suggested, besides a vote by the teams to limit the time.... additional changes could happen that encourage the game towards a satisfying end. If things like increased vetrancy rates, funding, etc could change the tempo of the game..... With or without these changes i wonder if allowing teams to vote on a timer could be good for us.

Could Marathon games allow a vote to start a timer? I.E. The game is ongoing a while, and lets say both sides have had lost buildings. The game is starting to look like it will be a long one. Could the players be allowed to vote for a timer to end the game in half an hour or something.

Where can i find a listing of the points i have accumulated? Pardon me if i missed the obvious somewhere....

What i think would help the RenX community grow: ~ Increase the situations where a player feels and experiences the momentum of the game changing due to their participation. (to some degree this is the opposite of the trend toward bigger maps and big player counts ) ~ Maps and game play appropriate for smaller player counts, and a mechanism to allow servers to offer player count appropriate maps. ~ Easier/faster download of game. ~ Avoid consistently stacked games. ~ Include timed match options in the mix with marathon.

Nice input by all. Thank you. Moves in this direction could be awesome.

One idea, and a question. I seem to remember some conversations going around suggesting there might be some things in the works to help servers be fun when there are only a few players. Has anyone heard talk in that direction? My idea. ( probly not original ) Just like how some maps are bigger and built to handle larger player counts... .. Could the servers be set up so that as player count drops, the selection of maps available for play, becomes tailored to the number of players? i.e. smaller # players, smaller maps . I imagine two things needed for this. 1. Maps designed for low population 2. a mechanic to let servers automate the choices. New? Been discussed? Bad?

I am glad someone brought this up. Happier still to read that a fix may be forthcoming.

Yes yes and more yes with some Yes sauce poured all over it.

Sorry it is so obtuse. I was being funny as i thought my request was simple and clear. I am asking for the map name on the overview map. for several reasons: When you join as the game is changing from one map to the next you do not know the name. When you get up to get a drink between matches and you do not see the vote happen. When you join but you did not notice the name in the server list. And when you is just plain stupid like me and you want to learn it.

lol at the humor here. Reasoning: 1.help the newbs 2.help me 3.another excuse for more bugs in the game.

I think the title says it. Please put the name of the map on the map.

I would like to see true randomize of teams after each match. Thank you for clearly stating the issues. Is allowing buds to play on the same team more important than fairness and balance when the next game starts? I do not think so. I have always appreciated the fact that as each game starts all players start at the same level. When teams are significantly unbalanced game after game - this Essential Quality of Renegade is lost.

I like the server ping so much i joined NEC! They seem like a nice group, and I continue to have high hopes that one day this server will be active....

Can we talk about the commander way points? ( hope i have the term right) The various markers that can be placed, like meet here etc. I find them really annoying and problematic. 1. The totally destroy my immersion in game. Because they are visible THRU the landscape. I enjoy immersing into the game and the scenery/terrain is a big part of that. This feature totally blows that to bits. They are REally! visible. Distracting to high degree. ?are there not other ways to achieve this goal? I support the drive to encourage teamwork and cooperation. But i find this is a sacrifice of game environment. Could they be displayed on the map but not on field? Could they be made visible like normal objects and the hill blocks them? Could players get a distance to objective reading? 2. They get old and commanders do not always update them. Just a perception.. am i right on this? Can they have a timer on them? 3. Is there a simple OFF option? I read on how this works in the wiki but i did not see a simple.. turn that off option.

Thanks for the suggestions. Oddly enough..... It works now. Idk. Some magic fairy kicked the locks for me i guess. After repeated efforts to no avail... bam. out of frustration i hit L again and now it works.

Timely help Greatly appreciated I have used vehicle lock before. Simple. Hop in, press L , the little text comes up to say you locked. Now i cant seem to lock. I have tried L, L hold, I have tried servers which say the key is [ ] i guess. could not lock w that either. I have looked at my input and i see no assignment of L to another use. I do not see anywhere to assign the lock key. Timely help Greatly appreciated as this is Seriously Impinging on my game play style