boxes

PUG will still happen if this gets resolved at a reasonable time. Otherwise we might reschedule

Personally the way I see it, the only traits worth the most value in determining how much a player can contribute to a team is their skill in both infantry combat and vehicle combat. If somebody has mastered at least one of the two, chances are likely that they have strong game sense and situational awareness, both of which factor much into ones ability to infiltrate a base. And somebody mentioned before that strong infiltrators are often the best base defenders, as they know all possible entry points and hiding spots, and know the most optimal way to utilize available mines on certain maps. Unfortunately, support has a very small skill cap. You basically hold down mouse 1, mash WASD randomly, and pray you don’t get sniped. But of course, one can still improve their game sense by playing support, such as taking note of common sniper spots, noticing tracer rounds, and staying out of splash range. But these should be fundamental to players that have mastered combat. The best supports are the ones who know how to stay alive and don’t get bored doing their job.

I have been receiving numerous reports lately regarding a number of issues concerning the PUGs. Normally I wouldn’t write something like this, but I’m beginning to see these issues starting to have an impact on these weekly events, given how we are once again having difficulty finding the same level of participation we had a month ago. I’ve reached out to a number of players, particularly those that I considered regular players but don’t show up as often anymore, and I asked for their feedback regarding the current state of the PUGs and what we need to improve on. Firstly, the conduct that we’ve been seeing in the PUGs has been very poor. It has gotten to the point where the attitudes of certain players are beginning to drive away others, and I admit I haven’t been enforcing the behavior rules at all. From what I observe and what players have told me, is that the amount of negativity that comes from one player can be very contagious, and has the capacity to ruin the experience for the rest of the team. Therefore starting now, I wish to see a friendlier and more positive environment in the PUGs. I understand that losing can be frustrating, but the team chat is not the place where you vent and make a fuss. I ask all participants to hold themselves responsible for their actions and exercise control over their emotions. Starting now, all player conduct will be strictly moderated, and any sign of toxicity will be promptly dealt with at our own discretion. Another issue is team balance. This one is more for the other moderators. Although there hasn’t been a stomp recently, I ask of the mod team to please respect what players have to say in regards to concerns of team balance and abandon any form of bias when forming teams or when rebalancing. It should go without saying that equal teams lead to more rewarding experiences for all players, and that is the goal we strive to achieve. In the long run I do plan on making a more robust system when it comes to picking teams. If you’ve ever joined a PUG in the past, you should know by now that getting volunteers for commanders almost never happens, primarily because of the responsibility held to lead your team in tandem with having to deal with people that don’t listen to you or straight up reject your ideas, and requiring the vigor to speak over 15 other people in your team. I am considering that voice chat will only be restricted to the commander, and leave it for the commander to decide 3-5 other players in their team to be allowed to use voice chat. All other players will interact the same way as public games, via q-spots and text chat. This should clear comms much more, and at the same time it won’t sacrifice too much merit that comes from unrestricted voice chat. We will experiment with this in the following PUG. As for the players that don’t listen, that will be a bit more difficult to manage. Sometimes players have their game volumes too high and can’t hear others properly, or don’t understand English very well. Depending on how blatant it is, the ‘listen to commander’ rule will be enforced more strictly as well, but we first need to understand the circumstances to see whether or not action is necessary. It is my hope that these changes will make the PUGs a more engaging and less-chaotic experience.

Sunday PUGs will now be postponed once again due to low player turnout

Not in RenX. The maps were not designed in mind with MRLS being able to shoot over massive obstacles. For example it's the same exact reason why Nod isn't able to shell the ref anymore from the middle of the field on Lakeside. GDI can't properly respond to it since it's so far away in the backlines, just like how Nod can't respond to MRLS shooting over mountains behind a wall of tanks. Lakeside wasn't designed around artillerys having an arc to their projectiles. But for the MRLS, it would require literally every single map to be revised in some way or form. It is simply much more efficient re-evaluating the lock mechanic.

@roweboat Straightforward solutions can resolve this, and can work in place of the mine system we have right now. Interior turrets, laser walls, alarms, pre-set mines and other static defense ideas all are similar in that none requires player interaction as a pre-requisite in setting up a layer of defenses. We can go with one of these ideas, replace the mine count at the bottom with (alarms active: X, Lasers offline: X, Turrets offline: X, etc.). Implement any one of these systems and drop proxy mines completely or re-appropriate them, and I personally think we have something ready to replace the system we have now. What we would need to do next is adjust whatever system we choose so that infiltration remains one of the most exciting things to do, while defending won't feel too easy or difficult. Mines I feel are simple enough, at least for the doors. 3 mines per door will always do its job in any situation, and players should be given visual indicators along with the fact that three mines are the maximum amount they are allowed to carry. Player creativity towards mine usage comes later, which is worth mentioning that it is a merit that a static base defense system won't have. It gives base defenders more responsibility (not necessary a bad thing), and allows them to set up their line of defense the way they like it the most for each specific map.

The point of this thread is to reach a consensus on what mining should be, so we can settle this issue once and for all. Given what I wrote I didn't make it clear, but all suggestions are welcome and open for discussion. Ceilling turrets is another thing that can be fleshed out more. If we're talking about what we had on HeXMouontain, but without proxy mines, infiltrating will either be impossible or completely stealthy depending on the structure. I shared my concerns about that in my reply to Agent.

This could be a good first step, smiply starting with some visual mechanic that lets players know where mines should be placed, like silhouetts appearing behind doors when you are currently holding proxy mines. We can expect to see less 'incorrect' mines this way, but later we will still need to address the issue of overmining.

As @roweboat mentioned, discussion of infiltration balance is something for another thread. As it currently stands, infiltration has not been a priority balance issue, and I wish to see a system that affects it as little as possible in our current position. Maybe, maybe not, we will never know without playtesting. But what I do know is that this is very reminicisent of the good aspects of the system we have now, in that base defense is a player responsibility, and there is a specific way to determine an infilitration taking place (mine count), with the only way to check is by manually entering a building and investigating. It's something that current players can recognize right away, while at the same time giving babysteps for a new player to understand it. The mine won't disappear in thin air. They simply won't be allowed to enter the plant animation, and there will be a HUD notification and audio telling them that if they try, like the vertical clearance we have right now for commander powers. Building mines are the global limit. You cannot plant more than the limit because there simply won't be any more after you plant the last mine. Proxy mines are limited to two per player like AT mines, and I don't expect to see this to be an issue since they take damage from weapons. There's no indication of whether or not your proxy mines are disarmed. Responded to Agent in regards to turrets, and roweboat with the laser walls. I can still see some further significant gameplay detriments if we implement the laser wall, but before I mention them I need to be more clear on the idea as a whole. I simply don't think it was fleshed out enough in that thread from before.

The issue of that will be that it will further strengthern Nod's early game since it will take longer for GDI to get tanks and repairs out. At the moment, GDI's base on small maps could have 4 light tanks rolling in their base before they get one med out, assuming both teams lose their first harvester. And if donation time is open by then, early flame tanks will only make it harder for GDI to push out of their base, even if they donated for meds. The core reason for the higher tickrate is that GDI's passive income to 800 is faster than what it is now. By the time Nod gets their tanks rolling out in the field, GDI should have meds available.

1.5 might be more appropriate, but perhaps something else can be done to generate income rather than increasing tickrate. I've heard an idea that after the refinery dies, players then become responsible for harvesting tiberium themselves via some item allows them to harvest tiberium? And they drop off this item at a certain spot in the base where a chinook comes and picks it up at specific time intervals and this becomes an alternative harvy dump for teams without refs? Something like that The exact numbers of the tickrate should be tested extensively, to the point where the exact credit income over a period of time is as close as possible to what we have now. Spamming 1K infantry will definitely be a problem otherwise.

Yes, any infantry can purchase mines Added! I was really into that idea at first too (laser fences), but an issue somebody brought up is that it eliminates any interesting dynamics that players can utilize with mines, such as putting 2 in front of the ref and 4 in the back door. In this way for example, defenders when they see 4 mines down, have a good sense as to what building is in trouble. Maybe ramps don't need to be included in this system, but it may cause some gameplay issues with having SBH freely roam the WF roof. At a logical perspective, I understand where you're coming from, mining doesn't make any sense per se, but that can also be applied to many other things in the game, like why orcas/apaches are free to fly undamaged while slamming itself on the ground, or why a buggy can surf 6 engineers on top repairing each other at the same time. It doesn't make sense, but these and mining are not too bizarre to the point where it gets in the way of somebody's experience. The issue with interior turrets is that it affects the balance of infiltration; as we saw in HexMountain. It can be extremely difficult to pull off, especially with proxy mines, but at the same time, the buildings have so many hiding spots where players can avoid line of sight from the turrets. HON in particular would need 5 turrets to completely cover all angles inside the building. How would a solo infiltrator get around to disabling all these turrets? If we were to have a limit on these turrets per building, how would players know, similarly to the way we do right now via drop in mine count, that somebody is inside a building but has bypassed the turret defenses? How would players know that something is amiss like the system we have at the moment? Whatever happens to proxy mines is freely up for debate. I wouldn't mind if they were purchasable either way, as long as there is a personal limit to them so they don't get out of hand when a team averages 2k+ credits per player. If somebody doesn't put them at doors, when there is a clear indication that that is where mines are intended to go, and after seeing their teammates put them in front of doors beforehand, perhaps we could make it so all teammates can remove mines, and upon disarming, a refund would be granted. If somebody is hellbent on putting mines in place where their teammates don't agree on, I would believe a team hamperer is present, and this player would be no different from somebody pushing teammates off the plateau on walls.

Added! Yep it will likely happen. I was thinking 25 credits per mine, and one player will definitely run out of credits before the donation time begins.

Part 2 of 4 of post-pug discussions -- The Existing Problems: It should be well known by now given the drama we find in-game and the re-occuring topics we see over and over here on the forums. We've seen many ideas thrown around, such as stricly personal mine limits, laser fences, purchasable mines, and so on. The current mining system is the pinnacle of a good idea, but poor execution. Given that its mostly inherent from Westwood, the dev team is not responsible for its current design, but it is still long overdue to try new things to fix this flawed system. Too many players have fallen victim to accusations of team-hampering, vote-kicks, mine-bans (which shouldn't even be a thing), and spews of hatred over mining and failing to do it 'correctly'. These players are often unaware that they are harming the team or thinking that they are helping out, when in reality they are driving their teammates insane. If we are looking to bring this game to new audiences, it is imperative that this must be addressed in some way (no, an official tutorial will not work. When was the last time you played/watched a tutorial all the way through in a new game, and had fun doing it? And even if we did, there's too many nuances of mining to be properly addressed in a timely manner). In games, many player interactions with objects should come across to be extremely obvious. If you hold a gun or drive a tank, you shoot enemy players with it. If you have a repair gun, you shoot it at friendlies. So, if we hold mines, we should put them at places to deter or kill enemies entering an area. Unfortunately, that is extremely vague in this game, which can range from base entrances, bunkers in the field, or areas in infantry paths. Literally nothing in the game communicates to the player that proximity mines rely on a team-based limit, nor does anything explain what happens if players mine over the limit, or why they should care. Nothing tells a player how crucial it is to mine 3 mines per door, why they should or should not mine building ramps, and so on. And if you are reading this and you have no idea as to how mines work, my advice is to simply not use them. The learning curve is too big, and it's not worth the trouble getting into it if you are familiarizinig yourself with other game mechanics. Back to the point, the problems currently are: Failure to communicate a team mine limit and overmining plus the effects of it What it means when mines aren't at the max limit Default item of Techs/Hotties, implying to the player that 'this is mine, and I get to use them however I like". No telling what the radius of detonation for the mines are (players put them in places where enemies can bypass them) No indication of the most optimal mine locations But what the system gets right: The feeling of insecurity and danger from an incomplete mine count Being the one in your team to notice it firsthand, and giving off the feeling that 'you saved the team' Ability to 'trick' infiltrators by placing mines in uncommon patterns or potential locations -- What to change: Implement a new type of mine specifically for buildings. Around each door, there should be a transparent cabinet with 3 visible slots, each containing building mines, and each mine costs XX credits. Players purchase and access these mines by holding down E. Players can see the mines missing by looking at the cabinet (or around the door itself), and can use them whenever possible. These are available at the start of the game. Rename 'Mines' at the bottom to 'Building mines' or 'Team mines'. Properties of building mines: New model/color Same damage/health values and disarm/repair logic as current proxy mines Part of the team limit Must only be placed when a player is standing on its respective building mesh. For example, if a player were to place down HON specific mines on the ground outside of the building, the player will not be allowed to plant. Players will be notified through audio and overview text. If the player is too far away from the building they bought mines from, the building mines will be confiscated and placed back into the cabinet where they came from, and the player will be refunded. Players will be notified through audio and overview text As soon as a building mine is disarmed, it will go back to the nearest cabinet, wherever space is available After 30 seconds of purchasing the mines and they still haven't been placed, the mines will be confiscated and the player will be refunded. Unique weapon hotkey Can only hold 3 at once Technicians and Hotwires will still have proximity mines for free use. However, like AT mines, only 2 will be allowed to be placed per player. Fortunately, they will no longer be fully responsible for base mining, and the loss of HON/Bar will be less severe this way. Properties of proximity mines: Takes damage from weapons Will explode if destroyed like AT mines Only 2 mines per hottie/tech Same damage/disarm/repair logic Not part of team limit Red ring to indicate Nod mines, current one as GDI mines Around every typical mining area on buildings, the floor should be textured with some red outlined box with text saying something like 'Mining Area', with three circles, Xs, etc to indicate to the player where mines should go. Ramps are self explanatory. Team mine limit will be dynamic, depending upon how many buildings remain, and what buildings they are. All mines inside a destroyed building will be automatically disarmed. -- Benefits: Exactly the same way to let players know if an infiltration is going on, by seeing the team mine count drop and the feeling that something is amiss. Given how new players have a better idea of where team mines go, they will better understand what a non-maxed mine count would mean. New players will have all the freedom to use their own proximity mines however they please with no detriment to the team Overmining is no longer possible Current mining dynamics unchanged Infiltration probabilities unchanged Players who access the building mines have an indication of where to put them Deters early infiltrators from ending games quickly 'Anti-Tank mines should go where tanks go. Proximity mines should go where infantry go. Building mines should go in buildings.' -- Repurcussions: Players will have to spend time look at the other cabinets for mines if another player bought mines but used them on another door/ramp HON will be difficult to indicate how to mine, may look like a bunch of scribbles on the second floor Unable to place mines directly outside of doors to prevent shooting inside One person responsible for mining may not be able to afford to mine all the buildings, could happen before donation time starts Unable to stack additional mines in a building due to dynamic mine limit -- I strongly encourage all to share disagreements or concerns. Only that way we can know and address any potential flaw we might overlook otherwise, and what we truly want to see as the defense system in RenX. And only this way, we can reach a consensus that we are all content with, one that regular players and new players alike can both embrace.

Back and forth I hear two sides, one that wants building losses to be as painful as possible (old ren) and one that wants them to be more forgiving, both reasons I believe is for comeback oppurtunities, available options, etc. Depending on your position in the game, if you are dominating the field and pounding buildings, and you lose a building to infiltration for example, obviously this opens up a chance for the other team to decicively retake the field by taking advantage of what you lost. While on the other side, if you lose a building while locked in your own base, the team won't be cut away from so many resources that they can use for a future attack or to bolster defenses, and in the end minimizes the snowball. I personally think losing the ref right now doesn't quite fit into this scenario of "adpating to what you lost" as much as the production structions. Losing strip/WF means a team can focus on infantry plays mixed in with APC support for example, while losing HON/Bar means a team might focus on defending the base with tanks while sneaking in an unexpecting rocket rush. If you lose the ref, there is no significant way to get back a reliable source of income besides the silo (and as I mentioned, repairing requires your base to be sieged, and you will die a lot as you are a high priority target in the field). Therefore, the ref should be more lenient to teams that lose the building, as it will cut away too many oppurtunities if teams simply don't have credits to use. Harvester dumps are still important to overall credit gain, and losing it will build up a lot of lost credits over time.