Mystic~

I really like the idea of something that can heal all units in a grouped radius, a bit like the existing support powers for increased damage and increased armour. The repair power like Anno 2005 is what I would compare it to and probably using a similar sort of green colour. Having the need for a vehicle to use this, there are probably pros and cons to it, as a commander power, it could be too strong when used in the middle of a battle.

You need to read the whole thread before asking that question, and it's a difference of opinion about what my thoughts are about the class. Slow unit, heavy armour, easily picked off from the other side of the map by a competent sniper (Think FIeld-X). My first post is one serious point and a few fun suggestions to go with it. By immune, I really mean just far less susceptible to snipers/ramjets, not total invincibility. I would consider making it so the ramjet has to get a head shot twice and the normal sniper rifle would not be powerful enough to do very much at all to this particular class and I would also rethink it's vulnerability to light calibre machine guns and perhaps light or medium vehicles would knock it down rather than run it over and kill it, a bit like the shock trooper from Red Alert. This class was redeveloped towards taking on GDI heavy armour, but in an open field it really struggles against light bullets and sniper fire.

I feel some people don't get the spirit of exploring or refining ideas before they try shooting something down. Basically, 450 credits is still a lot to waste when it can very quickly and easily be picked off by a sniper. I wasn't suggesting total invulnerability, but it waddles so slowly I think that heavy armour should afford it to take a few more sniper shots than it presently can, even if it breaks its firing continuity or makes it stumble. I think some sort of gas jet for leaping over a boulder is cool add-on, but also appreciate it's work for someone to create. And it's not as if I said other stats could not be tweaked or balanced to enable something else... I did suggest making their Achilles-heel, incendiary rounds, electricity and a direct hit from a shell. I'm sure we did something like this to its cousin the SBH once. The dual guns is a fun suggestion, maybe a bit crazy, but the gun looks so huge I'm not sure it could be animated and I wasn't referring to the vanilla purchased recruit level LCG. I am wondering if some sort of laser equipped tank will be coming in the future if only to explore the concept further. How about making it a rare crate find like the variations of the augmented Sydney and Ravshaw. GDI could have a Gunner that fires a spread of rockets or something...

They have adequate protection from tanks, but can we please make LCG immune to sniper fire (or at least take 4 shots to kill), it's not like thick metal armour shouldn't allow for this, (I know it's flak versus kevlar, although I think it should transcend these classifications) they're slow enough targets, and maybe give them two laser chainguns at the point of going Elite/Heroic? Yes, I don't like snipers in this game, I wouldn't mind if there was only one sniper class and it couldn't take out an advanced class with only one shot. And the Wolverine clearly has two guns already, sort of like this video below, I'd even consider giving them some sort of jet to leap over small obstacles and perhaps make them vulnerable to incendiary Patch rounds, Mobius electricity and a direct tank shell - but not tank shell splash.

Someone needs to programme them with some basic rush tactics, like a full APC or Chinook or infantry and tank clustering of the same type, do they even plant beacons? I'm fairly certain they have good aim, but they don't do anything special other than general everything. I normally vote off bots when I join a new server, but if it was initially filtered into AI versus humans I might not until the server became full or the game mode was vote changed.

It's like Field with the double entrance you wish you had, but don't have. I like the name "Oasis". Will be complemented with full vehicles, or is it just meant to be light armour and APCs? I'd like to see a re-imagination of Walls or Islands, although appreciate this isn't an original creation.

Would somebody create a cavalry dirt bike for both sides? I think something like this is lacking in the game to move infantry around the map. If you're lucky you can catch a ride in a tank, assuming they're going your way, and APCs are rarely used just for transporting people outside of rush tactics. The Chinook works well on Walls if someone takes up this role, but I still think an individual option that doesn't depend upon wasting all the stamina/sprint and then constantly jumping to make up ground. A bike doesn't need any weapons added to it, it could be relatively cheap to buy for both sides and perhaps remain even after vehicle production building destruction, something quite easy to destroy and not something people need to complain about if one is left discarded or abandoned somewhere on the field. It would make re-mining and covering base defence distance much faster as well probably and you would need to be aware of them sneaking through.

I'm just updating this thread with more feedback based on the more that I play with the Orca. When it comes to air skirmishes Orcas are so slow, they have super low armour, super slow lock-on and an Apache has a longer-ranged cannon and can deliver a fast barrage of powerful rockets and even if they don't get a lock they still stand a good chance of dumb-fire hitting something. They're both very similar when it comes to base rushes, but this is the aspect I'd like to deter less of, or at least reduce their effectiveness.

Join the discussion if you want to, share your personal opinion on the topic, I'm not expecting any sort of official developer response or have any expectations of things jumping some sort of work queue. I do feel the Orca is pants presently and could benefit from more speed and weapon tweaks. The Orca can do quite well at close range with its MG and with the right player, but it doesn't compare to the Apache's "splash splash splash splash splash splash" you're toast cannon, which works well at both distance and close range.

I agree with this, both a better missile count and also their shooting range I think should be greater than the Apache. However I think speed is the most crucial aspect missing from them, they crawl at a snail's pace across the sky despite having afterburners and almost anything can hit them. Try taking on a light tank on Lakeside and you make quite an easy target, they need to be faster and have much more versatility, responsiveness and manoeuvrability. The Apache keeps/or gets short-medium range missiles, slower speed and possibly greater armour to be asymmetrically balanced. Maybe the Orca could fire two missiles at a time rather than waiting for the long count and delay of 1, 2, 3, 4 to 1-2,3-4,5-6 I hope that if we keep this an active thread then at least the developers can keep eye on what peoples opinions are and some things can be considered for a future patch or build release. Obviously, we want to come to some sort of consensus regarding what is missing and not just throw in the desire for new pointless features.

I still get tired of how frequently everybody votes for Under or FIeld (especially most of the new players or old returning players) and these maps drain my enthusiasm. I don't mind Field-X as long as it's played as part of a rotation and not every other map. Maps that fit the player count sounds intelligent and a clever thing to do if the programmers know how to program this feature.

Thanks for the replies. What do @boxes and @yosh56 think? I'm not familiar with who the current dev-team are. I prefer Orcas because they look good, but they seem to get swatted down like flys and it's a fashionable way to just waste 900 credits. I hate that snipers can deal quite good damage from so far away to aircraft, and just keep doing it, I'd nerf this damage so it couldn't take out an air vehicle unless it was already on super low health, almost not worth wasting the shot and reload time on unless you see one already smoking. I'd make sure that light calibre assault rifle, humvee/buggies and officer minigun bullets just bounce off distances (possibly for both sides) and don't cause too much harm at close range unless being hit extensively for a longer period, forces people to get a vehicle or use one of the other classes such as rocket soldier, grenadier, flame trooper etc. Manoeuvrability is something I think I tried to communicate using the video of the C&C strategy game, they can turn and avoid certain locked on rockets (rocket soldiers maybe) and I feel they should be able to glide, arc and curve around the sky similar to how a bob slay does so they are far more lively and dynamic but presently they feel like they can only mostly hover and fly in straight lines. It was always SAM sites that were the nemesis of the Orca and you had to take these out first for something to work, and this seems to work quite well already on most maps. The Apache should require far more time to do something similar like an arc trajectory and require more power else would stall and they're built different and should behave differently anyway. Apache as a heavy gunship and the Orca as a fast attack aircraft, somewhere between a helicopter and a jet. I don't think they should be too similar, but each needs to know its head to head strengths and weakness, and they also need to take into account what a faction requires and what can asymmetrically oppose it on the other team so it's not too much of the same aircraft opposing each other with different model appearance and colour. Usually, I favour the outcome of a stank versus an orca, it can be close if it's a straight head to head, but I do think their range goes too far.

Just adding some feedback, I've only played this map a few times, and I can't really say in great detail what I like or don't like. I'm not liking the free Nod cycles that both sides seem to come with? I'm not sure why. I think even GDI get these. There's some sort of confusing issue when I look at the building screen - there's some sort of extra silo? Sometimes I can't tell if our refinery is destroyed or not and the burned-out silo models also add a little confusion. The bases seem so big and spread out that it feels like this should be a base defence map with an Obelisk and Guard Tower, although I appreciate that you designed it not for this. I frequently see GDI struggling to destroy the Nod turret base defences. So far I see GDI lose frequently as Nod tanks are fast, cheap and stealthy. Not sure what the public game stats are for this. I like the base walls as this reminds me of the original strategy game and I'm one of those people that actually used to like building them.

Hey, We started what I thought was an interesting conversation at the end of the last PUG - how could we change or improve each aircraft to provide asymmetrically balanced aircraft for better air skirmishes and base attacks that might force people to consider more strategy and improve the enjoyment factor of using air vehicles for winning the game. Presently the running theme has been to gather up to 10 of each type and then apply an attack bonus, which is very difficult to counter or stop unless you have 3+ adv engineers already repairing the targeted building and it frequently causes the opposing team to also just build aircraft to counter it. I'm not sure if people really enjoy this or not? But I certainly don't anymore. I try to see the aircraft from the perspective of the original C&C Strategy game Renegade is based on, the Orca was very fast and highly manoeuvrable, capable of taking down buildings and vehicles. The NOD gunship/hind was much slower but is based on the Apache in Ren and I'd see these as wanting or needing to be slower, with heavier weapons, heavier armour and effective against GDI tanks. Both are effective against infantry due to giving them both cannons and missiles or rockets. For GDI I'd want to see the Orca being faster than the Apache, lighter feeling, with some sort of better stamina or burst acceleration - more noticeable than whatever holding the spacebar currently does allow them to zip about - they would become much more fun to use. They would have lighter armour than the Apache but be faster and more evasive and their missiles I would see as being more precise or better guided than the Nod rocket pod and could probably shoot from longer distances, they would be harder to hit, whereas Nod would be easier to hit but has the better armour to enable it to stay in the air for longer. I can see the need not to make one overly more powerful than the other, but I don't think they need to be so similar that they feel identical, let each side have its strengths and weaknesses in the air so they can be used differently. Should we have some sort of vehicle cap on air units so there's no more than 7-8? This would mean others in the team would contribute to an attack in other ways and not just one massive single pronged team air-raid. Orcas could do more hit and run style tactics, harassment or even dropping off units whereas Nod would do more hide and pop-up style attacks or hope to get in a good position for an attack in greater numbers. MRLs are effective against the Apache and cheap to buy, whereas Nod has the LCG. I wanted to add: The Apache cannon is an absolute op bitch against infantry - I think it's due to easy imprecise splash damage, range and magazine size. The Orca seems to expend its magazine quickly and it really requires very precise precision to kill someone. Orcas are basically so weak they feel like paper cups falling out the sky - it doesn't take much from Nod to destroy one and I think it's down to both surprise factor of stealth tanks and SBH, but also the LCG being effective against air compared to the straight-shooting Gunner. Do we really need snipers being able to do so much damage to an aircraft? There are enough things that can potentially shoot them down already. It would be nice if new settings could be tested on some sort of small spare server or map without affecting the release game. Feel free to add on ideas or suggestions of how to improve them or the experience of using air vehicles, what is missing, what works, what doesn't work and so on.

I use it to scan on Outposts and then I use it to basically chase engineers around with because a medium isn't that manoeuvrable or a bit of light suppressing fire, it's a bit pathetic and I don't like the sound or its slow rate of fire but it has its usefulness. A light tank is super manoeuvrable already, not sure if both light and med should have it? I would really like to see some sort of dedicated anti-infantry Gatling Cannon tank similar to what the Chinooks presently has (possibly for both sides), something to get a heavy machine gun on the field which doesn't have paper cup armour like the humvee or buggy and not as crap as whatever is used on the APCs that makes hitting anything so hard. Someone even created a model somewhere? I sort of like the wolverine but it's soo small and has no vantage height unless it was to grow and obviously doesn't suit Nod at all. And on a side note, I really dislike how crappy the Officer weapon has become in recent times because now even soldiers/flame throwers can seemingly take it on with ease and its fire is too precise now. It used to feel more like this, scanning for LCG.

I've only just started following this thread, but I voted for maps and team stacking. Maps: I get frustrated when we get marathon long games playing Field, Under, then voting Field-X and then occasionally we get Island and Walls, which I like, but there are so many maps that rarely get picked during public servers that it would be nice to play on more frequently. And I'm all for maps being hidden from the rotation for a number of rounds (for at least 5 rounds) before it can be selected again. Maybe an extra manual map vote option rather than just 'change map' might be a nice feature if not already present so people can deliberately call a vote for the desired map, but this still allows it to be hidden from the end game map choices which often get automatically voted for - often the newbies would like Ob/AGT base defences and also often nobody wants to scroll further down to see the other choices, which get missed. Too much Field/Under > maybe stick these maps at the bottom automatically. Single chokepoint maps still have the potential to become irritating if there's a base lock-in say Walls, Islands, Field, Under and it becomes a case of ensuring AFK repair/building barrage - how about a personal player cool down limit on repair guns (obviously far greater than the rep tool), a limit on how long a building can [sustain] being attacked before producing a small percentage loss on its permanent health i.e. not 100% effective all the time or maybe a cooldown limit on tank/artillery shells/missiles (up to 50 before they have to break off and cease firing for a short-moderate period) possibly similar to what happens to the LCG when it depletes its battery-magazine, but longer 'reloads' for tanks. Team stacking: is sometimes an issue, especially if one side has a capable commander and the other side doesn't. When this happens you quickly see the server numbers dwindle after a quick stomp round. First people leave due to early building kill and then people leave due to a dominated round loss and this is very often how a server ends for the evening from the euro time-zones. Excessively long games: Even with the veteran points system, I'm still finding certain maps can drag on for far too long when on a marathon, especially if both teams have lost a significant number of their structures and it becomes painful when even a rocket soldier costs $650 and trying to organise assaults around this. I'm not sure what the solution is, but often neither Surrender or Change Map is desirable in these situations as it invalidates the hard work everyone has put in, and everyone wants to see a clear winner. Maybe something to bring more urgency or closure? Something like a vote change for transitioning into Extra Time like football and then highest score maybe win again as per time-limited games or maybe some sort of penalties or incentives come into play like disabling building shields/armour so every shot becomes permanent damage or repairs lose 50% of their effectiveness. End game mode enabled. etc

Thanks for passing comment. I'm no fan of inf only games in Renegade, which is why I've not suggested it, but I'm aware of the Deck map. I was thinking team versus team without any sort of base destruction. CTF I see as the easiest to create and most viable new game mode without necessarily needing new maps, re-thinking everything or having to create loads of new assets, although I wouldn't mind of course if this did happen. I don't know much about the AI bots, but only hope they can improve. I'll wait to see what post Summer brings for any new updates or patches for the existing game.

Command & Conquer Mode forever only?

It would be nice to be able to sell a vehicle bought by mistake (even swop a character for free for that matter) or maybe auto-destruct your own tank if you wanted to exit and abandon it on the battlefield, might allow for some interesting strategies or decisions for infiltration. I'm coming round to the idea that being able to destroy another's tank might be bad, although I think people were taking it a bit too seriously and I wasn't envisioning 'arsehole commanders' abusing it, I imagine it wouldn't be used much even if it was allowed or implemented, but it's not popular, so maybe we can leave this now. Anyway, plenty of other ideas and suggestions offered or advocated for and so far I really like the sound of Squad groupings/assignments, Captain sub-roles, I mentioned vehicle management screen, there's already something, maybe a commander could input in a box how many of each he/she would like, as in preference but not forced - so as to avoid the everyone is in a mammoth tank problem. Different smoke and flares are just neat ideas if they have a valid purpose and add something. The suggestions are to either help with the management or make things more conducive to a team effort.

Yeah, well, meanwhile, a Commanders gotta do what commanders gotta do.

I like the squad's thing also, hope it isn't becoming too complicated. Some sort of flexible grouping system where people can drag their names into a list and then maybe a little number appears next to their name or the name changes colour for the rest of their team to see only. This is similar to group select you can do in the top-down strategy games and enables people to work together better. Yosh is always calling for his special-ops Delta squad, so maybe these names could be used. I get that being able to destroy a team members vehicle is controversial, but I think some people are being deliberately obtuse about the possible right or wrong use for something like this. It could be abused, but then everything can be abused and there are also existing ways to moderate, kick a player, vote out a bad commander. There are also going to be some instances where this would be fitting or desirable and like I said, communicating to someone was the first choice. And it's not about totally dictating another players style of play or choice of vehicle, or even spoiling their fun, but if they deliberately 'dick about' then I'd totally want to be able to auto-destruct it - that stank that won't get down from that wall, that afk chinook that is hanging above your base and at times that unwanted team vehicle whom isn't responding to team rushes and might cause the team to lose due to not following orders from their team commander. Maybe some sort of credit refund/recycle instead, but I feel this is digressing from the mutator discussion.

Well, you might politely say something in chat about it first not to be rude, but if they didn't respond, then I'd say Commanders word is final and hit the player ID destruct command if there is such a thing, it's not just about playing mindlessly, it's still a team game so they would need to listen and if this was the only way of freeing up a spot - say you're in a public game and you want a 3 APC rush but all the slots are taken and someone just bought an attack buggy or an MRL etc. There's room for abuse of course, but that's why there are moderators and team vote options. You could really fool or scare a team into thinking you were rushing and then not actually rush sometimes, it's possible it could be used to signal other things as well like simply group up at a said location, maybe a flare used in conjunction with waypoints or all three things combine into one single command like "Prepare to move in". I've not explored this in detail, but I know it would look good and it's a strong visual cue, where important chat messages sometimes get missed and don't always get read. A little bit off topic, back to sub-commanding...

Just ideas for alternative game modes beyond C&C mode. Battle Mode (team deathmatch) - no buildings, limited amount of starting vehicles or more via air drops, more open map designs, portable terminal block unit for selecting items and possibly limited times you can respawn and fixed silo credits. Last team standing wins. Quicker rounds. Capture the Flag - capture an enemy team's artefact (or flag), return it to your base to win, either once, or several times etc depending on how hard easy it is. Kill the person with the stolen item and recover it to instantly return it to your base. Turn off building destruction. I think this is probably the easiest new mode to implement and would be popular and receive more interest than just an infantry only team deathmatch. Team co-op challenge, Base Defense/Tower Defence - just like in the strategy games, an ever-increasing amount of enemy computer-controlled units spawn getting progressively stronger and more and more appearing after a certain time limit expires. Hold out against the last wave to win; or lose when they overrun and destroy your base. Defeat the early waves for earning distributable team credits to buy more powerful characters or tanks. Objective maps - defend the village/town/dam etc. Could be combined into Tower Defence game-mode above. Prevent too many civilian buildings being destroyed or too many dam nodes from being destroyed. A bit like the defend Dr Mobious in Tiberian Dawn missions. Defend your team's train or escort a special convoy a little similar to Overwatch I suppose. Missile Silo - capture and hold 2 or 3 locations on a map to launch an ICBM missile that totally wipes out the enemy base. Similar to EAs latest mobile game, but adapted to fit Renegade X. Add something like a military laptop that you capture or activate at each location. Special Weapons - allow a team to each capture a Tech Centre or retrieve sets of guarded plans during mid to late game and allow the team to construct something very powerful like the Marv or Redeemer seen in Kane's Wrath or something similar. Could either include special new maps, modified existing maps or simply different games rules to suit the game mode if people are willing and prepared to create new content. Feel free to add other ideas onto this thread or expand on an existing one, particularly if it's realistic and feasible to be created by the existing team and resources. A lot of these ideas come from the original strategy games and capture the flag is the one that's been used in many other games.

I like the idea of at least two people being able to access some of the command powers - presently there's an awkward way of temporarily transferring by calling a vote for a new person when say someone else is in position to launch an attack and the commander is sat in base strategising or seeing the bigger picture, whereas the new proposed way would mean it could be done more quickly and enable two people to share certain things. However, it would become irritating if someone else was simply able to use up all the CP for things like scanning or cruise missiles when the commander was saving it up for an important offensive attack later on. I would not be against two people having two different amounts of CP if one were used offensively and one was used defensively or for moderate support powers, or there was a main primary pool of available cp and then a smaller secondary one - for things like more frequent smoke or radar scans. I like the idea of some sort of vehicle management screen where it says something like "Medium Tanks (Required: 3 of 7) Can we give these people the ability to auto destruct none required vehicles? i.e. people taking up humvees or APCs at a bad moment in the game. Or maybe another waypoint that says something custom like Hotwire/Technician required (2 of 3) for field repairs at a given set waypoint. This (might) not be relevant, but it would be good to have some sort of commander approval rating so each commander can see how many of their team are on board and how many have some sort of grievance or criticism. I really don't like passive-aggressively voting out a commander half-way through a game simply because things aren't going perfect and someone else calls in a vote. This leads to fewer people wanting to command due to stress. Maybe this value or percentage can be stored as some sort of average and be used across different map games. This is just random, but I'd like to see a flare gun or coloured smoke being used by a commander as a more obvious signal to commence a rush or attack, rather than using c/ or "move out" radio command.

I've honestly never tried to shoot down a cruise missile, we don't get those game hint screen savers anymore. But by that logic, should we not also be able to target the AC130s or GDI strike plane with the rocket soldiers' launchers to prevent them from landing? Force the GDI planes to come in low and slow and the NOD plane should already be enough to target anyway. I should have said that cruises are OP used with beacons in the original post which is surely why airstrikes were prevented from being used to defend a beacon countdown. I don't have a problem with a commander being able to call in multiple cruise missiles into an enemy base to cause disruption and chaos, and it's quite a risky strategy, but certainly not directly on top of a beacon. I'd also add that most people don't think to go looking for a beacon with a railgun character and usually the beacon and missile strikes go down at a similar time, by the time the team has searched and reached the beacon with adv engineers they're usually then immediately hit with the first cruise missile explosion, and then any second wave of engineers is also hit by the second cruise. It was only by chance on a Walls game we still managed to disarm the beacon, but on a larger map like Outposts, it earned them building destruction. I would argue for the same time limit between calling for new missiles and the same unpermitted radius as an airstrike.