OTT
-
Posts
113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Downloads
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by OTT
-
-
14 hours ago, Madkill40 said:
There's definitely enough active users to fill two servers around most times these days, it's only not seen because players aren't motivated enough to try - and when attempts are made its usually done in bad faith. (i.e. Pilfering players off an active server by shit-talking another server)
I honestly wouldn't mind a 40 slot and a 64 slot, with the idea that both can be filled up.
Users just have to try harder and for longer than a mere week to fill two at once otherwise RenX is going to struggle to break out of this never-ending 1-server-at-a-time.
Less negativity would go a long way.
Not sure why users are praising 'Backfromhell's earlier comment that essentially shits on changes made to prevent stalemates (i.e. Commander mod) - We even tried having a 40 slot and 64 slot server simultaneously running once before, but there wasn't enough motivation behind both being filled and users tended to fill the 64 slot over the 40 slot server.
Again, it's not impossible, there just needs to be more drive from players to fill servers instead of just one server. Use bots to pass the time, encourage others not in-game to join lower pop servers, take advantage of being able to play on smaller and more unplayed maps with low-pop.
The advantage about more than one server going at a time is if you don't want to play on a certain map, instead of "Change map" votes, you can just hop to the other server [provided its on a different map than the current server]
All past attempts to have both options in the server list (64 and 40 player limit) have resulted in people ending up on the 64 player server eventually.In my opinon,one of the main reasons why these attempts failed is that maps weren't split too,we need to only have earlier RenX maps on the 40 players server(Walls,Islands,field,Xmountain etc..),since they were made from the begining for the 40~ player limit,and the 64 limit servers should only have newer maps that were made huge enough to hold 64 players(Field X,Outposts .. also lakeside being an exception from the earlier maps).
While I'm pretty sure the 64 limit server is still guaranteed to fill up,the fact that people will not able to play some of their favorite maps on this server could give a handful of them an incentive to join the 40 limit server.
This could be discussed more among server owners,it's worth a try I guess,40 players playing on Outposts might be little bit playable,the same can't be said about 64 players playing Islands.
-
1
-
-
Haven't played the game for a while,quite busy irl,and I'm also waiting for the DDoSer to get bored(yet again) before playing again,
Anyways,
For those looking for a more serious/competitive gameplay(I do sometimes),the PUG is obviously the better choice here(no shit),the last few times I played,it was more balanced than it ever was before thanks to the commendable efforts of the organizers.My main issue with it is that teams already know which faction they'll be next map,so when they lose,they try to vote a map that favors their faction,and that kinda defeats the purpose of balance if you ask me.That's how things were when I last played pugs,not sure if it changed now.
However,I still prefer Public games,while balance(stacked teams) and player attitude can be an issue,there is still more chance there for random and funny stuff/dialogue to happen,more chance for epic comebacks,as the team composition changes often during matches.I chill 90% of the time when it comes to games(my life is already "competitive" enough),and public games offer that without much stress,as you can join and leave whenever you need to.
Cheers!
-
1
-
3
-
-
-
Good for you guys in NA,I'm happy for you.It's always good to have more than one choice of a server or game mode.(there is hope for an AOW server to get popular again,me wish)
8 hours ago, isupreme said:BUT the time delay! I could Never be a good sniper
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, daOpa said:
How do you get in the spectator mode? The top down view looks sick!!
Recorded Demos,you can ask server owners for them.
This tutorial will teach you how to view them and everything you need,
-
Some sick late night games lately,a lot thanks to some players with the "Never give up attitude"
A Desolation match that was ended with a 5 Rocket Soldiers rush from Nod (Nod only had Power Plant and Obelisk,while only bar was destroyed for GDI)
Sorry for the "not so good" Camera work
-
5
-
-
Interesting
If this is still going,I can help,but my language is written from right to left unlike the translations that have been done so far,I'll try to translate it anyway.
-
1
-
-
skip to 0:59 if you already know about clapping
-
1
-
-
-
This mode is fresh,and is not yet in the base game,it's better imho to keep teams symmetrical until it makes it into the base game,and people try it many times on the public servers and in organized matches,we'll see how it actually plays whether in pugs or pubs,it will get far more feedback that way,and then you can decide whether to make changes to teams or not.
QuoteThe primary draw of this game mode for me was symmetrical teams - everything focused on the teams and strategies, not units. I can just play regular RenX for proper asymmetry. Wouldn't mind additions provided they're added to both teams.
^ pretty much
Personally,I'd rather teams stay 100% identical,no need for changes or to balance anything.I always thought that the major point of Nod vs Nod mode was to have teams symmetrical ( also the fact that both set of players gets to be the cooler faction
)
-
I'm very much with this
I'm neither EU nor US but still closer to EU region,and I'll suffer from worse ping than most EU players when switching to a US server,but still I don't mind 200+ pings if it means more players will get decent ping. Imo it's only fair to switch to a US server when more players than not are NA.
and hopefully this will prolong server active hours per day
-
1
-
-
-
19 hours ago, DoctorB0NG said:
I appreciate the kind words from @MintLemonade but nobody is perfect and I used to have quite the toxic side as well in the community. FPI (the artist formerly known as EKT) and I have definitely had a rough patch in the past and most of it was my fault unfortunately. Renegade-X has a very unique community and I had found that investing too much time had caused me to get very burnt out and get frustrated at things that I really should not have been.
I was originally of the opinion that team switching should be allowed so that friends can play together but I've now been swayed and agree that even just a small group of veteran players can dictate the entire outcome of a game. I understand what FPI is trying to accomplish and I can see why it has caused a rift in the community. Even with disabling team switching though, there are clever ways to still manage to end up on the same team and even without players switching, teams can end up lopsided.
I don't really have any suggestions for how to fix the team stacking issue but if I could offer one piece of advice it would be this: If you're getting burnt out and frustrated with Renegade-X, take a bit of time off and come back with a fresh outlook. It really can make a big difference.
PS: I'd also like to formally apologize to @Goku , @Skeeze , @ObeliskTheTormentor and many others from EKT/TmX back in the day. I was very burnt out and it had a toxic effect on the community.
I wish you all the best of luck!
Respect
When it came to toxicity back then,I probably gave as much as I got or maybe worse,so on my end I'd like to apologize to you and the ex-TmX members back then whom I was at times very nasty with.I appreciate your comment and
9 hours ago, Goku said:hope we can all work towards a better Renegade for everyone and get some more fresh meat to boink.
it's hard to cooperate with others when some people already perceive as trouble or a rogue one (talking about myself and others).
Personally,even the people I hated so much in the past,I had zero doubt that these people care about the game/community,I always thought people had different views on how to improve this game and community(egos clash though),I hope this continues to be the case in the future.
Sorry for off-topic ..
-- I voted team stacking,as someone who did it in the past when we used to use TS3,I can see how destructive it can be,while I and my friends used to have fun,the other team was just being destroyed over and over every map,and many players tried to switch to the team we stacked in to taste a win if their luck threw them on the other team,which also imbalanced the teams even more,also some of those who failed to switch just left the server killing it eventually.I understand why they leave,from my humble experience in gaming,being on the losing team in a RenX game can be one of the worst feelings in any game,zero fun,it's unbearable at times.
At times when we had 10 or more people on ts3,we used to switch channels based on how the server shuffled us,was good times,but I think the issue is a little different right now.
While I don't have realistic solutions to propose for this issue right now,I think looking at the consequences of preventing teamstacking and the consequences of allowing it,I can safely say that the latter causes the game/community more damage (<<< my opinion)
-- Another issue is player limits(the reason I rarely play right now),most maps weren't made for 64 players,as people already acknowledge,not to mentions lag and fps issues for a lot of people,I already talked about that in many other topics,so not gonna talk much about it,while I'm very biased when it comes to this issue/topic,I can still understand why servers' player limit was increased,and understand why some people prefer 64 player limits over 40 (especially in public games),both sides have very valid points in this issue,this is a tougher issue to handle because of the limited number of players this game has.
My humble proposition would be "trials",for a week or so,all servers should be set to 40 limit,and efforts by the community should be made to try and fill 2 servers,and see how it goes,after that make another trial by setting the server limit to 50 players,and see whichever ends up with better results.
I don't think this proposition or any other solution should be forced on server owners,it should all be a consensus between Devs/Com Devs themselves and between Devs and server owners and players too(I know I'm asking for too much).This should also apply for several other issues (how many times did I say the word "issue" now ?)
See ya all on the battlefield,
Peace!
-
5
-
-
-
👍
I'll have more free time from next week and on,would be cool to have a chance to play some few 40 > competitive games,especially after a certain event failed.Public games or Saturday pug are not an option for me.
Maybe try something new with the Sunday pug from time to time,also depending on the number of people who show up,like
-playing a mini deathmatch tournament (2 vs 2) in a cup format (few would like this idea probably).
-play on an aow server,when the time limit ends,all the players of the team with higher score go Heroic.
-play matches with new objectives for each team,the team that achieves all their objectives wins,or whichever team finishes their objectives first wins (objectives like finishing the enemy team with a certain rush,or destroying a certain building only with ion/nuke etc ...).
That's all that comes to my mind right now,but yeah,the point is New Ideas
-
I like the idea.
The worst stalemates I've been part of were when both teams had no ref,might not happen often,but it still does,game would easily go above 2 hours.
Decreasing Harvester payload while increasing credit tickrate to 3 sounds like a good idea,as for the dead ref tickrate,maybe make it 1.5 when the map has a silo and 2 when it doesn't.
50 minutes ago, boxes said: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.
Even if the credit income ended up being slightly higher,it would still be better,imho more money for both teams = more progress than when both teams don't have money,that is the case more often than not.
I like it when new ideas get tested out in game,how else would you know how they turn out,test them for 1-3 weeks,a lot of ideas might seem weird in theory,but when tried out in game,you'd see their effects more clearly.
-
played the C&C Renegade campaign in 2003,and a few "multiplayer practice" matches,really fell in love with the game back then,always wanted to play it multiplayer online but it wasn't possible because we had no internet.Googled C&C Renegade (after I finally had internet) several times,was surprised why such a good game never got a sequel,the last time I googled was a few weeks before RenX was released,downloaded it on launch,but it never worked on my laptop(all kind of errors) until after a few days of beta 2 release when I finally fixed it(so I missed the hundreds of players being online).When it first worked,I was living the dream,played a skirmish match,then went multiplayer,graphics were on ultra,fps was a stable 10,but I didn't care,I just wanted to play,didn't even bother to check the settings,died 85 times in my first marathon match,barely got 3 kills,still was enjoying it,happiest 85 deaths I died in any game
I will like and play this game no matter how much it changes,whether I like these changes or not,until it dies,or I do.I met so many cool people thanks to this game,made a lot of memories,these are fond memories I will keep with with me forever.Love you all,no exceptions
and sorry I strayed a little off topic
-
2
-
1
-
-
I'm up for seeding another server (preferably an AOW server
)
-
It's bearable up to 40,the higher it gets from there,the more cancerous it is,with the exception of the few large maps available.
-
2
-
-
Depending on the number of players,Field is actually a good map,most of the current maps are a clusterfuck with 64 players,imho Field X could use a redesign,even if it had to become a largely different map than field.
Some maps like field,that drag on for too long on marathon servers,are better off being AOW maps (timed matches),I don't know if such a thing is even possible,having some certain maps being timed on a marathon server,would be cool to have the possibility to win by high score once every 4-5 matches(and not boring people to death on one map),seeing as Timed match servers are dead right now,though I can understand people not liking that with the game being all about destroying the enemy base. -
7 hours ago, Radeon3 said:
If my memory serves B4 was released with an updated UDK. With plenty of new nice features a few unwanted introduced as well. One of these were chromatic abberation and the stylish vignette effect. I remember people couldn’t define what really changed with the image quality back then. Nowadays probably many got used to it even if it’s not desirable and that’s not just a subjective matter.
The problem is that you can’t remove these by disabling the post process' not that you want to disable all PP just to get rid of these. Could you guys hook into the PostProcess node and make them toggleable? Or remove it altogether as it impacts the perfomance around 5-10% depending on your video card. More FPS is always welcomed.
-
would have had a longer list if I haven't changed my laptop 2 years ago
-
1
-
-
saw a similar post somewhere like 4 years ago and this was my result back then
I'm falling it seems
-
Squad Wars Round 4:
M A N T A N K S vs ChemAddicts
--Match Date/Time: TBA
--Server: Squad Wars server
--Banned maps: TBA
Which playstyle do you play and enjoy?
in Renegade X
Posted
Eventually we'll have to stop pretending there are enough players to fill 2 servers with 64 player limit right now and in the near future,that might only happen during Saturday/Sunday pugs for obvious reasons,not sure if the new launcher will change that,but we the community have to find our own solutions for now.
A similar discussion was opened 2-3 years,and many agreed that it wouldn't hurt to give the 40 limit a trial again,to make it possible for more than 1 server to fill,and for better gameplay on smaller maps,so active servers were set to 40 limit,just 1 person refused to compromise and stuck with 64 limit,and the trial failed obviously.
I know many people have already said this many times,but let me say it 1 last time(from me at least),with the engine at its limit,64 player limit increases vehicle lag,net lag,and of course ruins the gameplay of maps that weren't made for that number of players.
Well since YOU brought FPI and CT into this,with all due respect,from my experience that is sadly not the case,no server owners care about filling another server,we can all encourage players to fill another server and many do actually,but that will be just talk,we need actions,actions from the community all together,we need server owners to be willing to compromise.
Sorry,but when you say CT,who exactly do you mean ? the owner ? the admins ? the moderators ? or some people who hang around there and only play on CT RenX server and only join FPI or other servers to complain about lag and tell other people to leave current server and join CT instead,even if neither servers are lagging or both are actually lagging,and when they find no issues,they invent ones.So you bring that one time issue you had on FPI,but I don't see you commenting about that or the many issues people had with stacking players ruining public games on CT.Funny thing is FPI admins,since it's birth,had tried their best to prevent team stacking,but they got backclash instead,because they trying to "prevent people from playing with their friends" as if stacking both in game and discord voice is the only way to play and have fun with your friends.We used to do that in the past,but when the game put us on different factions,we actually switched voice channels too(not left and rejoined repeatedly ingame until we are with our friends),and it was still fun.
My friend,if you bring me one issue you had on one server,I could bring worse issues I had with another,this particular issue doesn't have much effect on filling 2 servers,since you need to fill the first server anyway before trying to fill another.People trying to fill another server when the first one isn't full yet has always ended up in failure,patience being the main reason.This isn't what where're discussing here,this isn't about FPI or CT,the universe doesn't revolve around that,most of the players aren't affiliated with neither or don't care at all,they just want to join a server with players and have fun.
We all know there are issues with the player base's attitude,but we can't expect the average player to fix it,this is something for the server owners to work together to fix.Not sure why some people are afraid of experimenting,this player base is persistent,drama didn't kill it,the DDoSer didn't kill it,and surely a few trials won't.
Anyway,this is going nowhere,and never will most likely,but I want to tell myself that I tried.
My dude @Snow. forgive me if I went off Topic,I tried to abbreviate
Farewell everyone