Tarvin

As an anti air turret I could see a rocket soldier's rocket launcher as a Rocket Turret. The turrets aren't mobile and don't have an extraordinary amount of health so they would be easy for decently strong vehicles, ie light tank and above, to take out. Rockets from this weapon are also far from a sure hit as I've seen people dodge them plenty of times. For turrets in general placement would have to be strategic because with light armor Havoc and Sakura could take them down without much difficulty at range. Looking back at previous posts removing headshot capability from the Gun Turret would probably be a must since it would have 2-3 times the power of an Automatic weapon. Although, also thinking about it further, a Gun Turret that uses a minigun model would look far cooler than multiple Automatic Rifles put together. It would already have about the right power level too if I'm not mistaken.

I think the most important thing that would keep them from throwing off balance would be that they could be limited by the server administrator. For smaller maps this would probably require the ability to limit turret populations by map and not just a blanket server setting. That way, on the small maps like Walls the limit could be something like 2 turrets while the large maps like Lakeside would have higher limits. My original thought is that they would have a different limit when it comes to health. Rather than being easily dodgeable would only have health about twice that of standard infantry but that might be slightly too low. I think it would be a rather simple task to put them into the game as much of what is needed except the model is already in the game in some way. The coding for the beacon being placed, the actual action of it, could be used to place the base of the turret (or the countdown could be increased and the build step could be skipped but I like the thought of enemies ambushing and finishing a turret as their own.). The AI already in the game could be inserted as is to handle shooting and such. The model from the weapons could just be inserted into the body of the turret which wouldn't be very complex. The range of weapons could just be decreased if they prove too powerful or damage balance too much reducing the tweaks needed to balance them into the existing game. Besides the body of the turret and the base the only new asset this may require is the build function that would cause the turret to 'appear' out of the base. It would essentially be the disarming function taken from beacons and triggering the actual turret to appear when the construction is finished. The only difficulty I can think of is determining which team a turret becomes active for if let's say, a GDI turret is finished by a Nod engineer or vise versa.

Good point on the possibly being OP. I forgot about what it was like when I was playing single player skirmishes. AI units are monsters when it comes to headshots. Bump the Gun Turret down to two maybe? They would still need to be a viable defense and so couldn't be nerfed too much. I like the limit on not being able to place them in buildings. I think the build and deploy times are still useful to dissuade building them in enemy bases though because if you're killed during deployment you loose the turret or the enemy has a chance to steal it by having one of their own engineers finish construction providing they aren't at their own turret limit. One other thought I just had is that turrets may not give anyone credit for kills. It would limit spamming of turrets possibly and keep deployment focused more on what would benefit the team the most as they would actually cost. Deconstructing may be something that's needed as well so they can be relocated away from destroyed structures to where they are needed most.

I thought of this the other day when playing on a map with no base defenses and was inspired to post them after seeing Riou Insuiko's topic, which everyone should also look at viewtopic.php?f=26&t=74711 The overarching description for them and how they work as is follows: A turret is purchased by an engineer as a secondary weapon. The engineer takes the turret and places the base at the desired location. The base has a countdown similar to beacon placements to increase deployment time and deter players from setting them up in enemy buildings. Once the base is placed the repair gun must be used to 'build' the turret and make it active, again, to increase deployment time and deter players from building them in enemy buildings. The turrets can be damaged and repaired just like players. They would essentially be AI infantry that are stationary but look like turrets in terms of function. They do have to reload when their clips are depleted but have infinite ammo. When destroyed turrets are simply gone and the destroyed turret would no longer count toward any limit allowing a new one to be purchased. I suggest a separate limit for turrets from the mine limit that can be set by server administrators in the way mine limits can be set. Turrets would have the same stealth detection capability as players and would only be able to fire on cloaked units when they are close enough for the shimmer to be seen. GDI & NOD: Gun Turret: It is essentially 3 automatic rifles put together and fires on any visible targets. This is the base turret and may be cheaper than the other variants. GDI: Grenade Turret: Just as the name suggests it's a deployable turret armed with the GDI grenade launcher for anti-vehicle capability but shorter range than the Gun Turret. NOD: Flame Turret: Deployable turret armed with the Nod Flamethrower for anti-vehicle and close quarters defense. The grenade launcher does have longer range but the Flame Turret has persistent damage as it fires constantly.

I would love to have a repair pad again. When everyone is frantically running around it can be a pain to get vehicles repaired in the bases. That would allow people to focus on rushing back into battle rather than spamming "I need repairs" because of the threat of SBH lurking nearby.

I do aim for the head. It's just my opinion that the automatic rifle seems underpowered as a classes primary weapon free or not. I get headshots using Gunner in close quarters so not sure what the issue is. In other people's experience how fast does the health of a free unit go down when hit in the head with the auto-rifle? I was shooting an engineer while taking the time to aim carefully for the head at moderate range but the pistol was still enough to kill me before the engineer's health went out.

Never even considered that it was the weapon having horrible damage that causes it to be outclassed by pistols which makes the soldier class seem entirely worthless. My assumption was that recoil was the reason why even careful aiming caused the damage to go down slower. I think that somewhat changes the purpose of the topic somewhat to increasing the power of the automatic rifle. Without that happening what's the point of even having a soldier class when engineers top them in firepower, have more offensive options in the way of Remote C4, and can repair players and vehicles. I still think that 3-round burst options on auto weaponry would be nice but there would have to be appreciable recoil for that to be beneficial for anything other than rationing ammo. That alone though might make it worth it in my opinion because of how easy it is to run out of ammo entirely just from one firefight.

A large part of it is the feel of it. Many modern shooters have the option to switch fire modes because people don't always think to fire in bursts when in the middle of a fight. Part of it is making the game more immersive by giving people another thing to focus on than point in general direction and empty clip. It would also make clips last longer for players that want to ration their ammo and stay in the field longer.

After being in several matches I started to realize something. I have been killed in a fight against 2 or more engineers using pistols while I'm unloading clip after clip of full-auto. That reminded me of some sayings that the military has about fully-automatic weaponry. "Accuracy by volume" and "Spray and pray". I think the game would be both more realistic and balanced if toggled fire modes could be included into automatic weaponry. Not only is fully automatic fire inaccurate many military weapons don't even have the option on their rifles to force their soldiers to do something called aiming. The balance would come from increased lethality of rifles due to decreased recoil impact over standard pistols which should be the case anyhow. The three fire modes for rifles would be single, 3-round burst, and fully "hope to hit something" auto.

The other day I came across a ft rush just leaving the Nod base. I ate one down to half health and did decent damage to three others before they moved around a corner. It didn't take long to achieve this. Gunner has the range to keep far enough back to where he's hard to hit while still dealing damage. This was while I was on the offensive and tearing into tanks and arties still sitting on the airstrip. Later in that same match I was going around as Sydney and was easily dealing substantial damage to vehicles while dodging around features on the island map. I think only one of the times that I went out and wrecked havoc on their tanks was it a tank that killed me. Even then that was because of splash damage. It's only because I can kill enemy infantry easier that I went back to Gunner instead of Sydney for tank killing. When the focus of a map becomes tank on tank I've seen long stretches of battles go on without APCs going about. The changes you suggest about splash and nerfing tanks would force people to try to coordinate enough to keep an APC covering each area a tank battle is going on or infantry would tear everything apart. Even then not even an APC, or other anti-infantry focused vehicles can last well when ambushed by more than one anti-tank infantry which would leave vehicles helpless.

Just curious and want to dissect your opinion more Clash. Given the system I described where do you think the potential issues would be? I'm not beyond the notion that my idea could use improvement and listening to people that disagree is often the best way to figure out how things can be improved.

I think it would be a mistake to nerf vehicles vs. infantry. The reason being is that anti-vehicle infantry can make use of terrain and tear apart an unsupported tank without help from anyone else. In a one on one match there is also a definite and regular pause between every shot so in a one on one battle infantry can gauge when it is safe to dodge out of cover and shoot. The power of a tank vs. infantry is the only thing that keeps it from being an absolute slaughter.

Having a "First Time Played?" prompt at the start of levels would be good. If the answer is yes then a new player could hit F1 to accept the prompt and begin the tutorial. If not they could ignore the prompt and let it time out or hit F2 to close it out.

Mandatory tutorials are the worst. It makes the assumption that everyone has no idea what they are doing and cannot be skipped if players are already familiar with the game. I hate having to sit through them each time I reinstall an old game even though I still remember how to play.

One thing that could be done is that the purchase window could be made larger. All the infantry weapons and characters have stats shown on what they are good or weak against but the text is too small to be legible. If this one screen were enlarged it would take care of a good amount of the tutorial work right there.

Yes, I do play the original Renegade and was just playing through the single player campaign before leaping into RenegadeX just for the fun of it. Anyway, a lot has already been added to the game and changed from what Renegade was. There are new weapons, alternate secondary weapons, and more. At the same time there is a limit to how many weapons a person can carry unlike in Renegade where on some servers you could collect a full arsenal. I am a game designer. I look for new ways to do things to give people fresh experiences. If something doesn't work out then it would be removed to regain the balance that was lost. If it works then everyone has a more entertaining experience and the game is better for it. There is one misconception. Knifes would not be instant kill weapons. They would deal set damage depending on where they hit and perhaps have a slight bleeding mechanic. Knife fighting would have several important balancing factors. 1. Knives would not be instakill. It would be more like Halo where you have to attack someone multiple times to kill something. The important difference is that back attacks would NOT be instakill. 2. SBH knives would be smaller and less powerful 3. When SBH melee they would deal bonus damage to back attacks but still not instakill giving defending players the chance to respond. 4. SBH melee would cause them to partially decloke to the full glimmer just before they would fade from sight. They would recloak quicker but would be plainly visible to everyone during this time. 5. Melee attackers would block both other players trying to melee and direct gunfire causing players to limit knife combat to close quarters like attacking beacon defenders or people in close quarters. Also, MusicNote mentioned some very interesting things I hadn't considered. If you attack someone from behind there could be a push effect. This effect would probably be lessened for SBH vs other characters to keep them from being overpowered.

Overcharge wouldn't be good for the weapons like Chainguns because the ammo clip is already so small. If the ammo clip were higher, like 500 for the regular chaingun,I could understand overheat. As it is now they are already balanced. The most important distinction is unlike someone on repair duty people playing officers would be actively participating in combat. I can see it being added if the entirety of their ammo capacity were placed into a single clip and reload was removed from the picture. The only secondary option I can think of is an auto-spin up where the gun is kept spinning to eliminate the initial waiting period before you can shoot again which I do find annoying when in the middle of a fight. The chaingun can have plenty ammo in the clip but if you let off firing to conserve ammo you have to wait before you can shoot again. That would have to be balanced by adding the overheat mechanic. Keeping a gun on rotate mode would keep the guns heated up a bit before the player even fires decreasing how long players can stay in the fight before falling back. As for the issue of estimating how many will be needed for base repair duty I don't think that will be an issue. After people have enough experience the effect of overcharge would be factored into people's repair need estimations. Maybe something like just having 4 repair spam vs. 5 which would free people to go elsewhere.

I went to the main menu screen and just left it while I went elsewhere rather than exit out of the game entirely. About 10-15 minutes later the game had launched on its own. I don't know how it happened and didn't take the time to investigate. I just closed out of the match as soon as I saw what happened. I went AFK on the main menu screen a second time and when I returned I was again fulfilling the important role of making sure a wall would not try to escape.

Do you mean that a spectator mode is already in the works then?

Ah. I mainly play RenegadeX in a first person view so I tend to consider things from that perspective but that is something I hadn't thought of. Third-Person view would provide warning to show a glimmer coming up behind you to allow for a reaction. Though, for a SBH to sneak up behind someone it may require their target to be standing still. Also, a balance to keep SBH with melee from being OP, a weaker melee weapon. I think it wouldn't be out of place to suspect they would be equipped with smaller low profile knife for cloaking reasons. So while they have the advantage of stealth, they wouldn't be wise to bring it out except in a desperate situation unless attacking someone standing by themselves. I can see them being a given a damage boost when stabbing someone in the back though but that would only be good for one swipe before the target brings their own knife around so the first strike had better count. Audible footsteps would still be a good addition to the game and add a touch of realism in my opinion. They would also be a good warning system for players that prefer first person view. The only thing I'm torn on is whether a SBH would fully decloak when doing a melee attack. I'm of the opinion that it should only halfway undo the cloak so they can become hidden more quickly after an ambush attack. Though if they are uncloaked already after shooting a gun using a knife would prevent them from recloaking.

Hm. I'll consider that but the team we were against thought only of beacon placements. It's a shame some of those were in walls.

The liklihood of multiple SBH's moving in is low so I only put a total of 4 mines out at a time when Nod was going beacon crazy. It seemed like there was one being placed every two minutes or so in the same spots each time.

I have thought about the issues with them having melee weapons. The addition of an additional mechanic to the game would help with that and could be universally applied to all characters. Footstep sound effects. I haven't paid too much attention to this detail when playing but I don't believe RenegadeX has them. Being able to hear footsteps of other nearby players, the volume would depend on the distance, would give fair warning of SBH units approaching and keep base defenders on their toes. It would be like the audio counterpart to the glimmer of cloaked NOD units. On that note, the same thing could be applied to vehicles if it isn't there already. Imagine you are an infantry unit in the field and hear the muffled sound of an engine and tires coming up behind you. Could it inspire paranoia? Probably, but it would be epic. The only hitch is that if you are driving a vehicle the sounds of footsteps and other vehicles would be greatly diminished because you would already be in a vehicle making its own noise.

There are two particular times that I think Melee would be appreciated. Tight corridors where people are typically dancing around each other while emptying clip after clip at walls. Those dance-offs can get a bit dull and comes down to who will run out of ammo or get backup first sometimes. The other time is fighting beacon defenders and would help GDI in one important area they lack. They have no free units like the flamethrower infantry that can just sweep back and forth to deal with entrenched units. Melee weapons like knives would be very short range, obviously, but would give GDI players to either broad seeping attacks or quick stabs that are easier to make contact with. There is a natural balance to keep this from being an issue already. Collision between players and being unable to shoot through other friendly units. This would prevent beacon defenders from being completely overwhelmed and force them to employ more clever tactics than 'stand on beacon and hold off engineers armed only with plinking pistols." On the same note SBH having knives to fight back with would make for more intense moments than "stand there and shoot at people from a corner". In effect, it would require a Nod to employ more team tactics rather than rely on pure lone wolf efforts to turn the tide of a battle. Things like two SBH defending a beacon from ambush points after placing timed C4 nearby to take out the disarming squad would be inspired and I think the game would be better for it. As for potential depth, I would argue who out there would toss out melee in games like Halo, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Fallout, Metro: First Light, Gears of War or any other modern first person shooter for not providing depth? In each of those games people revel in or feel a certain sense of satisfaction at successfully killing opponents in melee combat because it presents more of a challenge than simply unloading a clip that could be heard by other players. It's something that you will find video after video about for different games showcasing someone ability to either own or be owned in. I think where the disconnect is with the thought of melee in Renegade is that the game essentially predates the modern age of first person shooters before things like melee combat, recoil, and other elements were tested and accepted. The reason why some people would probably be unsure about the thought is because melee combat wasn't in Renegade and is something different. My argument is that being able to switch out secondary weapon load outs, grenades, a second type of pistol, airstrike, and other things were never in the Renegade but would most argue those things should be taken out of RenegadeX because of it? More and more RenegadeX is stepping out of the shadow of Renegade and becoming something in it's own right. Why should it be limited before something is even tested?

I did see a chat notice when I was playing on one server. A team chat message declared that such and such player was overmining at the barracks. So long as it isn't anything automated that might kick people for doing what they're supposed to for base defense or such I have no issues with reporting. It was annoying for them to do that. I laid down mines to protect common beacon placement points like between the refinery and its silo. Not long after they were gone.