Riou Insuiko

Poi occasionally changes his name here or there so it might be him. If it is, it's not surprising. Maybe someone with access to the logs can confirm or deny it.

I'm a middle of the road commander at best but I have some tips from my experience doing it. One tip I can offer is, outside of very coordinated efforts, it's not worth buffing a rush before veteran or better rank. Too many times I've seen teams where a commander tries to get a rocket rush going too early in the match before people have even earned any VP. There's such a huge chance of failure it's not really worth trying unless you are seriously getting 12+ people and the other team isn't bothering to defend or repair. Occasionally you'll have successful officer rushes or rushes in general that will infiltrate a building right at the start of a match but those are very rare, especially in random matches. Being too eager to try the same thing over and over again is another. Where a Doza rush doesn't work so as soon as the commander has CP for another one they'll try again regardless of how successful the first attempt was. If you got a building into the red but failed to kill it the first time, maybe it's worth a shot, but assuming that the opposing team will never see another rush against the same target coming is a bit of a stretch. Constantly going for the same target over and over can be a mistake. Sort of in response to what has been said here about being decisive and really taking command, it should be made clear that being decisive is not the same thing as ignoring what the rest of your team says/thinks and just following through with your exact plan. Sometimes it's worth changing plans depending on the battlefield situation. If you're prepping a Gunner rush on something like Walls to fly to the plateau but your team informs you that the side path allowing you to hit the Hand of Nod has nobody on it and is basically free it's worth at least considering that as a change of plans. Finally.. don't camp the CP cap at any point in time. I see this too often.

Bowl might be more a more fitting name to call it. I don't think the game focuses super heavily on realism. Obviously not. When I say realism I more mean that it is a convincing setting for a battle. Background scenery makes a pretty big difference in my opinion. Even if clearly the battlefield is one giant arena when you have things to look at and 'ways out' of the battlefield, to me anyway, makes a much more engaging setting. In some ways it absolutely detracts from the gameplay experience when it's done poorly. You shouldn't be able to parkour in and out of the battlefield constantly avoiding a timer to get to some otherwise unreachable place. Nor should something that looks like it would be reasonably useful be a lure for people to get the warning countdown. In a sense, it should be clear and obvious when you are leaving the battlefield. Not sort of a guessing game as to when it's going to happen while skirting the edge of a map.

If nothing else I think they should do more damage to infantry.

Med center I mean. Doh'

I think it would be interesting if each vehicle path was more advantageous to one side. Maybe have the back path heading to the hon/bar be wide open for GDI tanks to dominate as it is now. The opposing vehicle path near the medical center could have more cover better suited for Nod. I'd even go so far as to say that I think there should be a one sided ramp starting right at the exit to the Nod base, med center side, that has a dropoff somewhere near the middle of that area. This could serve as a legitimate aid to flame tanks & stealth tanks, allowing them to get about half way through the field without being easily targeted by GDI. Of course you might want to set this up in such a way as to avoid having a difficult to hit spot for artillery to camp. I've seen GDI win pretty much every time as well. Not sure if my experience or your 6 map experience combined is enough to say that a balance change is needed, but it's something worth discussing.

1) Lakeside 2) Field X 3) Reservoir 4) Islands 5) Eyes

We just disagree then. I would be in favor of making secondary weapons slightly cheaper, something like airstrikes for 500, if there were a structure on death that increased the cost to 1000. Without that I think that the price of secondary items should be high. From my point of view if mines need to be changed to accommodate new players, if they just can't learn on their own, then limiting them to buildings is essential.

Send em on over.

I disagree. I think they should be intentionally expensive by design. Both in credit cost and functionality. The broad idea being that it should be much harder overall to place mines in other locations but you have the option to do so if you have the credits. The scenario where 1,000 credits for 3 is fair is when you are playing a defensive role. It's easy to justify the 1,000 credits for extra mines if you are otherwise repairing a building for example or scouting for intruders. The personal mines in general would be an additional defensive measure against sneaking or rushes that would be running into buildings. They would not be designed to act as a 'tripwire' to alert you of an intruder. Thus they would not be added to the mine count/total. In the same way that tank mines are absent. They would still make the same noise on explosion or disarming, so you'd be able to hear that. The problem with having personal mines sticking around even after death or being cheap is that when you are dominating offensively the other team will have a much, much harder time trying to do infantry rushes or sneaking if the mines stick around forever. When there is no risk of you running out of money and you have the other team locked into their base it'll quickly become a normal strategy to cement that victory by having all of your players purchase and place extra mines in an attempt to completely prevent your base locked opponent from pushing out using infantry. The idea behind them disappearing on death is so that it won't be practical for you to constantly be replenishing them if you are playing an infantry role and have a decent chance of dying. You make up a good point that they should be visually distinct. That's something I didn't mention but should be included. Something a bit more than a palate swap might be ideal but maybe you can get away with just changing the colors around a little & the name.

This. The most likely alternative is to start arguing in the middle of a match. !noob is just enough of a dig at someone to act as a vent for frustration. Even if the counts don't actually mean anything.

Mines have been a hot topic since the release of the latest patch. I've got some suggestions regarding this. These suggestions would require maps to individually be tailored to the change. First is a classification/distinction between mines: Base mines and personal mines. Mine limits on all maps should be reverted/changed to a maximum equivalent of 3 mines per door. Only within the buildings of your base will you be allowed to place base mines. Base mines behave as mines did previously and do not disappear on death. This change will make it impossible for Hotwire/Technician mines to be placed outside of buildings. Personal mines will be able to be purchased as additional equipment and take up the secondary equipment slot in your inventory. For example you won't be able to take mines & a superweapon beacon. One or the other. These mines can be placed anywhere. Personal mines will have 75% the strength of standard mines, disappear on death, and cost 1,000 credits for a 3 pack. 3 being your personal mine limit. These mines should also have less health, in line with their strength, I'd say that they should have 25% less health than base mines making disarming them quicker and easier. Also faster with EMP weapons than standard base mines. Interested in hearing feedback regarding this idea.

Well they can serve as very temporary escape points. If for example you are a stealth black hand you can potentially exit the designated play area temporarily and repeatedly to avoid detection from players traversing the normal path. There are also aesthetic reasons for being able to exit the battlefield or to have an ability to do so. The alternative is would be either visible objects blocking your path, such as rocks, barbed wire, etc. Or you can have invisible walls. Invisible walls are inherently bad game design for a variety of reasons. In my opinion they should be avoided in nearly every case. So you're left with visible objects blocking your path. When every "path" outside of the battlefield is blocked off it basically turns the battlefield into one giant tunnel. It detracts even further from any semblance of 'realism' in a battlefield. It's kind of a cliche for every exit to be blocked.

Nod vs Nod can be decent fun once in a while. For me personally I find myself wishing that we were playing GDI vs Nod ~90% of the time when a Nod vs Nod map is voted in. Often times I end up dropping from the match when it gets voted in. Part of what I like about Renegade X in general is that the different teams have different strategies. In some ways I think Nod vs Nod needs to be quite different from the traditional format of the games to be more engaging. I think map changes can contribute heavily to this. It would be interesting if on Nod vs Nod Walls you could have the side ramps on either wall be replaced by powered gates, like the ones seen on Storm for the harvester. Having those gates no longer be functional and drop down (allowing 2 more potential openings for tanks or infantry to enter the base) if your team's power plant was destroyed would make protecting the PP much more important on that map and also allow for faster games or alternate strategies when rushing with stealth tanks for example. Things like potentially disallowing proximity mines to be placed or particular units to be disallowed during the match might also add some change of strategy. No stealth black hand for example. Or maybe we have a map without access to artillery or snipers. Maybe even maps where flame tanks are just as powerful as normal but cost half as much as usual. It would lead to a more interesting dynamic on the battlefield. One obvious problem with changes like infantry choices being limited on particular maps is that it creates an inconsistency that is hard to understand. Especially for new players who might not fully grasp each unit's potential or why they might be removed. Why certain maps have certain features added or removed, etc. So I think changes would ideally be universal across the mode but I can't help but feel that individual/unique map changes would also spice things up quite a bit. Above all else the mode just seems like a novelty to try once in a while. I think the work that was put into the mode is worthwhile. I'd just like to see some changes to make it a bit more interesting.

Recently in an update the regular GDI vs Nod map of Under GDI was given a sniping platform to match that of Nods. When playing the newly released version of Nod vs. Nod Blackhand I noticed that the sniping platform was absent on the Black Hand side. Is this intentional or something that was overlooked? I haven't had a chance to play GDI vs Nod on Under since the update so I've been unable to see if that was changed.

Manually as if they were your own mines? I don't remember that working. For me it also makes sense that you should be able to remove mines placed on buildings too. Such as mines placed on pp/wf/strip/ref ramps and things like that. At that point I suppose you could just remove all of that building's mines but manual adjustment seems like an added bonus. Maybe I'm misremembering but honestly I really don't remember being able to remove mines that I didn't place manually. Maybe I'm misremembering?

It's been an issue for a long time that's for sure. I'm sure that I'm not even 100% knowledgeable about what maps have jump skips for things like the barracks sandbags and which don't. Basically when you can use 3 mines at the bags instead of 3 at each door. I'm not too sure about the suggestion of automatically mining doors. I like the idea of being able to potentially take out a teams infantry structure and killing all of their hotties/techs effectively locking them out of mined buildings for the rest of the game. To some degree there is an element of strategy around where the mines can afford to be placed. It's possible that you'll want one extra mine at one door instead of another. Stuff like that. It's really a shame that placing mines can be so impactful. Such that new players run the risk of getting yelled at if they place them 'incorrectly'. Some newb can place 6 mines in a tunnel and think they're making a good play but at the same time leave a building wide open for a spy to just walk on in. I'm guilty of getting frustrated and commenting about it here and there. Mainly when it happens constantly. Currently these days when I join a server for the first match of the day I end up having to re-mine the entire base maybe 7/10 times because some people only place 2 mines at each door, too many at the field, in wrong places, etc. In some ways I like that the commander has some extra responsibilities and don't personally mind having to, well, manage the team. Stuff like having additional control over the mines isn't a huge deal to me, but I can see why it might be a bit daunting especially for a new player to try for the first time. I'll have to agree with you though that the commander role currently has a bit of work to do beyond just buffing and sending out spy planes, it can be argued how good or bad that is. In any case, maybe it's possible to highlight mines on the map menu? Your teams, I mean. In that case you could see at a glance if there were rogue mines placed in random spots if the count was in question. I don't know if the maps are high enough resolution to really put that much information on there though.

Just a bit of a suggestion with the influx of new players in the game. Proximity mining has been a bit of an issue that I've noticed, exclusively from 'new' players, in recent weeks. The main issue is that, despite the personalized warning when you are overmining (the buzzer+message), people still do not understand what is happening. Compounding this problem, I don't think there's adequate warning to the rest of the team that this is happening. The over-mining message is minimal and can be easily passed by from crate messages. This being the case, unless you are out in the field to look specifically at mines placed improperly to read who placed them, it can be difficult to know who is responsible. I think it would be good if overmining messages could be displayed equally & to everyone. That annoying buzzer, the big red message. That way it will be easy to identify who is doing it and much easier to contact that person to try and explain to them the general strategies of mining. Or, if you are ignored, making it even easier to pinpoint who is doing it and encourages the rest of the team to actually vote when it comes to banning the miner, since they will have received the same warnings each time that player has overmined. In addition I think that the team's commander should have the power to remove all teammate's mines manually if desired. Say there is 1 mine poorly placed but 4 others at the proper place outside of a building. Rather than removing all other mines, it would seem ideal if they could right click remove said mine. Right now the choices are to remove everything else or make the person who placed the mine disarm it (which is much harder than it sounds). I don't mind explaining things to new players at all but given that they seldom read the game/team chat, I've noticed that the private message catches their attention much more often. It'd be nice if it were a bit easier to figure out who needs that explanation. Thanks

No problem. Thanks for all the hard work.

Right after the bridge connecting the silo side with the infantry path. https://gyazo.com/20d364cd4014ec239f9090255f416bb6 Could not move, posture was never reset, just stuck floating forever. Luckily was able to get out by entering a vehicle I flagged down. Otherwise suicide would have been the only way out.

Yeah, well, killing the mode over a small group of people would suck too.

Always good to hear new ideas for the game. Personally I am not a fan of the suggestion. I don't think a battle royale needs to, or should, come to Renegade X. First and foremost, I don't think there are enough people who actively play the game. Even if there were, depending on how many people were required, what you would then be doing is detracting from the player base of C&C mode. A big problem when we can only ever really fill up one server. Sans the PUG events, sometimes there is a decent 40/40 split between the servers. If somehow this mode were to introduce new active players to the game, and thus add to the total player base rather than divide the current one, I would be much more optimistic about it.

I wish there were some numbers as it relates to how successful AFK kick votes are. I'm not doubting that most of the time they go through, but I'm suspicious of the wide margin you are suggesting. To me it feels like maybe 60% of the time they work- a majority of the time. Though anecdotally I might only be remembering the times that they don't because it annoys me or something. I don't think it's a case of something like 90% of the time it goes through. I'm playing fast and loose with the numbers, it's just a guess, I would be happy to have something more concrete. It's not necessarily limited to filtering someone out algorithmically. In the case of someone continually misbehaving and being removed from the match.. it doesn't make sense that "they'll just come back anyway" or something like that being accepted as an excuse. I don't see why one or maybe more match temporary bans aren't issued. Not over little stuff and not frequently. Just more than 'never'.

It makes a huge difference right at the start as you say. Especially in matches with fewer people. I think it's equally important when the struggle is at it's peak, even in large matches, where every participant counts. In a 32 vs. 32 match where most of the time, on the destruction of a building, people leave; One or two people afking on top of that can amount to a pretty severe disadvantage. In an all hands on deck type situation you really can't afford to even have one person still asleep in their bunk.

I agree with the removal of the kicker under your circumstances. If an auto kicker exists it should be able to distinguish specific actions and not solely rely on the time taken between actions. In the case of repairing a kicker would be a bad idea if it only counted you initiating the repair and started the countdown from there. Eventually kicking you if you took no other additional action. It should identify that you are repairing and allow you to continue. I'm sure anyone who played Renegade back in the day remembered hearing "Yo!" when you were AFK for too long. Auto kicking was a staple almost from the very beginning of it's launch. It wasn't perfect there, and I don't expect perfection here, I would just like some solution to people abusing their position in the server. Especially if it's a full server and there are other people looking to join who will actively participate.