Riou Insuiko

I've seen countless times where there are AFK players, those hampering the team (obviously hampering like giving away vehicles, trying to stand in front of MCT and throwing c4 on people's face, etc), and other egregious examples where voting to kick that player simply fails. When something isn't even a matter of opinion, like someone being AFK, it should not come to a vote as to whether or not they are removed from the game. Especially when fellow players have the perverse incentive to vote no simply to troll/hamper. I think that at least 2 things should happen, but possibly a third and fourth. 1 - Server moderators should be more responsive to these issues and remove the players. Obviously if a server moderator is playing the game and in the middle of some intense combat they should not be expected to drop everything to kick them, but between deaths at least take care of AFK, hampering, etc players. 2 - Team commanders should be given the power to kick another player on their team from the game. This can be very easily abused but is the easiest way to make up for server moderators failing to catch these people. People abusing this should expect to be banned from any relevant servers. It's a utility to remove AFK players and people blatantly ruining the match for their team by giving vehicles away for example, blocking doors or beacons with vehicles to stop a repair, etc. NOT to be used for people who aren't following the commander's orders, like preparing for a rush, or generally following the team strategy. Also does not apply to new players who might just be learning the game. I also think that team commanders should be able to automatically disable team members from planting mines without a vote. 3 - An automatic kick for AFK players. Set to 5 minutes. Requires progressively more activity the more the timer counts down. As to prevent people from standing and just moving their cursor every few minutes. AFK actions like repairing should be fine. If someone isn't even doing that and is instead standing in a building shooting at a wall with a solider or something like that it should be easy enough to identify and remove them. This suggestion does not tackle the issue of actively hampering players who won't even have a kick vote passed on them because they'll either just rejoin or whatever. 4 - Kicking more than once from a match should result in the inability to return to the server until the current match is over. Someone who is going to go AFK more than once should have the responsibility of voluntarily leaving the match and rejoining when they are ready instead of the freedom to repeatedly joining and go to the bathroom, cook dinner, or whatever else someone is doing when they log in and go afk. Someone joining with the intention of AFKing until they have enough credits to buy what they want should not be allowed to do so in my opinion. Ultimately, regardless of whether my suggestions are considered, I think that something needs to be done. It's too annoying and frustrating to be struggling for survival in a match only to have 3 of the people on your team with their thumbs in their ass AFK doing god knows what and one idiot repeatedly throwing C4's on people's head, running in front of MCTs, etc and when you go to vote them out of the match you'll have idiots who either vote no to troll or because it's their friend, whatever. It's hot garbage and I hate it.

You are a soldier in heavy armor.. you're not in a mech suit or something like that. You should be susceptible to sniper fire. LCG have decent resistances. At veteran (might be elite) they can take 1 full headshot from a 500 sniper (depends on their rank too I believe, if they are heroic probably will still instant kill) and still live. I think that LCG would be way too powerful if they were buffed. I think they're in a pretty good place right now.

Strange. My connection must be confusing me, because typically I need to lead my shots a tiny bit, depending on the range, when using the marksman. I'll edit that out. Thanks.

I'd like to suggest some changes to the infantry units listed above. I've noticed some issues with the infantry classes of: Marksman, shotgunner, and officer. For me, neither of these three classes have ever been the best choice, or even a good choice, in any situation I've found myself in. They are, in my opinion, too weak. I think the classes could be improved in the following ways: Marksman - Rational: This class should serve to be a 'weak' sniper. It should behave more like a sniper and less like a soldier with a long-range rifle. Moderate increase to projectile flight speed. Moderate decrease to fire rate. I'm just a laggy noob I guess. Moderate increase to damage. "Sniper aim" for non-scoped shooting. Depending on the damage increase, perhaps reducing the headshot multiplier would be appropriate. Shotgunner - Rational: This is, ideally, the 'best' anti-infantry unit at close range out of the basic infantry. In an ideal situation it can be effective, but even missing one of your shots can have you outplayed by a regular soldier in close quarters. The main issue I see is that you need to be right on top of your opponent for this to really have any use. It needs a better close-mid range game. Slight narrowing of the bullet spray. Slight increase in damage. Moderate increase to range. Slight increase to fire rate. Moderate increase to reload time. No headshot multiplier. Officer - Rational: There's not too much of an improvement suggestion for this guy. He functions well as a speedy, smoke grenade chucking, anti-light armor cheap infantry. The main issue I have against the officer is that I feel he is too weak against other infantry. I don't think the officer should go toe-to-toe with other basic infantry. At a medium/medium-long range he should come out on top 9/10 times given comparable skill between players. Right now he cuts it a little too close in my opinion. Slight decrease to damage. Moderate increase to fire rate. Moderately increased accuracy. I think one of the main problems with balancing these characters is that you can end up with them being too good, especially in the hands of a skilled player. Or just plain bad/unusable if they are too weak. I suspect that the shotgunner will be the hardest to balance in this case. I hope that I have provided adequate detail for my suggestion. As I am not a developer the rates at which these levels should be adjusted are merely suggestions. I would very much like to hear from both developers and players about these suggestions. Thanks

I agree completely with the player count. It exacerbates almost every small problem that the game has into a larger annoyance. I don't think you could have done any better Tom. Don't sweat it.

The server crashed shortly after I tried to suicide. Maybe that was the issue. Not sure.

I'm with you. It's important to keep these arguments/debates/etc on the forums. I understand how it's easy for these things to come up, like team stacking, but we should limit our chat in game to actually playing the match. It's really not the time or place to start an argument in the middle of a match. Especially on Under when we're already an hour in and just slugging against each other.

https://gyazo.com/7e29f911e15904b2e0b5f26ec5a979f4 https://gyazo.com/c6d3b7fb3332c63921b9bec08ed0edf2 Could not even suicide to get out. Had to restart game.

You can get stuck near the barriers (GDI side) when jumping down out of the caves. Inescapable other than by death. https://gyazo.com/c386320d5d117c4e03ab3f441679e2b1

My objection to the quick "restart map" votes is that it invalidates good team coordination or luck on the winning side. It's true that especially in marathon matches something like a refinery can die very early on and the match can last a long time. It goes without saying that people do indeed play for fun and I can respect that someone might not like the prospect of playing an hour long match with a building down very early in the game. In regards to changing maps, as you've said, it's seldom that these polls pass in the first place. My concern is not that these polls aren't effective, but that they are used improperly. The 'improper' part is my opinion, not a fact. In my opinion, things like voting to change a map right away against what people voted for is not representative of democracy of fair voting, but just disrespectful and annoying. As far as the surrender thing is concerned, it's true that not every team will necessarily have a commander, but the key is that every team has the ability to elect a commander. In other words, your vote counts as far as selecting the leader. It's not that one player's vote suddenly outweighs the opinion of the entire team. The leader, as voted in by the team, is the selected representative of the team. It's a form of elective democracy. To be clear, what I am talking about is merely my opinion. Rather than just stating my grievances, in this case, I am offering a potential solution. If it is unpopular, it's totally fine. I'm sure there is a better solution out there (if we even agree it's a problem) anyway. I think that limiting the commander to surrender polls would be a good solution. Because if the team really wanted to surrender and the current leader didn't want to, the team can simply elect a new commander. I don't really have a response to a moderator not being available. I'm not deluded into thinking that people sit around all day with the intention to moderate. Perhaps having more moderators would be a solution to that. I'm not sure. In reality I would say that most of the time the polling/voting has positive results. Things like changing the map right away or restarting almost certainly fail. My main objection in all of this is that I see these specific instances as examples of poor sportsmanship. This is, as I've said, just my opinion. I'm not discrediting the legitimate uses for player voting. I just think that it can be overused and abused. It's not a huge deal for me. This is the thread for posting up your frustrations, that's all I'm doing. I appreciate the feedback on what I've said regardless. In any case, as far as the bugs/stuck spots are concerned, often times I've been too focused on running away to avoid death, only to get caught and die, and during that time I forget to take a screenshot or anything like that. I know of a few places off-hand where there is some odd geometry that causes you to clip/get stuck, so I'll try and screenshot them next time I'm on those maps and report them at the avenues suggested.

Hey y'all, it's been a long time since I've posted up on the forum. Been back in the game recently though. Surprising how so many things have changed over the years. From my perspective the largest problem facing Renegade X right now is not player toxicity, server limits, bugs, etc. It's the size of the community. In other words, the small player base. the This exacerbates a lot of the problems highlighted in this very thread. From my perspective it effects the game in the following ways: 1 ) I very much prefer 64 player limit servers. The chaos on the small maps is what I enjoy the most. Understandably, this may cause some performance issues for some players. It also, to some extent, changes the strategies you can effectively employ on a given map. Some of the smaller maps were not designed for such a large group of players. I believe that the major issue with this is not the player limit specifically, but the lack of choice. I find it hard to believe that the current size of the community would allow for us to fill up one 40-player limit server and one 64-player server. It's really one or the other. If the 40 player server is being used the 64-limit server will be almost empty, or at most, 20 or so players which I don't believe results in fun matches. This is most highlighted when CT runs constructed matches in the locked 40 server where, essentially, it basically kills other servers during the event. 2 ) Fewer people playing means spending more time playing with fewer people. Some personalities just don't jive well together. For various reasons, some people just don't get along. I actually don't find this to be much of a problem from a practical standpoint. Really, at the end of the day, some people will never be friends. Some might not even be able to get along with another. The problem here is that to play the game you're really forced to put these people together. Where as if there were many running servers, you could more freely associate with who you'd like to play with. 3 ) More of an addition to point #1, but because it's so prominent of an issue, I would say that team swapping (or what might be team stacking) is also an issue because of a lack of choice. It should be the case that some servers allow it, others don't, and you can choose to go where you like. Again, the problem is a lack of choice because of the small player base. 4 ) Server run times. While I haven't done a survey to more accurately assess where the majority of the player base is from, it's safe to say that it seems that most of the current players are from Europe or perhaps even Asia. Most frustrating for me in particular is not really being able to play in the evening. Notably during week nights. I live on the East Coast of the United States. If I wanted to play a match at, say 9 or 10pm, the servers would almost certainly be empty. If not, once the current match is over, the servers will basically clear. This has to be an issue for acquiring new players as well. Imagine being on the West Coast of the United States, perhaps in California or something. You basically need to play during work/school hours otherwise the servers will be dead. A new player looking to check out the game might not even be able to play the game because there's nobody to play it with when they are around. 5 ) A veteran player base. For a new player, something as simple as placing mines in an 'improper' location will get you roasted. In some instances you might immediately have a vote placed against you to ban you from mining. All without even explaining how or why you are being banned. Simple things like exiting a vehicle to repair it might get you roasted when it gets stolen by another player. I suspect that things like this stack up and result in a lower new player retention rate than one might hope. A solution might be a mix of better tutorials and a more patient community. Not a simple fix either way. 6 ) Server variety. One of the things that is hampered by a small player base is the ability to choose a server you want to play 45 minute matches? Marathon? Snipers only? Infantry only? Well, good luck. Your ability to choose these things is almost non existent. You can either sit in a server as the only person and play with bots hoping that eventually more people will show up or you can play in the one populated server. Not ideal. These are what I can think of off the top of my head. I'll edit as needed if something else comes to mind. There are a few other problems that I think should be adjusted on a server-by-server basis but these are more of my opinion and probably less agreed upon as problems. 1 ) Player voting. I think it should be done at a minimum. One thing that I don't think should be player initiated is a vote to restart the map. This should be something that a moderator initiates. It's very annoying to start a match and lose something like the refinery within the first 10 minutes, only to have an instantaneous vote to restart the map. Like clockwork. Another thing that I believe should be left to moderator initiation only is changing the map. At the end of a battle players are allowed to vote on the next map. It's entirely selfish to start a change map vote the second a match starts because you don't like what most players have chosen as the next map. Voting to change the map should be limited to server crashes where the sever defaults to the first map (I believe it's typically always Under) after it resets. Finally, I believe that initiating a vote to surrender should be limited to the active commander. As you can vote in and vote out commanders, if the majority consensus of your team is that you want to surrender, but your current commander does not, you can vote in a new commander who will act on behalf of the team. 2 ) The sound bug. It's not super burdensome, but it happens at least once every other day for me. If not more. It's not a huge deal but a minor annoyance that would be nice if it were able to be fixed. 3 ) Getting stuck is an annoyance that has caused me to lose a vehicle quite a few times. Where you either clip into an object in front of you or momentum pulls you into something like a rock for a long period of time. Either you want and occasionally you can break free or you need to be rammed by another vehicle to move. 4 ) Some invisible wall placement results in unexpected collision that seems a bit jarring at times. There are some objects like trees that you could clearly walk around, at least as far as size is concerned, but for some reason you simply cannot pass them. I'm aware that in many cases these invisible walls serve as barriers to prevent players from going outside of the map or on top of structures. I think that some serve as a reinforcement of map design, like not being able to stand on a ridge on an infantry path because you're supposed to be funneled down to a more open area before you can shoot into the field. I'm mixed on those. Sometimes it feels out of place, sometimes it makes sense. 5 ) As an extension of #4, I think that with few exceptions (where it might lead to B2B or it hampers the map design too much) that all maps should feature the 'flying' variant of buildings. Allowing roof access. As part of that roof access, I would like to see the Nod Airstrip changed a bit. I find that at times placing beacons inside the top of the airstrip to be a bit unbalanced. Where players can't effectively jump off of the railing to get inside to disarm a beacon. I think it's a bit too difficult to disarm the beacon up there, but it depends on how many people know how to get in there. 6 ) Map variety is a bit of a struggle. Some maps will be much more popular than others, but I wouldn't mind playing Crash Site, Toxicity, or Mesa once in a while. I mean, Under and Field/Field X are cool guys and gals, but you know, variety and such. Well, I ended up coming up with much more than I initially planned to. Ultimately, what I feel needs to be said, is that Renegade X is fantastic. Despite it's problems it's one of my favorite games ever. Having come back recently from an extended break I've had nothing but a blast jumping back into matches with everyone. I'm incredibly grateful to everyone in the community from the developers, to the server hosts, to the players for keeping this game alive and awesome. Hopefully some of these bumps along the road can be smoothed out. I'd love to see a vibrant bustling community for this game once again.

I do indeed have access to Teamspeak, yes.

I followed your instructions. I have done this previously with the same result: It verifies that it is indeed Open Beta 5.281 but it does this consistently and my game continues to go through the same cycle of trying to connect and kicking me to the main menu.

Okay, I followed your instructions, and it does the very same thing. Forcing me back to the main menu after attempting to connect.

It's EKT-Riou, yes. There's no connections? Weird. See the problem is that I don't know why that is. I have internet that works (very well) so I don't think that's a problem either. What the heck is going on here? Could it have anything to do with Steam?

Okay. Well I will stop guessing what the problems are and await your results. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much for your assistance. I'm also curious about the UDK system. It's currently running in 32-bit in DX9. My system is both 64-bit and I currently have DX12. Is there any chance that I may have conflicts between the versions of my software?

Thank you for the suggestion. This is my firewall setting for UDK: If I am reading that correctly that should be where it needs to be.

I recorded a short video showcasing my problem.

I have not disabled my anti-virus or opened my firewall. I am mostly ignorant when it comes to technical details, but I am doubting that my firewall or anti-virus is the problem because I have not received any notifications of errors, intrusions, blocks, or whatever from those services. I also recall playing in the past with both active. I could be wrong though unless something has changed that I am unaware of. I don't really have any way to verify if it is indeed the connection or not, because I do not seem to get any refusal messages or anything when I try to join. I vaguely remember that a long time ago, a friend of mine had mentioned that your Steam name and your in-game ID need to match - or perhaps that you couldn't be on Steam at all - otherwise it would refuse you for some reason. I don't know if that's relevant information or not. I've tried matching those two and it does not work. Perhaps there is something else I'm missing.

Hello! I've been absent from the Renegade X community for a little while now, but since I'm now able to play regularly again.. I'd like to! Problem is, I've redownloaded the client and game (up to 5.281?) and I am unable to join any servers. I am able to skirmish with bots, but not much else. When I load the launcher up it will function as normal: However, when I attempt to join a server it will take me through the opening cinematic (I know you can disable this) and following this it will go through the loading screens showing all of the different buildings, vehicles, etc. After about 30 seconds it will simply put me on the main menu of the game and it does not give me any error codes or any reason for being unsuccessful in joining. I'm not super tech savvy, but I tried to solve this problem myself. I even deleted/re-downloaded the game and launcher a few times. I'm also running this as administrator by the way. I can't seem to resolve this issue myself so I'm hoping that I could receive some assistance from the kind people here on the official forums. Just some additional information: I noticed that UDK is running as the 32 bit version (I am running a 64 bit system). I'm also on Windows 10. I've tried running the game in compatibility mode for Windows 7 also, and while the game still functions, I am unable to join any servers or anything. EDIT: I have also verified the integrity of the game several times during this. Thank you.

Right, that's partially the reason why I was thinking that it wasn't a good idea too. An alternative could possibly be a panel in the construction yard that allows you to repair all buildings at the same time (by having an engineer beam an MCT as usual) but the repair would be divided up. For example, if an engineer repaired any structure 1% per second, on a map with five buildings, an engineer repairing all via the con yard would repair 0.2% per second on all structures. Maybe that could be an alternative? I'm not sure. It would certainly be more beneficial to repair each structure at it's own MCT, but take for example a building under attack that's a far run away. You could repair it at a much slower rate at the construction yard if it was in dire need of repair. Just shooting from the hip with that idea. I also like the idea of more tech structures, but I think that generally speaking, the maps would need to be larger than the current standard for that to really be doable. Of course, something like Lakeside has the potential for additional tech structures. You've got the hill that's empty, in addition to a possible tech structure on the infantry only path. The only concern would be having too many different tech structures to try and control. In addition to how powerful it makes a team that controls all of them.

Thanks for the response. Initially, I was thinking of a passive healing ability to structures via the construction yard, but that seemed insanely OP. It would also be extremely difficult to balance. You've got to consider that you're likely to face two separate game mode types. On marathon mode you don't have a time limit, so you could reduce the regeneration effect to a low number and still maintain the usefulness of the structure. However, if you consider that standard mode has a time limit of around 40 minutes. A low healing rate would be significantly less useful. If the building repaired, say, 1% health every 30 seconds, it would be much less worthwhile than an endurance match on a marathon server; Where the slow healing would total a much higher number over the course of the battle, given that the structure is maintained. I very much like the idea that the construction yard would allow for very basic unit creation from production facilities. I can see how at a glance, this would seem OP, but I don't think that it is. It would allow a team to have *some* semblance of an offensive capability, even when the barracks/hon and the wf/strip are destroyed. It wouldn't be OP in the sense that you're severely limited to what you could purchase. It's still a great loss to lost a bar/hon and the penalty for doing so is more or less the same even when you have a con yard up. You'll have no mid/high tier classes. Most importantly, you'll lose the ability to purchase snipers. With the wf/strip being destroyed, you're only left with buggies. If the opposing team has taken out your strip and they still have a war factory, you really can't hold them off/defend yourself with buggies alone. With flaming c4 being removed, it's not as if you'd allow players to counter expensive vehicles at all times by suicide bombing them. However, in regards to the communications center. It seems as though you're implying that beacons would be unavailable if the communications center was destroyed? That wasn't my initial design idea for it. I didn't want to make it a penalty-specific based structure. By that, I mean that hypothetically every single map already has a communications center off-site. Much like how some maps don't have an active power plant. If a communications center were added to some maps, and it was a penalty based structure, you would only see negative effects from it's destruction, such as airstrike unavailability and longer beacon deployment times. I thought that it was necessary to offer additional benefits such as the defense structure's range increase, in addition to the additional anti-tank mines, etc. Again, it's all an issue of balance, and that's what this thread is here for. Feedback & discussion.

Oh, I hear you. To be fair, I was expecting to see the repairpad in future maps regardless of whether or not my idea was feasible. It was in the original Renegade multiplayer maps, so it also belongs in Renegade X. I hear what you're saying about the buildings, though. My initial thoughts for these structures is that they would be placed on 'mega maps' or maps in similar size to Lakeside/X mountain, where there would be space for the additional structures within a base. There's also the possibility of substituting one structure for another. Namely a communications center for a powerplant. As we already see several maps that do not include a powerplant as is. I think that there's a place for these structures, even when new players are faced with them. It's important that the game should provide 'help' menus for online or offline play. At any time, a player should be able to hit escape, and toggle a menu giving detail on what each structure does, possibly even specific details such as typical strategies on where to place mines, etc. It wouldn't be effortless, but it doesn't seem that offering tutorial-esque information would be a massive undertaking. I'd also suspect that the benefit would outweigh the time and effort placed into it's creation. Regardless, I don't have some sort of false hope that my proposed ideas are something that should be considered for the next beta, or even the one after. This is a future project that I'm proposing, and I suppose that the time it'd take to be developed would allow for community feedback and developer insight on how to balance and perfect it's use. Additionally, this brings up the question of multi-player limitations. Those four buildings may be tricky to defend as is, but what if there were more players? Currently, I believe the highest player count you'll find is 20/20 or 40 total. The specifics of why that number was chosen leads me to believe that it was for server stability, but I'd question whether or not this is completely true. Why not have 30/30 or 60 player total matches? Possibly more? 50 versus 50?

My goal of this topic is to both receive feedback from the Renegade X developers as well as the community at hand. I have had the idea juggling around in my head for a while now. There are two additional structures that I would like to see added into the standard online multiplayer system. These structures would only be applicable to new maps that would include them, not retroactively effecting existing maps. I think that this idea would be best suited to as an official update by TotemArts, and not by a third-party modding community. Thus I am posting my ideas here to get feedback on it's viability and it's desirability. I will attempt to provide the rough framework and general outlines of what these structures would do. There are two potential structures that I think would be worthwhile additions for online multiplayer. While these structures were both present in the original Renegade, they were not available structures online matches by default. I have seen them in the custom multiplayer-singleplayer hybrid missions that some servers hosted back in the day, but they were never used in AOW/Marathon modes. Any images found here are for the express purpose of providing a general idea and aren't my creations. These images were sourced from a simple Google image search for the relevant building name. Construction Yard This structure's is NOT reliant on an active power plant to function, however all effects will be respectively modified according to whether or not a power plant is alive. This structure would have a number of benefits. Specifically the following: -All buildings will receive a 10% defense boost against all damage taken on the exterior of the structure. This will not effect damage received via the master control panel. In addition, all non-defensive type structures will have a maximum condition of 110%. Should the construction yard be destroyed, each building will maintain the extra health until it is damaged. Once the 10% boost in health is lost, buildings will be repairable normally to 100%. -Partial operation of destroyed production structures. This would allow for the following to be purchased even when the production facility has been destroyed: *GDI Barracks: Mc Farland, Officer, Rocket Soldier *Hand of Nod: Chem Soldier, Officer, Rocket Soldier *War Factory: Humvee *Airstrip: Buggy All of the items will maintain their respective costs to purchase if the power structure is alive. The prices are subject to the power plant's general rule of doubling costs if it has been destroyed. -All secondary defensive structures will be replaceable. This includes Nod's Turrets and SAM sites, in addition to GDI's Guard Tower & Anti-Air Towers. These repairs should be able to be purchased from an MCT, but for simplicity's sake, they can also be initiated at the destroyed structures themselves. The cost is up for discussion. I was initially thinking that 3,000 (With PP) / 6,000 (Without PP) would be a balanced cost for these items. This is all I had in mind for the Construction Yard. The second structure I'd like to see is the: Communications Center The communications center will be completely reliant on the power plant. If the power plant is destroyed, all benefits it would offer will be unavailable. The communications center will offer the following: - Super weapon beacon adjustments. Reduce the time for a beacon to get to the 'point of no return' by 5 seconds. However the beacon will still have the same activation duration. - Additional proximity mines. This will add an additional 10 proximity mines to the existing mine limit. This can be adjusted on a map by map basis to balance it's effectiveness. - Players will be able to place an additional 2 anti-tank mines. - Reduced air-strike and beacon cost by 100 credits. - Increased EMP grenade duration by 5 seconds. - Increased effective targeting range of secondary defensive structures by 10%. That's all that I can think of for now. I'm very much interested in hearing some feedback regarding the idea as a whole in addition to the specific details and how they would be balanced appropriately. I'm also interested in hearing the viability of the future development of said structures and whether or not it's a possible update in the future. Thanks to anyone who made it this far. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts in the thread below. Thanks!