Quinc3y

I won't be there on Saturday, but on Sunday probably yes.

Me too If you also have my reaction on TS/in-game included Lava, that would be even funnier. So let me defend myself, Madkill! Tomb: Yep, I am partly responsible for the loss - I will try to explain. There were 2 key moments during our rush: first when I saw that enemy team is also rushing with flametroopers. At that point I had to make the decision if we should kill the enemy team or just rush their base and (probably) exchange buildings. I've decided for the latter for 3 reasons: 1) I thought we will be able to deal more damage as McFarlands than them as Flametroopers. 2) I knew that we had a few people left in our base and hoped they could do something 3) It's generally more fun/interesting to take small risks. The 2nd key moment was when we reached Nod base: I should have ordered my team to split immediately between HoN and Airstrip. Instead, we went for strip first and then to HoN, which gave the enemy team more time to save HoN. Yes, this was my mistake. But keep in mind that I had to make those decisions within split seconds. Mesa: I didn't forget about the fact that you should be defending instead of stank rushing. In fact I've noticed you left your spot long time before that: https://youtu.be/pRFpX3qsAlc?t=816 . And yes - at that point I should have told you to get back to camping PP, to which you agreed in the very beginning. That was my mistake as well. I didn't do it, once again, for 3 reasons: 1) We needed more people in the field, because we had guys like Thommy exploring the cave as a raveshaw and because we were 11v12 at that point cuz of one guy that disconnected 2) I know camping is a shitty job. I saw you in field and thought you got fed up with it, so I asked the general question hoping someone would volunteer. But no one did. 3) We never lost mines during that whole game before we lost PP. So I thought we can get away with not having a camper and just watching mines. But yes, this doesn't justify me. Then again, it was you leaving your spot in the first place, so you're the one more responsible for our loss than me. Fort: before we lost WF, the clear plan was to spam meds and it worked well. We had the advantage and almost killed ref. Then the solo nuke happened and I kinda got pissed (also because: we lost the previous map in a stupid way, I had the sound bug in the beginning of Fort because of which I lost a lot of credits and our WF was damaged to 20 health, because I got stuck at the entrance of Nod base while sneaking in and also because Jessica and KONO left early). So the plan was to sneak in and I encouraged you guys to try. Yes, this is usually a stupid plan. Then again, I was pissed, the game looked lost and tbh I wanted a new map. Finally, I don't understand the first sentence of your post D: You mean like, I didn't feel for commanding? Or that you'd like a different commander? Sure, I'm not going to insist on being a commander - I do make mistakes as I showed above but tbh I don't think I'm that bad either. There are no other people wanting to command. As you can see, sometimes it's not easy - especially in 12v12. Most people don't want to try. And I do like commanding every now and then - especially if my team listens and the TS is not cluttered. On a diferent note: I just watched parts of Thommy's videos and I've noticed the issues with me being priority speaker on TS. The problem is, I've recently started using push to talk (I was using voice activation before) and I still didn't master it. That is: sometimes I forget to push the button while talking (happens rarely to be fair) and sometimes I push the button even though I'm not talking or when I'm thinking what to say (and this happens quite often). As priority speaker, when I push the button to talk, I mute what other people have to say. I can hear this happen in Thommy's videos. I'm sorry for this. I will turn off priority speaker for the next 12v12 PUG if I command to prevent this. (if I command on a 20v20 I might still need it :P)

I see your points, Jeff! But I'll stick to my opinions. And about Canyon: @Boomer I think the veterancy system was what helped Nod most on that map. It's always been relatively easy for Nod to control the field & destroy GDI harvester on Canyon, especially in the early game. But before veterancy, Nod couldn't get much from it. Sure, GDI was locked in base, but it was still very hard to destroy a building and the moment Nod stopped buying vehicles, GDI could do meds + ion at the end of strip and game over. Right now (especially after veterancy gain rate was increased), it's enough to destroy a few GDI harvesters and maybe damage barracks' health and your whole team's veteran. This makes it very difficult for GDI to break the siege. And even if they somehow manage to, turning the game around and locking Nod in their base seems impossible.

Determining the Most Valuable Player of the game is impossible based only on game numbers (points, veterancy, kills, K/D, etc.). Let me give some examples: Scenario I. Under. After 30 minutes of stale mate, a technician sneaks in and destroys the GDI PP. After that, he switches to defending and repairing, while his teammates finish off GDI with tanks. That technician will not have the most points (because his teammates will have destroyed more buildings), nor most veterancy nor kills, but he will be the MVP, because he set up things for Nod and made it easy for his team. Scenario II. Walls. The commander of Nod calls for an apache rush. He leads the rush and his apache is shot down first, but the rest of the team destroy 2 buildings and GDI crumbles. Once again, his teammates will have more "numbers" than him, but he is the MVP, because he had a good idea and organized the team. Scenario III. Under. GDI has better tankers, but Nod better infiltrators. One guy on GDI sees that and decides to camp the PP tunnel exit. The game lasts one hour and in that time GDI has advantage in field, gains veterancy advantage and overpowers Nod with tanks, winning the game. Meanwhile, the guy camping PP on GDI kills a few technicians and denies an infantry rush. That person will barely have any points, only a few kills and no veterancy at all compared to his teammaters. But in my eyes, he will be the MVP, because he secured the win (and camping is a form of sacrificing yourself for the team as well). Scenario IV. Lakeside. Barracks are destroyed early by a few flame troopers who happen to walk in an almost empty GDI base. After that, GDI decides to organize an orca rush. But, while orcas are grouping up by WF and are about to move out, an SBH sneaks in GDI base and spots the rush, warning his team and telling them which path they are coming. Nod is prepared and defends from the rush, winning the game soon after that. The SBH is the MVP, because he worked with the team and gave the key information. Of course, sometimes points/kills/veterancy do reflect who the MVP is. A good sniper can be a real pain in the ass for the enemy team on some maps. A good tanker, denying enemy their harvester throughout the whole game, as well. But very often it's not that simple, as I showed above. I guess a smart idea for choosing the MVP would be via voting. When the game ended, the players would be able to vote for an MVP and for the next map. I think the only reward should be some kind of points that you obtain, but not any kind of game advantage. This could work like recs. Or maybe the MVP's name could be somehow highlighted in the next game or whatever.

Gobi Debut for this map on the PUG... as bad as expected. GDI, having better tankers and snipers, overpowered Nod. Arctic Stronghold Rocket rush for Obelisk vs. Chem rush for ref & bar. Nod was prepared and repaired ob, while GDI ref was destroyed. Light tank rush followed and destroyed GDI base. Volcano Chem rush long route for WF vs. McFarland rush over the catwalk for ref & pp. Once again team Ruud was prepared while Nod lost both eco buildings. Game over. Fort Rocket rush for WF vs. APC rush for HoN. This time the early rush worked in favour of team Ryz and HoN was destroyed. Nod responded with light tanks, but got stopped. Ref and strip get destroyed soon after with tanks. Complex Artys and meds rushing over and over. During one of the med rushes an ion is planted by Nod ref and a nuke by GDI ref. Ion was disarmed while nuke succeeded with the help of stank cover and the fact that GDI was busy in the Nod base. GDI then got overwhelmed with arties. Team Ruud 3-2 Team Ryz, good games.

Isn't it the other way round? http://i.imgur.com/V8rVwU1.jpg And I couldn't open GDI PP door without the AGT gun targetting me. Yeah, some valid points. But getting out of GDI base when you have 2-3 arties bombarding the choke and a flame tank by the corner isn't easy. I do think Under is a GDI map, just not 90/10. This is a good point as well.

Just for fun. I like to analyse games and hear people's opinions. And who knows, maybe the mappers will look here and work on their maps. Yes, this is all subjective in this thread. The numbers are subjective and only used as a scale, this is why I don't agree with everything Jeff wrote. But, since he's a very experienced player, I think his judgement is close to the truth. The truth about maps' balance can only be known by looking at the % of games won by each faction etc., but since we have no access to it (or do we?), we can only speculate basing on our experience. I see nothing wrong with that.

@j0g32 If you play a couple hundred games on each map (public and PUGs) and understand how the game works, you can make a lot of conclusions about the balance of each map. Yes, it is somewhat subjective, but I don't see the problem. The numbers reflect Jeff's feelings & experience. My comments on Jeff's update: Under: I would never call it a 90/10 GDI map. The choke point in front of GDI base is perfectly designed for artilleries to bombard it, especially from the spot near Nod pillbox. I've seen so many games with Nod dominating. Field: Yes, barracks are exposed to inf rushes, but you can infiltrate Nod ref as opposed to GDI ref. Nod PP is also much easier infiltrated than GDI PP. Tbh I feel like the new Field is balanced. Tomb: never a 70/30 GDI map. The harvester side (which is imo more important than silo side) is advantageous to Nod, because of the cover for artilleries. GDI harvester is much more exposed and can be bombarded from far away, while Nod tiberium field is (for some reason) placed on lower terrain and is partly covered from meds/mrls. Also, a thing that might seem minor, but can decide the game in favour of Nod: in the first seconds, 2 crates spawn really close to each other at harv side and it's very easy to grab them both as Nod if you spawn in HoN => early APC, often game over. Finally, this map is small (or, as you wrote in your post, cramped), which is another advantage for Nod. 60/40 for Nod if you ask me. Lakeside: on PUGs you might be right with 65/35 in favour of Nod, but in public games I feel like it's a GDI map, because it's much easier to infiltrate Nod base than GDI and organizing an apache + SBH nuke rush on a public game is usually a miracle.

"you let us die for fucking beer" - T_Bone to commander Ryz when he went for beer in between games

I'd really like to encourage more people to do the commanding duty. A lot of you are experienced & understand the game and know the players. Commanding doesn't take much more and it's fun, trust me. Watch the PUGs on youtube to see how the commanders do it if you want to. Don't hesitate to try yourself

Yeah, everyone played well. Felt like all games (maybe except for Volcano) were close. Did you record, Thommy?

Couldn't make it tonight. Will the 10v10 PUG happen tomorrow?

+1

You are my friend, Volti

@Boomer I disagree about Eyes The Sunday PUG was a nice experience in overall. Less people means better communication and being able to "control" your team better as the commander, which is nice. But yes, as Boomer said, infiltration is very easy. A record amount of buildings died to hotwires/technicians. Then again, if you are sneaking, you are not defending and not participating in the vehicle fight and your team can be overwhelmed. This is what happened to us in the first game (Tunnels). Too many people (2) went sneaking (even though I did not ask them to) and this was one of the reasons we got destroyed quickly. In other words: sneaking in low-population games is high risk-high reward. I feel my team could have been more disciplined, especially on the last map. The plan on Fort was 3 guys sbh nuke, 1 person camping HoN and 8 other people: tanks, raveshaws and repairs. The sbh nuke worked, but in the meantime we lost airstrip and hon. How on earth when I ordered 9 people to defend & take field? I guess because some left the base to do their own stuff. But anyway, I had more fun than on Saturday. GGs.

@Gliven The only real possible use of the backwards driving glitch is Nod APC rushing on Under. If you drive normally, you can only reach AGT, but if you drive backwards, you can reach WF & ref. But yeah, this one is not a big problem to me. @Agent I see that this is a game, but at the same time it is competitive. Most of the times I play to win and some of these glitches are game changing. Imagine the frustration after you manage to sneak into HoN after 30 minutes of trying and then you run into invisible mines in the floor. Or: a close game where both teams try hard is decided by a nuke that is partly blended into a rock and you have to stand still while disarming, which results in the disarming people getting sniped. This is "intentionally ruining other people's fun" - in this case, the fun of the people that are playing to win.

All right then. I would certainly set more harsh rules if I was an admin, but it's you deciding. Thank you for the input, I will be quoting this thread whenever someone accuses me of glitching and will try to keep calm the next time Jeff kills my hotwire with invisible mines in HoN

Thank you for all the quick responses! I don't really understand this sentence. I can see that some of these glitches cannot be (easily) fixed, but why can't they be moderated - as in prohibited This question applies to many of the points you made, fffreak. Also, I personally think that every beacon that is placed with the intention of being blended into textures (and the same with proxy c4) shouldn't be allowed and should be disarmed by mods. Even if you can technically disarm such a beacon with a repair gun/tool, sometimes it's extremely hard, because you can only see its top or whatever. Once again, it's the intention that matters. Just a suggestion for admins to consider. How? You can't do it on GDI side afaik.

"Oh I'm in the tunnels!" - voltex

lol. I think that adv. engineers are the most powerful & versatile units in game. They are of great strategic value and even more so if you are not able to buy them anymore. I like hunting for the last hotwire/tech. I like how you need to deal with the lack of mines when you don't have a hotwire/tech in the team anymore. All this makes the game more interesting. This is why I think adv. engis should remain unique and not purchasable after destruction of hon/bar.

So we all know that in Renegade X there's a lot of debatable plays one can pull off. Some of these are considered glitches and are illegal on all servers (getting vehicles on infantry-only zones) while some are tolerated or even considered natural (jumping into airstrip tower on flying maps). The examples I gave above are kind of extreme, but there's a lot of actions that cause confusion and their legality depends on the server/admin of the server that you ask/the mood of that admin. So, to sort things out and to prevent myself & other players from whining that the other team should not have done this or that because it's a glitch, I'd like to request that a CT admin (or maybe even make a game-wide rule set for that? Idk if it's realistic) clarifies all the controversial actions and states which are allowed and which aren't. To list some of such: - flaming humvee/buggy - flame tanks firing through the back of barracks - invisible remotes on a stank - hiding beacons inside the lights at the end of airstrip - driving some vehicles (like Nod APC) backwards down the hill for highly increased speed - invisible (thus not disarmable) mines at HoN MCT on some maps - partly invisible (disarmable) mines at HoN MCT on some maps - climbing building stairs on the outter side of the railing - placing beacons that partly blend into the walls of GDI PP (still disarmable) - same as above when you blend beacons inside no-collision rocks where you can only see bits of them - there's a spot like this on Snow next to WF front door - disarming beacons through the wall of a building (can be easily done in WF) - Walls: entering Nod base with tanks by jumping the wall on the airstrip side - Whiteout: infiltrating Nod base by walking out of the map (https://youtu.be/7AtBrmhozjw?t=826). I think there's a similar path to GDI ref as well. - Gobi: b2b sniping - Under: jumping on top of Nod PP - Complex: hitting HoN from just in front of the GDI base (central part) with gunners/rocket soldiers/MRLS And there's probably many more that I didn't think of here. Also I didn't list the ones that I consider fairly obvious (like b2b airstrikes on Islands).

Yes, I support this idea. Except for hotwires and technicians, those shouldn't be purchasable ever after the destruction of hon/bar.

One doesn't simply quit gaming, especially Ren X So I'm not going to say good bye, mate.

I'm all in favour of the surrender system. Maybe the voting could be longer tho, because sometimes people miss it. But what is worth mentioning here is that the veterancy system is reponsible for more surrenders. Right now the winning team becomes stronger as the game progresses, making comebacks much harder. Especially if a team loses a building in the early game - then, with the increased veterancy gain that was introduced recently, the team that destroyed that building will all be veteran almost immediately. When you are a building down and the enemy team has their whole base left, the only real chance for a comeback is to sneak in. That's because you can't overpower them and you can't commit too many players in the losing team to a rush, because the enemy - which has the veterancy advantage - will crush your base when you're rushing. These are the downsides of veterancy, which all in all I'm positive about. Maybe decreasing its gain rate would make games more interesting. Not to mention that some choke-point maps are almost unwinnable without HoN/Barracks. Try winning Xmountain when you can't buy specialized infantry and the enemy has their whole base. Or even Walls.

I won't be there this week.