Profane Pagan

I don't think the buildings are in need of an overhaul. But if you really insist to enhance them, I have some ideas which are not too dramatic: HON: having problems with the windows while having ramps? Put Window blast shields into the HON, so it would be the team's responsibility by switching the installed buttons to close the shields after somebody left through the windows. Also, put two additional PTs at the far end of HON. Airstrip: Now this is something different. Apart from the absence of an integrated elevator inside the control tower, the problem here is seem to be the wide and vulnerable construction of the runway. I do think one shouldn't make the Airstrip smaller, since the WF is quite a big construction too. Tell me how plausible to destroy an entire building by shooting off their chimneys only? But all right, let's say the Airstrip is weaker, and it is not the team's or the level designer's fault when you loose the Airstrip. What if you can seriously damage the first half of the runway, to a point where no C130 transport can bring it's cargo until you repair it back? So you wouldn't loose the airstrip even under ION-fire, but you couldn't use it temporarily. However the second half with the red drop-off point and the control tower would be really damageable. Still, this would be a smaller building area, than the WF's. So how fair is it? Baracks: I understand your problem with the Barracks. You call it fortress. What about a small ventilation-window at the back of the barrack? With well-aimed fire you could damage the people around the MCT inside. Or put the ventilation on the top of the barracks so somebody could infiltrate through it.

Ryz is speaking the truth! Moreover If you blame the Airstrip's vulnerability, you forget Nod has destroyed the WF countless times with artillery fire, just aiming at it's tall chimneys. Often I feel like people want to water down the differences between the two sides until they get two identical races in funcionality. Old Warcraft 2 was something like this. The races were different only in aesthetics. Everything was the same under the human or orcish coat. In Renegade the sides are unique and very exciting. Not everything is perfect, but each race has it's own strength and weakness in return. These are carefully designed by the creators of the original C&C Renegade. Also, it is the level designer's responsibility to place buildings well. Because of these differences, this game is pretty hard, we must admit it. But I am all for the elevator in the Control tower. That is a good idea.

Surely a good teamwork wins the game. But what about the bad or average teamwork? Which is basically the significant part of the game. I think there is a very important aspect: On many maps, players on GDI side can buy tanks, and even without teamwork, they can bring an overwhelming firepower. When meds and mlrs and mammy tanks basically herd together without cooperation they are still lethal threat. On the other side NOD players can rely only on stealth and relatively-close range armament. Such a weaponry requires sophisticated teamwork and cooperation. See what I mean here? I think GDI without teamwork is stronger than NOD without teamwork. I do belive the appearance of one sided maps are not in fact the map's fault. It is the fault of the obsolete Renegade-communication system and the fault of the players. War is hell. CampinJeff, I can agree on your your description after each map, however they could be inverted as well. Many times you refer to nicely conducted vehicular, or sneaking combat. Which can be achieved by the adversaries too. I just believe on the majority of the maps, -with coordination- the opposite team can pin down the team you described dominant. Many maps are more balanced than that. I think there are only very few one-sided maps.

Is it possible for a scripter to automatize this organizational process? But I believe, even if the answer is yes, that would be a hell of a work. I wouldn't ask such thing.

I am sorry: I must say, I failed to fully express the irony.

Well, it does matter a bit. You will hear it a lot one after another.

So I failed to see that you are just passionate about RenX. I might horned in on your coversation with Yosh, not regarding that was an inner joke.

dr.schrott, I have looked into the balance segment. You literally spam the forum with rants about various glitches and bugs. Everybody is nice enough to reply to you, yet you react aggressively here and in the game as well. If you really want the devs to attend to something, you would be more constructive. I seriously think you are trolling us, and you get the kick out of it.

Secret passageway is a good idea. As well the activation of the dam-defense guns. The dam dominates the reservoir below, giving important strategical value to it. 1. But how about an ammunition supply point? You already have a vehicle repair field, why not to give something to the footmen? In this case you don't have to run back home when you are out of ammo. 2. Capturing could reveal usable gun emplacements, like we have at Whiteout, placed against the reservoir. Or leave out the dam MCT entirely, heck, who controls the guns, controls the dam. How about that? 3. I know it was planned to raise water after dam's destruction, however is it possible to release couple thousand hectolitre of water to wash away the tanks below? The released water would gone. All right this last one is just plain stupid.

I think map designers would need a flying unit provider 'Helipad' building which they can choose to implement or not. Like there are maps with Obelisk/AGT without Powerplant, I can imagine enabled aerial units with and without a Helipad. But if the designer erects such building on the level, he or she would grant the possibility of the deletion of flying units when the Helipad gets blown up. I could even imagine this add-on building on some occasions placed on the top of a WF, with less health than the parent building. Designers would have endless possibilities. With the loss of Helipad you'd still have vehicular ground combat. Therefore Helipad would be solely a requirement to build aircrafts in WF/Airstrip. No refuelling, refilling facilities, which we have got used to at Tiberian Dawn (maybe it could repair slowly the aircrafts, but no faster that an engineer would do. And only one at the same time). But as I said, designers could choose not to use this on maps, in order to provide a much closer feeling to classical Renegade. Such ideas of bringing this building to life have been already discussed on this Forum. There is a model already made by Kenz. Regarding the nerfing of flying units, I am just saying one shouldn't cut content from the game rather than enhancing it. OR: Let the Tiberium Silos grant acces to aerial technology. We still have this EVA message: "New technologies are available." Still I think a Helipad would be better idea.

This sentence should be on the Loading menu. With a slight rephrasing.

At the next PUG event, is it possible to raise the max player limit from 40 to 45-50? For the sake of crashers and late comers.

I am sorry to hear that mrSeriousOak! By the way if I am not mistaken, in the past, Pugs had 60 player seats, right? Did we reach the 40 players on this weekend?

Tomb: Quincy, I was shooting out your newly deployed harvesters several times with the GDI mammoth and med buddies long before we rolled in to settle the score. If the harvester got stuck, we freed it pretty soon. By blowing it up. I wouldn't call abusing. This map was won by the coordinated fire support. But of course I might be wrong, I wasn't there from the very start, however I was part of the armoured spearhead. GG everybody. Congratulations on the 3 wins! P.S.: What if we'd have a harvester eraser - vote option? If we encounter a stucking harvester, we just vote in the team for it's self destruction. Not a bad idea, right? Might come handy in the future.

Would be great to implement different thickness of armor on different sides. Also, the tanks could shoot two types of rounds: Sabot and HE shells. The former against armoured targets, the latter against infantry.

But what is the point planting and defending nuke and ion beacons then? Strickly speaking of course. I think it would be enough if we could see the surrendering team putting down weapons with hands above their head.

This was my first PUG, and I really enjoyed it even without a mic. Thank you.

Everything would be better without AGT and Obelisk on this map. The lack of this deadly defense buildings would encourage people to coopeare in infiltrating bases from tunnels, or moving trough the choke points with tanks as fast as possible. You could save Field, just get rid of these buildings!

Technically, The MLRS uses mrl system, which is multiple rocket launch system. So I think they didn't want to use the original name of the vehicle for copyright reasons, and they came up with this clever solution.

"They are here to play their game in their own way " I wasn't clear about that. The game has it's own mechanism, which can offer certain gaming experiences for the players. If they only practice in their own way, they will solidify their style. The game allows people to do this. Like TS is not part of the core game, and it is not even a good solution: I have to download it, separately turn it on, I can even change channels to overheard others. Okay I wouldn't do it, but it is still a thing. I was talking about the necessity of integrated elements of the game, which would steer even the newcomers to experience the intended gameplay which was conceived by the designers. However If you really want to keep the PUG clear of "non-listening casual" gamers, I must say your only option without any work on the game mechanism, is to change the server into private. Many groups do this in various games to ensure the seriousness of the gameplay. Then you can advertise join processes. We just doesn't have a big player base to be picky. I am not the fan of this approach as I wrote a lengthy topic above: I am more like a fan of subtle manipulations. Makig the players belive it was their idea to cooperate. Let's visualize the importance of the teamplay and make them enjoy the cooperation. But at end of the day we will have a loser team. It is chaos-theory really. Sometimes shit happens, and nobody can do a change.

Looking back on the thread, I think you can't expect players to have military discipline. You can assign a dedicated player to be a commander, and you can give orders too, but people won't become soldiers at a wave of a magic wand. Even the most sophisticated military simulator games lack the proper attitude from players in multiplayer sessions which is necessary in real battle. And Renegade X is not even a realist depiction, this is an abstracted shooter. Every abstraction is the degradation of the reality. People won't cooperate, not because they are idiots, but because they are here to play their game in their own ways. We use NPCs to do the heavy lifting. Or for the seemingly boring tasks like base defending. What is the sollution? You will never succeed with preliminary muster roll. You might frustrate less capable players in the long run. If you are really want to make a competetive heavely team-based game, you should create a rewarding - enforcing system, thus you would magnetize the wandering players. The game should shepherd the players. Because they are cattles really. Some ideas: * Make visual markers the commander could put on display, so everybody in the team could see that. Like a red arrow hovering above a stroke point or above the refinery when it is attacked. * You could crate personalized visual orders. If a yellow marker would appear on my screen, saying: "Profane_pagan, engage!" or "Profane_pagan supressive fire!" with an immersive warcry sound effect, I certanly wouldn't sit on my ass. * Put the commander or dedicated officer on the ground, make his proximate area as a mobile respawn point: teammates would be heavely relied on their comander. Death of the officer would erase the respawn point. * Too easy? Give the abality to the commander, so he/she can point out a destructable rally flag or something as a mobile respawn point. This would force the players to stick together, in order to defend or destroy the rally beacon. *Or instead of respawning, the rally beacon could heal the teammates constantly. *I do think a good in-built communication system, instead of Teamspeak, and better, military lingo command lines would benefit us. I still hope one day I can join to a PUG, I have never been to, my Saturday evenings are too busy. I know these ideas are not easy to implement. They are here for illustrative reasons only. Wish you the best!

In return we should advertise Renegade X on the Warshift forum.

Still as I wrote in a bit lenghty post before this star wars thing (I wrote two posts after each other): I believe you could ask rights from EA, but ask them in a different way. Sorry to hear that Ska-Ara.

Also, this is interesting: http://9gag.com/gag/a1M8XNY The alpha of Star Wars battlefront (which was killed by EA) by Free Radical Design, leaked out in 2016, and people have started to port it to Unreal engine and they want to finish it. Without EA. Well good luck to them, but you know already why did I post this.