vandal33

I think it's nice. I felt something missing the first time I played renegade x without being able to choose the giant attractive mutant raveshaw.

I personally don't mind damage through building walls too, makes the warfield a more dangerous place. Also, knabis64 looks cute in that picture.

How about we add new base defense technique instead on relying a lot on mines which can be a problem by over mining. I'm in favor of those turrets if the current mine system has it flaws but I like how it is, I played the game a lot and usually, people just didn't care about missing mines or bother to check after seeing the 'player is over-mining near ...' announcement. Current mine is fine. Yes, new players over mining is a problem but the suggestions to new mining system will have problems as well, we're just running away from dealing with the newbie problem and then face another problem in the new system. I just think we need more active defenders to check on mines and let bad miners know about their faulty mine placements. At one point, these people will have to learn about proper mining, let's stop giving excuses and deal with this. If you lose a game because of bad mines eventhough you tried teaching those newbies, try harder next time. Be aware of your team's mines, use the mine ban to make them learn faster, react faster to over-mining warnings, etc. It's always the "oh it's his fault, not mine, let's blame the system..."

I'm a pacifist, I choose Technician or Hotwire and I voluntarily do tasks like repairing, mine laying, paramedic, tech capturing, etc. If harvesters are drivable. I spend most of the time collecting tiberium.

What's imbalance is both teams have different mine limits. I'm surprised no one complained how the airstrip only need 3 mines on all maps.

Shouldn't mcfarland be like an advanced version of grenadier or something like how chem warrior is an an upgrade to flamethrowers? He's pretty OK with me, except he should be more grenadier than shotgun trooper.

I vote for canceling the animation when sprint, not reducing clip capacity. It's unfair that shotgun players who didn't use this tactic get punished as well.

Stupid and annoying are opinion-biased. I don't know many glitches but I find it not a problem if people are doing it against me as long as it doesn't break the game (like disarm-proof beacons). If it's a problem, fix the game not the players. About planting in airstrip lights, it's just taking advantage of making the enemy harder to disarm it, not impossible.. If anyone has the ability to do it without breaking the game, it's not cheating / unfair.

I know. I always do all those but sometimes the other team called me out for taking advantages of them, so I thought these are also frowned-upon tactics. I remember taking out a hand of nod by placing a beacon inside the building (near the mct) and one guy from the other team said "what kind of noob plants beacon inside of buildings..." and starts complaining it was just luck having the beacon placed at an unexpected spot. Also, what about jumping through the airstrip tower windows. The first time I learned about it is when a guy does that at Eyes and getting insulted for exploiting a glitch. I've been doing it as well after that. (since the guy who taught me that said it's not wrong and dared people to complain about him at the forums).

harvester walking beacons inside a building random spraying at friendly infantry to detect spies easily

The current system is not perfect but I don't see any way to make this problem go away completely. Bad mining can happen when: new players don't know what is the best way to use the mines or not aware of mine limit people don't care about mines in base or its importance some troller is team-hampering a good miner didn't remove mines from a destroyed building For problem 1 and 2, those new players just need to understand the best use of mines and how it works. This requires their common sense or experience how their miserable mines fail the team or how enemy well-placed mines actually make a difference. Restricting overmining or individual-based mine limits (like the AT mines) just doesn't help them to understand eventhough it stops them from ruining the well-placed mines, other problems will arise like we already discussed how overmining can be useful and individual-based limit will break low player games. There should be like a help page that tells people about not to overmine and how it will affect the team. For problem 3, there's nothing much you can do. It's a team-based game and if one person is hampering the team in any way, boot him (or in this case, mine-ban him) ASAP. For problem 4, remind your teammate to demine the no longer needed mines. If your team loses just because the guy forgot to demine the mines in a destroyed building, don't worry, team failure because of teammate's negligence is normal. Basically, for problem 3 and 4, you can't find an effective way to prevent it so it's all about recovering from it. The ability to remove mines from "whitelisted" people or voted commander sounds good. How about friendly proximity C4s appear on radar clearly so it can be spotted quickly and removed by those who have the power to.

Worth testing out although I'm concern about trollers disarming them for no reason. And maybe kill-whores would disarm well-placed mines and replace it with their own for the leisure of getting the kill.

I think they're fine, they are fulfilling their intended role : efficient anti-everything at close range and tight spaces. Just exploit their flak armor weakness.

I personally don't mind this. But I know it can be frustrating when your opponent forfeiting right before you beat him, like playing chess with my brother, he always flips the table (not literally) admitting defeat every time when I was about to check-mate him instead of letting me end the "proper" way. People will surrender when they're about to lose in this game but since the majority of the opponents prefer that way, I guess we just have to accept it and move on. It's just personal taste whether we think this is a frowned-upon thing or not, if many people voted it to pass, then I guess it's fine. Maybe this habit of voting to surrender right before losing will stop once they realize how annoying it is, if they keep on doing it, then it means many people in the community are fine with it. Some people (including the ones on winning team) prefers fast ending instead of delaying the same results.

That doesn't mean the surrender should be deleted, it's just a situation where you don't need to surrender. There are real situations where the surrender is needed. The quote saying "glad the surrender failed" doesn't really proof it should be removed. That game had a chance of turning the table and more players voted no, it shows how the surrender feature is working without screwing up games when the majority still wants to play. As long as the required percentage of voting yes is high (75% or more), it shouldn't ruin the match since a vast majority agreeing to forfeit is needed.

Happens where a team loses a building early in the game and nearly all of them were either leaving game or trolling until the surrender is available. It's better if people just surrender since majority has agreed. It's quite boring playing when a team of kill-whoring snipers just prolonging the game, especially for new players. When most of the team members wanted to forfeit, the winning team should be proud they wrecked the enemy till they admit defeat, except kill whores who just kill or blow things up for satisfaction. By the way, strong first post, you must be a nice person.

Forgot about that since I assigned the switch fire mode a different key.

Bring X back too (quick 180 spin) while you're at it.

I dont think C4 detonates simply by squishing. Burning, shooting, squishing it won't blow it up.

The cargo truck could be a cheaper version of APC or its substitute if the airstrip is gone. Nod also has recon bikes in the sixth Renegade mission cutscene.

Commanche!

I've been wanting this since the original Renegade.

Mendoza chemical tanks exploding sounds nice. In Renegade, he was burning on fire when Havoc blew his tanks up so now we can see him on tiberium goo.

Looking down the scope wouldn't affect the weapons firepower. Firing from the hip should penalize the user's accuracy and recoil at best. If somebody gets a kill with a slow-firing bolt-action weapon with crappy crosshairs, I say he deserves the firepower. I am not a sniper-whoring guy, I get annoyed a lot too with these no-scope bullcrap but I am suggesting heavier accuracy penalty without scope.

Getting a free opposing-faction character is powerful enough, I don't even like having them invisible from enemy base defenses but whatever it is, they're already powerful.