vandal33

I've seen an anti-armor light vehicle in original Renegade (TOW Humvee and Recon Bike) in games without WF. People only use it for camping and point-whoring. Their light armor makes people refrain using for attacks.

We could implement proximity C4 mines to be personal limit instead of team limit like the AT mines. Not 2 per person, maybe higher so games with low population can still be enough to mine each doors and windows/ramps. Not sure how "spammy" it will be if it's a full server but we never had that problem with AT mines and remote C4s. Then, proximity C4 can be used however people want in the field (unless they are the ones who use the prox C4 for defense). I think other people already suggested this, but can't remember the reason why it's not approved.

In my experience with games that save rankings: 1. People would be convinced even more that a person is cheating if he has a high rank. 2. It would encourage people to cheat more in order to show off their high (undeserved) ranks. Don't get me wrong, I like rankings, but it's just that it doesn't solve cheating complain problems.

Chems are fine, they would be underused if their tunnel defense is nerf. Teams without hand of nod deserve a decent character to fight mobiuses. Even that, only a few good players could put up a good fight against a mobius. Officers can easily kill them at any range, chems can only easily kill people at close range, which is their niche.

There needs to be an in-game message when a proximity C4 is equipped and mines have reached the limit telling the player the oldest mines place will disappear if someone on the team places over the limit. I know it sounds too much hand-holding but there's no where in the game that informs you mines disappear after placing above the limit besides being told by angry players yelling at the newbie who is over-mining (if they chose not to outright mine ban him/her, that is). Off course, this doesn't solve the problem completely as there will be new players overmining, it's up to the people on the team to be aware of the over-mining announcement and quickly react to it.

but why? losing other buildings is already more punishing...

Chem warriors are fine right now, they are meant to be expert at close combat, but officers can still win them. Officers are meant to be good against infantry, giving them nerf would doom teams without barracks or hand of nod even more. Marksmen are okay but I would favor a slight buff for them. Non-hitscan weapons make them not as dangerous as a long-range weapon should be at long range. Shotgun troopers are the only thing that I think needs a change. I blasted a stationary crouching engineer at close range with iron sights only deals 40% damage (he was capturing a silo and I was right next to the MCT) and he ran away while I was pumping. If I was using an automatic rifle, I would have killed him and possibly a second engineer if any were nearby.

Do you mean putting the map name printed somewhere on the walls/floor/ceiling of the map or the map screen?

But why?

I think I was in that game. Nod loses their Refinery early and as usual, they all went into full camp mode where all they do is just shoot enemies, fall back and retreat for repairs. It's not a threat to your buildings, you just need more teamwork to take it down. As to why the Orca loses, usually defensive helicopters will win, which I think what Nod was doing. I think The Apache player was trying to keep his team alive as long as possible, hunting stray infantry running around and spotting crates for teammates (at least that was what an Apache camping with good kdr was doing when I was on Nod yesterday).

Chem warriors right now can barely win against an officer at close range. They are meant to be close-combat specialist so the ease of aiming with good damage is all they are good at.

Individual players having the liberty to purchase and use nukes/ion cannons doesn't make it boring. Nukes are expensive, people don't buy them just because they can, people buy it when their instinct tells them it's a good time to buy, f.e. they see their team tanks in the enemy base or the last enemy building has every player in the team repairing making hard to destroy... or just buy it to plant a fake beacon to create confusion. Or a coordinated multi-"SBH nuke" if Nod players miraculously decided to work together. That's what makes it fun. The commander already have exclusive abilities like EMP strike and cruise missiles so he holds the decision to use support powers.

I just want a beacon pedestal back. I enjoy games with more winning condition. Just played Renegade last week where a server enable the pedestal end game thing and it helped losing teams to come back.

I like beacons because it gives losing teams a chance to come back in small games.

It would take a long time to get enough credits to buy it back an once a team has enough credits, the match would probably be a long boring one and having another building just makes it longer. Had this on Renegade, it totally makes unlimited time game boring. But buying a turret and SAM Site back should be OK, but it should be priced very high.

I kinda like timed games because of the secondary method of winning. I don't get why people are too desired to destroy all buildings to the point that the new surrender system had to be adjusted and made cringey. Timed games will make people value their characters, vehicles and beacons more although I respect the fact that people dislike it because it makes people get annoyed by their teammates for doing bad and "feeding" the enemy points (but usually, they will blame the harvester or building damage thats giving the enemy points). Even teams with the leading score would take less risks, especially if point differences are low whereas the losing team will give an all-out push, spending all their resources, team donating and cooperation... knowing they got nothing to lose in that last 5 minutes of the game and sometimes, it works. Unlimited time games would be boring (for me) if it doesn't end at a point where timed games would have ended already. It can be repetitive too, where one team is camping in front of the enemy base with repairmen farming points while the other team is busy defending and constantly repairing. I've seen this last for hours (not very appealing to attract new players, it seems dull) until one team gets bored and quit or doing some solo SBH work/sniper camping/etc. If it's timed, then the team who farmed points and controlled field should have won instead of dragging on. And some players (myself, included) would help the team more on timed games instead of wandering around doing their own thing if they're afraid that they don't have time to do useless stuffs. In unlimited time games, I would think "i can help my team later, i got plenty of time. for now I'm just gonna roam in this stealth suit killing afkers, spawncamping and follow enemies and get easy kills when they stop to type in chat."

I'm okay with bringing back turrets and SAM Sites at a VERY high cost, but I'm against the main buildings coming back. It would take a long time to get enough credits to buy it back an once a team has enough credits, the match would probably be a long boring one and having another building just makes it longer. Had this on Renegade, it totally makes unlimited time game boring.

but why?

I remember in a Renegade server, there was a crate that gives you a 10-second beacon (like in singleplayer), such crates are meant to help losing teams come back. I'm started to see more "game-breaking" crates again here. Not sure if it's a good thing. Anyway, full base repair crate sounds good.

future vehicles are all broken , I wish the big walker was just a reskinned med tank, and the small walker with the dual machine guns was just a reskinned humvee.

should just be an mlrs with buggy speed and armor and gunner damage

Or keep the harvesters the way they are but nerf the effects of elite/hero ranks.

I prefer bigger maps like Eyes, Under and Field. Field for example, the field is good, mountainous terrain, river, silo in the middle, bunkers and sniper on the rocks make infantry combat interesting. Would be nice if a map has all this obstacles for infantry battles like an empty guard tower, sandbags, trenches, remains of a bombed out building and indoor battles in the middle of the map. I like Walls and Islands too but the layout and design isn't my taste so I only enjoy these maps being a camper or Hotwire/Technician all game as combat is not that interesting for me. But I hate most maps with guard tower defenses, I feel it's a lazy way of balancing sneaking. And I prefer invisible walls over boundaries that suicide you.

Actually, the Aurora bomber in Generals slows down after dropping payload and it not only happens in ZH, it happens in Generals in general. But giving harvesters increased ranks would be nice since it already has a rank icon. 1 rank up per running over enemy infantry (since it rarely happens). Each rank ups increases its speed and/or armor. It also stops enemies from purposely dying to the harvs.

Sarcasm? Because a Harvester having rank is the first time I've seen a rank icon in Renegade X after the veterancy update. It's literally the very first unit that showed me rank icons appear on the HUD when you aim it so I will always remember it. Back to topic: Harvester doesn't need a gun, a turret or a cloaking device.