[What is the most needed job ? for FS I might be able to help]

To this poster's credit, I think he asks a legitimate question. Many of us in the community can help, but we assume no monies, so when we see a career link it's very confusing. 

 

 

600K US, i'm down like a clown charlie brown

[To the community & Mr. SX Turbo Man]

In my short time playing this game, I met a fella named Greg by happenstance. Greg runs the SX turbo server that people did bitch about, but lately I’ve heard people raving. I think he’s truly made improvements to the game, and I admire his passion for it. If you’re ridiculing his efforts, then shame. The guy is super smart and he’s focused squarely on making a better gameplay experience for the players.  Greg, I wish you success, I hope your spirit stays strong. 

[Passive Income]

On 11/3/2022 at 6:36 AM, Silv said:

We're in agreement about slow stalemate matches not being desirable. And I do think you're correct that losing the refinery feels like it has little impact on the game. I just don't think passive income makes all that much difference. Then again the passive income is the same as a silo and people do fight over that.

If you think about it the refinery is really two things: the refinery itself and the harvester. Losing the harvester hurts as it gives the entire enemy team VPs AND at least delays the bunch of credits from unloading. Having to park the harvester hurts as you can't get unloading credits that way. Losing the refinery hurts because it's like being forced to park the harvester without turning it back on, it gives a bunch of VPs to the enemy team (armor break + destruction) and it reduces passive income to a quarter of what it was.

I think all things considered it may actually be worse for a team to repeatedly lose the harvester than it is to lose the refinery. The constant "harvester has been destroyed" is terrible for morale and a nice boost to enemy VPs, which translate to a bigger advantage in the long run.

When comparing the refinery to the power plant I think the power plant is much more important. Assuming no advanced defense present (in which case it's not even close) the power plant "only" raises costs by 50%. For a light tank that's 300 credits more, 900 in total. A functioning refinery on purely passive income takes 450 seconds (7.5 minutes) to supply the money for this. If the power plant is up but the refinery is down it takes 1200 seconds (20 minutes) to get the 600 credits in passive income. However this ignores that for all but the most incompetent players most income is active rather than passive (except at the beginning of the map or if the harvester has a really short loop). Add in active income and losing the power plant hurts a lot more whereas the ref is sometimes "oh good, now the harvester can't get shot up anymore".

There's another effect that actually may make your suggestion, assuming it has a significant impact, counterproductive to your goals. When I'm low on money I'll play conservatively, I'll defend and stay close to spawns for refuels. When I'm high on money I'll likely play more aggressively.

My personal idea for the refinery would be to make destruction of it degrade it instead, counterintuitively making it more harmful by making it better. Keep the harvester but have each haul only bring in half the credits. And most importantly make the harvester run fully automatically without the commander being able to stop it. Scrap passive income, make the harvester the only thing that can provide money for the ref. On maps where the tib patch is outside the base this results in a steady income stream for the enemy if the team doesn't protect the harvester or a still important trickle of money if the team protect it. Problem is mainly that if the map design makes the harvester well protected this change would actually worsen the problem.

Furthermore I think map designs that rewards map control are important. The maps I enjoy most are those that reward being out there. Silos are the classic map design trick but I think those provide too small benefit, it's usually more of a target of opportunity (i.e. "if we have field anyway let's make sure to get it") and less of an objective ("let's take field to get the silo"). Comm centers are vital (because they spoil rushes) but can sometimes backfire because they limit the possibilities for counter-attacks, thereby making a team with strong field control very hard to beat leading to more defense. The emp cannon or equivalent on some maps is my favorite here, it rewards aggression, makes for a target that can swing the game, doesn't hurt other tactics if you don't have it and only matters part of the time (making gameplay more dynamic).

I agree with everything you’ve stated. I think your idea about the diminished refinery is interesting. Assuming all existing mechanics are overcome (e.g. harvester blocking) this would increase the slope of VP disparity which may promote strategic play. However, one thing I have observed is an increase in VP for killing higher VP tier units. If this is true, it acts as a damper for VP disparity and might cap separation between teams because VP beyond heroic is capped. I think that VP is an outstanding improvement made by TA to the original game, but like everything, it has subjective imperfections. I do like your idea, I think you could also explore alternatives such as making the harvester move at 1/4 speed.

Edit: The nostalgia goggles would probably smudge at this. This may be a roadblock for many ideas, but for a game  unburdened like firestorm, I wonder if the developers will have more freedom to explore 20+ years of restricted innovation. 

Edit #2: The reason I was focused on passive income is that I believed it to be a contributing factor to the problems I stated. The other advantage and probably the reason I targeted it mentally is that it is a “tweak-able” mechanic and therefore allows for subtle experimentation. If I were to be trying to make this change myself, I would try to come up with metrics. For instance, in Chess(FIDE) there is rule that 50 moves without a piece being captured (or fwd pawn movement? I don’t recall) will result in an automatic draw. I feel this way about building destruction as well, but I think the idea of a team fighting for a draw would be unappreciated in RenX.

Edit #3: Sorry I got distracted mid-update. I didn’t mean an automatic stalemate as a feature, but I would consider large gaps between building destruction as a candidate metric for unwelcome stalemates.

Edit #4: I had only read Silv’s second reply as of writing this. Since then, I have noticed additional replies. I think my example metric is terrible, but I agree with Silv. I believe there are likely good “fun” metrics to be found. I’m sure the RenX team is quite sophisticated, and maybe aware of some good ones, but I agree, I would ultimately rely on those for insight.

 

 

 

I strongly agree with your comments on power plants. On a map like X-Mountain where there is a power plant and no base defense I think the power plant is still a better target than the refinery. I recall the increase in price being double in the original game, but even at 1.5 I think its more impactful.

 

Alas, I have moved on from RenX for now, as I find several members of the player base to be extremely toxic without repercussion. I have enjoyed playing with most of the players, but I am not here to be the entertainment for these sorry bozos. With that said, thanks for the replies, I will not be posting anymore on this thread. 

[Passive Income]

7 hours ago, Silv said:

0.5 credits per second is 150 credits per 5 minutes. That means more than 10 minutes to rebuy a hottie / tech, more than 25 minutes to rebuy a medium tank. That's way too slow to prevent a death spiral for a team.

What you're seeing is likely active income from actions. Repairing tanks for example gives quite a bit of income and VPs while the tech class doesn't cost all that much to rebuy (only 350). Shooting enemies also gives credits and for decent players that's likely to be enough to rebuy their class/vehicle. Add in a few failed rushes of the opposing team (which lead to killed enemies and thus money) and it's entirely credible for a game to drag out.

Furthermore in this game defense is often easier than offense. When defending you're closer to your spawns so if you get killed you spend less time getting back to your position while the further the enemy gets towards your base the harder it is for them to sustain their offense. Logistics matter on the battlefield. And, while present not on Islands, defensive structures further make defense easier.

A death spiral certainly is possible and is in fact quite common but if the team that lost the ref has even a little bit more combined skill / teamwork than the other team it's far from guaranteed. And that's good because if the ref would be a reliable killer of matches the entire game would devolve into ref killing. Killing the ref, like killing the power plant, gives the enemy team an edge but no more than that.

EDIT: Re-reading the above post I think I'm arguing a few things the same (rep income, defense vs offense) to support a different conclusion. I really should have written my arguments better, it's a bit confusing this way.

Thanks for the reply. In no way have I been concise. I believe the feedback i've provided may be misplaced, but I thought i'd at least take a stab at a solution for the sake of discussion. I'll clarify that the gameplay I don't enjoy is frequent 3+ hour games where play feels diminished due to defensive posture from a team that has lost their refinery. I think this is a common circumstance as in many maps the refinery is often the first building to go as it is tall and towards the back of the base. 

I am attributing passive income as a potential cause for the extended duration and diminished gameplay. The tank discussion I included was somewhat unrelated to long games, but I felt it was a consequence of passive income. To your point, credits are earned through player actions. Supplementing that income with passive income allows someone to purchase classes that supplement their active income through higher damage/greater repairs. My current opinion is that the overall income is too high. I agree that a team can and should be able to overcome building loss with teamwork, however, I'd find it more enjoyable if it required a more exceptional effort/coordination. As you noted, defending is much easier than attacking, and I don't think this is an issue. I also don't think a reduction in active income would be beneficial to gameplay.

To summarize, my "wish" is to see more meaningful matches with greater resource battles and for the loss of refinery to spark more aggressive play from the affected team. My inclination is that passive income may be hindering my wishes by diminishing the value of the refinery and field control. Generally speaking, the game quality is pretty good as people do tend to stick around for the duration of these matches, but if there is "one" area i'd hope for change, this would be it. I also appreciate that you provided feedback as it provides evidence that some people prefer it this way. 

[Passive Income]

I have attached an image showing Nod's credits roughly 2 hours after losing the refinery on Islands. The refinery was destroyed around 45 minutes into the game. Losing the refinery rarely seems to cause a team to go broke. Instead it leads to passive play and long drawn out games. In the example I am giving, the income without the refinery appeared to be 0.5credits/second. Here are some positives/negatives I see to passive income:

Negatives:

• Stalemates / Long Games
  • Passive income increases game duration, but worsens the overall playing experience by creating games that feel like they will never end. These long games tend to require exceptional circumstances to end. The typical ending i've seen is that both teams rush via different paths and the team that arrives at the enemy base first wins the game.  I enjoy the long epics myself, but they feel less special when they occur on a daily basis.
• Domination of the tank field is minimally rewarded and often punished.
  • A team can forfeit the field by stopping their harvester and earning additional credits by defending (often holding the LMB to repair). They are able to accumulate credits and veterancy while staying close to their structures/spawn to provide maximum defense. The team holding the field will earn more credits, but the value of these additional credits are unlikely to convert into any advantage. The team holding the field is far from their spawn and far from their structures creating significant delay to defense. The exceptions would be any map where field control provides control over infantry paths or maps where the delay to return to base is small. 

Positives: 

• Provides earning potential for players just joining.
  • This could probably be remedied in a way similar to veterancy as new players are gifted some veterancy based on team VP, maybe they can recieve a capped stipend of up to X credits.

 

I understand some players may enjoy this aspect of RenegadeX, but I think the loss of these 3+ hour epics can be replaced by more competitive play via elimination or reducion of passive income. For starters, it would create a more aggressive field battle for resources on maps where it applies. Secondly, it would punish passive play by diminishing a teams ability to stall, hopefully, this would result in urgency among a team without a refinery. Lastly, I think it lends more significance to the tank battles on most maps which are fun and generally more inclusive as many players (myself included) struggle to compete in infantry fights. I'm sure there is more to consider than what I have stated, but I write this post simply to provide feedback. 

 

 

Thanks,