Jump to content

Flamezz|Ninja

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Flamezz|Ninja

  1. I think comms center should be used as a balancing tool and should only be effective for the losing team. If a team is behind in points, or has lost multiple buildings.. having the comms center gives them the ability to sneak and infiltrate to level the playing field. I think the effective strength of the comms center (radius around you it sees, or seeing into enemy base.. etc) should improve the further behind you get from the winning team. If you are the winning team, the comms center should not work at all for you. after all you are winning. you dont need the comms center. I say get rid of it being something that has to be "captured" and just make its effects automati as it stands now, the comms center is a conquering tool. If you take over field, the comms center can be used to completely annihilate the other team. I dont like that. The losing team is the one that needs it the most
  2. So i really only recently the past few months got back into this game. Since I started playing again I've noticed a trend where a lot of players will surrender or change the map immediately once they started losing. Just today we weren't even ten minutes into the map, gdi loses ONE building (refinery) and 30 seconds later the entire team surrenders. I mean they still had WF and barracks, they had plenty of credits built up. but they just immediately gave up without even attempting to come back. WIthout even trying to organize any rushes, or sneak attacks.. they just... gave up. Ive been in games where my team was broke, and was only down to the powerplant remaining, with the other team without any losses. we came together, donated creds, had a massive APC airdrop and wound up winning the entire game in one massive rush. i mean dont get me wrong, there are times when stalemates happen, especially in a marathon server and despite several attempts at rushes okay, yeah, its time to change the map. but this whole giving up thing without even trying is really irritating to me. please tell me im not the only one that feels this way? anyway i'm not sure what a good solution would be as there are times when its appropriate to surrender... It just seems that it's a feature that is becoming abused and having a negative impact on gameplay. Maybe if it required more people to vote yes, or perhaps a timer - like you cant just give up within 5 minutes of losing a building. or heres a good idea.. what if when a vote passes it resets the game timer to 5 minutes. instead of just immediately switching maps. that way there's time for one last hurrah I dont know. I'd like to hear if any of you have any thoughts about this
  3. I have a question.. can passworded servers be DDOSed even if the attacker doesnt know the password?
  4. I think there's a lot of things that contribute to stalemates. lack of teamwork, lack of resources. But I've seen situations where one team had all but one building destroyed, and through collaboration/skill was able to come back and win the entire game. But other times depending on the situation, getting past defenses or campers on a particular map is impossible. usually a bunch of engineers/techs hiding inside a building and fending off prolonged attacks indefinitely. I think one of the big problems is the games over-reliance on economy. I would much rather see a system that favors strategy, collaboration, and skill, rather than just sitting there mindlessly attacking or repairing for the sake of getting points. I feel like a potentially interesting mechanic for this could be fragmentable buildings/ environment / vehicles. like what if hitting a particular spot on a building over and over with an arty was able to punch a hole through the wall? Or collapse a ramp? Maybe if you hit that rock over a tunnel the whole tunnel could collapse? or you could blast a hole through the side of the barracks with a bunch of C4. This would add a whole new level of gameplay as alternative routes (besides the designated entrances & exits) could be made. Picture the scenario where a rush occurs, a building surrounded by 6 flame tanks and a bunch of hotwires inside repairing. this could go on indefinitely. it rewards no one. Nod gets no reward for organizing a rush, and GDI is encouraged to just sit inside the building and repair. Say GDI is winning and all they have to do is wait till time runs out and they'll win the game anyways. but what if during an attack the building were to fragment around them? suddenly infantry can enter through new holes in the wall, the hotwires are now exposed to the fire from the tanks. This would encourage collaboration and open up opportunities for infiltration Or how about for defense purposes.. What if a tank running over a proximity mine blows the tread right off of it? now all of a sudden that tank cant turn left, or what if you could collapse a tunnel or block an entrance into the base? suddenly strategic placement of mines and clever strategy could help defend your whole base from attack even if you're low on resources and losing. Or what if you could snipe the pilot of that orca flying overhead? or hit the driver of the humvee? Suddenly skill and accuracy is rewarded. What if that arty thats been sitting there point whoring for the past 5 minutes.. what if you could come up next to them and "break in" to their tank and steal it from them. Suddenly the ability to sneak up on someone is rewarded and not the point whoring This idea literally just came to me, So for all i know its a terrible idea. lol. But it seems like increasing the interaction with the environment could add entirely new levels of Infiltration/ defense strategies. And would add rewards for strategy/skill even if a team is losing Other shortcomings I've percieved. I think RenX would see a huge upswing in collaboration efforts if it was able to integrate it's own voice communication. I dont know anything about the technical details on doing that, but if you could just pop on a microphone and talk to your team without having to go through teamspeak that would be amazing. I think it would be cool if there was a "team credits" where money could be easily pooled for purposes of rebuilding buildings, getting new base defenses, etc. etc. i also love the commander mod we use in PUGs. i feel like something like that should be standard in every game Just my thoughts. see what you guys think
  5. can someone explain this like im 5. Cant a server differentiate between traffic coming from a DDOS program and traffic coming from the actual renegade game? I mean when you launch a game through the ingame multiplayer surely it must have some sort of unique identifying characteristic right?
  6. the better question is why? why would someone go through the trouble of ddosing a renx server? there's only a small number of people that play. its a free game.. what the hell is the point of DDOS'ing !?!?!?
  7. It actually seems to be a recurring issue. I have to go in to task manager and end the UDK program and then it will work.
  8. It seems to have magically resolved itself. so..... i guess problem solved?
  9. I'm not entirely sure whats happening. I was just playing not even two hours ago with out any problems. I can load the launcher just fine. i click a server, click join game, the mouse hesitates for a second with the loading icon and then.. nothing. nothing happens. the game just doesnt even launch. But for some reason the launcher itself thinks that it has. It says in the bottom corner "the game is running" but it isnt. I even look at the task manager and there is no game running. I tried joining servers, i even tried just clicking launch game and nothing happens. It's not even creating any new log file or anything. heres a picture: http://imgur.com/ZIHCBsA as you can see it thinks the game is running but it isnt. I did not install anything new in the intervening time. however after it stopped working i did a restart and there was some windows updates edit: i tried multiple servers
×
×
  • Create New...