[Pick Up Games (PUGs)]

To summarize (Team1 point of view)

X-Mountain:

Lights and Arties, Lights and Arties. My two favorite snipers and field repairs. A stalemate ensued in front of GDIs base entrance, as GDI pushes with Mediums and Mammoths, whilst Nod keeps the GDI Harvester down. But the GDI harvester was the real MVP here, pushing out vehicles (TWICE). Death through swift destruction of the GDI Refinery which sealed GDIs fate.

Volcano:

A decent 70 credit start prevented the typical "Fartland vs Chems" confrontation and instead lead up to an interesting fight for the harvesters and close range building defense. An honorable, yet ineffective, attempt of Nod to strike the GDI base with arties was prevented by a fast reaction of GDI with rockets and guns. What ensued was primarily a fight for both sides with vehicles, as Nod started ultimately losing every Harvester and every strike with Flames and Arties was quickly taken out. What followed was the destruction of one building per minute in Nods base.

Islands:

The typical strats were in my opinion the best choice here as Nod, quickly pumping arties into the field and starting to wipe out vehicles and buildings. Oh how wrong I was! GDI made a good and fast interception of the Arties with gunners and began pumping meds into the field shortly. What ensued was a massive stalemate, until suddenly GDI gains the upper hand and pushes in with Meds and Mammoths and: "Uh guys, Ref-" *Boom* One leads to another, as we start losing vehicles and begin pumping less and less vehicles, GDI eventually takes the upper hand completely and wipes Nod off the face of earth.

Whiteout:

To quote: "Probably get the silo, probably get the comms, probably push meds into the field". What happened here was a constant back and forth, with us losing the Harvester and us gunning down the Nod Harvester with Machine guns and explosives. During the backs and forths of field control, GDI eventually took over the harvester control, while Arties shell our vehicles. Somehow during the process, the GDI weapons factory gets taken out, and as we start losing, GDI daringly tries attacking the HoN with a tranny filled with Sydneys, which ultimately failed. To quickly take out Nods buildings, we decide on Gunners and start shelling one building after another, whilst a stealh tank rush endangers the Barracks, luckily we happened to have our Gunners on the same side. After this, we finish our shelling and the PUG ends.

Overall, good games everyone! I really enjoyed commanding this team. I might start to show up frequently again.

My recs: The harvester, Ukill for switching teams, and team1 for a nice round. 

[What kind of player are you?]

5 hours ago, jpjtyld said:

Generally the guy that will either have caused a complete bloodbath in about 10 minutes or will have left seething in rage by that point. I get way too salty for my own good.

Oy, my bitch is on the forums!

I'm generally doing whatever, mining buildings, driving tanks, LCGing the fuck out of everyone.

[Q-spotting]

13 minutes ago, Henk said:

Spotting one or multiple teammeates could say: "Follow me, Player X, Player Y." Just like you can do with bots in skirmish.

Maybe also Take Cover, Fall Back and I Need Repairs with friendly playernames added to them if you aim at them. (So not Q-Spotting, but when using the right commands)

Maybe if you Q-Spot an allied Engie/Tech/Hotwire a "I need repairs, [NAME]!" 

Imho "Follow me" doesn't need a q-spot binding. The ALT+CTRL menue should be sufficient. But yeah, displaying the name of the person you look at when you use the "Follow me" like "Follow me, [NAME]" would be cool. 

1 hour ago, yosh56 said:

Already done. 

Yeah, I was already told that. Didn't know. 

What I'd like to know is how much Tiberium the Harvester has loaded, thus for how long the team has to defend the allied harverster. 
E.g. "Defend the Harvester! [Tiberium load in percent]" if that wouldn't be too much effort.

[Q-spotting]

Q-spot crates.

[[Poll] Bring Back Side-arm Replacements! [CLOSED]]

No. No No No. No. No. No.
The secondary weapons need no adjustment. We don't need techs with carbines.

EDIT: What do you mean by "readded". Every unit has a secondary weapon/sidearm. 

[Mining]

6 minutes ago, Axesor said:

automatically recharges itself after XX seconds after being used, if not hacked

And this is the point where base defense becomes even more boring than it already is. 
Base infantry defense would just be thinned down to "don't touch my terminals" and "stare at laser walls". Jeffs implementation still includes "Where exactly did we lose mines?" "Did we lose any extra mines?" and "We need to repair the mines". With (your idea of) laser walls it would be like: We ended the attack. End of story. 

I also don't see the "AOE" potential. A laser isn't an explosive device. A laser is a beam of energy. 

[Mining]

49 minutes ago, Axesor said:

I dont know how about doors laser but window one could be tanked as it would have effectivness of 2 mines, so I guess high hp character could survive it, but kills most of infantry types. For example Havoc and Sydney could survive this window laser.

Doors laser would have effectivness of 3 mines. It means that lasers life is equal to 3 mines damage. After touching it, the laser discharges its power depending on characters life. If its power is not all consumed yet, it starts to flicker and then recharges back after XX seconds. Door laser can be turned off by hacking door panel with rep gun/tool.

As for HON windows, there could be a laser wall for each window with its effectivness of 2 mines. Glass cloud be entirely removed.

This is the example of how laser wall could look like 

What makes mines so dangerous isn't simply the danger it poses to a single infiltrator, the splash damage can kill entire groups of hotwires/techies if they go off right next to them. That's something the laser wall could never accomplish. It would prevent a single infiltrator in a group of, for example, four infiltrators. You still have then three infiltrators, and three remotes are more than sufficient in terms of taking out a building. Not to mention if these three infiltrators are hotties/techs, then the remotes themselves are enough to cause critical permanent damage to a building. 
It would buff infiltration way too much in terms of group infiltrations. 

[Mining]

9 hours ago, Agent said:

 that also can't be placed on friendly buildings (after all, you can't very well have explosives attached to your buildings! That would damage them!).

I'd really love to see remote spam no longer being a thing in buildings. Mining aside, remote spam is the best way how to deal with infiltrators by using 0 effort. Hell even 1k units die from that way too easily (inb4 get flak, you won't outsustain the c4 spam). So if we aren't allowing any mines in buildings anymore, then remotes and timeds should be also prohibited on allied buildings.

I like Jeff's idea. Predeployed mines that can be recharged. We should probably restart the vote and shorten it down to fewer choices.

[Pick Up Games (PUGs)]

Meh. I'll stick to meh. The obelisk has quite nice textures. The font on the mine counter is nice too.

[My opinions about the game and how to Improve it.]

1 hour ago, Neutron said:

1. Aiming Downsighs and Recoil.

What, really? Why is Aiming downsighs and Recoil was added to Renegade? Renedage is not Call of Duty or any other generic shooter. I loved Renegade because of It's gameplay, I loved how all guns have Pin-point accuracy without recoild or the need to Aim Downsighs, it made Renegade Unique to me.

In my opinion Aiming Downsighs and Recoil needs to go. Or atleast make it Turnable On/Off in the game settings menu.

The reason why gunsights were added is to improve accuracy. It employs slightly slower mouse movement and allows to be more precise with your aim. It's a nice addition to the game and I really don't see how this is ruining the game. Also this isn't limited to generic shooters. ArmA, Planetside, every shooter that was released past 2010 uses ironsights or any sort of gunsight to assist aiming.

Recoil is only noticable with rifles (Autorifle for Soldiers or Carbine for Gunner/Sak/Havoc) and Chainguns (Officers/LCGs). The prevent the constant "spray and pray" and force the player to be more conservative with his shooting. In addition to that, removing recoil entirely would make any of the above stated classes crazy overpowered and would force poor Yosh into changing damage values again.

1 hour ago, Neutron said:

2. SBH's Laser Rifle.

The Laser Rifle from the Original Renedage used to look better and was more powerfull. The new model of the Laser Rifle and It's changes makes it less apealing to me.

Also, the sighs of this weapon are terrible, When you try to Aim Downsighs with the Laser rifle, it makes aiming impossible, You can't see your target when you're aiming downsighs.

That's debatable. I can still easily take out unsuspecting snipers with an SBH. You just need to aim for the head, and yes, the ironsights are not well made, especially in cloak mode those are near impossible to use (I'd just use the holosights from the PICs instead of ironsights to be fair).

1 hour ago, Neutron said:

3. Mendoza's Tiberium Rifle (Or whatever his weapon called.).

Honestly, his weapon is overpowered. I'm talkind about the secondary fire mode (Alt. fire), It's very powerfull, It can destroy Vehicles and Buildings very fast, speciality if you shoot the Master Control Terminal, it destroy buildings VEEEEERY fast that way. It also makes Timed C4's Useless, why you need them if your primary weapin can do much better? I think His primary weapon needs nerf.

Well, duh. Same as Mobius, Mendoza is an allrounder, who can tackle infantry, armor and even buildings with relative ease. He suffers from long distance combat (Snipers/MLRS) and point blank combat (Shotgunners/McFarlands). Medium range is his turf, and vehicles just die to his alt-fire. He can only focus on one unit, so while he's busy attacking a tank (which still takes a serious amount of time) an infantry unit can try taking him out. 

Btw, if someone makes it past your defenses and manages to get into your building, nearly any unit could destroy that building. Especially Techs/Hotties. Are they going to see a nerf because of that? No. Cause that's one of their roles. And tackling buildings is a thing that Mobiuses and Mendozas do. 

1 hour ago, Neutron said:

4. Gunner's Rocket Laucher.

I think his primary weapon is weak, it doesent deal enough damage to vehicles. If I have 1000 Credits available I would choose Sydney because she can do things much better than gunner. I think Gunner's Rocket Laucher needs buff. If he would receive a buff, I think it would make a great Multirole unit. (Jack of all trades, Master of none.).

Watfuk, Gunners are the bane of every single building. If you can get a gunner rush going with 5-6 Gunners, you can expect at least one building to go down. That's something that's quite impossible for LCGs, at least in terms of range and speed. As for vehicles, I can take out Artilleries without bigger issues as Gunner, unload a magazine of rockets into the artillery, finish of with carbine. I think he's fine as he is. In comparison, the LCG only has one weapon and has to reload it entirely, while Gunner can just tackle vehicles with the rockets and attack infantry with the carbine.

1 hour ago, Neutron said:

5. Item Purchase; Secondary weapon (Heavy Pistol, Carbine, Auto Tiberium Rifle).

Why is this feature removed? I really loved the option that you able to purchase a more powerfull Secondary weapon that can replace the Weak Silenced Pistol. Why it was removed?

And I really like how you need to capture A Tiberium Silo in order to able to purchase Auto Tiberium Rifle.

Why is this awesome feature removed?

The silenced pistol isn't exactly >weak< it's acceptable, as long as you point this thing not at the center of the mass but more towards the head. I dunno why this was removed, maybe one of the silly devs can tell you more?

1 hour ago, Neutron said:

6. Retarded AI.

Oh GOD!! I cant stand this AI. In many moments I find when I fight an enemy, comes a friendly AI and starts pushing me, when we are in vehicles. I'm trying to reverse but the Idiot AI is pushing me, not allowing me to reverse. Seriously, even once I purchased a Medium tank, an AI in vehicle drove to the War Factory's enterance and doesen't let me to drive.

Blame Epic Games.

[Pick Up Games (PUGs)]

32 minutes ago, Ryz said:

Thx for that feedback. By the time we played walls I didn't care anymore. Concerning the 'V' button (or looking it up with M). I know, but I also try to get reaction(s) from the team.

I know that you know all the stuff I'm about to write, it's just important to assign these roles to players. The best way to do so is to go ahead either at the start of the PUG or between rounds to ask your team "Do we have any voluteers for role x? I need an amount of y people for that"
And for roles you got:

Base defense:
These folks usually roam in your teams half of the map, intercept enemy units or just prevent building destruction + infiltration

- Repairs (2-3, no more no less - Should NEVER leave the base under any circumstances! Their job is to watch mines and protect + repair the buildings - Make sure volunteers actually realize that their job might be either filled with lots of action and stress or it could be just staring at the mine counter, or both.)
- Aggressive (eliminate tanks/infantry attacking the base - amount is map dependant, e.g. Mesa needs more than Under in this regard. Usually like 2-5 players. Those can also utilize vehicles at their own discretion. (E.g. Islands: APCs guarding tunnels))

Offensive:
Turtling is something best avoided in Renegade X, thus you need players actively attacking the enemy base to keep their defense on the toes and to eventually crack the enemy base.

- Vehicles + Infantry (1k units, anti-armor & anti-infantry units - Usually this is the "Do whatever" or "Do this if I didn't state otherwise" group. This will be your major group. Attacking buildings, killing approaching units, killing repairs. Allrounders belong here.)
- Infiltration + Recon (Kinda obvious, I'd go ahead and assign no more than 2 players for this, and it should be players with expertise in this field. No solo nukers just running rampant.)
- Repairs/Capture (2-3 players, situation dependant - you can increase that to 4 or more by taking people out of the other Offensive groups, or decreasing that to 1 if the enemy resistance is low)

The roles you should assign first are Base defense repairs and offensive infiltrators. Those are key players who can quickly change the outcome of a match. The other roles play a key role aswell, as field control is incredibly important as well as keeping the pressure up, otherwise you might be quickly pushed to the wall. Usually some players go ahead and volunteer for certain roles, which can save you some time. Maybe we should ask players when we're captaining what they would volunteer for before the PUG?

Speaking of which, I'd love to see a system where players could put in their preferred roles, so captains don't have to guess or ask around too much what the players could want to do and instead pick depending on preference. Are you more of a offensive tanker or an active miner? Do you prefer sniping or just taking out vehicles? Questions that could be asked beforehand and would save lots of time (and nerves) during PUGs. Of course, it could become a filtering criteria (it already is, snipers are pretty much always being picked first. As they are key offensive players), but as seen in many PUGs, you need players for every role, otherwise matches can quickly turn out to be very dull for one team or the other.

[No more players?]

8 minutes ago, Gliven said:

Alpha --> Beta --> full game --> first day DLC --> $50 hats DLC --> Reneage-X 2 Alpha

25 Dollar Bronze Battlepack with a 0.25% chance for a havoc skin

[Curious 28]

Oy, two three four (I give up) people who aren't me have voted on option three D: 

Well, on some Saturdays I see during PUGs that both the PUG server and at least one public server is decently filled. So having player amounts available shouldn't really be an issue, I mean, of course it would split the players between servers. But having less player slots in a popular server will obviously increase the amount of players waiting for a slot, so instead of waiting they can go like "huh that other server is interesting too, I could hop on that" and thus fill up another server. Repeat ad infinitum. 

28 slot servers sound interesting, as we've seen with Sunday PUGs that slightly decreased playercounts work for the current set of maps definetly better. I catch myself often running out of options on 20vs20, while 14vs14 gives me opportunities I'd usually miss due to people being >>everywhere<<.

Honestly, if we'd adjust the maps a little bit in size and dynamics (I really really like Arctic Stronghold in that regard), we could even make 20vs20 more interesting. But while maps as Eyes are way too big (actually this is unique to Eyes) and open with whatever slotsize you have, maps like Under feel extremely stuffed in 20vs20 situations, while being surprisingly interesting with, for instance, 14vs14. 

So yeah, why not, host one Madkill. 

[Questions from a Koran / Bible n00b]

18 minutes ago, Handepsilon said:

I might be wrong, but it's probably because Jesus and Muhammad's times are different. If I recall correctly, the verses that states to wage war upon the infidels came after Muhammad takes refuge in Medina.

And a bit related to that. my last friday's sermon urges to oppose non-believers, but use violence ONLY as last resort.

Interesting note, the Bible and the Quran overlap at certain points, going as far as to even state Jesus/Isa as a prophet in the Quran, as well as some of the miracles he did in the Bible. Of course he doesn't have a messianic role like in the Bible there.

Violence should never be advocated by a religion as an option, not even as a last resort. Violence is a personal choice, based on personal jurisdiction, at least in my opinion. Another reason why I'm not really attracted to any religion and have my personal beliefs. But yeah, I don't intend to spark a discussion over that : P

[Questions from a Koran / Bible n00b]

The Quran is similar to the bible, in terms of that diehard followers of the religion will accept every single word as is and will take these words as facts.
The reason the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, IS, whatever you want to call that) exists is cause of verses like stated here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
Of course, not every Muslim (especially those who can actually use their own mind instead of blindly following a religion - same applies to Christians) is going to commence a Jihad cause of such texts. I know enough Muslims to say some are very tolerant, open minded and friendly.

There is no revision of the Quran, only translations. There's plenty of different translations and interpretations of the Bible afaik, since it was written in old Latin and translated like a billion times by now. But essentially all of them share the same story. Keep in mind that the Bible itself is huge, you might want to read up on summaries and the likes first before plunging into such a huge book.

By the way, the Quran is sort of... weird to read. It contradicts itself in more than a few ways, since the core rules are like "You shall not kill" while clearly stating that all infidels must die. The bible is also violent in some passages, but doesn't directly command me to murder anyone so... make up your own mind, read that stuff if you're interested in that. 

[Post your RenX screenshots]

12 minutes ago, Ruud033 said:

 

I guess everyone likes new field

[Trump Won]

11 minutes ago, j0g32 said:

?!?

Regarding this

6 hours ago, j0g32 said:

Honestly, as little as I would have wished for it, I am not that surprised about the election outcome...

Just so sad to see this "lining up" with all the recent Nationalist / Conservative movements, e.g. France, Germany, Poland, UK and now US...

[Trump Won]

31 minutes ago, j0g32 said:

Honestly, as little as I would have wished for it, I am not that surprised about the election outcome...

Just so sad to see this "lining up" with all the recent Nationalist / Conservative movements, e.g. France, Germany, Poland, UK and now US...

Fascist since '33. And it's the most fascist thing to invite Syrians over to fuck our wives. </exaggeration>

 

13 minutes ago, Ska-Ara said:

building a wall is no plan dude.

Hey, we Germans know very well that building a wall works. Sometimes. 

[Trump Won]

1 minute ago, YagiHige said:

It's funny, how this is still funny. I really do think once the people currently over 48 die of natural causes, politics are going to be way more "reasonable". Like a democratic-socialist, versus a candidate who wants restricted-government-involvement.

The greatest thing about it that this allows me to shitpost near anywhere on the internet to trigger all the SJWs and hill-shills

But yeah, if Shillery didn't kick Bernie out (check the leaks) we would have had our democratic socialist. The democrats got what they deserved, haha. 

[Trump Won]

Just now, YagiHige said:

That's racist towards the water though. (☞ಠ ͜ʖರೃ)☞

And the water will pay for the wall ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)

[Trump Won]

4 minutes ago, Henk said:

Plenty of space in the parts that are 3 meters above sea level.

You can build a wall to keep the water out

[Trump Won]

1 hour ago, Agent said:

Fuck you.

Hahahahahahahahahahahah

AND GUESS WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR RENEGADE-X?
Mexico!

[Delete or change Surrender vote]

On 23.10.2016 at 4:52 AM, CampinJeff said:

Not necessary by any means, nor do I know how hard it would be to implement, but I feel surrenders should simply make the enemy team all Heroic while everyone on the losing team goes back to recruit. People do have a point in that surrendering is the most unexciting way to end a game, as it removes the climax, making the winners unsatisfied and the losers shrug their shoulders. 

Honestly, why not this? 
Or disable building repair, if that's somehow implementable.

56 minutes ago, dr.schrott said:

I would disable starting the surrender or map change survey for players below 300 points and disable voting capability in surrender and map change survey for players below 150 points ??

We had yesterday a round of (I'm pretty sure it was) Tomb, where the best player of the opposing team had like 187 points. Surrender vote was possible at that time, and they had already lost everything but the Barracks. Making the surrender vote go like that would just prolong the inevitable in such cases, especially since you still need a minimum amount of "Yes" voters. 

[Pick Up Games (PUGs)]

5 hours ago, Henk said:

I notice that too, I'd love to see more gameplay in the middle of the battlefield

Someone remind me to start OBS before the pug, I usually just dick around main rushes with tanks, so if you're interested in that sort of stuff I could upload that.

[This new Protoss shield system with buildings is terrible.]

'Toss shields regenerate automatically you know... You still need to repair the building.
Permanent damage adds to game flow and punishes sloppy behaviour with attacks on allied buildings.