Lets stop camping/point whoring outside of your enemies base.

[epicelite]

Couple ideas to stop/detour people from doing this. It's not fun for either team.

AIRSTRIKE:

Airstrike costs $500, and a cooldown time after being bought (per-player or team?), should prevent it from being spammed.

Damages vehicles and infantry heavily.

Minimal damage to buildings.

You can call in the airstrike with a radio, just point where you want it and click. (Unlimited range?)

Can only be used on the battlefield field, not in a base.

You call in the airstrike on the enemy's camping position, a flare is created that cannot be disarmed. Only to alert that a airstrike is coming. Maybe 10 seconds from calling it till it hitting?

Would be fairly useless to try and use it against a single enemy as they would be able to move away easily. A group might have trouble though.

POINTS:

I think repairing a building should give more points then damaging it. This will stop people from spending an hour long game camping outside of the enemy's base.

Just a TINY bit more though, maybe .25 more points for repairing then damaging. So that people might actually think about "Are we going to destroy this building or just give the enemy more points?"

[Lance]

Maybe a bit more costs? 750+ because, that airstrike should be a large one (larger than the

normal superweapons)

And for the range i would give that unlimited range ability only to snipers (though i don't like that

ability ), or make another beacon, or even an signalflare for airstrikes.

Btw, why not being able to use it in the base? For example: GDI lost AGT but camps the only

entrance to the base. A nod guy decide to get an airstrike and place it in their base to kill their

vehicles (alot easier if succeded). Since buildings, like you said, take almost no damage, it

would be no problem.

Only my suggestions...

P.s.: This thread reminded me of my idea, with the neutral turrets on the field, that you can

capture. Maybe combine both ideas to make it more interesting?

[Demigan]

What if, instead of a beacon or a flare, you paint your target.

For 20 seconds, your aim needs to be within a certain area (say the size of one mammoth chassis), it takes those 20 seconds for the aircraft to approach and bomb the area.

If you paint a tank for 20 seconds, the airstrike will hit the tank even if he kept moving all the time, allowing for painting enemies that are moving fast or if you can't see the floor (in Under for instance)

This makes abuse harder, and you won't need any cooldown for it. The big targeting laser makes you rather visible and you a target.

perhaps have an airstrike for 500-750 credits where A-10's pepper the area with chaingun fire and a round of gunner missles (6-12 missles total?)

That would mean it deals good damage vs vehicles (but not instantly destroying them), deals with the main reason people CAN camp (hotwires/techs) and wouldn't deal too much damage vs buildings in one go.

If you have an airstrike that would be any type of powerfull vs buildings it would ruin the balance of the game. There are lots of places where you can paint a building for 20 seconds and get away safely (only every B2B level like islands). most maps have hard to reach spots such as the bridge in city that with little coverage can easily have 2 APC loads of infantry paint a building safely to destroy it, by the time that ENOUGH of the enemy even realises it is being painted it would be too late.

Or you add a tiny backstory for the aircraft, that they hold anti-tank missles with bad penetration vs building armour, meaning extremely low damage vs buildings.

As for the points for repairing. Repairwhoreing would be a problem if you made repairing give more points than damaging. What would be a better solution would be to add something to reduce the points you get over time.

Say if you keep hitting a building, but the amount of health stays above 70% after 6 shots? then you are not succeeding in destroying it and your points will reduce for each shot, untill you earn 3-5 points more then the repair team for each shot. That would give people who actively seek ways to destroy a building more points over time then the whore's.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[epicelite]

As for the points for repairing. Repairwhoreing would be a problem if you made repairing give more points than damaging. What would be a better solution would be to add something to reduce the points you get over time.

Say if you keep hitting a building, but the amount of health stays above 70% after 6 shots? then you are not succeeding in destroying it and your points will reduce for each shot, untill you earn 3-5 points more then the repair team for each shot. That would give people who actively seek ways to destroy a building more points over time then the whore's.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

I like it!

[Lance]

Just got an idea...

Maybe, we could use a building, that, if you captured it (via engi/hottie/techie), allows you to use the air strike (1 per side at the same time) (such as communications center).

Detailed:

At the start, the building is neutral. Someone goes in with an engie/whatever and capture it.

The side who controls it is getting a message (GDI caputered comm center, air strike available), the side who didn't capture, doesn't get any message.

But then, now under control, if the other side takes it (Nod for example), the side who lost control over it (GDI) gets a message...

This would make the game more interesting.

Combined with what you said, demi, and it will be fine

The only problem:

Creating a comm center

Would only fit on bigger maps.

My opionion.

Yours sincerly

[epicelite]

That's way too big of a change to the entire game, and if your stuck in your base how are you supposed to go and capture this building?

Think about this more man!

[kenz3001]

Just got an idea...

Maybe, we could use a building, that, if you captured it (via engi/hottie/techie), allows you to use the air strike (1 per side at the same time) (such as communications center).

Detailed:

At the start, the building is neutral. Someone goes in with an engie/whatever and capture it.

The side who controls it is getting a message (GDI caputered comm center, air strike available), the side who didn't capture, doesn't get any message.

But then, now under control, if the other side takes it (Nod for example), the side who lost control over it (GDI) gets a message...

This would make the game more interesting.

Combined with what you said, demi, and it will be fine

The only problem:

Creating a comm center

Would only fit on bigger maps.

My opionion.

Yours sincerly

That's way too big of a change to the entire game, and if your stuck in your base how are you supposed to go and capture this building?

Think about this more man!

lol well this would work the same as UT3's warfair mode (torlan map has 3 captureable assetts "2 tank and 1 air") or you could even imploment a bridge system so that only when you have the bridge captured you can take your vehicles a cross like UT3's warfare map Bridge Crossing (i was thinking of making such a map for the mod but could not be asked lol)

you could always have side "paths" to get to the asset from your base maybe with 1way gates so that enemies cant get through unless they have all assets. or like the UT3 map avalanche where if you have all assets it triggers a necrus attack on the nodes to make it easier to take the node but in the Renx world it would open pathways or give a large amount of credits to the team

i know i used UT3 maps as a comparison, but it just shows what can be done in the UDK well more can be done than that its just a mater of imagination

there are many ways to balance games with assets. If you hold an asset, credits gets diverted to build up the "power" (like a progress bar) untill the asset is ready, so the team will have less credits to use for weapons and vehicles or something along those lines

[epicelite]

Dude were tying to add this WITH AS LITTLE CHANGE TO THE OVERALL GAME AS POSSIBLE.

Stop making stupid suggestions that will change everything about renegade.

[kenz3001]

so you wonna add something that will totally change the game but try not to change how the game will play ? OK good luck with that lol

just trying to stop camping will make the game lame camping is a BIG part of Renegade

by adding something like air strikes you will have made the game different (Call of Duty with out structures) i like the air strike idea but you have to have "Stupid ideas" in order to make it work, i was just giving some realistic ideas to implement air strikes, but as you think it stupid to change the way the game is played, adding air strikes would just be stupid too don't you think ?

[Nielsen]

I love this thread. Let's just say that these discussions are not limited to you guys only.

And remember: "there are no stupid ideas" well... not really, we're not going to make the game pink or put a scotsman in or anything.

[epicelite]

Remember back when you guys didn't even wanna add the MRLS's turret being able to turn?

[Nielsen]

That was before my time

[Lance]

That's way too big of a change to the entire game, and if your stuck in your base how are you supposed to go and capture this building?

Think about this more man!

Just a few ideas... Anyway...

If you are stuck in your base, how are you able to hold it anyway?

Instead of just asking, maybe you should type your ideas for that...

But in my opinion, this isn't a great change to the game... I mean, one more building, one more ability (with a cooldown and only 1 per team)... the only change is, that you need to capture the building and the building itself... The rest would be just your idea...

Well... If you don't like it, there's no need to put it in

[Lance]

Sorry for double post... could you delete the last post plz (The one before this one...)?

I don't know why i wrote that complete shit...

Excuse me... might be because I was still "sleeping"

[epicelite]

I think buildings need a maximum repair rate.

[Angry Scientist]

if they have a max repair rate, they also need a max damage rate.

also, i remember the devs saying there would be possibilities of some extra suggestions making it into separate game modes. so theres no reason these things couldnt be included, they just wouldnt be in the main game type.

[Demigan]

I wouldn't vote for a max repair rate.

GDI has the best camp vehicles, and usually ends up camping first on most maps. With a max repair rate it would end up that the team that camps first only has to camp untill enough vehicles are attacking to overcome the max repair rate, then they destroy one building after the other. Which takes almost the ENTIRE game away!

Switching from big rushes, infiltration and tactical diversions to destroy buildings from inside/with beacons/with pure force is what Renegade is all about. With a max repair rate, it would be dumbed down to who camps best.

We could also brainstorm about other possibilities then an airstrike to stop camping, from artillerystrikes, to tiberium vapour bombs (minced tiberium to intoxicate the repair crew), to grenadiers with low damage but large area spike grenades etc. It should be most usable to a group of people who remain in one area, but not bases.

But in fact there is a completely viable way to end campers, but rarely ever used: get some tanks together, fill one APC with anti-infantry guys, then you have a simultanious rush with one group attacking the repair-crew and the other destroying the tanks. The repaircrew is, in the end, the whole reason they CAN camp!

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[epicelite]

That doesn't work when you're GDI because arties kill infantry in just a couple shots due to their high damage and large splash radius. Tanks get eaten up quickly too and you can't have hotties follow the tanks because they just get killed off by the arties splash damage.

If you're Nod and GDI is camping a few laser chaingunners can rip right through tanks in seconds, unless you got 2-3 hotties fixing one tank. MRLS's are easy to destroy, just get behind them (Easier said than done, still they can't do much against infantry that are not directly infront of them.). SBH's fucking EVERYWHERE trying to steal your shit if you hop out for even a second to repair yourself.

I say Nod has an easier time camping.

You can have a few artillery attacking, then 2 stanks waiting to attack anyone stupid enough to come out of GDI's base.

[Demigan]

Nod has an easier time attacking if they get some strong support going. However, in the beginning of the game usually the support is lacking somewhat. Giving GDI the edge with the best armour/damage/cost ratio's, causing GDI to start camping, and you are right that my camp-counter has a rather high chance of failing.

The problem is, camping is caused by teamplay, a repairteam repairs the tanks and hopes like hell that at some time, there's enough to try a rush.

The tank players are too chicken to go first, usually I have to go up front, sacrefice myself and even then there's rarely anyone who wants to come second.

Now this is a problem, because anything that can kill vehicles that camp quickly, is probably also good as something to fire just before a rush, or to destroy buildings, which would change the game too much.

Anything that targets the repair-team would destroy teamplay forgood. The repair-team already has a dogs job, getting not many points and being at far more risk then the tanks who gain more points. So anything that kills then would be rather unfair.

The best solution would be something that kills off the ENTIRE repair-team, but gives them ample and VERY clear warning that they have to move away. That way, the tanks would be forced to move back along with the repair-team.

So, perhaps Nod has a napalm artillery strike, which would deal around 30-80 damage to tanks and about 70% of a hotwire's health or even more. And GDI has an aircraft that drops spike-bombs which deal about the same. Both have ample reason to be good vs infantry and bad vs tanks and buildings.

Both teams might get a big flare, which takes 5 seconds to be thrown with a grenade-launchers range while standing still (makes you a target and dissallows abuse). Once the flare is in place, it's clear to anyone that they should get out of the way, and quickly.

The flare can be disarmed, but takes twice as much time as disarming a timed C4. In that time the tanks aren't being repaired and the opposing team can launch it's counter-offencive.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

I dont get it, 2 people with ramjet rifles that just remoteley worked as a team could stop any artellery in the original. cant really see the prob. removing the "pounding of buildings" would make them useless imo, and its a part of the strategi if u dont wanna loose to keep artellery down and for the other side to protect them from harm. also making repairs give more points would make peolpe play to defensive, ending up having 90% of both of the teams to dig in at the base and no one attacking wich would the game boring.

[Demigan]

I dont get it, 2 people with ramjet rifles that just remoteley worked as a team could stop any artellery in the original. cant really see the prob. removing the "pounding of buildings" would make them useless imo, and its a part of the strategi if u dont wanna loose to keep artellery down and for the other side to protect them from harm. also making repairs give more points would make peolpe play to defensive, ending up having 90% of both of the teams to dig in at the base and no one attacking wich would the game boring.

The point is that you first have to get a line of sight with the artillery.

Nod artillery is a bitch, when they see you, they can deal a shitload of damage against you and if they are a tech they can repair faster then 2 ramjets. If they get backup, which is usually the case, you don't stand a chance with 2 ramjets coöperating during the normal renegade mayhem.

GDI artillery is just as powerfull as Nod artillery, just much more unwieldly and due to it's mechanics much more usefull for standing somewhere protected and shooting volleys of missles untill someone else decides to coördinate a rush. Which makes the GDI artillery almost exclusively usefull for B2B. Which should be dissallowed as people who suck at the game can suddenly boast about the amount of points they've gathered.

There is nothing fun about a stalemate where one team is just pounding buildings without any effect. The game needs to be fluid and moving, giving the defending team a window to strike back might just be the right thing for the game.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

So, what you say is that u have to actually "do" something if u are 2 people to beat 2 other people? I can see how that is offending.

The ramjet kills any unit with a headshot! if u fail to stop 1 arty and 1 repair guy as 2 people with ramjet, then i dare to say that its not the game that needs tweaking it might be you.

Theres so many awesome way to beat your opposing team, from yes building pounding to nukes/ions, engie rushes and tank rushes+ many more genius ways. And there counters for every off theese. I beat many and been beaten by many Many times in this game, sometimes people are just better. if you can just trow in 500cash and ruin the offense for the other team (even tho its a sucky arty attack), ruin it for the attacking team that just did better in preparing and building up cash for the attack and possibly beat off your own attack. I see no fairness in a "autoexplode opposing teams succesfull attack because we failed- Button"

Ive ofc seen the scenario loads of times in rando groups, 20 nabs bunker up in a building trying to harvest points/cash from repairing while its free pts or the people in the arty's. Especially when in many cases only 3 are needed for that repair. in that case well your entire team is doing something wrong. The cure for this is practice and good freinds who also knows abit of the game. Ive played with totally newbs to the shooting genre in the original Renegade, and teamwork still paid off big time.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

I do agree with the B2B tho. Thats just sucky.

[Demigan]

So, what you say is that u have to actually "do" something if u are 2 people to beat 2 other people? I can see how that is offending.

The point is that Renegade features rather straightforward maps. 90% of the time you will be facing your opponent directly, and it's almost impossible to face your enemy from the side or behind when they are camping.

So all the repair crew has to do is hide behind the arty and even the best two teamplay snipers won't be able to do much about it. That's why there IS camping. In almost any game, a kwarter of the team is sniping, if all that can't stop the repair crew of campers, how the hell is coördinating with another sniper going to work?

Unlike you seem to think, I'm part of the most undertaking people in Renegade. Chem rushes, masses, loops, diversions, sacrifice teams, circling around the enemy, actively pursueing one goal, coördinating others to help to get one step closer to victory. I've done it all, and organised it all at least once successfully.

Killing repair crews by a joint sniper tactic has never been one of them. If you can manage to get a clear shot, you don't need a second one for it. You need a big beefy tank to soak up damage and get the arty manouvering, THEN you get a clear shot if the repair crew isn't following properly, THEN you might need a second sniper so you have more chance to get them.

I tried to give an idea that couldn't be abused (you have a limited range and are vurnerable when deploying it), but was still usefull for breaking hours and hours of mindnumbing campers. If you have a better idea, please tell, and we'll all look into it. That was the point of this topic.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan/

[TheGroundsKeeper]

A quarter team with ramjets? as far as i remember arties dies en 4-5 shots. Yes?

[TheGroundsKeeper]

Double post again. the edit button dissaper when u change page. btw also i apoligize sounding kinda disrespectfull in my last post, i see that now.

Most maps also have some kind of infantry only paths that leads to different places on the map. eg the one with the 2 walls has the small path to the rocks. i never seen anyone being able to camp there if u have somewhat control of the rock. Same goes with most of the other maps i can think of. If the opposing team Dominates BOTH infantry and vehicle paths then u are supposed to loose. In most cases the team that holds the infantry paths wins. So imo. the artyfarmers are just a biproduct of good players playing infantry.

Also u had choppers and orcas that artillery were defenseless against.

And for the airstrike. Would the players in the zone of the airistrike not just move out of the way and then back?

[Demigan]

You are right, you are completely right for those maps.

Walls and city are one of the few maps where no-one ever camps. The reason for this is that there are enough ways to get out and attack them from behind or sneak to their base. Camping is a problem in maps like Under, Field and Canyon. When one party manages to get in front of the enemy base, they are capable of keeping control of the entire field because infantry can only come from one tunnel or pop up right in front of them. Take field, where only one arty has to fire at the waterfall to keep back any infantry, even if GDI has the tunnels completely in their controll. Same goes for Under, or canyon, where you have 2 openings close to eachother where snipers are still a good target for vehicles.

The problem with these maps is that you don't even need infantry superiority, the other team can kick your team's infantry ass for all they care, but a well placed tank can keep them all back unless they pull off mass ravenshaws/pics or similiar, and then they still have a high chance of failing.

You do need only 4 or 5 shots with a ramjet to kill an arty, but most ramjets are too busy keeping the enemy kwarter of ramjets and random infantry off their back to simultaneously fight all enemy artillery, no matter if it's MRLS or arty. Besides that, there are few people who are capable of enough teamwork to simultaneously shoot one artillery.

Apology accepted by the way, if I too seem agressive or something, that's not intended. I try to rationalise and explain what I think is right.

As an edit. Nod isn't the only camper with their artillery. GDI manages to camp a great deal, probably more then Nod because of the Medium tank. high armour, great damage, relatively quick and big enough to hide a crew behind while small enough to allow several to stand in a row to pound the enemy. Only anti tank weapons help then, which take a lot more shots and a lot more balls to defeat then arty's, on top of that they need less attention to keep in good repairs. Only drawback in comparison to arty's: they don't have the same splash and damage ratio.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

Medium tanks are awesome no doubt about that, is by far my most favorite tank in the game, as you say sturdyness and ok dmg and a good speed.

Ii think tho its only a problem where u cant reach the other base by foot without getting out in the open.

I was playing a little at the renx server the yesterday. sadly we were max 4 players, and i felt that the splash dmg was HUGE on most tanks, especially the mammoth felt really big ang with high splashdmg but it might be me

The arty always had good splash dmg and broad range, but i generally remember it being fairly easy to dodge tankshells, wich i found alittle harder in ren-x.

As you say it can be hard to get random groups to work as a team, ex to get 5 rams to shoot at the same time, but it is a awesome way to finish off campingspots. And i do like that theres a good advantage for people who understands to work as a team.

But i do understand what maps you mean, Under we had a episode in 2vs2 where the guys on the gdi side was in 2 mammoths, i didnt get to try all my sneaky defences but we managed actually multiple times to chase/kill/steal some mammoths with 1xstank and the sakura-antitankgun(Good for boinking engineers aswell ). Also the light tanks are awesome for dodging the mammoths shells. I also remember compleley neggating Under's camping as Nod in the original by having 4 artys standing in base(behind airstrip tower) and shooting out of the base, will not work in a 2vs2 ofc, but i really dont think the game was ballanced towards anything less than 20vs20 if u ask me. When u hit the more serious games like 60+vs60+(wich is the best ive tried ever ) camping becomes nearly impossible, due to a bigger amount of badass infantry Anyways most maps there is a way to counter it, but some are much harder than others once the opposing team takes over. Anyways get afew freinds, and maybe get to know afew trough the game, get on voice and feel the magic of cooperation 4people playing tight makes the world of difference in a game like renegade

Edit: I dont think its aproblem om all maps, if u have some kind of other route, eg open road or other so you can start your own offence, its not that big of an issue, probs is in like Under where as u say they can seal off the trooperexit so theres pretty ,much no way out of the base. Most cases when a team has been camping to long on your base the defense goes sloppy and are easy targets for apc rushes or gunners :]

[Hyncharas]

I reckon the only way you'd be able to do it is if there was a "pain" perimeter that extended out from the center of the base, gradually whittling down your armour and then your health by 1pt/sec, unless the enemy team could take out the generator like other facilities. To make it a challenge it would need to be hardened like a Mammoth Tank, so only multiple people with Rocket Launchers or similar could take it offline.

The same effect could then be applied to vehicles, making it lose integrity inside a base's inner walls until it explodes or is hijacked by the other team - thus that team then owns and can repair it for use, until it's destroyed of hijacked back. To my knowledge that hasn't been done in any game.

[Demigan]

To my knowledge that hasn't been done in any game.

Maybe there's a reason for that (a)

Renegade should be about strategy, the right position with the right equipment can dominate the game. Having a 'pain' generator would be out of place in the C&C universe. You have a big ass obelisk or AGT defending you, that's your pain generator right there.

Also, should this generator be destroyed, then the problem arises again. More problems are the amount of damage it should deal, 1 damage is too little, but it soon becomes too much.

I think the solution should be brought in a stragetic package. making it hard to place the anti-camp measures, but not impossible. Also you don't want it to be a 'kill the enemy advance' button, so plenty of warning should be given and it should be tough to aim at a moving enemy.

Think of the systems already in place in Renegade. Every infantry begins with a timed C4, which makes them potentially dangerous vs any building and any tank. It's just terribly hard to place it and it gives ample time for the enemy to counter it even if you do place it.

Maybe the best solution would be to alter those maps entirely, and add a few other entrances and exits for infantry to fight back, even ample cover they can hide behind might be a simpler solution.

Take Under, put additional low infantry walls you have at the airstrip also somewhat further up the entrance of both GDI and Nod, it might just give enough cover from tank shells without being unbalancing to the game or even the mechanics already in place.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[R315r4z0r]

Couple ideas to stop/detour people from doing this. It's not fun for either team.

Speak for yourself. I love it when the enemy camps/point whores outside my base. It's one of the best moments in Renegade, imo. When it happens, it's the most satisfying feeling in the game, short of destroying a building on your own, to flank and destroy their position without them knowing what hit them.

It's one of the key staples that makes Renegade as awesome as it is and it should in no circumstance the changed to removed.

[Hyncharas]

It's a shame you can't just reproduce what C&C 95 had for a Renegade-title. Personally I wouldn't mind a sustained game where people in teams with kills and Tiberium could build up a base's facilities/defences, but again, there are people on here that would simply hate the time needed to invest in such a proposition...

[kenz3001]

hmmm dose any one else find this thread a bit anti Renegade ? what you speek of is what makes Renegade "Renegade" camping and point whoring is what makes the game so exiting for both teams ... thats all i gotta say on that matter

[Jointn00b]

hmmm dose any one else find this thread a bit anti Renegade ? what you speek of is what makes Renegade "Renegade" camping and point whoring is what makes the game so exiting for both teams ... thats all i gotta say on that matter

IMO camping and point whoring is what made Renegade BEYOND boring and eventually took out all the fun for me, beside the amount of cheater which were active. I mean, seriously. It's a game all about teamplay and doing stuff together. Point whoring was just standing by yourself all game long doing nothing but pressing 1 button until some1 took out either the pp or the ob/agt for you making it possible to move into the enemy base and keep doing that INSIDE the base. No, what made Renegade the game it is was the ability to take out buildings with nothing more but good tactics and a little bit of luck. I've been called a cheater for knowing my way around the enemy base and taking out either a ref or a pp while the entire enemy team was at the doorstep of my base doing nothing but camping. Fast paced action and rushes, THAT is what Renegade is all about IMO

[Hyncharas]

I agree that too much camping can alienate people. It's ok if it happens maybe once or twice a week, but if it was happenning to you all the time for months with no respite or game balancing, people like yourself would become so pissed off by it they would never play the game again.

Some people enjoy the constant "top dog" attitude even if it's just for recognition, but most who do are like the Luke Smith's of the world. A lot of us just want to play a good game; that's why debates like these are necessary.

As for your comment about fast-paced action, I'm not saying you can't have that with a process of strategy. However, you do need a plan to defend and a plan of attack, otherwise one base against another is pointless.

[Demigan]

Renegade DOES need camping, it's part of the game. The point is, that in some maps it's too easy for one team to start camping, without a good possibility of the campers or the defenders ever being defeated. camping only becomes exiting when one team manages to (nearly) defeat the other team, otherwise it's just pounding a building for hours at a time, and after somebody manages to finally break the balance and a building is destroyed, the campers, who have done nothing really skillful all the time, take the credit because they 'have most points' or 'have managed to destroy a building'. Thanks to the skillful players that is!

We need a solution that does not stop campers completely, but with the right strategy, you can break the campers, this could be an item, or something else that allows one man or preferably a team to be able to break the campers or force them back.

If we manage something like that, then there's a clock on camping. You need to build up enough of a force to rush, the longer it takes for you to form it, the more likely the defenders manage to break through some time.

So, anything that needs coöperation from the team to break the campers would/should be available. There should not be a 'kill off campers' or worse, a 'kill the enemy advance' button anywhere.

-The weapon gives ample warning to allow the campers to move out of the way.

-the weapon is hard to use, you need a team to accomplish it. Lone wolfing does not work unless the campers are plain stupid.

-the weapon isn't capable of unbalancing the game due to easy building kill or killing several tanks on the move.

-the weapon isn't spammable. Allowing a team to keep using it near their base defences to destroy an incomming mass would unbalance the game.

-the weapon is expencive, so it will not be used lightly. It should be a tie breaker when campers and defenders are both unable to defeat eachother. And never for anything else.

So, for instance an airstrike or artillery strike is called in, with a 3 minute interval before you can use it again. This way it can't be spammed.

There could be a limited range to fireing it, like C4 throwing range or grenade launcher range or something in between, and a short time for arming it.

For instance, you buy a special launcher unit, then arm an electronic beacon with a large light on top, and shoot it a short distance, you need to stand still for 4 seconds to fire it this way. Then an airstrike/artillerystrike will follow in the next 20 seconds with a AOE distance as large as a superweapon. It deals 80 damage vs tanks and 200 vs infantry.

This means campers have ample time to kill you if you have no backup, they have ample time to get out of the way, with the AOE of a nuke, it doesn't mean the team has to run a mile. It just allows the defending team a tiny bit of space to try and push them back. Same counts for the campers, if they manage to pull it off, they might be able to have just enough room to come out in front of the base defences and kill something.

Aditionally, you could allow disarming it. This should take some time for a lone engineer, so most of the repair crew needs to disarm it if they want to stand their ground. This still gives the defending team a tiny hole to attack, as the repair crew is busy for the time they are disarming it.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[xoham]

Considering this mod is taking so long (10 years?), maybe you shouldn't be asking for new features. Camping, which might be better termed siege, is part of the game. To defeat it, you repair buildings until you can afford good, anti-vehicle infantry. Then you push them back and put the siege on them. Only if defenders are incompetent AND the game time is set too long is the siege a problem for me.

[[NE]Fobby[GEN]]

Considering this mod is taking so long (10 years?)

10 years? We announced a UT3 mod in early 2007, UT3 was released in late 2007, we released UT3 betas in 2009 and 2010, and now we're making Renegade X its own game.

[Demigan]

How about a compromise:

First we wait for vanilla version, see how it plays, maybe sieges won't be as unbreakable in the X version, and that's the only problem I have with them, they are too damn hard to break. If it's still a problem, THEN we start brainstorming about solutions (I'm guilty). Maybe all that's neccesary is a tiny rock to hide behind to give both teams a way to break the other.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

Again i never felt the camping was a problem for me having fun either, and i think its a problem in under 40player games only. with the tank cap on 7 in the original and loads of infantry you could basically shoot down artellery with machineguns

[epicelite]

Having the most points does not mean you're having fun.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

I think the issue is alittle like soccer or fishing, alot of "no progress" gives a kick when it suddently happens Anyways i had loads of fun in the original. Imo nothing should be changed in ren-x compared to the old exept the graphics and glitches.

[159456]

you know, there is a way to get rid of Prolonged camping....

you could... add a second health bar?

basically, you've got your standard health bar, which is pretty much the same, then you have another bar, this one is much bigger, takes the same damage, but can't be repaired. the only way to repair the bar if to return to base. e.g. get on to the concrete of your base on walls, go past the obi/agt on under... when you get there the bar can automatically or instantly repair??

think about it. this can work, it stops campers from point whoring, as they're going to have to eventually return to base, and it doesn't interfere with other tactics such as rushes. this second health bar is going to be something like 10x the standard health bar, so it won't stop you from doing rushes, but since its un-repairable, it will force you to return to base to be repaired if you stay out in field and take too much damage(i.e camping:mad , giving the defenders a chance of fighting back!!!

not only that, if you are camping, the defenders 2nd health bar is always full, while yours is continuously being damaged ( if you're getting hit that is). so if your whole team camps, then they're all going to have to fall back at the same time, and the whole tide of the game changes.

with this, it encourages people to STAY BACK, and organize rushes.

p.s. could have a some malfunctions when the vehicles 2nd health is under 25%, maybe turret skips a round now and then, engine suddenly stops for a split second, your veh starts turning slightly to one side??

[Demigan]

you know, there is a way to get rid of Prolonged camping....

you could... add a second health bar?

No, bad idea. it would change the game too much.

While I don't like the camping that goes on for hours on end, it is a part of the game. The problem right now is that the campers barely need teamplay to hold their position, while the highest standard of tactics is required for the other team to break through. That's an unfair advantage right there that should be fixed. Mostly, when you do break through, it is because the campers didn't pay too much attention right at the moment you are attacking.

I've broken through numerous campers in my time, but I never had that special feeling like when you manage to destroy a building. As others do seem to have that, it would be a shame to destroy their experience of the game this way.

We may have been looking at this wrong, instead of giving the opposing team a weapon to break the campers, we should force the campers to require more teamplay?

Small changes could help out tremendously. Placing a big rock in front of the infantry entrance would create 2 ways where they can pop up, this would give enough leverage for dedicated teams to break a siege, as no one can stop your advance by simply shooting at the entrance for a few hours, and a little more teamwork is required by the campers to stop you. It's more fun to break a siege by fighting your way through snipers and mines and mines while still sporting enough anti-vehicle firepower. That would be almost as hard as breaking a normal siege.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[xoham]

I think the issue is alittle like soccer or fishing, alot of "no progress" gives a kick when it suddently happens Anyways i had loads of fun in the original. Imo nothing should be changed in ren-x compared to the old exept the graphics and glitches.

Ditto that.

[Demigan]

Given the size and scope of the new Renegade-x setup, my guess is that camping will be almost completely annihilated. I doubt that Renegade-x will sport huge maps that still have only one vehicle entrance/exit.

On one hand, a problem out of the way. On the other hand, we do lose some gameplay. Hope the siegebreakers can find something new to get their kick out.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

Well we played yesterday 21peps and the few sieges there was, was easily halted by A single ramjetter Those poor engies.