Airstrikes are absolute bullshit

[cleanhands]

The idea seemed good when I heard about them. A way to break siege lines. Great!

Turns out it is impossible to deploy them defensively when you are trapped in your base. You just get sniped or shot down by tanks while standing still.

But they are great for the team that already has the advantage! They can deploy airstrike after airstrike to utterly demolish all the tanks and engineers that are trying to break out of their base. Constant airstrikes hit the defenders who are stuck inside and they just lose all their vehicles over and over again and the technicians/engineers trying to repair those tanks to help break out.

Airstrikes are complete crap. I wish they would be removed.

Other than that the game is fantastic. Thanks a ton for all the great work, Totem Arts! I only complain because I care.

[Noodlesocks]

I've seen lots of successful defensive airstrikes, even on field. Heck, was in a game earlier where the defenders won by about 40 points because of defensive airstrikes... And because GDI were too afraid to attack with mammoth spam.

Keep in mind that they have a radius quite a bit bigger than the indicator shows and you don't have to expose yourself fully to hit a cluster of tanks.

[HaTe]

You can't judge it off of less than 9 hours of play (which is the absolute max you could have had). Give it time

[Nielsen]

Personally I find they do a lot of damage and the time to deploy vs that seems a bit too short, might want to decrease the range a bit too, I dunno we'll have to see.

[R315r4z0r]

Actually, I think their range should be infinite. But they should take a longer time to deploy and the laser should be more visible.

I'd also like them to have a player cooldown. Like if you use one, you can't use another for 3 minutes or something. This is per player, not per team.

That all being said, these matches are packed to the brim with people. 64 players means there are going to be a lot of airstrikes; lots of credits, vehicle limit full, tunnels are packed... nothing much left to do but spam strikes to help your advance.

[Mrcod]

They should absolutely be more visible, that's the problem right now. I'm a Renegade vet and I find myself completely blind-sided by these airstrikes. No warning at all, just dead. Walk out of a building and die.. get a notice that it was via air strike but I never saw it. They're a fine addition but adjust them. They're frustrating at the moment.

[Nod Trooper]

Im infantry through and through, deploying airstrikes I dont really have a problem with, especially if im a stealth blackhand.

[SFJake]

I hate airstrikes right now. They get spammed like hell at the right time and its just ridiculous, and they cover beacons like there's no tomorrow.

To be completely honest, I would make airstrike impossible to do in the enemy base, period. All the problems comes from this and they really, REALLY worsen the game. Well, thats what I experienced anyway. Its also annoying how spammable they are, and how hard to see, but I really found the spam over the base or beacons the worst.

[EMU]

They should absolutely be more visible, that's the problem right now. I'm a Renegade vet and I find myself completely blind-sided by these airstrikes. No warning at all, just dead. Walk out of a building and die.. get a notice that it was via air strike but I never saw it. They're a fine addition but adjust them. They're frustrating at the moment.

I totally agree, I wouldn't mind them if they were easier to avoid, But I have never seen them coming ever. You're just dead in your base or taking a ton of random splash damage. Really frustrating.

[Fultre]

Interesting to see how this will play out...

[Illusion_of_Progress]

I must admit, I'm not a total fan of this new feature.

In one example, this changes the dynamic of super-weapon beacons, as before, you'd have to cover it with armor/bodies on the spot and/or snipers from a distance, but now you can also just spot it with an airstrike from a distance and extra cover is all but guaranteed for a given time window.

Overall, it seems to have a lower amount of counter-play. That's probably why those who dislike it do so.

Maybe some of us should just try and adapt though. I do like seeing new stuff tried, but right now, it probably feels too frustrating for those it's used against. I would like to see the interaction with the player improved (namely, to enemies of those using it). As others have mentioned, it feels like more could be done to warn a player (better visual cues and/or EVA announcements) of one incoming. If a reason why many aren't fond of this is potentially low counter-play, this would help that.

[ABJECT_SELF]

Well, assuming airstrikes in Renegade X are meant to work like airstrikes in the original Command & Conquer, they were extremely vulnerable to SAM strikes, so much so that you couldn't even attempt to bomb an enemy base until all SAMs were taken out. So maybe airstrikes could be adjusted so that if you try and call one into an enemy base, they get intercepted by SAMs.

[Terekhov]

My impressions so far: it's a great feature. Frustrating when you get it used against you, but definitely adds to the strategy. Two things I would say:

- Increase visibility of the laser; you should have to be blind to miss it, then people have to think about where they use it from before it hits.

- Increase the time to strike by 2-3 seconds.

Between this time increase and the highly visible laser, I think it would be balanced so that you had to think about using it but it would still be very useful/feasible.

I don't know what y'all are talking about 'not being able to use it on defense'...I was able to use it quite successfully to beat off a couple NOD flame rushes on Field earlier tonight by targeting the AGT etc.

Well, assuming airstrikes in Renegade X are meant to work like airstrikes in the original Command & Conquer, they were extremely vulnerable to SAM strikes, so much so that you couldn't even attempt to bomb an enemy base until all SAMs were taken out. So maybe airstrikes could be adjusted so that if you try and call one into an enemy base, they get intercepted by SAMs.

If you went this route, you could make it an AC-130 and let the team shoot it down if they really focus fire.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

oh, i've seen this one coming from so far away, lol...

anyhow, i've come up with 3 basic rules to prevent the usage of airstrikes in overpowered situations:

1. You may not carry a Beacon and Airstrike at the same time;

2. Enemy airstrikes may not be launched in the enemy base when SAM sites are still online, they should destroy all attacking A-10's or C130's within seconds;

3. airstrikes may not be allowed to be called in while still in a tunnel (buildings are fine), "you're simply not able to get a connection going with Satcomm while in a closed environment."

any suggestions? do you hate the idea? love it? don't care? give it your best shot!

[Terekhov]

Dislike #1, really like #2-3

[XD_ERROR_XD]

Dislike #1, really like #2-3

the reason i added #1 is to prevent the usage of an airstrike near a beacon while defending that beacon, when all SAM-sites are down. there's not much reason to carry both at the same time, you're risking so much cash at one time, so you really must be planning something big if you decide to do that. we're talking about 2000+ credits at one go here.

[Terekhov]

If they're playing such bad defense that they don't kill you a) When you're planting the beacon and b) When you're planting the airstrike, then they deserve to die. Like you said, it's a huge risk, but if you can pull it off then you deserve it.

[ErroR]

How about smoke grenades for calling airstrikes?

Someone suggested that before and I really liked it.

Smoke grenade means a distinct visual cue with team colored smoke.

It means the enemy team sees it and gets time to retreat, if say there's a 7 second delay before the airstrike hits.

It still serves the same purpose even if it is avoidable due to area denial.

It's deployment range is limited and it's riskier to deploy because you need to get closer.

While it can't be countered maybe make it so you can't call it in over beacons somehow, maybe make the smoke grenade disarmable for a few seconds.

[Daedhart]

I like them all. Maybe also add a dependence on the power plant.

I mostly hate them because the devs built them in such a way as to prevent them being spammed on top of a beacon, but that is exactly what ends up happening anyway.

[Nielsen]

Airstrikes are a priority for us, we'll increase visibility at the very least.

There's also the issue that they do more radius based damage at this time and not visibility based; It's impossible to hide from the bombs by sitting behind rocks or other objects at the moment.

[SeriousSmiley]

Comebacks are much harder than in the original Ren. Silos and airstrikes are the main culprits imo...which is weird, because I thought both were a good idea before playing the game.

[ErroR]

I had an airstrike hit me in the face while repairing a mammy with barracks down as a hotwire, doesn't feel very nice considering it's a one hit kill.

Not sure about silos still but it seems that the team that's dominating the field gets a even bigger boost because of them because you can't slip in and capture it (mainly on c&c field)

[HaTe]

Provides incentive to actually take the field back. I like that, personally.

[K7avenger]

Inventive really doesn't mean a whole lot when you lack the means to do so. I'm sure they'd love to take the field back, but your having to overcome an enemy with more money, vehicles, and superior infantry, plus they can still buy their own airstrikes.

[Ban4life]

I think one of the bigger problems is the spamming. I would simply increase the price beside visibility and anouncement. It's effectiveness sounds higher than a nuke/ion, as it can privide leverage on the enemy team in damage and kills from a distance and cannot be disarmed. So just put it on 1000-1500 price.

Covering beacons should not be possible. It is easier than you think to put down an ion and have someone else put the airstrike. A story that planes aren't allowed close to superweapon strikes is highly plausible.

[H.D. Lovecraft]

I agree with most of what has been said, they definitely need a nerf of some sort. Early warning, and maybe less destructive, or at the very least limited somehow. The idea is good, it just needs to be balanced.

[SFJake]

Comebacks are much harder than in the original Ren. Silos and airstrikes are the main culprits imo...which is weird, because I thought both were a good idea before playing the game.

I expected both to have that problem, to be honest. Silos are so obviously a snowball feature and I really don't like them. Its actually incredibly obvious.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

Not sure about silos still but it seems that the team that's dominating the field gets a even bigger boost because of them because you can't slip in and capture it (mainly on c&c field)

i've played a 30 vs 30 Field in jelly, and i must say it is ridicilously easy to get inside the field when the enemy has the field, if not even easier. i've sprinted to the waterfall and jumped countless times, re-took the silo like 5 times, c4'ing a helluva lot of arts, and stealing 2 stealth tanks in the process. this actually managed to take me to #5 after the game ended by time limit expiry.

you're basically invisible to vehicles if you're not directly facing them, and there's not enough infantry to spot you. even if an SBH spotted me, i usually was able to kill it with my Carbine or Tiberium Flechette Rifle.

i must say, the Carbine is incredibly useful for 'spec-ops' situations, it fast bullet travel and the non-glowing bullets makes it an incredibly useful tool to SBH's and sneakers, yet balanced enough to be not OP. great job on that weapon, seriously.

[R315r4z0r]

1. You may not carry a Beacon and Airstrike at the same time;

That's already how it is. You can either have one or the other. Not both.

2. Enemy airstrikes may not be launched in the enemy base when SAM sites are still online, they should destroy all attacking A-10's or C130's within seconds;

I disagree with this because only 2 maps have SAM sites yet you can use airstrikes on every map. It would be inconsistent and confusing to players switching between maps.

3. airstrikes may not be allowed to be called in while still in a tunnel (buildings are fine), "you're simply not able to get a connection going with Satcomm while in a closed environment."

I disagree with this as well. You aren't radioing an airstrike, you're designating one. You don't need to connect with satcomm to use a laser pointer.

What does need to happen though is that airstrikes need to be line of sight based. I heard people complaining they were being hit by airstrikes while they were in tunnels, like on Mesa. If an airstrike is put inside of a tunnel, then the blast should hit the first piece of ground between the plane and the target area... so in Mesa's case, it would be the roof of the blue tiberium cave.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

1. You may not carry a Beacon and Airstrike at the same time;

That's already how it is. You can either have one or the other. Not both.

2. Enemy airstrikes may not be launched in the enemy base when SAM sites are still online, they should destroy all attacking A-10's or C130's within seconds;

I disagree with this because only 2 maps have SAM sites yet you can use airstrikes on every map. It would be inconsistent and confusing to players switching between maps.

well add it on every map.

3. airstrikes may not be allowed to be called in while still in a tunnel (buildings are fine), "you're simply not able to get a connection going with Satcomm while in a closed environment."

I disagree with this as well. You aren't radioing an airstrike, you're designating one. You don't need to connect with satcomm to use a laser pointer.

this is not true. you still need to communicate with satcomm, even with laser designation, as there are not constantly C-130's and A-10's in the air, and there isn't a huge tower in the middle of every map with an officer being able to spot a lazer. you need a connection because your binoculars can't shoot missiles, neither does a lazer do anything if a pilot doesn't know it's there.... and he doesn't know because he can't recieve any co-ordinates if you're in a tunnel. it would only make sense if he already was in the air, looking at the lazer.

[R315r4z0r]

My point is that there is no way to judge between a place you can call one in and a place you can't call one in. I was just trying to be creative.

Players would just get confused at why their airstrikes aren't working and there would be a swarm of people on the forum complaining that its a bug when in reality, they were just in the wrong spot to call one in.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

well, show a message like the 'press E to enter vehicle' but with appropiate text while trying to call in an airstrike through tunnels. if it's really that hard to add, i'm okay with that. i'm not the coder here, so .

[R315r4z0r]

I don't think it would be hard to add, but I too am not a coder. I'm just afraid of over complicating it.

I think the base feature of airstrikes works well. It is just overly abundant in 64 player servers. It's like teaching someone how to drive a car in a city full of traffic. You can't get the right feel for it since you aren't in the optimal conditions.

People firstly just need to give it time and eventually airstrikes won't be that big of a deal (you learn to spot them easier and be in the places they aren't likely to be called to). But secondly, on servers with more optimal player counts, airstrikes will not be nearly as frequent.

I think people are jumping the gun a bit by damning them after only experiencing them on 64 player servers. That being said, I still support my suggestions I made in my earlier post in this thread.

[SeriousSmiley]

Comebacks are much harder than in the original Ren. Silos and airstrikes are the main culprits imo...which is weird, because I thought both were a good idea before playing the game.

I expected both to have that problem, to be honest. Silos are so obviously a snowball feature and I really don't like them. Its actually incredibly obvious.

Yeah, it's just too easy to keep that snowball rolling on a map like Field regardless of that other posters 1337 spec-op move. I thought it might spread the dominant team thinner, but nope.

[Valor]

Jelly server a few moments ago: Nod was winning and had all buildings left, GDI had only ref left and was spamming airstrikes every ten seconds. Since killing vehicles and advanced infantry nets a ton of points, GDI won by points in the end. And GDI was able to hold off Nod's rushes by spamming airstrikes defensively. Seems to make point-comebacks too easy now.

Definitely needs balancing for large game sizes.

[ehh]

just seems silly, be better if it just did 50% damage to vechs imo

[TotemAatz]

I really don't like the Airstrike at all, if would be OK if you had to throw a smoke grenade to the targeted area, maybe even be able to shoot the smoke to disable it.

[1024]

What I'd like to see is that as soon as strike is called in, a red/yellow flare/smoke designates the area. And add a bit more delay to "escape" the area of effect.

[SFJake]

just seems silly, be better if it just did 50% damage to vechs imo

And next to nothing to infantry, because beacon defense with airstrike is silly.

Airstrikes were not thought through.

[Noodlesocks]

I would hate for something to end up being balanced based on one horribly bottlenecked map like field. They aren't nearly as prevalent on better maps where vehicles aren't sandwiched into a tiny narrow passage.

I personally don't think it needs a nerf. I don't want yet another game where my hand is held every step of the way and the game is constantly trying to play the game for me but the easiest and less fantastical way of balancing would be to make the laser a little bit more visible and maybe take a little longer to paint. Then it really would be the enemy's fault for not getting out of the way.

[Daedhart]

I would hate for something to end up being balanced based on one horribly bottlenecked map like field. They aren't nearly as prevalent on better maps where vehicles aren't sandwiched into a tiny narrow passage.

Im not so sure thats the problem. I had a major issue with them on Walls where there were like 10 snipers that were sequentially spamming them while some SBH was planting a beacon. It was impossible for us to get out to the beacon because we kept getting blown away by an enemy we couldnt defend against. At least if the beacon is being covered by a vehicle, we could run up and blow the thing up with C4.

[lazy5686]

How about a server side option to disable buying airstrikes entirely? Give people the option if they want it...

Right now it is 700 credits on Field to take out the entire enemy team in one shot.

[Noodlesocks]

I would hate for something to end up being balanced based on one horribly bottlenecked map like field. They aren't nearly as prevalent on better maps where vehicles aren't sandwiched into a tiny narrow passage.

Im not so sure thats the problem. I had a major issue with them on Walls where there were like 10 snipers that were sequentially spamming them while some SBH was planting a beacon. It was impossible for us to get out to the beacon because we kept getting blown away by an enemy we couldnt defend against. At least if the beacon is being covered by a vehicle, we could run up and blow the thing up with C4.

Considering the cost and teamwork/coordination to pull that off, the lack of mined entrances and the effort of navigating through ~32 players without being spotted, I'd say they deserved it.

[SeriousSmiley]

One of the (unintentionally) great things about Ren was how balanced all the maps were. You don't even have to expose yourself to deal massive damage at the base entrance with little mastery of the game itself...that's what I'd call the game doing handholding.

I think the radius should be significantly decreased, but the aircraft should arrive even quicker. That would make it a surgical strike weapon to take out 1 or 2 important units to shift the balance in your favor instead of obliterating everything 3 out of 4 times.

[Daedhart]

I would hate for something to end up being balanced based on one horribly bottlenecked map like field. They aren't nearly as prevalent on better maps where vehicles aren't sandwiched into a tiny narrow passage.

Im not so sure thats the problem. I had a major issue with them on Walls where there were like 10 snipers that were sequentially spamming them while some SBH was planting a beacon. It was impossible for us to get out to the beacon because we kept getting blown away by an enemy we couldnt defend against. At least if the beacon is being covered by a vehicle, we could run up and blow the thing up with C4.

Considering the cost and teamwork/coordination to pull that off, the lack of mined entrances and the effort of navigating through ~32 players without being spotted, I'd say they deserved it.

Thats the thing...I had the entrance and tunnel mined up and down, people driving around and shooting all over the place and the jerks were still getting in. And the airstrikes werent really being done in teamwork, they just kept spamming our base for the lulz and they just happened to coincide with cheeky SBH's.

[TotemAatz]

[RypeL]

But we still lost that game And Nod didnt attack from the side entrances very often thats why you had an easy time with Airstrikes. But we will look into ways to make airstriking harder.

[R315r4z0r]

When it comes to balancing them vs infantry, you can make their effectiveness vs infantry hit or miss. Like, they either take big damage or they are missed.

Or maybe you can make a "no fly zone" where a beacon is deployed... you know for the safety of the pilots lol.

[Valor]

How about a server side option to disable buying airstrikes entirely? Give people the option if they want it...

Right now it is 700 credits on Field to take out the entire enemy team in one shot.

I have a feeling no server will enable it then. But as a temporary solution, yes.

[Dav3]

Agreed.

O hope servers can disable airstrikes and so people can seek out servers with them completely disabled.

Would be good to limit them to maybe 1 every 5 min or something as well. I dunno.