New Players, Please Grade This Game Independently!

[RoundShades]

Someone needed to post this. To all new players, do not play or grade this game based on what you are familiar with playing elsewhere. At all.

Play this game. Play it with how it is designed. Chew it over. Then if you have any feedback to add that you feel will make this game play better in it's own enviromnent, please share it.

I SAY THIS BECAUSE: there are TOO MANY suggestions that are directed to take this straight into a clone of other games.

Remove third person view? Sounds like battlefield. Non-unique characters so you don't have multiple havocs hotwires sakuras and mobius? Sounds like counterstrike. Metagame where you start with few things and have to play to level up and earn more weapons? Sounds like Call of Duty.

The worse part, is there are even games that DO use the mechanics complained about. Team Fortress 2 has characters that are duplicate, as do Monday Night Combat and Borderlands. Monday Night Combat also has third person shoulder view for a shooter, and no metagame. It also has the faster-paced-footspeed-gunfights, but it also had some characters that are faster and some that are slower, but I do NOT suggest that here because it works as is, however I PERSONALLY agree infantry could be slightly slower, but I do not demand that direction, just consider it is all.

It pains me to see SO MANY suggestions for this. I outright contest every one of those. Good ideas are ones that don't drag this game into a direction of one that already exists. If you are going to make a battlefield clone, why not play battlefield? If you are playing this instead of battlefield, something about battlefield must be getting boring.

NOT ALL SUGGESTIONS ARE BAD: there are good suggestions, as long as they are aimed within the current gameplay of the game how it is targetted to work, not like adjusting it to another existing shooter.

Opinions of unit speed, the units are fast for a reason and it makes infantry balance better, in Renegade they were too slow and lost outright to tanks, in other shooters the speed is "realistic", in this game it is fast to balance where it is. HOWEVER, this is a suggestion in-game for gunfight balance, and I could see it's case for lowering speed slightly, where infantry are able to keep up with tanks, but don't bounce off the walls against other infantry in gunfights like trying to shoot a hyperactive 6 year old.

Opinions of how effective guns are or aren't, let's not get too bandwagon with these, airstrikes get a lot of complaint for instance. However, if you play the game, and something works or doesn't work, and you sit there for a day trying to adapt to it and can't, then come here and suggest away. I just made a suggestion about the laser chaingun based on multiple different tries on how to effectively use one. Airstrikes, if you see them coming get into a vehicle if you are repairing, and get out of the area if you are camping. Airstrikes do good to break a siege of tanks or a camping sniper. However, I can see when a group gets bombed every 20 seconds, that it is a problem, it could use adjustments somewhere, possibly a delay or price adjustment or more warning, but it is a suggestion not a demand made of force.

Generally, grade weapons for their cost/character-cost, their intended purpose, and whether based on that they perform well, too well, or not well enough, as well as if they accomplish their intended purpose or not, and what people do use them for if not for what it's designed.

This is my public service announcement. Chew things over before exploding. Especially be weary of trying to guide this game in parallel with others. Enjoy the game. If something is too god-awful, enjoy it while it exists because anything that bad will change in a few patches for sure. Enjoy it for the rest of the month while it is still in the game.

[fetchystick]

Well said. Some newcomers are posting about the same things. Most players are doing a good job adapting, but there is a small group who doesn't seem to understand that a shooter can be unlike COD or Battlefield.

[capitalistpigdog]

It pains me to see SO MANY suggestions for this. I outright contest every one of those. Good ideas are ones that don't drag this game into a direction of one that already exists. If you are going to make a battlefield clone, why not play battlefield? If you are playing this instead of battlefield, something about battlefield must be getting boring.

Almost stopped reading here. It is impossible to ask people to make an independent evaluation, unless they are completely new to gaming. Many people are only asking for things they have seen work in other games; this does not become a bad thing solely because these features are found in other games. Neither should tradition trump potential improvements.

On most other points you made I do not disagree.

Generally, grade weapons for their cost/character-cost, their intended purpose, and whether based on that they perform well, too well, or not well enough, as well as if they accomplish their intended purpose or not, and what people do use them for if not for what it's designed.

This way of assessment I do somewhat disagree with, because by that reasoning you could make the argument that the free classes are supposed to suck because they're cheap.

[TotemAatz]

It pains me to see SO MANY suggestions for this. I outright contest every one of those. Good ideas are ones that don't drag this game into a direction of one that already exists. If you are going to make a battlefield clone, why not play battlefield? If you are playing this instead of battlefield, something about battlefield must be getting boring.

Almost stopped reading here. It is impossible to ask people to make an independent evaluation, unless they are completely new to gaming. Many people are only asking for things they have seen work in other games; this does not become a bad thing solely because these features are found in other games. Neither should tradition trump potential improvements.

On most other points you made I do not disagree.

Generally, grade weapons for their cost/character-cost, their intended purpose, and whether based on that they perform well, too well, or not well enough, as well as if they accomplish their intended purpose or not, and what people do use them for if not for what it's designed.

This way of assessment I do somewhat disagree with, because by that reasoning you could make the argument that the free classes are supposed to suck because they're cheap.

I don't agree with your mindset because its more like "a free car should perform just as good as any sports car".

[wolfrikku]

You should also remember this is a remake of a game. The devs added stuff that they felt might improve game play, but pretty much left it as close to the original as they could.

[Nod Trooper]

It really pains me to see players grading a game by comparing to other more popular games like (Kane forgive me for this) CoD or Battlefield. Next thing you know they will start asking "can you quickscope in this game?" I have been asked this question IN GAME once, and it annoyed me to no end.

I really do not like that kind of reviewing, like what BroTranquility says, do not compare it to other more well known games, grade is it was meant to be played, look for what is unique about it, look for the FUN FACTOR.

PLAY THE GAME BECAUSE KANE WILL BE PLEASED.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

Tbh i dont understand the whole "we need to pleasure all" mentality, 99% of games today tries that and they end up in a category where everyone says "Meeeh i guess it is ok" and no one thinks it is great.

And besides i rather have a small and mature playerbase than have the quality thinned out by the bad attitude i habe seen in games like BF.

[Mrcod]

Where is figure 5-2?!

And I agree, it's a bit annoying to see people comparing Renegade to Call of Duty or Battlefield. It's very different by design.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

It is from A UX book we were using at 1st semester of my bachelor It is a great example of the most common mistake made by software developers today.

[Taugosz]

I'm new to Renegade, though I'm familiar with the C&C setting. I like the gameplay design here, but obviously can't comment on how similar or dissimilar it is to the original. I've never been a big player of the multiplayer portions of shooters before.

I've played a fair bit the last few nights, and I realize that some aspects of the "metagame" will change as players become more acquainted with the mechanics. However, every game I've played except for one ended by time limit, usually with an interminable meat grinder of vehicles at the front of one base, with snipers dotting the landscape killing each other and the engineers. I have no problem with that battlefield set-up, but it never goes anywhere.

On maps without a defensive structure, I feel as though Nod has the advantage because every once and awhile they will be able to nuke a building using a SBH, but it's relatively easy to keep GDI from taking down a structure. With a defensive structure, it is very rare for anyone to lose a building. The last game I played had the best teamwork I've experienced yet (was GDI on Field), and we still went nowhere (actually we narrowly lost by points at the end because our final rush attempts fed so many points). On a 20 person team, we had 3 APCs with 3 people each (pretty good) storm the Hand of Nod, while under massive covering fire from MRLSs and Mammoths. Keep in mind that you only need to cover about 25 feet of ground in the obelisk's vision to reach the Hand's door. Three of us survived to enter the Hand, one was cut down by infantry, and the surviving two walked into some prox mines by the MCT. We spent a lot of credits and got nothing... several times. Sustained vehicle assaults failed as well, because even under heavy fire a building could easily be kept topped off by engineers. Keep in mind that because of GDI's vehicle advantage on this map Nod was lacking a harvester and the silo almost the entire game.

I'm being fairly verbose here, so I will just summarize my feelings so far:

1) Airstrikes weren't mentioned, I think the devs are looking at those anyway

2) Defensive structures are perhaps too powerful. They could be adjusted by possibly just having a longer cooldown between attacks, so massive rushes can get through lacking significant resistance, as I believe they should.

3) Alternatively, maybe reduce the rate at which repair guns heal buildings. It would make it at least semi-viable for GDI to siege a base with their vehicles, as an alternative to Nod's stealthy beacon-dropping. Keep in mind that players could always splurge for the high-tier repairing units to pick up slack.

I of course must admit that my experiences may have been totally unlike what you all have played thus far, but I wanted to give my perspective as an outsider with a fresh view of the landscape here.

[TopDawg]

I'm new to Renegade, though I'm familiar with the C&C setting. I like the gameplay design here, but obviously can't comment on how similar or dissimilar it is to the original. I've never been a big player of the multiplayer portions of shooters before.

I've played a fair bit the last few nights, and I realize that some aspects of the "metagame" will change as players become more acquainted with the mechanics. However, every game I've played except for one ended by time limit, usually with an interminable meat grinder of vehicles at the front of one base, with snipers dotting the landscape killing each other and the engineers. I have no problem with that battlefield set-up, but it never goes anywhere.

On maps without a defensive structure, I feel as though Nod has the advantage because every once and awhile they will be able to nuke a building using a SBH, but it's relatively easy to keep GDI from taking down a structure. With a defensive structure, it is very rare for anyone to lose a building. The last game I played had the best teamwork I've experienced yet (was GDI on Field), and we still went nowhere (actually we narrowly lost by points at the end because our final rush attempts fed so many points). On a 20 person team, we had 3 APCs with 3 people each (pretty good) storm the Hand of Nod, while under massive covering fire from MRLSs and Mammoths. Keep in mind that you only need to cover about 25 feet of ground in the obelisk's vision to reach the Hand's door. Three of us survived to enter the Hand, one was cut down by infantry, and the surviving two walked into some prox mines by the MCT. We spent a lot of credits and got nothing... several times. Sustained vehicle assaults failed as well, because even under heavy fire a building could easily be kept topped off by engineers. Keep in mind that because of GDI's vehicle advantage on this map Nod was lacking a harvester and the silo almost the entire game.

I'm being fairly verbose here, so I will just summarize my feelings so far:

1) Airstrikes weren't mentioned, I think the devs are looking at those anyway

2) Defensive structures are perhaps too powerful. They could be adjusted by possibly just having a longer cooldown between attacks, so massive rushes can get through lacking significant resistance, as I believe they should.

3) Alternatively, maybe reduce the rate at which repair guns heal buildings. It would make it at least semi-viable for GDI to siege a base with their vehicles, as an alternative to Nod's stealthy beacon-dropping. Keep in mind that players could always splurge for the high-tier repairing units to pick up slack.

I of course must admit that my experiences may have been totally unlike what you all have played thus far, but I wanted to give my perspective as an outsider with a fresh view of the landscape here.

Honestly, and this is just my personal opinion that I haven't been shy about sharing lol, I think the game is designed for teams of 8-12 (maybe 16) players. The game gets rather crammed and spammy when you start adding that many and some gameplay mechanics break down.

Mind you I have nothing against people wanting large servers and who enjoy playing on them (and I think there should be servers to enable that to happen, especially once they fix some of the issues they're having currently), but I recommend 24-32 player max servers and see how your experience is then. I just found a 12v12 server US East Coast tonight and I likely won't play on any other servers for a while now lol (unless they're also 12v12).

[NaughtyDutchman]

I'd hate to say it but this game doesn't exist in a vacuum. It can benefit from many of the improvements of games that are similar to it. And just because a game has influences or shares qualities similar to others isn't a bad thing.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

I'm new to Renegade, though I'm familiar with the C&C setting. I like the gameplay design here, but obviously can't comment on how similar or dissimilar it is to the original. I've never been a big player of the multiplayer portions of shooters before.

I've played a fair bit the last few nights, and I realize that some aspects of the "metagame" will change as players become more acquainted with the mechanics. However, every game I've played except for one ended by time limit, usually with an interminable meat grinder of vehicles at the front of one base, with snipers dotting the landscape killing each other and the engineers. I have no problem with that battlefield set-up, but it never goes anywhere.

On maps without a defensive structure, I feel as though Nod has the advantage because every once and awhile they will be able to nuke a building using a SBH, but it's relatively easy to keep GDI from taking down a structure. With a defensive structure, it is very rare for anyone to lose a building. The last game I played had the best teamwork I've experienced yet (was GDI on Field), and we still went nowhere (actually we narrowly lost by points at the end because our final rush attempts fed so many points). On a 20 person team, we had 3 APCs with 3 people each (pretty good) storm the Hand of Nod, while under massive covering fire from MRLSs and Mammoths. Keep in mind that you only need to cover about 25 feet of ground in the obelisk's vision to reach the Hand's door. Three of us survived to enter the Hand, one was cut down by infantry, and the surviving two walked into some prox mines by the MCT. We spent a lot of credits and got nothing... several times. Sustained vehicle assaults failed as well, because even under heavy fire a building could easily be kept topped off by engineers. Keep in mind that because of GDI's vehicle advantage on this map Nod was lacking a harvester and the silo almost the entire game.

I'm being fairly verbose here, so I will just summarize my feelings so far:

1) Airstrikes weren't mentioned, I think the devs are looking at those anyway

2) Defensive structures are perhaps too powerful. They could be adjusted by possibly just having a longer cooldown between attacks, so massive rushes can get through lacking significant resistance, as I believe they should.

3) Alternatively, maybe reduce the rate at which repair guns heal buildings. It would make it at least semi-viable for GDI to siege a base with their vehicles, as an alternative to Nod's stealthy beacon-dropping. Keep in mind that players could always splurge for the high-tier repairing units to pick up slack.

I of course must admit that my experiences may have been totally unlike what you all have played thus far, but I wanted to give my perspective as an outsider with a fresh view of the landscape here.

It being hard to tip over the enemy base is what makes Renegade a rush in the long run.

It's like Soccer vs handball, sure there are alot of action and goals in handball, but the rush of a soccer goal is just 100 times bigger, because it is much harder to achieve.

I do agree though that in smaller games(less than 50) with no base defense, the sbh-nuke spam and stealth tanks often makes nod win, but at 64, it is much less(more defenders at all time) an in bigger games like 100+players(if they solve the UDK issue), the issue becomes non existent.

[Taugosz]

Honestly, and this is just my personal opinion that I haven't been shy about sharing lol, I think the game is designed for teams of 8-12 (maybe 16) players. The game gets rather crammed and spammy when you start adding that many and some gameplay mechanics break down.

Since I am not familiar with the original Renegade, I had just assumed that 64 players was the default in the old game, and started there. I had been looking for games at around 40 before the cap was implemented because it seemed to flow better (both in terms of lag and gameplay), but I will continue to look downward. Thank you for the advice.

It being hard to tip over the enemy base is what makes Renegade a rush in the long run . . .

I do agree though that in smaller games(less than 50) with no base defense, the sbh-nuke spam and stealth tanks often makes nod win, but at 64, it is much less

I understand and appreciate the aspect of dedication to victory, and the soccer analogy is good. However, even in soccer points are scored. My complaint here would be akin to 90% of soccer games ending 0-0... it is not much fun to play in this situation. In regards to the nuking, I don't mind it at all - it was my expectation that stealthing was Nod's intended route to victory. What my underlying concern here was that the stealth-nuking seemed to be the ONLY way to win in my experience, and even then it only works if there is no AGT around.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

I understand and appreciate the aspect of dedication to victory, and the soccer analogy is good. However, even in soccer points are scored. My complaint here would be akin to 90% of soccer games ending 0-0... it is not much fun to play in this situation. In regards to the nuking, I don't mind it at all - it was my expectation that stealthing was Nod's intended route to victory. What my underlying concern here was that the stealth-nuking seemed to be the ONLY way to win in my experience, and even then it only works if there is no AGT around.

Give it abit of time, till people learn the flow of the game, ofc sometimes you end up in a game where initiative lacks on both sides, but of all the games i have been playing yesterday and all night(on my 23th hour now), i ony been in few games where we did not end the game with 2 to all buildings tipped over

Take this awesome flametank rush last night effectively disabling agt, few minutes later we had wiped the base

[Cyridius]

The only reason someone would ask people to look at this game assuming no prior knowledge of other shooters is because they're terrified on the criticisms that could arise.

I am and will continue to look at this game in context to other games I've played. Quake, PlanetSide, Call of Duty, Battlefield - whatever.

If a game is good enough to stand on its own merits it should be able to weather criticism in light of the big dogs on the block. If it's a shallow game with little depth it will face that criticism and die as it deserves.

Renegade X is a good game. It has its flaws, but it's good nonetheless. If I see a problem I wouldn't hesitate to point to what other games are doing better.

[RoundShades]

Lol. I've been part of games where I felt the criticism against making it a clone is what made it die. And it was a good game too.

overall, before this I avoided shooters, abandoned the genre as "10 year old territory", let Timmy play his game and I'll just go back to rts rpg and simulation (ksp). You couldn't make me play generic shooters if they were all that's left.

[klote]

I'm new to Renegade, though I'm familiar with the C&C setting. I like the gameplay design here, but obviously can't comment on how similar or dissimilar it is to the original. I've never been a big player of the multiplayer portions of shooters before.

I've played a fair bit the last few nights, and I realize that some aspects of the "metagame" will change as players become more acquainted with the mechanics. However, every game I've played except for one ended by time limit, usually with an interminable meat grinder of vehicles at the front of one base, with snipers dotting the landscape killing each other and the engineers. I have no problem with that battlefield set-up, but it never goes anywhere.

On maps without a defensive structure, I feel as though Nod has the advantage because every once and awhile they will be able to nuke a building using a SBH, but it's relatively easy to keep GDI from taking down a structure. With a defensive structure, it is very rare for anyone to lose a building. The last game I played had the best teamwork I've experienced yet (was GDI on Field), and we still went nowhere (actually we narrowly lost by points at the end because our final rush attempts fed so many points). On a 20 person team, we had 3 APCs with 3 people each (pretty good) storm the Hand of Nod, while under massive covering fire from MRLSs and Mammoths. Keep in mind that you only need to cover about 25 feet of ground in the obelisk's vision to reach the Hand's door. Three of us survived to enter the Hand, one was cut down by infantry, and the surviving two walked into some prox mines by the MCT. We spent a lot of credits and got nothing... several times. Sustained vehicle assaults failed as well, because even under heavy fire a building could easily be kept topped off by engineers. Keep in mind that because of GDI's vehicle advantage on this map Nod was lacking a harvester and the silo almost the entire game.

I'm being fairly verbose here, so I will just summarize my feelings so far:

1) Airstrikes weren't mentioned, I think the devs are looking at those anyway

2) Defensive structures are perhaps too powerful. They could be adjusted by possibly just having a longer cooldown between attacks, so massive rushes can get through lacking significant resistance, as I believe they should.

3) Alternatively, maybe reduce the rate at which repair guns heal buildings. It would make it at least semi-viable for GDI to siege a base with their vehicles, as an alternative to Nod's stealthy beacon-dropping. Keep in mind that players could always splurge for the high-tier repairing units to pick up slack.

I of course must admit that my experiences may have been totally unlike what you all have played thus far, but I wanted to give my perspective as an outsider with a fresh view of the landscape here.

Honestly, and this is just my personal opinion that I haven't been shy about sharing lol, I think the game is designed for teams of 8-12 (maybe 16) players. The game gets rather crammed and spammy when you start adding that many and some gameplay mechanics break down.

Mind you I have nothing against people wanting large servers and who enjoy playing on them (and I think there should be servers to enable that to happen, especially once they fix some of the issues they're having currently), but I recommend 24-32 player max servers and see how your experience is then. I just found a 12v12 server US East Coast tonight and I likely won't play on any other servers for a while now lol (unless they're also 12v12).

personally i find 32 people to less people thers almost no teamwork and people just do their own thing (scripts and mutators will change this i hope)

Im hoping for slightly bigger maps with 128 players server like with the old renegade

those where good times

but there have always been a divide between people who like low player limit vs high player limit

i sincerely hope that server owners get to setup their own limits eventually and not be dictated by a forced limit

[capitalistpigdog]

I don't agree with your mindset because its more like "a free car should perform just as good as any sports car".

Laughable analogy. We are talking about guns, presumably lethal ones. Besides, the GDI still gets grenadiers for free, so your argument topples over immediately.

[lane]

Player for about 4 hours in all, downloaded after watching TBs video yesterday.

Pros:

- graphically, very nice. Textures could be better but in a game like this it really doesn't matter. Artstyle is great and true to the source material.

- everything is intuitive, it took me around 10 minutes to figure out what I was supposed to be doing. Kill enemies, destroy harvesters and buildings, repair stuff.

- the main gamemode is unique and fun.

- everything about the game encourages teamwork.

Cons:

- game doesn't tell the player enough about what is going on. So often I die and have absolutely no idea why. The game just doesn't talk to you, and that makes it very hard to learn anything past the basics. This is especially true with nukes, airstrikes and so on, I just have no idea what's going on and where to expect them amidst the chaos.

- seems to have a few balance issues. Most infantry seem pointless and expensive, in most games I've played, snipers have just dominated the field. Snipers and tanks is what most games seems to come down to.

- due to the above issues, infiltration is nigh impossible, save for rushing in a vehicle. I think this could be one of the most fun parts of the game if half of the infantry was de-nerfed.

Overall, fun game. Will carry on playing for now, but hope the balance issues are addressed. You really never see anyone playing anything other than engineers, snipers and rocket troopers when it comes to infantry.

[TotemAatz]

Player for about 4 hours in all, downloaded after watching TBs video yesterday.

Pros:

- graphically, very nice. Textures could be better but in a game like this it really doesn't matter. Artstyle is great and true to the source material.

- everything is intuitive, it took me around 10 minutes to figure out what I was supposed to be doing. Kill enemies, destroy harvesters and buildings, repair stuff.

- the main gamemode is unique and fun.

- everything about the game encourages teamwork.

Cons:

- game doesn't tell the player enough about what is going on. So often I die and have absolutely no idea why. The game just doesn't talk to you, and that makes it very hard to learn anything past the basics. This is especially true with nukes, airstrikes and so on, I just have no idea what's going on and where to expect them amidst the chaos.

- seems to have a few balance issues. Most infantry seem pointless and expensive, in most games I've played, snipers have just dominated the field. Snipers and tanks is what most games seems to come down to.

- due to the above issues, infiltration is nigh impossible, save for rushing in a vehicle. I think this could be one of the most fun parts of the game if half of the infantry was de-nerfed.

Overall, fun game. Will carry on playing for now, but hope the balance issues are addressed. You really never see anyone playing anything other than engineers, snipers and rocket troopers when it comes to infantry.

Pretty good summary here, there needs to be some tweaking of certain items and i think the reason you see so many engies is because of the bug that makes it so weapons you buy carry over death which makes the other free classes pointless.

[Highway_Star]

At the risk of rocking the boat. I admire the integrity of the devs for sticking to the original Renegade but at the same time I think they could have been a bit more flexible and improved the game.

[lane]

Player for about 4 hours in all, downloaded after watching TBs video yesterday.

Pros:

- graphically, very nice. Textures could be better but in a game like this it really doesn't matter. Artstyle is great and true to the source material.

- everything is intuitive, it took me around 10 minutes to figure out what I was supposed to be doing. Kill enemies, destroy harvesters and buildings, repair stuff.

- the main gamemode is unique and fun.

- everything about the game encourages teamwork.

Cons:

- game doesn't tell the player enough about what is going on. So often I die and have absolutely no idea why. The game just doesn't talk to you, and that makes it very hard to learn anything past the basics. This is especially true with nukes, airstrikes and so on, I just have no idea what's going on and where to expect them amidst the chaos.

- seems to have a few balance issues. Most infantry seem pointless and expensive, in most games I've played, snipers have just dominated the field. Snipers and tanks is what most games seems to come down to.

- due to the above issues, infiltration is nigh impossible, save for rushing in a vehicle. I think this could be one of the most fun parts of the game if half of the infantry was de-nerfed.

Overall, fun game. Will carry on playing for now, but hope the balance issues are addressed. You really never see anyone playing anything other than engineers, snipers and rocket troopers when it comes to infantry.

Pretty good summary here, there needs to be some tweaking of certain items and i think the reason you see so many engies is because of the bug that makes it so weapons you buy carry over death which makes the other free classes pointless.

I've got nothing against engis really, they're damn useful. I just wish infantry as a whole wasn't so ineffective when the enemy is fielding a few snipers.