Maps are too small and lack strategy

[TheIronKielbasa]

Some of the maps just feel to small and limited, you basically walk out of your base and bam there is the enemy base, there's no room to hide or maneuver or employ any sort of strategy. As soon as you exit your base there's the enemy and you just shoot it out till one side gets close enough to start shooting the base.

There's not really any strategy it's just whoever can smap the most vehicles first, going on foot as almost pointless as the maps are so small and linear that you just get picked off almost immediately upon exiting your base.

Maybe it's just me but I'm finding the gameplay a touch uninteresting, for a game based around strategy there sure isn't much strategy to be had.

[Bigfoot]

I agree with you that the maps in Renegade X are smaller than compared to other multiplayer games out there. But this is so, for a very good reason. The original Renegade and Renegade X are more of an Arcade-Style Game with Quick Action after Respawning. But I'm sure, once some kind of development-kit is released, there will be a lot more varied fanmaps and also bigger maps for your liking.

I also agree that utilising a strategy in big servers is not that easy, especially when very little teamwork is happening - but please be aware that a lot of new players - probably including yourself - are still learning the mechanics of the game.

Trust me please - there are a lot of ways to play this game!!! Just look at some Youtube videos of the original C&C Renegade. (search for: flame rush, med rush, gunner rush, stank rush, tech/hottie rush, Stealth black and and nukes and so on). Nothing is more rewarding in this game than accomplishing something in a team or by sneaking in all by yourself and nuking a building! No other game has kept me enthralled for over 10 years.

[ehh]

I guess thats how new players may feel after playing 64 player games, try 32 player games instead perhaps, the original maps were made for 16v16 imo

[DoctorB0NG]

I guess thats how new players may feel after playing 64 player games, try 32 player games instead perhaps, the original maps were made for 16v16 imo

I would agree with this. Field with 32 v 32 is just not fun and is a crazy clusterfuck. Add in airstrikes and it gets even crazier.

[TheIronKielbasa]

Thats the thing, you have a ton of people crammed into maps smaller then you would usually have for ever 8v8 matches in most games. Plus this game pegs itself as a strategy fps not an arcade hallway shooter which is more what it feels like.

I don't even think you could employ a strategy if you wanted to with these maps, there's just nowhere to do it, you can almost shoot the enemy base from your base it's so close and there's no room to do anything.

I see only 2 ways this game gets played,

1 - vehiches: you get int a vehicle, go out the main gate and immediately encounter enemies - the side with more vehicles wins.

2 - on food, you try to go through tunnels which is exactly what the other team is doing because there is only 1 tunnel so you get into a shoot out in the tunnels, side that wins emerges to get insta killed by base defenses or other players. Only time you can really get in there is if the enemy is already being overwhelmed by vehicles and they are too busy to notice you.

The maps need to be bigger (especially if you are gonna have 32v32), there neds to be more points to defend and more points to attack, more route to take, more vantage points. There should me more areas that teams need to fight for control in order to get some sort of bonus, with 32 people you should have people capturing objectives while others defend base and others still attack the enemy and try to infiltrate - not jusre run out the door and shoot.

Otherwise, why even call this a C&C game? There's no point to any of it because none if matters, you just run out of your base and immediately start shooting the enemy which is 50 feet away from you.

[dirtycopgangsta]

Or, do the smart thing, and limit the amount of players on each map. Sure, the technology allows us to play 32v32, but that's way too much for some maps.

That being said, new, bigger maps need to be created/adapted (I'm sure there are plenty of mappers out there who would love to be part of this awesome project) to support full 64v64.

[Rex]

It's not at all the maps that lack strategy, it's the people unwilling to implement strategy that makes the maps feel much smaller.

[TheIronKielbasa]

It's not at all the maps that lack strategy, it's the people unwilling to implement strategy that makes the maps feel much smaller.

There is no way to implement any strategy, you walk out and there's the enemyies base, where's the room for strategy? It basically plays like a MOBA, each side sends guys till one side pushes close enough to hit the base.

[super_gsx]

It's not at all the maps that lack strategy, it's the people unwilling to implement strategy that makes the maps feel much smaller.

The original Renegade was built for far fewer players. While strategy is ALWAYS something you want to implement, it shouldn't be a second-resort for only the most experienced players. Strategy should be REQUIRED, even of the noobs. But when the maps are too small or have too many players, there's no possible strategy.

The maps should definitely be made bigger, but not just bigger. They should be MUCH more complex as well. I think a major problem with the original Renegade maps is that they were too simple. They had too few options for strategy and variety. Take Fields for example. You've got the tunnels, with absolutely no hiding places and only 4 entrances straight from one side to the other, with a fifth one leading to a tactically useless place also without cover (the waterfall). You've got a wide open field with two extremely obvious sniping positions (one of which has a strong advantage over the other). The best I can say about it is that the ground isn't perfectly flat and there's a river running through it. Otherwise, that's it. Not much room for strategy, really. It needs more complexity, and it needs to be bigger. Especially with 64 players.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

After 1000+ hours in the old renegade i can honestly say that i think you are wrong.

Me and my old buddies has countless of times employed both tactics and strategy to win games up to 128 players in The classic renegade.

If any, the more players force more strategy and tactics since you then just cant wals into the base with nukes and hotties. I will actually require real cordination and effort to do anything + a good amount of patience.

Not all people like this, and that is ok, hell maybe the entire game is not for you, but to say that there is no tactic and strategic elements in renegade or renegade-x, sounds like you simply have not played it enough to actually know what the game is about or what is going on in the game.

[Terekhov]

It's not at all the maps that lack strategy, it's the people unwilling to implement strategy that makes the maps feel much smaller.

There is no way to implement any strategy, you walk out and there's the enemyies base, where's the room for strategy? It basically plays like a MOBA, each side sends guys till one side pushes close enough to hit the base.

Get on a smaller server, find some people that know how to play, and then work some strategy together. Some old-time friends and myself have already done this to great success.

Remember that though the game RenX is based off of and the core player-base are hardened veterans, RenX is in its first week of open beta, and hordes of players who have no idea how to play have filled the servers. You'll find you learn a lot more, and you generally play with smarter players, on some of the smaller servers. Once the game is stabilized, then there will I'm sure be clanwars starting up, and from past experience in C&C Renegade, those required a lot of strategy and timing.

tldr; Be patient while kinks are worked out, and try smaller servers.

[PermaGrin]

Should get better over time through player counts and new maps.

At the same time maps can not be TOO big. We had some of these in the original Renegade. While fun and neat at first...with vehicles...once you lost your vehicle production, traversing the map became a pain. Some maps you could walk for 5 minutes and not find anyone or anything.

So maps that are seeming good at one player count, might not be as fun with another.

[TheIronKielbasa]

Cant blame this on players guys, people play a game the way it presents itself to be played. If people aren't playing the game correctly it isn't the fault of the player but rather the designer, people will just do what feels natural in a game and the way this game is set up currently that's basically a corridor war.

Tried another match earlier today and it was the exact same thing, both teams spamming vehicles down the one route to the enemy base till one side won - every game I have played goes like this.

[H.D. Lovecraft]

I think the new maps, Gold Rush in particular are a bit better as they are designed for 64 players and tend to have more complexity between the bases, allowing for more strategy.

[super_gsx]

Another major problem I'm finding in RenX is that there's almost zero communication between the players. Yeah, sometimes people accidentally work together to rush the enemy base or cover each other, but it's not communicated (other than with the commands, which are spammy and you don't know who's saying them)... This game is starving for better communication between the players. If we had that, we'd be seeing much better strategy in big and small maps alike.

[H.D. Lovecraft]

Another major problem I'm finding in RenX is that there's almost zero communication between the players. Yeah, sometimes people accidentally work together to rush the enemy base or cover each other, but it's not communicated (other than with the commands, which are spammy and you don't know who's saying them)... This game is starving for better communication between the players. If we had that, we'd be seeing much better strategy in big and small maps alike.

Just wait for the player-base to mature. It'll begin to feel more like Renegade then as people will understand the best part of this game is working together.

[PermaGrin]

Cant blame this on players guys, people play a game the way it presents itself to be played. If people aren't playing the game correctly it isn't the fault of the player but rather the designer, people will just do what feels natural in a game and the way this game is set up currently that's basically a corridor war.

Tried another match earlier today and it was the exact same thing, both teams spamming vehicles down the one route to the enemy base till one side won - every game I have played goes like this.

I understand that, what I am getting at is, overtime as servers player cap numbers and more maps come out to accommodate larger players, the better it will become.

Setting player count to max is not exactly the fault of the designer.

Say we make field great for 64 player, once someone figures out how to do 128, that then the maps fault for not supporting the player count?

To agree with you more, the corridor stalemate war is why I hated Field and Under in the original. But again, in the start of Renegade, Field/Under probably was not design for 32 on 32, more like 12 on 12.

[R315r4z0r]

I'd like to see a good variety of sized maps. Maybe even some new maps with size variants. Like a 16vs16 version and a 32vs32 version with more buildings and base defenses and larger play area.

For example, consider City. It could have the normal Renegade boundaries in its 16vs16 variant, but they could open up new streets and alternate routes if they make a scaled up version. Perhaps even put some tech buildings out there to make those routes more traveled.

[PermaGrin]

I think dynamic boundaries based on player count selected could be neat, but I do not recall that as something we have ever looked into. Not sure of how easy or possible it would be. I know BF has had that type of function with their maps. So I could certainly ask.

[SFJake]

Dynamic boundaries is probably very difficult in levels that are so organic. It would probably be far easier to just make alternate versions that are completely separate. I'd totally love that, by the way, for Field in particular.

[wolfrikku]

I feel the game lacks strategy till you get to the 64 or 128 player counts. I also think the maps feel smaller because ren-x has a faster infantry speed and sprinting. I remember in the old renegade they would have Humvee transports covered with remote mines so that people could go back to base and refill ammo when they needed. (covered with remote mines so as soon as a stealth black hand tried to steal it they would get blown up)

[Whooohaaa]

Cant blame this on players guys, people play a game the way it presents itself to be played. If people aren't playing the game correctly it isn't the fault of the player but rather the designer, people will just do what feels natural in a game and the way this game is set up currently that's basically a corridor war.

Tried another match earlier today and it was the exact same thing, both teams spamming vehicles down the one route to the enemy base till one side won - every game I have played goes like this.

Honestly, the game has been out for a few days. To say the game has no strategy is a bit short sighted. The player caps can bit a bit crazy on some of the smaller maps, but I am already starting to see a lot of strats develop.

Just today on a 20v20 field (one of the smallest maps) There was a Flame rush to the the Weaps factory, and a lone apc drove in behind while gdi was distracted and dropped a tech in the Adv Guard tower, and then blocked the lone entrance. Boom, no AGT. Nod wins. Quit blaming the system and start looking inward.

Wait for the game to mature and new players to get comfortable before you call the game un-interesting or one dimensional.

[SFJake]

Maps lacking in complexity still limits strategies. Maps like field with their small size, heavy chokepoints and base defenses, those kind of maps always did limit the potential strategies.

The fact that Spies are REALLY weak and so obvious to spot doesn't help break through either.

[Blacky]

You have yet to figure out the tactics on field!!!!!!!

[Jake48.2]

Let's have it out on the table that complaining about maps lacking in complexity is completely dodging the main thing causing the issues: Servers are overpopulated when maps like field are voted in. Field's complexity is comfortable in a 10 vs 10 situation. There are three entrances into the enemy base (one of which is only for vehicles), which means three vectors of fire to damage structures. The only structures not able to be shot by infantry without being seen by the obelisk/AGT are the refineries and the AGT itself. Additionally, both of the infantry routes are flankable either from the field, or from each other's route. The field itself is also not flat: there's hills that enable tanks to keep a larger silhouette to cover their infantry support. Assuming four people on each team are in charge of repairing (which is absurdly high), that leaves an average of 2 players per route of attack. If there's just one engineer in charge of repairs, that's an average of 3 players per route. To compare it with games of similar scale, like Team Fortress 2, that's roughly the player density on paths between control points. Additionally, the bases aren't just two points of contention: they're also the cover from which the team defends from. It isn't like you've got a hallway connecting from the exit of one building to the entrance of another, but rather you've got a hallway connected to a hallway Building A has, but is also connected to a different hallway that Building B has.

But to reiterate: the map is fine for strategy in 10 vs 10. The issue is that you joined a server that's running it 20 vs 20. Don't blame maps for the lack of strategy, blame the fact you've got too many people to clog it.

And to touch up on TheIronKielbasa's point: He's right in that we shouldn't blame the players. However, this isn't the game's fault as much as it is the server operators' faults. In the mean time, if you're on a heavily populated server, and see that field is about to be voted in, leave the server and hop onto a different one. Keep a clipboard of your favorite servers, and just paste it into console as soon as you see Field voted in. The primary thing is to not be complacent.

[super_gsx]

All this talk about Field brings up a really excellent question. I know I'll look like a total noob for even asking it, but how the hell do you win at Field? Just push right in? The base defenses are just impenetrable. Does anyone know of a single solid strategy for it?

[Jake48.2]

Distraction and misdirection is key to late game field. Tanks in conjunction with passengers or an APC in the mix is a sure fire way. Immediately either drive towards the defense, or drive towards Hand or Factory while the APC takes the other structure. Nod can't handle continued bombardment without technicians, and GDI going pure infantry is poorly equipped for dominating tunnels long enough to concentrate gunner fire onto the Air Strip's control tower. Taking the defense also gives you free roam of the enemy base from tunnels. It's also possible to pull AGT/Obelisk attention with tanks, and have engineers leg it from tunnels into the refinery.

The alternative is organizing multiple APCs, stealth tanks, or medium tanks into an immediate rush as soon as money comes in. Harvesters don't get harassed as much as they should.