Fixing stalemates

[sarabi]

Right now theres one rather large problem, in that almost every game will end up in a stalemate where no buildings are destroyed at all, which leads to rather boring meatgrinder games wehre people would rather deathmatch because any attempts at takign down the base feel futile. Theres a few combined reasons for this, but the biggest one is this

1 - building repair is far, FAR too potent

I do not think anyone can possibly argue against this, if you have a critical mass of engineers inside a building, it simply will not die, and even if an attacking force successfully takes a building down to say, 20% of it's health before the defence turrets take them out, it will be repaired to full health again in less than a minute, this, more than anything makes attacking feel futile, free, unlimited building repairs need to go since they sap any will to try and damage or skirmish the enemy base.

There are a few fixing this, my personal faveroute is perhaps the simplest

A. Give building repairs a high resource cost:

Right now there is no cost at all to healing game critical structures, and this becomes a major because only paid for units can really make a dent in structures (Infantry can't make a charge until the turrets are taken down, so going for control panels is simply not viable), so having a free unit (engineers) make free repairs that equal expensive vehicles is obviously a huge problem.

If it costs say, $40 per 1% of a buildings health healed, (so $3960 to get from 1% to 100*) then suddenly campign the entire game simply wont become viable, so teams will have to push forward and give action in the middle of the map the strategic value of preventing enemies causing costly damage to your structures. Also this puts a soft cap on how quickly buildings can be repaired when under siege.

B. Remove active building repair and instead add a 0.5% passive regen to buildings:

Not ideal as it still has the problem of returning to a building to find it's healed up in a couple of minutes, but this does stop gaggles of engineers camping the main control panel and outhealing tankshells.

C. Double building health and remove repair entirely

Also not ideal since it removes a tactical option entirely, but it does mean that a stalemate is unlikely as continued attacks will eventually destroy buildings.

TL:DR

Add a $40 per 1% repair cost to repairing buildings to prevent the massive predominance of stalemates in the game presently and encourage more active mid-field defence and enemy base assault rather than passive turtling.

[Cherno]

Right now theres one rather large problem, in that almost every game will end up in a stalemate where no buildings are destroyed at all, which leads to rather boring meatgrinder games wehre people would rather deathmatch because any attempts at takign down the base feel futile. Theres a few combined reasons for this, but the biggest one is this

1 - building repair is far, FAR too potent

I do not think anyone can possibly argue against this, if you have a critical mass of engineers inside a building, it simply will not die, and even if an attacking force successfully takes a building down to say, 20% of it's health before the defence turrets take them out, it will be repaired to full health again in less than a minute, this, more than anything makes attacking feel futile, free, unlimited building repairs need to go since they sap any will to try and damage or skirmish the enemy base.

There are a few fixing this, my personal faveroute is perhaps the simplest

A. Give building repairs a high resource cost:

Right now there is no cost at all to healing game critical structures, and this becomes a major because only paid for units can really make a dent in structures (Infantry can't make a charge until the turrets are taken down, so going for control panels is simply not viable), so having a free unit (engineers) make free repairs that equal expensive vehicles is obviously a huge problem.

If it costs say, $40 per 1% of a buildings health healed, (so $3960 to get from 1% to 100*) then suddenly campign the entire game simply wont become viable, so teams will have to push forward and give action in the middle of the map the strategic value of preventing enemies causing costly damage to your structures. Also this puts a soft cap on how quickly buildings can be repaired when under siege.

B. Remove active building repair and instead add a 0.5% passive regen to buildings:

Not ideal as it still has the problem of returning to a building to find it's healed up in a couple of minutes, but this does stop gaggles of engineers camping the main control panel and outhealing tankshells.

C. Double building health and remove repair entirely

Also not ideal since it removes a tactical option entirely, but it does mean that a stalemate is unlikely as continued attacks will eventually destroy buildings.

TL:DR

Add a $40 per 1% repair cost to repairing buildings to prevent the massive predominance of stalemates in the game presently and encourage more active mid-field defence and enemy base assault rather than passive turtling.

If several engineers repair the same buildings, that's called a good defense (of that one building). Keep in mind that these engineers are not available for other tasks or for attacking the enemy. So if that one building is decently defended, the attackers has to do a little bit of teamwork himself and go for another one; the defender can't have multiple engineers in every building.

As for the repair cost in $$$: I would think that this is a very bad idea. Engineers already have a tought job that not many people really like to do, mostly keeping inside the base seeing little actuion, being armed with sub-par weapons, but nevertheless a job that is critical to success; they are the enablers and force multipliers. Without engineers, no vehicles get repaired, no buildings get repaired, no beacons get disarmed, and no on lay minefields or even watches our for infiltrators. So if doing that kind of job also means having to LOSE money for essentially doing what your class is meant to do, who would still choose an engineer over a more combat-oriented class? There has to be some kind of reward or no one would do this job.

TL;DR: If a maaster terminal is spam-repaired by engineers, choose a different building to attack. Brute force with five Mammoth Tanks can work sometimes, but most victories get scored by a small band of infiltrators who manage to c4 and nuke critical enemy structures.

[sarabi]

It is a simplistic and overly powerfull defence, not a 'good' defence, theres no effort or strategy involved in hiding inside a building and holding left click on the master control terminal. It's barely even teamwork since no real coordination needs to be deployed on account that it's HOLDING DOWN THE LEFT MOUSE BUTTON AGAINST A SCREEN.

My proposal not only fixes the stalemate issue that is plaiging servers right now, but adds an element of thought and strategy to the repair process, should I repair this building? or should I spend my money getting an offensive class and try to stop the enemy hurting it more in the first place. Right now it's a no-brainer to have engineers do this intensely boring and brainless task. It does not contribute to the fun factor of the game in any way, shape or form. All it does is deter players from attempting to complete the objective and instead hover in the middle of the map deathmatching.

Do not let conservative attachment to old design spoil what could be an excellent, exciting game.

[cirex]

There is a fix: ion/nuke.

Also if a building is repaired to well, you should target another one to kill. Also there are distraction tactics where you prepare a rush and first shoot 1 or 2 shots on a structure so all engineers will move to it, and then change your fire to your primary target.

And if that all fails, get a rush together, move in, plant a nuke/ion and defense it. It is not hard, trust me...

All these newbies just don't know the Renegade strategies and start complaining about Renegade not having strategies. Well first you have to understand the basics, and strategies will be gain by playing hours, days or even months. You can't be a pro in one day in this game.

[sarabi]

A. - ion/nuke being the only counter makes all over tactics worthless and therefore a stale game.

B. - rushes dont work on public games (and say what you want, these will be the majority life and soul of the game unless you want it to be a husk with just the occasional clan match) because of obelisks of light guaranteeing death to the first person to start the charge, nobody wants to join in a rush where thier $800+ tank is guaranteed to die. This is simple pub play mentality that is in every online game, and being the majority of players should be taken into consideration.

Make it an optional ruleset if you like, but right now pub games are simple deathmatches that are unlikely to hold much of a playerbase for long due to this perpetuation of stalemate.

[Cherno]

1. Murphy's Law of Combat: If it is stupid, but it works, it isn't stupid.

2. Organized play =|= public matches. This is indeed common with all games, so no big news there.

[cirex]

Well, organizing rushes isn't done that well lately with all these new players, no offense, but they are not used to teamchat a way to win.

And the Ion and nuke that I mentioned, are ways to kill it, another would be holding the doors open of a building so a tanks shoots in it and kills the engineers, and there are a lot more ways to prevent a stalemate. Be more creative and you will win .

[MeSteep]

Sorry, but adding a repair cost would break the game..though it would end stalemates. With your 'fix', the game then becomes a race to destroy the Ref. After taking down Ref it would be inevitable to starve out the opponent. There would be zero opportunities for comeback. You are literally castrating defensive opportunities. Personally, if Renegade X made your change, I'd leave games as soon as my team's ref got destroyed and probably stop playing RenX all-together soon after. In all but a few maps, you can camp and pot-shot the Ref with Arty/MLRS (which mind you have infinite ammo) and be relatively safe from base defenses.

And to be frank, of the 50 or so games I've played only a handful ever managed to stalemate with no buildings down...most being on Field. It's rare and was rare coming from Renegade.

The only way I can see this working is if you also made the other side pay. Pay for infantry refills, limit vehicle ammo and make players pay to resupply their vehicles. You would also have to redesign the maps.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

There is no such thing as stalemate in Ren x atm, you must be doing it wrong.

The absurd easy to use airstrike makes sure of that, and even so the "stalemates" are atm more because there are alot of new folks who havent learnt the small tips and tricks needed to tip a building.

What you suggest would make the games really short and the true epic teamplay moments, only ever seen in the renegade would never happen,and the sould of the game would be lost.

[Unit]

as sombody who has played Renegade for an almost depressing length of time, i haev to say this is the worst idea ive ever seen.

[sarabi]

Having spent some more time with the game, I can see where you're all coming from, however it seems that stalemates are more of a map issue than a building repair issue (though i'd still say that having diminishing return on multiple simultaneous repairs could be a notion to entertain), games with no base defenses (walls and islands) tend to have a winner in a timely fashion, but then maps like field seem to have problems owing to the obelisk of light and GDI equivelent discouraging any real assault (especially on field owing to the tight vehicle entrance).

This is just what I'm seeing anyway, maybe it will become less of an issue as the playerbase matures and figures how to rush. Until then though i'm finding zero base defense maps are the most entertaining and satisfying to battle over.

[MeSteep]

(though i'd still say that having diminishing return on multiple simultaneous repairs could be a notion to entertain)

No it shouldn't. Sorry, but your crusade to elimiate the engineer class just because you don't like their purpose is fruitless. Just say 'My idea was stupid'. Please.

It's not an issue...you just think it's one because you don't like it.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

Ehem, ill repeat myself.

There is no stalemate in ren x atm. airstrikes blabla. ect. ect.

It is also about what you like, i prefer long games with full defenses and as many players as possible, make it real hard.

64vs64 with 120minecap is was my playground in Classic Renegade, took teamplay to a whole other level.

Besides sometimes the only required to break a stalemate is to suggest to do something about it.

[Valor]

Bring back splash damage inside buildings. That's all.

[wolfrikku]

Bring back splash damage inside buildings. That's all.

I agree with this it was a lot more fun repairing when you was taking damage constantly from explosions, having to take turns healing other engineers as well as repairing the building.

[Dex]

Well honestly I dont think engi's healing in mass is a problem. If it is a problem try working with your team to distract them. Theres been games stuck in stalemate won by one team or another simply by sending in some engi's with c4 and blowing up everyone healing the structure. Iv also seen effective bombardments that defend beacons to nullify the mass of engi's healing. If we cap or make some resource deduction for healing then whats the point. Just leads to 10 min games which I find to fast and very dull. Stalemates arnt that bad when you think of diffrent ways to distract or destroy. I have yet to curse the enemy team for mass repairing structures and iv been in plenty of stalemates. It was like this for Original why cant we leave it? To many things are so called "Problems" that were in the original and expected to be removed or altered from the material that really helped make the original great. :"( no more alterations please, just try to work with your team and try new things!!! Please!!! :"(

[SeriousPan]

Bring back splash damage inside buildings. That's all.

I agree with this it was a lot more fun repairing when you was taking damage constantly from explosions, having to take turns healing other engineers as well as repairing the building.

Also meant more moolah!

[A-Rodge]

This had been a major qualm for me as well throughout the original game and I sadly see it has extended somewhat into X. I enjoy RenX because theres many more ways to stalemate, but all I can really do is avoid marathons.

[SFJake]

Stalemates is just another word for "the 2 teams are lacking in teamwork". Teamworks breaks stalemates. Which is why I prefer if the game is more likely to create stalemate -> it forces teams to work together to break through. And yes, you need to force it in pubs.

[super_gsx]

If there are a bunch of engineers in one building, they're not in the other buildings, so it creates weak points. The big problem is if you have 32 players - 8 engineers to each building (assuming there are 4 buildings).

My solution to this? Put more buildings in the game. The original game was designed for fewer players. A game with this many players needs more buildings. More map complexity. Perhaps a Communications Center, a Service Depot, Temple of Nod, etc.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Guest

[datchrizz]

- increased building time for vehicles

- decrease the accuracy of sniper rifles while not zoomed (for every sniper class, incl. the 1000 credits characters)

- the stealth tank is really squishy, give this vehicle 1-2 Rockets more loaded in the magazine to fire at the enemy, stealth and surprise attack is the only advantage of this vehicle

- harvesters should become a machine gun for a light self defense

- we have apaches and orcas, whats up with bomb throwing flying vehicles?

Got a lot more, especially the animations and weapon symbols, partially buggy.

[super_gsx]

How about this? Reduce the power of the OBI/AGT. These buildings shouldn't be un-passable. They're just really strong base defenses. Not infinitely powerful, unbeatable base defenses. It seems like that's what we're getting in RenX.

[Lavama]

I don't know Super_gsx, they always crushed me when I rushed. Then again, I'm normally that dude at the front that is getting shot. Arg.

Sometimes stalemates occur, and there's nothing you can do about it, right?

WRONG! All you have to do is one simple thing.

Shoot the hell outa the enemy base with a grenade! Pop one in the building! Zerg rush their ass! There's free infantry for a reason!

[disorder]

Make repair guns run at their current rate whenever their is refinery+power, if either one goes down, reduce the rate by 25%. if both down rate is 50%

[RoundShades]

There is a fix: ion/nuke.

Also if a building is repaired to well, you should target another one to kill. Also there are distraction tactics where you prepare a rush and first shoot 1 or 2 shots on a structure so all engineers will move to it, and then change your fire to your primary target.

And if that all fails, get a rush together, move in, plant a nuke/ion and defense it. It is not hard, trust me...

All these newbies just don't know the Renegade strategies and start complaining about Renegade not having strategies. Well first you have to understand the basics, and strategies will be gain by playing hours, days or even months. You can't be a pro in one day in this game.

He is right. There are no stalemates, only what you have in your head.

You see, there is a problem trying to argue huge balance changes to this game: it has been tested to work for 12 years.

In 12 years, most people who stuck with this game loved the balance between defence and offence, and while there have been some changes they all encourage the attacker if anything, such as vehicle buffs. There never was a stalemate problem. Some games ended without base destruction, in my opinion most did end in base destruction, that is proven in marathon servers eventually ending. They sometimes took hours, just because of vehicle stealing tactics and two factions losing a very crippling building (and two cripple factions playing against each other can take a long time, imagine two teams without either vehicle factory in Field)

Unfortunately, your ideas seem nice for a sudden death mode, but not for the main game, because this game is heavily Renegade legacy and that definitely changes too much, more than any change to this game.

[masscarriers]

Stalemates are easier to break more than ever now with airstrikes. Moreover, even if you don’t manage to destroy a building because of a critical mass of engies inside, you’re still getting the edge on points. Left-clicking on the MCT the whole game isn’t a very rewarding strategy in AOW, while pounding on buildings and distracting enemy forces is.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

How about we just leave the game as close to the original as possible?

What i read in between the lines of most posts is "I cant do teamplay so please make it so 1 idiot can steamroll a base protected by 64 players."

You already have the ridicilous Airstrike already for a skillless idiotic stalemate breaker, what more do you guys want?

There is always the smaller games if you want fast non challanging games, start a walls in 2vs2 or something.

Some of us played Renegade for the hard and very teamwork dependant games, get 2-3 freinds and break the siege with ramjets from the safetey of your own base, that can be done on basically every map, unless you lack the skill to hit a damn arty or mlrs with a sniper.

[Dex]

How about we just leave the game as close to the original as possible?

TheGroundsKeeper has really said it with no extra fat. Keep it close to the original, as close as possible. Im sick of reading about these things, as if its game breaking. The only game breaking issue is players not working together and the actual technical bugs being ironed out as we speak... or type depending on how exact you wanna be.

I for one will push back the more you try to alter this game away from its legacy! And its rewarding to see other players such as yourself TheGroundsKeeper, pushing back as-well.

Now Im open for discussion so Im not saying talking about it is bad, but the amount of people ingame that seem to expect it to be completely different from the original is getting to a point thats beyond simple chatter.

[iovandrake]

I think splash damage should come back within buildings, but only within reason. The arty in original Ren was ridiculous with it's splash being damn near the size of half a building. Great care needs to be taken not to replicate how OP that radius was. In original Ren field was tilted in Nod's favor heavily due to this. Arties could severely damage both the WF and the people inside it from relative safety while any GDI assault on the HON barely hurt anyone inside and was done at nearly pointblank range. Due to this unless the Nod team was bad or the GDI team taking and holding the field ASAP then Nod usually would win without a lot of effort.

Here's a possible suggestion. What if occasional debris blows off the inside of the building when it's being damage and it's health is below 60% and if you happen to get hit by said debris (which could just be critical systems catching fire and blowing apart on the inside, not like the walls are breaking apart) you take a good deal of damage? This way it's not just one team's absurd splash vs another's pitiful (plus the shape of the buildings and their placement). Instead it's the building coming apart at the seams as it is being destroyed that does it.

[limewire3]

How about we just leave the game as close to the original as possible?

TheGroundsKeeper has really said it with no extra fat. Keep it close to the original, as close as possible. Im sick of reading about these things, as if its game breaking. The only game breaking issue is players not working together and the actual technical bugs being ironed out as we speak... or type depending on how exact you wanna be.

I for one will push back the more you try to alter this game away from its legacy! And its rewarding to see other players such as yourself TheGroundsKeeper, pushing back as-well.

Now Im open for discussion so Im not saying talking about it is bad, but the amount of people ingame that seem to expect it to be completely different from the original is getting to a point thats beyond simple chatter.

Agreed