Problematic beacon placement spots

[ErroR]

I've played around alone and found a few beacon placements spots that probably shouldn't be possible. Here's a few on lakeside:

While you can disarm it there if you jump down there you get stuck and can't get out.

Pretty self explanatory.

Pretty self explanatory.

Pretty sure if I moved a bit it would be even less visible.

The bit on the refiner isn't physical so you can just place a beacon inside of it.

Not a big deal but it looks weird.

These 2 aren't that exploitable but still pretty sneaky:

[SFJake]

I wish there was like, half a dozen in-game checks that prevented beacons in any awkward spot. I don't even like beacons on roof, its quite overpowered by itself and more so when mixed with any tactics beyond solo SBH nuke.

Some of those spots of course are even more ridiculous. I wouldn't know "how" exactly to prevent all the lame beacon placement, though.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

Theese are great finds. GJ Buddy

[ErroR]

In renegade the beacon would be placed at your feet. In renx the beacon drops infront of you.

That's what causing all the problems however I wouldn't want beacons to appear at your feet as dropping them off roofs wouldn't be possible.

Maybe not very useful to anyway but who knows, might prove in some situations like say drop a beacon off the big wall on walls if there's tons of vehicles at your gate. You know, the fun stuff.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

Saw a guy dropping one off here today. this one is a gamebreaker since it is undisarmable!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEQ0IJEo ... e=youtu.be

[Daedhart]

There are several offshoots on the PP and WF that are very similar to your HoN one.

[RoundShades]

yes, they should probably either drop at the center of your feet again, or they should now allow you to place within a foot of mesh meaning you have to put it a foot away from any walls or obstructions. Yes, this would mean out in the open, even on the roofs of buildings, but they are beacons so they are a bit powerful and they can be defended by straight up gunfire too.

At this point, I think people are intentionally exploiting beacon placement. I wish moderators would enforce better on this one. I would regularly join any server that would moderate it. You would think Jelly Marathon would, I was suprised when there was an IRC admin on and everyone accepted the game was broken on it but didn't blame the person obviously exploiting it.

[Daedhart]

Saw a guy dropping one off here today. this one is a gamebreaker since it is undisarmable!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEQ0IJEo ... e=youtu.be

That would explain why I can never find the damn thing on the REF.

[Daedhart]

yes, they should probably either drop at the center of your feet again, or they should now allow you to place within a foot of mesh meaning you have to put it a foot away from any walls or obstructions. Yes, this would mean out in the open, even on the roofs of buildings, but they are beacons so they are a bit powerful and they can be defended by straight up gunfire too.

At this point, I think people are intentionally exploiting beacon placement. I wish moderators would enforce better on this one. I would regularly join any server that would moderate it. You would think Jelly Marathon would, I was suprised when there was an IRC admin on and everyone accepted the game was broken on it but didn't blame the person obviously exploiting it.

Ive warned a couple people on Rencorner. But this is something that only needs to be done once to really screw up a game.

[kuroisuki]

Saw a guy dropping one off here today. this one is a gamebreaker since it is undisarmable!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEQ0IJEo ... e=youtu.be

That would explain why I can never find the damn thing on the REF.

Yup, and i've seen a few in the BAR and PP's. getting worse by the day. and this topic being public ain't helping it ;/.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

Saw a guy dropping one off here today. this one is a gamebreaker since it is undisarmable!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEQ0IJEo ... e=youtu.be

That would explain why I can never find the damn thing on the REF.

Yup, and i've seen a few in the BAR and PP's. getting worse by the day. and this topic being public ain't helping it ;/.

True, les hope they fix it soonish!

[ErroR]

Here's more:

You can parachute into a lot of places on walls.

Good luck disarming.

Access to the whole roof might be necessary.

Spot the beacon

Beacons fall through turrets. Impossible to disarm, can easily destroy hon on field.

And as a bonus:

Don't forget to nuke the mtc.

Maybe this shouldn't be public but really it's not hard to figure out the possibilities.

Placing beacons at your feet might fix many of these but not all, it's still possible to do a lot anyway, especially on flying maps.

[HaTe]

One solution for a few of these would be killzones that kill the player when they go onto a place that otherwise should not be accessible. The tops of buildings (very tops that is not accessible from the ground) should be "no access zones" by default as well, and any infantry on these areas should slide off from that section, like in renegade. Parachuting onto the inaccessible spot on the refinery, for instance, should be a killzone.

[iran]

You have 10 WHOLE seconds more time to disarm the beacons.

I honestly don't see the issue. People just need to learn to play a bit, it should be fine after a week.

[SeriousPan]

You have 10 WHOLE seconds more time to disarm the beacons.

I honestly don't see the issue. People just need to learn to play a bit, it should be fine after a week.

So the part where they put a nuke at the top of a building, behind a physical object where no one can get to it without a vehicle is a non-issue?

[kuroisuki]

You have 10 WHOLE seconds more time to disarm the beacons.

I honestly don't see the issue. People just need to learn to play a bit, it should be fine after a week.

So the part where they put a nuke at the top of a building, behind a physical object where no one can get to it without a vehicle is a non-issue?

Or beacons inside the geometry.. totally a non-issue!

[ErroR]

Player killzones are a no go. Landing on building tops should be possible.

Instead there should be areas that don't let you deploy the beacon.

[RoundShades]

One solution for a few of these would be killzones that kill the player when they go onto a place that otherwise should not be accessible. The tops of buildings (very tops that is not accessible from the ground) should be "no access zones" by default as well, and any infantry on these areas should slide off from that section, like in renegade. Parachuting onto the inaccessible spot on the refinery, for instance, should be a killzone.

I played me some bastardized Unreal games in my day. SMNC. The solution isn't killzones, they randomly punish people who accidentally them.

The solution is "zones without proper flooring", which means if landed on the player shows falling animation and slowly slides. Then, obviously make beacons only placeable if you are standing.

For instance, the very top of smokestack, shouldnt let you stand, should just slippy-slide you off. The top of ref chunks. The top of a turret.

Maybe other places should do what C&C Renegade did, and just put invisible walls, invisible flooring, and invisible roof-needles, where the beacon can't be placed in recessed areas because the invisible flooring will be where it lands (no placing it tucked into things or down into smokestacks), and players cant stand on roofs because the invisible walls on the roof form a sloped roof that is too steep to remain on so you slide off. That was what C&C Renegade did.

EDIT: I think the "beacon" can also be a floating entity as double-insurance. Meaning it plants it by your feet, and is not effected by gravity. If it isn't effected by gravity, you have to be standing, where it is. Coupled with not allowing standing where it shouldnt be allowed, it will keep beacons where they can be seen.

[PermaGrin]

I think we should look into making the beacon place where you are standing rather than where you are aiming, this might help with some of these problem areas. I will bring this up / pass this on to the team.

At the same time...SOME of these areas mentioned look to just be "good" places. Just because it is "hard" to disarm, does not mean it was "easy" to plant.

[iran]

You have 10 WHOLE seconds more time to disarm the beacons.

I honestly don't see the issue. People just need to learn to play a bit, it should be fine after a week.

So the part where they put a nuke at the top of a building, behind a physical object where no one can get to it without a vehicle is a non-issue?

Or beacons inside the geometry.. totally a non-issue!

FYI Hotwire come with Proximity Mines. They're land mines which kill SBHs quite easily. Just mine the troublesome spots and make sure the SBHs don't come in.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

You have 10 WHOLE seconds more time to disarm the beacons.

I honestly don't see the issue. People just need to learn to play a bit, it should be fine after a week.

People placing then sneaky i think is ok, even jumps out of choppers is ok i think, you need to fly the chopper in there and if the opposite team let a person do that well then they should be nuked. That is a part of renegade.

However i find it problematic with the beacon placement that are inside other grapics, wich either makes the kinda hidden, or invisible, and harder than normal to disarm, or even impossible.

So a good placed beacon should ofc be allowed, but a beacon placed with an exploit that give a enormous advantage should defintly not!

[Noodlesocks]

You have 10 WHOLE seconds more time to disarm the beacons.

I honestly don't see the issue. People just need to learn to play a bit, it should be fine after a week.

The problem is that there are areas the beacon can be placed that make it impossible to disarm.

[Drowz0r]

It would probably be easier working with what is definitely NOT ok, rather than debating the grey areas first.

Obviously making something whereby you cannot place the device inside of geometry should be created.

Probably best to debate and patch other things after that, no?

[iran]

People placing then sneaky i think is ok, even jumps out of choppers is ok i think, you need to fly the chopper in there and if the opposite team let a person do that well then they should be nuked. That is a part of renegade.

Exactly, one Havoc is all that's needed to prevent a chopper from getting inside your base. Two Havocs or 2 PICs are overkill against them. If they do land on the roof of a building you have enough time to find them and kill them. If needed you can have a player on your team who has a flying unit himself chase the enemy player.

However i find it problematic with the beacon placement that are inside other grapics, wich either makes the kinda hidden, or invisible, and harder than normal to disarm, or even impossible.

A few proximity mines placed just there will take good care of just that. You can also hear the Beacon and you can also crouch at these troublesome spots in first person to check for beacons there.

So a good placed beacon should ofc be allowed, but a beacon placed with an exploit that give a enormous advantage should defintly not!

Well, 99% of all beacons placed aren't what you could consider exploit ones. The other 1% are taken care of by proximity mines.

But in the end I think we can all agree on that it's not much of an issue. A lot of the newcomers asking on the forums here just need to learn the "tricks of the trade" as to speak, e.g. placing mines on the outside of buildings where the most common and hard to disarm/defend nuke spots are and luring SBHs into nuking inside buildings by not mining buildings. 95% of SBH players are new to the game and aren't capable of making the logic conclusion that placing beacons next to enemy Purchase Terminals is very unwise indeed.

If you join a Renegade server today, like Jelly-Server's Marathon, all the players mine the outside of their buildings and the base entrance and don't mine the buildings themslves, completely unlike Renegade X players. We Renegade players face the same issues and over the course of 12 years we've created this simple tactic to handle it. It might seem illogical to not mine the insides of buildings but you need people to defend anyhow so you might as well have these defending people check the MCT of buildings now and then.

Just think about it, it's the most effective way to mine, especially considering a building is nine times more like to be taken out by nuke beacons than c4, at least in Renegade. From my experience with Renegade X so far buildings are even more likely to be taken out by Nuke Beacons than C4.

[RoundShades]

If a chopper getting into your base was an instant lose, why not make it that way? Why not make a place on top of the tiberium refinery, where if you land a vehicle there, the refinery instantly was destroyed?

In matter of fact, why not it kill every enemy on that team if you landed it there too? They are stupid or something for letting it happen, so if it ever happens they deserve it...

...NO. No seriously, that should not be the case. There is no way it will always be that a heli can never make it there, and it isn't always the team's fault.

AND GENERALLY, it isn't very legacy Renegade to allow people to place on extreme heights atop buildings. Roofs okay. But the tallest part of the ref and the smokestack on PP, they HAD invisible cones and wedges of walls atop in a slope that prevented too much hard collision but if an infantry landed on it they did slide off and rightfully so.

[iran]

Take it easy guys, no need to become all emotional, angry and irrational over a civil internet discussion.

If a chopper getting into your base was an instant lose, why not make it that way? Why not make a place on top of the tiberium refinery, where if you land a vehicle there, the refinery instantly was destroyed?

No one is implying a chopper getitng into your base is an instant lose. I'm not sure why you think it is. Your team and yourself can chase the player. If needed aircraft can be used for the chase.

I really don't understand the exaggeration, most of the time when you land on the Refinery you fall off it. If you do somehow manage to both FLY INTO A FULL BASE and then do some James Bond style landing on top of a roof and that roof turns out to be unreachable, and then are able to plant a nuke successfully on it (see how implausible that sounds), don't you think the enemy team should be punished for allowing that to happen?

In matter of fact, why not it kill every enemy on that team if you landed it there too? They are stupid or something for letting it happen, so if it ever happens they deserve it...

Please take it easy with the abusive and forceful language.

AND GENERALLY, it isn't very legacy Renegade to allow people to place on extreme heights atop buildings. Roofs okay. But the tallest part of the ref and the smokestack on PP, they HAD invisible cones and wedges of walls atop in a slope that prevented too much hard collision but if an infantry landed on it they did slide off and rightfully so.

Actually you could still place on top of them if you landed them correctly, you could even do so on the top of the AGT. Of course no one ever did because as I mentioned at the start of this post this is extremely hard to do unless the other team is just dribbling about, at which point they DESERVE to lose to it. 99% of the time when a team plays decently these nukes are impossible. Mind you that Renegade players are far more experienced than Renegade X players and it's been years since I've last seen it happen in Renegade.

I also sense you're somewhat insinuating Renegade X is a cheap ripoff of Renegade..

[HaTe]

You guys do realize killzones are how they were fixed in renegade, right? How the hell do you "accidentally" end up on the top of the barracks on a nonflying map? Places not accessible by the ground should not be accessible by any means. Hence killzones.

[ErroR]

I don't think killzones are the right way to go. You could create a completely new entity of no-beacon-zones instead. You shouldn't be punished for ending up in a place you're not supposed to be in because chances are it's a very very rare occurrence and those break the monotony of gameplay.

There are a lot of killzones on islands at water level and while they're doing their job it's a bit unfortunate if you somehow end up in one in a real game. You can only find out where one is by dying to it.

Let's say you can get up here:

It's a place you're not supposed to be in. A deathzone in this place would be confusing and just wrong. Instead you should just make sure you can't climb up the wall that lets you get up there.

[WhisKeY]

Iran's strategy of 'don't mine building doors' is just asking for remote rushes. Flyers hold 2 people now, and transport heli's are useful. If I knew a building's door wasn't mined, I'd get a havoc or tech in my Apache with me and head directly to that door.

As for the topic at hand, I agree that switching back to Renegade's beacon placement (directly at feet) should solve a lot of these issues. I'm against 'no beacon zones' - just adds confusion

[iran]

Uh, 5 remotes are needed to destroy a building. If a flyer holds 2 persons these persons can only holf 2 remotes each, which is 4 in total, which is one less than needed. Chinooks are very slow and large, I have yet to see a Chinook rush work in a full Renegade X server and it's been almost a year since I've seen it happen in Renegade.

I'm not sure how a Havoc helps, as it takes more than one shot to kill anything but basic infantry, making this impossible inside enemy buildings with the close proximity of Purchase Terminals (and the quick refill ability therefore).

GotWhiskey actually never played anything over 6vs6 clan wars and "funwars" games and has shown great disdain for "pub" games (public servers with more than 12 players). He has also made some very disparaging comments about most Renegade players who do play on large, public servers multiple times in the post. Needless to say not only does his argument fall apart when you look at this ridiculous flyer and Chinook claim, he also has absolutely no experience playing 40 player games.

I agree though that changing beacons to drop at the feet will fix all the beacon issues, but it's very low priority. There's also a moral hazard with giving non-issues so much attention over issues that actually matter, like the fact there is no Glacier_Flying remake yet.

[HaTe]

You wouldn't be placing a beacon up there....the killzones are for tops of buildings that are not easily accessible from the ground (there was one in renegade on the top of the barracks on ground maps, for example). Wall hopping is removed, but parachuting remains. Building top killzones are necessary.

I'd also be for the at feet placement as well. Makes more sense that way, really.

Iran, can you hopelessly evaluate me next using 15+ falacies?

[Drowz0r]

Uh, 5 remotes are needed to destroy a building. If a flyer holds 2 persons these persons can only holf 2 remotes each, which is 4 in total...

Engineers often carry timed explosives on top of that.

[iran]

Yes but they take 30 seconds to explode. If you can't disarm those while an enemy team literally flies an aircraft into your base and and can get the timed c4 to go off 30 seconds later then your team deserves to lose the building.

Remote C4 blows up instantly by the way.

[ErroR]

You wouldn't be placing a beacon up there....the killzones are for tops of buildings that are not easily accessible from the ground (there was one in renegade on the top of the barracks on ground maps, for example). Wall hopping is removed, but parachuting remains. Building top killzones are necessary.

I'd also be for the at feet placement as well. Makes more sense that way, really.

Iran, can you hopelessly evaluate me next using 15+ falacies?

I'd rather have you slide off the top of buildings like the wf pipes, a simple insibile /\ shaped wall will ensure you fall off. The refinery has a bunch of places you slide off and can't place becons on.

Top building death zones are a bad idea. The powerplant does that but it makes sense because you're falling into a huge fan at least.

[HaTe]

I had mentioned slide zones for structures like that. I'm talking about places you shouldn't be regardless. Like on top of the bar on ground maps, on top of the ref on ground maps, etc. If you're there, you got there on purpose because you were trying to abuse it. That's where killzones came into play in renegade, and should do the same on renx

[ErroR]

That makes sense however with the current vehicle physics you'd think you could end up there without wanting to.

[HaTe]

The very small possibility of that happening (plus the eventual fixes of such glitches) are a mere unfortunate side effect for players that ever encounter such a thing. They existed in Renegade, and how many times have you died by them ever? The amount can be counted on one hand for me personally (after WEEKS of gameplay time).

[Daedhart]

I dont understand why people are defending how it currently is so much. Is it because you think putting death zones or fall off points undermines attempts to be sneaky? The original Renegade didnt have any of these weird places to put beacons and that didnt stop people from being creative with the beacons. Saying it needs to stay the way it is now feels to me like insulting the original Renegade. We didnt need to land on top of the REF/PP/WF to plant easily defensible beacons in Renegade, we shouldnt need to in RenX.

If you cant find a good place to put the beacon without exploiting all the obviously broken spots of the buildings, then maybe you should stick to a tank...

[WhisKeY]

GotWhiskey actually never played anything over 6vs6 clan wars and "funwars" games and has shown great disdain for "pub" games (public servers with more than 12 players). He has also made some very disparaging comments about most Renegade players who do play on large, public servers multiple times in the post. Needless to say not only does his argument fall apart when you look at this ridiculous flyer and Chinook claim, he also has absolutely no experience playing 40 player games.

[Volcom]

Uh, 5 remotes are needed to destroy a building. If a flyer holds 2 persons these persons can only holf 2 remotes each, which is 4 in total, which is one less than needed. Chinooks are very slow and large, I have yet to see a Chinook rush work in a full Renegade X server and it's been almost a year since I've seen it happen in Renegade.

Two in the Orca is a very viable strategy and works a lot of the time. Also characters also have timed c4's not very hard to defend off the enemy team with two guys and an orca for 30 seconds. Especially if part of their team is engaged else where.

I'm not sure how a Havoc helps, as it takes more than one shot to kill anything but basic infantry, making this impossible inside enemy buildings with the close proximity of Purchase Terminals (and the quick refill ability therefore).

Except you can kill any character with a headshot with a Havoc, which is fairly easy in Renegade X. Orca + Havoc defending the C4's on a building is a pretty solid plan.

GotWhiskey actually never played anything over 6vs6 clan wars and "funwars" games and has shown great disdain for "pub" games (public servers with more than 12 players). He has also made some very disparaging comments about most Renegade players who do play on large, public servers multiple times in the post. Needless to say not only does his argument fall apart when you look at this ridiculous flyer and Chinook claim, he also has absolutely no experience playing 40 player games.

I guess those communities war and lobby wars back in the day count as a 6 v 6? Last time I checked they were always 15 vs 15 or higher. I think he has quite a bit of experience in big games and also has knowledge on competitive games. Furthermore, I don't understand why you would try to attack the person arguing to try to win you "argument".

[HaTe]

I believe whiskey was on the rf team with me that won the rgct2 as well

[Soldieroffate]

The ref one needs to be fixed ASAP. It's being misused to absurd levels by SBHs.

[Terekhov]

Sounds to me that these two fixes:

a) Beacons being planted at feet

b) Sloped surfaces where adventurous parachutists aren't supposed to be

Would solve 95% of the problems we're having. Most of the other flyer problems should happen, I would argue, if a team is stupid enough to ignore a flyer coming in their base AND the person proceeding to get out.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

orca's and apaches should not be able to carry passengers... i never was a big fan of flame tanks having passengers either. it just makes it way too easy to defend beacons.

[Lt.Hargrove]

I have managed to place Ion Cannon Beacon INSIDE the airstrip lights. They are blue, so it is impossible to see the flashing light. I did it by crouching next to the lamp and aiming at it.

You cant tell that there is a beacon there from that screenshot. The only way to locate it is the beeping sound, but given it's location most people will check HoN or refinery.

[super_gsx]

You have 10 WHOLE seconds more time to disarm the beacons.

I honestly don't see the issue. People just need to learn to play a bit, it should be fine after a week.

So the part where they put a nuke at the top of a building, behind a physical object where no one can get to it without a vehicle is a non-issue?

This

[Trev-MUN]

inb4 "If you don't have vehicles because you lost your factory/airstrip, you deserve to lose."

Seriously though, SeriousPan is right. There IS an issue here when beacons are placed in ways that the target team can't disarm them at all, or only on specific circumstances.

[Harpoon]

Well, IMHO if someone manages to land or jump from a heli on top of building, avoid getting hit and plant a nuke on a very difficult to get place, he should be rewarded for it.

The real problem here is that you can place beacons in places which are impossible to defuse like inside of other structures. And a good solutions to that have already been mentioned.

1. Make certain areas, like chimneys or edges on the roof of WF slippery so you will fall down when you stand on them.

2. Place beacons exactly where you're standing not in front of players.

3. Fix collision detection of building so you can't get inside the geometry.

And that's it. We will still see beacons dropped in places that are difficult to disarm, but will eliminate ones that are impossible to disarm.

[R315r4z0r]

Beacons should only be able to be placed in locations where the enemy can reach them. Finding clever places to hide them is fine, but if it's on the top of a smoke stack or inside of geometry that is an issue.

[RoundShades]

Beacons should only be able to be placed in locations where the enemy can reach them. Finding clever places to hide them is fine, but if it's on the top of a smoke stack or inside of geometry that is an issue.

I don't see why this is arguable. There are some gray areas, but generally wherever it is placed should have a fair shot to be reachable by infantry and be disarmed.

So, no on top of rampless roofs or something, no dropped into deep narrow tubes, no placed inside of logstacks, no placed inside of hallow tiberium silo pegs, none of that. I seen some effective spots that are reachable. The most hidden are usually the most overused, and the most semi-obvious are the least immediately checked, so there is a mindgame there. I prefer clumped corners for my placement, because with a bit of distancing, I can toss nades in to kill the first wave of repair. I think its fair to defend beacons, not to phase beacons into walls to make impossible to disarm.