New content?

[Unify]

Hello,

I'm currently wondering if there will be any new content added to the game? If the answer is yes and you've got an idea of what's to be added then I'd really like to know. As of right now I'm pretty sure there are only around 7 maps to play on. Yes, they are some really nicely done maps - But I'd really like to see some more(and I'm sure the community does too). My favorite map used to be Mesa(not Mesa II), and I was pretty sad to see it wasn't added. Anyways, I hope I'm not being a pest. I'd just like to hear what is being planned in the future for this game.

[Dellta_34]

More maps and mods are almost certainly coming,however I do hope they hold of focusing on that until core issues and stability is improved.

7 maps is a lot for a beta when you think about it,especially a true beta,not a 2 week demo called a beta.

[Noodlesocks]

I know Under and Complex is being worked on and I know more tech buildings/items are planned. Couldn't tell you when though.

[omega79]

been said they want to do all classic maps (except glacier) and some new maps

some of the classic maps might be updated a little, like mesa or hourglass

been also said that ther will come more techbuildings ...

[Evono]

Front page of Website....

Official answer .

Future Content

The content below will be released through patches and new versions of Renegade X.

-More multiplayer levels

-More tech buildings, including a caputrable Repair Facility and Communications Centre

-Clanwars ladder

-More items

-New gamemode(s)

-Glitch fixes

-Custom map and mod support

-More to be announced on a later date!

[iran]

I think it would be nice to be able to construct turrets with certain characters. Like on some popular Renegade servers in the past or like in TF2. TF2 is such a good and fun game. Maybe give it as a side-ability to Technicians and Hotwires?

Or maybe some other side-arm for McFartland? He seems kinda lacking in the current metagame.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Guest

[TheGroundsKeeper]

I personally just hope for the return of all the original maps

[omega79]

I think it would be nice to be able to construct turrets with certain characters. Like on some popular Renegade servers in the past or like in TF2. TF2 is such a good and fun game. Maybe give it as a side-ability to Technicians and Hotwires?

Or maybe some other side-arm for McFartland? He seems kinda lacking in the current metagame.

seeing some "older" streams, there was an options to buy sentries and refill stations

[iran]

Refill stations sound very nifty, especially with the current limited ammo. Any idea if they refill health too?

Speaking of map remakes, I hope popular maps like Glacier_Flying, Hourglass and City (the non-flying version) get remade. Everyone just seemed to join servers running those maps. They're also huge fun to play!

[Cherno]

I'd like to see refill stations as well.

[Noodlesocks]

Refill stations sound very nifty, especially with the current limited ammo. Any idea if they refill health too?

Speaking of map remakes, I hope popular maps like Glacier_Flying, Hourglass and City (the non-flying version) get remade. Everyone just seemed to join servers running those maps. They're also huge fun to play!

Whiteout is the hourglass 'remake'.

[SeriousPan]

Do the Devs take issue with Hourglass or something? I mean sure it wasn't a map i particularly liked but there seems to be something going on here.

I'm keen for the return of City_Flying.

[WhisKeY]

I'm keen for the return of City_Flying.

My personal favourite. It'll eventually happen, but maybe not as quickly as Complex & Under.

I was ingame with ACK last night and he says if the tools come available, he'll port Glacier Fly to Ren-X!

[ehh]

hopefully the roof is good on glacier :<

and pls no turrets, that was terrible

[XD_ERROR_XD]

hopefully the roof is good on glacier :<

and pls no turrets, that was terrible

Turrets alerted a skilled player someone was trying to infiltrate the base (the turret placed next to the refinery warned for a powerplant walker, the turret placed at the obelisk alerted for an obelisk walker, the one at the hand of nod alerted for a HoN-walker).

The guard towers basically did the same (The one at the refinery alerted for a refinery walker, as the GDI didn't have to fire at him, etc etc...).

Neither of them were able to kill enemies, yet both of them could alert people if their base was infiltrated.

[Nielsen]

My favorite map used to be Mesa(not Mesa II),

Okay, could've sworn that was the same layout.

Content patch -the time of which is not determined yet- will include:

Complex, Under, perhaps the return of Xmountain from UT3 version and hopefully another original map.

Do the Devs take issue with Hourglass or something?

I'm keen for the return of City_Flying.

Yes, Hourglass was particularly awful, it's been remade into Whiteout.

As for City_Flying, everyone's hoping for its return

If you have to choose between City_Flying and Volcano, which would you choose?

[WhisKeY]

Both would be amazing. If one had to come before the other, City_Flying just because it's a nice big map that will play well when the player count returns to 64.

Whiteout is a great map btw, sort of a mix between Hourglass & Complex, but with Flying.

[Afevis]

City_Flying

[XD_ERROR_XD]

Volcano > City_flying

[SFJake]

I'm personally hoping for an original reinterpretation if City Flying. The concept of a map in the city has a heck of a lot of potential.

Also, I want more maps with aircrafts. (I wish some maps had a flying-version, even if the original didn't have them who cares)

[WhisKeY]

Original City Flying is a huge fan favourite, so I wouldn't want to see it completely reinvented. Perhaps with all the assets they acquire creating it, they can also create a City-based original map as well. Improving on City_Fly though like they did with Mesa/Hourglass, I'm all for it

Volcano vs City_fly is a very tough choice to make because both are very fun Volcano is a favourite in clanwars, because it's a nice small rush map where almost anything can happen. City_Fly was also a clanwars favourite though because it was so technical and really tested the flyers and snipers.

[iran]

I'm really digging the idea of advanced engineer classes being able to deploy turrets, like in TF2.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

I'm really digging the idea of advanced engineer classes being able to deploy turrets, like in TF2.

As cool as it sounds, i'm afraid stuff like this is only going to support campers. Maybe if you were only allowed to build them in your own base, like a cannon emplacement on top of the War Factory.

[Unify]

My favorite map used to be Mesa(not Mesa II),

Okay, could've sworn that was the same layout.

Oops! I actually meant the map "under" now that I heard it in a previous post. Also the map city_flying would be great aswell!

[Drury]

Why turrets are a bad idea:

1. They're turrets. You are going to hate them and the people building them.

2. Engineer is already oversaturated enough. He can repair buildings, he can repair vehicles, he can repair infantry, he can capture tech buildings, he can disable beacons, he can disable mines, he can disable time bombs, he can solo MCT's and tanks with remote explosives and hotties and techs can also lay mines on top of that AND NO OTHER CLASS CAN DO ANY OF THAT

This is actually one of my biggest gripes with the game. Like holy shit, every other class is absolutely powerless and narrowly specialized in comparison.

It's a bit of a cold shower coming from TF2 where every class has the same range of possible roles. Here we have engineers that have god-like defensive and offensive powers and flamethrowers that do no damage to anything at all.

[Stitchmist]

Here you go.

Notice how the EMP grenade and Anti-Tank Mine description says "Requires Armory" apparently we're also getting a new building.

[iran]

Awesome!

[omega79]

[...]If you have to choose between City_Flying and Volcano, which would you choose?

Probably the worst question for me ...

I really really really would love to see Volcano!!

I mean, imagine the Lava, the Cave and the Canyon ... the Tunnels and Balconies

Only basic Basedefenses ...

This map has sooo much potential for Tactics and Eyecandy ... it can be an absolute stunner!

But yet ... City_Flying can be hot aswell!

The urban setting, the long straight view for snipers, two ways for vehicles ... sure a gem!

This question can not be answered

For about the turrets ...

If they have limited ammo, can not be reloaded and are not to hard to destroy by 1 or 2 tanks it will be fine

same for refill/repair/heal crates, if everybody can refill/repair/heal (even enemies) and they be destroyed easy (like 1 timed c4) it will be fine

[Drury]

For about the turrets ...

If they have limited ammo, can not be reloaded and are not to hard to destroy by 1 or 2 tanks it will be fine

same for refill/repair/heal crates, if everybody can refill/repair/heal (even enemies) and they be destroyed easy (like 1 timed c4) it will be fine

You are talking about minisentries from TF2. They destroyed the balance.

Besides that, there are already powerful base defenses in Renegade. We do not need more defensive measures. The game is prone to stalemates as is.

[omega79]

I do not see it as a big balance problem ...

you can not reload them and we do not know how much ammo they have ...

all i see as a problem is that they are way too cheap ... they should cost 3 times more or 1000 credits

and not to forget, you have to hold the actual techbuilding if you want to use them ...

and no idea if you actually build them or if they maybe get droped by a chinok ...

droped by a chinok would be sweet ... then you can not build them inside buildings and the enemy could see where they are planted while they are delivered ...

[Drury]

Pay 1000 credits to break the game, or airstrikes 2: electric boogaloo.

I'd rather see an offensive tech building - capture it and it acts as forward spawn with purchase terminal.

[omega79]

Pay 1000 credits to break the game, or airstrikes 2: electric boogaloo.

I'd rather see an offensive tech building - capture it and it acts as forward spawn with purchase terminal.

I would say that a forward spawn would breake the game!

How could you ever break through a sige?

[iran]

Those charges are quite ridiculous. Some Renegade servers in the past like Black-Cell, st0rm and MPF allowed you to either buy refills inside the field (which would parachute drop supplies next to you), and/or allowed for purchasing turrets with the !turret command. A few servers, like Atomix, even had a veterancy system and the ability to buy weapons, vehicles and characters in the middle of the field!

So watered down versions, which are being proposed and the devs are looking into, shouldn't affect gameplay in a negative way and actually improve the gameplay by adding more tactical depth to the game. The turrets don't really break sieges in TF2 either and everyone loves them!

[Drury]

The game is too much defense-based. It's essentially CnC without a commander and no amount of communication is going to make it work. To have people cooperate, you have to tie them together and send them to fight.

Giving individuals even more defensive options is ridiculous. Engineers are already questionably powerful, keeping the tanky stuff nigh invincible, and the weapons that are meant to counter them do poor damage. The most popular tactic is to either go SBH and place a beacon or fill two APC's with engineers and rush in like ejaculation hoping that at least some of them manage to bomb the MCT. The only infantry that's any good at putting out damage is snipers, again a defensive class. If anything that is a sign that something is horribly wrong.

Tech buildings should give the team that captures them an upper hand in offense, not defense. Defense only results in stalemates.

[omega79]

Honestly I feel it is needed to have more defensive players ... at the moment a lot just spread out and run to the front

[iran]

The game is too much defense-based. It's essentially CnC without a commander and no amount of communication is going to make it work. To have people cooperate, you have to tie them together and send them to fight.

Giving individuals even more defensive options is ridiculous. Engineers are already questionably powerful, keeping the tanky stuff nigh invincible, and the weapons that are meant to counter them do poor damage. The most popular tactic is to either go SBH and place a beacon or fill two APC's with engineers and rush in like ejaculation hoping that at least some of them manage to bomb the MCT. The only infantry that's any good at putting out damage is snipers, again a defensive class. If anything that is a sign that something is horribly wrong.

Tech buildings should give the team that captures them an upper hand in offense, not defense. Defense only results in stalemates.

What you're stating is very contradicting. You say you that the game is too based on defense then state the fact that one player can destroy a building with an invisible unit without much effort and thereby crippling the enemy team severely. You also state that people can literally rush into the front door (!) with APCs and then quickly kill buildings with C4.

That doesn't exactly sound as a game where camping is too effective.

[Drury]

You can only win by using two shoddy tactics to rush the objective rather than actually winning by being the better team.

What I meant to say is that playing the game normally is futile effort for the most part. You have tanks and infantry endlessly stuck inbetween base defenses until either side decides to use a superweapon/oversaturated engineer class. As ashocking as it sounds, that is not a good balance.

[omega79]

uhm ... gather a group, buy an APC and rush a building is teamwork an requires a good team.

and as shocking as it sounds ... balance means both teams have equal chances ... balance says nothing about the quality of certain tactics

[Drury]

uhm ... gather a group, buy an APC and rush a building is teamwork an requires a good team.

and as shocking as it sounds ... balance means both teams have equal chances ... balance says nothing about the quality of certain tactics

No it doesn't, but it's also not as simple as having symmetrical maps and equal teams - in fact, Renegade has neither, and yet it could be a balanced game. Compare with TF2 which has symmetrical maps and equal teams and, while being decently balanced, has some serious flaws. Anyone will tell you that 2fort (symmetrical map) sucks because it's too easy to defend, has nearly no medkits and is biased towards certain classes - which would also be the flaws of RenegadeX.

It's not impossible to solve however. We just have to be very careful not to make it even worse by adding features without putting any thought into them.

[omega79]

well ... saying that the devs do not put any thought in it is just not right!

and they already tested it at least, we did not ...

we will see what happens ... i still think you are wrong

[HaTe]

Balance is measured by the end result. Nod could appear to dominate to players, but if the winning % is 50/50, then the game is balanced, regardless of what people think.

That's what it comes down to.

[TheGroundsKeeper]

My favorite map used to be Mesa(not Mesa II),

Okay, could've sworn that was the same layout.

Content patch -the time of which is not determined yet- will include:

Complex, Under, perhaps the return of Xmountain from UT3 version and hopefully another original map.

Do the Devs take issue with Hourglass or something?

I'm keen for the return of City_Flying.

Yes, Hourglass was particularly awful, it's been remade into Whiteout.

As for City_Flying, everyone's hoping for its return

If you have to choose between City_Flying and Volcano, which would you choose?

The new mesa II is awesome Nielsen, it is my favorite of the map Remakes, because it looks truly amazing and stays true to the original.

I would prefer the original hourglass though. I miss the infantry stuff that were going on over the hill, and in the tunnel.

And in general i prefer maps with the defense buildings.

[NodCommander]

I actually quite enjoyed the original Hourglass. I think Whiteout is lacking the tunnel combat. Maybe move the Silo underground to give it a purpose?

[RoundShades]

Pay 1000 credits to break the game, or airstrikes 2: electric boogaloo.

I'd rather see an offensive tech building - capture it and it acts as forward spawn with purchase terminal.

I would say that a forward spawn would breake the game!

How could you ever break through a sige?

Actually, such a concept is "planetside2", except with strict long-tested balance to it.

Sunder's are vehicles that act as forward spawn, although with the HUGE distance between one base to another, it gives the attackers some form of anchor. Then the bases themselves, there aren't just 2, there are 40, so capturing one acts like a forward base one step closer to their next one, and if they cap it back they inch up closer to yours.

Generally, it is balanceable, however right now spawns are random, so if it was in one wouldn't control spawning there, unless the PT could "send" you there at 500 creds a teleport.

I THINK IT WOULD BE OK FOR SURE THOUGH if it acted as a PT with just "refill" on it. Or if they added neutral mid-field crates or caches, which either faction could walk up to, hold "R", and it refills their ammo.

[Drury]

Balance is measured by the end result. Nod could appear to dominate to players, but if the winning % is 50/50, then the game is balanced, regardless of what people think.

That's what it comes down to.

Looking at the stats is your first mistake. Balance isn't as simple as "equal conditions" and "50% winrate"

It's pragmatics. You have to look at the very core of the game and see what's wrong there, the little design decisions that make the broader image. How many of those 50% were won by a single person going SBH nuking the enemy base? How many were won by a single hottie making it into power plant and bombing the MCT? What was the point of those other 39 people playing the game then? What they do doesn't matter, they keep killing each other in tanks/repair MCT's while 2 or 3 people try and capture the objective on their own, and at one point they randomly succeed. And if they do decide to actually do something organized it's usually APC rush or something of the sort. But your average server is nothing more than chaos between an AGT and an Obelisk.

Like I said, look at the 2fort example. That map is perfectly symmetrical, has 50% winrate, everybody hates it because you can only make something happen if you either go engineer and turtle to oblivion or go Spy, sap everything and steal the flag on your own. The rest of the server has nothing to do but duel each other as Snipers or generally not going anywhere near the objective because it's impossible.

[HaTe]

If we're talking about pure balance - 50/50 is the ultimate goal. How that balance gets there is up to gameplay. Balance wise though, if the game is at a 50% winrate, it is completely balanced.

I'm not saying that a 50% winrate makes the game fun...look at flipping a coin. That's not fun. Each faction has different units and thus different strategies. Gameplay can be discussed and changed freely to enhance fun, but the game should also be relatively balanced. In order to measure that balance, the end result is what you have to look at, not how it got there. That is gameplay and strategy, which is a factor of balance, but not how you measure it.

It is like when you step on a scale to weigh yourself. How much you eat and how much you exercise determines what the scale will say. Whether or not you lost weight or gained weight is the measurement and is the final result. Balance is the final result, not how it got there. Gameplay is how it got there, which can be considered the consumption of food and/or exercise in this example.

Someone could think that because they ate less and exercised more, they should be losing weight. That is not always the case, though. Just how some people think nod is op and some people think GDI is op. The end result is what you have to look at to measure this balance. Think of it as a teeter totter. The more weight you add on one side, the more imbalanced it gets. A flat teeter totter means a 50/50 weight distribution, regardless of who or what is on either side of it.

If the devs want to measure balance, they do so by the win rate of each team, not how easy or how hard it is for each team to win in principle. It's measured by the result in practice, not the theoretical ease of result in principle (which is what Drury was arguing).

[Drury]

Overall balance should also take into factor the balance between different classes, which isn't all that good in RenX, as I mentioned earlier. You have 5 free classes, soldier, shotgunner, marksman, anti-vehicle one and engineer. Which one do you usually pick? For the most part the choice is either one of the combat ones (in which case you are likely to die and not contribute to victory at all) or engineer. And by going engineer you basically seal the deal - you want to win the game, not endlessly jerk off with the other guys. Because out of the free classes, the engineer is the one that is best suited to capture objectives - destroy bases and defend bases. Nowadays he's also the only class that can capture tech buildings. And as a bonus, he's the best class to pick for vehicle warfare, so you can also jerk off with those other engineers in vehicles not doing anything to contribute, along with those soldiers and marksmen etc.

Engineer's the class that is good for everything. Every other free class is only good for killing and not contributing anything to victory. As for the paid ones, those actually have the potential to go and do something, problem is, they need vehicles so they don't get instakilled by base defenses. And since engineer is the class you want to use a vehicle as, the paid classes end up never actually contributing either and just rack up kills. With an exception of hottie, tech and SBH.

Hate to bring TF2 up again, but that is a game where you can have fun playing any class and where every class has it's well-defined limits. You don't have a class that is a combination of Demoman, Medic, Heavy and Engineer - because if there was one, it would be more useful than any other class and everyone would play it, resulting in shallow gameplay and, seeing as all of the mentioned classes are defensive classes, very stale matches. That is a problem in RenX. It's visibly a Command and Conquer game, and as such you can't blame it for not being like TF2, but it's built on the same basis. You've always had these different types of units that were good at doing different things, but never before in a CnC game you had one that was good for anything (maybe if you excuse superunits and some horrors EA has created in C&C3). This is an interesting anomaly and I see it as one of the most major problems with the game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing the game now. I just feel like it's not as good as it could have been and it irks me, as a loyal CnC fan. I'm not blaming RenX developers for it either, it was maybe just Westwood's lack of experience with FPS games. I just thought now would be a good time to go and do something about it.

[HaTe]

If the advantage of one team's infantry is successfully negated by the advantage of the other team's vehicles, then it should not matter. The overall win % is what measures this (per map). The end result is the result of every factor being used in practicd., rather than analyzing each part of the game through principle. Measurement results outweigh words always in terms of balance.

[ErroR]

I actually quite enjoyed the original Hourglass. I think Whiteout is lacking the tunnel combat. Maybe move the Silo underground to give it a purpose?

I agree. I think the silos should stay out of the field in general, where they can't get covered by the team who dominates the field with vehicles and gives both teams equal chance to capture them at any time.

In general I think RenX needs more maps with base defenses. For me that's the real C&C and it feels like there are more maps without defenses at the moment. Not sure if that's the case though.

I'd rather play mesa or field 24/7 instead of walls or lakeside. Islands I do enjoy however since there's an independent infantry route.

[Drury]

If the advantage of one team's infantry is successfully negated by the advantage of the other team's vehicles, then it should not matter. The overall win % is what measures this (per map). The end result is the result of every factor being used in practicd., rather than analyzing each part of the game through principle. Measurement results outweigh words always in terms of balance.

"It doesn't matter that the game isn't as fun as it could be, all that matters is this 50% winrate"

I'd agree with you if we were discussing economics here, but we're talking about a videogame. In game design terms, balance is not only the raw data that can be collected, it also reaches into game design and fun aspect.