Alternative Ideas

[HaTe]

Hey guys, just wanted to make a topic for you guys to post your opinions on what you would have done differently if you were the devs. If nothing else, it should be fun and possess intelligent discussion. Perhaps an idea will be posted that the devs never thought about and it could even be implemented.

Just like to point out: please only post ideas that would impact the whole default game. Meaning each server. No mod ideas - that can be a separate discussion.

Some of mine:

1. Vehicle limit algorithm. Such that the default vlimit setup would be a minimum of 7 vehicles per team. The algorithm will take 60% of the current highest player count team (so if nod has more players in-game, each team's vlimit is based off of their players, and the same if GDI has more players), and turn that number into the vlimit. These numbers would get rounded up at every point they are not a whole number (ex: 5 stays at 5, but 5.1 goes up to 6). Meaning that: if the highest player count team in game has 1-11 players, the vlimit will be 7 (this is the minimum amount). If they have 15, it will be 9. If they have 25, it will be 15. And so on and so forth. This is to avoid any vehicle limit being set in stone, and so it avoids having it way too high or way too low based on the current in-game player count. It should be dependent on how many players are in-game, and this is the best way to do it.

2. Airstrikes done differently. Airstrikes should not be used an offensive weapon. It's not fair to a team to have an airstrike called on them while trying to disarm a nuke/ion. Airstrikes should be used as a weapon to help break a seige. So: first off, there should be an airstrike cool down time. A player can only call in an airstrike once for every 5 minutes. Secondly, an airstrike can only be used in his team's half of the field closest to his base (and including his base). Thirdly, airstrikes should do damage proportional to where they call the airstrike in. So, it should do max damage (say 400) on the direct spot the airstrike was called in. The other planes that drop the explosives next to that spot should have a bit wider of an impact than the middle one, but do significantly less damage (200-250).

3. Self-disarming proximity mines. Often times, a building will die that has proximity mines still inside it. This screws up the whole mine limit, and you are forced to go replant up to 35(+) mines just to get rid of those now useless mines. So, it should be that: targeting your own proximity mine within its detonation range and pressing "E" will disarm that mine. This can only be done by the player who laid the mine. If you target someone else's mine on your team and press "E" it will send you a PM notifying you who placed the mine (so you can tell that person to come disarm them if need be).

4. Capturable tech buildings. I don't like the idea that these are in the field. They give the team that should already be having the advantage on points and credits, more credits. I think these should be redesigned and implemented into the tunnels in a different way. That way, it makes infantry units in the tunnel have an actual use rather than kill whoring. They can now attack, rush, or defend their team's "Tech MCTs". I also think that they should work as regular mct's - none of that neutral MCT crap. Instead, have 2 MCT's (either side by side or right across each other), and have them default at 0 HP. Once they reach 75%+ (or green health), have them give that team the bonus of the tech building. Have them take normal damage of an MCT as well, but double the overall health (so that it takes more time to repair, as well as having it have to take more damage to get below 75%). Once it gets to 0%, it can still be repaired by its respective team though. Makes infantry in tunnels worth a small something, and can give the team with less points/credits a higher possibility of retaking the tech building, as well as giving the potential for both teams to simultaneously have access to the silo's improvements.

Edit: Added 3/29

5. Remote C4 limit per player. 5 remote C4 limit per player, rather than a strict remote C4 limit per team. Having a team limit on a C4 that is only detonated per 1 individual causes the potential for one player to use up all of the limit. That's fine and all for proximity mines (see suggestion #3) - but for Remote C4's there should be a limit per player, since they are only able to be detonated by each individual. There could also be a maximum put in place if needed, but the per individual limit is what is important here.

6. (Originally suggested by Goztow and Stealtheye - edited a bit for my preference). Team sorting algorithm. This may be quite complicated for some people to understand, but it is both possible and effective. The algorithm is for when a map ends and the next one begins (sorting teams). When the map ends, the server looks at 2 qualifications specifically: 1. The clan tag of the player; and 2. The place (rank) the player ended up based on his score at the end of the last match. Such that: Players with the same clan tag (using (), [], {}) will get put on the same team, so long as the number of these players does not exceed 20% of the overall players in-game. If the number of players in one specific clan in-game does exceed 20% of the overall players in-game, the members of that clan will be distributed evenly into the 2 teams using the algorithm for qualification #2. That algorithm would be: (*changes when clan members are present so long as they are under 20% of overall players) Players 1,4,6,8,10,12,14,16, etc. go to team #1. Players 2,3,5,7,9,11,13,15, etc. go to team #2. If one or more clans are present in-game and are under 20% of the overall players, they are put onto the same team. This is used to try and put friends together, whilst keeping a decent balance between the 2 teams.

So, lets for example use this random made up list of players sorted by score of the last map:

1. (TiF)Brem

2. Rikl

3. Terim

4. (Kom)Tim

5. (TiF)Holi

6. (TiF)Brett

7. Himoi

8. Loitle

9. (TiF)Rolx

10. (Kom)Anth

11. Nilme

12. Rethom

13. (TiF) Retrob

14. (Kom)Tibim

15. Coty

16. (TiF)Golum

As you can see, the clan (TiF) exceeds 20% of the overall players. The clan (Kom) does not, however. So, the team sorting would be as such:

Team 1:

1. (Kom)Tim

2. (Kom)Anth

3. (Kom)Tibim

4. (TiF)Brem

5. (TiF)Rolx

6. (TiF)Golum

7. Terim

8. Himoi

Team 2:

1. (TiF)Holi

2. (TiF)Brett

3. (TiF)Retrob

4. Rikl

5. Loitle

6. Nilme

7. Rethom

8. Coty

This puts the clan under 20% all together. The clan over 20% gets split in half based on the same algorithm used for normal players (1,4,6 - 2,3,5). The rest of the normal players then follow the regular algorithm whilst keeping the team player count even. So team 1 would need 2 more normal players to fill up their roster, while team 2 would need 5. Since team 1 has a full clan squad, team 2 gets the bid for the #1 normal player. So team 2 then gets 1,4,5,6,7 to fill up their 8 person roster. Team 1 gets 2 and 3 to fill up their roster.

7. (*Originally suggested by Kil). Nukes/Ions done differently. Such that the normal time is counted down, and it works similar to Renegade in that 5 seconds before the ion/nuke is about to detonate, the ion animation plays and the nuclear strike begins to fall from the sky. The difference being that if the beacon is disarmed in those 5 seconds, an animation to "get rid" of the beacon takes place. For nukes, the missile explodes mid-air with a small explosion. For ions, the ion animation is "sucked" back into the center of the ion with a new sound played. This way there is no 5 second "no repair time" and the random disappearing animation from Renegade is also fixed.

I may update this with a few others later.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Guest

[SFJake]

All good ideas.

-An algorithm that decides the default vehicle cap would be an improvement over just having a default of 7. I'd cap it at 14 though.

-You know me and airstrike. Even with the upcoming nerf, beacon covered by airstrikes are still a thing. If I was to add anything on that post, I'd make sure that airstrikes can basically not kill infantry (except perhaps the base ones). Its just not the role of airstrikes at all. If they did really low damage to infantry, them covering beacons would be far less cheap and would only force vehicles to move away.

-Disarming your own proxy should be a thing, totally for it.

-Your tunnel tech building is an interesting idea. I also happen to -hate- field tech buildings. I definitely think I'd prefer that. Could add a new layer to tunnel fights, however I think as a result tunnels would need to be developed more. And thats not a bad thing. Make them a bit more complex in the process, but of course they remain infantry-only. I'd personally keep the tech building MCT mirrored, so that each team have their side of the tunnels that they need to protect.

I just really like this opportunity to make tunnels more interesting. I was never a tunnel guy, I avoid them all the time.

The fact that MCTs need to be DESTROYED is also important in bringing more roles to the tunnels.

The more I think about that idea the more I like it.

[goztow]

I think I like all your ideas.

[HaTe]

Thanks guys!

May update with a few more ideas in a bit.

[pyr0]

A scaled proxy mine limit, for example first 10 players : 30, and for every x players after that y mines, with perhaps a maximum (say 50).

The idea came to me after having played hardcore marathons in the original, in c&c_hourglass with 127 mine limit. Raising this limit made the team effort really pay off!

[R315r4z0r]

1. I had a similar idea about a scaling vehicle limit once. However the limit isn't just for performance reasons, it's for clutter reasons. You can play with dozens of other infantry, but it's hard to move around when there are vehicles everywhere. I think that a vehicle limit scaling system should also take into consideration the map and how many vehicles it can support. But either way, there needs to be a maximum amount of vehicles allowed. I agree with SFjake, it should be no more than 14.

2. I agree that using airstrikes as an offensive weapon is kinda lame, but I'm going to be completely honest... I've seen this happen maybe once or twice since the game launched (airstrikes covering beacons I mean). While I think there should be precautions to prevent airstrikes covering a beacon, it isn't really a common tactic. Now, while I fully support the idea of a player lockout between using airstrikes, I am completely against any sort of team lockout. The actions of one player on a team should not force the options of everyone else on that team, ever. So if someone uses an airstrike, I should not have to suffer a lockout because of it. This is also important since who knows who used the airstrike? Did they use it right? Or maybe they just wasted it on purpose to hamper their team? Either way, team lockouts are a bad idea.

I think that when it comes to bases, airstrikes need to follow two rules. One, they cannot be deployed in your base at all. Two, all maps should have AA defenses regardless of if flying vehicles are enabled or not. If an AA defense is active, airstrikes should be unable to be deployed in the enemy's base.

Alternatively, if airstrikes really are a problem, which I really don't believe they are, they can change the deployment method to forcing the player who is calling in the strike to have to hold the laser for the entire duration of the airstrike. If they die, then the airstrike stops.

3. Agreed.

4. Someone else brought this issue up once before, but you're both mistaken on it. The introductions of tech buildings do not give advantages to the winning team controlling the field because the tech building exists. This is not an inherent issue with tech buildings. It's actually an issue with map design.

For example, on a map like Field, the tech building is badly placed because Field only has one control route between each base. So, once one team takes control of the field, they will of course take control of the tech building. This is not the tech buildings fault, it's the placement of the tech building that is the issue.

Look at other maps as an example: Lakeside, Whiteout, Mesa. Each of these maps feature tech buildings that don't automatically fall under enemy control merely because the enemy controls the field. This is because the maps feature the tech buildings in locations that are separate from the route needed to get to the enemy base. There are more ways for you to get to the enemy base and you aren't required to use the one that contains a tech building... and if you do, then you leave yourself exposed on the sides of the map that don't have the tech building. On these maps you need to either commit to taking them or commit to attacking the enemy, it isn't one in the same thing like it is on Field.

The problem with putting them into tunnels is that it magnifies the issue you point out about the controlling team having control of the tech building. Tunnels are narrow passage ways that are easily defensible. This makes it so that the controlling team will always control the tech building. This makes it even more unfair to the losing team, contrary to what your intentions are.

I don't think there are any issues with tech buildings as they are. There are issues with the placement of them on some maps though. Field is one case that needs to be looked at.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

i haven't had a single game so far where tech buildings gave me the impression that it only gave the winning team an advantage. they're much easier to capture then people are suggesting. same thing for Field, really.

let's put up an example of what happened to me once in Field.

I was on GDI, we lost our refinery and Nod had control of the field. we were able to prevent the enemy team from whoring our buildings, but we still remained poor. that's when i decided to earn some money for my team and capture the Silo. i sprint into the tunnel to the waterfall and jumped down, leaving the enemy with no idea what just happened. i've done until i had enough cash for an Ion Cannon beacon. in the meanwhile i c4'd some vehicles, sticked a remote to a sakura oblivious to my presence and stole a Stealth Tank.

Once i had 1000 credits, i decided to go on a crate hunt, basically doing the same thing but this time actually looking for a spy crate until i got one, and destroyed the Airstrip with it. the time limit expired a few minutes later.

I never would have been able to do this in the original game. but i actually like this about Renegade X. It rewards good timing better then the original and allows for more strategies to come up with. Tech buildings like the silo's is a good addition to a strategical game like this.

[HaTe]

1. I had a similar idea about a scaling vehicle limit once. However the limit isn't just for performance reasons, it's for clutter reasons. You can play with dozens of other infantry, but it's hard to move around when there are vehicles everywhere. I think that a vehicle limit scaling system should also take into consideration the map and how many vehicles it can support. But either way, there needs to be a maximum amount of vehicles allowed. I agree with SFjake, it should be no more than 14.

2. I agree that using airstrikes as an offensive weapon is kinda lame, but I'm going to be completely honest... I've seen this happen maybe once or twice since the game launched (airstrikes covering beacons I mean). While I think there should be precautions to prevent airstrikes covering a beacon, it isn't really a common tactic. Now, while I fully support the idea of a player lockout between using airstrikes, I am completely against any sort of team lockout. The actions of one player on a team should not force the options of everyone else on that team, ever. So if someone uses an airstrike, I should not have to suffer a lockout because of it. This is also important since who knows who used the airstrike? Did they use it right? Or maybe they just wasted it on purpose to hamper their team? Either way, team lockouts are a bad idea.

I think that when it comes to bases, airstrikes need to follow two rules. One, they cannot be deployed in your base at all. Two, all maps should have AA defenses regardless of if flying vehicles are enabled or not. If an AA defense is active, airstrikes should be unable to be deployed in the enemy's base.

Alternatively, if airstrikes really are a problem, which I really don't believe they are, they can change the deployment method to forcing the player who is calling in the strike to have to hold the laser for the entire duration of the airstrike. If they die, then the airstrike stops.

3. Agreed.

4. Someone else brought this issue up once before, but you're both mistaken on it. The introductions of tech buildings do not give advantages to the winning team controlling the field because the tech building exists. This is not an inherent issue with tech buildings. It's actually an issue with map design.

For example, on a map like Field, the tech building is badly placed because Field only has one control route between each base. So, once one team takes control of the field, they will of course take control of the tech building. This is not the tech buildings fault, it's the placement of the tech building that is the issue.

Look at other maps as an example: Lakeside, Whiteout, Mesa. Each of these maps feature tech buildings that don't automatically fall under enemy control merely because the enemy controls the field. This is because the maps feature the tech buildings in locations that are separate from the route needed to get to the enemy base. There are more ways for you to get to the enemy base and you aren't required to use the one that contains a tech building... and if you do, then you leave yourself exposed on the sides of the map that don't have the tech building. On these maps you need to either commit to taking them or commit to attacking the enemy, it isn't one in the same thing like it is on Field.

The problem with putting them into tunnels is that it magnifies the issue you point out about the controlling team having control of the tech building. Tunnels are narrow passage ways that are easily defensible. This makes it so that the controlling team will always control the tech building. This makes it even more unfair to the losing team, contrary to what your intentions are.

I don't think there are any issues with tech buildings as they are. There are issues with the placement of them on some maps though. Field is one case that needs to be looked at.

1. I wouldn't be completely against a maximum limit, but I think 14 may be a bit too low. For instance, it is 18 in jelly marathon in renegade with a 50 player max limit. There's also no vehicle shells yet in renegade x. So, I'd probably have a max of 18.

2. Fair enough about the team lockout idea. Having it be 5 minutes per player PURCHASE of an airstrike would probably be better. One sent in for every 5 mins for a player is still too high IMO, so I think the ability to only purchase one every 5 minutes is important.

4. While I see your point on having a tech building that is not in the primary path to the enemy's base, I disagree about your point on tunnels being "easily defensible." Tunnel control switches per team FAR more than any field path does. Trust me, I'm a tunnel sniper much of the time. It's much harder to take the field (any path, normally) than it is to take the tunnels. Also, this way you do actual damage to it meaning that you can help out in the tech building process with something other than a repair gun. Your point would mean that you would have to redesign certain classical maps in some way in order to have the tech buildings. I like the tunnel idea much better, and I'm not too certain that you spend much time in the tunnels based on your response to this particular issue.

[R315r4z0r]

4. While I see your point on having a tech building that is not in the primary path to the enemy's base, I disagree about your point on tunnels being "easily defensible." Tunnel control switches per team FAR more than any field path does. Trust me, I'm a tunnel sniper much of the time. It's much harder to take the field (any path, normally) than it is to take the tunnels. Also, this way you do actual damage to it meaning that you can help out in the tech building process with something other than a repair gun. Your point would mean that you would have to redesign certain classical maps in some way in order to have the tech buildings. I like the tunnel idea much better, and I'm not too certain that you spend much time in the tunnels based on your response to this particular issue.

I misspoke. I didn't mean to imply that the tunnels were easy to defend. At least not now anyway. For a tunnel like on Field or Islands with multiple ins and outs, enemies can come from all over the place to flank you. What I was getting at is that they are cramped narrow areas that don't give much room for maneuverability or cover. Not only that, but they are large; so large that trying to defend the whole tunnel network is almost an impossibility especially if you're on your own.

But, if you put a static point in the middle of a tunnel that would need to be defended, that narrows down the area you have to defend from the whole tunnel to just that one fixed point. It would be all too easy to do it since enemies have to come from specific directions. Plus, a few proximity mines (if you can expend them) would go a long way into making it that much harder for the enemy to debunk your location.

I can see the idea of having the tech buildings in tunnels working very well on a map like Complex, since there are a lot of extra rooms in the tunnels that really weren't necessary to travel through if you wanted to get from point A to point B. So putting a tech building in one of those rooms would be very healthy for the gameplay. But for a map like Field or Islands, getting from one point in the tunnel to the other always requires you to pass by the center of the tunnel. Meaning, if there was a fixed defensible location in those tunnels, it would be right smack in the middle of the travel route between both bases and not an optional route a player might take if they were specifically looking to capture the tech building.

Defending a whole tunnel is hard, especially if there really isn't a reason to do so. But if you make a fixed spot that has to be defended, it would be very easy to do that.

So, let me just be clear here. I don't think putting tech buildings in tunnels is a bad idea. I'm speaking more about how and where they are places that is the issue. I don't think Field should have a silo. Not in the field nor in the tunnel. Because there just isn't any spot to put it that doesn't give a bias to the team in control. Tech buildings are supposed to be optional control points to make the battle less focused and more spread out. Putting them smack in the middle of hotspots does nothing but hurt the gameplay.

[HaTe]

Well, for field and islands specifically:

Field:

Having one on the inside of each pillar (meaning directly across from each other) would be the best possible action. I don't think it would be easy to defend on this map, because field in particular is a map where the tunnels are always a competitive place. Meaning keeping possession is hard to do, and having the field actually largely gives a team an advantage for taking or maintaining the tunnel. The credit advantage from harvester dumps plus the threat of a waterfall side tunnel attack makes sure of that. I think that it would add some awesome competitive strategies too. Early game would have to be a decision to either try and pointwhore the enemy buildings for a quick credit lead, repair and defend the repairers on the capturable mct's, or rush the harvester. It really would add something very interesting to the game from a strategic standpoint.

Islands:

This one is more diffuclt, I will give you that. I do not believe it is nessecary on maps where the harvester does not have the threat of being destroyed, personally. The extra guns is always nice, but really not needed on islands. The extra credits should really never be needed. So on maps like complex (eventually) and islands, where the harvester does not leave the base (and therefore credits are normally plentiful) I really don't think a "tech MCT" is necessary at all.

On walls in particular, having one on each side of the mid-pillar thing would be awesome. It would make teams more willing to push up, rather then camp all the time too.

[Darkraptor]

i haven't had a single game so far where tech buildings gave me the impression that it only gave the winning team an advantage. they're much easier to capture then people are suggesting. same thing for Field, really.

let's put up an example of what happened to me once in Field.

I was on GDI, we lost our refinery and Nod had control of the field. we were able to prevent the enemy team from whoring our buildings, but we still remained poor. that's when i decided to earn some money for my team and capture the Silo. i sprint into the tunnel to the waterfall and jumped down, leaving the enemy with no idea what just happened. i've done until i had enough cash for an Ion Cannon beacon. in the meanwhile i c4'd some vehicles, sticked a remote to a sakura oblivious to my presence and stole a Stealth Tank.

Once i had 1000 credits, i decided to go on a crate hunt, basically doing the same thing but this time actually looking for a spy crate until i got one, and destroyed the Airstrip with it. the time limit expired a few minutes later.

I never would have been able to do this in the original game. but i actually like this about Renegade X. It rewards good timing better then the original and allows for more strategies to come up with. Tech buildings like the silo's is a good addition to a strategical game like this.

In the map field is the position of the silo ok. If you play smart, you can capture it by taking the tunnels like -Error_ did it .

But i made a bad experience with the silo in the map witheout.

I was playing on the site of NOD. GDI took out our refinery an was now tankrushing.

It was unable for our team to take controll of the silo, because one Mammut and one MRLS were next to it and killed every attacker .

Were the silo placed in a position, which can only reached by foot, our team would have had a chance to take controll of it.

[Terekhov]

2. Airstrikes done differently. Airstrikes should not be used an offensive weapon. It's not fair to a team to have an airstrike called on them while trying to disarm a nuke/ion. Airstrikes should be used as a weapon to help break a seige. So: first off, there should be an airstrike cool down time. A player can only call in an airstrike once for every 5 minutes. Secondly, an airstrike can only be used in his team's half of the field closest to his base (and including his base). Thirdly, airstrikes should do damage proportional to where they call the airstrike in. So, it should do max damage (say 400) on the direct spot the airstrike was called in. The other planes that drop the explosives next to that spot should have a bit wider of an impact than the middle one, but do significantly less damage (200-250).

After 300+ games, I can count the number of times I've seen someone effectively guard an ion/nuke with an airstrike on one hand. Most of those were 2-3 people spamming them.

If we're talking about fairness in guarding nukes/ions, why not disable snipers from shooting into the enemy base on Walls_Flying, since making beacons hard to disarm is such a bad thing? Snipers give much more grief to disarmers, and a good sniper is far more useful than any one airstrike in that situation.

Teamwork/coordination is part of what makes RenX a fun game to play; I disagree that we should coddle players and take away from what can be the most exhilarating experience in a match. Cutting off half the map or giving airstrikes a marathon cooldown are two ways to take away from that, and I'm not buying either. That Said:

You're right that they're too OP with regards to nukes/ions at the moment. An interval of 30 to 40 seconds between airstrikes would be perfectly reasonable, and ensure that the attackers would only have one chance at a good airstrike for the duration of a beacon countdown. Perhaps even increasing it to 1min 30sec or 2min wouldn't be a terrible thing.

I don't think airstrikes need to be nerfed in other ways; they have become exactly what they were meant to be: a tool in the toolbox, not an answer for all problems. It's an additional element of strategy which adds value to the game, and should stay as-is with tweaks to their frequency.

Hey guys, just wanted to make a topic for you guys to post your opinions on what you would have done differently if you were the devs. If nothing else, it should be fun and possess intelligent discussion. Perhaps an idea will be posted that the devs never thought about and it could even be implemented.

Just like to point out: please only post ideas that would impact the whole default game. Meaning each server. No mod ideas - that can be a separate discussion.

I agree with the ideas in points 1/3/4, nicely done. Some of the best overall ideas I've seen posted.

[R315r4z0r]

But i made a bad experience with the silo in the map witheout.

I was playing on the site of NOD. GDI took out our refinery an was now tankrushing.

It was unable for our team to take controll of the silo, because one Mammut and one MRLS were next to it and killed every attacker .

Were the silo placed in a position, which can only reached by foot, our team would have had a chance to take controll of it.

But you see I think that's how it's supposed to be. They are taking the time and effort to actually defend the silo. You're supposed to have a hard time trying to take it if they are purposely defending it.

[Darkraptor]

But i made a bad experience with the silo in the map witheout.

I was playing on the site of NOD. GDI took out our refinery an was now tankrushing.

It was unable for our team to take controll of the silo, because one Mammut and one MRLS were next to it and killed every attacker .

Were the silo placed in a position, which can only reached by foot, our team would have had a chance to take controll of it.

But you see I think that's how it's supposed to be. They are taking the time and effort to actually defend the silo. You're supposed to have a hard time trying to take it if they are purposely defending it.

And that was absolutely not the case this time. Because in Whiteout the silo is on the attackroute. So the mammut and mrls where next to the silo and attacked the Hand of Nod. And at the same time they were able to defend the silo.

[R315r4z0r]

There are 4 attack routes on Whiteout. They didn't have to go that way. Your team could have gone to attack the enemy base from the other 3 routes that didn't have a silo.

[Darkraptor]

There are 4 attack routes on Whiteout. They didn't have to go that way. Your team could have gone to attack the enemy base from the other 3 routes that didn't have a silo.

Well, tanks around the hill, no money, and the tunnel guarded by the rocketemplacement. So we were screwed.

[HaTe]

Updated with 3 more alternative ideas. May possibly do a few others that I've been thinking up of later. See original post #5, #6, and #7 for the 3 added.

[HaTe]

Any opinions on the additional 3 ideas?

[goztow]

I like most of your ideas. They make sens. However all effort should now go to fixing the crashes. It has been awfully quiet on that which worroes me a bit.

[DoMiNaNt_HuNtEr]

Yah pretty good ideas except for the Ion/Nuke "get rid of" animation.

What is it right now, a 30 second timer? And then after that timer, if the beacon ain't disarmed, the animation plays, and after which the structure dies.

Isn't that how it's currently set up? I thought that THAT was the coolest idea Renegade X implemented. That's how I always wanted it to be like in original Renegade.

[HaTe]

Yeah but it has a 5+ second "undisarmable" time during that animation (its also closer to 45-50 than 30). People really dislike that, and kil (one of the devs) had posted a possible solution that I really liked, so I thought I'd put it for the public to see as well.

[SFJake]

Yah pretty good ideas except for the Ion/Nuke "get rid of" animation.

What is it right now, a 30 second timer? And then after that timer, if the beacon ain't disarmed, the animation plays, and after which the structure dies.

Isn't that how it's currently set up? I thought that THAT was the coolest idea Renegade X implemented. That's how I always wanted it to be like in original Renegade.

Except its terrible and kills all the intensity of a last second disarm. Instead it instantly devolves into a boring "oh well 10 sec left I guess we screwed".

[DoMiNaNt_HuNtEr]

Yeah but it has a 5+ second "undisarmable" time during that animation (its also closer to 45-50 than 30). People really dislike that

Man, people are fucked. What don't they get about it? The timer has ended, you failed to disarm the beacon. That 5 + time of animation play is not part of the beacon count down. Since you failed to disarm the beacon, the superweapon has a full lock on to the beacon's position. The beacon is not needed anymore, it'd be pointless to disarm it now because the targeting is complete.

Ok SO:

Original Renegade: 50 second timer (and during the last 5 seconds the projectile appears), then BOOM.

Ren X: 50 second timer, after which the projectile appears, the animation of it coming to it's target plays out for 5 seconds, then BOOM.

This way you don't see a fucking nuke or god damn giant laser beam disappear right before your eyes. IT'S THE SAME TIMER, and the same intensity as old renegade. It is just more realistic this way.

[HaTe]

I somewhat agree with you. In the end it is almost the same time (Ren x actually has a little bit longer), but many people don't like that it works that way. They like seeing the animation while being able to disarm it still, and don't like the fact that it just sits there for 5 seconds and there's nothing you can do about it. People liked the intensity the renegade one had, and feel that it is lost with the new system. I find myself seeing both sides, but I really think kil's suggestion is the best way to go about it and please everyone.

[LegendaryPunk]

I'm sure this will be considered anathema to some - but how about changing the penalty for losing your War Factory / Airstrip? I think game flow, the end game in particular, could benefit if it functioned more similar to the Barracks. Lose your vehicle plant and all advanced vehicles are disabled - except for the Buggy / Humvee and APC. Prices would stay the same as that is already affected by loss of Power Plant. If this proves too unbalanced maybe someway to cut vehicle HP in half as well?

Trudging across some of the larger maps on foot is quite a chore, which would be alleviated by the Buggy / Humvee. Having the APC always available lets an engineer (or whatever) rush be a viable tactic for a team on the verge of losing.

[R315r4z0r]

The current beacon countdown is no good. Also, it's not 5 seconds immunity, it's 10 seconds.

The way it was in the original game was better than this method, animations aside. In Renegade X there is no longer that feeling of intensity when trying to disarm a beacon. You can't get into the last nano-second before it goes off any more... you get to 15 seconds and then that's it... you're done. Clear the area because there is nothing you can do. - that's stupid.

It would be much better if the animation of the super weapon beacon changed to an abort or reverted animation to signal a disarm. Or, if nothing else, change the count down timer to count down until imminent, not detonation.

[DoMiNaNt_HuNtEr]

Alright so basically, the beacon thing needs to be better represented.

After the 45 seconds, if you fail to disarm it, how about 3 seconds of animation plays, then boom? Instead of 10?

Definitely change the countdown timer to imminent.

You can't "abort" a nuke that's about to land on your head nor a laser beam.

So thats what need to be shown to players. If you don't disarm the beacon in time, it is going to get a lock down on the area, and you're gunna be fucked unless you run.

[R315r4z0r]

You can't "abort" a nuke that's about to land on your head nor a laser beam.

Yes you can.

Nukes aren't armed until moments before detonation. They also do not detonate on impact like other missiles, they detonate mid-air just above the target. An aborted Nuke animation can be one of two things:

1. The nuke explodes mid-air. Not a nuclear explosion, just a small one that eats the missile.

2. The warhead impacts the ground but doesn't detonate.

The Ion cannon is actually a much simpler concept. It has at least an 8 second animation for firing. The abort animation could just reverse the animation from whatever spot it was in or it could distort and disappear in a puff of blue ionized smog.

[HaTe]

Technically speaking, a fuse on a nuclear missile can be one of several different types of fuses. It could be a contact or an altitude fuse, meaning it could be detonated upon hitting the ground, or it could be detonated upon reaching a certain altitude. I don't recall C&C specifying anywhere what type of fuse Nod uses on their nukes.