Jump to content

Orca hellfire missiles auto-explode after ~10 meters?!


Alex89

Recommended Posts

For the first time i flew an orca aircraft, but i noticed that it's hellfire missiles automatically explode after about 10 meters of flight - even if they did not hit anything!

I am not sure what is up with that, but it makes the orca's hellfire missiles usable ONLY at nearly melee range - which is pretty much suicide!

Can anyone share some light on what is going on with these orca hellfire missiles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't matter much. A single ramjet can ruin them from a huge distance. It's the same as it was in Renegade, except that there's far more viable counters and the air units are considerably weaker as a result - plus they're nowhere near as nimble as they used to be, so they're even easier to destroy.

I've always been an advocate against sniper rifles damaging light vehicles ever since the game came out. The only reason ramjets and normal sniper rifles do so much damage to air units is because Westwood didn't have time to properly implement SAM Sites, while removing the ability for the Obelisk to hit air units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Renegade balance was fine. Air vehicles are supposed to be very powerful and agile, but shut down by snipers. They still get shut down, but don't have the power to make up for it. Its a bit ridiculous. They never deserved nerfing and they deserve to be a lot more agile than they are right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't "fine" at all. Two "snipers", and I use the term loosely, were able to destroy an Orca/Apache from maximum viewing distance (300m) within three seconds. That isn't balanced. Neither was the crazy amount of damage that Orcas/Apaches did. The counter to aerial units should always have been rocket-armed units, not sniper rifles. They have far too much range, too much damage, and too many ways to avoid being hit in retaliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is indeed annoying, hardly can leave the base without getting shot. I think that snipers shouldn't do as much damage as now but i think it would be cool that snipers can shoot through the cockpit and kill the pilot. (only the best sniper-rifles of course, others aren't powerful enough to penetrate the window)

Would add more difficulty for snipers :P

On another note:

What about a new class? Flak trooper? When pressing the button for the rocketguy you can choose between a rocket and flak? While the flak does more damage towards air units the rocket does more towards ground ones? (but both can be used against air/ground)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be utterly ridiculous unless you applied it to every vehicle with visible windows, and then you'd have to have a physical version of the driver that you could actually shoot at. It might be interesting, but it'll more likely lead to people being shot out of their vehicles and having them stolen constantly.

Why would you need two different weapons to do what one weapon already does? Rocket infantry can already lock-on to anything IIRC. There's no need to add anything else in terms of infantry. Just remove sniper damage versus aircraft. Add in SAM Sites. Add Guard Towers with automated guns on every map that use machine guns, and take the guns off the AGT and have it be the only AA defense that GDI has.

This adds another layer of balance (and keeps consistent with C&C95) by having GDI's main defense be both anti-air and anti-ground, while Nod maintains anti-ground capability but loses AA capability if they lose their SAM Sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A single Ramjet-carrying character, or two 500-credit standard snipers, cost more than a single Orca/Apache, though. A standard sniper is basically all a good sniper needs to decimate infantry, so the Ramjets need to be able to do their job of long-range destruction of light armour to be worth the cost.

Rockets work well against flyers, sure, but at long range they are easily avoided by a competent pilot, as there's both the travel time and the audible warning of the launch. They can't do the job of effectively actually killing a pilot at range, and they shouldn't because they're so cheap. That's the Ramjet's (or multiple sniper's) job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't agree at all with your point of view, Aircraftkiller. You want things different, for your own reasons. Balance wise, powerful air vehicles vs snipers area of denial is all fine to me. Besides, if their machine guns weren't so pathetic, the snipers wouldn't be able to stand still when they get close enough and still own an Orca.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't agree at all with your point of view, Aircraftkiller. You want things different, for your own reasons. Balance wise, powerful air vehicles vs snipers area of denial is all fine to me. Besides, if their machine guns weren't so pathetic, the snipers wouldn't be able to stand still when they get close enough and still own an Orca.

This. Also, even a Ramjet will take multiple shots to down an aircraft, whereas that Ramjet character will be instantly killed by a single counter-snipe from a teammate following the very clear trail of those Ramjet bullets that are completely distracted by trying to take down the aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Aircraftkiller here... Snipers are OP against vehicles, given it's no longer the only decent AA gun GDI/Nod still has.

If you want to make aircraft a competent target against snipers, give it an increased range, not damage. A pilot simply doesn't have enough time to get close to the sniper. And if he is going all-out against an enemy, he's more vulnerable against other enemies as well.

It's like a tank battle where both vehicles are low on health, but i would be on the winning side. The enemy would usually flee, and at that moment i would have to decide whether to go on the assault or play safe and give up. If i decided to go on the attack, he would most definately die but would also leave you very harmful to other enemies. If anyone else spots and shoots you on time, the enemy may still survive but leave you killed. You might have just as well killed him instead and drove to base safely. If you played safe, the enemy survives but you do aswell.

Diffrent factors play a role here at the example mentioned above. And if you're on the weaker side... You're less likely to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The primary purpose of any sniper is to destroy infantry. It was never intended to be an anti-armor unit, much less an anti-air unit. As I've stated many times prior, the only reason "snipers" are used against aircraft is because Westwood didn't have enough time to finish the game properly. So all we're doing is continuing broken game mechanics by allowing "snipers" to attack air units. It makes literally no sense in context of C&C gameplay, on top of what I've mentioned.

Can you actually defend "sniper" damage versus vehicles? I mean, I've had this argument for years. Not once has anyone actually explained why (outside of LOL REALISM IN AN UNREALISTIC GAME) snipers should be anti-vehicle and anti-aircraft. No other unit is that versatile in terms of damage-dealing. I can be out in the field and single-handedly perform the task of three different units with ease. And your cost argument falls flat when you look at units like Mammoth Tanks, which cost 500 credits more than any top-end character yet "snipers" can't damage them well enough to bother shooting at them.

Is your argument really "My unit costs 100 credits more, therefore my unit trumps yours"? If so, that's a really bad talking point and has nothing to do with game theory.

Air units should be far more useful and versatile than they currently are. As more people become versed in how easy it is to destroy them, you'll see groups of 1k characters running around "sniping" aircraft out of the sky before they can leave their base, from the relative safety of maximum view distance - where they can't be retaliated against and have plenty of time to find cover before the aircraft can approach them.

That isn't balanced. It hasn't been balanced for 12 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only good thing that came of having grossly overpowered sniper rif... I'm not even going to finish that sentence. It's making it sound like being able to damage air units with sniper rifles makes sense at all. Let's rephrase: The only good thing that came out of Westwood's sloppy air unit implementation was that there was a steep learning curve to flying anything in Renegade. I quickly learned how to destroy many 1k snipers at a time by flying alongside the wall next to the road and praying there wasn't anyone watching from the opposite side of the map with another 1k character. I'd then hide under the bridge above the Tiberium field and repair any damage that I took while standing in the field to see if SBH were approaching, then I'd push the Orca/Apache into the roof of the bridge to have the camera clip into it so I could see exactly where the 1k snipers were standing. I'd fly through the gap in front of the field, come up behind them, and either gun them down or land on top of them before they could react.

It didn't always work, but when it did, I'd rack up many kills in the game and never want for credits. The fact that I had to avoid actually *playing* the fucking game, and instead focus on the bridge campers so I could live for more than a half second is a testament to how broken Renegade's game mechanics were - and I find it obnoxious that we're seeing the same gameplay mistakes perpetuated here in the successor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, it's ridiculous how snipers destroy helicopters and light vehicles so easily.

Snipers are supposed to be pure anti-infantry.

If any infantry should be effective against flying vehicles it should be Rocket Soldiers,

just like in the original RTS game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it didn't, because the n00b cannoneers didn't want to give up their "I win" button. I'm not saying this as someone who simply flies Orcas when they're available - I primarily use a sniper in the game when I'm not flying, and I can easily destroy any flying thing that comes across my path. Why bother using a rocket soldier to do it? The "snipers" are so ridiculously effective that they make everything else pale in comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there wasn't really any counters to heles/orcas so people just accepted ramjets destroying them.

in smaller games its oddly balanced, in larger games its terrible, making orcas/heles a waste of money.

Now you can LOCK ON, so there is no excuse.

Then there's Sydney, Raveshaw.. and even Gunners.

Seriously anything besides snipers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I wouldn't even be against those changes when it comes down to it, like I wouldn't be personally against quite a few changes that would shift some of the very accepted aspect of Renegade into something completely different (while still being the same game in its intend and purposes).

Point being, I don't see them ever changing this about snipers. So thats why I stick to suggesting an overall aircraft range & power buff. Maybe reduce sniper damage on light vehicles by range, so that it feels more like harassment than complete denial.

If we really went into this with a different mentality for a new Renegade and not just a graphically-upgraded one, the Ramjet would be a VERY different weapon anyway, not just a buffed up sniper that makes having no barracks a joke with everybody falling in one hit from across the map.

I mean, you did hit one soft spot for me, I find the sniper-aircraft relation fine in the original, but I do hate the over versatility of the snipers. So whatever. I just have so little expectations that they would deviate from this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind if sniper damage vs aircraft was nerfed. I still think they should do damage to them, but not 2/5HP per shot. Rocket Troopers are now a very good AA unit. In fact, I'd even suggest making their damage vs aircraft even higher (if it's possible to increase that independantly vs light armored ground units).

But either way, attack aircraft are supposed to be glass cannons. They are supposed to be able to do a stupid ton of damage but be killed very easily. Also I think the orca should be the better attack helicopter vs the apache. Sort of like the difference between the MBTs (medium tank vs light tank.)

Orca should be maneuverable and powerful. Specializing in burst damage (missiles). I think it needs a bigger payload, longer range and a decent lockon rate. The light machine gun could use a nerf to keep it balanced.

Apache should be less maneuverable but more accurate. Specializing in slow constant damage (heavy machine gun). It needs a smaller payload of missiles, poor missile tracking, but it's machine gun ammo should be increased and it needs a better firing angle (it should be able to shoot directly below itself unlike the orca).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there wasn't really any counters to heles/orcas so people just accepted ramjets destroying them... it's terrible, making orcas/heles a waste of money.

Basically, that - unless you're skilled enough to live long and prosper. Most people weren't. I knew the maps inside and out and I could compete against almost anyone with my Orca. The Apache was definitely worse due to its awkward gun position and the fact that it only had a 50m range, half of what the Orca could shoot to.

SFJake: I don't see why they wouldn't change it. The objective was to improve Renegade, not just recreate it with all of its shitty bugs intact. They already have SAM Sites on some maps, which is something no Renegade map (Outside fan-made ones, or the properly working ones I put on my Fjord map) had at all. All they'd need to do is make it so that the Obelisk doesn't attack airborne units, and that SAM Sites do. Then make it so that the AGT has no guns, and scatter Guard Towers across the GDI base to add in the additional firepower from the AGT.

Once that's done, remove "sniper" damage to light units or severely minimize it. Viola. The game plays tons better and marginally useful units (Buggy, Hum-vee) become much more effective and aren't completely useless by mid-game.

Shit, add Helipads in too - that ties in more with the balancing aspect, because if you hate aircraft so much you can simply destroy the pad and remove the ability to purchase the damn things. Which also coincidentally makes a hell of a lot more sense (C&C wise, and just common sense) than seeing a Weapons Factory spit out a helicopter or a C-130 shit out an Apache.

Reisrazor: Why should "snipers" damage vehicles at all? Their focus should be taking out infantry. That should be all they do. Every other class has specific roles. "Snipers" don't. All they'd need is a repair device and they'd be the best unit in the game, instead of second best.

I don't disagree that helicopters should be easily destroyed, but not by sniper rifles. Rockets, automatic gunfire, SAM Sites, AGT rockets, Mammoth rockets, MRLS, PIC/Railgun, et al. Those should be the primary threat to airborne units. If we go back to C&C, though, airborne units weren't particularly amazing. Apaches were arguably terrible against anything but buildings and infantry, and Orcas missed their target if it was moving. I don't think they should do absurd damage, but they should be able to fly to a Helipad and rearm a limited amount of ammunition that does good damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they should damage them because I think everything should be able to damage everything else. Snipers shouldn't be the go-to anti-air class but they also shouldn't be ineffective vs them. You could use an autorifle to destroy an artillery if you wanted. It's not the most ideal weapon to use, but it can be done. I never suggested snipers should do a lot of damage to aircraft, but they should do some.

But also, one of the reasons why I suggest aircraft do a lot of damage is because of how fragile they are with them having so many weaknesses that enemies can exploit. The larger the risk in piloting one, the better the returns you should get for a successful strike. Besides, not being able to snipe helicopters would make them overpowered. Even if you completely nerf their weapon damage, they can still swarm the enemy base and drop troops and cause confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define "some", because when I see "I think they should damage them" I immediately hearken back to the days of Renegade where people were happy with the damage that the 500 credit sniper rifle did - which was still insanely strong versus helicopters. If they hit for you two points of damage, sure. I can live with that. If they hit me for 10 points when I have 150 points of health, that's still far too much and it encourages them to stop attacking infantry and focus on destroying helicopters.

And it looks like I'm right, because by the time I finished reading your reply you already fell back into the tired old thought process of "snipers are the ONLY counter!" They're not. Did you miss the part where I mentioned that helicopters are weak versus: Rockets, automatic gunfire, SAM Sites, AGT rockets, Mammoth rockets, MRLS, PIC/Railgun, et al.

If people actually have to learn how to play again by not simply fielding tons of snipers and engineers, and instead actually bother with putting out a mixed team that has rocket soldiers and other AT/AA units, it will only improve the game. Diversity is great. You should try it sometime. Sometimes it has to be forced by gameplay design, such as preventing helicopters from being damaged by sniper rifles. Otherwise people will continue to fall back into the same thought process and will never change how they play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta agree with ACK. Ive always absolutely despised the fact that snipers were "counters" to air in Renegade. Snipers, either of them, have no business attacking air at all. RenX has viable air counters, and plenty of them without adding in snipers. MRLS lock on now, damn near everything with a missle payload locks on. Personally i think the Ramjet should do as much damage to a Orca as said Ramjet would do to a Mammy, next to nothing. They are Anti-Inf, not anti-vehicle. The game has counters to vehicles and air, snipers DO NOT need to be included in that list, at all. Quite honestly i think the game currently has too many counters to Apache's and Orca's, they are almost damn near useless unless your team has DEFINITELY got the upper hand and the other team has no real way to counter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the urge of responding here is quite heavy although only annoying repetitiveness can come out of my post and others... ah well, just once doesn't really matter, right?

Define "some", because when I see "I think they should damage them" I immediately hearken back to the days of Renegade where people were happy with the damage that the 500 credit sniper rifle did - which was still insanely strong versus helicopters. If they hit for you two points of damage, sure. I can live with that. If they hit me for 10 points when I have 150 points of health, that's still far too much and it encourages them to stop attacking infantry and focus on destroying helicopters.

And it looks like I'm right, because by the time I finished reading your reply you already fell back into the tired old thought process of "snipers are the ONLY counter!" They're not. Did you miss the part where I mentioned that helicopters are weak versus: Rockets, automatic gunfire, SAM Sites, AGT rockets, Mammoth rockets, MRLS, PIC/Railgun, et al.

If people actually have to learn how to play again by not simply fielding tons of snipers and engineers, and instead actually bother with putting out a mixed team that has rocket soldiers and other AT/AA units, it will only improve the game. Diversity is great. You should try it sometime. Sometimes it has to be forced by gameplay design, such as preventing helicopters from being damaged by sniper rifles. Otherwise people will continue to fall back into the same thought process and will never change how they play.

this. Reduce ramjet rifle/ 500 sniper damage against aircraft, and give the orca/apache an increased firing range. there's no need to increase aircraft speed, because:

- lower speed makes for longer response time for the enemy;

- but lower range weapons make for less time to effectively shoot the enemy.

these two factors balance each other out.

also, now we're at it, why the hell does the Apache have the more powerful missiles here? isn't that the Orca's prime feature here?

ah well, i guess it's not that much of a big deal. it really feels weird though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define "some", because when I see "I think they should damage them" I immediately hearken back to the days of Renegade where people were happy with the damage that the 500 credit sniper rifle did.

Enough that you can see an impact on their health bar. I'd suggest approximately 4-5% per shot for a ramjet. So, if they have 150hp, then a single shot would do about 7 damage. 3.5ish for the 500 sniper.

Am aircraft taking damage at 4-5% per shot would be able to take 21 rounds from ramjet fire before dying, granted it doesn't find cover or manages to get repaired. It would also be able to take 42 rounds from 500 sniper rifle fire.

And it looks like I'm right, because by the time I finished reading your reply you already fell back into the tired old thought process of "snipers are the ONLY counter!" They're not. Did you miss the part where I mentioned that helicopters are weak versus: Rockets, automatic gunfire, SAM Sites, AGT rockets, Mammoth rockets, MRLS, PIC/Railgun, et al.

No, I did not. You missed my point, but it was my fault since I didn't specify what I meant. My point is that snipers are already a popular class that people play anyway. Being that they are already scattered on the field in numbers and because of their long range, they are already statistically in a perfect position to contribute to the counterbalance of aircraft spam. But they should by no means should be THE aircraft counter. In fact, I use the term "counter" extremely lightly here. They should be as much of a counter as an MRLS is a counter to a SBH.

Yes you can counter aircraft with other weapons, and that is exactly why I'm suggesting sniper damage to aircraft be reduced. But the thing with those counters is that they are specialized to be extra effective to aircraft (bar the PIC/railgun and automatic gunfire). Aircraft would be the only unique case of vehicle where there is a large gap between effective counters and ineffective counters. All vehicles have this gap, but aircraft would have the largest. Snipers are compensation for this larger gap and allow aircraft to fall in line with the other vehicles.

For example, you see an enemy tank coming but you can use a very large variety of weapons to counter it. Pretty much any vehicle you can buy or most weapons you can equip can be used to combat an enemy tank in one way or another. But when it comes to aircraft, you'd have to rely on only weapons that can lock on and track targets at long distances... and such weapons aren't commonly used for other tasks. Meaning, most of the time if you wanted to counter enemy aircraft, you'd need to stop what you're doing to specifically buy a counter for it as opposed to being able to fight it with what you are already using.

Basically, it breaks the flow of the game just to add a layer of gameplay that isn't really all that necessary. If someone wants to sit in their base as a rocket trooper, they should be a super large help to keep enemy aircraft at bay. But that shouldn't be the only way to fight aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GDI's damage calculation comparisons from Renegade to Renegade X:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=72933

Snipers (both) do very similar damage to vehicles (the same to light armored, in fact). The reload reload time is increased, and RoF is also decreased. Making them weaker in Renegade X essentially. If you're going to argue "OP snipers," do so at RenegadeForums; they've already seen a nerf from the original game.

If you want to discuss the ineffectiveness of orcas/apaches, however, do so here (as they work completely different from Renegade).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough that you can see an impact on their health bar. I'd suggest approximately 4-5% per shot for a ramjet. So, if they have 150hp, then a single shot would do about 7 damage. 3.5ish for the 500 sniper. Am aircraft taking damage at 4-5% per shot would be able to take 21 rounds from ramjet fire before dying, granted it doesn't find cover or manages to get repaired. It would also be able to take 42 rounds from 500 sniper rifle fire.

So add another ramjet in there, or two more - now you have concentrated fire on airborne units, making them useless yet again. They can't leave their base. They can't help. They become 900 credit coffins that do nothing but take damage. That's awesome fun right there!

No, I did not. You missed my point, but it was my fault since I didn't specify what I meant. My point is that snipers are already a popular class that people play anyway. Being that they are already scattered on the field in numbers and because of their long range, they are already statistically in a perfect position to contribute to the counterbalance of aircraft spam. But they should by no means should be THE aircraft counter. In fact, I use the term "counter" extremely lightly here. They should be as much of a counter as an MRLS is a counter to a SBH.

Yes you can counter aircraft with other weapons, and that is exactly why I'm suggesting sniper damage to aircraft be reduced. But the thing with those counters is that they are specialized to be extra effective to aircraft (bar the PIC/railgun and automatic gunfire). Aircraft would be the only unique case of vehicle where there is a large gap between effective counters and ineffective counters. All vehicles have this gap, but aircraft would have the largest. Snipers are compensation for this larger gap and allow aircraft to fall in line with the other vehicles.

For example, you see an enemy tank coming but you can use a very large variety of weapons to counter it. Pretty much any vehicle you can buy or most weapons you can equip can be used to combat an enemy tank in one way or another. But when it comes to aircraft, you'd have to rely on only weapons that can lock on and track targets at long distances... and such weapons aren't commonly used for other tasks. Meaning, most of the time if you wanted to counter enemy aircraft, you'd need to stop what you're doing to specifically buy a counter for it as opposed to being able to fight it with what you are already using.

Basically, it breaks the flow of the game just to add a layer of gameplay that isn't really all that necessary. If someone wants to sit in their base as a rocket trooper, they should be a super large help to keep enemy aircraft at bay. But that shouldn't be the only way to fight aircraft.

Okay, your logic is terrible. Let's get that out of the way. Popularity doesn't mean that the unit should be given free-reign over light vehicles and air units and all classes of infantry. That's what your point is. You actually said that.

Here's the effect of that logic: "snipers" destroy all infantry classes. They also destroy Hum-vees, Buggies, MRLS, Artillery, Apaches, Orcas, and Transport Helicopters. That's seven vehicles they utterly dominate and every infantry class they can completely shit on from a distance.

You're giving one unit the ability to do so many things in comparison to any other unit that they then become the go-to unit for most people to use, assuming they don't want to get picked off at long range. This is a self-reinforcing cycle. The better you make "snipers", the more people will use them. The more they use them, the more the game becomes about "sniping" and less about team play with a variety of classes.

All it takes is game-play balancing to fix most of these glaring problems with Renegade/X. Nobody wants to do it because "sniping" was the way it was always done, and people don't want to lose their crutch and learn how to play. You can argue otherwise, but it's pretty obvious that it's the case. There's a plethora of other units in the game, but they're ineffective compared to "snipers" who just wreck everything they come across that isn't a tank.

If they're going to be snipers, then make them be snipers. Stop allowing them to dominate the field. Put them into a niche role that they fill in every other farking game in existence. If I go play BF4, I don't get sniped out of the sky by some kid 5,000 meters away who keeps pegging my chopper in the wheels. There's other counters in the game, just like there are in RenX, but the development team has to put in the effort to make them viable. Part of that includes forcing snipers into a role where they actually, you know, focus on infantry instead of focusing on everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real life logic can't really be used to argue something for Renegade. So comparing Renegade/X to a game like BF4 that is primarily based on realism is pretty useless. Still though, the point does remain that "snipers" are deemed to be strictly anti-infantry units by the vast majority of the general public. It's why later advancements into the C&C universe (i.e TS) had infantry specifically designed for anti-aircraft, and others specifically designed to counter light armored vehicles. I'd be all for a sniper nerf to light armored vehicles so long as another weapon/character is created that can counter these units with the same efficiency. Without that, however, I really do not think the current counter measures to flying vehicles in particular are all that powerful when you take out the sniper class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just make the Ramjet an anti-light vehicle class. What I'd REALLY do is just make it a poor sniper overall. That would make them less common. People are so annoyed by their anti-light vehicle class yet if we didn't have them, artilleries and aircraft would just have their way too easily. Making the class a much poorer anti-infantry class (and reduce the normal sniper's damage to light vehicle significantly) would bring forth more variety but wouldn't kill the importance of being able to deal with artilleries and aircrafts from afar.

I mean, like I said, in the Renegade world it makes sense to me that ramjet rifles are good at that, its kind of a thing that no other class can actually do at all. Really when it comes down to it, isn't the one-shot/two body shot sniper kill whats the worst thing in the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real life logic can't really be used to argue something for Renegade. So comparing Renegade/X to a game like BF4 that is primarily based on realism is pretty useless. Still though, the point does remain that "snipers" are deemed to be strictly anti-infantry units by the vast majority of the general public. It's why later advancements into the C&C universe (i.e TS) had infantry specifically designed for anti-aircraft, and others specifically designed to counter light armored vehicles. I'd be all for a sniper nerf to light armored vehicles so long as another weapon/character is created that can counter these units with the same efficiency. Without that, however, I really do not think the current counter measures to flying vehicles in particular are all that powerful when you take out the sniper class.

I'm not comparing it based on realism or BF4, FFS, read the rest of what I've written and it's obvious that I'm not doing that in any way whatsoever. I'm mentioning that other FPS games have counters for helicopters that happen to be exactly what RenX's are: anti-aircraft missiles and heavy weaponry. Sniper rifles don't fall into that category. That isn't their role.

We don't need another AV unit. We already have Raveshaw/Sydney for that purpose.

TS didn't have special AA infantry. They had rocket soldiers, useful against air and ground. There was no magic sniper rifle that destroyed aircraft from across a map.

SFJake: Artillery and MRLS are weak as hell if hit by rifle infantry, tanks, rocket launchers, PIC/Railgun, et al. There's absolutely no need to keep this ridiculous level of damage versus seven different vehicles. For what the Artillery and MRLS do, they ought to be more expensive anyhow (TD prices, probably, or something similar - at least 600 for the artillery and 800 for the MRLS) due to how much field control they can project.

"dealing with them from afar" is also terrible logic. MRLS/Artillery are *designed* to strike from afar. They're not designed to be up in anyone's face. Making their counter a hard-to-hit infantry unit with massive damage completely negates their purpose in the game. If MRLS/Artillery need to be rebalanced to have a lower damage potential, I'm fine with that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Havoc/Sakura stopped doing damage to light armour, you might as well remove them from the game, since deadeye's already exist.

I'm personally against changing Ren to those extremes. Havoc/Sakura is a hero class, it's supposed to do more then the others. They're not invincible... vehicles run them over, heavy vehicles dominate them, they run out of ammo, even Mobius dominates Sakura unless you get a headshot on the 1st or 2nd shot, and Mobius can kill a building on its own.

I think trying to completely switch the balance of the game at this point, is a lost cause. You can't balance a game based on a 40 or 60 player pub server where nobody knows what they're doing or how to play yet. In Regular Renegade, I consider the balance to be as close to perfect as it can be. I'd emulate that as much as possible, and avoid deviating unless its a very obvious balance fix. If any infantry is too strong right now, it's Mobius.

In regular Ren, some servers tried buffing flyers armour to counter the havocs/saks, and it made flyers OP and was reverted.

Another point is in a small game. Let's say 3v3. How do you counter a flyer in a 3v3? A Havoc/Sakura is the only way. You can't rely on a slow rocket soldier, it will get 2 shots off before the flyer has you dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not comparing it based on realism or BF4, FFS, read the rest of what I've written and it's obvious that I'm not doing that in any way whatsoever.

So I'm not allowed to take out one specific comparison you made, because that specific comparison didn't follow the "flow" of what you were trying to get across? Interesting logic. I see why you think other people have flawed logic now - yours in particular in not of the norm.

I'm mentioning that other FPS games have counters for helicopters that happen to be exactly what RenX's are: anti-aircraft missiles and heavy weaponry. Sniper rifles don't fall into that category. That isn't their role

I know. Which is what I said in my post from "still though" and on. I know your point. I was just criticizing your comparison.

We don't need another AV unit. We already have Raveshaw/Sydney for that purpose.

Mendoza/Möbius takes out vehicles quicker with constant fire, actually. Pic/rave also kills infantry in 1-2 shots, making them also very versatile. There isn't any gun that is particularly effective against infantry and light armored vehicles specifically. Pic, railgun, volt, rocket launcher, all do the same damage to heavy and light armored vehicles alike. There isn't a weapon that focuses specifically on a ranged attack to light armored vehicles. Arties and mrls's are two of the most used vehicles, and one of the most successful counter to them is currently the sniper. Why? Because they don't have any other real threats from infantry at range. A new gun/character that focuses specifically on light armored vehicles would be a nice solution alongside nerfing the snipers vs light armored vehicles.

TS didn't have special AA infantry. They had rocket soldiers, useful against air and ground.

"The Zone Raider is the ZOCOM superior version of the Zone Trooper, having several advantages over the GDI counterpart. It possesses sonic RPGs as its primary weapon, that inflict splash damage and are more powerful than Zone Trooper railgun rifles (though somewhat more inaccurate). It has anti-air missile launchers mounted on its shoulders, proving equal in power against aircraft as a Missile squad and allowing it some form of retaliation toward the common weakness of infantry to aircraft."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@HaTe:

Zone Raider is from Tiberium Wars, not Tiberian Sun.

And BF4 is not realistic, it's just Call of Duty with vehicles.

ArmA, Operation Flashpoint, Red Orchestra, Americas Army, those are realistic games.

MRLS and Artillery are already fragile and light armored, you can take them down with almost anything.

The idea that snipers should counter VEHICLES is absurd and nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My logic isn't inconsistent lol. You came out of nowhere with "but realism!" and if you've ever seen me argue this point before, and I'm sure you have, I'm one of the first people who argues against realism in Renegade. I do however argue for realism to C&C. I'm okay with rifles damaging tanks. I'm okay with gigantic laser beam towers only doing a fraction of the damage they'd really do. I don't care because it's focused more on gameplay, not on realism.

Besides, BF4 isn't realistic at all. It's just another modern-war gritty shooter with vehicles. I mentioned BF4 because it has a similar gameplay style to Renegade in that it uses vehicles and helicopters alongside infantry. Obviously there's significant differences in that rifles don't damage tanks, etc. That's a given. I didn't realize I needed to outline these things for people.

Also, lol: You meant to say C&C3 and said TS instead. TS != C&C3. There's no "zone troopers" in TS.

Regarding Mobius, sure, he's better than he was. I still don't see why the game needs even more dedicated anti-vehicle infantry. Once "snipers" are reduced to actually being snipers, rocket soldiers, Gunner, LCG, SBH, Mobiusdoza, PIC/Railgun will be utilized more as people won't be able to snipe a good half of the vehicles in the game anymore. Hey look at that, I just made Renegade fun again!

In regular Ren, some servers tried buffing flyers armour to counter the havocs/saks, and it made flyers OP and was reverted.

Another point is in a small game. Let's say 3v3. How do you counter a flyer in a 3v3? A Havoc/Sakura is the only way. You can't rely on a slow rocket soldier, it will get 2 shots off before the flyer has you dead.

Renegade was never designed with 3v3 in mind. The original game design was meant for 24 players. Also, the reason aircraft are OP in Renegade when their armor is buffed has nothing to do with the units being intrinsically OP by their nature of being able to fly. It was, and always has been that they have unlimited chain-gun ammunition, unlimited missiles, and that their missiles were garbage against vehicles compared to the chain-gun. There's also the point I keep bringing up that people seem to ignore: The balance as it exists now is flawed. Had the game been successful (and had WS pulled their head out of their ass 12 years ago), there would've been tons of balance tweaks over the years and there'd be flying maps with full bases that had aerial defenses. The game as it exists now is about 25% of what it was supposed to be. 15% if you include all of the terribad bugs we just grew accustomed to.

RenX doesn't have to be that way. There's a whole generation of potential players out there who aren't used to this boxed-in thought process older players have, where "ramjets r teh aa countar!!1" because reasons and furthermore comma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point is in a small game. Let's say 3v3. How do you counter a flyer in a 3v3? A Havoc/Sakura is the only way. You can't rely on a slow rocket soldier, it will get 2 shots off before the flyer has you dead.

1 helicopter can only do so much damage on their own. a 3 helicopter rush is still going to take - how long? 30 seconds? - before it dealt enough damage to destroy a building.

also... there are, and won't be, any realistic shooters out there. please don't try taking that into consideration here. in WWII, american soldiers were not allowed to leave a shot ally alone until their head was seperated by least 4 meters from their body. try adding that into a game.

yes, i took an example from WWII, go ahead and mention that in another post...

what is okay is tweaking the game in such a way the game also gets more realistic.

what is wrong is tweaking the game to make it more realistic. especially when it's based on a game. jesus...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is argueing for realism though.

We just want the game to be more like Command & Conquer.

The setting is based on the first C&C game, Tiberian Dawn (1995).

The sniper in that game (which was called a Commando) was useless against vehicles.

If 1 Buggy spotted you, it was game over.

Rocket Soldier is a dedicated AA infantry, but he's hardly used because Havoc/Sakura do it much better.

It doesn't make sense from a gameplay, balancing or lore perspective.

Snipers are the anti-infantry units, they should have little or no impact on vehicles, that's what AT infantry, tanks, Sydney/Raveshaw/Mobius/Mendoza are for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point is in a small game. Let's say 3v3. How do you counter a flyer in a 3v3? A Havoc/Sakura is the only way. You can't rely on a slow rocket soldier, it will get 2 shots off before the flyer has you dead.

1 helicopter can only do so much damage on their own. a 3 helicopter rush is still going to take - how long? 30 seconds? - before it dealt enough damage to destroy a building.

1 helicopter carrying a tech or 2 engys can destroy a building very quickly. I consider flyers more of a rush vehicle, or for defense.

A 3 helicopter rush can potentially carry 6 techs... more then enough to destroy an entire base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zone troopers are in KW which is a TS expansion...meaning it's part of TS. Kane's wrath is part of the third tiberium war.

Also,

GDI's damage calculation comparisons from Renegade to Renegade X:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=72933

Snipers (both) do very similar damage to vehicles (the same to light armored, in fact). The reload reload time is increased, and RoF is also decreased. Making them weaker in Renegade X essentially. If you're going to argue "OP snipers," do so at RenegadeForums; they've already seen a nerf from the original game.

If you want to discuss the ineffectiveness of orcas/apaches, however, do so here (as they work completely different from Renegade).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, your logic is terrible. Let's get that out of the way. Popularity doesn't mean that the unit should be given free-reign over light vehicles and air units and all classes of infantry. That's what your point is. You actually said that.

Here's the effect of that logic: "snipers" destroy all infantry classes. They also destroy Hum-vees, Buggies, MRLS, Artillery, Apaches, Orcas, and Transport Helicopters. That's seven vehicles they utterly dominate and every infantry class they can completely shit on from a distance.

You're giving one unit the ability to do so many things in comparison to any other unit that they then become the go-to unit for most people to use, assuming they don't want to get picked off at long range. This is a self-reinforcing cycle. The better you make "snipers", the more people will use them. The more they use them, the more the game becomes about "sniping" and less about team play with a variety of classes.

All it takes is game-play balancing to fix most of these glaring problems with Renegade/X. Nobody wants to do it because "sniping" was the way it was always done, and people don't want to lose their crutch and learn how to play. You can argue otherwise, but it's pretty obvious that it's the case. There's a plethora of other units in the game, but they're ineffective compared to "snipers" who just wreck everything they come across that isn't a tank.

If they're going to be snipers, then make them be snipers. Stop allowing them to dominate the field. Put them into a niche role that they fill in every other farking game in existence. If I go play BF4, I don't get sniped out of the sky by some kid 5,000 meters away who keeps pegging my chopper in the wheels. There's other counters in the game, just like there are in RenX, but the development team has to put in the effort to make them viable. Part of that includes forcing snipers into a role where they actually, you know, focus on infantry instead of focusing on everything.

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not suggesting aircraft be countered by snipers. I've said that a bunch of times in this thread, but you keep making it sound like I think they should be the go-to class for fighting aircraft.

Sure, they should be the go-to class for fighting aircraft... just as much as the chem trooper is the go-to class for infiltrating and destroying a GDI structure.

You bring up other light armor vehicles, but my 7 damage to them should apply there as well. That does not give them free reign over light armor and infantry. Snipers are already good vs infantry. But even if they only did 7 damage to light armor, that doesn't make them god. And That 7 damage is for ramjets, not 500s. So not only is it a mere 7 damage, it's 7 damage that requires you to spend 1,000 credits on and makes you a top target on the enemy team's hit-list.

So add another ramjet in there, or two more - now you have concentrated fire on airborne units, making them useless yet again. They can't leave their base. They can't help. They become 900 credit coffins that do nothing but take damage. That's awesome fun right there!

Yeah... because the enemy team has nothing better to do than use valuable manpower to spam 1,000 credit sniper classes to fight off light armor vehicles. Alright, so lets say they do that. Well, ok, now the only logical thing for the enemy team to do is 1, stop producing light armor and 2, rush their base with heavy armor vehicles. So not only would the snipers be completely useless, but so many people wasted 1000 credits on them who may be reluctant to change to a better counter... if they can afford one.

For every player doing one task, that's one less player available to help do something else. Even for something that same class can accomplish. If they are focused on aircraft, an infantry unit can get by. So if everyone is sniping, then that's a big gaping hole in their defense network.

Also, let's just put this into perspective here. Assuming my 4.67% (4-5%) damage to 150HP light armor vehicles where the ramjet does 7 damage, that means it takes 22 shots from ramjet fire to down a light armor vehicle with 150HP. With that in mind, using a single Renegade X ramjet, it would take 57 seconds to fire off 22 rounds. If you had two ramjets with the same line of site and start firing at the same time, it would take 28 seconds to fire off 22 rounds between them. If you had three ramjets, it would take 19 seconds. If you had four, it would take 14 seconds. If you had five, it would take 11 seconds.

Even at 11 seconds, that is still plenty of time for the pilot to find cover and repair. And if 5 enemy ramjets are crowded together like that, I can only imagine the impact that has on their team's defenses. You can get a single airstrike to take care of them if you wanted. But also, remember, this is 1,000 credit ramjets. 5,000 credits between them to fire 22 rounds into a single aircraft to kill it in 11 seconds assuming the pilot is a moron and all of the sniper shots hit their mark each and every time... seems to be a pretty obscure counter method to me. And that is also assuming all of the snipers in question have enough ammo to fire that many rounds without having to stop and refill.

Now, just in case you're wondering... it takes 1:13 minutes for a 500 sniper to completely go through all 36 of it's rounds. I originally said it would take 43 rounds from a 500 sniper to take out a 150HP aircraft doing 3.5 damage per shot. So attacking by themselves, they'd actually have to go back and refill to continue their aircraft sniping. Even with aid from other sniper classes, 500/ramjet combined, it wouldn't be as quick as my above calculation with just ramjets.

The only way for sniping an aircraft to be 'somewhat' useful is if they are backed up by AA fire. But... in which case, the aircraft would want to avoid the base anyway if they are taking fire from an AA unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The primary purpose of any sniper is to destroy infantry. It was never intended to be an anti-armor unit, much less an anti-air unit.

So why 20mm+ Anti-Material Sniper Rifles do exist? And even be called Anti-MATERIAL? Because your sentence is just wrong, I'm sorry. (Yeah, they usually don't attack flying helicopters, thats right. Used against light vehicles or stationary targets like radar stations)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the logic both of you are putting forth, but the ramjet uses the shrapnel warhead. That's the same warhead as the pistol, autorifle, sniper rifle, and the shotgun. So if you're calling one anti-material, you're essentially also calling them all anti-material - which they shouldn't be. The truth is that the snipers should have always had their own unique warhead, but that wasn't the case in the original. I wouldn't mind seeing it change for this new game, though (especially since infantry in general are a bit buffed vs vehicles and orcas/apaches are pretty heavily nerfed vs basically everything).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...