An alternative ruleset suggestion for pubplay

[sarabi]

It seems to me, that renegade X, whiles a whole bunch of fun, is highly dependent on the teamplay that simply isn't all that common on public games, and as such leads to a lack of voted in map variety and playstyle.

And so I propose this, keep the current balance as an option for more seriously minded players , pugs, clan wars and such where coordination will make it all quite glorious.

HOWEVER: introduce an optional ruleset for servers which permit softer teamplay to work and encourage lesser played maps.

This gamemode is open to suggestions, so please chip in where you feel appropriate and remember that this is to enhance pub-play, rather than replace competitive play.

I have tried to make these suggestions as easy and quick to implement for the developers as possible.

Suggestions for pub play mode:

1. Increase nuke/ion countdown timers to 90 seconds.

Presently there is an issue with nukes and ion beacons on pub-play, and that is there's rarely dedicated defenders, therefore superweapons get through that would never get away in a million years in any sort of organized game. Adding 30 seconds to the timer will give pubs a chance to respawn, change class, and then hunt down the nuke in time. This should alleviate complaints of black hand stealth units winning most games on maps such as walls.

2. Reduce all stationary defences (player turrets, guard posts, obelisk and such) damage output to 1/4 present.

Presently public players do not want to advance upon bases on account that towers are generally going to cause the person leading the charge to most certainly die, pub players do not want to sacrifice thier hard earned vehicle or character like this, therefore reducing defense damage and giving them a greater chance to survive will encourage more people to go 'over the top' so to speak.

This should let maps with base defenses have a chance at the voting screen too, since players wills top associating those maps with dying to achieve anything.

3. Double building health, but half building repair rates.

Presently another psychological barrier to pub players pushing is that it can feel extremely pointless if you do any damage to a building and be out-healed by some blighters hiding inside, thus players feel their time has been wasted, and don't bother pushing a second time.

Halving the repair rate fixes this perceived issue, allowing buildings to be repaired in the long term, but offense feeling useful with the gradual, more assured destruction of base assets.

The doubled total health of buildings however will allow time for active defense (or in pub -play, the next wave of players rushing out form the base in a mad gaggle of destructive mayhem) to take out besieging enemies.

There are doubtless other ways that disorganised public play can be made more fun and engaging, so please put your suggestions in, and do remember that this would always be an OPTIONAL ruleset, and would not touch the beloved command and conquer gametype at all.

[MeSteep]

Server owners can do whatever they want to the rule-set but I think your suggestions are stupid.

Only 3. even merits a response:

Add splash damage for people inside not at purchase terminals.

[sarabi]

As I stated this is an optional ruleset designed to make pub-play more fun for pub-players, your notion that splash damage should affect people inside buildings is very much against that since pubs are unlikely to apreciate getting hit by splash soaking through apparent steel walls.

Also, do try to elaborate how my changes, well thought out and explained would somehow detriment public play, rather than dismissing them in your narrow minded fear that things will change.

[StonerMk2]

Players, regardless of pub play need to learn. Making the game easier for them IS NOT going to help them learn the game at all. The new players just need to learn how to play, its really just as simple as that. Us old players need to possible do a better job of understanding they are new, and possibly play defense more often but no i have to disagree with making this game easier for public games. Honestly i dont foresee anyone adopting anything like these suggestions either.

[iran]

The ideas posted by the OP are very fascinating, though I suppose they could use a bit of refinement in general, 90 seconds for beacons seems a tad too long but the current timer is too short.

Hopefully the developers will react.

[MeSteep]

Fine,

Why a 90 second disarm time is stupid for pub games?

It severely punishes the player who plants said beacon. Now players (reminder, OTHER chars not just SBH can buy and plant a becaon) have to try to defend their hard-earned $1000 beacons for 90 seconds. Beyond riciculous; it's a double bonus for the defending team because it alows players to waste $1000 credits AND net them free points. At that point you should just disable the beacons because it's nothing more than a waste In fact, you'll CREATE more 'pub player' drama when the complain that their $2000 investment was disabled because some lazy schmuck who wasn't paying attention now has all the time in the world to not only kill the planter but to disarm it. Mind-numbingly stupid.

Why is neutering defences a stupid idea?

Because not every 'pub player' is attacking. Rather, they'd be upset that the defenses they've been repairing and are so 'critical' didn't do jack against a single tank. It doesn't encourge team-play...it encourages lone-wolf strageies and severely punishes the pub player who wants to attack the other side. If let's say, a single flame tank rusing guarantees that it will survive against the main defence long enough to take it out...a single flame tank could then procede to wipe an entire base out which would basically defeat the purpose of base defenses.

I can already hear yells of Mammy being OP because of this change....

Maybe...just maybe, I could grant a priority shift for automated defences to focus on vehicles and not infantry if vehicles are present, so when the first vehicle in a rush explodes that player still has a fighting chance to get into a terminal. Or, never hit the same target twice in a row if two targets are present.

Honestly, this set of rules is just a compilation of contractary knee-jerk reactions. It does not encourage team play, it will just make the vocal minority whine about something else. There is zero thought into the consequences of the actions.

[R315r4z0r]

The best way to encourage teamplay is to have visual feedback for achieving stuff.

At the moment, it's a bit overwhelming for new players who are just tossed into a game and are expected to get to work.

But if they see flashes of achievements for "Player just repaired a building for 1000HP!" or "Player just destroyed 3 enemy tanks!" then new players can at least get a basic idea of what they can do.

Also maybe even an objective marker system that can be used by specific players who earn the ability to use them.... but I'm getting ahead of myself here.

Point is players won't learn to play the game if they don't actually have to play it properly.