Credits as Basic Infantry

[Flopjack]

You enter a game and your team's ref is down. Unless your an engineer repairing buildings it's really hard to gain any credits. The players who have their MRLS or other hard hitting vehicle striking a building over and over are earning lots of credits, but having just entered that game, you don't have that option.

What if basic infantry had the capacity to earn significantly more credits than they do now? (outside of engi perhaps, or just don't change credits earned from repairing/explosives, depending on amount currently earned)

For example:

- For each percent of damage dealt to infantry or vehicles, you earn half the unit's worth divided by it's total cost. I think I said that right? In other words, if an enemy has a vehicle or infantry worth 100 credits, and you take off 50% of their HP as a rifle infantry, you earn 25 credits. If you kill them you earn 50 credits for the damage you dealt.

- Then maybe you also get 5%-10% of that unit's total cost as credits if you score the kill.

[Terekhov]

The first point gives waay too much incentive for people to shoot at things with automatic rifles / marksmen without actually being useful.

I think you should get more $$$ for destroying vehicles though.

[Flopjack]

Keep in mind it's based off the percentage of damage dealt. When targeting a 250 credit infantry with a rifle infantry, you may only deal 25% damage before dying, right? Using my system, that would give you 31.25 credits. Engineers get like 8-10 credits per second repairing a terminal in a building right now, don't they? What does a rifle infantry get if he knocks off half an enemy soldier's hp bar? Like 2 or 3 credits? The rifle infantry is frantically fighting while the engineer is just sitting still holding his left click!

At any rate, you can modify the numbers and treat each basic infantry and even target uniquely to fine tune. The point here is, in a situation like this, basic infantry (which is essentially all you have access to) do not earn enough credits.

Edit: On second though, I'd argue rifles (as an example) should earn more than an engineer because it encourages aggressive play. As it is now, everyone is rewarded much more for being an engineer and repairing buildings, which in my original situation is usually the best play, which promotes hard turtling.

[Terekhov]

No, because then you promote idiots who don't play as a team and then teams get even MORE frustrated with people not repairing then they already do. It's very hard for a team to 'hard turtle' successfully, if the other one is competent.

I don't think either of us is changing our mind on that point though.

[Flopjack]

The bottom line is credits are not fairly awarded based on accomplishments. Additionally, the scenario I gave in my original post is a problem. It's great that you're providing a counter point, Terekhov, but why not something constructive as well?

[Terekhov]

Because (aside from more $$$ for destroying vehicles, and perhaps more for infantry kills), I like it where it is. I think that what you've suggested could lead to bad gameplay, either causing people to not repair stuff, shoot more at tanks with automatic rifles, or other equally useless things, when they could be actually helping their team.

I don't hate the entire thing, just disagree with the effects the cash-for-damage part.

[Flopjack]

With my proposed system, Rifles wouldn't be earning much vs vehicles. People would be drawn to using the weapons correctly because they want more cash. What reason would people have to use to weapons outside their intended purposes if they are awarded for it via this system?

[Terekhov]

So that's what, 2 credits per 1% of damage to a med? Not too bad. I still 100% and will not change disagree with attackers earning as much as engineers, but you may be on to something with the other part.

[Flopjack]

What other part, specifically?

I don't think Engi repair should change either, except on vehicles and infantry. You get like what... 3 credits for fully healing infantry? Or it may be 0. Vehicles you get minor amounts. The easy solution is to reverse my system for engi repair guns: half the cost of the unit per each percent repaired as credits.

[SFJake]

I'm not going to argue specifics personally since I have no idea how it even is in Renegade X, but I agree with the overall principle that getting credits in certain places is way too slow. I don't think there should be an act of damage or repair that should feel "unrewarding" credits wise. When out of Ref its really too annoying.

[Flopjack]

^This is what I'm trying to get across, so thank you, Jake. Credits are awarded disproportionately and in some instances it means you just don't earn anything.

[R315r4z0r]

I think anti-infantry units should earn a little bit more credits for attacking an enemy unit. I don't think you need to get too detailed about it like giving them special percentage cuts... just increase the fixed rate at which they earn credits from attacking an enemy.

[HaTe]

Guns that use the shrapnel warhead in renegade should be getting more credits. I like the idea of the pointsfix, but it takes it too far by making damage dealt be the direct result on credits earned. It should be that this warhead should get damage dealt*20 for credits when hitting a heavy armored vehicle. For those of you who think that the *20 seems far too high, I'd like you to know that you don't know how it works. For instance, it is .05 points/credits per 1 damage for damaging a medium tank. So, it would only equal out to be 12 points/credits for an entire round of a nod autorifle into a med tank. The way it is with the pointsfix in renegade would have it be .06. That is far too low and why pointsfix servers all died out in renegade. There needs to be a multiplier for these warheads, and 20 is more than reasonable.

[Tovias]

I think you should get more $$$ for destroying vehicles though.

That sounds great, it would make people play more Rocket Soldiers on Walls.

[goztow]

There's already too much money in the economy due to repairs being 2/3 and silo's.

[SFJake]

There is?

Money flows well when there's ref and silos.

Money doesn't flow at all without ref and silos.

They should probably lower the repair reward anyway but otherwise we need to have ways to make money on our own.

[HaTe]

Yeah, repair should be 50% like in Renegade. But shrapnel warhead points+credits for damaging heavy armored tanks needs to be increased.

[goztow]

If ref is destroyed then you have two easy options for making money:

* repair

* go get the silo (if available)

The repair points / credits are really enough on its own at the moment. I joined a game while my team was loosing and made it to be the player with most points of both teams while only repairing the remaining building for 10 minutes. I also donated my money to team mates.

If you add more money in the conomy, then you first need to reduce the points and credits for repping.

[SFJake]

Basically, what you just told me, is that the enemy team was stupid enough to give you repair money when you had no source of cash.

Thats not having too much money in the "economy". Of course I'm used to play Marathon, where points don't matter.

[goztow]

Of course it is. How do yiu think anyone will kill a building wihout damaging it? And the same is true for repairing vehicles or even infantry. Thisalso gives you money. Or do u figure it makes more sens to shoot an enemy, make no damage at all but still getting money?

[SFJake]

Uh, what? If you can't kill a building with a siege and the other team has no ref, then the sieging becomes nothing but giving the other team money.

And it makes sense to be able to get some decent money by damaging things. Period. I said nothing beyond that.

[HaTe]

One of you is talking from a primarily marathon standpoint whilst the other one is talking from an AOW standpoint. Different views on the subject.

In the end, if a team is extremely low on credits, the other team should generally be rushing or placing beacons to destroy the remaining buildings. Whoring points/credits just gives the other team cash (as well as currently too much points+credits). The only time you should be whoring is in AOW if you're trying to win by points and the game time is near an end.

[Letty]

Points aren't supposed to be a major source of income. That's what the refinery is for. The reason to kill an enemy tank or character is so that the enemy doesn't have that tank or character anymore.

With your change destroying a Mammoth would reward more credits than destroying a building. That's just retarded.

There's already too much money in the economy due to repairs being 2/3 and silo's.

Also this.

[Canucck]

I love joining while ref is down, go out into field/tunnels, go on a 5kill spree with an autorifle vs havocs/raves/sbh/mendoza... and I gain 50 credits. So exciting.

Pretty sure 1000cred chars in the original were worth ~95 points/creds

[Flopjack]

A lot of people are missing the point of the thread.

What it comes does to is this. If I am a Rocket Soldier and I take off 40% of a Med tank, if I am a Rifle Infantry and I take off 30% of a Buggy's HP, if I am a Shotgun soldier and kill a Mendoza, etc... I am not rewarded properly for my effort. That's the bottom line. Repairing and damaging structures are most effective ways of gaining credits (outside of ref) and there is a disconnect between almost every other action you take. Additionally, as mentioned in the original post, there are possible scenarios, partly due to what I just described, where you get little to no money at all.

That's the problem with the credit system right now. My proposed percentile system makes a decently fair system that can be applied across the board for credit rewards. It's not perfect, but it sure as heck is better than what we have now.

Yes, you would earn more for killing a Mammoth than a Ref, but that's OK. A building is an objective that the whole team wants dead and destroying offers game changing effects. That's a pretty substantial reward in itself and is worth 5 Mammoths.

[HaTe]

Points aren't supposed to be a major source of income. That's what the refinery is for. The reason to kill an enemy tank or character is so that the enemy doesn't have that tank or character anymore.

With your change destroying a Mammoth would reward more credits than destroying a building. That's just retarded.

There's already too much money in the economy due to repairs being 2/3 and silo's.

Also this.

If you're talking about my suggest change: Clearly you're not understanding the suggested change whatsoever. Also, each point = 1 credit. Points are just as much of an income as the refinery. You're completely lost on this subject.

[Letty]

If you're talking about my suggest change: Clearly you're not understanding the suggested change whatsoever.

Actually I was talking about the OP. Why would you assume I was talking about your suggestion?

Also your suggestion is even dumber than his. Giving players an incentive to do something stupid (shooting heavy armor with weapons that don't deal damage to heavy armor) is so mind-numbingly retarded that I had to re-read it a half dozen times to realize that you were actually trying to put it forth as a good idea.

Also, each point = 1 credit.

No shit? Why do you waste your time making a statement about something everyone knows?

Points are just as much of an income as the refinery.

No, most of your income is supposed to come from the refinery. That's why the refinery is important.

You're completely lost on this subject.

No you're just an idiot.

[HaTe]

If you're talking about my suggest change: Clearly you're not understanding the suggested change whatsoever.

Actually I was talking about the OP. Why would you assume I was talking about your suggestion?

Also your suggestion is even dumber than his. Giving players an incentive to do something stupid (shooting heavy armor with weapons that don't deal damage to heavy armor) is so mind-numbingly retarded that I had to re-read it a half dozen times to realize that you were actually trying to put it forth as a good idea.

Also, each point = 1 credit.

No shit? Why do you waste your time making a statement about something everyone knows?

Points are just as much of an income as the refinery.

No, most of your income is supposed to come from the refinery. That's why the refinery is important.

You're completely lost on this subject.

No you're just an idiot.

I didn't assume anything. I was addressing if it was. Hence the start of my post.

Did you play the original renegade? Because original renegade had the same warhead give a far greater multiplier to green healthed vehicles. The suggestion I proposed was a much toned down suggestion compared to the original renegade.

I had to point out that each point = a credit because you made a it clear that you thought the refinery was the main source on income for the team. When in reality, points and the refinery work together to determine a player's credit amount. "Most of your income" is completely game dependent.

You're calling me an idiot when I can 100% guarantee you that I know more about renegade (x) that you do.

[R315r4z0r]

The major issue with relying on repair credits is that you have to let the enemy attack you. There is no incentive to PREVENT them from attacking you since you're getting the reward based off of their attack.

You should, imo get more for stopping enemy attacks before they happen... but that's too much of a game changer this late in the project.

It just makes no sense to me to let the enemy attack you when you have no means of fighting back... just so you can earn enough credits to fight back.

It needs to be adjusted so players get less money from repairing their base but more money from attacking and destroying enemy units.

[Letty]

I didn't assume anything. I was addressing if it was. Hence the start of my post.

You assumed enough to insult my knowledge of the game. 3 times in fact, over a 4 sentence post.

Did you play the original renegade? Because original renegade had the same warhead give a far greater multiplier to green healthed vehicles. The suggestion I proposed was a much toned down suggestion compared to the original renegade.

And you give no reason to have a broken feature other than that Renegade had a broken feature. Rewarding players for using the WRONG weapon for a job is the opposite of a good idea.

I had to point out that each point = a credit because you made a it clear that you thought the refinery was the main source on income for the team. When in reality, points and the refinery work together to determine a player's credit amount. "Most of your income" is completely game dependent.

Except no, points are not a substantial part of your income The refinery gives far more income than points do while it is still up. And it is supposed to be this way, otherwise the Refinery is not a valuable building.

You're calling me an idiot when I can 100% guarantee you that I know more about renegade (x) that you do.

1. You're wrong, fuck off.

2. I was commenting on your lack of knowledge into game design, not knowledge of how Renegade works.

[Letty]

The major issue with relying on repair credits is that you have to let the enemy attack you. There is no incentive to PREVENT them from attacking you since you're getting the reward based off of their attack.

You should, imo get more for stopping enemy attacks before they happen... but that's too much of a game changer this late in the project.

It just makes no sense to me to let the enemy attack you when you have no means of fighting back... just so you can earn enough credits to fight back.

It needs to be adjusted so players get less money from repairing their base but more money from attacking and destroying enemy units.

It's a weird system. TBH taking away credits from points entirely and instead instituting a base-line income without refinery up is the only way out, because no matter how you spin it players are going to be farming credits through whatever the best means is, whether it's by repairing structures or shooting tanks. And point whoring has always been a degenerate gameplay mechanic in Renegade.

[HaTe]

I didn't assume anything. I was addressing if it was. Hence the start of my post.

You assumed enough to insult my knowledge of the game. 3 times in fact, over a 4 sentence post.

Did you play the original renegade? Because original renegade had the same warhead give a far greater multiplier to green healthed vehicles. The suggestion I proposed was a much toned down suggestion compared to the original renegade.

And you give no reason to have a broken feature other than that Renegade had a broken feature. Rewarding players for using the WRONG weapon for a job is the opposite of a good idea.

I had to point out that each point = a credit because you made a it clear that you thought the refinery was the main source on income for the team. When in reality, points and the refinery work together to determine a player's credit amount. "Most of your income" is completely game dependent.

Except no, points are not a substantial part of your income The refinery gives far more income than points do while it is still up. And it is supposed to be this way, otherwise the Refinery is not a valuable building.

You're calling me an idiot when I can 100% guarantee you that I know more about renegade (x) that you do.

1. You're wrong, fuck off.

2. I was commenting on your lack of knowledge into game design, not knowledge of how Renegade works.

I've never before seen someone get so defensive over a self-deluded insult.

How about this reason: many renegade servers implemented a pointsfix that essentially made it similar to how renegade x is now. Within a year, almost all of those servers died off and the ones that remained were almost entirely non-pointsfix servers. Players like it that way because it gives them a fighting chance if their refinery is dead.

If the refinery is the only building left and the harvester has already died, the team is getting 1 credit per second. By attacking or repairing, you can earn far more credits per second than the refinery does. That's just one extreme example, but I can give many more if needed. The point is that you're trying to lessen the importance value of the points and credits earned correlation; when you really can't do that. It is very important, particularly in competitive games (clanwars, funwars, community wars).

[goztow]

R31 do you really need more incentive to defend your base other than the fact that ir keeps your production facilities alive?

[Canucck]

Killing multiple 1000cred chars with an autorifle and getting like 50creds does really suck, but making it more than what the original gave would change the balance a lot. There is a huge spread between repairing and killing atm though and having everyone always repairing can be pretty terrible. Shit still needs to die

I don't think the spread really helps that much with defense either. Sometimes people just don't want to repair and no amount of extra points can convince someone to sit with their mouse clicked on a terminal for long periods of time if they really don't want to. It's a little painful to watch a hotwire remote the CC while 6 people are repairing and still see the building die because no one was shooting the hotwire.

[goztow]

Amsoif you really want more money in the economy than make obvious changes like giving a credit bonus when you kill a vehicle. Do not hamper with points. though IMO there is enough money around.

[R315r4z0r]

R31 do you really need more incentive to defend your base other than the fact that ir keeps your production facilities alive?

No, you missed my point. At the moment, if you're broke, the incentive is to let the enemy attack you so you can get credits. You refuse to defend because you want more money.

The majority of money you generate from defending should come from fending off attackers, not repairing your stuff. The incentive for repairing should be you not wanting to lose the structure. The incentive for killing the attackers should be you getting more credits.

[SFJake]

Some people miss the part that in pubs, when the ref is down and a building has any chance of being attacked, there can be 7 engineers sitting on it just to get... anything. I do the exact same thing until I get a thousand and cna buy something useful. Otherwise I simply will never reach any significant amount of money.

[R315r4z0r]

Same. I see it all the time. There would be like 5 engineers repairing the WF from a single artillery just trying to get even the slightest amount of credits... That's 5 able bodies doing something that only requires one. So that's 4 people just wasting space trying to farm credits. They could be better putting themselves to use going out and destroying the artillery... but there is no benefit in doing that so no one bothers.

[Letty]

I've never before seen someone get so defensive over a self-deluded insult.

You seem upset that your insults don't work.

How about this reason: many renegade servers implemented a pointsfix that essentially made it similar to how renegade x is now. Within a year, almost all of those servers died off and the ones that remained were almost entirely non-pointsfix servers. Players like it that way because it gives them a fighting chance if their refinery is dead.

Which says nothing about whether it is a good idea to increase credits for shooting enemies with the wrong weapon vs. other ways of increasing income.

You have literally no argument other than the fact that it was in Renegade. All you are doing is posting a shitty idea and then shitposting with your "But I know more than you cause I say I do" joke of an argument without actually lending any evidence to support your shitty idea.

[R315r4z0r]

Why don't they just make all vehicles have a fixed specific amount of credits that can be earned off of them? So, for example, a Nod Artillery would net a total of 100 credits. So that means for every 1% of HP taken from the Artillery, the attacker gets 1 credit. Doing 100% damage to it would earn the attacker 100 credits. And that would apply to all attackers. So if you do 30%, you get 30 credits, if someone else gets 40%, they'd get 40 credits, etc. Obviously if the arty is being repaired, it would give more credits since it would have more HP.

Why I like this idea is because it forces you to use effective weapons against a target to net you credits. So you could use an AR against light armor to do steady damage and get credits... but for something with heavy armor, an AR won't do the damage that another weapon might do.

Also, each vehicle should have a different fixed amount of credits attached to it depending on their value. However those credits would not equate to points. The goal is to attack to get credits, not to farm points.

[goztow]

Well, tbh if credits are directly related to damage then it makes sens for point to be related to credits, to be related to damage. Or in other ways, just the way pointsfix made it in Ren .

[LegendaryPunk]

Can someone enlighten me - how do things work now vs. how does pointsfix work?

[gadtorx]

Is there a way to speed up the process by buying extra troops? Or am I way off here - and yes, as you might have noticed, I am new to the game, but not to C&C.

[HaTe]

I've never before seen someone get so defensive over a self-deluded insult.

You seem upset that your insults don't work.

How about this reason: many renegade servers implemented a pointsfix that essentially made it similar to how renegade x is now. Within a year, almost all of those servers died off and the ones that remained were almost entirely non-pointsfix servers. Players like it that way because it gives them a fighting chance if their refinery is dead.

Which says nothing about whether it is a good idea to increase credits for shooting enemies with the wrong weapon vs. other ways of increasing income.

You have literally no argument other than the fact that it was in Renegade. All you are doing is posting a shitty idea and then shitposting with your "But I know more than you cause I say I do" joke of an argument without actually lending any evidence to support your shitty idea.

I'm not even insulting you in any way yet you still are under the impression that I am. That proves my "overly defensive" analysis of your posts better than I ever could.

It made people dislike the game in renegade, and then had to go back to the old system. Why would you then support the system that proved to be a failure? It literally makes no sense. It's the same gamemode and same units as renegade. It's not like I'm comparing renegade x to battlefield's point systems....I'm comparing renegade's to renegade x's. Id say that's pretty relevant, personally.