hunter_Strunz Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Am i the only one, who is irritated by the 40 Player Servers? Not only the fact, that there's no way for GDI to get a sneaky hit over the back entrance (like tunnels or smt else) - its just annoying that a hughe tactical Part is gone after 5 Minutes gaming. I mean...why do you copy old Renegade maps while increasing the amount of Players at the same time?! This CANT work. Renegade does not convince with its graphic or the fact that it's F2P. The core of Renegade was the tactical gaming - attack and defense - trying to find a proper way between siege and sneak. Yet? its just a pewpew shooter like everyone else (and not even a good one)...most maps decide by: 1.) APC rush right at the beginning (<5 Min) 2.) SBH nukes 3.) Siege 4.) Mammy/Flame Rush Why i started this thread while speaking worst english ever seen? Just wanna know, if other ppl thinking the same way. Let me know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega79 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I always felt that 32 to 40 is perfect for renegade ... but on some maps it is harder with more players than others ... ie field ... but i have seen a lot sneaky ninja actions on full 40 player servers ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goztow Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I do indeed prefer smaller games as well but others prefer bigger games. There are smaller servers but it's just that the player base is so small that they tend to join only one or two servers at the same time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFJake Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 ...40 is too small. Why people get mad when their solo ass can't solo an enemy base? Oh I'm so fucking sorry about that. If SBH can sneak through in a 40 players game but GDI can't, then the GDI team is shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R315r4z0r Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Lol @ thread. You're probably going to be displeased to hear that 40 is actually a temporary low player cap because of a lag issue. The intended player cap is actually 64. However, different maps are designed for different amounts of players. So having 64 players on field is kind of crazy... but having 64 players on lakeside feels right at home. There is no sweet spot for player counts in the game. It's all map-centric. This is one reason why I think there should be multiple versions of each map that are designed to cater to different player amounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunter_Strunz Posted April 14, 2014 Author Share Posted April 14, 2014 I know that 40 is only the actual player cap, but i'm a classic Ren player and i guess if the cap gets increased on 64 or maybe more the game wont live long enough to expire different types for each map. This game wont attract people if its just another shooter on steam. This market is way too hard in competition to games like battlefield etc. The big difference is the tactical part with buildings and strategies, wich may affect a game more effective than just capturing a spawnpoint. but if we keep playing like this, ren wont reach more than 200 Players at the same time and wont live long enough for version 2.0. @SFJake Its not about soloing something, its about buggys and APCs wich are gettn totally useless since there are 3 engis right beside every building! And its not a secret that in old ren both teams had the chance to win with siege as good as sneak/apc rush. now its gone...and sure, there are a few times u get something as gdi - but seriously, how often does that happen? 1 in 5 games? Overall: Sure - some Maps are designed for more players, but the problem - especially on maps without guard towers - with too many people EVERYWHERE is still actual. Old ren had a max to 32 Players, and even this was close to be too much on some maps. Its hard to find a sweet point, but its defnitly not 40P... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goztow Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Give OP a cookie from me, please . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daxter Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 lol never played huge maps eh? i know maps where you have to run 10 min straight in order to reach half of the map... trust me with 40 players you will get lonely there pretty soon . the maps right now on ren x however are pretty small... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R315r4z0r Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Tbh, the first week or two of Renegade X's public release had 64 player servers and I thought it was a lot of fun. I mean, small games have their merits as well... but I just don't think it's fair to compare the two since the density of people just changes how the game plays to such a degree that it's almost a different game mode. Renegade had a few 128 player servers if I remember correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totem Arts Staff yosh56 Posted April 15, 2014 Totem Arts Staff Share Posted April 15, 2014 Not gonna' lie, as much as I liked 12v12 back in the old days, 40 seems like the new sweet spot. I honestly don't see it as too many people. It's 10 on offense, and 10 on defense for a smart team. 10 people is easily breakable if you're not just throwing yourself at them all willynilly. I still sneak into bases on Walls, and tank rushes still work if you just play with the enemy teams psyche. 40 is not that bad. 64 was a bit excessive IMO, but 20v20 is big enough to make sure there's competition, and small enough where you still can occasionally go outright commando. I've got more than enough solo-Hotwire building kills to prove the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unit Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 probably might need to keep it at 40, then you can have all the renegade-x players in 1 server. so disapointed in how badly this failed. actually fucking pisses me off simply for the fact that it took people who play the original renegade with it when it suicided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle XI Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Still not enough blood to spill... EDIT: Speaking of: Where is my blood and the death screams of infantry as they get incinerated awhole in high flames? Or the crackling squishy sound when you overrun one ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebqt Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 The most fun I've had in Renegade-X was last night on field 1 v 2 and winning. I think I'd like 4 x 4 matches. I agree that 20 v 20 is just a clusterfuck usually, even the most skilled players get thwarted by volumne of bads/bad timing. Although of course rushes do happen, and coordination does happen to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odanert Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Am i the only one, who is irritated by the 40 Player Servers?Not only the fact, that there's no way for GDI to get a sneaky hit over the back entrance (like tunnels or smt else) - its just annoying that a hughe tactical Part is gone after 5 Minutes gaming. I mean...why do you copy old Renegade maps while increasing the amount of Players at the same time?! This CANT work. Renegade does not convince with its graphic or the fact that it's F2P. The core of Renegade was the tactical gaming - attack and defense - trying to find a proper way between siege and sneak. Yet? its just a pewpew shooter like everyone else (and not even a good one)...most maps decide by: 1.) APC rush right at the beginning (<5 Min) 2.) SBH nukes 3.) Siege 4.) Mammy/Flame Rush Why i started this thread while speaking worst english ever seen? Just wanna know, if other ppl thinking the same way. Let me know! I agree with you. Original maps where though for 10vs10 matches. They were the most balances matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terekhov Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 However, different maps are designed for different amounts of players. So having 64 players on field is kind of crazy... but having 64 players on lakeside feels right at home. This. I always find myself regretting there aren't more people on Lakeside; with 10 infantry side and 24+ on field for both sides, Lakeside has a lot of potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.