Discussion about "Walls: Flying" map

[Truxa]

Hi!

Last night I had a fierce discussion on TheMatrixRen server whilst being GDI on the "Walls: Flying" map.

At that moment a few moderators were online and they were not on 1 page concerning a special tactic that can be regarded as bug abuse. Amongst them were Yosh (ingame) and Sean (on IRC).

The problem:

On either side of the wall, there is this ramp that is accessible from within the base, but not from outside the base (or shouldn't be) unless you drive a vehicle there with some infantry on top, jumping on that smaller wall section.

Well the discussion was that Nod was able to do that several times unseen (by moving a stank with a few SBHs on top) and I was regarding that as bug/glitch abusing. Some of the players agreed with me, some did not.

What I want to know is if the Devs think this is glitch/bug abusing or just an inventive tactic to reach into the enemy base.

The counter agruement from some was that GDI was also able to do this, so it's not a bug or a glitch as both teams are able to do that.

I feel the problem lies here:

Nod can do it invisibly, forcing GDI to actively guarding 4!! base entrance area's rather than the 2 standard ones (tunnel and the mayor gate) to intercept the invisibles.

GDI cannot do this invisibly, so Nod can simply report it to the team easily what the team is trying to do, so Nod has a more passive approach of defending the base compared to GDI.

I feel that the difference in defensive measures are so much different, that it should be regarded as a bug/glitch abuse.

Other counter arguement was (amongst others):

SBHs get in the base through tunnels or main entrance anyway, so why bother dubbing this tactic as illegal? Just defend the buildings more properly by smart-mining.

Yeah ... smart mining stops the multi-nuke-spam ... right

When you have to guard 2 entrances against SBHs, it's way easier than to guard 4 entrances against SBHs ...

I want to know what the Devs have to say about that tactic:

Wall jumping using a vehicle. Intended or not?

I want to know the general opinion of the community about this:

Advanced tactic or glitch/bug abusing?

Regards,

Trux

PS:

Advanced tactic: 2 engineers standing on top of an orca repairing it while flying high above the ground. Glitch/bug or advanced tactic?

[omega79]

infantery should not be able to stand on vehicles ... maybe they should take slow damage, even on friendly vehicles ...

for what you write, it sure is a bug!

[Truxa]

I thought you were there with that match I was talking about Omega.

GDI lost ref and took some time for GDI to take down the airstrip. NOD got lucky crates getting a stank and a medium tank. The above discussion was before the HON went down. Maybe you joined after i dunno, but was same game. Discussion ended when HON went down after GDI lost both WF and pp due to this bug/glitch described above.

[Eagle XI]

Its just a tactic, like any other utilizing a design flaw in any map. In the case its not intended the only real fix would be to change the map accordingly so wallhopping cannot happen.

I dont think its possible to stand on an Orca like that, sure you maybe able to do that when standing still, but somewhen the chopper will have to do maneuvers and the guy top would fall down. I didnt try that at all yet so am currently based on assumptions entirely.

[itjo4u934875]

Its possible to stand on vehicles/orcas if you dont move infantry (already seen with orca + engi). I think it should be removed. Same for tank on tank or harvester on tank.

And until its removed its a nice legal tactic - hf vs mines spam

[SFJake]

Oh god, this again.

You know what I think?

I think boosting people upward as a mechanic should be embraced and even added to infantry so that they can use multiple people to boost someone up a higher wall.

You want to know why? Because it leads to things that are less common and brings variety to the game. It means every little wall isn't just an ultimate blocker.

A game can't be utterly linear in its gameplay design otherwise it leads to unchanging scenarios. Embrace this instead of bashing this to oblivion.

If you want to get to the stealth problem, there's an entire other issue there. Because stealth needs quite a bit of tweaking.

[R315r4z0r]

I wouldn't consider this an exploit. But I do think that it's a bit OP on walls with SBH. Not because of the tactic, but because of how hard cloaks are to spot.

Nerf the cloak and I wouldn't consider this to be an issue.

In addition, the point about SBH being able to get into the base anyway is probably the best rebuttal for this. Smart mining does not mean mining the entrance to the base. It means mining the doorways and areas SBH are likely to try to sneak into. So if SBH can come from more places, it makes people less inclined to waste their team's mines on the base's main entrance and instead put them in useful locations.

Because at the end of the day, regardless of how many entrances there are to the base, you're not going to stop all SBHs from getting in no matter how much you defend. The structures, however, will always remain the same as well as their vulnerabilities. Defend those and you should never run into any serious problems with SBHs.

[NodCommander]

I wouldn't consider this an exploit. But I do think that it's a bit OP on walls with SBH. Not because of the tactic, but because of how hard cloaks are to spot.

Nerf the cloak and I wouldn't consider this to be an issue.

In addition, the point about SBH being able to get into the base anyway is probably the best rebuttal for this. Smart mining does not mean mining the entrance to the base. It means mining the doorways and areas SBH are likely to try to sneak into. So if SBH can come from more places, it makes people less inclined to waste their team's mines on the base's main entrance and instead put them in useful locations.

Because at the end of the day, regardless of how many entrances there are to the base, you're not going to stop all SBHs from getting in no matter how much you defend. The structures, however, will always remain the same as well as their vulnerabilities. Defend those and you should never run into any serious problems with SBHs.

Completely agree with this.

[Terekhov]

Just found this now. Regardless:

It's a big interesting modding in a beta, because of how many little glitches are found that could be considered cheating. Generally over at TheMatrixServer, we've considered glitching and cheating two separate categories, and unless it alters the balance of a game / the players enjoyment in a big way (ex placing beacons where you have to use a glitch/vehicle to get to them), glitches or tactics (depending how you look at it) like the above are generally allowed. Let people have some fun eh?

Personally, I agree with SFJake - I love being able to do crazy things that not everyone would think of, and getting your team ahead because of it. Until we have a stealth nerf and see how it plays out, I would be against changing the map to "fix" this particular tactics, because it gives the game more variety and aside from stealth, is not hard to defend against if your team is paying attention.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Guest

[Truxa]

You all make it sound reasonable but I am still of the opinion that these side entrances were not created like so to be accessible from outside the wall. Why wouldn't the map design simply be such that the wall is lowered in such a way that infantry can more easily enter it rather than using those "special tactics"?

I believe the original map was made so, that vehicles and infantry units can oversee the sides of the map for incoming troops and call out or defend against them more easily and withdrawing more easily when damaged.

This tactic simply allows for 4 points of entry into a base, 2 extra points for Nod to take advantage of while GDI is more easily spotted utilizing that "special tactic". Even with the nerf, it still requires 2 additional active guards for those entrances compared to Nod, which is skewing the balance between teams imo.

[[TmX]Sean]

Hello truxa,

In my personal opinion it shouldn't be allowed - only because it can't be done in C&C Renegade.

I do think it gives Nod an extra advantage over GDI.

The best way you can get a consensus from TheMatrixRen administration is by posting your concerns here: http://www.thematrixren.com/f62-rx-discussions

I've brought your concerns up internally and when we have consensus - we'll post about it. It might be easier to follow it on our forums though.

(I'm Sean in irc btw)

[Truxa]

Hello truxa,

In my personal opinion it shouldn't be allowed - only because it can't be done in C&C Renegade.

I do think it gives Nod an extra advantage over GDI.

The best way you can get a consensus from TheMatrixRen administration is by posting your concerns here: http://www.thematrixren.com/f62-rx-discussions

I've brought your concerns up internally and when we have consensus - we'll post about it. It might be easier to follow it on our forums though.

(I'm Sean in irc btw)

Hi Sean! Good to see your active on these forums!

To be honest, I think it's a more general issue and not a single-server-issue. I know TheMatrixRen is a great server as it actively bans/prohibits/restricts unfair situations like this (imo). Thats the main reason I play mostly on your server when it's possible (it's always at 40/40 lol)

But I must disagree with you that it cannot be done in the original renegade. In the onld ren they huddle up crouched and a 2nd/3rd SBH can just jump on the wall that way. I haven't done it myself, I usually report it to the mods (on Jelly server it wasn't allowed either) as it is called "wall jumping".

When I see it happen as GDI, I usually throw a few remote C4s and get a 4x "Boink" but still, it should not be possible imo!

[[TmX]Sean]

Hello truxa,

In my personal opinion it shouldn't be allowed - only because it can't be done in C&C Renegade.

I do think it gives Nod an extra advantage over GDI.

The best way you can get a consensus from TheMatrixRen administration is by posting your concerns here: http://www.thematrixren.com/f62-rx-discussions

I've brought your concerns up internally and when we have consensus - we'll post about it. It might be easier to follow it on our forums though.

(I'm Sean in irc btw)

Hi Sean! Good to see your active on these forums!

To be honest, I think it's a more general issue and not a single-server-issue. I know TheMatrixRen is a great server as it actively bans/prohibits/restricts unfair situations like this (imo). Thats the main reason I play mostly on your server when it's possible (it's always at 40/40 lol)

But I must disagree with you that it cannot be done in the original renegade. In the onld ren they huddle up crouched and a 2nd/3rd SBH can just jump on the wall that way. I haven't done it myself, I usually report it to the mods (on Jelly server it wasn't allowed either) as it is called "wall jumping".

When I see it happen as GDI, I usually throw a few remote C4s and get a 4x "Boink" but still, it should not be possible imo!

Yeah it's do-able with infantry and I'm well aware of this, however I've never seen sbhs jump up a stank in C&C Renegade, like they do in Renegade X.

Regarding the server being full - yeah it's unfortunate that more players can't join, let's hope that the server restriction of 40 will be lifted soon.

I've found that the easiest way to "get in" is by watching irc (irc.thematrixserver.com) and joining #tmx-renx That way when someone leaves, you can hit join Plus we're now starting to kick players for excessively afking, so more active players can get in.

[R315r4z0r]

Those sides weren't designed for entry. But it doesn't make a difference because it doesn't give any team an advantage.

The map is symmetrical and both sides have the same access points. The only difference is that Nod can do it completely stealthed while GDI is fully visible. But it doesn't matter because regardless of if there is one entrance to a base or if there are ten entrances to a base, the buildings will always be the same and never move or change.

Just because you can enter a base from the east and west doesn't change the fact that the WF's doors and beacon spots are always located in the same spot.

If you're not defending at your buildings, then you're leaving yourself a gap for the enemy to exploit and destroy your structure. Defend the structure and it doesn't matter where the enemy comes from because no matter what they have to come to you to attack the building.

That's why even if it wasn't intended and even if it wasn't in the original game, it still should be allowed simply because it allows for an unintended burst of teamwork that wasn't possible before. It adds some new variety to the game/map that keeps even old players on their toes.

[Truxa]

Those sides weren't designed for entry. But it doesn't make a difference because it doesn't give any team an advantage.

The map is symmetrical and both sides have the same access points. The only difference is that Nod can do it completely stealthed while GDI is fully visible. But it doesn't matter because regardless of if there is one entrance to a base or if there are ten entrances to a base, the buildings will always be the same and never move or change.

Just because you can enter a base from the east and west doesn't change the fact that the WF's doors and beacon spots are always located in the same spot.

If you're not defending at your buildings, then you're leaving yourself a gap for the enemy to exploit and destroy your structure. Defend the structure and it doesn't matter where the enemy comes from because no matter what they have to come to you to attack the building.

That's why even if it wasn't intended and even if it wasn't in the original game, it still should be allowed simply because it allows for an unintended burst of teamwork that wasn't possible before. It adds some new variety to the game/map that keeps even old players on their toes.

It allows for an unintended burst of teamwork NEEDED by GDI. It's much easier to defend 2 entrance points than 4 even only 1 if the tunnels are mined (for servers with a higher mine limit)

When I'm on GDI, I am the one not actively defending the buildings, but lurking on the sides of the main entrance, waiting for those SBH infiltrators.

When GDI is defending with just 1 tank, all you need is that tank effectively making the main gate smaller for a single infantry to cover the other side, effectively reducing the needed defenses on GDI. Instead of defending all 4 buildings with 6 people actively scouring the base 100% of the time just for the possibility of a few infiltrators.

I'd say, let them ensure the impossibility to enter the base in the first place, so you do not need to defend the buildings at all!

See how Nod does it. They defend only when needed, when they spot incoming APCs or infantry through tunnels, people have enough time to react to the possible hot-spots. Before they have to, they can actually be useful in attacking/repairing tanks/sniping from a distance/repairing apache's that are retreating etc etc.

[LuxLOL]

Are you kidding me NOD has already a big advantage with SBH (3x C4 Terminal or 3x Nukes) and to say now it's okay to use unfair playing with the NOD Stealth Units is either a Fool or a Troll and should be banned to the GDI team.

It's always funny to read the dumbass excuses if you point a out player in the game chat doing this kind of things.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Guest

[Agent]

Vehicle surfing to gain access to otherwise inaccessible areas is likely unintended by the developers, and therefore should be considered glitch abuse.

Also consider that the map is named "Walls" and there are giant walls to help defend each base. What do walls do? They keep ground troops out. Are they keeping ground troops out if people can wallhop? No.

[R315r4z0r]

I'm saying it makes absolutely no difference whether they can get in from the sides or not. They are going to get in. It doesn't matter if you have your whole team camping the only entrance to the base. SBHs will get passed you. Guaranteed.

So it makes no difference whether they come in from the main entrance, through the tunnels, are airdropped in, or if they buddy hop over the sides. SBH in your base are SBH in your base. Coming in from the sides doesn't make them any stronger than coming from anywhere else. Especially since in order for them to actually do any damage, they need to enter or get close to a building... which always remain the same.

The issues you guys are bringing up have nothing to do with the ability to hop the wall. Yeah SBH can 3x C4 a building. Yeah they can coordinate multi-nukes. But they can do that regardless of how they got into the base. And they will do it, regardless of defenders. The issue is not how they got into the base it's how can they be countered. Like I said before, their cloak needs a nerf.

Now, obviously this favors Nod since they can do it invisibly but what difference does it make since Nod already had that advantage to begin with? Unit positioning won't change the unit's effectiveness. It's like saying SBH are OP everywhere on Whiteout except in the tunnels. Stealth is stealth. The advantage is apparent from the start: They are invisible. Why does being able to buddy hop that wall suddenly make them more OP than they were before?

Also consider that the map is named "Walls" and there are giant walls to help defend each base. What do walls do? They keep ground troops out. Are they keeping ground troops out if people can wallhop? No.

Except from the main entrance and tunnel, which allow enemies to pass through. Walls make it easier to defend your base. They don't defend it for you.

[[TmX]NP212]

In my personal opinion, I believe that it should be part of the game to ride on a vehicle except for flying vehicles. As said,it allows for teamwork. Now for apache, orca surfing I believe that should kill you.

[Truxa]

I'm saying it makes absolutely no difference whether they can get in from the sides or not. They are going to get in. It doesn't matter if you have your whole team camping the only entrance to the base. SBHs will get passed you. Guaranteed.

So it makes no difference whether they come in from the main entrance, through the tunnels, are airdropped in, or if they buddy hop over the sides. SBH in your base are SBH in your base. Coming in from the sides doesn't make them any stronger than coming from anywhere else. Especially since in order for them to actually do any damage, they need to enter or get close to a building... which always remain the same.

The issues you guys are bringing up have nothing to do with the ability to hop the wall. Yeah SBH can 3x C4 a building. Yeah they can coordinate multi-nukes. But they can do that regardless of how they got into the base. And they will do it, regardless of defenders. The issue is not how they got into the base it's how can they be countered. Like I said before, their cloak needs a nerf.

Now, obviously this favors Nod since they can do it invisibly but what difference does it make since Nod already had that advantage to begin with? Unit positioning won't change the unit's effectiveness. It's like saying SBH are OP everywhere on Whiteout except in the tunnels. Stealth is stealth. The advantage is apparent from the start: They are invisible. Why does being able to buddy hop that wall suddenly make them more OP than they were before?

Also consider that the map is named "Walls" and there are giant walls to help defend each base. What do walls do? They keep ground troops out. Are they keeping ground troops out if people can wallhop? No.

Except from the main entrance and tunnel, which allow enemies to pass through. Walls make it easier to defend your base. They don't defend it for you.

And this is where you are wrong R315r4z0r (see the Bold fond in the quote).

You are right, SBHs will be entering the base regardless or the side entrances or not, for the time being. But once the stealth has been fixed, this issue remains! As those side entrances are not a regular entry point, it doesnt need defending that much. So even with the nerf to stealth, Nod is still able to do it stealthily!

It is way harder for SBHs to use the main entrance (and unmined tunnels) after the nerf than it is now, but it is still easier now than to defend the other 2 extra UNINTENDED POINTS OF ENTRY.

Seems to me you are a devil's advocate here as this seems to be your tactic (thus defending it so fiercly)

And let me say this straight up:

This topic wasn't about the stealth ability to begin with, but the vehicle gliding/bug abuse/wallhopping/etc. being strengthened by the stealth ability for Nod. It puts GDI in a disadvantage for it's nescessity to defend against 4 entry points, 2 of which are hardly used.

An another thing:

A good defense is not coutnering infiltrators when they try to sap a building, it's preventing them from ever reaching that position! It lets you focus on the defense of a choke point rather than a wide area. If you played RTS games, you'd know that (heavily) defending a single point of entry is far better than to have small/medium defenses all around your base. It's common sense.

@[TmX]NP212

Are you trolling right now? Because you are not being in 1 line with other [TmX] members/moderators/admins as to what is considered a bug/glitch/cheat or allowed on the [TmX] server.

[LuxLOL]

@R315r4z0r

If the tunnel is mined and if an APC is standing the long way at the base wall entry, then good luck passing undetected with SBH without using the bug.

@[TmX]NP212

You clan finds it even okay to place a nuke on top of Refinery behind the fence or to place a nuke at second wall of the GDI Weapons Factory.

[Truxa]

@R315r4z0r

If the tunnel is mined and if an APC is standing the long way at the base wall entry, then good luck passing undetected with SBH without using the bug.

@[TmX]NP212

You clan finds it even okay to place a nuke on top of Refinery behind the fence or to place a nuke at second wall of the GDI Weapons Factory.

Lux, TheMatrixRen does not condone beacon glitching, the only problem is getting people while they do it.

One way is reporting the glitched beacon before it detonates, the name should appear when the building gets destroyed thus linked to the glitched beacon.

[TmX] does not condone glitching, some admins I know of do not condone vehicle surving and last I heard of was they are internally discussing the bugs/glitches and making up internal rules. [TmX]NP212's statement just shows that the discussion isn't closed yet as he states his own opinion.

For your first statement, I totally agree and I'm trying to get it through some peoples thick skulls that preventing infiltration is part of the evasion. No entry point means no need to stroll around the base continuously especially on maps without base defenses there is a need to PREVENT them from infiltrating. Even so, when an SBH is spotted to infiltrate, you can mention that in chat. 1 SBH isnt a problem, a tagteam is. So if it is hard for 1 SBH to enter the base, try 4 of them without detection, you'd need 4 pro players evading GDI patrols. While they are not killed, GDI gives them no chance to do their jobs.

[[TmX]Sean]

@R315r4z0r

If the tunnel is mined and if an APC is standing the long way at the base wall entry, then good luck passing undetected with SBH without using the bug.

@[TmX]NP212

You clan finds it even okay to place a nuke on top of Refinery behind the fence or to place a nuke at second wall of the GDI Weapons Factory.

TheMatrixRen does not allow beacon glitching at all, if/when the player is caught doing this, they'll receive a 24hour ban.

The discussion is still on-going, but we wont be kicking players for doing this at this present moment in time

Renegade X is still in beta, so naturally there's still going to be bugs/changes that occur.

So because of this, the general consensus so far is to allow it, until patching occurs (if it does).

My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be allowed and I'll continue to argue this point.

[LuxLOL]

[Am Segulla]

I agree with Truxa; this bug/glitch/tactic/whatever gives NOD a significant advantage on a map with no automated defenses. It requires GDI to have several superior players to defend against a few inferior players. Consequently, GDI has fewer players with which to attack, giving NOD an advantage on both sides of the map.

[Terekhov]

I agree with Truxa; this bug/glitch/tactic/whatever gives NOD a significant advantage on a map with no automated defenses. It requires GDI to have several superior players to defend against a few inferior players. Consequently, GDI has fewer players with which to attack, giving NOD an advantage on both sides of the map.

GDI already has to have those players whether Nod is using the vech + infantry tactic or not. The point is:

1. Nod SBHs will already be in GDI's base, requiring players to guard against them, no matter what.

2. GDI cannot normally put that kind of pressure on Nod because Nod just has to guard its one main entrance

3. Cutting 30 seconds off an SBHs run makes MUCH less difference than giving GDI a way to backdoor with hotwire(s)

Therefore, it's to GDI's advantage.

Common Sense: if you're GDI, it makes sense to use this tactic unless the server bans it, because it helps even the playing field somewhat.

[Truxa]

I agree with Truxa; this bug/glitch/tactic/whatever gives NOD a significant advantage on a map with no automated defenses. It requires GDI to have several superior players to defend against a few inferior players. Consequently, GDI has fewer players with which to attack, giving NOD an advantage on both sides of the map.

GDI already has to have those players whether Nod is using the vech + infantry tactic or not. The point is:

1. Nod SBHs will already be in GDI's base, requiring players to guard against them, no matter what.

2. GDI cannot normally put that kind of pressure on Nod because Nod just has to guard its one main entrance

3. Cutting 30 seconds off an SBHs run makes MUCH less difference than giving GDI a way to backdoor with hotwire(s)

Therefore, it's to GDI's advantage.

Common Sense: if you're GDI, it makes sense to use this tactic unless the server bans it, because it helps even the playing field somewhat.

Nod gets away with it unseen whereas GDI is nearly always spotted by someone on the wall defending and relaying the message to the threat. Thus it's GDIs disadvantage and Nods advantage.

Seriously, the comments you people make are similar to Americans reasoning to the (ab)use of antibiotics:

Americans believe that GP's should prescripe antibiotics to people having a cold, even though it's a virus, with the reasoning that the immune system is weakened by the virus, thus easier to be attacked by bacteria (hence the use of antibiotics in a prevention against those bacteria)

GDI and Nod both have active wall-duties (so to speak) with mostly snipers. Nod can pick those vehicle servers off before they reach the wall, not to mention the Nod vehicles already outside the wall shooting them/seeing them/reporting them. GDI won't be able to pick them off from a distance as they wont SEE them.

Just because SBHs will always be in GDI base, doesn't mean you should make it easier for them to do so. The more often it is needed to use the main gate, the higher the chances are to spot SBHs entering, the better the chances are to defend against it.

[R315r4z0r]

The coordination it takes to do that require a good handful of players though. For example, it takes 3 C4s to blow up an enemy structure. So if 3 SBH sneak into the base ontop of a stank, that requires a minimum of 4 Nod players to coordinate.

If GDI is playing their role properly, they will be keeping the pressure on Nod with steamrolling tactics. So that's 4 less players available to help defend Nod's base.

Now, while that might not make too much of a difference in large servers, in small servers it can make or break a team. In fact, it's the very reason why SBHs were considered somewhat noobish in the original game when you chose to be one even though 40% of your team was also SBHs.

Running around, being sneaky, trying not to be seen... it's practically as effective as not even being in the match at all. So unless GDI is doing nothing but staying defensive the whole time, Nod would only have a small window to utilize this tactic. And by "utilize this tactic" I mean merely infiltrate the GDI base from the side and not actually nuke or C4 anything.

GDI just needs to play offensively to hamper Nod's usage of this tactic. The best way to counter it is to prevent it all together. Take the point before Nod can coordinate the maneuver. Surround them before they surround you. Because if you're beating down on their airstrip or hand of Nod, they will think twice about sending 4 players out of the base while it's under attack.

[ARC_trooper]

Sometimes the right time as a sbh to attack is when the enemy attacks, but thats most times solo with a nuke lol.. Since nearly all of gdi are at the front door of nod, they panic once they hear that nuke being placed and alot of times slightly retreat. (unless its actually a good team and they kept some folk behind to defend properly )

[EKT-Blink]

tbh wall hopping was a tactic in old ren. Thats been removed by not allowing to jump on each others heads but has instead been replace by tank surfing. I like this tactic its creative and can change the game entirely when at a 3 hour stalemate on a marathon server like EKT. Its creative tactics that win games. Whether its a bug or not its still a tactic and i can think of many bugs in old ren that became tactics and people just adapted to them and they became part of the game so i dont see why this is a problem.

Diversity is what makes the game fun. And there is nothing more fun than infiltrating your enemies base in a creative way.

[IKILUNOW]

The walls map is played too much lately. It’s an okay map but I’m sick of it and just leave the server. I would like to play more in the evening but not walls every stinking game. It seems whenever I join the EKT “all they ever play in the evening is WALLS” I’m always on GDI and get my ass handed to me. No fun! So many servers and no one to play with! Guess I need to get a night job.

[cncforever]

infantery should not be able to stand on vehicles ... maybe they should take slow damage, even on friendly vehicles ...

for what you write, it sure is a bug!

I once drove an APC and had a lasergunner standing on it. These little touches can add creativity and more fun to gameplay. Disallowing them will reduce this. When you want to think outside of the box but end up being boxed in, it's a lot less fun.

[cncforever]

Oh god, this again.

You know what I think?

I think boosting people upward as a mechanic should be embraced and even added to infantry so that they can use multiple people to boost someone up a higher wall.

You want to know why? Because it leads to things that are less common and brings variety to the game. It means every little wall isn't just an ultimate blocker.

A game can't be utterly linear in its gameplay design otherwise it leads to unchanging scenarios. Embrace this instead of bashing this to oblivion.

If you want to get to the stealth problem, there's an entire other issue there. Because stealth needs quite a bit of tweaking.

It seems that many players are on a mission to ensure that this game can become as generic, linear and devoid of creative tactics as possible. Why not have a few engineers on an arca to repair it, why not drive around an APC with a few laser chain gunners on it or a stealth tank with sbh on the top with nukes. All of that sounds like a lot of fun and a great laugh. It seems like people just want to make this game as boring as possible.

I say embrace it.

[kaitology]

Definitely, look what boosting did to Counterstrike.

[Truxa]

Definitely, look what boosting did to Counterstrike.

Spend 5 minutes looking up what you meand and I found this video:

Yeah, it's a design flaw and yeah, it was abused followed by a fix to prevent this, but it was unintended to begin with! Same as vehicle surfing and 'wall climbing' is in Renegade X.

Blame it on 'bad game design' to cover it up, but in the end of the day, you are abusing the game mechanics to get an unintended unfair advantage over others which should be disallowed.

For me, it makes the game less-appealing and I'm losing interest in this game due to those many abusers.

If you can win by playing this game as it was intended, then and only then you can call yourself a better player. I'm fed up with being killed or defeated by people who do not play games as they are intended.

[MajorLunaC]

Due to the fact that the abilities described are unintended and there do not exist valid counters (even conditional counters) at this time, especially on Walls where there are no base defenses whatsoever (Obelisk, Guard Tower), these are exploits.

Until such time that these abilities are compensated for and balanced for by the Devs of Renegade X (edit maps, add new abilities and counters, etc.), they pose an unfair, unintended, and often insurmountable advantage (especially considering unique units of each team), and thus are to be considered exploits.

[MajorLunaC]

I've actually tried vehicle surfing in a server just once, as a tech, to see just how much of an advantage it gave. Just me as a single tech on an apache made it virtually invincible. Sure it took tons of damage, but it was almost instantly repaired. We never had to return to base. The only risk might be 2 MRLS that are actively focusing on the one Apache, but that's rare. With infantry only though, the apache is invincible with just 1 tech on it.

[Truxa]

I've actually tried vehicle surfing in a server just once, as a tech, to see just how much of an advantage it gave. Just me as a single tech on an apache made it virtually invincible. Sure it took tons of damage, but it was almost instantly repaired. We never had to return to base. The only risk might be 2 MRLS that are actively focusing on the one Apache, but that's rare. With infantry only though, the apache is invincible with just 1 tech on it.

Just shows how game-breaking vehicle surfing is ... I mean, server owners can set up rules like: surfing is allowed only on orca's/heli's when the WF/Strip of the opposing team isn't destroyed.

Or

Surfing is only allowed in circumstances X and Y when A and B are not destroyed and when server admin is present to follow the exact movement of the surfer/vehicle in order to prevent exploits.

Ugh, just admit already that this kind of tactic isnt an tactic and was not intended to be possible at all. In all reason, the Devs are so into the game for these many years that they play/develop it for fun and do not think of possibilities one might have to abuse the game mechanics to play it the way it wasnt intended. So saying that the Devs should have thought about it or should have designed it another way to prevent it is b@llcr%p.

On your example Luna, 2 havocs could have killed it easily, it takes 5 shots to kill a heli/orca with a ramjet, so 8 would be too much to repair through.

[Kriemhild Gretchen]

I've actually tried vehicle surfing in a server just once, as a tech, to see just how much of an advantage it gave. Just me as a single tech on an apache made it virtually invincible. Sure it took tons of damage, but it was almost instantly repaired. We never had to return to base. The only risk might be 2 MRLS that are actively focusing on the one Apache, but that's rare. With infantry only though, the apache is invincible with just 1 tech on it.

Just shows how game-breaking vehicle surfing is ... I mean, server owners can set up rules like: surfing is allowed only on orca's/heli's when the WF/Strip of the opposing team isn't destroyed.

Or

Surfing is only allowed in circumstances X and Y when A and B are not destroyed and when server admin is present to follow the exact movement of the surfer/vehicle in order to prevent exploits.

Ugh, just admit already that this kind of tactic isnt an tactic and was not intended to be possible at all. In all reason, the Devs are so into the game for these many years that they play/develop it for fun and do not think of possibilities one might have to abuse the game mechanics to play it the way it wasnt intended. So saying that the Devs should have thought about it or should have designed it another way to prevent it is b@llcr%p.

On your example Luna, 2 havocs could have killed it easily, it takes 5 shots to kill a heli/orca with a ramjet, so 8 would be too much to repair through.

In my opinion, vehicle surfing is an example of emergent gameplay, and shouldn't be patched out. Rather, just as with other tactics, it should be able to be countered. Flame tanks are powerful in good hands, but keeping your distance turns them into mincemeat. SBHs can win games, but they can be countered with proper mining and vigilance.

A good solution, in my opinion, is to ensure only one, MAYBE two technicians can surf a vehicle at any given point in time. A healing Apache whose healing mechanism can be taken out by a good sniper or concentrated fire? Fun! An Orca with six guys on it who drop on top of your airstrip, making it near impossible to counter? Not fun!

[Truxa]

A good solution, in my opinion, is to ensure only one, MAYBE two technicians can surf a vehicle at any given point in time. A healing Apache whose healing mechanism can be taken out by a good sniper or concentrated fire? Fun! An Orca with six guys on it who drop on top of your airstrip, making it near impossible to counter? Not fun!

And therein lies the thinking error. It should be either allowed (and intended for that matter!) or not allowed in it's entirety. Accept the good and the bad that comes with a single decision. If you accept vehicle surfing, then you MUST also accept surfing by 6 people altogether than just limiting it to a certain number for tactical purposes.

Realy?!

How realistic is it for a person to stand on top of a heli/transport with rotors turning?! I call mincemeat to those fools!

Orca, might be possible, but what about the jets, shouldnt they 'suck in' the person and expelled out like the air is used for lift?

Ok, lets ban surfing on flying vehicles, that bans out 1 typ of surfing, so banning 1 part of surfing but not the other (ground vehicle surfing) is again the same type of solution as limiting the surfer numbers is.

There it is again, accept it as a whole or reject it as a whole.

[RypeL]

Agree. Not allowing surfing on apache and orca makes sense i think.

[Kriemhild Gretchen]

A good solution, in my opinion, is to ensure only one, MAYBE two technicians can surf a vehicle at any given point in time. A healing Apache whose healing mechanism can be taken out by a good sniper or concentrated fire? Fun! An Orca with six guys on it who drop on top of your airstrip, making it near impossible to counter? Not fun!

And therein lies the thinking error. It should be either allowed (and intended for that matter!) or not allowed in it's entirety. Accept the good and the bad that comes with a single decision. If you accept vehicle surfing, then you MUST also accept surfing by 6 people altogether than just limiting it to a certain number for tactical purposes.

Realy?!

How realistic is it for a person to stand on top of a heli/transport with rotors turning?! I call mincemeat to those fools!

Orca, might be possible, but what about the jets, shouldnt they 'suck in' the person and expelled out like the air is used for lift?

Ok, lets ban surfing on flying vehicles, that bans out 1 typ of surfing, so banning 1 part of surfing but not the other (ground vehicle surfing) is again the same type of solution as limiting the surfer numbers is.

There it is again, accept it as a whole or reject it as a whole.

Dude, why are you acting like you can only pick one of two extremes? You've really given no compelling reason for why you can't accept my compromise. Your only argument is that it's not realistic, which doesn't hold given that this isn't a realistic game. Cargo planes dropping off self-propelled artillery pieces isn't realistic. Bigass spires that fire red lasers (Lasers that powerful are actually invisible) at enemies isn't realistic.

We can compromise. We don't just have to pick an extreme. Vehicle surfing is a type of emergent gameplay that unintentionally came out. Renegade X isn't like other games, and I see that as something wonderful. It should be embraced and rebalanced rather than just eliminated. It's what makes this game great.

[Truxa]

Dude, why are you acting like you can only pick one of two extremes? You've really given no compelling reason for why you can't accept my compromise. Your only argument is that it's not realistic, which doesn't hold given that this isn't a realistic game. Cargo planes dropping off self-propelled artillery pieces isn't realistic. Bigass spires that fire red lasers (Lasers that powerful are actually invisible) at enemies isn't realistic.

We can compromise. We don't just have to pick an extreme. Vehicle surfing is a type of emergent gameplay that unintentionally came out. Renegade X isn't like other games, and I see that as something wonderful. It should be embraced and rebalanced rather than just eliminated. It's what makes this game great.

Because it comes down to if the mechanic was intended or not. If it wasn't intended, NOTHING of the sort should be allowed as it is abusing a glitch.

If it is intended, EVERYTHING should be allowed, even the 6-8-man drop from a chinook onto a single structure to both defend the beacon/hotwires/engineers and destroy it.

The compromises you suggest, make it sound like the mechanic is/was intended and should be tweeked a bit for balancing issues.

If it WAS intended, then there should be 'seats' or 'slots' on top of a vehicle for an outside character to 'ride and repair' the vehicle. Basically the same thing, but as the surfing character is 'bound' to the vehicle, there is no chance of falling off, but still susceptible to splash damage and sniping. On top of that, you shouldnt have to drop from a higher location on top of the vehicle to reach the spot, but just press a number (seat number) when in the vehicle.

To that end, humvees/buggies and maybe other vehicles should be snipable through the windows aswell, to kill the driver and other occupants to steal the vehicle. But thats a whole other idea. Point is, vehicle occupants are protected from damage until the vehicle is destroyed and therefore, the proposed idea of 'outside seats' is also a bit hard to realize.

[RypeL]

Theres often a lot stuff people find in games that the devs never imagined. Thats just normal. And not all of that qualifies to be seen as a glitch. Was strafejumping intended in Doom/Quake ? No. It started as a bug. And theres lots of other examples of cool things people found in games that the devs then didnt remove. But the way i see it there is a fundamental difference between strafejumping and standing on an apache looking down and just pressing fire. Strafejumping requires skill while repping on top of a flying vehicle is just a cheap tactic that litteraly requires no skill (i havent tried it yet but im assuming that once you know where to stand etc it shouldnt be hard at all).

So because im asuming vehicle surfing on aircrafts is just a cheap tactic that requires no skill, but can give you a significant advantage over players that actually try to use skill, i think this is likely to be removed completely. I´ll look into ways to make anyone die that tries to jump on an operating aircraft. But of course we will try it out first before we remove it. Maybe it is kind of hard, but i doubt it.

About vehicle surfing with non aircraft vehicles i dont want to make conclusions or asumptions here as i again dont have experience with that. But you should be much more easy to hit then when standing on an aircraft so it might be a legitimate type of tactic.

[Kriemhild Gretchen]

Dude, why are you acting like you can only pick one of two extremes? You've really given no compelling reason for why you can't accept my compromise. Your only argument is that it's not realistic, which doesn't hold given that this isn't a realistic game. Cargo planes dropping off self-propelled artillery pieces isn't realistic. Bigass spires that fire red lasers (Lasers that powerful are actually invisible) at enemies isn't realistic.

We can compromise. We don't just have to pick an extreme. Vehicle surfing is a type of emergent gameplay that unintentionally came out. Renegade X isn't like other games, and I see that as something wonderful. It should be embraced and rebalanced rather than just eliminated. It's what makes this game great.

Because it comes down to if the mechanic was intended or not. If it wasn't intended, NOTHING of the sort should be allowed as it is abusing a glitch.

If it is intended, EVERYTHING should be allowed, even the 6-8-man drop from a chinook onto a single structure to both defend the beacon/hotwires/engineers and destroy it.

The compromises you suggest, make it sound like the mechanic is/was intended and should be tweeked a bit for balancing issues.

If it WAS intended, then there should be 'seats' or 'slots' on top of a vehicle for an outside character to 'ride and repair' the vehicle. Basically the same thing, but as the surfing character is 'bound' to the vehicle, there is no chance of falling off, but still susceptible to splash damage and sniping. On top of that, you shouldnt have to drop from a higher location on top of the vehicle to reach the spot, but just press a number (seat number) when in the vehicle.

To that end, humvees/buggies and maybe other vehicles should be snipable through the windows aswell, to kill the driver and other occupants to steal the vehicle. But thats a whole other idea. Point is, vehicle occupants are protected from damage until the vehicle is destroyed and therefore, the proposed idea of 'outside seats' is also a bit hard to realize.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_ ... _emergence Please read this.

Fighting game combos came from an unintended behavior in Street Fighter II. Should that have just been fixed and ignored, leaving us with games where you can only do single attacks? Rocket jumping, now in many FPSes, came from unintented behavior in Quake.

Some of the greatest things, not just in video games, were made as mistakes. Chinese potstickers come to mind. A tactic's origin shouldn't be the determinant for its overall value.

This is just another neat thing which makes Renegade X not like other games. It shouldn't just be eliminated outright, making it yet another bland shooter. It should be embraced, but rebalanced, making it a viable tactic, but not an instant win button.

[Kil]

Rocket jumping, now in many FPSes, came from unintented behavior in Quake.

Trivia: Rocket jumping wasn't unintended. It was an intentional mechanic first seen in Doom 1, as it was the indented way to access the secret level in episode 2.

[SFJake]

It was an intentional mechanic first seen in Doom 1, as it was the indented way to access the secret level in episode 2.

With all due respect, what the heck are you talking about? This is a plain lie.

[Kil]

It was an intentional mechanic first seen in Doom 1, as it was the indented way to access the secret level in episode 2.

With all due respect, what the heck are you talking about? This is a plain lie.

I'd certainly appreciate not being called an out right liar thank you. Especially when you have obviously not done any verification or research.

http://www.rome.ro/lee_killough/history/doomqna.shtml

EDIT: Site seems to be down at the moment, so I'll save you trying to call me out on that (just in case, seeing as you felt the need to the first time), the quote is:

"The only way you are supposed to reach the secret switch [inside the blue box at the north end of the map] was by (1) getting the invincibility, (2) blasting a rocket into the wall so you would fly backwards into the box. We found out early on that it was possible to flip the switch from outside, so Sandy made the walls thicker."

- John Romero (you may/may not have heard of him - he made the game)

Check your facts first before making accusations, otherwise you look like a dick.

[SFJake]

Doom's rocket jumping isn't really rocket "jumping" when it only helps horizontally.

But you said episode 2, this is episode 3. I did search, and I found nothing, because you pointed at the wrong episode.

[Kil]

Oh whoops typo. "Doom Rocket Jumping" (and even explicitly adding "Episode 2") top results all have the info, so something as minor as a particular episode within the one game isn't enough to out right call it a lie, especially since which episode it was is irrelevant to the initial point. Anyway, moving on.