EMP nades can be bad with some of the old map designs!

[JBV3737]

EMP nades make tank rushes on maps like field, nearly impossible. Field is already a hard map to break a stalemate as is, marathon servers will run field until everyone is sick of it and the server dies. EMPs are a new feature that works great on any map without defences, but if your going to keep it added I strongly recommend giving the attackers something they can use to counter such a great anti-rush defence, or increase the routes to the base defences. Thoughts?

[Abraxus]

The Problem is moreover, that Field was never designed for 40 Players. And if you got 40 normal/good players, you will probably never make it - even without EMP.

[RoundShades]

I will keep this thread atop and still suggest something slightly off topic.

The problem with field is it has classically always led to stalemates.

I always felt, a lot of maps either ended too fast because a nuke crippled without redemption, or a double-factory loss of both teams leads to a perpetual game.

Some marathon servers allowed limited double-cost vehicle drops in classic ren.

Well, my suggestion is in fact a change of the "classic renegade mechanics", one some may consider radical:

-HoN/Bar, destroyed causes 100% cost increase in units.

-WF/Air, destroyed causes 100% cost increase in vehicles.

-Ref, destroyed causes -1/sec of creds and no harvester.

-AGT/Obby, destroyed causes twice the response time to lock an enemy but can still fire at 50% reduced damage.

-PP, destroyed causes 50% increase in all unit/veh cost, -1/sec of creds, and 50% reduction in defense lock time and damage.

This greatly reduces the effect of losing a building so a team always has a killing potential without buildings and a comeback potential one building down, while still giving a substantial effect on building loss.

I recommend this because you still have building loss as permanent, but can much more reasonably play through it. Also, believe it or not, the PP is OP to take out and this also balances it to be a general-nerf without being the single biggest loss.

Just imagine, Field, if you lose a factory you will have vehicles, just in scarcity due to credits. The more structures you lose, the greater that scarcity stretches, but any 1 would still mean it's access. In field, a double factory loss is a slower game without a stalemate game. In walls, a WF nuke opens for a finishing blow instead of effectively ending the game right there. Islands is already a perfect map, and still would be, mammoths would be out of the question after an early WF OR Ref snipe but conservative field armor would be possible, while Nod would still have sbh threat after an early HoN snipe.

[JBV3737]

I will keep this thread atop and still suggest something slightly off topic.

The problem with field is it has classically always led to stalemates.

I always felt, a lot of maps either ended too fast because a nuke crippled without redemption, or a double-factory loss of both teams leads to a perpetual game.

Some marathon servers allowed limited double-cost vehicle drops in classic ren.

Well, my suggestion is in fact a change of the "classic renegade mechanics", one some may consider radical:

-HoN/Bar, destroyed causes 100% cost increase in units.

-WF/Air, destroyed causes 100% cost increase in vehicles.

-Ref, destroyed causes -1/sec of creds and no harvester.

-AGT/Obby, destroyed causes twice the response time to lock an enemy but can still fire at 50% reduced damage.

-PP, destroyed causes 50% increase in all unit/veh cost, -1/sec of creds, and 50% reduction in defense lock time and damage.

This greatly reduces the effect of losing a building so a team always has a killing potential without buildings and a comeback potential one building down, while still giving a substantial effect on building loss.

I recommend this because you still have building loss as permanent, but can much more reasonably play through it. Also, believe it or not, the PP is OP to take out and this also balances it to be a general-nerf without being the single biggest loss.

Just imagine, Field, if you lose a factory you will have vehicles, just in scarcity due to credits. The more structures you lose, the greater that scarcity stretches, but any 1 would still mean it's access. In field, a double factory loss is a slower game without a stalemate game. In walls, a WF nuke opens for a finishing blow instead of effectively ending the game right there. Islands is already a perfect map, and still would be, mammoths would be out of the question after an early WF OR Ref snipe but conservative field armor would be possible, while Nod would still have sbh threat after an early HoN snipe.

I think that that idea should be in a thread of its own, thats a game design overhaul not a simple balance issue. It is therefore unrelated to this thread, if you will please make your own thread with it and remove it from this one I would like that, thank you.

Back of topic, maps that have base defences should be given better odds at attacking. One of the things I thought of that would be easy is to make it so Spy crates are more common on these maps, aswell as spys themselves are NEVER shot at by base defences. Even if they are detected as enemies by the defending team. Another thing I thought about was making emp nades simple slow down the vehicle by 75% and slow down the turret rotation by 25-50%, reload however should be unaffected.

[RypeL]

It is surprising to me that so far i never saw anyone bringing up a, me thinks, pretty fundamental difference with Ren-X compared to old Ren when it comes to base attacking (i might have been blind though): In Ren-X tanks dont do splash through buildingwalls, so they cant kill the engies inside (unless they are in the lucky but unlikely situation to fire through the door). Currently most of the team seems against integrating that into Ren-X but imho i think it would help with rushes. Especially with killing the narrow Ob/AGT. If not that then we sure need to give attackers something else ...

One thing that will most likely be changed is the respawnrate of the harv. Currently if you camp a base and kill the harv it only takes about 5 seconds for it to respawn. So the harv can get annoying when you try to rush a base and can even ruin the rush completly. I think adding like a extra 20 secs to the harv respawntime would help a bit. But thats just a small thing, another is that we are thinking about making EMP disable base defenses. I know that will get some people up in arms, but atm its just a thought and would be an experiment. Also we are thinking of ways we could make a mapmechanics scale a bit to the ammount of players. So if you would have an idea on that pls share aswell.

[RoundShades]

-Vehicles damaging engis didn't do much. You had to be retarded to die to it, it gives the vehicles 1 free shot because it takes less than the time of 1 vehicle shot to pt-refill-exit (aim-e-r-reaim). If anything, it superficially added skill to quick-selecting refill, anyone new to the game that slowly selects refill with the mouse contributes less to repair while anyone veteran repairs full-speed.

-Respawn rate of harv, that is a more game-mechanic adjustment to what old Ren servers had, harv-blocking when under siege because that harvester acted stupid and interrupted stuff often. I would be behind harv respawn delay, it adds greater benefit to early harvkill and prevents it from blocking and contributing score. I would also be behind harv not contributing score and/or credits if not delayed-spawn because it just feeds enemy bank if not harv-block.

-EMP nade disabling defences just does a group tactic self-sufficiently, the "infantry tunnelrush while a vehicle distracts defence". It would be controversial but don't knock it until you try it because it likely would be balanced and would benefit GDI as well as Nod and would benefit comebacks for teams lacking factory on a base defence map (compared to very unlikely effectual gunner rushes). I personally approve as long as ATMine and EMPNade are move to Items PT tab and the Beacon's slot. That removes possibility of SBH Emp-infiltration Nuking or anyone nuking for that matter unless a team effort. And even then, EMP nade isn't as good as an airstrike on the beacon is.

IF emp nades interrupted base defences, make them also interrupt player-mounted whiteout defences?

[A-Rodge]

-Vehicles damaging engis didn't do much. You had to be retarded to die to it, it gives the vehicles 1 free shot because it takes less than the time of 1 vehicle shot to pt-refill-exit (aim-e-r-reaim). If anything, it superficially added skill to quick-selecting refill, anyone new to the game that slowly selects refill with the mouse contributes less to repair while anyone veteran repairs full-speed.

-Respawn rate of harv, that is a more game-mechanic adjustment to what old Ren servers had, harv-blocking when under siege because that harvester acted stupid and interrupted stuff often. I would be behind harv respawn delay, it adds greater benefit to early harvkill and prevents it from blocking and contributing score. I would also be behind harv not contributing score and/or credits if not delayed-spawn because it just feeds enemy bank if not harv-block.

-EMP nade disabling defences just does a group tactic self-sufficiently, the "infantry tunnelrush while a vehicle distracts defence". It would be controversial but don't knock it until you try it because it likely would be balanced and would benefit GDI as well as Nod and would benefit comebacks for teams lacking factory on a base defence map (compared to very unlikely effectual gunner rushes). I personally approve as long as ATMine and EMPNade are move to Items PT tab and the Beacon's slot. That removes possibility of SBH Emp-infiltration Nuking or anyone nuking for that matter unless a team effort. And even then, EMP nade isn't as good as an airstrike on the beacon is.

IF emp nades interrupted base defences, make them also interrupt player-mounted whiteout defences?

Brotranquility. I am in 110% agreement with both your posts. I have been hoping they would implement this for a year.

In AOW, if one building dies the enemy gets map control and can farm points off of damaging your building and ultimately win, even if you put up an awesome defense.

If you're nod and a building goes down. You can only count on a comeback if you have an SBH make a nuke play.

Losing a building should not cripple your team as it does now. It should hamper you and punish you fairly.

Sorry for taking the thread off subject too but i feel pretty fervent about this aspect of the game

[JBV3737]

Also we are thinking of ways we could make a mapmechanics scale a bit to the ammount of players. So if you would have an idea on that pls share aswell.

I have an idea for that, Have alternate pathways for some of the maps that are only get unblocked when players reach X amount in a server, these new pathways allow greater attack angles. Have derbies block them until enough players are in the server. This would only be needed on some of the maps that end in stalemates way to offen, such as field.

A good example would be a new tunnel on field that goes right behind the two refineries, not protected by base defences at all. they would be blocked off via boards or something artistic, maybe doors that open up? completely until say 30-40 players join at which point players can destroy the debris or the doors stay open?

Or a map settings based on players in the current map when it votes. EI, when server is changing servers and there is 30 players, then load the edited version of field that has more attack routes. if its less than 30 then load the default field map.

What you should try to do is mange attack routes based on players playing, more players more attack routes. 100 players will not work well on these current maps, they need to be much bigger. 5 players per tunnel, 10-15 per tank battle area.