Building loss is too harsh.

[GatsuFox]

Ever wonder why APC rushes can decide games? Ever wonder why many players just flat out leave when a first building is destroyed within the first 10 minutes? Getting a building destroyed is too harsh from the way they limit your resources.

The powerplant is the a strange one. Other than it being a high priority target when its an automated base defense map, the penalty of its destruction essentially cuts every players credits in half. All of the savings you had at this point of the map has been cut in half and you have to do 2x the work to get anything. A team with the power plant down is forced into extreme defense because losing any resources is an extreme risk and when the resource is lost, it causes a huge credit sink for the team. I think instead of making everything 100% more expensive, it should be 50% more expensive to keep the same strategy to target it but not having it be an automatic game winner when its successful.

The refinery is obvious. When the refinery is down it's almost impossible to get credits to do anything. Having both the harvester and the automatic credit gain cut off creates a black hole of an economy for a team. Everyone has to hope they have enough cash saved up when it dies or have a class/vehicle that can gain enough points to keep their economy somewhat flowing. Instead of having both the harvester and the 2 CPS be taken away when the ref dies, credits per second should just drop down to 1 instead.

The infantry structures on death create too huge of a utility loss for a team. It's hard to go into detail without being too obvious so I'm just gonna say that when a HON/Barr is down the officer and rocket soldier should still be purchasable after destruction.

Similarly with the vehicle structures. Without going into obvious details I'll just say that the Buggy, Humve, and APC should still be purchasable after destruction. Possibly even Chinooks to keep it fun.

This is just a rough idea of what I had in mind.

[A-Rodge]

I agree completely. I've been hoping ever since i heard of Ren X that they would address this issue. I will settle for any small change, just as long as it makes building destruction a little less devastating.

However, when i bring it up, purists use their favorite defensive word: "just use TEAMWORK. Problem solved."

I digress. For now.

[Canucck]

bar/hon death is definitely the least impactful because of carbines

[Darkraptor]

I absolutely agree with you.

Of course Renegade X is a team game. But it has its issues in gameplay and can be very fast frustating.

So many potential new players, thats wants to try out Renegade-X, dont stay long.

The powerplant is the a strange one. Other than it being a high priority target when its an automated base defense map, the penalty of its destruction essentially cuts every players credits in half. All of the savings you had at this point of the map has been cut in half and you have to do 2x the work to get anything. A team with the power plant down is forced into extreme defense because losing any resources is an extreme risk and when the resource is lost, it causes a huge credit sink for the team. I think instead of making everything 100% more expensive, it should be 50% more expensive to keep the same strategy to target it but not having it be an automatic game winner when its successful.

The refinery is obvious. When the refinery is down it's almost impossible to get credits to do anything. Having both the harvester and the automatic credit gain cut off creates a black hole of an economy for a team. Everyone has to hope they have enough cash saved up when it dies or have a class/vehicle that can gain enough points to keep their economy somewhat flowing. Instead of having both the harvester and the 2 CPS be taken away when the ref dies, credits per second should just drop down to 1 instead.

I prefer this two suggestions. It would bring more energy to the gameplay.

The infantry structures on death create too huge of a utility loss for a team.

I personly dislike crates, thats kills or chance the characters.

Refill- and crediscrates are fine.

It's hard to go into detail without being too obvious so I'm just gonna say that when a HON/Barr is down the officer and rocket soldier should still be purchasable after destruction.

OK. New proposal: Delete both tier one infantry units (Officers and Rocket Soldiers).

Instead make chaingun and bazooka buyable in the waepon menu. Thats means chaingun and bazooka are still to buy when barraks or HoN are destroyed. That also means, buying this weapons dont change the characters, so no bonus health. Also Hotwire and Technican shouldn't be allowed to buy this weapons.

bar/hon death is definitely the least impactful because of carbines

And of course, delete carbine too

[Soldieroffate]

They can always implement an option where you can buy back buildings for a exuberant price - ie. 50k apiece. That should give an incentive for donators. Hopefully.

[yosh56]

The Refinery I've never had a problem with, but I could manage if it only cut your economy in half (then again on maps with a silo losing the ref isn't a huge game-'ending deal)

Powerplant doubling everything's cost still sits fine by me, so argue that with someone else.

Barracks and Hon: I liked APBs system of still being able to purchase officer class characters. Especially for the fact that you're a bit too SOL vs. aircraft when the barracks goes down in Ren.

WF: Could keep the Humvee, and maybe Transport helicopter, but honestly I'd prefer if units could only be flown in and dropped off via chinook. Had a system like that implemented on a few Renegade servers. Just leave it to light vehicles however.

Then again I'm perfectly fine with the way it is now, but I can be flexible...bitter! but flexible.

[SFJake]

The Refinery is actually the one that bothers me the most.

Simply because most things gives next to no credits. I'm serious when I say that, when the refinery is down, credits gain by various other means needs as much as a 5x to 10x increase. Because even when working for it, it takes ages.

[boxes]

Refinery bothers me too. Completely cutting off all income outside of damage and repairs is too much in my opinion.

I've been playing around with an idea:

Make +2/1.5 credits consistent throughout a whole game, regardless whether a team has a refinery or not. Increase harvester payload income and speed of everything it does slightly.

I never really liked how the WF/Strip constantly supplies the refinery with harvesters. I think even after losing the vehicle structures, harvesters should still be available to a team (dropped off by chinook, or some other way). It'll make a loss of these structures less punishing.

So basically now, all the ref does is give a team a boost in credits every ___ seconds.

[yosh56]

After really thinking about, the Refinery could be completely rebalanced if we made the harvester a larger part of the game. Kind of like CampingJeff mentioned, let the small flow of credits remain independent of the Refinery's status (would need to drop to like 1.5-1 however), and increase the Harvester's load to something around 5-700. This both lets broke people stay somewhat relevant, and makes the Harvester's role a bit more noticeable. Honestly, on maps where the Harvester doesn't follow a path that puts it RIGHT in harm's way (Field/Wall) many times the Harvester is overlooked after the first drop.

Lowering the overall economy, but not making it come to a grinding halt helps solve both people people just waiting around for money (You'd actually have a bigger reason to defend the Harvester), and just overall helps keep the Harvester relevant. You know, aside from being the monster truck that gets in the way of everything. The only time I see this becoming a huge problem is on maps like Islands where the Harv is very hard to get to. Field would...well it would still just be field control.

[vlatkozelka]

So people on this forum whine all day about stalemates then come to whine about how building destruction is penalizing ? lol .

[Darkraptor]

Because when you lose racks/HoN and Wf/airfield but ref and pp are still alive, you are in some ways paralyzed and you have nearly no abilities to attack. And thats a little bit boring.

I know losing a building should be a big penalty for one site. But it is enough punishment when you lose your heavy stuff like tanks and tier 2 or 3 units like the teasla guys.

[Truxa]

... units like the teasla guys.

Mobius and Mendoza?

I'd like a marathon without the voting system. Both teams only having powerplant and ref.

You'd be amazed how people grow teamwork-wise in normal games

[RoundShades]

I wouldn't mind if buildings loss had a half-effect.

By which I mean:

-AGT and OBBY death reduces their rof by 1/2 and increased the delay of beam/missile by x2

-pp increased prices by 1.5 and reduced ref by 1/2 but left base defence 1/2 on (1/2 the rof of AGT, 2x longer to fire missile on AGT, 2x longer to fire obby beam). Stacked with agt/obby death, either stack both reductions or turn off

-bar death increases price 1.5

-wf death increases price 1.5

-ref death reduces ref income by 1/2

-low-tier defences respawn after a long delay, like "whiteout" does but longer delay ofc

[RvE]

What would be the sense of destroying the other teams base if they still can fight like they did not lose anything? I mean that would just reduce the advantages of the attackers a bit much. What would be the fun of fighting over the crates for creds if the other team still have creds income? Why would we fight over crates to get char or veh if they can just be bought on the "Destroyed building", do you guys even know the word "DESTROYED" means?

I love it when I am playing on a stalemate only for people to vote change map, one time I placed a ion and then some magical vote started messing things up, the building did die and that could have ended the stalemate.

[yosh56]

What would be the sense of destroying the other teams base if they still can fight like they did not lose anything? I mean that would just reduce the advantages of the attackers a bit much. What would be the fun of fighting over the crates for creds if the other team still have creds income? Why would we fight over crates to get char or veh if they can just be bought on the "Destroyed building", do you guys even know the word "DESTROYED" means?

I love it when I am playing on a stalemate only for people to vote change map, one time I placed a ion and then some magical vote started messing things up, the building did die and that could have ended the stalemate.

Indeed. My only complaint is losing rocket soldiers, as there is no decent free AA. Toss in a buyable weapon good against light vehicles and I feel like we could solve most issues.

Stalemates basically occur from players pretending that lone-wolfing is still an option after losing half of your base. Infantry wars are actually pretty intense. Had a round of Islands with just HON vs. Bar, but no money. You'd be amazed how constantly rushing in groups from both tunnel exits and the front can make you forget how much you don't have. Eventually even own with GDI with bringing all of Nod's attention to the tunnels whilst we just ran into the front.

That entire time one person on GDI was calling it a stalemate, attempting to vote the map, and thought throwing timed C4 on the outside of the HON was useless. In short, while we all adapted, made money, and made progress towards an eventual victory, he made the game boring for himself.

Again...people make stalemates, not necessarily the game. Even the AGT isn't unbeatable vs. actual groups of infantry.

(Also think people are afraid of death crates too much. Death crate % should probably drop to 0 when both vehicle and infantry buildings are destroyed. It already raises the % for certain crates when buildings go down, so it's a system that's already implemented.)

[Truxa]

People are scared of dieing regardless of deathcrates ... It's natural, but in FPS games where you just as easily spawn in, it's kindof wierd to see death as a thing to be scared of (only in cases of free classes; not 1k chars)

Running in kamikaze style gives your team an advantage because you push the enemy back, which is the point in any war.

Push back enemy advance --> hold them back --> move in for the kill

[RoundShades]

People are scared of dieing regardless of deathcrates ... It's natural, but in FPS games where you just as easily spawn in, it's kindof wierd to see death as a thing to be scared of (only in cases of free classes; not 1k chars)

Running in kamikaze style gives your team an advantage because you push the enemy back, which is the point in any war.

Push back enemy advance --> hold them back --> move in for the kill

That too. I find "credit management" to be an important task. Don't suicide with something too expensive, try to get the most and longest use out of something in order to get the most profit off it. I usually use a variety of chars, just depending on how abundant the creds are, and what I can use right then and there. Besides that, if it cost something I can't afford to replace again next life, I don't take chances.

Death crates are good. They give hope to losers, as losers have no bar/hon/wf/air and are willing to risk the free-char they have for a chance at a game-turning vehicle, while winners have a 1k class and/or beacon/airstrike so they won't pick up a crate just to die or get a 250 class.

Death crates especially pair well with supercrates. Like, a crate to turn off enemy base defences for 60 seconds. It is a really random way to end a game, be camping their front door, then base defence goes down and gdi just pours in anyway. Or, sbh with beacons just swarming in and waiting to plant multi-structure. However, even if crates kill you, it is worth that.

[MajorLunaC]

What would be the sense of destroying the other teams base if they still can fight like they did not lose anything? I mean that would just reduce the advantages of the attackers a bit much. What would be the fun of fighting over the crates for creds if the other team still have creds income? Why would we fight over crates to get char or veh if they can just be bought on the "Destroyed building", do you guys even know the word "DESTROYED" means?

I love it when I am playing on a stalemate only for people to vote change map, one time I placed a ion and then some magical vote started messing things up, the building did die and that could have ended the stalemate.

Yes, but have you played the RTS C&C games? They were all about rebuilding despite being destroyed. I agree that there should be an End-Game situation, but the current setup is too fragile and interdependent. On NOD, if you lose the Hand, you are very likely to lose. It's like a lynchpin, and losing even a single building can cause a landslide shift of balance against that team. I can tell you the refinery and powerplant are the last to be targeted. Relying on random crates for an entire team's income is beyond ridiculous, especially with the tiny amounts. Soldiers get paid, whether they're losing or not. I do like Silos, but the intent was likely to break stalemates, because if you have to rely ONLY on a Silo for income, chances are you're capable of capturing it, much less keeping it.

It's just too unforgiving for even the slightest mistake or lapse, particularly because the current defense setup relies on all your team being on constant watch in EVERY building of your base, ready to kill numerous invading enemies at once, single-handedly, as well as repairing really well at the same time. That means a good, reliable tech and shotgunner patrolling every 2 buildings, AT ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. Right now, defense success depends on one team having less noobs, or at least more experienced noobs, and even then it's more a matter of sheer dumb luck.

These are all the sorts of things that destroy the game's fun, for both teams (trust me, and easy win is so boring, it's funner to just race around the map). It just isn't fun. I'm surprised the original Renegade worked as long as it did, but that was because of very large player number per server, meaning there were at least 2 people in every building at any one time. I don't need to ask you to look at the player numbers for Ren X. The whole concept of Renegade was iffy from the start, especially coming from a RTS background, so it's necessary to adapt to problems.

I've mentioned the insufficiency and weakness of mines, the excessive weakness of free units (useless against vehicles, easy target-practice for unstoppable snipers during rushes), the need for automated Turrets that can be deployed, auto-base repair fund for each team, and building buy-back team fund during Beta 2 (very pricey, costly tradeoff instead of investing on units/vehicles, maybe limited to 1 building) and I'm still waiting for those essential fixes.

[yosh56]

Yes, but have you played the RTS C&C games? They were all about rebuilding despite being destroyed. I agree that there should be an End-Game situation, but the current setup is too fragile and interdependent. On NOD, if you lose the Hand, you are very likely to lose. It's like a lynchpin, and losing even a single building can cause a landslide shift of balance against that team. I can tell you the refinery and powerplant are the last to be targeted. Relying on random crates for an entire team's income is beyond ridiculous, especially with the tiny amounts. Soldiers get paid, whether they're losing or not. I do like Silos, but the intent was likely to break stalemates, because if you have to rely ONLY on a Silo for income, chances are you're capable of capturing it, much less keeping it.

I'm actually fairly certain that the Refinery and Powerplant are ALWAYS the first things targeted by early rushes. I'll bet money on it.

Reason for Nod teams losing after the HON is down probably has more to do with nobody actually knowing how to play Nod beyond SBHs and nukes. Nod's probably going to lose the moment GDI gets decent defenders. In reality, Nod's more cost-effective in the field than GDI is, but it requires the SLIGHTEST coordination to use Techs and Arts together, and when I say SLIGHTEST I mean you just have to randomly be in the same area.

It's just too unforgiving for even the slightest mistake or lapse, particularly because the current defense setup relies on all your team being on constant watch in EVERY building of your base, ready to kill numerous invading enemies at once, single-handedly, as well as repairing really well at the same time. That means a good, reliable tech and shotgunner patrolling every 2 buildings, AT ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. Right now, defense success depends on one team having less noobs, or at least more experienced noobs, and even then it's more a matter of sheer dumb luck.

Bloody hell, it takes 3-4 people to completely lock down a base. That leaves 4/5-3/4 of the team or more to do other things.

but that was because of very large player number per server, meaning there were at least 2 people in every building at any one time. I don't need to ask you to look at the player numbers for Ren X.

High player count servers generally didn't come about till later in Ren's life, and they only got really popular when the community started dying off so they weren't he only freakin servers with people on them when you'd log in.

Gotta change my vote to sit with vlad on this one. 'lotta ideas, but perpetual stalemates seem inbound. As if they weren't already an issue.

As for the inefficiency of mines, I'm fairly certain there's more topics on this board to counter that argument than support it.

[A-Rodge]

Let me put my two cents out there...

So people on this forum whine all day about stalemates then come to whine about how building destruction is penalizing ? lol

Stalemates occur when the fluidity of the battlefield slows to molasses and no progress is made for the greater part of the game. Granted, there will usually come building destruction, then a quick decline into a win or loss. However, that is not conducive to game fluidity; the sense that every choice made has some impact on the overall game's progression.

The point of this topic is that we want the best team to win and the lesser team to lose because of skill and fair game mechanics. Putting a handicap on a team, like the current consequences for building destruction, is incredibly punishing and leaves little room for a comeback with the obvious exception of luck.

What would be the sense of destroying the other teams base if they still can fight like they did not lose anything? I mean that would just reduce the advantages of the attackers a bit much. What would be the fun of fighting over the crates for creds if the other team still have creds income? Why would we fight over crates to get char or veh if they can just be bought on the "Destroyed building", do you guys even know the word "DESTROYED" means?

I've seen this as the only tactic some teams have to get back into the game.

I must stress this: The balance of the fight SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON LUCK.

Crates should AUGMENT the gameplay experience, not DEFINE it. A great example of fair map control are the tech buildings, but even then you have issues with them (I think all infantry should be able to capture them, not just hotties and engies.)

Anyways, shoot this post down or whatever. It is beyond me why people think that the current building mechanics are fair and compliment skill.

[Bananas]

Bloody hell, it takes 3-4 people to completely lock down a base. That leaves 4/5-3/4 of the team or more to do other things.

Defending is actually pretty easy. It's just most people don't want to do it. Honestly it can get boring depending on what the enemy does.

Sticking one person in each building would pretty much stop all sneaky techs/hotties. You would also be able to call out ion/nuke positions instantly. If any sbh rushes tried to happen, you could just spam for help while throwing remotes and refilling.

Based on current server sizes, that's 3-4 out of 20 players on a team. That's like nothing. Mostly all the others could go on offense as long as they understood to suicide/help out if something happened.

Well, lots of things work in this game but just require people to do them and coordinate.

I agree that losing the ref early is game ending. The other buildings you can deal with somewhat, but early ref loss is just terrible. Nothing like seeing your credits stuck around 350 when the ref dies.

[yosh56]

Bloody hell, it takes 3-4 people to completely lock down a base. That leaves 4/5-3/4 of the team or more to do other things.

Defending is actually pretty easy. It's just most people don't want to do it. Honestly it can get boring depending on what the enemy does.

Sticking one person in each building would pretty much stop all sneaky techs/hotties. You would also be able to call out ion/nuke positions instantly. If any sbh rushes tried to happen, you could just spam for help while throwing remotes and refilling.

Based on current server sizes, that's 3-4 out of 20 players on a team. That's like nothing. Mostly all the others could go on offense as long as they understood to suicide/help out if something happened.

Well, lots of things work in this game but just require people to do them and coordinate.

I agree that losing the ref early is game ending. The other buildings you can deal with somewhat, but early ref loss is just terrible. Nothing like seeing your credits stuck around 350 when the ref dies.

That's what I said. It doesn't take nearly as many people to defend as people make it out to.

Dunno, Ref dying early is sort of the equivalent of having an idiot feeding right off the bat in LoL, it's going to put you behind a lot. It's unfortunate, but you can come back from it. The silo helps, but obviously it isn't on every map.

---

Honestly, I've seen too many things work to agree with some mechanics issues. Adapting to availability of resources isn't really present in any other FPSs out there.

The closest thing would be Planetside 2, but if you literally do not use vehicles you're barely affected by it, and replacing infantry points is usually fast enough that you'll barely notice them. If you do notice, you literally just wait 10 minutes and all is well. Adore the game to death, but half of the time many of its mechanics just become novelties instead of real game-changers.

Not much in Renegade really goes down as a novelty, and that's one reason you actually NOTICE when you lose things.

The way I'm seeing it, if we continue down this road we're about to end up taking the Battlefield route and splitting Renegade into Soft/Hardcore servers.

[Darkraptor]

- rework function of ref

- add Chaingun and bazooka to the weapon menu (not available for hotwire/technican/Engineers)

- and delete all crates that change the characters or kill (money and refill crates are still fine)

...and most crying will stop immediately

Edited November 20, 2014 by Guest

[RvE]

They should just add this following things to help negate the "Stalemate" thing

+Rocket launcher buy able to all classes, it is should be fast enough to get to its target but not fast enough to defeat rockets from rocket troopers, it should deal much less damage than the rocket trooper.

+Supply bacon, cost like 1000, but if it is delivered successfully it will give the entire team 500 creds each. It should tell the other team like, Supply Bacon detected and if the game is on stalemate then they can rush in attempt to stop the supply bacon. The supply can be a box that needs to be protected by the team using it cause if it is defused the entire enemy team will get 400 creds each player. (Just an idea I came up to)

+Buildings should have second life, the first will be the health of the building when "destroyed" should be told building integrity low, needs to stabilize. Then they should be a button outside the building that can be destroyed by the opposing team to really destroy the building. But the other team can attempt to repair that said button to fully heal the building itself. Thus the tanks will not be taken out but the cost of them will be 25% up and force the defending team to take risk on trying to repair the button outside the building that can be easily shot by the opposing team. (Just another idea)

+-The crate will give a different character that specialized in restoring "destroyed" buildings to a functioning building. If the said character was gained by a person, the EVA, will announced it like, player got a Restorer crate. And the repair gun he has can only repair the building integrity to 50% but still not a fully functioning building as it is still in the state of "destroyed" the repair gun the Restorer have has 200 bullets that can bring the said repaired building to 50% integrity and the only thing that can give the Restorer ammo for the said repair gun is by killing opposing teams soldiers. This will make the risk of losing the said Restorer and also give the opposing team a chance to make a move on killing the said Restorer. But if the Restorer succeed on bringing the building integrity to 100% Eva will announce like Warfactory now operational, the warfactory will only have 25% health when it come back so the team can repair it or give the enemy a chance to destroy it again.

That's all my current Idea I have many more.

[ReaperLi]

...........................

I've mentioned the insufficiency and weakness of mines, the excessive weakness of free units (useless against vehicles, easy target-practice for unstoppable snipers during rushes), the need for automated Turrets that can be deployed, auto-base repair fund for each team, and building buy-back team fund during Beta 2 (very pricey, costly tradeoff instead of investing on units/vehicles, maybe limited to 1 building) and I'm still waiting for those essential fixes.

buy back building was a very bad idea if you assume you are the losing team and you somehow sneak in a guy blow up the winning team production building.Congrad...the winning has been point whoring half a hour and just buyback that building in 10seconds and enhanced their defend/mines...gg ambush/turnaround

[sarabi]

It would be much better if 'destroyed' buildings gave softer penalties, especially the vehicle factory because right now if you lose that/airstrip, you might as well change the map there and then. The most important thing to change would be to at least let harvesters spawn from destroyed factories/airstripes, because right now the airstrip/factory effectivly destroys two buildings if it's destroyed. Pretty much not worth playing at that point.

[RoundShades]

It would be much better if 'destroyed' buildings gave softer penalties, especially the vehicle factory because right now if you lose that/airstrip, you might as well change the map there and then. The most important thing to change would be to at least let harvesters spawn from destroyed factories/airstripes, because right now the airstrip/factory effectivly destroys two buildings if it's destroyed. Pretty much not worth playing at that point.

I would be okay with every vehicle/infantry just costing 2x more from a destroyed structure. Harvester respawn would be nice too, maybe with a 2 minute penalty (should always be a 45 second delay anyway, the mutator that adds that is brilliant)

[sinkingmist]

I'd like to see the Construction Yard added.

Victory objective changes to:

1) Destroy Enemy Construction Yard

Or

2) Have most points when time ends

Destroying any other building awards a large amount of points, but the building is rebuilt after a few minutes by the Construction Yard (so you do it mostly for points, partly to lock out other team for a while).

A more extreme idea would be for all existing special infantry / vehicles to immediately die on the destruction of their related building.

Construction Yard should be particularly resistant to Timed/Remote C4 attacks, so it that it's not easy to just rush it early.

The biggest problem I have with the current system is that the loss of a building is very frustrating (limits your gameplay options, prevents you from playing the way that is most enjoyable) and yet is not punishing enough in terms of leading to a victory or defeat (as evident in games often lasting for a long time after a "critical" building is lost).

A Construction Yard would mean either instant victory/defeat at the destruction of the Yard, or a time-limited set-back for the destruction of other buildings.

[SFJake]

I like the Construction Yard idea even though it won't happen since it requires every map to be completely different.

Plus, a few minutes is way too short. I'd say it should take 15 minutes for a building to be rebuilt.

Heck, I once thought it wouldn't be so bad to have this system for Marathon where building repair themselves after 15 minutes, but whenever you lose another building the timer resets. They also only repair themselves one after the other every 15 minutes.

It would promote actually going on the offensive to finish up the enemy instead of taking it slow, but also allow the defensive team to come back if they can hold it long enough.

I'm just a fan of long-wars ideas in general instead of thinking of "small games" and 30 minutes matches, which is where the permanent building loss fits.

[Handepsilon]

I like the Construction Yard idea even though it won't happen since it requires every map to be completely different.

Duplicate existing maps and remake it as needed, then put this as a new game mode! Agree with the solution guys?

[TheOlsenTwins]

I think SfJake's idea would be good for marathon servers and much easier to implement...

[RoundShades]

I think SfJake's idea would be good for marathon servers and much easier to implement...

I actually always sort of liked an old mod I remember playing in classic renegade, where you could donate money to a node, and after an absurd donation amount you buy back stuff.

Like, the whole team can push cash into a structure to rebuild it, but it would have to be 15k or something.

It would still almost be less coding to just make structure loss effects less harsh, compared to programming into the game a "team fund" if I remember it being called that correctly.

[SFJake]

The problem with spending money to rebuild is just that the refinery goes down (especially early) and forget ever building anything again. Thats the sole reason why I prefer my idea.

Otherwise you would need players to have an alternate form of "credits" they can spend on building, one you can speed up slightly by spending normal credits but otherwise, you still get "building credits" overtime even without a refinery.

Both have pros and cons. The credits ideas are just harder to balance (especially say on maps like Islands), and a bit harder to program.

I like the Construction Yard idea even though it won't happen since it requires every map to be completely different.

Duplicate existing maps and remake it as needed, then put this as a new game mode! Agree with the solution guys?

Its doable but its just a lot of work. And its a lot of work for something not necessarily everyone agrees with. I think we need to stick to more moddable ideas instead of things that needs a full rework.

[CrazyJacan]

It's fine as it is, coming from the original Renegade, you just need to react and repair asap.

[Tarvin]

One thing that could be implemented to lesson the blow of loosing a building is to allow for destroyed buildings to be slowly 'rebuilt'. Engineers would repair the terminal which would show a small progress bar. The bar can be decreased by the enemy attacking it to prevent a rebuild and just a single person rebuilding a structure would yield very slow progress. This would incentive teams to rally around destroyed buildings and make rebuilding them a full team effort.

Here is a possible progression.

Enemy launches successful APC rush on a defense structure --> Enemies are eliminated --> Team rallies around the destroyed building and key buildings --> multiple players shift to engineer or technician to rebuild the structure --> the structure becomes active before the next attack wave hits

At most, a destroyed building would have 20-25% of its health when it it Rebuilt and would still need to be repaired fully the normal way.

[challenger]

I totaly agree specifically at war factory lost. When 2 teams both lost warfactory, those games lasts too much hours. Even 2-3 hours. We should be able to buy at least buggy humwee etc after losing war factories

[DoctorB0NG]

Games aren't meant to last that long because of the time limit. Marathon is not how the game is designed to be played. Also, airdrops aim to fix the issue of the severe penalty of losing the wep/strip.

[SFJake]

Marathon is not how the game is designed to be played.

Why even bother saying that?

Thats -exactly- why some people (including myself) are looking for ways to make marathon -better-.

Just because the original Renegade never bothered making it more fun doesn't mean we shouldn't.

[HaTe]

Always wished to see a Skill Points / Veteran System that worked effectively in a game like this.

Such that: A player earns skill points for completing challenges such as getting a kill, an assist (damaging the deceased character less than or equal to 5 seconds before his death), killing a vehicle, killing a building, earning 500 points, etc.

Obviously there would be different skill points rewarded based on the difficulty of the challenge completed.

Then the player could use those skill points to purchase vehicles (air-dropped), weapons, or increased armor at set appropriate skill point costs.

Makes skilled players get more reward for their efforts, and it makes a dead building not immediately mean gameover every time. Also can help stalemates end by giving the more skilled team the tools that they require to win. The most important thing this would do, however, is stop credits from being the only economical income granted in the game, which limits so much (and makes the points/credit calculations determine far too much). Skill should be rewarded more than it is.

[GatsuFox]

I can't believe that some of these suggestions really made it in. I think everything feels fine right now. It feels like there's a real economy game going on that isn't just pure stagnation and comebacks/counterplays are very possible right now. With some tweaking from the devs it'll be great. I can't wait to see what's next.

DISCUSS the changes!

[Darkraptor]

I was pleasantly surprised, too. This gives Ren-X a new drive. And I really can't understand why some people are still against this changes. With Patch 4.02 losing a building is still a penalty to your team. So destroying an enemy building gives your team still an big advantages.

[RoundShades]

I was pleasantly surprised, too. This gives Ren-X a new drive. And I really can't understand why some people are still against this changes. With Patch 4.02 losing a building is still a penalty to your team. So destroying an enemy building gives your team still an big advantages.

Some people still insist that teams let their base die down to the ref, then camp that where it can't die because the mct is mined and repaired, and then you can't be point-whored and the enemy can still spam vehicles.

However, that was possible even before, especially on old Mesa with the barracks, plenty of times that barracks couldn't die and all around it was a minefield and Nod couldn't pointwhore as well as GDI with 1k units and gunners.

The trick, may be to reduce income across the board, like making credit ticks twice as long and 3 instead of 2, and then making dead-ref 1 instead of 3, and silos 1...

Then, credits in general would be 25% more scarce. More things to buy like secondary weapons, would also be cool, but that is whatevs.