No direct damage taken when swimming

[HaTe]

Please tell me this was not intended. Swimming in the water on Goldrush (I'm assuming other maps as well) makes you invincible to anything but splash damage and flame damage. It also makes you receive no hitbox while underwater as well. The base defenses don't appear to notice you neither.

There were many TMX players using this and then claiming that it was a tactic, and not an exploitation of a glitch. They were using it to swim to the airstrip and hon and eventually killed both. How in the world does this make any logical or gameplay sense to be intended was my argument, but they were persistent in their "we do it, so it is considered strategy" ways.

If an argument could be presented that either provided it gameplay or realistic justification, I'd be glad to hear it. Otherwise, could a dev please confirm this as a glitch so that it can stop being considered as a "tactic" at once, please.

At the very least I can understand no hitbox, but taking no direct damage and being invisible to base defenses makes this clearly a glitch to me...

Edited April 9, 2015 by Guest

[Ryz]

Good you posted it here.

I indeed think this is a tactic, like most levels have a backdoor to the base. I even think the distance between buildings is deliberately timed to evade the oby. Remember Nod can get to BAR / PP and WF in Goldrush with minor damage...

[HaTe]

That's like justifying being able to walk through the canyon walls because both teams can do it.

I'd also like to point out that you're swimming upstream through a pretty strong flowing river current to do this as well.

inb4 tmx players attempted justification spam, as 4 are currently reading this topic.

[Ryz]

That's like justifying being able to walk through the canyon walls because both teams can do it.

I'd also like to point out that you're swimming upstream through a pretty strong flowing river current to do this as well.

A wall is a wall and going through it is considered a glitch. I wonder why you didn't bring this up the past beta4 testing sessions. We tested for like four weeks and two times a weekend, and you could also try stuff in Skirmish.

Today was the first time I ever heard someone about this since beta1. So thousands of players 'abused' this 'glitch' all the time and even the Beta4 testers and developers did, but still it was left in unattended. Where is the logic?

[HaTe]

That's like justifying being able to walk through the canyon walls because both teams can do it.

I'd also like to point out that you're swimming upstream through a pretty strong flowing river current to do this as well.

A wall is a wall and going through it is considered a glitch. I wonder why you didn't bring this up the past beta4 testing sessions. We tested for like four weeks and two times a weekend, and you could also try stuff in Skirmish.

Today was the first time I ever heard someone about this since beta1. So thousands of players 'abused' this 'glitch' all the time and even the Beta4 testers and developers did, but still it was left in unattended. Where is the logic?

So because it's a wall, it's a glitch? Yet because it's water, it's not a glitch? Please clarify.

Exaggerating about people using this is both unneeded and a poor argument. There's still plenty of glitches that were there since beta1 (reload glitch), so again, please try to use an argument with some real justification.

[Henk]

Good you posted it here.

I indeed think this is a tactic, like most levels have a backdoor to the base. I even think the distance between buildings is deliberately timed to evade the oby. Remember Nod can get to BAR / PP and WF in Goldrush with minor damage...

GDI Refinery is actually easier to reach than PP and WF (in B3 at least, don't know if it changed in B4)

I think it should stay in, you have the bridge as bottleneck, place mines there, and keep an eye on that spot, and watch mine count. Also be alert if you hear the obelisk go off. GDI doesn't have invisible characters so in my opinion Nod bases should have more cover for sneaking. It might be unrealistic, but Gameplay > Realism.

[HaTe]

Good you posted it here.

I indeed think this is a tactic, like most levels have a backdoor to the base. I even think the distance between buildings is deliberately timed to evade the oby. Remember Nod can get to BAR / PP and WF in Goldrush with minor damage...

GDI Refinery is actually easier to reach than PP and WF (in B3 at least, don't know if it changed in B4)

I think it should stay in, you have the bridge as bottleneck, place mines there, and keep an eye on that spot, and watch mine count. Also be alert if you hear the obelisk go off. GDI doesn't have invisible characters so in my opinion Nod bases should have more cover for sneaking. It might be unrealistic, but Gameplay > Realism.

Renegade X purposefully did not implement glitches from the original Renegade that were used for gameplay purposes. If you've ever played it and used a PT through a building wall, you would understand where they are coming from with that.

If you want more cover, then add rocks, not a upstream swimming invincible current. Again, it's purely illogical from that stance as well...

[Ryz]

So because it's a wall, it's a glitch? Yet because it's water, it's not a glitch? Please clarify.

In real life:

Water is liquid and you can move through it, also it slows bullets.

Wall is concrete and you can't move through it

What's there more to be said?

I would really like to have an open discussion, but I can't argue if you are only willing to see your own 'truth.' And maybe you are right and this wasn't attended, but than we all got used to it cause it's this way for over a year.

It's not WHAT you are saying, but the way you are doing it which made me react on this. I also believe the timing isn't the best now you've just started a new clan. Sometimes it's good to take the diplomatic approach. This topic is an example about it, the actions in game weren't.

Having that said: this is it for me. I am curious what others think but I don't see we will get close to eachothers opinion so I wish you the best with whatever the outcome will be.

[HaTe]

So because it's a wall, it's a glitch? Yet because it's water, it's not a glitch? Please clarify.

In real life:

Water is liquid and you can move through it, also it slows bullets.

Wall is concrete and you can't move through it

What's there more to be said?

Except:

A. Bullets get slower acceleration through water, not act as if it was a concrete wall (watch the mythbusters episode if you need further clarification).

B. you can't swim against a strong current without any resistance.

C. The wall in canyon isn't concrete. This is just me making arguments as silly as yours though.

I would really like to have an open discussion, but I can't argue if you are only willing to see your own 'truth.' And maybe you are right and this wasn't attended, but than we all got used to it cause it's this way for over a year.

I'm speaking from a factual standpoint. Sure it's an opinion, but my facts supporting my argument outweigh yours big time. If you can't see that, then I can't say that you have the game's best integrity in mind.

It's not WHAT you are saying, but the way you are doing it which made me react on this.

Meaning that I mentioned TMX players in specific? Would you rather have me had left that part out? I didn't realize that was a sensitive topic.

I also believe the timing isn't the best now you've just started a new clan.

Yes, because I just (re)-started a clan, I shouldn't be reporting and asking about glitches that are apparently being exploited in my view. Again, excellent logic.

This topic is an example about it, the actions in game weren't.

Asking for an explanation and getting shunned when no explanation can be given is not diplomatic from TMX. I agree.

[Glacious]

My view is that if a base defence structure is there and it can see you and your in its line of sight then it should kill you simple as or at least hit you, hiding behind or between objects iis fine but if your in the view of the OB in the water then it should hit you, pretty sure a giant laser that can one hit vehicles would be able to penetrate abit of water

To be honest becoming unkillable due to using certain paths/glitches shouldn't be used, pretty sure the water/river was put there for an aesthetic/looks reason, not to be a path of invincibility.

[RoundShades]

Balance not kept in mind, this sounds pretty gdi-commando like, going submersed in the river to infiltrate the HoN. Sounds like it should have been mission 2 in the Black Dawn campaign...

[yosh56]

A) It's WELL known

B) It's easily countered along with countering infiltration to the HON over the bridge. On top of this, the Obelisk still charges, giving away that something is amiss.

C) If you want a river you shouldn't be able to move up through, yell about Lakeside, otherwise your logic is completely pointless in that aspect. Seriously, you can just run up freaking rapids.

D) Just because we removed the glitches/bugs from Ren, doesn't mean RenX can't have its own that adds to higher level game-play once you know them. Going through the river is countered with mines, and anyone spotting you can just jump in and shoot you in the face.

Back when GDI could just walk out of the map and come up behind the Power plant, NOW THAT WAS A GAME BREAKING FLAW. Nod could not counter that with mines, unless they used their entire mine-limit on the Power plant itself, and even then GDI could just plant ions since they were well out of sight of the Obelisk.

E) Hate, I see what Ryz is getting at, and I'll translate for him: you seriously have no clue how to respond to anything without attacking the person you're responding to. You and Gatsu should probably start a club.

F) This isn't probably ever going to get removed, no matter how much you complain about it.

[Nielsen]

Since this is by my design let me explain where I'm coming from on this. The river is intended as a possible sneak route for GDI. There are a few containers placed around it to shield the swimmers from obelisk fire -for a time- however if Nod spots any swimmers they're usually easily dealt with since they can simply wait until they emerge and be killed.

That said,

Being completely invincible in the water is a bit of an annoyance, even in instances where the player should take damage (head above water etc.) they sometimes don't. I wish we had some sort of fix for this where the water would do a set % of damage reduction based on distance etc. but we don't. Currently I don't know if it's fixable at all short from removing the water.

I'd like to keep it since I think it's a lot of fun and (imo) easily countered provided people are there to spot you. Same with the GDI bridge. (which can be well OP for GDI when properly defended)

Goldrush is purposefully built to be the odd one out vs the Ren maps as a way of experimenting with design.

And since not everything works please continue debating this issue if you have anything left to say, if the majority wants it changed I can look into that provided I have time.

[Handepsilon]

F) This isn't probably ever going to get removed, no matter how much you complain about it.

I... fail to see the logic here. How is a bug as severe as giving invincibility no removed? I haven't confirmed it yet, but can you explain why it should not be removed?

[RoundShades]

Since this is by my design let me explain where I'm coming from on this.

I see your points, and agree on the design, but the invincibility altogether from all fire can be an issue.

I agree on it being covert, it not triggering oblesk, and such. I don't mind it staying in.

If everyone else DID want it removed, trade it for knee deep water and a rocky border covering the oblesk?

[HaTe]

A) It's WELL known

B) It's easily countered along with countering infiltration to the HON over the bridge. On top of this, the Obelisk still charges, giving away that something is amiss.

C) If you want a river you shouldn't be able to move up through, yell about Lakeside, otherwise your logic is completely pointless in that aspect. Seriously, you can just run up freaking rapids.

D) Just because we removed the glitches/bugs from Ren, doesn't mean RenX can't have its own that adds to higher level game-play once you know them. Going through the river is countered with mines, and anyone spotting you can just jump in and shoot you in the face.

Back when GDI could just walk out of the map and come up behind the Power plant, NOW THAT WAS A GAME BREAKING FLAW. Nod could not counter that with mines, unless they used their entire mine-limit on the Power plant itself, and even then GDI could just plant ions since they were well out of sight of the Obelisk.

E) Hate, I see what Ryz is getting at, and I'll translate for him: you seriously have no clue how to respond to anything without attacking the person you're responding to. You and Gatsu should probably start a club.

F) This isn't probably ever going to get removed, no matter how much you complain about it.

A. So is the canyon bug. I'm not claiming it isn't well known. I thought that it was well known to be a bug, and therefore exploitation of a bug when people use it. When mods started using it, I began to see otherwise.

B. The canyon bug is easily countered by having someone camp the back of the ref all game. Does that justify it in any way? Nope.

C. Read the topic. I'm against the idea all together on any map. It's just the fact that it's the most exploitable on goldrush.

D. You clearly weren't a part of the conversation/argument about this back in the day. RenX developers did not and do not want to include glitches/bugs just because they add to the gameplay experience. You also sometimes can't afford to have mines there, and they are easily disarmable/avoidable in that spot regardless. Cheats are easily counterable with a mod in spectate mode all game. Does that justify using cheats? Again, the answer would be no.

E. Feel free to link me to any example at all of this claim. I'm a competitive player who doesn't like it when glitches/exploits ruin a map, and when silly unrealistic and game-breaking physics are included into a game that I truly do care about.

F. Confirmed wrong by Nielsen, as it has potential of being removed with the voiced concerns here. Look at this from a new player's perspective. They see this and think "really, are you kidding me? Not only can I not damage them while they are doing this, but it also looks completely ridiculous and out of place." C&C and Renegade/X in general provide a balance between realism and gameplay mechanics. This silliness breaks realism and gameplay mechanics justification in just about every way.

Being completely invincible in the water is a bit of an annoyance, even in instances where the player should take damage (head above water etc.) they sometimes don't. I wish we had some sort of fix for this where the water would do a set % of damage reduction based on distance etc. but we don't. Currently I don't know if it's fixable at all short from removing the water.

This would be ideal. As that seems highly improbable though, I'd say that just making the water current force the player backwards onto a land exit would be the best solution. You can always add blockade forms for increased sneaking that is both realistic and gameplay relevant, too. I feel like I'm sort of bashing the devs with this, but just know that I'm merely asking for clarification and that I love most of the map in general. That's why I hate when it is ruined by something as silly as a upstream swimming invincible current. Thanks for the clarification though; and I truly hope this gets removed.

[yosh56]

I... fail to see the logic here. How is a bug as severe as giving invincibility no removed? I haven't confirmed it yet, but can you explain why it should not be removed?

I wasn't referring to the invincibility, and that right there is one issue with this topic. The invincibility given from surface to firing underwater is a totally separate issue to that of the Obelisk not being able to see you under water. As to why I would say that, it's because it IS something that's been in since beta 1, was found during beta 1, was noted by all in beta 1, and honestly nobody could really find a reason to change it, especially considering it haphazardly balanced the map from the infantry side of things. It'd be like removing the tunnel beacon under the Airstrip.

D. You clearly weren't a part of the conversation/argument about this back in the day. RenX developers did not and do not want to include glitches/bugs just because they add to the gameplay experience. You also sometimes can't afford to have mines there, and they are easily disarmable/avoidable in that spot regardless. Cheats are easily counterable with a mod in spectate mode all game. Does that justify using cheats? Again, the answer would be no.

Well obviously it was confirmed as an intended addition for the Obelisk not to be able to see you, so some of this argument is rendered a bit unnecessary.

At what point would you not be able to afford to have mines at the bridge? Even on TMX we generally mine the bridge, and so long as there is any traffic going in and out of the Hand of Nod it is unlikely somebody is just going to be able to casually disarm those mines. Again, it is literally a branch of the regular path where you are clearly visible, counter-able, and as we know now, using something that was completely intended.

I'm not even going to ask how this is comparable to that glitch on Canyon...it's not, in any way shape or form. You're literally going through the map to use that, it's a terrible comparison. It could only be compared to the old bug on GoldRush where, as mentioned before, GDI could walk out of the map and walk in behind Nod's Power plant.

D. You clearly weren't a part of the conversation/argument about this back in the day.

That's one instance where you sorta' do your 'lording over' thing that you have a tendency to do vs. most everyone who ever contradicts you. Don't really need to find examples, as it's definitely part of your personality and you'll provide fresh instances on a regular basis.

F. Confirmed wrong by Nielsen, as it has potential of being removed with the voiced concerns here. Look at this from a new player's perspective. They see this and think "really, are you kidding me? Not only can I not damage them while they are doing this, but it also looks completely ridiculous and out of place." C&C and Renegade/X in general provide a balance between realism and gameplay mechanics. This silliness breaks realism and gameplay mechanics justification in just about every way.

Swimming in general looks out of place in this game. I think the last thing they'll care about is the fact that that minimal current (I didn't even ever notice the water moved till this topic) should be holding that person back. They'll probably care about the weird invincibility (which again you can negate by just submerging yourself) but that's about it.

B. The canyon bug is easily countered by having someone camp the back of the ref all game. Does that justify it in any way? Nope.

...I want you to read that to yourself out loud and REALLY REALLY, think about the Canyon bug.

A. So is the canyon bug. I'm not claiming it isn't well known. I thought that it was well known to be a bug, and therefore exploitation of a bug when people use it. When mods started using it, I began to see otherwise.

It was around in Beta 1. It was discussed, but it was also dubbed completely legit since it made some sense, and it was, again, easily counter-able in a manner that didn't make the Nod team have to really do anything out of the ordinary. They usually mined there anyway, and if the mines went off, they just checked the HON and the river. The Canyon wall bug is a complete and utter monstrosity of map-breaking proportions.

tl;dr Canyon bug is a totally different monster; Goldrush river is now something confirmed as made on purpose; water invincibility is a totally separate issue.

[HaTe]

I wasn't referring to the invincibility, and that right there is one issue with this topic. The invincibility given from surface to firing underwater is a totally separate issue to that of the Obelisk not being able to see you under water. As to why I would say that, it's because it IS something that's been in since beta 1, was found during beta 1, was noted by all in beta 1, and honestly nobody could really find a reason to change it, especially considering it haphazardly balanced the map from the infantry side of things. It'd be like removing the tunnel beacon under the Airstrip.

Beta 1 (and the following betas up to 4) had MANY more severe issues that needed to be resolved. So this just kind of fell under the radar. Now that the majority of those bugs are fixed and beta 4 is by far the most stable and balanced beta, it's about time we re-visit the logic behind this glitch, and fix it.

At what point would you not be able to afford to have mines at the bridge?

Even if you can afford them, they are easily disarmable there and you'd have to spread them out significantly. That's assuming that your team does mine there and does not use the mines in the buildings, and therefore using up the limit.

I'm not even going to ask how this is comparable to that glitch on Canyon...it's not, in any way shape or form. You're literally going through the map to use that, it's a terrible comparison. It could only be compared to the old bug on GoldRush where, as mentioned before, GDI could walk out of the map and walk in behind Nod's Power plant.

Even though you won't ask, I'll still provide the answer for you. They were being compared for sake of glitches on maps that still exist, yet could have the argument made that they were intended. How ridiculous that argument is for something like this and for something like that was the comparing point.

Swimming in general looks out of place in this game.

Aesthetically, yes. As a form of gameplay, I wouldn't say so.

I think the last thing they'll care about is the fact that that minimal current (I didn't even ever notice the water moved till this topic) should be holding that person back.

The current is pretty strong there, actually. Not sure how you haven't seen that, as it's especially strong right next to the bridge. Swimming upstream in a river with that current is not possible in real life, and the gameplay factor looks silly as well.

...I want you to read that to yourself out loud and REALLY REALLY, think about the Canyon bug.

This whole analogy comparison went right over your head. I'm making that argument in hopes that you'll realize just how ridiculous you sound defending this glitch, and that it would be the equivalent of defending that glitch in many ways.

It was around in Beta 1. It was discussed, but it was also dubbed completely legit since it made some sense

What sense? Why are you even defending this? If it was removed, rocks or some sort of cover would take its place and provide cover anyway. On what merit are you defending this? Gameplay? It makes you almost entirely invincible, and still be able to travel. That's not good for the gameplay. Realism? It's not realistic at all. Honestly, what is your logic behind defending this other than "it's been here for a long time and we've used it for a while." ?

[DoctorB0NG]

I wasn't referring to the invincibility, and that right there is one issue with this topic. The invincibility given from surface to firing underwater is a totally separate issue to that of the Obelisk not being able to see you under water. As to why I would say that, it's because it IS something that's been in since beta 1, was found during beta 1, was noted by all in beta 1, and honestly nobody could really find a reason to change it, especially considering it haphazardly balanced the map from the infantry side of things. It'd be like removing the tunnel beacon under the Airstrip.

Beta 1 (and the following betas up to 4) had MANY more severe issues that needed to be resolved. So this just kind of fell under the radar. Now that the majority of those bugs are fixed and beta 4 is by far the most stable and balanced beta, it's about time we re-visit the logic behind this glitch, and fix it.

At what point would you not be able to afford to have mines at the bridge?

Even if you can afford them, they are easily disarmable there and you'd have to spread them out significantly. That's assuming that your team does mine there and does not use the mines in the buildings, and therefore using up the limit.

I'm not even going to ask how this is comparable to that glitch on Canyon...it's not, in any way shape or form. You're literally going through the map to use that, it's a terrible comparison. It could only be compared to the old bug on GoldRush where, as mentioned before, GDI could walk out of the map and walk in behind Nod's Power plant.

Even though you won't ask, I'll still provide the answer for you. They were being compared for sake of glitches on maps that still exist, yet could have the argument made that they were intended. How ridiculous that argument is for something like this and for something like that was the comparing point.

Swimming in general looks out of place in this game.

Aesthetically, yes. As a form of gameplay, I wouldn't say so.

I think the last thing they'll care about is the fact that that minimal current (I didn't even ever notice the water moved till this topic) should be holding that person back.

The current is pretty strong there, actually. Not sure how you haven't seen that, as it's especially strong right next to the bridge. Swimming upstream in a river with that current is not possible in real life, and the gameplay factor looks silly as well.

...I want you to read that to yourself out loud and REALLY REALLY, think about the Canyon bug.

This whole analogy comparison went right over your head. I'm making that argument in hopes that you'll realize just how ridiculous you sound defending this glitch, and that it would be the equivalent of defending that glitch in many ways.

It was around in Beta 1. It was discussed, but it was also dubbed completely legit since it made some sense

What sense? Why are you even defending this? If it was removed, rocks or some sort of cover would take its place and provide cover anyway. On what merit are you defending this? Gameplay? It makes you almost entirely invincible, and still be able to travel. That's not good for the gameplay. Realism? It's not realistic at all. Honestly, what is your logic behind defending this other than "it's been here for a long time and we've used it for a while." ?

Man, you're grasping at straws at this point. Just admit that you're upset that the guy who made the map agrees with us and move on please.

[HaTe]

I wasn't referring to the invincibility, and that right there is one issue with this topic. The invincibility given from surface to firing underwater is a totally separate issue to that of the Obelisk not being able to see you under water. As to why I would say that, it's because it IS something that's been in since beta 1, was found during beta 1, was noted by all in beta 1, and honestly nobody could really find a reason to change it, especially considering it haphazardly balanced the map from the infantry side of things. It'd be like removing the tunnel beacon under the Airstrip.

Beta 1 (and the following betas up to 4) had MANY more severe issues that needed to be resolved. So this just kind of fell under the radar. Now that the majority of those bugs are fixed and beta 4 is by far the most stable and balanced beta, it's about time we re-visit the logic behind this glitch, and fix it.

At what point would you not be able to afford to have mines at the bridge?

Even if you can afford them, they are easily disarmable there and you'd have to spread them out significantly. That's assuming that your team does mine there and does not use the mines in the buildings, and therefore using up the limit.

I'm not even going to ask how this is comparable to that glitch on Canyon...it's not, in any way shape or form. You're literally going through the map to use that, it's a terrible comparison. It could only be compared to the old bug on GoldRush where, as mentioned before, GDI could walk out of the map and walk in behind Nod's Power plant.

Even though you won't ask, I'll still provide the answer for you. They were being compared for sake of glitches on maps that still exist, yet could have the argument made that they were intended. How ridiculous that argument is for something like this and for something like that was the comparing point.

Swimming in general looks out of place in this game.

Aesthetically, yes. As a form of gameplay, I wouldn't say so.

I think the last thing they'll care about is the fact that that minimal current (I didn't even ever notice the water moved till this topic) should be holding that person back.

The current is pretty strong there, actually. Not sure how you haven't seen that, as it's especially strong right next to the bridge. Swimming upstream in a river with that current is not possible in real life, and the gameplay factor looks silly as well.

...I want you to read that to yourself out loud and REALLY REALLY, think about the Canyon bug.

This whole analogy comparison went right over your head. I'm making that argument in hopes that you'll realize just how ridiculous you sound defending this glitch, and that it would be the equivalent of defending that glitch in many ways.

It was around in Beta 1. It was discussed, but it was also dubbed completely legit since it made some sense

What sense? Why are you even defending this? If it was removed, rocks or some sort of cover would take its place and provide cover anyway. On what merit are you defending this? Gameplay? It makes you almost entirely invincible, and still be able to travel. That's not good for the gameplay. Realism? It's not realistic at all. Honestly, what is your logic behind defending this other than "it's been here for a long time and we've used it for a while." ?

Man, you're grasping at straws at this point. Just admit that you're upset that the guy who made the map agrees with us and move on please.

I do not believe that you read his response. He clearly states that he wants the conversation to continue in order to see peoples' responses, and may edit it from there. Please attempt to read before trying to fallacize an argument. Thank you. There's also just as many (if not more) people against it just in this topic alone. The players that are new don't typically view the forums, but I assure you that the vast majority of them realize how silly it is too. I do respect your attempt to stick up for your clan, though. It is noted.

What is your argument FOR this glitch to remain, bong? Besides that it was the tmx clan using it to their advantage, of course. Do you have any other justification for it other than "it's been here for a while, and we use it." ?

[RoundShades]

What is your argument FOR this glitch to remain, bong? Besides that it was the tmx clan using it to their advantage, of course. Do you have any other justification for it other than "it's been here for a while, and we use it." ?

If the dev says it's intentional, it no longer becomes a glitch by definition. He says it is shaky, which makes it a mild exploit. Sort of like some of the stupid ass climbing in most maps and in all of Call of Duty 4.

So, yeah, there is that. We aren't calling it a glitch anymore, nor are we just insulting people who use it since it is intentionally developed. That would be like me insulting everyone that uses Officer, everyone insulting everyone that uses snipers, everyone insulting everyone that uses chem troopers in Volcano... "Hey dude, I'm reporting you to server admin for using Chem Trooper to cross the cave in Volcano!"... That sort of thing... yeah...

Besides that, you are right, he is looking for feedback on the feature. You apparently hate it, thus your name I suppose. He apparently likes it. I never seen any casual mention it ingame ever. I can see it being "ambiuous and obscure" to casuals though. Which is bad, whether they realize it or not. Sort of like putting a one hit kill secondary fire on the light tank, and never documenting it or telling anyone, nobody may realize it, but it is quite obscurely borked.

As is, that is why I think making it a more obvious path, like a rocky crop leading around to inside the base protected from the oblesk. Knee deep water could still keep the astetic feel. Wouldn't be as commando op style cool, but would be less obscure.

[HaTe]

The river being used as a means of transportation by sneaking is what was intended. The actual way it does that is even admitted to be shaky and an annoyance by the maker. So it's not the river itself that is the bug, it's the way that it works (which I'm not sure if Nielsen created or not?). Which was what this topic is about. Nielsen even admits he'd prefer it done differently, just in a way that really can't be done.

I'm not against the river being used as transportation. I am, however, against using the glitchy upstream river that makes you almost invincible being used (so going underwater, essentially). So yeah, the knee deep solution would be fine by me as it is getting rid of the silly glitchy underwater. There's honestly many different ways that it could be done differently to look and play better than it does now.

[RoundShades]

The river being used as a means of transportation by sneaking is what was intended. The actual way it does that is even admitted to be shaky and an annoyance by the maker. So it's not the river itself that is the bug, it's the way that it works (which I'm not sure if Nielsen created or not?). Which was what this topic is about. Nielsen even admits he'd prefer it done differently, just in a way that really can't be done.

I'm not against the river being used as transportation. I am, however, against using the glitchy upstream river that makes you almost invincible being used (so going underwater, essentially). So yeah, the knee deep solution would be fine by me as it is getting rid of the silly glitchy underwater. There's honestly many different ways that it could be done differently to look and play better than it does now.

I guess this is why, few multiplayer military shooters (none?) present swimming as a mechanic. Because it is either UP, OP, or in the instance of UDK, glitchy.

I don't get the hate though. Specifically, you can't plant c4 and defend it from inside the river, so why the fuck even care? Just mine the way from the river to the structure doors. Beacons won't just about ever succeed from that direction. They have to get out of the river to accomplish anything, they cannot kill or attack from there.

[HaTe]

I guess this is why, few multiplayer military shooters (none?) present swimming as a mechanic. Because it is either UP, OP, or in the instance of UDK, glitchy.

I don't get the hate though. Specifically, you can't plant c4 and defend it from inside the river, so why the fuck even care? Just mine the way from the river to the structure doors. Beacons won't just about ever succeed from that direction. They have to get out of the river to accomplish anything, they cannot kill or attack from there.

It kills the flow of the game when someone just sits under the water, knowing that they can't be hurt by most things. It looks aesthetically ridiculous, which is a smack in the face to an otherwise beautiful game. And it just doesn't make sense when the same effect (sneaking) can be achieved in many different ways. It's also not that easy to defend...for one you literally have to search for them in the water if they're there, which means you have to get right on the ledge of the water basically. The mines are easily disarmable there (especially with EMP grenades in the game now) because anyone can disarm with cover. It is just completely out of place in the game, especially considering that the devs specifically did not carry over any Renegade "glitch tactics" to this game, such as using a PT through a building's wall.

[yosh56]

I guess this is why, few multiplayer military shooters (none?) present swimming as a mechanic. Because it is either UP, OP, or in the instance of UDK, glitchy.

I don't get the hate though. Specifically, you can't plant c4 and defend it from inside the river, so why the fuck even care? Just mine the way from the river to the structure doors. Beacons won't just about ever succeed from that direction. They have to get out of the river to accomplish anything, they cannot kill or attack from there.

It kills the flow of the game when someone just sits under the water, knowing that they can't be hurt by most things. It looks aesthetically ridiculous, which is a smack in the face to an otherwise beautiful game. And it just doesn't make sense when the same effect (sneaking) can be achieved in many different ways. It's also not that easy to defend...for one you literally have to search for them in the water if they're there, which means you have to get right on the ledge of the water basically. The mines are easily disarmable there (especially with EMP grenades in the game now) because anyone can disarm with cover. It is just completely out of place in the game, especially considering that the devs specifically did not carry over any Renegade "glitch tactics" to this game, such as using a PT through a building's wall.

For the love of got, Hate, it was intentional, so we can't even call this path a glitch now. Invincibility in water exists on Islands too, but considering you're only invincible from the surface, you can definitely just be killed by anyone who takes the time to figure out they can jump in with you and have a crazy dolphin fight. The mines being easy disarm-able means absolutely nothing, as if the team just fires-and-forgets the mines, they're as liable to die to an infantry rush on HON as they are to die to a single infiltrator.

[HaTe]

I guess this is why, few multiplayer military shooters (none?) present swimming as a mechanic. Because it is either UP, OP, or in the instance of UDK, glitchy.

I don't get the hate though. Specifically, you can't plant c4 and defend it from inside the river, so why the fuck even care? Just mine the way from the river to the structure doors. Beacons won't just about ever succeed from that direction. They have to get out of the river to accomplish anything, they cannot kill or attack from there.

It kills the flow of the game when someone just sits under the water, knowing that they can't be hurt by most things. It looks aesthetically ridiculous, which is a smack in the face to an otherwise beautiful game. And it just doesn't make sense when the same effect (sneaking) can be achieved in many different ways. It's also not that easy to defend...for one you literally have to search for them in the water if they're there, which means you have to get right on the ledge of the water basically. The mines are easily disarmable there (especially with EMP grenades in the game now) because anyone can disarm with cover. It is just completely out of place in the game, especially considering that the devs specifically did not carry over any Renegade "glitch tactics" to this game, such as using a PT through a building's wall.

For the love of got, Hate, it was intentional, so we can't even call this path a glitch now. Invincibility in water exists on Islands too, but considering you're only invincible from the surface, you can definitely just be killed by anyone who takes the time to figure out they can jump in with you and have a crazy dolphin fight. The mines being easy disarm-able means absolutely nothing, as if the team just fires-and-forgets the mines, they're as liable to die to an infantry rush on HON as they are to die to a single infiltrator.

It's as if you're either not reading the posts or completely neglecting the facts all together.The path was intentional. The way it works is what the issue is. If you're in an APC you're supposed to leave that vehicle unattended to jump in after the unit in the water because he cannot be killed otherwise? You're telling me that makes logical sense in your head?

Please provide just one argument FOR keeping this besides "it's been like this for a while and we use it to kill buildings against players that don't defend it all game or don't know about it."

If being almost invincible in water was intentional (which does not work ideally, confirmed by a Nielsen), then it'd be the game itself going in the wrong direction. It's unlogical for gameplay and realism. The vast majority of people that play this game are newcomers, and seeing someone underwater not take direct damage at all immediately screams "yeah, that's a glitch." Glitches drive people away. It's really not that hard to understand.

I'd like to ask the devs one more question as well:

Is splash damage still calculated server-side? This would be an underlining concept confirming that the water is not intended to work this way. Having server-side damage register, but not client-side damage register is obviously a glitch. Being ignored by base defenses is because the client-side aspect of the base defense does not recognize you as in range. That's clearly just an oversight and therefore a blatant glitch, if this is the case, and would need a fix either way.

If the water was intentionally designed this way (which has neither been confirmed nor denied, for you nay-sayers), then the only other question I would have is....why? Before anyone mis-quotes this again, I'm talking about the way the underwater works, not the function of the path on goldrush specifically.

[salarite]

DON'T remove the water paths from Goldrush. It is a base defense map, with 2 possible inf routes (one of them the water), each of them takes skill/coordination/good timing to use. If you take away one of the inf sneak routes, it will become a stalemate.

As to the water invincibility from outside, that's another question. But don't remove a long existing integral part/strategy of this map.

[Handepsilon]

I also don't mind the water. It's the invincibility that concerns me.

I mean I just know aboit this thing. If I was a Ramjet trying to snipe a swimming free soldier, I would be raging when I realizes all my direct hits can't damage the guy and ended up dying instead

[Nielsen]

Everybody calm down please. Let me be as clear as I can about this issue:

Yes the path is intentional, the water is intentional (swimming slows you down, makes you vulnerable), the invincibility that comes with the water however is not.

So essentially it's functioning only partially as intended because the damage dealing is all screwed up. If I had my way you could kill someone in the water easily depending on the angle you shot them. Were the bullet passing through more water then it'd do less to damage.

This may be too much to ask however so yeah this is how it is currently.

Willing to compromise / change the map depending on what the best solution is. I don't know if we can do something about the water volume because that's a coding issue which is outside my abilities unfortunately.

Alternatively I can always lower the water or get rid of it and think of some other barrier.

[HaTe]

DON'T remove the water paths from Goldrush. It is a base defense map, with 2 possible inf routes (one of them the water), each of them takes skill/coordination/good timing to use. If you take away one of the inf sneak routes, it will become a stalemate.

As to the water invincibility from outside, that's another question. But don't remove a long existing integral part/strategy of this map.

I again appreciate a tmx moderator's opinion on the matter, and I'd like to point out that the invincibility and the fact that the base defense doesn't see you is what I am against. The actual water path itself I am completely fine with. So we are in agreement there. If an enemy can be shot and killed while underwater, and the base defense can also see them in there, then I am all for the river to remain. Some rocks or barriers to block the base defense from seeing you in specific spots would be good too, as I understand that this is a sneaking path.

Willing to compromise / change the map depending on what the best solution is. I don't know if we can do something about the water volume because that's a coding issue which is outside my abilities unfortunately.

Alternatively I can always lower the water or get rid of it and think of some other barrier.

I personally would like to see the water level lowered there and then barriers added (that require sprinting from one to the next, not just a big barrier blocking the whole path). I also agree with you that the ideal solution would be for the water to be able to slow the acceleration and therefore damage at certain angles, but that seems highly unrealistic for a game in UE.

[Handepsilon]

Nielsen, since I haven't got the SDK yet... can you or another dev show me where the swimming script was left off?

[Gaysha]

I personally think the invincibility is a fun mechanic however un-intentional and wouldnt really want to change it. But i play games and like most people who do; I hate changing things i know and master and will always find arguments to prevent it.

The centers divable water on islands f.ex. I think is a great addition to the map. its like another tunnel where infantry can take cover when the heat is on.

What makes the river on goldrush so great is exactly the fact that people dont expect it as much. Its definetly got a different feel to it and its one of the things that makes GDI's infiltration on that map viable even when someone is camping: Throw a smoke at that camping APC and slip into the river, tons of fun. This route simply wont be the same if its a more standard or obvious path, if you get in the water un-seen then you have sorta made it to a "checkpoint".. Almost guaranteed that nobody will come and spot you. If the path was altered in such a way that it still wasnt obvious and very covert, then i could support changing it. But if it turns into a more typical path, id vote against if i could.

Yeah it seems very ridiculos the first time you see it and its totally understandable that alot of people will have grievances when it works against them.. I for one did exactly go "what the f..?" the first time someone hid underwater from my shots, i quickly embraced this weird little quirk and learned to love it though.

The thing is.. it just works so nice for goldrush and if i were to weigh up that brilliant piece of map design against 2-3 possible scenarios where people new to the game may get slightly annoyed for a few seconds then i think the tradeoff is totally worth it.

Then on the flipside: I totally feel like a scumbag when someone is emptying an entire clip trying to kill me from above and i just quickly peak my head out of the water to deliver a swift one-shot-kill.. That must be quite frustrating for a new player but he will most likely instantly understand how it works and throw a mote or deal with it easily the next time. You dont stand a chance in that river if 1 person who understands the water-mechanics spot you.

My argument is basically this: I think the water is a fun, unique and charming mechanic that provides some more diversity and forces you to adapt in interesting ways. And the path on goldrush is so great because of its "covertness", which can easily be ruined if the map fix wasnt done equally creatively. Yup.. Thats it really.

-----------------------------------------

Heres a suggestion for a fix: The river comes to a low-flow and 2 ponds are connected by a sewer pipeline you can crouch through, which the water itself may flow through at a low-level aswell. This wouldnt ruin the consistency of the river design and it would also stay true to the commando-feel of sneaking below the main traffic above in an obscure location. Or simply make a lowered path with excessive crevices etc..

Basically something that is so muddled and out of the way that checking it will be a real inconvenience and force you to jump down; Only to be forced to run all the way around to get back up. Making sure that you lose a solid 10 seconds or so clearing the whole thing. The exit from the pipe should also be somewhat concealed so that mining it is not more attractive than the bridge, considering how narrow it is.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Guest

[Handepsilon]

Then on the flipside: I totally feel like a scumbag when someone is emptying an entire clip trying to kill me from above and i just quickly peak my head out of the water to deliver a swift one-shot-kill.. That must be quite frustrating for a new player but he will most likely instantly understand how it works and throw a mote or deal with it easily the next time. You dont stand a chance in that river if 1 person who understands the water-mechanics spot you.

I don't think I would understand how it works if that happens to me. I would basically feel that I didn't give you enough shot and try it again, or that I miss the hitbox (since the hitbox would most likely be still cylinder even when the person is lying down)

I understand that it should be unique and all. How about making the water material a bit more opaque? After all, some waters are just that way and Gold Rush's water aren't exactly filtered from all the moss and other things

That, or give the attacker some warning that submerged people can't be shot from the surface

[Gaysha]

I don't think I would understand how it works if that happens to me. I would basically feel that I didn't give you enough shot and try it again, or that I miss the hitbox (since the hitbox would most likely be still cylinder even when the person is lying down)

Fair enough..

-1 to the water mechanics again

[Handepsilon]

I don't think I would understand how it works if that happens to me. I would basically feel that I didn't give you enough shot and try it again, or that I miss the hitbox (since the hitbox would most likely be still cylinder even when the person is lying down)

Fair enough..

-1 to the water mechanics again

Yeah, sorry. That's just an opinion of mine. Frankly I have never noticed this in all my time in watery maps... I'll just try to find the middle ground in my suggestions. You do have a point when saying that it makes a unique path. We just need to make it a bit more friendlier and clearer, especially to newbs, as long as it's possible

[RoundShades]

If the path was altered in such a way that it still wasnt obvious and very covert, then i could support changing it. But if it turns into a more typical path, id vote against if i could.

If you made it waist deep water, you could make modifications to make it infantry only, out of line of sight from the edges (rocky outcrops) and obelisk, and still have a wider path and multiple outlets where you can climb out and walk out into nod base without a chokepoint to lay mines although that would be less a problem really...

[Gaysha]

and multiple outlets where you can climb out and walk out into nod base

As the river works today: If you are on the Nod side there is literally no single scenario where you save time by jumping in there and clearing it, nobody is ever tempted to go into or even bordering the river because it will delay whatever you are doing so much. This is why it is such an awesome part of the map, its seemingly pointless and somewhat inaccessible. Because its slow and you can only go up again on one side.

If it is a lowered path with multiple outlets, then the placement of said outlets could easily mess it up. Almost regardless though: people going from HON/PP/Infpath towards the front/strip will lose almost nothing by checking. It also needs to be an actual drop from the bridge, if you could go from ref to bridge through this path then its lost everything.

This is why i suggested the pipe, a one-way drop by the bridge forcing you to make a lengthy crouch through the pipe in order to get back up. Nobody on Nod will ever want to make the drop and will rather stick to the rocks up top, possibly missing some sneaky GDI players. This could keep the current function of the river quite well. Pipes/vents etc are also commando as fuk..

[RoundShades]

and multiple outlets where you can climb out and walk out into nod base

As the river works today: If you are on the Nod side there is literally no single scenario where you save time by jumping in there and clearing it, nobody is ever tempted to go into or even bordering the river because it will delay whatever you are doing so much. This is why it is such an awesome part of the map, its seemingly pointless and somewhat inaccessible. Because its slow and you can only go up again on one side.

If it is a lowered path with multiple outlets, then the placement of said outlets could easily mess it up. Almost regardless though: people going from HON/PP towards the front will lose almost nothing by dropping down or checking. It also needs to be an actual drop from the bridge, if you could go from ref to bridge through this path then its lost everything.

This is why i suggested the pipe, a one-way drop by the bridge forcing you to make a lengthy crouch through the pipe in order to get back up. Nobody on Nod will ever want to make the drop and will rather stick to the rocks up top, possibly missing some sneaky GDI players. This could keep the current function of the river quite well.

That doesn't even need to be the case. It can be just like it is now, with a recessed wall meaning the wall caves inward to each side so if someone is above you then you can hug the wall to avoid them seeing you (on one side at least, if you have 1 nod enemy on each side they can cover the blindspot but that is fair enough), and I agree on making it a dropoff of the bridge and it easily can be where you can't get onto the bridge but can jump off the side, and it can be made to only have outlets near the end where it opens up to Nod structures. At best, it can get you from HoN to Ref. Mainly, it can get GDI from bridge to Ref and possibly other structures while covering from the Oblesk.

[Gaysha]

It can be just like it is now, with a recessed wall meaning the wall caves inward to each side

Thats definetly a cool-looking idea as i visualize it and the more suggestions the better (its not up to either of us anyway). Im still under the impression though that the whole reason the river works so well is because its such a drain of time. You really dont want to jump in the river as Nod at all and this design alone wouldnt really fulfill that as much as alternatives that directly slow the player down.

[HaTe]

A pipeline that needs to be crawled through wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. It would mean that you have to crouch and go in before the obelisk fires, making it a bit more difficult that the current way too.

[RoundShades]

A pipeline that needs to be crawled through wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. It would mean that you have to crouch and go in before the obelisk fires, making it a bit more difficult that the current way too.

Honestly, this "general idea" sounds like it needs in more maps. Maps like field and under benefit from added sprint and some cover from advanced defences, maps like goldrush and such can benefit from trenches and tunnels that consume time but conceal you between two useful breach points. Also, if there was a bit of a web system, it would prevent simple mining to prevent it, it should consume more mines than confortable to prevent.