Rush defense and marathon nerf

[Vargie]

Heya,

I've played Renegade since the release of the original for a few years. Played a few months when Renegade X released februari last year and now I'm playing again. But 75% of the games I've played had the same two problems. Either it's over in ten minutes or after two and half hour of marathon people finally decide to give up. It's tiresome, after a while it isn't fun anymore.

So I've thought of something. At the start of the game (first five - ten minutes) all damage done to buildings is reduced by 75-90 percent. Something like that. So that way you could still rush it but you must organize. You can't do it with two - three chemtroopers anymore. And for the marathon games that seem to play till the end of time. Reduce the repairspeed. After 45 minutes, an hour or so, reduce the healing done to buildings. Every few minutes the healing done gets reduced. After lets say two hours of playing you only heal for 10% of the normal amount. You can still repair but should the opponent take the field and barge into your base you've most likely lost a building. But it's been two hours since the start of the match, so finally feeling some progression is nice.

Anyway, that's what I thought. Could also apply it as a server option if people don't like it.

[testman]

From what I understand, you would like to see some variation of "sudden death" implemented in this game?

I agree that something has to be done about too long matches, but I don't think any damage reductions should be made at the start of the game.

Sudden death in this game should be called Ion Storm and would at the start (should be server-side setting for when match is too long. I would set it to a hour and a half) disable base defences, but if match still doesn't end soon, it should start damaging buildings, longer the match goes, more damage is dealt to buildings.

[djlaptop]

With the new infantry changes, pre-harvester rushes have been the deciding factor of the game far more often now than ever before. Probably 1 out of every 3 games, and almost always in Nod's favor.

[Profane Pagan]

Why would you punish good coordinated attacks at the start of the game? It is the other team's fault if they can't assemble. And if two good teams clashes on a marathon server, the session can be long. You choosed to play on a marathon server.

[Vargie]

Why would you punish good coordinated attacks at the start of the game? It is the other team's fault if they can't assemble. And if two good teams clashes on a marathon server, the session can be long. You choosed to play on a marathon server.

You don't need good coordination. You need one other person. Especially as NOD it's easy to win the first few minutes. Two chemtroopers who managed to sneak passed the enemy will guarantee a destroyed building.

Well I really enjoy Renegade X I have to say it's not played much. Usually there is one server 30+ people, since I started playing again I've yet to find a different server which have more than 2 players on it.

[Profane Pagan]

You are right about the lack of server possibilities. And I understand your problem. What this game needs is playerbase, and it shouldn't scare off, or bore people. However if 2 chemtroopers make into the GDI base and demolish a building, well good for them. Really! Especially in a 30+ people server. That GDI ensemble deserves what it gets. I wouldn't deprive the felling of succes from people. I hear you, usually NOD is the pro active in the earliest fights, maybe because GDI tends to wait until they can purchase MLRS for a rush (and because grenadier sucks and no good for anything in that stage) ... What this game needs -I think- is to enhance the cooperative experience: with better command-lines, wider tactical possibilites which would force the players to cooperate better. And a newer launcher would be great which would show inactive players in lobby, so they could fill up the second or third server. As I know such launcher is on the way. Right? Dunno.

[Mystic~]

Long Marathon games are horrible and in my opinion do a lot to put off new players, but a small percentage of long-time players dogmatically advocate it because losing on points is lame.

I agree that some sort of "Sudden Death" option needs to created and either be linked to game time or called through a player vote. Under SD conditions I'm all in favour for the de-activation of base defenses and disabling of repair-guns as either combined or separate options - an "Ion Storm Approaching" would fit the story.

[RypeL]

After we redesigned infantry and fixed some more bugs the next round of patches will probably focus on merging AOW and Marathon. We will most likely add score based events like dropping in reinforcements or like airstrikes that hurt buildings. So we would most like suggestions that would fit in that category and are based on one team reaching a certain score.

[testman]

I think that now would be the perfect time to implement feedback platform, for example http://www.phpback.org/ , so that community can provide ideas and vote for them / rank them.

That way you get community feedback and suggestion in the form of nice list.

Each of suggestions could of course have forum thread linked to it for detailed discussion.

[RoundShades]

More of the difficult things to do, that I would prefer, is for enemy building armor to become half or a fouth of what it was at around 40k score or so.

If score is close, both teams can bring each other's buildings to softer states (battle fatigue?), so vehicles and infantry can both achieve a permanent-damage threshold a lot easier.

Of course, before 40k score, you can simply secure a kill on a structure the way you can now, and either secure an early victory or a quicker score lead and more severe score gap, so the early game matters. It is just, even after 30 minutes, the match no longer shows signs of progression, everyone has 8k credits unless early ref loss, and everyone is just as sustained as they will be for hours to come. At that point, something needs to change, and it's best to occur from a score-threshold so the team that "lead' up until now has the first advantage from it. If it were "just at 30 minutes and happens to both teams", then early-game progression would have less consequence in it's end-game, and an early achievement should make a difference in strength later in the game.

[Demigan]

One of the most alluring things from Renegade was it's long matches and the complete and utter victory you could feel at annihilating a building. And while Teamwork is a key element, a solo player can point and say "Look, I've done that", and solo play isn't a complete impossibility with the options to sneak in and blow something up.

I would hate for those stalemates to end simply because magically damage dealt or repairs done to buildings disappears. What I think you are looking for is more of a feeling of progress even though you don't complete the end-goal of destroying a buildings.

So rather than destroying buildings to satisfy the "it doesn't go fast enough for my taste" crowd, you add objectives or goals that players can complete and feel useful for their team even in long matches. The capturing of a Silo is of course one, so is destroying the enemy economy by taking down the Harvester. Others could maybe be added. For example: Walls or Turrets that can be destroyed (and eventually repaired at a cost) to gain an advantage, a new attack route for infantry or tanks for instance.

Other options could be player-maintained checkpoints. These checkpoints can be used to maintain control of an area with player-controlled turrets or weapon mounts and perhaps some supplies could be gathered (a slow automatic heal station for instance). Destruction of the checkpoint allows the other faction to repair it, take control and use it for themselves.

The checkpoints could be tiny, from just a heap of sandbags with a mounted machine gun behind it, to huge bunkers with lots of weaponry, gadgets and strength. This gives alternative goals while playing the game, where area control can be key to victory or defeat. It also gives some nice targets for airstrikes to blow up or damage.

Anyway, my point is that Renegade offers a challenge in achieving goals. The original Renegade was the only game I've ever played where I could infiltrate a building and have my heart actually pounding with excitement purely because This could be it, the pivotal point where you achieve an advantage for your team! Or it could end in disaster and you get shot. Building destruction, regardless of it being a team effort or a solo infiltration, was and is tough to pull off. No other game offers the hectic one-minute showdown of a well-placed superweapon beacon. No game offers the excitement of rolling a coordinated group of tanks through your enemies door and hoping you can pound your enemy to dust this time. Because no matter what you do, the option that this might FAIL is right there. If you remove that, if it comes down to winning purely because you used a tactic during a certain stage of the game or had the field when an abitrary timer runs out, I think the game will suffer immensely.

[RoundShades]

In Beta2, there was a mutator to "turn off AGT/Obby at 45 minutes", and that felt like the entire game didn't matter because someone randomly died at 45 minutes, nothing earned at all.

It is with great consideration, when game progression is discussed. Using Score for instance, and tweaking score to better show merit, is a good way to "earn progression". Both teams can reach scores, even if they aren't dominating the game. Likewise, the score can just affect progression of the structures in case of a stalemate, while a decisive building kill can decide it for either team at any time. Also, for a team that can't compete in main field siege, silo and infantry are considered as "comeback mechanics", as well as a "pro and con" for high team score like in MOBAs where respawn time is higher for a winning team than a losing one (so a rush or an attack, doesn't kill 1 guy, just for him to respawn twice in same structure).

It won't be "just turn base defenses off at this time" sort of sudden random game-ignoring mechanics. It will be at worst a team earning preferably as much permanent structure damage as possible, while another team is given other areas they can bring the fight to, to earn rewards to help them deal the finishing blow if the structures don't come to their natural ends before that high-ish score is reached.

And there are a lot of ways to improve on score. Less score for tanks attacking structure armor (repairable), little less score for repairing, much more score for any structure health damage (irrepairable), possibly even silo and harvester contribution to score.

[Radeon3]

One of the most alluring things from Renegade was it's long matches and the complete and utter victory you could feel at annihilating a building. And while Teamwork is a key element, a solo player can point and say "Look, I've done that", and solo play isn't a complete impossibility with the options to sneak in and blow something up.

I would hate for those stalemates to end simply because magically damage dealt or repairs done to buildings disappears. What I think you are looking for is more of a feeling of progress even though you don't complete the end-goal of destroying a buildings.

So rather than destroying buildings to satisfy the "it doesn't go fast enough for my taste" crowd, you add objectives or goals that players can complete and feel useful for their team even in long matches. The capturing of a Silo is of course one, so is destroying the enemy economy by taking down the Harvester. Others could maybe be added. For example: Walls or Turrets that can be destroyed (and eventually repaired at a cost) to gain an advantage, a new attack route for infantry or tanks for instance.

Other options could be player-maintained checkpoints. These checkpoints can be used to maintain control of an area with player-controlled turrets or weapon mounts and perhaps some supplies could be gathered (a slow automatic heal station for instance). Destruction of the checkpoint allows the other faction to repair it, take control and use it for themselves.

The checkpoints could be tiny, from just a heap of sandbags with a mounted machine gun behind it, to huge bunkers with lots of weaponry, gadgets and strength. This gives alternative goals while playing the game, where area control can be key to victory or defeat. It also gives some nice targets for airstrikes to blow up or damage.

Anyway, my point is that Renegade offers a challenge in achieving goals. The original Renegade was the only game I've ever played where I could infiltrate a building and have my heart actually pounding with excitement purely because This could be it, the pivotal point where you achieve an advantage for your team! Or it could end in disaster and you get shot. Building destruction, regardless of it being a team effort or a solo infiltration, was and is tough to pull off. No other game offers the hectic one-minute showdown of a well-placed superweapon beacon. No game offers the excitement of rolling a coordinated group of tanks through your enemies door and hoping you can pound your enemy to dust this time. Because no matter what you do, the option that this might FAIL is right there. If you remove that, if it comes down to winning purely because you used a tactic during a certain stage of the game or had the field when an abitrary timer runs out, I think the game will suffer immensely.

Give this man a medal. Well said.

[yosh56]

Give this man a medal. Well said.

+1

-1 Yagi

[DoctorAnubis]

Demigan makes a good point. I've been looking at implementing an additional capture point for Hourglass actually, if the tunnels are captured and secured for a certain amount of time it will briefly disable base defences for the opposing team. If it works well enough such a system could be added to more maps with defence structures. Under would be perfect to try something like that on, utilising the large bunker on the alternate infantry route. Not sure what the capture structure would be, some sort of uplink to disrupt enemy towers I guess

[RoundShades]

Demigan makes a good point. I've been looking at implementing an additional capture point for Hourglass actually, if the tunnels are captured and secured for a certain amount of time it will briefly disable base defences for the opposing team. If it works well enough such a system could be added to more maps with defence structures. Under would be perfect to try something like that on, utilising the large bunker on the alternate infantry route. Not sure what the capture structure would be, some sort of uplink to disrupt enemy towers I guess

Now, a map with a "capturable PP" that activates or deactivates base defenses, is a darn good idea. I now want this. [EDIT]

Still though, XMountain, Walls, and even Complex, have been known to stalemate. Long distances of open terrain, and the likely placement of vehicle factories double-ko'ing, make it like field, but without need of advanced base defenses. Would be nice, to have a definitive score-based event for ending the game. Either slow chip off a building's health or total armor, something neither "instant", "unearned", or "too big a gap to close between teams". Personally, I prefer total armor, especially after "building health" costs more score, because that would technically be the event robbing the score from the players.

[yosh56]

Or...make...new maps. We already know support for it is coming. Leave the old stale maps in their bad place. Adding more to them just makes them feel weird.

[DoctorAnubis]

Or...make...new maps. We already know support for it is coming. Leave the old stale maps in their bad place. Adding more to them just makes them feel weird.

No no, no new maps. I don't have the time unfortunately, I am only co-authoring hourglass. I've got an unfinished mod for L4D2 and a mobile phone game in development. Yeah adding more to maps makes them feel weird like the Field silo which always freaks me out. Most maps have got larger and been tweaked to cater for the new game mechanics and gameplay opportunities of X.

[Redline]

+1 to more maps yosh.

I'm excited to see all those Red Alert 2 Building models make it into the game.

New buildings even if they don't have new functions will spice things up a lot for map makers, and gameplay in turn.

[Demigan]

Or...make...new maps. We already know support for it is coming. Leave the old stale maps in their bad place. Adding more to them just makes them feel weird.

As dumb as it is going against a dev...

My spitball idea for capturable checkpoints for instance was just an extremely rough idea with, if we think about it, probably more downsides than upsides in the long run. But the basic idea is clear: Some kind of mechanic is needed to please the current day gaming crowd that needs a pat on the back for completing a tutorial. In the past I was more than content as well to simply beat against those incredible high odds and try to find a place where you could be useful for your team or actually blow something up. Maybe even for me those times are over.

In timed games it barely matters if there's a stale-mate. Every point you earn gets you and your team closer to winning, blowing up buildings can improve (or depending on what building on what map, decrease) your odds of winning the game through one of the winning options.

Maybe that's the solution: Make points more valuable in a marathon game. This gives players a better sense of progress since everything they do suddenly matters. Even failing to blow up a building or simple things like assaulting high-value characters with lower-value characters would be rewarded despite you failing to complete an objective.

How this could be done? I don't know. I don't think that a "win if team X reaches Y score" is a good idea. Unlocking special stuff? Maybe allowing a team to buy some kind of special super-unit with the faction-score? Would need some kind of balance so someone who just joins can't go and use this super-unit or effect while the people who earned all the points are left behind. Even then it's a terrible hassle to keep it fun and make sure everyone who contributed heavily with their points can enjoy and benefit from the resulting unit or effect. Maybe you could have players buy an energy-surge that deactivates the enemy base defenses?

Points could also maybe function as a plain alternative currency? Credits roll in all the time, but points only when you fight hard. With variable high costs you could maybe allow players to buy things like (temporary?) invisibility to base-defenses, upgraded armor or capabilities for the next vehicle you buy, extra health for the next infantry unit you buy, or plain and simple a super-unit that takes a ton of punishment to take down. This way someone with an very high score can acquire himself a massive hulking vehicle (Mammoth Mark II anyone?) that could be the game's end... Or get gunned down before this slow, easy to hit beast finally reaches the enemy base.

Again, I'm just spitballing here to see if there's mechanics that might improve the general feel of progress for players without giving them sure-fire ways to achieve victory in one way or another. I think it can be done, preferably with as little changes to the current/future maps as possible.

[Redline]

After X minutes. Tiberium Sun vehicles can be purchased. Maybe that has the potential to bring new momentum to a stale mated match/map.

Again spitballs. I think its a shame all those tib sun vehicles are only available to a 5% chance on a crate.

[DoctorAnubis]

Demigan you are exactly on point. My friend who is not much of a PC gamer gave this a go because he loves the idea of it, however he's the sort of guy where if he isn't achieving anything on the offensive he switches the game off. If there was some sort of additional objective for him which was easier and still rewarding he'd more than likely come back. He also requested 360 controller support

Yes! I love the sound of a super assault vehicle, which slowly travels to the other teams base, Then unleashes hell. Maybe from a team purchase, everyone chucks money in, or again it could 'summoned' from capturing points around the map.

Who remembers this game, Future Cop. You win by getting a tank into the other guys base. If you save up credits you can purchase a massive tank, which can win on it's own but works best when you escort it in and cover it with air units. Could work something similar into the C&C universe, I think this was done in Tiberium Wars: Kane's Wrath actually?

Edited February 11, 2016 by Guest

[Redline]

I like the idea of new game modes based off a mega vehicle, but again maps need to be designed around them.

Think of the Halo 2 mega vehicle. I think escorting this type of vehicle would work great. Also think TF2 Payload movement through the map. Tank only progresses if GDI or Nod Players are nearby.

[Mystic~]

The MARV.

[RoundShades]

Or...make...new maps. We already know support for it is coming. Leave the old stale maps in their bad place. Adding more to them just makes them feel weird.

No no, no new maps. I don't have the time unfortunately, I am only co-authoring hourglass. I've got an unfinished mod for L4D2 and a mobile phone game in development. Yeah adding more to maps makes them feel weird like the Field silo which always freaks me out. Most maps have got larger and been tweaked to cater for the new game mechanics and gameplay opportunities of X.

I wouldn't mind this added to hourglass, maybe make a hydro-electric generator inside the center cave, with an MCT and it controls the base defenses, except the bases already have a powerplant. But I still wouldn't mind someone creating a new map like this.

[yosh56]

Or...make...new maps. We already know support for it is coming. Leave the old stale maps in their bad place. Adding more to them just makes them feel weird.

No no, no new maps. I don't have the time unfortunately, I am only co-authoring hourglass. I've got an unfinished mod for L4D2 and a mobile phone game in development. Yeah adding more to maps makes them feel weird like the Field silo which always freaks me out. Most maps have got larger and been tweaked to cater for the new game mechanics and gameplay opportunities of X.

You are aware there are more people that work on maps than you, correct ?

[DoctorAnubis]

Or...make...new maps. We already know support for it is coming. Leave the old stale maps in their bad place. Adding more to them just makes them feel weird.

No no, no new maps. I don't have the time unfortunately, I am only co-authoring hourglass. I've got an unfinished mod for L4D2 and a mobile phone game in development. Yeah adding more to maps makes them feel weird like the Field silo which always freaks me out. Most maps have got larger and been tweaked to cater for the new game mechanics and gameplay opportunities of X.

You are aware there are more people that work on maps than you, correct ?

Yes, I was responding to you

[DoctorAnubis]

The MARV.

Hahaha yes! Something like that in renegade would be wicked!

[djlaptop]

Has there been any talk about adding back pedestal beacons to the HON/Barracks?

[RypeL]

We thought about it. But this wiki makes the point that most ren servers had them disabled anyway cause they made it too easy: http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Beacon_pedestal

[Ryz]

You still have to camp a building for 60 seconds with the beacon in and an SBH making it inside the Bar unnoticed with a beacon which doesn't get detected is unlikely. Why not try it and see how it works, maybe it can be a server side option (again)?

[DoctorAnubis]

I did notice the beacon pedestal is in the SDK but I don't know how to set it up. Would assume it's unbalanced anyway especially on flying maps as it's way easier for GDI to infiltrate the HON. One idea to make it more feasible would be to directly the message the team in danger that the end game beacon has been placed and to play an alarm sound. Some maps, like Islands, would work really well I think. Imagine that. But others would be a nuisance.

[Ryz]

I think the 'open' HON design is an alternative for the fact that any building is open for a group of skilled SBH's...

[DoctorAnubis]

I think the 'open' HON design is an alternative for the fact that any building is open for a group of skilled SBH's...

Evidently. Regarding end game beacons however, GDI would have a much stronger advantage on flying maps due to new mine limits, ramps and Orcas which can repeatedly pound the pedestal with rockets from the exterior.

[RoundShades]

I was always thinking, Old Ren pedestal design was bad anyway. It always favored GDI. There are better ways to do it.

If beacon pedestals were to come back, it should probably be as a small structure (conyard or communications center)...

...or as a pedestal that is placed outside a structure but in a base and perhaps within a vehicle-blocked area...

...or [favorite idea] put a pedestal in every single structure, and simply when damaged it deals reduced damage to all structures evenly (an Ion or Nuke would do 2 timed c4 worth of damage to every building).

The very best thing I like about the idea to put pedestals in all buildings, is that this would be amazing to gameplay; Since it stretches defense back to even the dead buildings requiring defense, it increases in likelihood to dead buildings, and forces an enemy to stretch their defense to start covering their dead structures again (including their mine limit, no more single-structure minefields when pedestals are a threat).

[Redline]

I strongly favor the idea of an additional building like a "Power structure or Core" that has a beacon pedestal. No function other than blowing up if its nuked. Something that isn't dmgable othewise.

I think once a building is dead its dead. To have to defend rubble seems odd. #realism

[RoundShades]

I think once a building is dead its dead. To have to defend rubble seems odd. #realism

To be fair, it was what was done with the one single building that had the pedestal in old Ren, and in Ren-X you can explain that the pedestals are arbitrary tethers to a faction's entire base systems, and damage to it damages the function of everything on the same network.

[Fffreak9999]

To be honest, I am more in favor of the Construction Yard hosting a beacon pedestal, or in the case of an old map (i.e Field/Walls etc), maybe rely upon a pedestal in the barracks/hon as it used to be.

The Con Yard makes the most sense in terms of Gameplay from the original series, as it was the foundation of the entire base.

If you lost the Con Yard, you were almost certain to lose the rest of the base.

To facilitate this an asset for Con Yard would be needed, as well as an asset for a Pedestal.

As you said before, the Barracks/Hon Pedestal did favor GDI in terms of open access to the beacon ped, but there were maps where GDI suffered regular attacks on them, (I.E Glacier). I personally managed to pull of Pedestal beacons many a time on both sides in fairly full servers.

One of the biggest ones I remember was a 25 man GDI army rushing to the barracks in Glacier as I managed to get in the Bar and Place a beacon. I won purely by luck of killing most of them with Timed C4.

So even if Pedestals were in the respective Infantry building I still feel there wouldn't be an issue.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

Pedestal beacons favour GDI when all buildings are still intact. However, Pedestal beacons heavily favours Nod if GDI lost their barracks and Nod didn't lose their HoN. You see, the main advantage of the barracks (only 1 way in) and the main disadvantage of the HoN (up to 4 ways in) is turned completely upside down once advanced infantry are no longer an option.

If GDI had to defend the Barracks, they could barge in with Mobiuses, Havocs and whatnot, kill the enemy troops and switch classes. However, if they had no access to advanced infantry, GDI is forced to attack with autorifles or remote C4, while enemy Sakuras can shoot them from a small, but sufficient distance, with no chance at all to get flanked.

If Nod had to defend the Hand of Nod, they first of all had to do this a lot more often, as it's easier to access. But they can still defend with heavy firepower. Off course, more opportunities lead to more chances at a successful beacon rush but if Nod had no advanced infantry, they could still throw remotes at GDI from many different angles, at a pedestal which could pretty much be shot by vehicles.

A disadvantage always has an advantage to it, and the other way around.

I am all in for a pedestal, simply because it gives a losing team at least a tiny chance to win a game, even when all hope is lost. A pedestal should be easily accessed, but also easily defended by the defending team. Therefore, No pedestals at places where long-range sniper cover is an option, but also no pedestals at difficult to access locations. Vehicle cover should always be an option, directly or indirectly, in the means of vehicles can block off the access route, or defend the pedestal itself.

[Yeetler]

airstrikes that hurt buildings. .

IDK about that.

Field will be a real bitch if this gets enabled.

4-5 soldiers in tunnels can easily take out OB, BAR, WF, HON and REF.

[RoundShades]

That's another thing. I am feeling that advanced engis insta-diffuse beacons way too well, as well as repair too well in general, compared to basic engis. (20 up to 40 repair power).

By which I mean, in a low-pop server, the one person that may be the only one reacting to the beacon, hasn't a chance in hell to diffuse it as engi, it takes 1 person 18 seconds, yet it takes a hotwire 9. I feel the engi should be able to do it in 16, and the hotwire do it in 10, as well as the engi repair 20 but the hotwire repair 35.

Because in tandem with this problem, field tanks are practically immortal with a tech, only 2 tanks can really defeat the repair power of a tech/hotwire 1:1, and that's mammy if all shots hit, or flamer. Arty almost, almost does it but not quite. MRLS probably does too though less noticable with reload. I believe a tech even outrepairs a Gunner just slightly on an arty. This is even light-armor we are talking about.

As squishy as hotwire/tech are, they could use health to actually stay with their tank better, but that stems from losing sidearms and numbers-health when they gained flak armor which was too many nerfs.

[DoctorAnubis]

Good points raised there, I see what you mean about the balance shifting once GDI loses advanced infantry, the Barracks becomes way more vulnerable in comparison. I think an interesting thing to do would be to make it map specific. Islands would 100% work great, I can imagine some epic firefights going down in the barracks and GDI would be more encouraged to do the same. Volcano could work. Walls would favour GDI way too much. Mesa probably wouldn't work, I still much prefer the older layout, is that coming back? Glacier back in the day was a naughty one

Having it in a construction yard sounds ideal, assuming each team has a very similar CY layout, the building sounds an alarm and lights up when the beacon is placed inside causing a mass panic. However definitely too much work for the devs to add to each map. So if an asset is built perhaps new maps could use it to contain the endgame pedestal that way. Again it does come back to more of a map specific mechanic really.

[Terekhov]

Completely disagree re: pedestal. They were a hideous idea and should never come back. It just makes players want to quit. They're worked so hard for a victory, yet one minor slip-up makes their team lose? There are other ways to balance the game without making people want to stop playing because of a meaningless one-shot game KO. Remember, this "feature" from the same people who brought you ramjets that kill you by shooting off your toe. Same idea, except this is team-wide. !vote no insanity

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

Re: Techies/Hotwires, why shouldn't they repair as well as they do? They're vulnerable to infantry and snipers in the field, and they're basically defenseless when focusing on the beacon (SBH can take out in four shots, to my glee when Nod.)

I do agree that perhaps regular engineers should be a bit faster at disarming beacons (perhaps 17-18,) but don't see a good reason to make them repair vehicles faster when they can already keep them alive remarkable well (for free) if the vehicle is well driven.

[RoundShades]

You basically repeated what I said. That engineers shouldn't repair tanks or buildings better, but should diffuse beacons better, and hotwires shouldn't diffuse beacons much slower, but should repair tanks less. Only saying that because Hotwires/Techs really do grant immortality on their target when healed.

[DoctorAnubis]

I personally am more up for an automated advanced assault vehicle to speed up games than the pedestal, a lot of people do want the pedestal to return however. I'm also a +1 for the engineer beacon defuse increase

[Redline]

Make Renegade X Great Again.

Bring back the pickup truck #2016renxelection

I do wish for a 2-3 person vehicle that each team would get 1 at the halfway point in the game. Similar to the Chinook in having a driver with maybe a machine gun and then a gunner with the main cannon. Then make the tank only last for so long before it runs out of fuel? Or make it an escort the tank gamemodee (see tf2 payload mode).

[djlaptop]

Pedestal can help end stalemates, that's the only reason I brought it up (plus I still own BeaconPedestal.com, so there's that, lol). Probably wouldn't help much on Field or Under though, which are the worst stalemate offenders.

[DaKuja]

There was an Mutator on one of the Old RenX Servers where the AGT/Obi got turned off after a specific Time where the Games should finally have an End. Will be useful on Field and Under on other Maps.. ye : Teamplay is the Key