Main issue with C&C mode

[boxes]

This has been brought up already in the community dev section, but having other people's inputs could solve this problem.

As some of you know in Beta 4, airdrops and T1 infantry were introduced after a building destruction to limit the effect of the snowball. Unfortunately at the time although it helped the losing team, it brought forward the issue of camping, making it frustrating for the other team to put an end to games. And with the way it works right now, it is not enough to make an effective comeback and is almost at a similar situation of what it was like before Beta 4. 

It can be argued that the lowest point in a game is losing the first building and having permanent restricted access to units or resources. The issue with this is that it forever limits a team's victory conditions and could end up making the rest of the game a boring drag for the losing team. So what would be the best way to approach this issue? Bringing back full access to units but in a different way than Beta 4? Building reconstruction? 

Remember to consider potential setbacks for your given ideas. 

[Sn4ke]

@CampinJeff I joined in beta 5.x

what exactly was the system like?

[boxes]

Imagine the airdrops right now, except every single tank was available for 2x the price. Add that on top of the current problems with the airdrop such as the vehicle countdown being only available for the team that lost the WF/Strip (no indication to the other team when exactly airdrops were available), and every single player had their own individual vehicle cooldown. Maybe this might not be as bad with veterancy, but it was mostly an issue when GDI massed mammoths on 1 vehicle entrance maps and just sat there all game. 

Bar/Hon is the same. So basically this meant losing strip/WF didn't have any significance as teams could just stack advanced repairs on existing and new tanks. 

Refinery income was 1 tick per second. Losing the refinery actually is the most significant one to look at, because playing renx with no credits is perhaps one of the worst experiences possible. 

[Madkill40]

Refinery Destruction and reduced credit income:

A harvesting tool in the items menu which allows players to harvest tiberium for their own personal gain. This tool would only unlock when the refinery is destroyed/non-existent by default. On maps such as Islands and Complex this could really allow players to ignore Refinery destruction cons, however these harvesting tools should really feel like a grind such as +4 gain every 3 seconds, +3 with each veterancy as players can only harvest for themselves after a refinery is destroyed you wouldn't want the entire team or even half the team trying to harvest tiberium which could promote a few players dedicating themselves to harvest for the greater good.

There would still be a drawback to having lost the refinery but this does offer some leeway to the team without a refinery amd not every player will feel the need to rely on this. On other maps with a Tiberium field further from the base, Under, Canyon etc. This would be more difficult, but I am sure some players would find a way.

The harvesting tool should be free, as it would be stupid to charge for something designed to provide credits.

Additionally if this tool required a Tiberium_Tool_Node in the UDK there could be options for mappers to change the amount of credits gained every 3 seconds leaving the decision of gain down to the mappers, this would really broaden the effectiveness of such a feature and it could actually allow mappers to re-invent the infantry-only maps and there could even be small amounts of tiberium in safer places but with a reduced gain. 

 

Vehicle Drops:

This is a tricky one as the winning team wants to feel the benefits of destroying the vehicle production facility but I would suggest that the MRLS and Artillery be added to the list of vehicles that can be dropped in, if it's possible to have a timer for each individual vehicle instead of a global timer that would be nice. i.e. Humvee/Buggy 90 seconds, APCs 150 seconds, MRLS/Arty 240 seconds. Any vehicle purchase made resets the timers for all vehicles.

The heavy firepower of artillery based vehicles would help counter camping which leaves the other team forced to leave the base and the MRLS/Arty has light armour which doesn't just give the losing team the advantage of rushing in but it leaves a few offensive and defensive tactics open.

Maybe include the Med (490 seconds) and the Light Tank (440 seconds) but really nothing past either of those.

An effective comeback can still be made but the most savage vehicles i.e. Mammy, Flame and Stealth tanks are inaccessible which makes destroying the WF/AS worthwhile.

The increase cost of vehicles after the AS/WF are destroyed is fair and does not need to change.

 

Below feels slightly off-topic: 

I've always felt that losing a building should encourage a team to consider their bases security for the next game but in the meantime they are punished but losing a building is the teams fault as a whole and not just one or a few players' fault. All players need to realise that at some point the enemy has managed to slip by

all of them before reaching that teams' base and I think people could do with being reminded of this fact.

i.e. If your team and you lose a building, it is all your faults.

The only exceptions to the rule in this case are the stealth units on Nod, however playing GDI on a map without defenses should be enough of an indication to not leave the base unattended because a stealthy player is just an inactive player preying on vulnerability.

Outside of IRC-automated reminders I am not sure how this can really be taught or if this is just something each player needs to realise for themselves. 

[Fffreak9999]

Honestly, I would like to see an increased selection of characters available once buildings go down, but lock out the iconics for each team, I say leave the following locked out, although the Medium Tank, while being the iconic vehicle for GDI, is also the weaker tank compared to the Mammoth and as such should still be available.

 

In the case of GDI 

Havoc, Sydney, Mobius and Hotwire.

In the Case of Nod: 

SBH, Sakura, Mendoza, Raveshaw and Technician

 

For Vehicles

GDI Loses access to the Mammoth Tank and MRLS (Leaving the Medium Tank as an option)

Nod lose access to the Stealth tank and Artillery. 

If Flying units are enabled, then they still get to keep the Transport Helicopter.

 

This removes the most powerful base offense and defense tools of each team but still leaves them with options.

Since Nod still have more vehicles (Light tank and Flame Tanks) and GDI has one more infantry (Patch) it balances out. 

 

As for refinery loss, I would say leave a full tick of 2 credits per tick since the loss of the harvester drops do limit the purchase ability of a team (like you see commonly in a PUG) it reduces the impact of the refinery loss.

As for the Airdrops, I would say 8 minutes per vehicle will be acceptable, since the player purchasing it will then be penalised for losing it.

I also think costs should be adjusted to not quite double, but enough to be harsh.

GDI:

Humvee: 600

APC: 850

Medium Tank: 1500

Transport Heli: 1300

 

Nod:

Buggy: 600

APC: 850

Light Tank: 1150

Flame Tank: 1500

Transport Heli: 1300

 

Since Nod lose the advantage of stealth and range plus GDI the loss of their range and defense capability it balances out the loss a fair bit. 

I feel the Arty and MRLS are too strong for an offense role, their ability to destroy targets at range and at close quarters makes them very strong (even without repairs) to allow them to be purchased even on a cooldown, since it then limits the fights to a much more close range, back and forth fight.

I would also consider also making the Power Plant loss affect team wide cooldowns/countdowns (In maps with a PP) (Make the cooldown for Airstrikes 45 seconds on PP loss, and maybe increase the disarmable time for a beacon to 45 seconds with the same 10 second undisarmable timer (total time of 55 seconds))

 

Also if possible, make the loss of the PP cause something new. If the map has advanced base defenses and the PP is lost, maybe have the advanced defense play a siren sound if an enemy unit enters the team base volume within the sight line of the advanced defense (until the Adv. Base defense is killed). That way even though the team will be made aware of the enemy, they won't know where they are, and the enemy unit will not be damaged by the adv defense. (This way you can say, that even though there is not enough power to activate the weapons, a siren takes minimal power to sound). Plus this also allows for infiltration since it will only sound if the unit is in sight of the advanced defense while still being within the base volume (used for Veterancy)

[Kaiser739]

For me, C&C mode is the unique feature that makes Renegade a game different from others and it is fine the way it is now. I disagree with many of the changes that have been proposed in this thread. Let me explain why.

When I started playing Renegade X during Beta 3 days, people were complaining about games taking too long and being to stalematey. So changes were made - classes were rebalanced, map designs were altered, surrendering was added as an option, veterancy was introduced and so on. And these changes have had an effect - the average game doesn't last as long as it used to and there are less stalemates. Teams can actually finish off games now, which is good.

The changes people have proposed here will only lead to games being more stalematey again. When airdrops were introduced in Beta 4, there were games in which Nod infiltrated and destroyed the GDI WF, but subsequently could not finish GDI off because they'd airdrop Medium and Mammoth Tanks all the time. It was almost as if there was no disadvantage to be felt on GDI's side and that's just wrong IMO.

Losing a building should really hurt a team like it did in early Betas. For me, when the Barracks/HoN gets destroyed, only free infantry classes should be available. WF/airstrip goes down = no more vehicles, no airdrops at all. Refinery destroyed = very little income, almost none at all. This teaches people to defend better next time - it might lead to more camping, but it also leads to more teamplay on the other side, because you need to organize to overcome a good defence.

Comebacks can be made in the current state of the game. People only need act together as a team. So when the Hand of Nod is destroyed, the remaining Technicians can stay in the base and help defending/repairing, while the other players could do a tank rush. I don't see anything wrong here. There are plenty of options already.

If building reconstruction is added, games will last forever. It should not be an option. Buffing airdrops will only lead to more stalemates again, which is not desirable.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Kaiser739
spelling mistakes

[dtdesign]

I agree with @Kaiser739, losing a building should have a devastating effect and should turn the tables. Personally, I tend to temporarily switch to Sakura/Havoc after the enemy team lost the bar/hon, just to kill the remaining "better" characters, especially techs/hotwire to reduce their ability to remine buildings and paths. The same goes with vehicles, I even throw away my vehicle and a 1k char, just to kill that med tank that they can't replace after losing their WF, simply because I value their loss higher than my personal loss.

On the other hand, I would love to see some changes to the game mechanics that either make it significantly harder to go for early building kills. Losing ref before the first harvy returns (e.g. Walls) instantly seals the deal and causes a lot of frustration. Yes, everyone is at fault, but at the end of the day it leads to a game that can be instantly thrown away, the other team almost instantly wins the map, all though it takes ages for them to finally march in with their shiny vehicle/1k char army.

That said, have buildings merely sustain on their own during early game (first 5-10 minutes) and then having each building loss a draconian punishment, just like back in the old days of C&C Renegade. Bar down? Screw your advanced classes, have some basic garbage. Imho this balances the disability to take out buildings early, by at least having a stronger impact later on.

[Guest Gliven]

I wouldn't mind a game mode where a building death is just temporary. If you kill a building it disables it for 10mins. The first team to disable all buildings at the same time wins. A secondary Victory point would be the first team to lets say 5 building kills win. Scale-able depending on how many buildings there are on the map 

[Guest Gliven]

I also realize that this just extends game play, but just giving some thoughts on a new game mode without drastically changing the game

[Quinc3y]

Some will argue that the punishment for losing a building should be harsh so that it feels rewarding for the team that destroyed it and so that no campfests & dragging the game to infinity occurs. And some will argue that the punishment for losing a building should be light, so that the losing team still has the motivation to play & chance to win and because comebacks are fun and exciting.

Both are right and I think it's about finding the golden mean.

I also think that right now the punishment is too harsh, for one reason: veterancy. Now if you lose a building you not only get punished by not being able to buy certain units/having lower income, but you also fall behind in veterancy. Especially if you lose a building within first 10 minutes - that results in a team of recruits without a building fighting against a team of veterans. This is also caused by lowering the required amount of VP to advance a rank, which I am still against. 

I am rather against the idea of building reconstruction - sounds boring, it's not intuitive and never been a part of the Renegade series. I might change my mind tho if I see it work.

Instead I would suggest implementing one, some or all of the following:

- decreased amount of VP awarded to the team after destroying a building

- increase amount of VP needed to advance to the next rank so that a team that destroys 1st building doesn't instantly become all veteran

- after losing HoN/bar, enable all infantry for double the price except for adv. engis, 1k snipers, Sydneys/Ravs and Mobiuses/Mendozas. I am not sure about SBH.

- after losing WF/strip, enable all vehicles for double the price except for apaches, orcas, mammoths and stanks. Actually we could consider removing the airdrop rules and just let players buy their vehs whenever.

- after losing ref, it should be 1.5 credit/ second instead of only 1/second.

Losing PP and base defences is fine as it is now.

Implementing all would probably be too much and would lead to the punishment for losing a building being too light. But some of them would feel very welcome.

 

[Steelpoint]

The problem is you reach a point where one team has lost one or two buildings and is clearly heading for a defeat in most circumstances. Yet the game can drag out for a long time until the winning team actually wins.

[Henk]

This might be helpful:

 

[Luhrian]

I agree with @Kaiser739 , but I think it would bei good to add the Med Tank and the Light Tank to the airdrop. And the Transport Helocopter could bei  helpful sometimes.

And I really like the Harvester tool idea from@Schmitzenbergh 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Luhrian

[Hohndo]

15 hours ago, Fffreak9999 said:

Honestly, I would like to see an increased selection of characters available once buildings go down, but lock out the iconics for each team, I say leave the following locked out, although the Medium Tank, while being the iconic vehicle for GDI, is also the weaker tank compared to the Mammoth and as such should still be available.

 

In the case of GDI 

Havoc, Sydney, Mobius and Hotwire.

In the Case of Nod: 

SBH, Sakura, Mendoza, Raveshaw and Technician

If the SBH is only included solely because of his impact on games, I would argue that Gunner should be added to your list. But, if you're going to lock out any tier 2 units, I think they should all be locked out honestly.

I don't want this to happen, though. I like it as is. It's severe enough to make it feel important, but not so much that it completely screws you over.

12 hours ago, Kaiser739 said:

The changes people have proposed here will only lead to games being more stalematey again. When airdrops were introduced in Beta 4, there were games in which Nod infiltrated and destroyed the GDI WF, but subsequently could not finish GDI off because they'd airdrop Medium and Mammoth Tanks all the time. It was almost as if there was no disadvantage to be felt on GDI's side and that's just wrong IMO.

Losing a building should really hurt a team like it did in early Betas. For me, when the Barracks/HoN gets destroyed, only free infantry classes should be available. WF/airstrip goes down = no more vehicles, no airdrops at all. Refinery destroyed = very little income, almost none at all. This teaches people to defend better next time - it might lead to more camping, but it also leads to more teamplay on the other side, because you need to organize to overcome a good defense.

I'm not trying to make a point for, or against this. But, it seems like you are forgetting the ragequiters/ragejoiners. I've seen even the best teamplay players just up and quit or join the winning team. This immediately creates a player imbalance. This makes their situation worse. It seems like we're trying to make things a bit easier for everyone. While not everyone is a fan of it, its needed to keep things going and keep interest up I suspect. Because having it that way is better than not having it at all.

Piggy-backing on that..What I would like to see to in the event of player imbalance is that team get a damage and armor buff relative to how many players are gone. The higher the imbalance, the higher the buff. I'm not even sure if this is possible to do, but I'm trying to do some research into it. Just haven't taken much time to do that yet.

10 hours ago, Gliven said:

I wouldn't mind a game mode where a building death is just temporary. If you kill a building it disables it for 10mins. The first team to disable all buildings at the same time wins. A secondary Victory point would be the first team to lets say 5 building kills win. Scale-able depending on how many buildings there are on the map 

I like this as a alternative. But, I can't imagine this would be a popular alternative mode.

8 hours ago, Quincy said:

Some will argue that the punishment for losing a building should be harsh so that it feels rewarding for the team that destroyed it and so that no campfests & dragging the game to infinity occurs. And some will argue that the punishment for losing a building should be light, so that the losing team still has the motivation to play & chance to win and because comebacks are fun and exciting.

Both are right and I think it's about finding the golden mean.

I also think that right now the punishment is too harsh, for one reason: veterancy. Now if you lose a building you not only get punished by not being able to buy certain units/having lower income, but you also fall behind in veterancy. Especially if you lose a building within first 10 minutes - that results in a team of recruits without a building fighting against a team of veterans. This is also caused by lowering the required amount of VP to advance a rank, which I am still against. 

I am rather against the idea of building reconstruction - sounds boring, it's not intuitive and never been a part of the Renegade series. I might change my mind tho if I see it work.

Instead I would suggest implementing one, some or all of the following:

- decreased amount of VP awarded to the team after destroying a building

- increase amount of VP needed to advance to the next rank so that a team that destroys 1st building doesn't instantly become all veteran

- after losing HoN/bar, enable all infantry for double the price except for adv. engis, 1k snipers, Sydneys/Ravs and Mobiuses/Mendozas. I am not sure about SBH.

- after losing WF/strip, enable all vehicles for double the price except for apaches, orcas, mammoths and stanks. Actually we could consider removing the airdrop rules and just let players buy their vehs whenever.

- after losing ref, it should be 1.5 credit/ second instead of only 1/second.

Losing PP and base defences is fine as it is now.

Implementing all would probably be too much and would lead to the punishment for losing a building being too light. But some of them would feel very welcome.

 

Changes to veterancy is something I'd welcome, but I don't like most of these suggestions at all. That drastically changes the game as a whole. It would lead to much longer games. But, I also feel the game would lose it's identity. Maybe make it a server option.

Renegade isn't a series. It's one game. Renegade-X is just a modernization of said game. It's important to keep a balance, but there are lots of things that can be made better because the original game was not perfect by any means.

[yosh56]

42 minutes ago, Hohndo said:

Renegade isn't a series. It's one game. Renegade-X is just a modernization of said game. It's important to keep a balance, but there are lots of things that can be made better because the original game was not perfect by any means.

....And this entire topic is probably a good reason as to why there was never a sequel. 

 

Dis' shit hard, yo. 

[Hohndo]

1 hour ago, yosh56 said:

....And this entire topic is probably a good reason as to why there was never a sequel. 

 

Dis' shit hard, yo. 

Can't please everyone. Just keep in mind, for the original game they didn't take input during the development.

 

Plus they only fixed things that didn't fit the outcome of their vision. This vision is a community thing so it's harder for everyone to agree.

[SvN91]

The game works fine as it is now.

[yosh56]

20 minutes ago, SvN91 said:

The game works fine as it is now.

Honestly concur... Matches average out to like 30 minutes to an hour, with some exceptions that are more map-related than mechanic related [*cough* Reservoir *cough*] 

Even Under only really averages a little over or under an hour, and comebacks are still a thing, depending on the map. 

Kind of siding with @Kaiser739 on this one. Everything's kind of been entered as necessary, and patched to hell until it finally found a pretty balanced, but still tip-able, state. 

[boxes]

It's not only a matter of ending stalemates, it's also a preventive measure for f5->quit or surrender vote spam once a building drops. Simply boring as hell losing access to things that make the most significance, and even more so losing access to credit sources (ref). Game also unnecessarily drags the worst when both teams are handicapped and there's often nothing that can be done to end it convincingly other than farming for heroic. 

If nothing drastic can/needs to be done, I won't mind as long as some minor tweaks are put in place, such as increasing passive credit gain from destroyed refs. But in the end some kind of mechanic that returns a team access to any destroyed structure would be most optimal.

And yes, the game is without a doubt unique from other shooters and it sure 'works', but that doesn't mean it's fundamentally a 'good' game in everybody's eyes.

[Schmitzenbergh]

9 hours ago, Luhrian said:

And I really like the Harvester tool idea from@Schmitzenbergh 

Um... Thx? (I didn't come up with it though , the first one in this topic to come up with it is @Madkill40)

[Hohndo]

I kinda like the harvested tool idea but I don't think it'll change anything in a significant way on maps not designed for it. It would go a long way helping the losing team but the best snipers in this game already ruin most games they are in, they would have a hay day with this.

Which brings me to another point but I'll start a thread for that later.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Hohndo

[Xeon Wraith]

I'm generally against increasing building functionality when destroyed with maybe the exception of allowing Chinooks to be purchasable and increasing refinery tick rate. Vehicles and infantry between the two factions function differently enough that selectively enabling units will lead to a heavier disadvantage to one side.

For example, its pretty well known that a tank front solely composed of medium tanks is more than enough to hold field. A force of only light tanks on the other-hand won't be able to adequately break through such a force. The addition of artillery would enable a even fight, but then Nod would have a massive advantage for base siege. Giving GDI the MRLs back evens it again in that respect, but now you're in a situation where the loss of WF/Air changes very little in the field. It seems to me that any method of reliably acquiring additional vehicles or infantry would result in longer stalemates, unless you can change player mentality to stop camping.

Players just don't have a big enough incentive to go to field on a individual basis when they're already handicapped against their counterparts. 

The one change that I'd like to see tested for a while is a significant increase in the random character and vehicle (ideally faction-specific) crates. They're unreliable enough to make the loss of a building hurt, but they can still provide opportunities for losing teams to do things. Most importantly they're on the field, which will force players to go out to get them. Winning teams shouldn't be affected much, as they can just directly buy want they want.

This does make Nod a tad stronger as they can do more solo stuff though.

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Xeon Wraith
Words.

[Fffreak9999]

15 minutes ago, Xeon Wraith said:

The one change that I'd like to see tested for a while is a significant increase in the random character and vehicle (ideally faction-specific) crates. They're unreliable enough to make the loss of a building hurt, but they can still provide opportunities for losing teams to do things. Most importantly they're on the field, which will force players to go out to get them. Winning teams shouldn't be affected much, as they can just directly buy want they want.

We are able to alter the spawn possibilities of crates, but the issue stands, if the field is the only way for them to collect a crate, they are almost unable to recover since the field will be controlled by a force which has a much stronger side (Improved Infantry or Vehicles available). You will be lucky to actually reach a crate (Look at Field as an example). If Nod lose the Air, they can still collect vehicle crates via SBH. But GDI losing WF would be locked into the base by artys and unable to progress through the tunnels due to Sniping. They would not have the ability to capture crates. If they lose the Bar/Hand then the issue is slightly less relevant, since the Vehicles are the easiest way to defend the base + Hold the field.

 

As for the Refinery, I feel that you could leave the credit tick rate at full if destroyed since the loss of massive credit gains from the harvester are a big loss already.

[vandal33]

I prefer having the marksman buffed than allowing the T2 snipers for teams with dead barracks or hand of nod. Same with the regular soldiers, I don't really like still having to deal with a group of officers, doesn't make destroying barracks/hand of nod too rewarding or significant, but maybe the voted commander only can be an officer when the bar/hand is down, and he can assign one player to be a rocket soldier, other non-free characters are locked.

As for vehicles, I was thinking to only limiting to only 1 airdrop APC at a time, so no more decoy APCs, teams without AS/WF will need to rely on humvess or buggies if they need extra vehicles. I want them to still be able to pull of an APC rush loaded with infantry so if only 1 is available, the team would probably reserve the APC for rushing and we would see more humvess/buggies on teams without AS/WF. Allowing transport helicopter (at a much more expensive price) on air maps sounds interesting too.

About building reconstruction, seen this in some renegade mod before, it doesn't help the losing team at all because the losing team will usually be low on credits to rebuild while the winning team with lots of credits can make it even harder for the losing team. That is when reconstructing is expensive but if you make it too cheap, it would be boring and game dragging and possibly demotivate players to destroy structures since they can easily rebuild, which is a major game breaker.

And I'm in favor of still giving teams with destroyed buildings to fight back and come back, like buffing free soldiers/upgrades but I want losing production facilities to affect them and be more significant. Making the products more expensive and cooldowns after purchasing just isn't enough for me.

[Xeon Wraith]

9 minutes ago, Fffreak9999 said:

We are able to alter the spawn possibilities of crates, but the issue stands, if the field is the only way for them to collect a crate, they are almost unable to recover since the field will be controlled by a force which has a much stronger side (Improved Infantry or Vehicles available). You will be lucky to actually reach a crate (Look at Field as an example). If Nod lose the Air, they can still collect vehicle crates via SBH. But GDI losing WF would be locked into the base by artys and unable to progress through the tunnels due to Sniping. They would not have the ability to capture crates. If they lose the Bar/Hand then the issue is slightly less relevant, since the Vehicles are the easiest way to defend the base + Hold the field.

 

As for the Refinery, I feel that you could leave the credit tick rate at full if destroyed since the loss of massive credit gains from the harvester are a big loss already.

In that sort of scenario where one team has complete field and tunnel dominance over the opposing team, then is it is expected that the dominating team wins. My suggestion is aimed at the case where both teams are crippled to a extent where neither team can make a game ending push, but can still go to field. For the specific example of Field, AT Infantry (Gunners, PICs, Ramjets for arties) are still extremely strong at pressuring Tanks and the APC/Humvees are still available for infantry suppression. 

I'd also advise against keeping full Refinery tick rate, as it enables the rather bizarre case where is it more beneficial for the opposing team to leave the enemy refinery alive to kill the harvester for veterancy.

[Sn4ke]

22 hours ago, Henk said:

This might be helpful:

 

EC is one of the best YT channels ever

and yeah.. I like @Quincys & @Fffreak9999s suggestions. But on the other hand I also support @Kaiser739s point of view.

Public matches on a Marathon server can be.... well. Boring, if the game gets stalemate if e.g. on Fort GDI loses WF (but has tons of cash) and just keep spamming mass 1k chars to defend. But that's mainly due to the map design as you get a harvy dump every 50 seconds here (same on Islands or Complex, but these are more open maps)

But if it comes to organised gaming... I think the current balancing / punishment for losing a certain building is absolutely fine.

just think of the GoldRush match on Sundays PUG. Nod wrecked GDI even when they lost Obelisk in the very first minutes. Things would have gone different if GDI got HoN instead, but on huge, spread maps as GoldRush base defence is cruical for most teams.

Edited February 6, 2017 by DarkSn4ke

[boxes]

1 hour ago, DarkSn4ke said:

EC is one of the best YT channels ever

and yeah.. I like @Quincys & @Fffreak9999s suggestions. But on the other hand I also support @Kaiser739s point of view.

Public matches on a Marathon server can be.... well. Boring, if the game gets stalemate if e.g. on Fort GDI loses WF (but has tons of cash) and just keep spamming mass 1k chars to defend. But that's mainly due to the map design as you get a harvy dump every 50 seconds here (same on Islands or Complex, but these are more open maps)

But if it comes to organised gaming... I think the current balancing / punishment for losing a certain building is absolutely fine.

just think of the GoldRush match on Sundays PUG. Nod wrecked GDI even when they lost Obelisk in the very first minutes. Things would have gone different if GDI got HoN instead, but on huge, spread maps as GoldRush base defence is cruical for most teams.

Losing the OB doesn't affect our field performance though. As long as we control the field with dedicated defenders the OB isn't really useful. 

I do agree most of the time stalemates occur due to map design, but even on maps like tomb or complex, games would last forever if both teams are permanently handicapped.  

[Sn4ke]

16 minutes ago, CampinJeff said:

Losing the OB doesn't affect our field performance though. As long as we control the field with dedicated defenders the OB isn't really useful. 

control the field like control all base entrances and keep the enemy under lockdown. I know. But let's say Nod does a succesfull Officer Smoke Gren Rush on AGT on GoldRush.

It's a lot harder for GDI to control the their base as the GTs are easily busted with stankz / flamers / Arties, then SBH infiltrators have enough space to roam.

Also Arties are much more effective on GoldRush than MRLSs, so if GDI doesn't have the cash to max up medium tanks right away and gets enough field repairs, the map is almost lost.

But again: it's mostly map design that fuels stalemate match events. If the teams are balanced and both are motivated and fighting until the very bitter end, there's no difference but the map... there's always a slight advantage for some fraction on each map. but... and this is important: for any strategy on any map there is a counter strategy... and even if the numbers of maps are limited (and they don't change that often) strategic possibilities are almost unlimited in RenX C&C mode.

But ofc you need the commander and the team to execute various strategies. Otherwise (especially on Public Servers) it's just "business as usual".

Edited February 6, 2017 by DarkSn4ke

[Novilan]

I’m with Kaiser and Xeon and fine with the game for the most part. In general I’m tending more to the original gameplay.

Well, due to the veterancy system and other changes the matches mostly don‘t last that long anymore, so long-lasting boring stalemates are less likely as the enemy gets overwhelmed at some point. I think changes to increase the possibilty of comebacks will probably work against this, so matches will most likely just last longer and cause more stalemates again. Last week I already saw quite a few comebacks, so I don’t see that much of a need for changes here.

Also as it stands now, regarding comebacks in terms of infantry availability, hotwires and techs would probably make the most difference, if they would be still available after the destruction of hon/bar. But regarding the hot/tech nerf thread, do we want that? And I would probably hate to see a lot of 1k characters or sbhs still being around after hon/bar is destroyed, despite the ones from crates.

Airdrops, at least for all vehicles, was a change for the worse in my opinion. Combined with the higher credit income of Renegade X it was like the other team didn’t lose the wf/airstrip after a while, so it already got reverted to just humvees and APCs. I think it would be ok to make chinooks available for airdrops on flying maps, as they are like APCs and about the same for both teams. In contrast to that the other vehicles of GDI and NOD are just too different and would probably cause balance issues, when only some of them would be available.

[Madkill40]

Not sure how people will feel about this but to give the PowerPlant a bit more importance and as this kinda makes sense, if you lose the PowerPlant you lose access to the Nuke/Ion? 

No power, no superweapon. 

[SvN91]

1 hour ago, Madkill40 said:

Not sure how people will feel about this but to give the PowerPlant a bit more importance and as this kinda makes sense, if you lose the PowerPlant you lose access to the Nuke/Ion? 

No power, no superweapon. 

I think the nukes/ions are too important to be removed in games where one team or both teams only have ref or HON/bar left. A well protected nuke/ion is sometimes the only way to end a stalemate.

[Madkill40]

7 minutes ago, SvN91 said:

I think the nukes/ions are too important to be removed in games where one team or both teams only have ref or HON/bar left. A well protected nuke/ion is sometimes the only way to end a stalemate.

It'd only be on maps with a PowerPlant such as Walls, Glasses, Under, Goldrush... Maps without a PowerPlant would not suffer from this. 

Outside C4s can be deadly to a building from multiple high-vet players. 

 

[Henk]

What could help, I think, is having a secondary objective that can help the losing team make a comeback. And I'm trying to think of something that can be of more benefit to a losing team than the winning one.

Maybe have things like capturable Power Plants, Silos, infantry production and vehicle production (let's call it Reinforcement Bay for now) structures, that just function roughly the same as having the real thing, except that you can only buy tanks at the vehicle produc

So if you for instance have that Reinforcement Bay, but you still have your Weapons Factory, there's no real win except that you get to spawn the tank in the middle/ sidepath of the map (production could be slower and the positioning will likely be more vulnerable to counter this). However it is a very useful structure for the team without their Airstrip or WF. Give it PT's, but don't let players spawn in it (don't think it's even possible to switch spawn points dynamically). Could also just have them airdrop in your own base, and call it a Tech Center instead of a Reinforcement Bay.

 

Next, the Silo (or another structure providing the team credits, CNC3 Tiberium Spike would be cool):

Do you have a Refinery? > credit tick rate from this structure = 1.

Don't Have a Refinery? > credit tick rate from this structure = 3.

 

Capturable Power Plant: 5-15% discount if you have a PP, regular prices when you don't have a PP. Also re-enables base defenses.

Infantry structure: I think it's best to only make this give access to Tier 2 characters, no Adv. Engineers. Not sure if you'd actually have to go to this structure to switch to one of those characters, or if it would be enabled at all PT's.

 

Of course this is all very ambitious, but we could try how well it works with just the Vehicle production and/or the money strucure, on an existing or a new map.

I want them to be side objectives, capturable structures, because I want players to have to actively do something to get it, and also a possibility of being denied of it by the enemy. I don't think you should just give the player access to Tier 2 characters when they've lost their Barracks. Of course it's nice to still have those characters available, but come on, the enemy team destroyed that building, fair and square. And I think this of anything too powerful being still available after destruction

I'm very happy with the way it is now by the way, lower credit tick rate, the amount of price increase, and the Tier 1 stuff being available, it's not too much imo.

 

[Redarmy]

So, an idea for losing WF/Strip, instead of losing access to anything, how about simply a reduced vehicle limit, or a reduced limit along with a slightly increased price? It allows for teams to comeback if they play it well enough, but certainly still maintains an advantage for the team that destroyed it. Somewhere around 25% decrease in vehicle limit along with like an 50% increase in price, or instead of flat 25% creating alternative tank limits specific for each map.

Though personally, I think  the biggest issues is, quite simply map design (so this doesn't fall directly under RenX itself). Some levels seemed to be purely designed for control of the field = game won. For example, my biggest gripe with the new Field, is the simple fact that the Comms Center is in the field. In neo Field, the control of the field nets you, secured harvester dumps and the opposing team loses harvester dumps, so a massive credit difference, then on top of that it also nets you the silo for an even bigger credit difference, and then you even get the Comms Center, so your team can effectively ignore the tunnels until you see the infantry rush coming (or even do the infantry rush yourself since they won't see it coming). Oh, and of course it also gives your team more veterancy points with the ability of farming the enemy team harvester and potentially siege building damage. I honestly don't know how it's expected of a team to be able to comeback if the enemy team has controlled the field for only 5-10 minutes. I know Jeff always brings up well old Field only had 1 tank path which leads to worse bottle-necking, but at the very least the team on the defensive could try a 2 man infantry hop/boost/whatever it's called for a Refinery over the one barrier wall or nuking bar or something with the tunnels to turn the tides of battle.

Then, let's take a look at Arctic Stronghold, probably one of the best big maps. Arctic Stronghold is a huge map where I would say every area is relevant. The infantry silo path less so, but it can still make a strong enough impact on the game, and arguably the infantry path shouldn't be as important as tank pathways anyways. You have not only multiple tank paths leading out of the base, but you also have multiple fields essentially, it's much harder to keep a team locked up in base via tanks along every vehicle pathway because of this. If one is mostly ignored, a team can leave behind a skeleton crew to defend and try for a rush along the other, the areas don't exactly have the best view of each other (or access) unlike Field to where it can easily be noticed or at least intercepted. Harvesters, while they do leave the base and are vulnerable to the enemy team, aren't in view of every tank the entire time and teams can miss opportunities to destroy them. Then on a completely different tank path from the harvester, you have the EMP cannon. Finally on the infantry path, you have the silo and the ability to hit refs, along with just yet another pathway to use to enter the base during an EMP rush. Seriously, the more I think about it, the better Arctic Stronghold seems. While Arctic Stronghold doesn't have crates, it doesn't necessarily need crates, the map itself provides more than enough options for a team.

 

I know this was kind of off-topic for the most part since it's not directly discussing C&C mode, but since the issue seems to be camping and no real way to make comebacks, I felt it was on-topic enough.

Edit: Since I was talking about map designs, I'd also like to briefly bring to the spotlight Fort. While not everyone likes Fort (mostly due to bottle-necking), Fort has some really cool ideas in it. The infantry path itself can directly affect the tank path with the Tiberian Sun vehicles, whereas the tank field can directly affect the infantry path with the Medical Center. It has a nice balance to relevance of pathways. Also, the Fort itself allows for AT infantry to affect the tank field without being completely out in the open against the tanks.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Redarmy

[Havoc89]

The problem with tech buildings hank is that usually the offensive team would have the upper hand and would likely be the ones with map control and thus holding onto the tech buildings. Redarmy has a good point where the major factor is the map itself. However it is far too much work to completely re-invent all maps at this point.

I like the idea of having a personal harvesting tool, it seems like it could work pretty well without negating the reward for the winning team.

A lot of great ideas here but the one thing I am noticing is that people have mixed ideas on the kind of access you get with a destroyed bar/hon and wf/air. I personally don't think there should be more options to chose from. If anything I feel like you should have less options but more accessibility in that whatever the options remain are more attainable. I feel like having access to tanks or artys/mrls would only slow down the game even more making it that much more difficult for the winning team to finish off the game.

I've been thinking about this since the last PUG and here are some ideas that I've come up with. My intention here is to reduce frustrations by reducing the strain caused by crippled economy, and instead shift the focus of the penalties into limitations. So as stated about, less options but more access.

Spoiler

Vehicle Management on WF/AirStrip Destruction:
- Cost of vehicles remains the same
- Access to Humvee/Buggy
- No access to APC
- Access to light armoured Anti-Tank vehicle (Recon Bike / TOW Humvee)?
- Single auto airdropped (respawnable) APC with a 5 minute respawn delay
- Vehicle Limit reduced to 4 (includes respawnable APC)

Infantry Management on Bar/Hon Destruction:
- No access to purchasable character classes
- Purchasable Secondary Weapons (accessible all the time but not as good at mid-high tier character) (Replaces Timed C4)
--> Dumb-fire Missile Launcher (Without lock on capabilities and less damage to buildings) (Contains significantly less ammo)
--> Un-Silenced Sniper Rifle (with a different fixed scope similar to a marksman rifle + hip fire spread + visible tracer) (Contains significantly less ammo)

Try to include versatility in free infantry for more effective free infantry use?
- Combine Soldier + Grenadier / Flame Trooper (No Pistol)
- Combine Marksman + Shotgunner (No Pistol)

Upon Power Plant Destruction:
- Reduces build time of vehicles
- Reduces vehicle limit by 2
- Reduces Harvester credit dump by 50 credits
- Lose access to air vehicles
- Disables Primary Base defences
- No difference to costs of anything purchsable

Economy Management On Refinery Destruction:
- Credit Tick Rate remains at 2 credits per second
- Personal Tiberium Harvesting Item, details below:

Functionality of Personal Tib Harvest tool:
- Gadget costs 50 credits
- Toss a gadget that has a large canister that deploys on the tib field ground
- X amount of time for gadget to harvest tib. Lets say maybe 45 seconds as an example.
- Operator needs to remain with in a certain radius of deployed gadget for the 45 seconds or they lose the gadget 
- Gadget can be destroyed by enemies
- Once Canister is filled up after 45 seconds, it can be picked up by the owner
- Player will have to walk over tiberium to grab their canister
- Enemy can steal canister
- If Owner doesnt pick up for 30s, friendlies can pick up cansiter
- Once picked up, a glowing green canister is visible like unequipped weapons on the character's back for clear identification
- Player must return canister inside their refinery or a designated spot if map has no refinery
- Tiberium near base gives low credits (e.g. 150 credits)
- Tiberium mid map gives higher credits (e.g. 400 credits)
- Blue tiberium potentially more?
- Credits supplied only to the one who delivers the canister safely

 

[Redarmy]

@Havoc89 Some interesting ideas... WF/Strip destruction seems a bit clunky (simplicity is probably for the best here), also would that mean Recon Bike/TOW Humvee be added and available normally? Comparing it to the destruction of bar/hon, losing the bar/hon seems even more damning than losing WF/Strip. The combined basics sounds interesting, but I feel extremely overpowered. Also, it would make tier 1 infantry seem pretty bad and worthless (why buy a chem trooper when flame trooper has the rifle for better ranged combat?). Power Plant loss is radically different from anything before, interesting to say the least, not sure how it would pan out if implemented. This tiberium gadget idea seems only remotely useful on maps like Islands and Complex, but even then if it only gives credits to one person, it doesn't seem remotely worthwhile. Probably more practical to just get a grenadier or something and rush the enemy base to pick up a few extra credits.

[Havoc89]

@Redarmy 

Yeah the vehicle thing could be a bit much. I wasn't a 100% sure on the recon bike/ tow humvee idea. I forgot to add a question mark to it. But if it was to be done, I think it could be fine if it was included in the base vehicle options when not destroyed. I feel like the biggest problem right now with the air drop system is the fact that you can spit out APCs, and when time isn't much of a factor (which in marathon is certainly the case) a team can end up filling up their entire vehicle limit with APCs (hence also the reduction to vehicle limit). They are pretty tricky to take down for any vehicle since they have too much armour and speed. It also makes them ideal for preventing rushes from rolling in by just parking them in bottle necks. Hence why I think APCs should be very restricted if WF/Air is down. At the same time a limited APC means it forces the team to be much more careful when trying to use it to rush.

The reason I didn't include any tier characters in bar/hon destruction is because infantry already have the ability to purchase equipment, so it seems like a much better alternative than giving access to the purchasable classes. It certainly wouldn't go well with the combined free infantry class idea either since then they could end up having way too many weapons all at once. Having access a good anti-infantry and anti-tank weapon when bar/air are gone is definitely invaluable. But the added bonus of a character class perk such as addition health/armour/speed gives them more of an APC style effect. They become too useful to stop attacks. For example, people would often get a bunch of rocket soldiers and plant AT mines at base entrances and simply camp in the base. Chaingunner and Flak/Chem become far too useful at preventing infantry infiltration on the count of their damage and speed. I believe restricting infantry classes is more important when bar/hon are taken down.

The combined infantry idea was something that was discussed during black dawn development where instead of having 15 classes, we were thinking to reduce the numbers down to something like 8. Just thought I'd throw it out there since people do find them very boring. However when you say it makes 1st tier characters less relevant certainly applies. But that could be compensated for in other means, perhaps making the free weapons lesser versions of their current state.

As per the tiberium gadget, having it be personal only means it forces a member of the team to be some what out of the action. The team would be forced to do this carefully since it can cause a hole in the defences if too many people are trying to generate credits at the same time giving room for attackers to strike. It works more like a trade off. And when you say get a grenadier/flamer to get some quick credits, well that's not always possible. Half the times you'll have a couple of snipers picking off anyone trying to leave the base, or get intercepted by enemy vehicles. 

[boxes]

I kinda like the idea completely restricting original options and opening up new but not as effective options. Such as WF/Strip removes all vehicles except the one that nobody really used in the first place plus a new vehicle for anti-tank purposes that's not as good as an arty/mrls and doesn't have the meat-shield capability of the APC. Still have AA ability. Inf/Bar loss means several purchasable weapons open up and you lose access to characters, but you pay them at an increased price and it replaces the primary weapon. I like this because commando engineers won't be a thing, and even though you can buy weapons, you won't have the same qualities as the advanced character meaning you'll still be at a disadvantage but the additional options are there, and that's the most important thing. 

Tiberium gadget sounds like a neat idea but would probably be better suited off as team-based and not individual, mainly because of VP. Killing the harvester is probably the biggest method for a team to gain the advantage in VP, and killing the ref essentially removes the harvester in exchange for literally next to no passive income for the other team. Perhaps killing the person carrying this gadget will award team-based VP similar to a harvester, so that quality still exists while the other team has higher passive income. Some maps however should add blue tiberium fields like Islands or Reservoir for a huge bonus credit gain so you can't just sit in your tiberium field and harvest all day. 

I don't exactly see what merging classes will accomplish for the big picture in the long run, so I don't support that idea very much. 

~

WF/Strip destruction - just get rid of the APC and only have the Humvee/Buggy plus recon bike (old model, nerfed stats) and some sort of rocket humvee on top of the other suggestions posted. Harvester drops stay the same.

HonBar destruction - All weapons are purchasable and should be 2x (T1 weapons) and 3x (T2/T3/Adv.Repair) the price and replace the primary weapon. Don't need to nerf the specific weapon because the less HP from the free character is a significant disadvantage. This way you still have most of the options from the Hon/Bar, but actually obtaining them is a huge and risky investment.

PP suggestions feel weird, but some ideas could be added on top of the already existing 50% price increase, like slower vehicle production, having cooldowns for character purchases, or decreasing the harvy load.

---->Having options available after losing a building itself will make situations less demoralizing and frustrating, which is why I support these ideas. Taking away options that make the victory condition more and more impossible to achieve is what makes a game not-so-fun. 

[RoundShades]

I always miss these various threads, but did suggest in at least one other thread, that Veterancy opens up purchaseable units at various cost multipliers. Still no hotwire/tech (as long as associated with Proxy-c4).

This way, after an hour, teams still have access to game-ending resources at a handicap, and thus, something to look forward to if they lose a structure but keep scoring damage.

Recruit, x2 cost for t1.
Elite, x2 cost for t1, x3 cost for t2.
Heroic, x1 cost for t1, x2 cost for t2, x3 cost for t3

t1: Humvee, Buggy, Officer, Chem/Farland, Rocket Soldier.
t2: APC, MRLS, Light Tank, SBH, LCG, Patch, Gunner, 500 Snipers.
t3: Med, Arty, Stank, Flamer, Mammy, Doza, Mobi, Rav, PIC, Havoc, Sak.

Note, at elite, this means:
-1500 for 500 snipers, 1350 for MRLS, 1800 for Lights, 1200 for Gunner/SBH.
At Heroic, this means:
-2400 per Med or Flamer, 3k for PIC/Rail, but more importantly, 800 for SBH/Gunner, and 900 for MRLS and 1350 for Arty.

(MRLS and Light may seem MisMatch, but both are GDI/Nod's "weaker option" compared to each other's Arty and Med. Nod's best tool is Arty, GDI's is Med, so both get MRLS/Lights at lower tier.)

[Madkill40]

19 minutes ago, YagiHige said:

Recruit, x2 cost for t1.
Elite, x2 cost for t1, x3 cost for t2.
Heroic, x1 cost for t1, x2 cost for t2, x3 cost for t3

t1: Humvee, Buggy, Officer, Chem/Farland, Rocket Soldier.
t2: APC, MRLS, Light Tank, SBH, LCG, Patch, Gunner, 500 Snipers.
t3: Med, Arty, Stank, Flamer, Mammy, Doza, Mobi, Rav, PIC, Havoc, Sak.

Note, at elite, this means:
-1500 for 500 snipers, 1350 for MRLS, 1800 for Lights, 1200 for Gunner/SBH.
At Heroic, this means:
-2400 per Med or Flamer, 3k for PIC/Rail, but more importantly, 800 for SBH/Gunner, and 900 for MRLS and 1350 for Arty.

(MRLS and Light may seem MisMatch, but both are GDI/Nod's "weaker option" compared to each other's Arty and Med. Nod's best tool is Arty, GDI's is Med, so both get MRLS/Lights at lower tier.)

I like this. 

To add onto this if a recruit kills an elite using a t2, that recruit should get a x3 multiplier VP score.

A vet gets x2 multiplier VP score for killing an elite using a t2.

elite killing an elite using a t2 gets the normal VP score.

Just for a little bit of balance. This would be on top of the current VP scores and multipliers that exist already. 

[RoundShades]

1 minute ago, Madkill40 said:

I like this. 

To add onto this if a recruit kills an elite using a t2, that recruit should get a x3 multiplier VP score.

A vet gets x2 multiplier VP score for killing an elite using a t2.

elite killing an elite using a t2 gets the normal VP score.

Just for a little bit of balance. This would be on top of the current VP scores and multipliers that exist already. 

I did also suggest the "recruit killing a veteran, elite, heroic, ect" bonus as well. Just have a death by a higher veterancy pay out more, and raise next level of veterancy point promotion by the proper maths.

I suggested it as "comeback mechanics", along with "longer respawn time" for "higher veterancy", or instead, "longer respawn time' based on "score" or "which team has the higher score". That way, when on full offense, they can't suicide or be killed, and be back at base during the same response for the same threat. Which, is the most annoying thing when a winning team saves their own buildings from an underdog rush of promising threat level.

Veterancy Points for higher-ranked enemy kill, Veterancy purchases from destroyed structures, and Veterancy Respawn Time Increase, I think, are all reasonable ideas to reward well-performing players trying to struggle on a losing team, without giving the winning team a handicap for winning, as all those situations still give a winning team the edge in damage and stance.

[Madkill40]

That's a very good point, as I understand there is a small penalty to being killed when you are doing well but what is the current penalty to menu/console suicide at the moment? If a player suicides do they have a 10 - 15 second respawn time? In original Renegade you lost all your credits if you suicided, which though was ridiculous (especially if you were actually just stuck somewhere on the map) and it's good that doesn't exist any more but because that exists in RenX a lack of penalty for suicide is kinda ridiculous. 

Maybe a deduction of 100 credits for a menu suicide as well as a longer respawn time? The amount of times "Everybody suicide and get back to base" is a really weird tactic, a player killing themselves by explosives should just have a slightly longer respawn time with no credit penalty. 

That being said, I think a player which destroys their own vehicle with explosives should suffer a 90 - 240 second vehicle penalty when purchasing another a vehicle just to hinder the bullshit "Get a humvee/buggy and suicide bomb the other teams vehicles/base defences" as this tactic is reaching the point of absurdity when there is no penalty for it.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Madkill40