Server Type Interest Poll

[Madkill40]

Poll is multiple choice, pick any or all which interest you.

All-Out-War (AOW) - Normal Renegade X as you know it with a time limit.

Marathon - Normal Renegade X as you know it but endless until base destruction.

Infantry Only (IO) - No vehicles and just infantry, time limit debatable, base destruction enabled. (There are at least 3 other infantry only maps with the exception of Valley which have never been played, please do not base your interest solely on the experience of CNC-Valley.)

Sandbox- building damage locked, you can spawn anything you want using a simple console command and go nuts on any map you wish to play, a variety of different mutators can be enabled.

Custom Map Game (CMG) - A place to test upcoming maps which are currently between works in progress and to be released as well as playing standard Renegade X games whilst discovering any issues in the maps before they are released 'officially'.

Deathmatch - Non-standard Rengade X game, no base, no purchase, just spawn as a unit from either GDI or Nod and kill one another.

 

I am very interested to see what the playerbase is interested in.

Personally I think the current amount of maps open a few doors for server variety.

With a bit of server owner cohesion and shared interest a bit of variety in the server lists could be possible. (Wishful thinking)

Edited April 19, 2017 by Madkill40
Updated options.

[TK0104]

I have always liked AOW, which was really popular back in the day during the first betas of Renegade X

 

I like a CMG aswell. It only depends what map it is.....

[Henk]

Sandbox is fun a couple of times, but I won't play that regularly.

I'd love to see a server that switches to Infantry Only or Deathmatch when the playercount is low. 

I like Marathon more than AOW now that veterancy is here, and there's no more servers with mine limits of 80-120.. Games end fast enough now.

What AOW always needed and still needs is a countdown anouncement. At 5 min., 4 min., 3 min., 2 min., 1 min., 30s, and then countdown from 10 to 1.

If you weren't paying attention to the countdown times games seemed to end so abruptly.

[Ryz]

Missing one mode @Madkill40: sniper server (there used to be one).

[OTT]

Sniper server >  AOW server > deathmatch server 

32 players marathon server would be cool though.

[Ryz]

1 hour ago, Henk said:

I like Marathon more than AOW now that veterancy is here, and there's no more servers with mine limits of 80-120.. Games end fast enough now.

Depends on how this turns out. I hate it when the game is still going on there is fierce fighting and it suddenly ends. On the other hand: 
Played Under yesterday as GDI and joined after 25 min. 'We had' 15 players, Nod had 20 (and spawned vehicles using sandbox which we didn't know). At minute 50/60 a lot of Nod were heroic. Yet there was never a real attack with vehicles, even when the PP went down. Meanwhile the tunnels had all single shot units preventing us from getting out of the base. People just farmed more VP or kills or whatever and we were locked up for 60/70 minutes without a harvy dump or a serious attack on the base. In this case AOW would have been better. The game now took over 90 minutes with GDI waiting to be killed for 70....

Other example a week or so ago on Field. GDI lost WF and Nod didn't attack anymore after that. Instead 5~7 snipers (on 15 vs 15 or something) camped the ref / bar / WF exit and started r*ping us for 30 min without doing any attack. I left at that point as half the team allready did after we got locked up and slaughtered over and over. In this case AOW would also be better. We were just being used for target practice. Nod didn't play for serious anymore, GDI couldn't play at all.... 

I know it's not easy to find a middle of the road solution cause it will never satisfy everyone, but a combination of AOW and Marathon would be great. So a 'AOW mechanism' kicks in after x minutes if there are no real attacks. But how do you measure real attacks? That's the problem. I don't mind a marathon where multiple rushes on both sides fail over and over again cause I got the feeling I am in the middle of something. I mind a marathon where the enemy doesn't play to win, but just to raise K/D and you can't even leave a building without being killed...

[limsup]

55 minutes ago, Ryz said:

But how do you measure real attacks?

A sudden spike in points on either side / excessive spending by a side within a small time-frame perhaps? With adaptive AOW timer...

[boxes]

AOW is flawed in Renx because it offers another victory condition outside of blowing up an enemy base, one that particularly favors defensive gameplay. For example, vehicle rushes are very risky because if a team fails to destroy an enemy building with the rush, they end up offering the camping team a vast amount of points in return. Beacon placements also become a risk and whoring buildings doesn't give many points; essentially playing defensively is the safest way to win, and that often means for example sitting around on the Walls plateau with helis and PIC/Rav and whoring vehicle kills and never attacking the base for a whole AOW game. Snooze fest.

Plus playing AOW requires players to know how the point system works, which just adds complications to this already difficult to learn game

[j0g32]

What about Co-Op???

Original renegade had some srvers with this game mode.

Would need a lot of mapping / kismetti g first though...

[Ryz]

15 hours ago, j0g32 said:

What about Co-Op???

Original renegade had some srvers with this game mode.

Would need a lot of mapping / kismetti g first though...

That's more a game type than a server mode. 

[dtdesign]

I like the idea of infantry wars, but then again it will just end up being a frag fest for people like poi, boi, jp and deadbeat. It's already an issue on normal game modes that these players pretty much dominate the infantry side - but at least I can hop into a tank and roll over their faces for greater justice.

Joke aside, infantry wars are going to be rather strange because snipers are quite powerful and infantry units are far from balanced. The imbalance is somewhat equalized with the imbalanced vehicles, that at the end create some kind of combined balanced. That is imho also the reason why losing bar is less an issue for GDI than losing HoN for Nod.

It's not that much of a secret that I favor AoW over Marathon and the reason is simple: AoW is basically a built-in stalemate resolution button. I've seen matches on Walls where GDI was pretty much stuck with ref and pp, but Nod never bothered to carry out a real attack and instead went full sniper/1k toon mode. In the very end GDI won w/ a rocket soldier rush, but it took GDI almost an hour to finally carry this out, until then all rushes ended in a wall of gunfire. The frustration levels on GDI were close to earth's orbit.

Then again, boi has already pointed out that AoW isn't an ideal solution either, as it basically punishes any sort of risky/costly offensive play, even if the defending side doesn't launch a counter attack. This is indeed a real issue and I doubt that this can be solved by tweaking the game mode itself, but rather it can be adressed with maps:

Introduce some kind of structures that when captured starts a countdown, possibly requiring multiple of these structures to be captured to trigger. Once the timer hits zero, a massive orbital attack is launched that will cause damage to the entire base, such as causing 25% permanent damage (ignoring the building shield). If you want indirect damage only, how about some sort of EMP that will disable the MCTs in the enemy base, which would make it invulnerable both to hostile attacks and repair beams. Defenders would then be forced to point their repair beams at the walls with a greatly reduced healing effect, which basically dimishes the effect of hotwire/tech stacks hugging the MCT, allowing for well laid-out rushes to destroy a building with rockets or tanks.

There are a lot of possible scenarios where one or more strategic structures on a map could give the dominant side an advantage over the defending team. It basically forces the defending team to move out at some point, otherwise their demise is pretty much inevitable. I don't know, maybe I should have opened a new thread instead?

[Madkill40]

 

23 hours ago, CampinJeff said:

AOW is flawed in Renx because...

In all honesty I don't think playing defensively works if the player limit is 34 instead of 40. 

Why an odd number? The odd person makes for a right man in the wrong place which can make all the difffff-fer'rence... in the world game. 

6 hours ago, dtdesign said:

I like the idea of infantry wars, but then again it will just end up being a frag fest for people like...

At what point did people just decide that they couldn't get better at a game? Being killed a lot in an infantry-only map is a weak defense. For one thing, some of those players won't be there all the time and I wouldn't snuff an Infantry-only server so quickly just because of the assumption that some players will kill you. Every player is going to get to kill you at some point. Failure is one of the ways to learning how to succeed. (Non-uniform ZigZagging is very effective to dodging bullets)

On 4/19/2017 at 3:39 PM, Ryz said:

Missing one mode @Madkill40: sniper server (there used to be one).

"sniper server" is just Deathmatch but with a weapon restriction. It ain't missing, it's just not worthy to have its own place unless you're saying we should have a lazer server, machine-gun server, rockets server (etc.) which can all just be set in a map and put on a 'Deathmatch server'... So... Yeah...

[Ryz]

6 minutes ago, Madkill40 said:

"sniper server" is just Deathmatch but with a weapon restriction. It ain't missing, it's just not worthy to have its own place unless you're saying we should have a lazer server, machine-gun server, rockets server (etc.) which can all just be set in a map and put on a 'Deathmatch server'... So... Yeah...

Don't completely agree with it, why?
- There used to be a specific sniper server in the past
- There are special sniper maps just for these kind of servers
- Snipers are completely different than every other weapon

[Henk]

1 hour ago, Ryz said:

Don't completely agree with it, why?
- There used to be a specific sniper server in the past
- There are special sniper maps just for these kind of servers
- Snipers are completely different than every other weapon

I'd love a mutator that switches the weapons out/restricts the weapons, because I think Vantage Points and Sniper Park work just as good as Deathmatch maps.

[Ryz]

Ask @Ukill to implement a mutator like that in his 'big mod?'

[Madkill40]

17 hours ago, Ryz said:

Don't completely agree with it, why?
...

 

17 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

"sniper server" is just Deathmatch but with a weapon restriction.

Sniper servers are fun lil'servers, just why have a specific sniper type server when a deathmatch server could have sniper DM maps as well as DM maps?

[yosh56]

Add actual weapon pick-ups to the sniper maps and boom... make them DM maps... ALSO WHERES MY ALL DECK ALL DAY!? 16 person ADAD at least

[Madkill40]

13 hours ago, yosh56 said:

Add actual weapon pick-ups to the sniper maps and boom... make them DM maps... ALSO WHERES MY ALL DECK ALL DAY!? 16 person ADAD at least

Deathmatch.  

[Chrisjh0223]

I like all of the op game modes except maybe Custom Map Game (it's a wildcard that's possibly confusing and anything goes). Hmm, I guess if you got on a TeamSpeak channel it auto-directs you to it could work, and there are probably ways to get around in the server (like auto-scrolling prompts assisting you in what to do). The one useful aspect of it is to beta-test maps before releasing them to everyone.

I like the sound of Infantry Only game mode issuable to all maps. But if you really like it, maybe give some sort of perk to GDI, as GDI has the more powerful vehicles and Nod has more tactical adept infantry. Hmm, it does seem sort of one sided if GDI's vehicles are all cut off, and Nod has all their infantry units available. Maybe give GDI troops a health and firepower buff?

[Jarzey]

1 hour ago, Chrisjh0223 said:

Maybe give GDI troops a health and firepower buff?

Currently GDI Mobius, McFarland, and Patch would theoretically win against their Nod counterparts if both player's skill set are about the same. For Nod, SBH and Flame Trooper would win against their GDI counterparts, Gunner and Grenadier. (LCG > Gunner, Patch > SBH if you consider the counterparts to be reversed).

No need for buff; Mobius is already the strongest infantry in the game; he surpasses Doza by just a bit.

[RoundShades]

I'm still waiting for maps to load based on sever population:

1-22 players to consider maps categorized as infantry-only (Valley, Ash, AllDeckAllDay, modified Complex, modified Goldrush, Modified Under, Modified Crash Site)
14-36 players to consider maps categorized as "chokepoint/small" (Under, GoldRush, Canyon, Walls, Tomb, Tunnels, Siege)
28-60 players to consider maps categorized as "large" ( ArticStronghold, Field, Complex, Crash Site?)

11/10, would improve 60 player limits, would be the foundation of "infantry only", would actually "seed" servers properly.

If I'm also not mistaken, since servers can change map rotation on the fly instantly without turning the server off, can't they just have a bot check server population and command the server to add or remove maps to the rotation based on player population? At least until perhaps oneday it's a game feature that checks the map config for "map player size" (already a number iirc, but the game doesn't base map vote or select, on it).

[Boomer]

On 2017-4-20 at 6:26 PM, dtdesign said:

Introduce some kind of structures that when captured starts a countdown, possibly requiring multiple of these structures to be captured to trigger.

You mean Tiberium Control Node?

Edited April 22, 2017 by Boomer

[Fffreak9999]

On 4/22/2017 at 7:51 AM, YagiHige said:

If I'm also not mistaken, since servers can change map rotation on the fly instantly without turning the server off, can't they just have a bot check server population and command the server to add or remove maps to the rotation based on player population? At least until perhaps oneday it's a game feature that checks the map config for "map player size" (already a number iirc, but the game doesn't base map vote or select, on it).

You are indeed correct, we can alter the rotation without restarting the server.

However to do so based on player limits would likely either need the server to determine it, or maybe have @Agent's bot try doing it?

[Agent]

It'd actually be easier to just have this in the game itself, if we were to add it.

[Madkill40]

16 hours ago, Fffreak9999 said:

You are indeed correct, we can alter the rotation without restarting the server.

However to do so based on player limits would likely either need the server to determine it, or maybe have @Agent's bot try doing it?

Isn't this already a thing? Hence less maps to vote for when the server reaches max population? Or was there some other reason we could only vote for 3 maps instead of 4 maps at 55+ players?

[Fffreak9999]

Server side setting reduces vote counts

Affects all populations

[Henk]

With only 2 vote options there could be a situation where WallsNF and Walls Snowing are the only options, even after we've just played Walls.

[Fffreak9999]

45 minutes ago, Henk said:

With only 2 vote options there could be a situation where WallsNF and Walls Snowing are the only options, even after we've just played Walls.

It was sorted, should be at least 3 options

[Henk]

With 3 options it's still possible to have Walls, WallsNF and Walls Snowing as the only 3 options.

What I'm trying to say is, make 1 "group" for all variations on walls, same goes for Lakeside and Islands. So only one of the variations appear in vote, and after it's been played, there should be 2 or 3 different maps before a variation of walls can pop up as a vote option again.

[RoundShades]

15 minutes ago, Henk said:

With 3 options it's still possible to have Walls, WallsNF and Walls Snowing as the only 3 options.

What I'm trying to say is, make 1 "group" for all variations on walls, same goes for Lakeside and Islands. So only one of the variations appear in vote, and after it's been played, there should be 2 or 3 different maps before a variation of walls can pop up as a vote option again.

I thought it was already the case, but it turns out it wasn't. Maybe not WallsNF grouped with the rest, but Walls and WallsSnowing should be randomly selected from a single vote option or share a vote-option name. Were there a Field-Day, it'd be the same concept with it. Were there a ComplexINF, it also would make sense to stand on it's own vote because flying/not and inf/full are pretty big differences.

It's very unlikely, given how frequently Walls is voted, for 1 or even 2 to be inside of the voting frame, when a vote comes up. If it is, and it rolls a 20 for Walls, then I guess it's about time for you to play one of the most iconic Ren/RenX maps ever, ain't it?

[Henk]

I like Walls, I love Walls. But it gets played a lot, even with 5 vote options it usually gets picked, and these 3 variations we have now makes us play it even more, sometimes 2 times in succession.

[Fffreak9999]

Currently the server seems to max out at 8 different maps before it offers a map again. It would be nice to offer it as a group option so it randomly decides one map from that group and avoid the others, but unfortunately there is currently no method in which to do this, that I am aware of.

[ShrewdTactician]

On ‎23‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 5:05 PM, Fffreak9999 said:

You are indeed correct, we can alter the rotation without restarting the server.

However to do so based on player limits would likely either need the server to determine it, or maybe have @Agent's bot try doing it?

I will be making something to do this for my server, which I can make publicly available.

[Fffreak9999]

Will be good if you can manage it

[Calvin]

I feel like every server should have a standard rotation so every map gets played like in the old renegade which was very nice

 

 

[Fffreak9999]

I think there is a way to do it, by reducing vote counts to 0. 

Would need to test it out, that will also spread out the Walls Matches, as they are not in the same block in the rotation list.

[zunnie]

60 mins per map AOW + new/custom maps

[RoundShades]

13 hours ago, Fffreak9999 said:

I think there is a way to do it, by reducing vote counts to 0. 

Would need to test it out, that will also spread out the Walls Matches, as they are not in the same block in the rotation list.

Was under the impression servers had a specific config to set to "fixed rotation", which removes map voting and plays maps in an order.

I liked the voting, and reducing map vote options should reduce how often Walls is played. I did notice frequently only displaying 3 vote options, despite being set to 4. I don't know how that maths whatsoever, because it'll be 4 right after having been 3, meaning the "8 maps disallowed from vote" aren't causing the absence of 4 to vote for, it's just happening randomly on it's own.

Bug?

[Fffreak9999]

I don't know what variable would be needed to change (not looked to be fair)

But reducing to 0 would have the same effect

[Fffreak9999]

Found the variable: fixed rotation is now active

[dtdesign]

40 minutes ago, Fffreak9999 said:

Found the variable: fixed rotation is now active

Tried to push the like button as hard as I could, but only a single like squeezed out. At least I tried!  

[Fffreak9999]

lol

[yosh56]

12 hours ago, Fffreak9999 said:

Found the variable: fixed rotation is now active

I just threw up a little.

[Ryz]

20 hours ago, Fffreak9999 said:

Found the variable: fixed rotation is now active

Poor @yosh56. Don't puke over your keyboard.

I actually like the fixed rotation cause every map comes by now at some moment. 

[RoundShades]

Libertarian Logic: I can't stop you from hardwiring the rotation and removing the map vote, but you can't force me to play maps I don't like either.

The average RenX map lasts conveniently long enough to blast through a standard length television episode.

[yosh56]

41 minutes ago, Ryz said:

Poor @yosh56. Don't puke over your keyboard.

I actually like the fixed rotation cause every map comes by now at some moment. 

Because we definitely need to play 30v30 Snow ..... ever. 

[Madkill40]

Please remove walls snowing, it is waaaay too bright and the 'snow' still looks like sand.

Its just White sand Walls.

Lovely Xmas map but c'mon, 3 versions of the same map is not variety or interesting. 

Remove Walls Snowing? Saves double/triple Walls conundrum.

[Fffreak9999]

45 minutes ago, yosh56 said:

Because we definitely need to play 30v30 Snow ..... ever. 

We actually had a good match on Snow yesterday, Nod lost airstrip in first 3 mins of game, but still won the game over 30 mins later.

41 minutes ago, Madkill40 said:

Please remove walls snowing, it is waaaay too bright and the 'snow' still looks like sand.

Its just White sand Walls.

Lovely Xmas map but c'mon, 3 versions of the same map is not variety or interesting. 

Remove Walls Snowing? Saves double/triple Walls conundrum.

I have tried to balance the rotation so you end up with a reasonable gap between walls and other maps (since Walls is by far the most popular map).

 

[Madkill40]

25 minutes ago, Fffreak9999 said:

We actually had a good match on Snow yesterday, Nod lost airstrip in first 3 mins of game, but still won the game over 30 mins later.

I have tried to balance the rotation so you end up with a reasonable gap between walls and other maps (since Walls is by far the most popular map).

 

It feels like you're ignoring my initial point that walls snowing is not only poorly lit but also a pointless addition to the rotation now that we're not in winter anymore.

Two wrongs make a removal plz.

[dtdesign]

WallsNF adds an interesting flavor, as it changes the whole game play by a lot (except that the GT is a bad joke). On the other hand I agree with @Madkill40, there is no need for a "F5 fogDensity 0"-variation of Walls, that also comes with built-in brightness of 13e37 lumen.