Rebuilding CnC-Mode [Or Ren for that matter]

[testman]

2 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

Which is one of Unreal Tournament's team-based modes, base capturing

You mean Assault or Domination?
Or UT2004's Onslaught?

Edited June 28, 2018 by Testman

[Guest]

On 6/22/2018 at 4:22 PM, yosh56 said:

 

Vehicle armour's iffy. Like I said, I don't have much of a problem with how vehicle combat is now, especially on larger maps where you have terrain advantages and such. 

It's pretty easy to just get drunk one night and come up with ten names for veterancy levels. Pfft. 

Recruit I II III, Veteran I II III, Elite, Heroinc. Ez. If its all well balanced with minor damage/armour bonus this could be a nice change

[Madkill40]

8 hours ago, Testman said:

You mean Assault or Domination?
Or UT2004's Onslaught?

Whichever is most applicable

[iridesence]

Introduction of battlefield support stuff for vehicles would be a nice touch imo.

 

things like:

-smoke launchers (have some tanks with deployable smokescreens to mask movement)

-stealth generators (mobile platform that stealth's a small area around it, but not itself.)

-weapon jammers.  (breaks missile locks, forces manual aim)

-Laser Desginators (marked targets take increased damage)

-Emp tanks (fires emp blasts only, to lock tanks in place & disable mines, but no real damage)

 

doesnt have to be exactly those things, but some variety would be nice in terms of what our tanks can do.

things that don't do direct damage, but can do wonders in a team environment to support a team.  I know some of the devs wanted to take this game in its own direction, and i think adding new features, as well as new things would help to distinguish it..

[Madkill40]

2 hours ago, iridesence said:

Introduction of battlefield support stuff for vehicles would be a nice touch imo.

 

things like:

-smoke launchers (have some tanks with deployable smokescreens to mask movement)

-stealth generators (mobile platform that stealth's a small area around it, but not itself.)

-weapon jammers.  (breaks missile locks, forces manual aim)

-Laser Desginators (marked targets take increased damage)

-Emp tanks (fires emp blasts only, to lock tanks in place & disable mines, but no real damage)

 

doesnt have to be exactly those things, but some variety would be nice in terms of what our tanks can do.

things that don't do direct damage, but can do wonders in a team environment to support a team.  I know some of the devs wanted to take this game in its own direction, and i think adding new features, as well as new things would help to distinguish it..

Even if it was possible to equip a different weapon type to vehicles or an add-on X ability which allowed for a special attack at an additional cost for the vehicle..?

Like an MRLS with an singular EMP missile with a long recharge rate? Or an Nod Buggy with a low fire-rate flamethrower weapon? (think Red Alert 1 Soviet Flame-Tower type of attack)

Think that'd be pretty rad and adds more variety to vehicles

[iridesence]

its easier said then done, but mabye make a new building, like say an armory for GDI & shrine for Nod. 

has a platform that when a vech is parked on, a player can enter a PT to apply "upgrades" to said tank on pad for credits.  like flamethrowers for buggys, smoke deployment systems for light/medium tanks, emp missiles to the mrls, destructible armor plates, etc.

 

thats my idea at least.

Edited June 29, 2018 by iridesence

[ex_member]

...

Edited September 22, 2018 by ex_member

[DoMiNaNt_HuNtEr]

@dr.schrott My bad.

[vandal33]

Hmmm about this vehicle weapon change, an M1 Abrams (medium tank) with a 7.62 coaxial secondary gun and an M2 .50cal BMG mounted on top for passengers control (like the Trans. Heli) sounds good, but it might reduce a Humvee's usefulness.

How about giving officers some support call like a toned down version of the commander's ability (inspired from Renegade campaign's officers who can call reinforcements and Generals Zero Hour Reborn's officers). These guys don't act like officers currently, they're just regular soldiers with improved armor and weapon and carrying smoke grenades.

Also, Decrease the TTK. Make stealth soldiers feared again!

[Madkill40]

1 hour ago, vandal33 said:

sounds good, but it might reduce a Humvee's usefulness.

Humvee with a grenade launcher and an X ability to deploy some kind of chemical on the ground which greatly reduces the speed of vehicles...

 

Also, APCs having the X ability to deploy Anti-Tank mines should be a thing, maximum of 2 AT mines. They're just like any other AT mines, except the APC has an unlimited amount to deploy. This should just be something added to the current RenX anyway. APC must remain stationary for the duration of planting an AT mine. (obviously) 

[j0g32]

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 11:35 PM, yosh56 said:

I just kind of want to start a mostly theoretical discussion about what would/could be done differently in rebuilding CnC-Mode (Or Ren in general) from the ground up.

imho, lot of the above discussion focused too much on changes to current Ren(X) rather than re-imagining C&C gamemode from the ground up…

I would like to summarise some of the higher-level gameplay concepts of C&C mode that I love in theory, but then highlight how it could be improved/implemented relative to current Ren(X).
Mainly, I am a huge fan of the hybrid FPS-RTS concept.

RTS components

• Economy: resource extraction (Tiberium harvesting) and control (Silos) that yield credits which enable more powerful/specialised arsenal/tactics. And personal (instead of team-wide shared) funds also has its merits.
• Functional Base: buildings with distinct features (credits, power, defence, infantry and vehicle production) induces strategies with greater scope, e.g. kill ref and drain resources VS. kill bar and win infantry paths/rushes  (and stop re-mining) VS. kill def to enable sneakers/commando ...

FPS/RTS components

• Combined Arms: infantry and vehicles with different specialisations, abilities, strengths, and weaknesses (rock-paper-scissors)

And all of the above inevitably require a lot of interesting teamplay. 

Though, one of the strengths of (vanilla) C&C mode is that due to personal (not team-wide) funds, centralised organisation via commander is not required to win the game, though still beneficial.

 

Suggestions:

1. Gameplay choices for individual players:
   • whether to focus on resources, base and defence building, support, offense, or technology (tbd ?)
   • purposeful roles; e.g. purchasable harvester as vehicle or infantry kit; deployable turrets, walls, barbed wires, tank obstacles (all outside buildings); designated transport & supply logistics between base and frontline;
   • maps with more alternative routes/paths !!! especially base building (below) would require open maps
2. Focus on infantry gameplay - inspired by Battlefield (2142):
   • fewer, but designated classes; e.g. Commando, Assault, Support, Engineer
   • Loadout customization: choose from (respectively) 2-5 weapons/gadgets with different emphasis; e.g. higher damage, rate of fire, or precision; recon vs. demolition vs. support; so that players can choose according to their playstyle, rather than the size of their wallet. Some items might need to be unlocked first.
   • While I am in favour of rock-paper-scissors for RTS balance, this might be unsatisfying in an (infantry focused) FPS. Hence, all classes could have access to default "tools" that are mediocre against anything (such as a carbine rifle and grenades), though mostly against infantry (again since this would be the focus); specialised weapons/items, however, focus on one aspect at the cost of another.
   • Weakspots at vehicles that allow skilful infantry to counter them more effectively; for buildings this would obviously be MCTs, which should take considerable damage from any weapon.
   • All classes for free (with default loadout) , perhaps some customizable items may have a low price tag, especially relative to vehicles. I am thinking of unit "upgrades" as in C&C Generals, or Battle for Middle Earth that could only be equipped after the units were recruited.
   • Perhaps use existing character models (only) as customisable skins.
   • Focus on well-coordinated squads communicating only with few players, instead of having to coordinate entire teams to pull off successful inf. rushes
   • More powerful, but limited Ammo (lower TTK) e.g. Support class can drop ammo box; inducing supply logistics between base and frontline
   • Slower (more inert) infantry movement, more weapon spread when moving, not scoped - which favours positioning over ping/"skill"
   • Infantry "heals" from medi/supply kits deployed by Support; engineers can only repair buildings and vehicles, but not heal.
3. Resource based economy:
   • only (!) resource extraction (harvesting) and control (silos) etc. yield credits that can be used to purchase stuff.
   • weapons are tools to secure resources; kills/damage do not give credits (perhaps points relevant for timed matches).
   • Prices should reflect that; and as infantry is mostly free this won't be a problem.
   • options to gather resources: players can harvest tiberium themselves, build a second refinery, build own silos that generate credits (either as tick rate, or as an interest rate on the stock of tiberium/credits)
   • multiple Tib fields that replenish slowly, inducing sustainable and diversified extraction
4. Base building:
   • See 1.) more player driven decisions: whether to prioritise on resources, logistics, defences, infantry vs. vehicle production, technology etc.
   • easiest is prob. separate building fund: whenever players receive income, building fund receives e.g. 3x the amount (depends on building prices; and whether player credits can also be used for building)
   • Chokepoints and base layout are driven by players choices, and how they place building, walls, gates, and defences.
   • Comeback possibility, which lowers the ultimate value of a lost structure; which ties in with allowing any class to deal considerable damage to the MCT.
   • Barracks/HoN serve mainly as spawn point (see Empires mod); though multiple barracks possible as forward outposts; if all destroyed, respawn as airdrop above MCV/ConYard, or at the initial starting point
   • drivable MCV spawns at beginning of round; can be built in WF; base building only with deployed MCY (=CY) possible; might be  able to undeploy, and slowly relocate
   • Base power is continuous, every building (other than PP) adds some load; PPs provide power; When load > generation "low power" for all buildings (!), but individual buildings can be deactivated to reduce the load; 
5. "Realistic" vehicle combat:
   • Vehicles should support infantry, not the other way round; less agile vehicle gameplay
   • no 3rd person camera (at least not with crosshair) to give infantry better chances to outmanoeuvre vehicles, and attack weakspots.
   • role of transporting infantry more important; perhaps allow passengers to use their weapons/gadgets inside the vehicle...
6. … ?
7. Profit !

 

I guess, I envision Battlefield style combat, but (harvestable) resource pools instead of capture points to fight over, which when harvested allow to buy & build stuff...

 

[iridesence]

honestly id rather see more game types then just C&C mode we have now.  its nice and all, but if you want more people to play longer term, your going to need more modes, CnC isnt for everybody.  And lets face it, a change of pace every so often would be nice.

Modes like:

-Assault (one team defends a point for X amount of time, they win if time limit is reached and its alive.  attacking team obv wins if target is destroyed.

-TDM (obvious what it means)

-Deathmatch (obvious what it means)

-Co-op missions (objective based maps vs the AI)

obviously those are cookie cutter examples, but im sure clever people could come up with better ones.

Edited July 1, 2018 by iridesence

[iridesence]

also, the fact that just about every map follows the same flow-pattern might exacerbate the boredom issue for some?

[DoMiNaNt_HuNtEr]

@j0g32  All that would be a dream come true.

[Fffreak9999]

8 hours ago, iridesence said:

honestly id rather see more game types then just C&C mode we have now.  its nice and all, but if you want more people to play longer term, your going to need more modes, CnC isnt for everybody.  And lets face it, a change of pace every so often would be nice.

Modes like:

-Assault (one team defends a point for X amount of time, they win if time limit is reached and its alive.  attacking team obv wins if target is destroyed.

-TDM (obvious what it means)

-Deathmatch (obvious what it means)

-Co-op missions (objective based maps vs the AI)

obviously those are cookie cutter examples, but im sure clever people could come up with better ones.

Technically TDM is supported, and I know normal DM is possible since we have used those modes on some maps in the past. (Deck, Prototype etc). They just are not run as regular rotation matches, since if they get played, the server configs get overwritten and you end up with 10 minute matches when you should have Marathon.

But they were normally run as their servers which held their own specialised configs but very few people joined them, that’s why server owners don’t normally have one running.

 

Also @iridesence - I have put up a Deathmatch server for you, it is currently running in TDM mode,  just be prepared to download the necessary files to join.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Fffreak9999
Added in more detail

[j0g32]

@iridesence yes, more game modes (or maps with "non-standard" gameplay for that matter) would be super exciting; in fact it already is possible without too much effort - feel free to check out the SDK and give it a go !  
Though, getting the balance and fun for asymmetric gameplay right, is the tricky bit...
And (team)deathmatch etc. is not the reason why people would play Renegade(X), so I don't think it's a priority.

[Nesk]

I think control points should be added in normal CNC-mode in Renx

As we can see, in some Command and Conquer games made by EA like Command and Conquer 4 and Command and Conquer:Rivals, there are always control points for players to capture and hold due to high productivity of units.take the newest cnc game, Command and Conquer:Rivals as example, if units spawn quickly like both Rivals and Renegade did, it is very difficult to make a breakthrough into enemy base, the game will become a deadlock and time-consuming just like what we experienced in both oldren and Renx, so developers add a control point in each map in Rivals to keep games from being deadlocks. Rivals may not be a good game, but it does own something for Renx developers to learn.

Now imagine yourself playing a rts game like Starcraft, both your units and your enemy's are produced in a fast rate and low-cost(Like players are free to respawn in Renegade and Renx as infantries), what will happen to your game?Well,you will find that when you have destroyed enemy forces in the middle of the map and headed for enemy base, there is another enemy troop waiting for you in full population while you have  only 50 units left on the battlefield and 150 units just produced in the base(In rts aspect, games in Renegade are much more like Starcraft and Company of Heroes with limited population than traditional cnc series due to the limitation of players' number), all you can do is to fallback or sending your units to die, whatever you choose to do, the battle you just fought will become meaningless and the meaningless battle will never stop if you are trying to destroy enemy base instead of capturing the middle of the map. If you are not convinced, go and try some Starcraft2 custom maps with extremely high productivity of units.You will find that usually it's a deadlock and very time-consuming. 

To make gaming more meaningful instead of producing so much garbage time, it is very necessary to add control points for cnc-mode as one of the ways to win the games.

 

[j0g32]

Hi @Nesk and welcome to the forums!
Yes, some sort of control points are a good way to entice player flow and avoid stalemates. In Renegade X, we have capturable tech buildings that provide a boost for the controlling team; e.g. in terms of their economy (silo) or intel (comm-centre), or other map-specific bonuses...

Additionally, the "field-controlling" team will often destroy the enemy's harvesters, thereby further crippling their opponents' economy. Such a siege often drains the defending team's resources, and the attackers can eventually break through. The problem in most matches is not so much on the side of the attackers, but to allow the defending team to break through the siege for a comeback...

 

So, you are basically suggesting an alternative way to win the game would be to simply control the battlefield (even without attacking the enemy base). This could be something like "missile silos" as seen in C&C rivals, but also in Battlefield 2142 // 4  in  Titan Mode // Carrier Assault.

Generally, I like the idea, because it would provide an implicit time limit for otherwise stalemate-y games, and force defenders to get out of their cozy MCT-healing-only-spots, and engage in counter attacks.

 

However, an option like this requires map and pathing rework: as I said above, you will want to give the defending team a fair chance to break a siege. Hence, placing the CP/missile silo (only!) in the same path that the attackers already block for a siege would only amplify the problem...

That's why I think that the current implementation of tech buildings, giving"boosts" to the controlling team, rather than punishing the controlled/sieged team, is a somewhat better option within the established gameplay.

[iridesence]

is it possible to include weather effects into the game using UE3?  for example random snowstorms that reduce visibility on under or a heavy thunderstorm in mesa with driving rain that making driving tanks harder(muddy terrain).

 

such random events could provide a chance for either team to make a move as it provides opportunity.

Edited July 2, 2018 by iridesence

[j0g32]

5 hours ago, iridesence said:

is it possible to include weather effects into the game using UE3?  for example random snowstorms that reduce visibility on under or a heavy thunderstorm in mesa with driving rain that making driving tanks harder(muddy terrain).

 

such random events could provide a chance for either team to make a move as it provides opportunity.

difficult, if not impossible in practice.

@Ruud033 and @Schmitzenbergh were on something like that for C&C Storm, but I think one problem is that visibility is client, and post-process (including fog?) can be switched off...

 

[Nesk]

On 7/2/2018 at 3:31 PM, j0g32 said:

Hi @Nesk and welcome to the forums!
Yes, some sort of control points are a good way to entice player flow and avoid stalemates. In Renegade X, we have capturable tech buildings that provide a boost for the controlling team; e.g. in terms of their economy (silo) or intel (comm-centre), or other map-specific bonuses...

Additionally, the "field-controlling" team will often destroy the enemy's harvesters, thereby further crippling their opponents' economy. Such a siege often drains the defending team's resources, and the attackers can eventually break through. The problem in most matches is not so much on the side of the attackers, but to allow the defending team to break through the siege for a comeback...

 

So, you are basically suggesting an alternative way to win the game would be to simply control the battlefield (even without attacking the enemy base). This could be something like "missile silos" as seen in C&C rivals, but also in Battlefield 2142 // 4  in  Titan Mode // Carrier Assault.

Generally, I like the idea, because it would provide an implicit time limit for otherwise stalemate-y games, and force defenders to get out of their cozy MCT-healing-only-spots, and engage in counter attacks.

 

However, an option like this requires map and pathing rework: as I said above, you will want to give the defending team a fair chance to break a siege. Hence, placing the CP/missile silo (only!) in the same path that the attackers already block for a siege would only amplify the problem...

That's why I think that the current implementation of tech buildings, giving"boosts" to the controlling team, rather than punishing the controlled/sieged team, is a somewhat better option within the established gameplay.

Thank you for your detailed reply

Though there are many problems with the control point system I mentioned，as you can see，it is time to make a change for renx，silo and communication center is no longer enough to provide players with exciting game experiences， changes should be made deeply instead of focusing on small issues，so adding control point is still worthy to try，you can make players gain funds in a rate faster than their opponents or something like that when they lose the control point to provide a fair chance for defenders，so I think such issues of fairness is not difficult to sort out.For example，you can make cps controllable only by infantries.By making cp only controllable by infantries，vehicles like humvee and apc will be more useful，which also emphasizes infantry combat within a fps game. Of course，cps should be on the field instead of being set inside tunnels only for infantries.Make them easier to be stolen by infantries by setting them near the entrances of tunnels，attackers will be forced to withdraw some of their forces in the siege to defend the control point when it is being stolen by large group of defenders‘ infantries，which would somehow provide a chance for defenders to make a counter attack.Games might be more exciting with such design.

But as you said，this may require a lot of works to do，you don't have to force yourselves to pay so much efforts，as you have already paid enough for the game（Or maybe making cps only controllable by infantries and setting them near the entrances of tunnels like what i mentioned above is a easier way to solve the problems？It doesn‘t require too many pathing rework or it doesn‘t need any）

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Nesk

[Madkill40]

Assault mode would be easily done if someone who knew kismet could make a simple map template which just contained 3 - 6 individual gates, which one team has to capture the nodes for to gain access to the other teams' base.

The other team just has to defend every node and last against the timer.

- - How these function within the game is entirely dependent on how anybody with the template designs their map - -

Capture the flag in RenX doesn't work however what RenX could do is reinvent the gamemode i.e. Beacon the Pedestal (That thing which never worked in OldRen, and was just ignored)

Again, just a map template with a pedestal rigged up in kismet to destroy either teams' entire base all at once

 

No actual map needs to come designed with either of these, but pre-made kismet of such aforementioned ideas saved into an tidy .udk file would be more beneficial to everyone and ideally puts the kismet savvy's talents to better use than what they've currently been focused on

@Ruud033 to just kismet either of these, how long would it take? 

This goes out to anybody else who knows how to use kismet ._.

[NodSaibot]

Because actual UnrealScript is better than kismet ;O

[Madkill40]

An UnrealScript version of either of my suggestions for an Assault or Beacon the Pedestal would also be equally awesome to have 

 

[iridesence]

Assault modes would fit into the theme of CnC really.  GDI or Nod special forces taking/destroying a hidden encampment or facility.  not unlike some missions on some of the C&C solo campaigns.

[vandal33]

We can try making the Domination game mode. Maps will have 3 special tech buildings in the field, if a team captures one, it will give them points every second so if you capture all 3, you'll get the most points per second. It's like the Tech Silo except it gives you points instead of credits. Once a team reached a certain score limit (from the captured tech posts), they win.

Capture the flag - Both teams have flags in their base, if a team steals the opposite team's flag and bring it all the way to their base, they win. C&C1 has this.

 

 

[Madkill40]

15 hours ago, vandal33 said:

Capture the flag - Both teams have flags in their base, if a team steals the opposite team's flag and bring it all the way to their base, they win. C&C1 has this.

Genuinely think Beacon the Pedestal would be better than the mundane CTF done by every other game.

In Beacon the Pedestal the Pedestal should be inside the Barracks/HoN - HOWEVER - both the Barracks and the HoN are destroyed from the beginning of the game meaning nobody spawns in either building and there are no purchase terminals inside, all other buildings have their health locked (or just have an insane amount of health/armour) ensuring that the pedestal is the only way to annihilate the enemy base

[Axesor]

I have nothing better to do with my life atm...

I believe that some ideas could be mixed together with other ideas, so I d like to share a bit of mine, mainly in regards to infantry gameplay.

Game account

• Create your own game account with ID and password. ID = your ingame name.
• Log in to enter your gaming profile.
• In gaming profile: Progress bar, Skill tree and characters costumization, Archievements, Waiting room (with chat), Servers list (ranked, non-ranked servers), Friend list (showing online/offline friends
• Ranked servers - official RenX servers, or servers that needs developers approval to be ranked servers. The owner needs to be trusted person who may use mutators, but mutators shall not modify EXP gain.

Infantry

Assault || Medic || Recon || Engineer

• All default infantry are free
• All default infantry have same stats
• Basic weapons are free, advanced weapons are paid
• Look of individual default classes are differentiated by color
• Player costumized characters is paid (500c). 
• Advanced Equipment (500c). Default free classes can be upgraded with advanced equipment that gives them +25HP, +25Armor, +10% damage output, -10% cooldowns. Its here for players that does not have their costumized characters yet.

Presumptions: 1.Weapons are rebalanced. 2. TTK has been lowered

Important:

• Repair tool, and Healing tool has limited energy, that is recharging if not used. Also these tools are not ranged anymore.. to repaid/heal, you need to do it close and personal. 
• Proxy mines are easily destroyable with dirrect hits.
• No weapon is 1 hit kill. Not even sniper rifle into head. Not even with upgrades. The only exeption for this is headshot from Ramjet Rifle.

Classes:

Assault: Has access to heavy weaponry.

• Default inventory: Grenade launcher, Pistol, Explosive grenade
• Inventory slots: Spec. Weap.(1)/Primary, Secondary, Grenades

Medic:  Has access to healing tools, and tiberium equipment

• Default inventory: Healing tool, Autorifle, Pistol
• Inventory slots: Spec. Weap.(1), Primary, Secondary

Recon:  Has access to sniper rifles in primary weapons list, melee weapons, recon equipment.

• Special equipment for Nod - stealth suit and controller. Player can hold either controller for stealth suit or a weapon. Stealth suit has its own energy that recharges when outside of stealth mode.
• Special equipment for both - Airstrike, Timed c4, smoke grenade

• Default inventory: Knife, autorifle, pistol
• Inventory slots: Spec. Weap.(1), Spec. Weap.(2)/Primary, Spec. Weap.(3)/Secondary/Grenade

Engineer: Has access to engineering tools.

• Special equipment: Mines, AT mines, Remote c4, Repair gun

• Default inventory: Repair tool, Mines, Autorifle, Pistol
• Inventory slots: Spec. Weap.(1), Spec. Weap.(2), Spec. Weap.(3)/Primary, Spec. Weap.(4)/Secondary

Skill tree

Each class has its own unique skill trees

Skill points are limited (12 max)

Skills can be mixed from all skill trees, but there is 1 special skill on bottom of each tree, and player need to invest at least 10 points to get there.

Characters look depends on picked upgrades. Upgraded Health makes character look bigger. Upgraded armor add kevlar and armor. Upgraded damage makes weapon look better and characters look more advanced so he looks like officer for example. If engineers explosion protection is upgraded, it adds flak jacket and then flak suit, that increases armor a little bit also. If medics enviromental protection is upgraded, it gives him hazmat mask, and then hazmat suit, that also increases armor a little bit.

Skill trees:

• Assault: Destroyer || Tank || Balanced
• Medic: Healer || Tiberium || Balanced
• Recon: Infiltrator || Marksman || Balanced
• Engineer: Engineering || Saboteur || Balanced

• Balanced: is same for all classes. It offers a little bit of everything to make your universal soldier.

Assault: 

• Destroyer || Improves performance of all the weapons. Offers special abilities to increase killing potential of Assault class.
• Tank || Focuses on health and armor upgrades. Improving incoming healing, and incoming repair.

Medic: 

• Healer || Improves all healing related equipment.
• Tiberium || Increases resistance to fire, and tiberium. Improves tiberium, and fire related equipment.

Recon: 

• Infiltrator || Buffs athletic, stealth (for Nod), and survival abilities. Promotes melee weapons usage, and adds silencer to secondary weapons. Improves melee damage protection. Focuses on improving Timed C4
• Marksman || Improves ranged weapons in general (not only sniper rifles), airstrike, smoke grenade, stamina. Further upgrades secondary weapon by lowering equip time and reload time. Top skill unlocks Ramjet Rifle and adds several more upgrades.

Engineer: 

• Engineering || Improves support potential, and equipment such as proxy mines, AT mines, repair, buffs, and vehicles
• Saboteur || Focuses on explosion resistance. Improves remote c4, and fire base weapons. Unlocks rocket launcher, and advanced firethrower as a primary weapon.

I could make detailed skills for each tree, but it would take me more time than I would like to invest into this atm.

Vehicles

Vehicles are far more expensive, but also does more damage to another vehicles, and infantry. Fire rate of tanks is slower.

I also agree that primary focus should be on infantry gameplay, but I still want vehicles to fulfill its crutial role on the battlefield.

I think Battlefield game is a good example of how vehicles should act.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Axesor

[DoMiNaNt_HuNtEr]

So far J0g32 has best way of rebuilding C&C mode, though not sure if buildable structures and MCV deploy, plus tiberium growth are even possible in Unreal Engine. To rebuild it such an extent you guys would need a budget, its like making a whole new game.

The devs should see if they can perfect the AI and make it more useful, and can make some coop maps maybe, or add in bots to existing maps to help flesh the game out - the game is only fun when there's a lot of players. Have the devs maxed out what they can possibly achieve with coding the AI?

[NodSaibot]

13 minutes ago, DoMiNaNt_HuNtEr said:

So far J0g32 has best way of rebuilding C&C mode, though not sure if buildable structures and MCV deploy, plus tiberium growth are even possible in Unreal Engine. To rebuild it such an extent you guys would need a budget, its like making a whole new game.

The devs should see if they can perfect the AI and make it more useful, and can make some coop maps maybe, or add in bots to existing maps to help flesh the game out - the game is only fun when there's a lot of players. Have the devs maxed out what they can possibly achieve with coding the AI?

Step 1: Get more than 2 active coders

[[B]Veyron]

Witnessed something today.  Reservoir match - FPI - someone on Nod had 2 accounts 1 GDI/1 Nod - Nod planted Nuke while GDI mammoth tank sat over the nuke thus ending GDI on said match.

what I wanted to get at is the flow of the match here in the sense that now we assume every player knows a method of cheating and signing on multiple times to gain an advantage and now to USE that very advantage to win the game.  

 

I feel like something about the game was destroyed here perhaps the game objectives?? .  - playerA can sign on everyday/all day and use this tactic over and over again thus destroying each and every match-  

I repeated myself there but I don't know how better to describe this situation.  

different/ outside of the box thinking is required?           --- I made a post about this a long time ago....--- 

[NodSaibot]

Did you report this to a moderator? That is clearly just team hampering. You can't really fix that.

[[B]Veyron]

no though an anon and I just figured it out.  ya I guess you're right I'll just lay down and die now....  

in essence though maybe no matter what we can create there's is opportunity for sabotage.. 

 

 

[NodSaibot]

16 minutes ago, Veyron said:

no though an anon and I just figured it out.  ya I guess you're right I'll just lay down and die now....  

in essence though maybe no matter what we can create there's is opportunity for sabotage.. 

 

 

Happens in every game really.

[Moat]

All the same ip addresses assigned to the same team option for the admin

Don't know if there is a log that connects the player name to the ip adress. If some one from yesterday remembers the name of the player and time he/she can still be banned. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Moat

[NodSaibot]

2 hours ago, Moat said:

All the same ip addresses assigned to the same team option for the admin

Don't know if there is a log that connects the player name to the ip adress. If some one from yesterday remembers the name of the player and time he/she can still be banned. 

There is. And what's the time that the match ended? I assume it happened at the end of the match. I can just look at the demo and search from there. 

I guess it's the only reservoir from yesterday.

http://fairplayinc.uk/demos/

[Moat]

I checked the demo, it was Player837. From the very beginning the behavior was suspicious so definitely planned. 

[NodSaibot]

2 hours ago, Moat said:

I checked the demo, it was Player837. From the very beginning the behavior was suspicious so definitely planned. 

Already taken care of:)

[vandal33]

We can try implement new features or complete overhaul on the entire game, but if that happens, I would still prefer the classes and weapons based on C&C Renegade (because they just seem fine and fitting for the game) but with slight alterations. Here goes...

The classes are Anti-infantry, Anti-Armor, Universal and Maintenance Support. Each classes have different tier levels (the higher the tier, the more expensive and effective at their intended role). Base level classes (Tier 0) are free and available without inf. barracks or hand of Nod. Anti-infantry should be the best infantry killer at long range and worst tank killer in their tier level, anti-armor is best against vehicles at their tier level, worst at killing infantry. Universal is in between. The reason I like this is because it is simple, only 4 classes which are fitting with the game. Each are separated by different tiers as having only 4 characters can be boring.

Special Grenades

• Flash Grenade: Issued to all anti-infantry, since it's useless against vehicles and makes anti-infantry more effective.
• EMP Grenade: Issued to all anti-armor. Useful against vehicles, useless against infantry.
• Frag Grenade: Available to all universal classes except Tier 0 (grenadier, flamethrower) and Nod Tier 1 (chemical). Grenade is strong against everything.
• Smoke Grenade: Issued to support classes, I thought a harmless smoke would do nicely for support.
• Molotov Cocktail: Available to Nod Tier 0 Universal (flamethrower).
• Chemical Grenade: Available to Nod Tier 1 Universal (chemical soldier).

GDI Tier 0 Universal (the Grenadier) has a grenade launcher, maybe he can have all types of grenades (except the fire and chem bomb) launched from his gun so he doesn't need hand-thrown ones. Explosive rounds are rapid, powerful ones like EMP has a cooldown.

Anti-Infantry

Strong vs: Infantry

Weak vs: Vehicles

Armaments: Primary Weapon, Pistol, 1x Timed C4, Flash Grenade, Knife.

Primary Weapons:

• Tier 0: The game's most basic firearm (eg. Assault/Automatic Rifle)
• Tier 1: More powerful version of above weapon (eg. Machine gun)
• Tier 2: Sniper Rifle
• Tier 3: More powerful version of above weapon (eg. Anti-Material Sniper RIfle)

Anti-Armour

Strong vs: Vehicles

Weak vs: Infantry

Armaments: Primary Weapon, Pistol, 1x Timed C4, EMP Grenade, 2x AT mines, Flak Armor (more explosive resistance, cannot be runovered)

Primary Weapons:

• Tier 0: Shotgun
• Tier 1: Basic Rocket Launcher
• Tier 2: Rapid-firing rocket launcher (GDI)/Rapid LASER gun (Nod)
• Tier 3: PIC/Railgun

Universal

Strong vs: everything at close range

Weak vs: anything outside their effective range

Armaments: Primary weapon, Pistol, 1x Timed C4, Special Grenade (see above), Special suit (see below).

Special Suit: Flak (GDI Tier 0), fireproof (Nod Tier 0), hazmat (Nod Tier 1), Stealth (Nod Tier 2), Kevlar (all others).

Primary Weapons:

• Tier 0: Grenade Launcher(GDI)/Flamethrower(Nod)
• Tier 1: More powerful version of above weapon (eg. Rapid firing splash damage weapon like the Tiberium Auto Rifle for GDI, chemical sprayer for Nod).
• Tier 2: More powerful version of above weapon (eg. Tiberium Flachette Gun or Tactical Rifle, preferably something short-ranged)
• Tier 3: Volt Auto Rifle.

Maintenance Support

• Tier 0: Basic Engineer (Repair tool, 1x Timed C4, 2x Remote C4)
• Tier 1: Field Medic (Medical Supplies, 1x Timed C4, Steroids to buff allies)
• Tier 2: Advanced Engineer (Adv Repair tool, 2x Timed C4, 2x Remote C4, 3x  Proximity C4)

In addition, all support classes have a pistol sidearm and smoke grenade.

 

[[B]Veyron]

someone mentioned about an MCV and the sorts...

I had a plan of designing the  MCV + CY from TibDawn and using the MCV as a means to auto repair say all units? and when deployed auto repair all buildings.  

take a look at my post in the WIP I believe is where it is you can see the design there,  

The animation would be exact that of the TibDawn MCV deployment where the MCV unfolds and such.  

However the space needed for the MCV to fully deploy into a conyard in the field would be a little big and would not be supported with current maps due to the terrain.  because the CY is an actual sized building.. 



EDIT: another idea I had was Defense levels where both Nod and GDI could either A: Defend their own bases and work together 
                                                                                                                                                  B: defend their own base while destroying other teams base.

based off the defense levels seen on Red alert on CNCNET 

Edited July 20, 2018 by [B]Veyron

[roweboat]

47 minutes ago, Veyron said:

another idea I had was Defense levels where both Nod and GDI could either A: Defend their own bases and work together 
                                                                                                                                                  B: defend their own base while destroying other teams base.

based off the defense levels seen on Red alert on CNCNET 

1

I've always liked this idea. sort of a variation on king of the hill mode. 

Would shake up the gameplay mechanics a bit.

[[B]Veyron]

1 hour ago, roweboat said:

I've always liked this idea. sort of a variation on king of the hill mode. 

Would shake up the gameplay mechanics a bit.

it would be until one team eventually dies.  but I have no clue how this would take shape since each wave of enemies gets more difficult.  and that's just it too..

waves of enemies so Wave 1 is simple pistols.  Wave 2 is auto rifles.  Wave 3 is a mix of weapons and so on...  much like Gears of War Horde Mode actually

Gears of War is based of this very same Game Engine yes?

[Hohndo]

12 hours ago, Veyron said:

someone mentioned about an MCV and the sorts...

I had a plan of designing the  MCV + CY from TibDawn and using the MCV as a means to auto repair say all units? and when deployed auto repair all buildings.  

take a look at my post in the WIP I believe is where it is you can see the design there,  

The animation would be exact that of the TibDawn MCV deployment where the MCV unfolds and such.  

However the space needed for the MCV to fully deploy into a conyard in the field would be a little big and would not be supported with current maps due to the terrain.  because the CY is an actual sized building.. 

Design a new smaller structure? Up to you, but I  would not let current canon limit you.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Hohndo

[swaffelen]

Is there even a point to developing Renegade-X if it isn't even a Renegade remake anymore? Might as well just develop something non-C&C so you can release on Steam. 

[roweboat]

50 minutes ago, swaffelen said:

Is there even a point to developing Renegade-X if it isn't even a Renegade remake anymore? Might as well just develop something non-C&C so you can release on Steam. 

Ultimately I think this is the best idea, since then the game could be sold and the money could go to actually developing the game further =D

 

But then of course... nearly everything in the game would have to be redesigned...

[NodSaibot]

If you count the amount of active developers, it probably would fit on the fingers of both of your hands. We would either have to add more people to the team or just take another 10 years to make a new game. Either way it's a lot of time for something that has no guarantee of success.

Also, someone would have to maintain this game at the same time. And that definitely isn't a 1 person job.

[Ruud033]

On 7/2/2018 at 5:31 PM, j0g32 said:

 

@Ruud033 and @Schmitzenbergh were on something like that for C&C Storm, but I think one problem is that visibility is client, and post-process (including fog?) can be switched off...

 

Jep we tried but it's almost impossible with dynamic lighting in ue3

And PP can be turned off yes

[Madkill40]

On 7/14/2018 at 3:08 AM, DoMiNaNt_HuNtEr said:

So far J0g32 has best way of rebuilding C&C mode, though not sure if buildable structures and MCV deploy, plus tiberium growth are even possible in Unreal Engine. To rebuild it such an extent you guys would need a budget, its like making a whole new game.

The devs should see if they can perfect the AI and make it more useful, and can make some coop maps maybe, or add in bots to existing maps to help flesh the game out - the game is only fun when there's a lot of players. Have the devs maxed out what they can possibly achieve with coding the AI?

Just mod Natural Selection 2's specifically design game engine 'Spark' and thus - Tiberium growth enabled - Lua coding would be a must

[Canucck]

That engine ran like shit though, it's pretty much why the game died. No one could play at a decent fps even with 12-24p. 50% hitreg at best

Edited August 8, 2018 by Canucck