[Poll] Frustration in Renx

[Mystic~]

Quote

3. Same maps over and over again, could be changed by delisting played maps for longer time from map votes

I've only just started following this thread, but I voted for maps and team stacking.

Maps:  I get frustrated when we get marathon long games playing Field, Under, then voting Field-X and then occasionally we get Island and Walls, which I like, but there are so many maps that rarely get picked during public servers that it would be nice to play on more frequently. And I'm all for maps being hidden from the rotation for a number of rounds (for at least 5 rounds) before it can be selected again. Maybe an extra manual map vote option rather than just 'change map' might be a nice feature if not already present so people can deliberately call a vote for the desired map, but this still allows it to be hidden from the end game map choices which often get automatically voted for - often the newbies would like Ob/AGT base defences and also often nobody wants to scroll further down to see the other choices, which get missed. Too much Field/Under > maybe stick these maps at the bottom automatically.

Single chokepoint maps still have the potential to become irritating if there's a base lock-in say Walls, Islands, Field, Under and it becomes a case of ensuring AFK repair/building barrage - how about a personal player cool down limit on repair guns (obviously far greater than the rep tool), a limit on how long a building can [sustain] being attacked before producing a small percentage loss on its permanent health i.e. not 100% effective all the time or maybe a cooldown limit on tank/artillery shells/missiles (up to 50 before they have to break off and cease firing for a short-moderate period) possibly similar to what happens to the LCG when it depletes its battery-magazine, but longer 'reloads' for tanks.  

Team stacking: is sometimes an issue, especially if one side has a capable commander and the other side doesn't. When this happens you quickly see the server numbers dwindle after a quick stomp round. First people leave due to early building kill and then people leave due to a dominated round loss and this is very often how a server ends for the evening from the euro time-zones.

Excessively long games:

Even with the veteran points system, I'm still finding certain maps can drag on for far too long when on a marathon, especially if both teams have lost a significant number of their structures and it becomes painful when even a rocket soldier costs $650 and trying to organise assaults around this. I'm not sure what the solution is, but often neither Surrender or Change Map is desirable in these situations as it invalidates the hard work everyone has put in, and everyone wants to see a clear winner. Maybe something to bring more urgency or closure? Something like a vote change for transitioning into Extra Time like football and then highest score maybe win again as per time-limited games or maybe some sort of penalties or incentives come into play like disabling building shields/armour so every shot becomes permanent damage or repairs lose 50% of their effectiveness. End game mode enabled. etc

[TomUjain]

The enjoyment of a game is defined by the options we have open to us. Some like to snipe, others drive tanks etc... etc... I believe a lot of this fustration comes from the fact that losing a building effectively reduces the options you have to you. This is the main reason why people rage quit / get mad when a key building is lost.

I believe we need to take another look at the rewards / punishments of losing a building are. As it was pointed out games can drag on and on; which isn't very fun if you are reduced to 1 key building for example.

 

This is an argument I have made before.

 

On FPI, when the ref is destroyed you still get a 2 tick per sec credit count -- on default if you lose the ref you get a painfully slow credit tick which makes playing RenX a massive choir if you have to wait ages to save up for basic units. If I had my way I'd revamp all buildings with the following:

Lose Power Plant: AGT / Obi continues to work at 25% strength

Lose AGT / Obi: No change

Lose Bar or Hon: All units remain, but suffer a 500% credit increase (stacking with power plant loss)

Lose Wf or Strip: All units remain, but suffer a 500% credit increase (stacking with power plant loss and a cooldown)

Lose Ref: Maintain a 2 tick credit trickle, no harv dump (we already have this on FPI)

However this is a controversial issue, and the majority seem to disagree with me on this. The other big issue is map design. As it has been pointed out, this game was not designed for 64 players -- most maps simply can't cater to that size; as a side effect (under for example) we end up with 'bottle necking'

Team stacking? I don't have the answer. FPI have tried to cater to both sides of this argument and failed. The problem is bad games can sometimes be caused by bad luck. That said, FPI does have one defence: you can request a team shuffle via !modrequest -- it has been an effective way to deal with 'bad teams' with the only downside is a mod / admin has to do it.

Edited July 15, 2019 by TomUjain

[Agent]

On 7/14/2019 at 6:46 PM, TomUjain said:

This is an argument I have made before.

The issues around subtractive gameplay mechanics have definitely been a long known and long debated. While I agree that subtractive gameplay mechanics aren't desirable and should not be expanded, I actually disagree that they should be further watered down. As it is, RenX is already far more forgiving around building death than old Ren ever was. If you're wanting to experiment with the gamemode, I'd encourage you to investigate recovery ("counter-subtractive") mechanics so that teams can genuinely recover from their losses. Further watering down building losses just makes building kills less meaningful, and will encourage stalemates.

[roweboat]

In Chess, I don't know if the move has an official name. But if you move a pawn from it's starting position and it makes it to the other side, it can be promoted to a higher class piece (eg. the pawn can become a Queen).

 

I know the concept of "once a building's gone, it's gone" concept has been debated I'm sure. I'm not even sure at the moment how a feature could be implemented. But I'm wondering more and more if a team that loses a building, should have *some sort* of way of recovering a building.

Because one of the biggest trends I've seen more in the last year or so, once one building is lost 8/10 times, total morale is lost. 

 

As it stands, I feel matches can too quickly become either stalemates or one-sided too quickly. Sorry no solution. Just an observation.

[Madkill40]

On 6/13/2019 at 6:29 PM, Riou Insuiko said:

5 ) A veteran player base. For a new player, something as simple as placing mines in an 'improper' location will get you roasted. ...

This is slowly being worked on, some players may get the roasting and stick around then do the same to other newbies - New or breaking out of new, it is unfortunate to be roasted unexpectedly for not magically knowing the ways of the game. But being more newbie friendly is in the motion, many times I've suggested an 'Friendly' server. Which bridges the user-to-user help in learning the game. 

On 6/13/2019 at 6:29 PM, Riou Insuiko said:

3 ) Getting stuck is an annoyance that has caused me to lose a vehicle quite a few times.

Tip when stuck in a vehicle, get out and get back in the vehicle and tap 'W' or 'D' key - 90% of the time this will free your vehicle to move again. 

If infantry stuck spot [or even a permanent vehicle stuck spot] always remember to screenshot and share it onto the forums

 

On 6/13/2019 at 6:29 PM, Riou Insuiko said:

1 ) Player voting.

Restart map and Change map I can agree with definitely, the two of these vote spams are immature and might be better off as mod-instigated votes

50-50 on surrender vote being locked to Commander only. [There's already a 10 minute cool-down on the surrender vote]

 

On 6/13/2019 at 6:29 PM, Riou Insuiko said:

6 ) Server variety.

There are enough players on at any time to nearly fill two 64 slot servers, but this community in-particular is quite timid to loiter or seed more than one server at a time. I once saw FPI booming so I joined the CT server in the hopes of getting two servers going and people were starting to fill CT and I was like "Wicked, is this two servers decently populated now??!!!" - as it turned out, just by being on the CT server meant people started to leave the FPI server to join the CT server, the reason is still a mystery. 

 

US and EU based 'Friendly' servers might be a good idea, vanilla RenX, experienced players who join expected to help newbie players - newbie players encouraged to ask for help [due to lack of substantial tutorial] - because no matter what the time of day it is in the world or however many players are in those servers, it's more expected to have user-to-user(s) tutorial than to better understand the game than to be tossed into the deep end. 

RenX has that Natural Selection 2 learning curve, should treat newbies in a similar way. (It would still be solely down to a newbie to join a [Friendly] server)

Friendly server map rotation should be solely Complex, Walls and Under. [As these maps give new players the most in the three map play-styles which they'll learn in time should they stick around to enjoy RenX like many of us do. [i.e. Complex: No base defenses, its all on the team. Walls: flying map, only AA, rooftop access. Under: Base defenses map, importance of (counter-)infiltration. etc. ]

EU server, ez set up. US server? Hmm.

[limsup]

43 minutes ago, Madkill40 said:

But being more newbie friendly is in the motion, many times I've suggested an 'Friendly' server.

I concur! In my humble opinion, no tutorial map [even if we had one] would be worth as much as scheduled, live training events [possibly templated on the Pick Up Games]

43 minutes ago, Madkill40 said:

 

 

1

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Madkill40 said:

If infantry stuck spot [or even a permanent vehicle stuck spot] always remember to screenshot and share it onto the forums

Please do! We have eliminated a metric ton of such spots in the past years, but there are always some left - especially on larger maps - which can be gradually eliminated if we are provided with a proper screenshot.

43 minutes ago, Madkill40 said:

There are enough players on at any time to nearly fill two 64 slot servers, but this community in-particular is quite timid to loiter or seed more than one server at a time. I once saw FPI booming so I joined the CT server in the hopes of getting two servers going and people were starting to fill CT and I was like "Wicked, is this two servers decently populated now??!!!" - as it turned out, just by being on the CT server meant people started to leave the FPI server to join the CT server, the reason is still a mystery. 

First remark: often at RenX prime hours there are people idling in the launcher, waiting for a single slot to open up on a 64/64 full server. A couple of times they have joined my own testing server just because they saw in the launcher, its population was not zero, ending up having a 16-20 player game, which some of the players do prefer over larger, more crowded games, so with properly selected maps, that are conductive to such a player count, they have had a fun time. They need a way to realize each other's presence and should be actively encouraged to start a game.

Second remark: for the "reason is still a mystery" remark, I can only say this: each server has its own distinct set of rules and game configurations, which is up to personal preference. In addition to that, however, there might arise a situation where a player would really want to avoid one or more specific players or cabals of "friends playing together". That might also be a valid reason for them to simply go join a different server, and play there. Ideally, if we could manage to get at least two servers populated per night, it could swiftly solve several key challenges, which the game currently faces.

[Axesor]

The most frustrating thing for me is that the gameplay is way too oldschoold and lack of innovative, and life improving content, which makes playing in this dream-world an utter nighmare for those who are not hard-core to the bones ren. players enough.

On 6/5/2019 at 6:26 PM, TheOlsenTwins said:

I voted other:

1. Mining System (Overmining, mine placement, lots of lost matches/players just by bad mining)
2. Ppl leaving tanks to repair as GDI (>MRLS) and not understanding that locked tanks don't lock against the enemy
3. Why even after years, we still cannot give Noobs just 1 sentence of explanation about 1. and 2. builtin  into the game. (yes i know, we can chat everyone up, but at this point it is just annoying to do that every second public match)
4. Snipers too powerful IMHO (Headshot Multiplier, any paid unit >200 should not get killed in 1 shot, when full - especially up close with no scope, that is still just silly and annoying)
   As i understand it, their main role is to kill the repairs from behind the tanks, and not just go on a killfest the whole game, which is their role mainly. (maybe improve their power against eng./adv, eng. and weaken against everyone else)
5. 64 players are too much for most maps - IMO best gameplay 20-50 players

I see you are still kicking for a good cause even after so many years 😃

Edited July 18, 2019 by Axesor

[Madkill40]

8 hours ago, limsup said:

Second remark: for the "reason is still a mystery" remark, I can only say this: each server has its own distinct set of rules and game configurations

And here was me trying to boost my self-esteem by assuming I was loved and adored by random players on the interwebz  

[TomUjain]

It really does depend on what direction RenX wants to go.

The origional Renegade was a lot less forgiving (as agent pointed out) but it was also far from flawless. If RenX seeks to be the perfect remake of the old Renegade then we have to come to terms with the fact that this game will never be main stream. Let us not forget, Renegade was a 'bonus' thrown in for fun (it was tacked on) , it was never designed to be a game on itself, it if was -- I doubt it would be the same Renegade we know and love today.

Renegade requires a taste that isn't mainstream. It is stressful, frustrating and removes gameplay options open to you for ever building lost. Now I do feel that RenX has a duty to be faithful to its core (Renegade) thus striking that balance is key.

I do feel strongly that having some sort of mechanic that allows players to play the roles they want, it'll stop this 'afk' and 'rage quitting' that we see time and time again, because the hand of nod is gone (for example) Perhaps a class system? Players pick at the start of the session if they want to be:

<---- Support (10% speed boost, 10% discount on hotwires: able to buy hotwire / techie when building lost, everything else increased by 10%)

<----- Defence (10% defence buff, 10% discount on hotwires: able to buy hotwire / techie when building lost, everything else increased by 10%)

<----- Offense (10% offense buff, 10% discount on mobi / Doza: able to buy doza / mobi when building lost, everything else increased by 10%

<---- Tanker (-25% tank cost: able to buy lights / meds when building lost, everything else increased by 20%

 

Gameplay is king. We need to deside what we want, to be user friendly (to attract new blood) or be a faithful remake of the old game, understanding that the latter will ALWAYS mean we will struggle for new blood. Perhaps we could meet in the middle with game modes, having a game mode that mimics the die-hard experience of the old Renegade? I don't have the answer. I do know that if we keep going in this direction we won't solve the player problem.

 

[Madkill40]

5 hours ago, TomUjain said:

<---- Support (10% speed boost, 10% discount on hotwires: able to buy hotwire / techie when building lost, everything else increased by 10%)

<----- Defence (10% defence buff, 10% discount on hotwires: able to buy hotwire / techie when building lost, everything else increased by 10%)

Include Gunner / LCG for 'Defence' & DeadEye / BlackHandSniper for 'Support', in a way a new player will understand the roles for these characters from the get go and will player them frequently because discounted/able for purchase after building destroyed. These roles should be for the whole match... if this was even going to be a thing. 

[HIHIHI]

28 minutes ago, Madkill40 said:

These roles should be for the whole match... if this was even going to be a thing.

Definitely. It would be terribly broken to allow a person to be Support and buy a Hottie, then switch to Tanker and buy a Med... With the Bar and WF both dead. : )

I feel that allowing the purchase of Doza and Mobi with a dead bar is a little too powerful (but the idea itself is interesting). Perhaps lower tier characters? (Although the only lower tier characters that weren't Gunner and LCG like Madkyll said would be Patch and SBH... SBH seems like it should be gone for good with dead HoN...) Or perhaps just make them significantly more expensive as well.

I'm not too much for or against either way... Just interested and giving my thoughts.

[TomUjain]

The idea has a lot of room for refinement.

But the basic concept is to allow people to play how they want to play without having those options taken away from them just because a building is lost. I'm not saying a building loss should be nullified (punishments for lost buildings should still remain) but this class system would be a big step forward in making this game a lot less of a headache when reduced to, for example a power plant and a refinery.

Yes it is loyal to the old Renegade, but I don't think it is something people want....if it was, why is the surrender vote so popular when this games occure? Why is it that between 5 - 50% of the team will leave the session when this happens? as I said before, to attract new players I believe gameplay should be king.

Punishments for a building can still remain with: Timers, increased prices and even limiting the amount of times they can be taken from the menu.

Edited July 20, 2019 by TomUjain

[Guest once upon the time]

It is good that some here are thinking about what it can be and maybe you can improve.
The real reasons we will never learn from the new players who have only briefly "played", of which almost never writes one in the forum.
We can guess, surmise or speculate, but we will not know the true cause.
I have written many times that Ren X is not mainstream and never will be. I do not want to judge if it's bad or not.
Unfortunately, with many new game options, some players are reluctant to continue playing for a loss of a building, which is a pity.
Whether the new achievements like CP / VP, Surrender are really game-promoting I doubt even though I play no more pub.
As you can see, I only speculate;)

[vandal33]

About losing buildings taking away some of the options you have, being hampered by it is the core gameplay. I do agree that the punishment does take away some of the fun, since you are restricted from doing certain things. I was thinking maybe we could improve the weaker units so teams that lost a building can still make use of whatever they have left and improvise without being too far behind.

For example, someone loves playing as a sniper only, but gets frustrated when his barracks/hand of nod is destroyed and his accessibility to snipers is now locked so he leaves. We can sit down and think why did he choose to leave instead of continue playing as a marksman. Marksman can still fill the role of a sniper (camping in bunkers, counter infantry at distance, weaken field repairs, etc) but they have a much weaker weapon. Perhaps we can improve the marksman class so it's still not frustrating for people who loves playing snipers when they lose their infantry barracks/hand of nod.

Give EMP grenades to rocket soldiers too so teams without barracks/hand of nod can clear mines. Doesn't matter if the EMP is weaker or has longer cooldown, as long as players with no bar/HoN still has the option to use emps without needing to be a commander.

Another example when hand of nod is gone, you can't do Mendoza rush anymore and rocket soldiers are expensive if you don't have a power plant or refinery. This makes players lose hope as the free characters can't do much. What if we make flamethrowers more viable in taking out buildings. I know it sounds crazy for free infantry to easily crush a building but it's better than having frustrated players with no hope leaving since it's physically impossible to do building rushes with free infantry and win. I was thinking maybe they can be a weaker free substitute for mendozas.

Basically I just want the permanent characters to be a viable substitute to whatever options you have when you still have the barracks or hand of nod, but with weaker guns/repairs. The only exception is being a stealth character (SBH) or the ability to deploy mines (hotwire/technician). I enjoy seeing how valuable sbh/hot/techs are when they are irreplaceable, often teammates trying to protect them, or enemies hunting them down (like placing a beacon to bait them out) and I like the team communication asking "do they have a tech left?" or someone saying "player1234 & knabis65 are the last tech" . Just my thoughts.

[TomUjain]

Good suggestions @vandal33

As @SilentKnight pointed out (and this is something i've said in the past as well) we can never know 100% what is causing the issue. I disagree with RenX not being mainstream though, it does have potential to be -- but until we find out how we can make it attractive in that regard player numbers will remain as they are for a while.

I still think game stress is a factor (but I have no solid proof and could be wrong) that said, judging from what I see / have seen I believe I do make a strong argument that gameplay is (at the very least) playing some part in this issue. I also believe that 64 players is way too much and should be brought down to 40 (like before) but this is another controversial issue and something we've always had backlash on everytime we've tried to push in that direction.

One thing we do need to consider is the resources we have open to us. RenX devs are already busy, they don't get paid and have their hands full -- realistically we can't expect this problem to go away anytime soon.

[Guest once upon the time]

No matter which post we read about this game, there are already many like this, we always turn in a circle.

This can have different causes such as a dependency on the attitude of longtime players in the game itself.
Some do not want to keep changing their status as whatever. Some disharmonies still exist that are rather counterproductive in terms of player growth.

I even agree with Tom that Ren X could become mainstream if you're open to changes that have not been tried before. Another obstacle is that Ren X is not allowed to make money and therefore can not make huge advertising campaigns like other games.

For new players it would certainly be easier if the experienced players would take a little time (winning is not everything, even if you're happy) to "train" these new players.
I can even say that it can be a lot of fun with the right attitude.
Well, there are also new players interested in consulting 😉

I know that some of you could / would say: you do not play pub or pug yourself anymore, that's right and I have my personal reasons for that.
On the other hand, when Try-Out or the Paradise server is running and sometimes some "lost" to us, we always take the time to explain the new everything.
In the meantime, we often receive positive feedback, yes, and then some of you go into the "competitive world" and many are no longer playing.
Unfortunately, we rarely find out why these have stopped.
In my opinion, a way must be found to unite "old with new".
I did not want to write that much🙂

PS: I use google translate in the hope thats better as mine English.

[Handepsilon]

I think free/T1 classes are actually powerful enough to take out buildings if massed (10+) and well-coordinated. But I dunno if this is true because nobody actually pulled a stunt like this off

[Madkill40]

After everything said in this thread, I wonder, if there was another vote with the same choices - how the results would change. Limited to two choices, [not mandatory to vote twice] with all the same options as the OP.

 

It would be the single-most important Dev to Community method of listening which seems impertinent to take one step closer and concentrate on a possible solution, in my opinion. 

 

As it stands given the current results, whilst Team Stacking is 40 votes (36%) , Community also stands out as the 2nd most favourable - 25 votes; 22% - frustration in RenX.

SuddenThoughts regarding the last sentence.

 

Honestly, imagine if team stacking could influence two servers running alongside one another - instead of quitting the game, join another server, play a few rounds, if you're constantly being followed from server to server by those you deem are team stacking... Well that's basically harassment so eventually two servers would exist simultaneously, simply because having somewhere else to play is more preferable than taking frustration out on the game, because some people have an unfairPlay advantage - channeling a bad outcome into a good for RenX outcome.

PS. I'm not dismissing any of the other votes, each of those are noteworthy issues.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Madkill40

[Ryz]

19 hours ago, Handepsilon said:

I think free/T1 classes are actually powerful enough to take out buildings if massed (10+) and well-coordinated. But I dunno if this is true because nobody actually pulled a stunt like this off

It has been done with both flamer and grenadierrushes..
I guess grenadiers even managed to kil a building from the outside

[Kuzco]

A little late to the party but I'll throw my two cents in...

Infantry can easily make it into bases with AGT's and Obi's - it seemed way harder in the old Ren to be able to sneak into a base undetected.

I'm assuming it's EMP's that infantry use to remove a bunch of mines at the same time? I was playing for the first time in ages the other day and noticed every now and then all the mines would disappear. Is this as a result of a crate? I think it's super annoying.

Bonus vehicles being given to teams by the commander. What ever happened to once the airstrip and WF were dead there were no more vehicles unless landing one from a crate.

[HIHIHI]

2 minutes ago, Kuzco said:

Infantry can easily make it into bases with AGT's and Obi's - it seemed way harder in the old Ren to be able to sneak into a base undetected.

The development team has generally tried to reduce the stalemates that were (as I have heard - not a veteran Renegade player here) so common in Renegade, and I'm sure this is part of those efforts. Some people like quick games, some people like stalemates, some people like it in between. The devs just try to do their best for the game, and this was what they decided on.

3 minutes ago, Kuzco said:

I'm assuming it's EMP's that infantry use to remove a bunch of mines at the same time?

Yes, EMPs can be used to clear mines. Commanders can call in EMP airstrikes (interceptable by AA and SAM turrets) or the advanced AT characters (Gunner, LCG, Rav, and Syd) can use their EMP grenades. I am not aware of any way to get EMPs through crates (except if you get a character or spy crate that turns you into one of the aforementioned AT characters).

I'm not sure what you mean by this:

1 minute ago, Kuzco said:

Bonus vehicles being given to teams by the commander.

The commander has no special access to vehicles with a dead WF or Airstrip. Humvees/Buggies and APCs can generally still be bought (for high prices), but other than that, it's only crates and stolen vehicles.

Hope this is helpful,

     HIHIHI

[crazfulla]

On 7/26/2019 at 12:25 PM, HIHIHI said:

The development team has generally tried to reduce the stalemates that were (as I have heard - not a veteran Renegade player here) so common in Renegade, and I'm sure this is part of those efforts. Some people like quick games, some people like stalemates, some people like it in between. The devs just try to do their best for the game, and this was what they decided on.

Yep, marathon games would some times go on for like 6-8 hours. On servers that didn't have a vote system enabled, a moderator would have to come on and end it. Try to imagine a game on Walls with only the Hand of Nod and Barracks. No EMPs to disarm mines. No offensive buffs for doza/mob rushes. C4 to the outside of a building did like half a HP of damage. Times were tough.

[Sn4ke]

Test?

 

[Sn4ke]

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=12vvVoPp7QW1xQBBfMrp7MP7UPGTZmmZw

Enjoy. Old video produced by Mr. Lime

Sums up the whole stacking issue.

everyone wants to play with his friends from time to time.

everyone keeps killing (at least) parts of the community from time to time.

🐺

🐍

🛰️

🚀

 

 

[limsup]

lmao still salty over banter, chill down you old furnace 🤣

Also: if you wanna keep posting my otherwise not published game vids, I'm entitled to the royalties 

[Sn4ke]

if you really think you can understand Germans by simply knowing R.Wagner... well. try again

[Highlink]

I've played on and off for years and love 75% of the game but my aim isn't good enough to find much fun in the 25% of the time you are locked in your base with little hope of escape. It is frustrating and unfun to have no options against a team of 1000 credit inf and tanks at the front door often killing you as or even before you leave buildings. It would be fine if this only lasted a minute or two but sometimes it goes on half an hour or more with the team not wanting to surrender. I love the changes over the years like building armor, vet, and commanders and wish I could offer more constructive advice on how to improve on the issue further but I got nothing. Just wanted to vent and this seemed like the thread to do it in, thanks for all the great games over the years and sorry if I have gotten frustrated and lashed out in game to any of you.

[Madkill40]

I wonder about the 15 "Others" ... lemme guess, pug?