No Superweapon / No Comm Matches

[AshbyJones]

I remember on one server at some point there was a player count under which you could not use superweapons...was it decided that is a bad idea?

 

Seems like a popular informal agreement on small matches, but it tends to lead to lots of bitching when one or two ppl don't know or care...  Today I totally TH'd calling out ppl doing an ion rush when we'd agreed no superweapons or comm...much hysteria ensued.  Not saying that was the right way to handle it but...

 

Any chance of going back to something like whichever server had that limit?  Maybe of a vote to limit superweapons or even comms?

[NodSaibot]

1 minute ago, AshbyJones said:

I remember on one server at some point there was a player count under which you could not use superweapons...was it decided that is a bad idea?

 

Seems like a popular informal agreement on small matches, but it tends to lead to lots of bitching when one or two ppl don't know or care...  Today I totally TH'd calling out ppl doing an ion rush when we'd agreed no superweapons or comm...much hysteria ensued.  Not saying that was the right way to handle it but...

 

Any chance of going back to something like whichever server had that limit?  Maybe of a vote to limit superweapons or even comms?

It's a config option on serverside. You can specify the amount of players needed to buy superweapons

[AshbyJones]

wellll...aren't these *offical* servers now?  like developers' servers?

[NodSaibot]

2 minutes ago, AshbyJones said:

wellll...aren't these *offical* servers now?  like developers' servers?

The official servers use default configs that come with the game, the current default config for minimum players is 0.

Currently, it's not implemented in a way that really works for the game. Simply looking at the player count does not give enough information to completely lock out a valid way of ending the game. Imagine a ref vs ref match where its impossible to infiltrate because of defending, hard to do rocket rushes and no tanks. Ion/nuke is a great way of finishing that match.

The current system would need to be overhauled to include stuff like match duration and or buildings left, if it were to be re-enabled in default configs.

[Hicks]

Apparently I am not the first and AshbyJones will not be the last to ask for a vote to limit the use of the beacon or the election of a commander. I am convinced that the developers have done an exceptional job but I wonder why not listen to the suggestions of the community? In the past in another thread Handepsilon answered me about it:
"And I guess I'll let the other devs who's more regular than me decide on the votes." I was hoping that with the latest update to see some new constructive voting for matches, needless to say I was disappointed
In any case now the question is not why you don't implement these new votes but the correct question is: why don't you want to implement them? It's not laziness, otherwise you wouldn't be releasing updates on a regular basis, so what's the reason? As I said to Handepsilon it is also a way to make the players independent from the decisions of the developers, that is to make it so that the players decide the rules of a game with the possibility of voting, not that the server with the rules implemented decides for them. I'll give you two examples of hypothetical situations just to be clearer:
1) in a 2v2 game 3 players want to add bots while the last one does not. The vote is made and bots are added. This is democracy and it is the right spirit.
2) in a 6v6 game 11 players don't want the beacon to be used while 1 absolutely wants to use it. This one player will use it against everyone's will and will be kicked off the server and the game ruined. This is not the right spirit for a match.
So I keep wondering why you don't want to listen to the community when they ask you for a change to improve the game?

[isupreme]

I believe the issue has been raised and discussed previously.    A mod was even made and used.  If I remember right it used 20 players or so as the kick in for beacons.   I am just a player and not privy to all the information on decisions, but i heard that many players did not like it and that is why you do not see that mutator on more servers.

I agree that allowing players more options in the game is generally the right approach and I support more voting options for players.

[Try-Out]

No Mutator is needed for the Nukes, Serverowner can set this in the Config

[roweboat]

Those should definitely be votable options

[crazfulla]

I relate to a lot of what Sarah said. Due to my time zone I'm always on in the small hours and I can tell you first hand how annoying it is to have beacons and comm categorically disabled. I just posted a comment in the other commander topic if anyone wants to read a short novel.

[Hicks]

4 hours ago, crazfulla said:

I relate to a lot of what Sarah said. Due to my time zone I'm always on in the small hours and I can tell you first hand how annoying it is to have beacons and comm categorically disabled. I just posted a comment in the other commander topic if anyone wants to read a short novel.

Who talks about beacons and commanders categorically disabled? No one here has ever said it! Here we are talking about having a vote about it to avoid what you do in game, that is to take the role of commander and place beacons on 2v2 games!

[crazfulla]

On 3/3/2021 at 12:49 AM, Hicks said:

Who talks about beacons and commanders categorically disabled? No one here has ever said it! Here we are talking about having a vote about it to avoid what you do in game, that is to take the role of commander and place beacons on 2v2 games!

There is a serverside option to do that... 

[Hicks]

4 hours ago, crazfulla said:

There is a serverside option to do that... 

I am more and more convinced that even if you read the whole thread you do not understand the meaning, now I'll explain it to you better... here nobody talked about having to drastically eliminate the beacons or the commanders, in this case it could easily be done on the server side, as has suggested Try-Out, but there is talk of the need to introduce votes in this regard. So with the votes you can remove the possibility of using beacons or commanders but you can also re-establish their use. So you start a game for example 2v2 and remove the beacons and the commanders and then for example the teams grow and the beacons and the commanders are introduced again with another vote. Exactly as it happens with the vote for the bots!!! I don't think there is any server-side setting to introduce these votes! Is it clearer now?

Edited March 4, 2021 by Hicks

[MattHunX]

Yesterday was a perfect example of why a lot of people get fed up with the game. When a rush (and rushes are idiotic to begin with) places 4-5 beacons and the voice-over is just repeating it over and over, it gets annoying fast. Not to mention how utterly unfair and retarded it is. It's not even a strategy. It's not even a trump-card. It's something else above that. There should, at least, be a limit on how many beacons could be played within a given time-span. And yet some people cheer and loved it. They think it's fun.
 

Personally, I'd very much welcome servers where superweapons and commanders (or at least their buffs) would be disabled.

Hell, I'd even thought about servers or just maps where higher tier infantry could be disabled, the same way aircraft are disabled on some maps.
 

But, of course, I know such servers and maps would barely get any players. There are maps, like Daybreak (?), which never even get any votes, EVER! I've never even been to some of the new(er) maps, because even when they show up in the vote, nobody votes for them. I like Walls and Lakeside, but it's getting annoying how many maps don't get ANY attention.

[Ryanpower0507]

Im just going to say this is my opinion, if you disargee with anything said here that is oke.

So mass beacon is a strategy, It costs a lot of credits to get it and don't forget that people have to get close to your buildings. now in servers with 30 to 64 people it is a great option to have if you are dominating but the enemy team is defending extremely well. For example on wall, if nod has a cmdr they can deff buff chinrush the top of the WF and place a lot of nukes. That costs them: 1000 Credits for every nuke + (Character costs for each person taking part in the rush) + 700 * the amount of chins, and a deff buff of 1200 cp. if you are baselocked already as GDI then this is one way to break them. (same goes the other way around.)

Other options would be to do a rocket rush with high veterancy or chin rush deff buff inside too the inside of a building. Other rushes such as tank rushes or apache rushes would likely get shut down without doing much damage. But then again walls is flawed because of plateau (the middle top part of the map). Who ever controls that area has control over field and baselocks the other team. Another strategy that can be used on servers with a pedestal enabled is a PED-Nuke. It is basically just mass nuking the pedestal inside either barracks or HON. and defending it. if the beacon goes off on the pedestal the game end.

But even for other maps mass nuke/ion is something that can work but not on all map. Islands with GDI only having bar can take a long time to kill and mass nuke is most likely the answer to kill that. But on maps with a defence building it becomes less and less viable due to getting shot by the defence while planting. It is also less viable on maps where it is difficult getting close to the enemy buildings.

Another thing mass beaconing does is it ends the game faster. it force the map to end instead of it dragging on for another hour or more, so I don't see the problem with it. Now I get that the countdown timers get annoying but it is what it is. So unless it is on a small server with less people I think that beacons are fine. Even if use use 10 of them at once. Also solo nuking is a stupid idea so you already need more coordination for something like this.

As for the maps that get played. Public Servers are Public Servers and most of them only want to play a select set of maps or maps they know, If they do not know daybreaks layout or design for example they are less likely to vote it since they will be at a disadvantage. (Atleast this a theory I have.) People might have other reasons even for voting certain maps.

Then about the 1k Credit Infantry. It doesn't really matter how much a infantry unit costs if they are better then you. some people are extremely good with infantry and will destroy even if they are a officer and you a mendoza. infantry is more about aim and kill then about cost although have high tier infantry units does certainly help. 




 

[Hicks]

I agree with what you wrote but there are a couple of things you don't clarify and I'm curious to know what you think. I list them below:
1) What do you think about using beacons in a low pop game?
2) What do you think about a voting system to limit the use of the beacon in low pop games?
Obviously if you agree to use the beacon even in low pop games, the second question would no longer make sense.

[crazfulla]

I think you miss the point of my comments. I'm used to playing in smaller games due to my time zone. I'm kinda forced to because most people here I think are in the UK which is literally the other side of the planet from me. I think others would get used to it as well if they actually bothered to play the game instead of complaining and spamming polls every time they lose - not naming names of course.

I feel that the more restrictions the devs put in place, the more it takes away from the experience. You need to be hyper aggressive in smaller matches. Only in the occasional instance when there is say a player imbalance on the teams - say 4v6 - will I start using comm or beacons. I don't need to the majority of the time, as you should know if you have been on the opposing team. Especially when I'm on Nod.

I'm pretty sure commander was implimented as a way to help break stalemates that frequently occurred in the original Renegade. Take that away and you make the matches take longer than they need to - it gets boring and stagnant. Think of any other popular game such as world of tanks or fortnite. Most matches don't last more than 15 mins. RenX matches - even with comm enabled - can drag on for hours. I think this is one of the main issues with getting more new players - the majority of people just don't have patience for that.

Also beacons are fairly easily defendable. If you are in the field you can easily suicide to respawn in base and respond to such an event. Although you should always have someone on defence anyway to prevent beacons being placed. Of course some maps its easier to do this than others... IMO it would be better if you could still disarm beacons in the final 10 seconds making them slightly less viable in smaller matches. In larger matches I don't think this change would have any major effect as most pf the time when theres 64 players on half of them are camping in their own base anyway.

Edited March 19, 2021 by crazfulla

[Hicks]

Hi Craz, we agree on one thing, that is to remove the 10 second limit. In any case, I have never said that I want to eliminate beacons or commanders permanently, my point of view is simple and is shared by many other players. I think it does not damage anybody if we introduce these two votes. As usual, I give examples for everyone's benefit to better explain my point of view. Let's say we start a 2v2 game on Field which is a very closed map with very little chance of rushing. We vote on the beacons and on the commanders and take away the possibility of using both the beacons and the commanders. After about 20 minutes of play the teams have grown and now the game is let's say 10v10 or 15v15, it is not important, what is important is that now someone proposes the votes to reintroduce the beacons and the commanders and everything is reintroduced. Moral of the story is that no one complained and won democracy as it should be.

[Ryanpower0507]

Hey Hicks, about your questions.

While I am against using beacons in low pop games, most of the time. Sneakers are even harder defend against. 
Beacons in low pop as said earlier are hard to disarm if its most of the enemy team against a couple teciesh/hotties. so I never use beacons in low pop UNLESS, their is a stalemate, like a game has been going on for about 1 hour 30 mins and the enemy team is just camping in their base barely surviving. A beacon in combination with a little bit of teamwork might end the game instead of making the game even longer.

Now sneaking in Low Pop is easy. Other than a mine count or base defences, you don't have anything else to combat sneakers. you don't have enough players to find sneakers and cover all your angles. But with no one patroling routes or scouting out places where sneakers are likely to be its hard to defend against them, beacons atleast make a everyone aware that the building is going to blow up in a minute(I think the timer is a min?) sneakers on the other hand are completly silent and only have a 30 second timer. (The C4 on the MCT). So I don't know how much disabling beacons is going to do.

Now if people want a vote option to disable beacons, sure you can have it. But it should be explained that it is on when players join. otherwise you might get comments like, Why are beacons disabled. or: did they remove beacons or something?. Also their should be a vote to enable beacons ofcourse.

Also, The beacon not being disarmable in the final 10 seconds is fair. It makes sense that if a nuke is now above its target its not going to be stopped. same for a ION cannon. Those 10 seconds are basicly just used for the animation.

So I do have to say something.
I mainly play 10 vs 10 or higher. so I don't have any experience with anything below that.

[crazfulla]

I don't think disarming beacons is suposed to be realistic. I mean, the nuke explosion is like less than 1% the size that it should be. For me its about the impact it has on the game.

And you're right, low pop matches mean different tactics can be used. Sneaking in with a Hotwire or Technician is easier while doza rushing is harder due to having fewer players to get involved.

I think a lot of people are just too accustomed to larger matches and refuse to adapt or acknowledge that some people actually prefer smaller player counts. Had a conversation about this the other day in game with some others, so I know I'm not alone. Seems to be an unpopular opinion though lol.