Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

78 Excellent

About j0g32

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Steam ID
  1. Place Map name on the Map

    i guess it makes sense to display the map name either on the over view map "M", and/or scoreboard (as it relates to this instance of a match)... but it wouldn't be super top priority for now...^^
  2. AGT/Obelisk problems without energy.

    Very interesting idea. After all in classic C&C RTS, you could de-activate/power-off certain structures, if you were low on power to re-establish some base-operation. First of all, I think that any such option should only be available to 1 person on the team, i.e. the commander. Secondly, instead of a single "energy" button, why not introduce a trade-off: give the commander the opportunity to power up/down any remaining structure; e.g. powering down the Barracks/HoN, Refinery, and Weapons Factory/Airstrip, (with the associated penalties) would enable the defences to come back online. I guess, it's best to only allow 1 building to be fully operational at any time without a powerplant. And powering up/down a building takes e.g. 10 sec., so you cannot immediately switch on defences when you need them. The commander thus has to prioritise: Credits vs. Infantry vs. Vehicles vs. Defences Our code would have to be re-written in some parts to accommodate that, but it could be an interesting idea. As @Interval said, without the powerplant, the defences become empty shells, and the economy takes a big hit as well.
  3. Terrain in UDK

    Landscape is an optimised Terrain system, specialised for large scale environments; e.g. it supports mesh LOD, mesh normal maps, advanced material blending, importing weight maps, advanced brush tools, erosion, etc. I can see that a potential benefit of Terrain is that it is somewhat more straightforward to apply different materials to it, but other than that...
  4. Amazing Videos

    That thing looks like it chronosphered straight out of Red Alert Great find!
  5. We want more game modes!

    I think that C&C gamemode already offers a lot of variety and complexity, and incorporates elements of multiple other game modes. RenX is developed in the Unreal Development Kit, and generally/natively supports game modes that are already in Unreal Tournament 3, e.g. Team Death Match, Vehicle Capture the Flag, Warfare etc. Do feel free to experiment with that, there are plenty resources online. I personally do like and support the idea of adding new gameplay elements and objectives on custom maps. For example, we have a TechBuilding/MCT on C&C Reservoir which simply controls a set of doors. In doing so, controlling this MCT changes the flow of the map and the options available to either team. I would love to see more clever use and level design with features like this.
  6. Update me + OG ren mode?

    What's the point of playing on a new engine if you are neither making use of higher fidelity, nor of new gameplay features, nor because of active players that MPF PwnCall mentioned as well? But a "classic" mutator could be fun nonetheless...
  7. I think there should be no option to vote against a commander, UNLESS you (edit: or someone else) volunteer(s) yourself to take their spot, i.e. compete for the position. However, a commander should always be able to resign voluntarily. The commander can only be forced out of office, if another player challenges the incumbent and wins by majority vote. For example at the start of the round, everyone interested in acting as commander can apply within the first 5-10secs. Slightly weighted by last game scores, a commander is then chosen randomly. This should help to favour experienced players take the lead, but not elitism, where only the top 4 players are able/forced (?!) to command. If no commander is active, the first/only one to apply will automatically become commander (without vote!). This is pretty much how Battlefield commander system worked.
  8. Update me + OG ren mode?

    RenX + old gameplay mechanics + old map design& visuals = orig. Renegade Why not play orig. Renegade ? ^^
  9. .

    Like your endeavours! Would be cool if you could design the Conyard in a way that you can tell how it was built/transformed from the MCV, e.g. by using materials that could be easily stored and preparaed in the MCV. Or perhaps something like this: crane, tyres, or parts of the mcv are still visible in final CY: Tiberium Sun: Tiberium Wars: I like the CY design in Tiberian Dawn, esp. compared to Renegade. It might be cool to only base a CY design for RenX on this concept, but design it with the functionality/background in-game in mind. Good luck!
  10. Game Elements Missing

    It looks like the textures are not fully resolving(?). The textures are there, but the resolution (or mip-maps?) is messed up. I sometimes get something similar for the first few split-seconds when I spawn. Have you played around with different graphics settings in the menu?
  11. Abilty to buy back destroyed building

    I am not disagreeing with you @TomUjain, quite the contrary. When I discovered original Renegade (playing the C&C RTS games before), some odd 10 years ago, I just fell in love with those very RTS elements wrapped in a FPS game, and that's what I still love about the game concept. However, mixing and balancing these elements is very difficult, and I don't know any game which has ever mastered the balance, if at all than at least as good as Renegade (X). Additionally, certain gameplay mechanics have lead to the adoption of a rigid "gameplay philosophy", e.g. "defending the base equals mining" - but that's not necessarily the main point here. All I was trying to say earlier is that striking a good balance within an established gameplay mechanic framework is tricky. I agree that C&C mode has its flaws, but you attempt to fix one, and another one arises... Where would you draw the line between units that are still available with timer and increased cost, and those that become unavailable? How do you justify that choice? Every player may have their own opinion/preferences. If you reduce the penalty of losing a building, you also decrease the impact of strategic play! A team may deliberately focus on destroying the enemy HoN/Bar to make infiltrating the base easier (in the longer run). Please, keep in mind that Game Development is (or should be) an iterative process: often you don't get things right on the first shot, even if the intentions are good - that's why I brought up the example of the surrender mechanics. My bottom line is that, yes there is definitely room for improvement, but as this thread already shows, the interaction of all the gameplay elements makes it difficult to pin down the "main flaw" and "single best fix". For example, I still believe that map design could alleviate many of the problems, e.g. add more defensive sweet spots to reduce the reliance of defence on mines. Add more paths and base entrances, to allow locked in teams to circumvent a siege, or conversely flank a line of defence, etc. We should think about available options, i.e. true strategic alternatives that players can choose from. Next time you find yourself frustrated, maybe take a note of what you would have liked (or were trying) to do, and why you could not achieve it. In either case, extending the unit roster (and how) when the corresponding production facility is destroyed is something we could look into and experiment with.
  12. Abilty to buy back destroyed building

    I understand your frustation of matches that drag on with limited options for too long, @TomUjain. But again, I dont see how this justifies a team getting their destroyed building back as the only option? Please, try to look at the implications for both teams... We have the surrender mechanic in place that any team can trigger if they feel unable to win this match anymore and want to start fresh. After all its just a game. This feature was also altered from immediate win, to 5 min countdown with veterancy bonus, because it was abused: as soon as 1 building was lost, the team would give up, making each match very unsatisfactory even to the winning team. Your main concern seems to be that you cannot use higher tier units. How could we not address that whith the existing "limited reinforcement" mechanics we already have in place? I could imagine that apart from 1k infantry classes, and vehicles such as mammoth, stealth tank, and aircraft; all other units could still be bought (tbd). Though, with a higher personal (?) cool down timer, and higher price; e.g. you could theoretically still buy Hotwire, but only 5 minutes after you die with that class or every 10 minutes or so. And as I suggested before, this could also be combined with the team-goal of achiving a certain amount of VP to unlock such a feature to begin with (or just parts of it, e.g. 15000 Team VP to unlock med tanks, which could then cost 1200 and have 10 minute timer to repurchase. Additionally, mystery crates contain classes and vehicles, so securing them is another option. Finally, map design is crucial for C&C mode, and might also be blamed for some of the aforementioned gameplay shortcomings. Buying back a building does not make sense to me; unless you have a proper resource based economy where repairing and constructing buildings both COST tiberium credits. That's why I linked the topic about RTS mode (which I still think could be a lot of fun, but would require a dedicated gamemode) Hope that helps.
  13. how finished is this game?

    Thanks for sharing your feedback @kbls and @Bigtimbers - your opinion as new players is very important to us! In terms of quick fix, I think we should just bring back the old loading screen that explained the essentials of C&C gamemode and also costs less memory than videos. Perhaps add a unique background for every map, battlefield style. Besides, I was working on a tutorial level for multiplayer, but the plans for it may have changed a bit - and when I find the time I would like to pick up the work again
  14. Abilty to buy back destroyed building

    Just adding my 2 cents here: Why are you actually discussing this? (1) Is it a out limiting the options when losing infantry/vehicle production? We have air drops and low-tier infantry/vehicles available, with cool down timers. This mitigates devastation of losing those buildings. Perhaps we could play around with those mechanics instead of overcomplicating things; e.g. just re-enable higher tier units (though with cost/timer penalties) when the team reaches X VP in total. (2) or lies the problem/discontent with the "established" renegade gameplay, i.e. building/base defence is lost forever, and so are associated functions? This is the year-old discussion about the cost to the loosing team vs. the benefits to the destroying team. Or in other words: "what's the point of attacking a building?" In such case you might want to think about changing the whole gameplay, e.g. towards a "true" FPS/RTS with basebuilding around proper resource management. Not to toot my own horn here, but I pers. think in terms of gameplay there's no sensible in between option...
  15. Basebuilding Gamemode ideas

    Quite ambitious what you have in mind there. The basic RX gamemode would need to be heavily modified, in particular how buildings are handled by the gamemode... Don't know if/how your idea would fit with RenX, or might overcomplicate things... Maybe check out this discussion: In any case, the SDK and most of the code is out there! Why don't you give it a go and see what you can come up with?