Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
"Points Fix - fixes an error in the way points are calculated when attacking vehicles with green health. Against all other targets, points are directly proportionate to damage, but not green-health vehicles due to a coding mistake. This is why, for example, snipers could get illogically high points for attacking heavy vehicles they did very little damage to." a coding mistake? Was there not any testing done on this game before it came out? Yes, there was, just like there is with any other game Do you think while the testing going on everyone testing (or the majority, because there are some pretty unobservant people), noticed what was going on regarding the point fix? Yes Do you think westwood if they had intended it to be so, would have fixed this issue prior to releasing the game to the public? Of course. The implementation of this points fix, which the majority of the renegade community does not promote, is just a way for a few people to get what they want... Spoony and everyone else supporting it can say whatever they want but the point fix does more bad than good. Hopefully they will do the right thing and abandon it before forcing it onto everyone. I don't think even Spoony can deny that the majority of people don't like the pointsfix, which is why he goes to his argument of Westwoods' intentions. Leave the game alone how it was obviously meant to be (the way it was released) and even if the small chance appears that westwood did intend for the points fix to be put in, Spoony should try something that sometimes can be hard for him to do. Listen. Westwood has nothing to do with this game anymore other that they made it, so why not listen to the people that really matter. The ones that play it. for those who may have just heard about the points fix, it is pretty easy to see that the majority of the community doesn't support it. I'm not positive but I believe clanwars uses it, although reluctantly. I'm absolutely sure that Jelly, the most popular community in Renegade, doesn't support it.
I'll copypaste the reply on jelly. i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 19:26 "Points Fix - fixes an error in the way points are calculated when attacking vehicles with green health. Against all other targets, points are directly proportionate to damage, but not green-health vehicles due to a coding mistake. This is why, for example, snipers could get illogically high points for attacking heavy vehicles they did very little damage to." a coding mistake? yes. i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 19:26 Was there not any testing done on this game before it came out? Yes, there was, just like there is with any other game Do you think while the testing going on everyone testing (or the majority, because there are some pretty unobservant people), noticed what was going on regarding the point fix? Yes Do you think westwood if they had intended it to be so, would have fixed this issue prior to releasing the game to the public? Of course. every time someone brings this up, I point out the terrible flaw, which is this: - by your logic, backwalking the ob is intended. - by your logic, base to base - even the most unfair example, i.e. a MRLS behind the barracks on Islands - is intended. - by your logic, bluescreening is intended. i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 19:26 Spoony and everyone else supporting it can say whatever they want but the point fix does more bad than good. I hear this a lot, and I always make a point of asking the person to elaborate. More often than not I get either an embarrassed silence or an insult in response. Please feel free to do better than that; Why does it do more bad than good? I can make a long, long list of the good it does. I've still yet to hear a single convincing "bad" thing it does. i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 19:26 I don't think even Spoony can deny that the majority of people don't like the pointsfix, which is why he goes to his argument of Westwoods' intentions. I'm afraid the flaw here is the argument of Westwood's intentions was one of the several core arguments for the pointsfix before any debate on the subject even started. i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 19:26 Leave the game alone how it was obviously meant to be (the way it was released) "how it was obviously meant to be" = pointsfix. NOT the pointsbug. you only need to play a while on a pointsfix server with an open mind to see that. Westwood weren't stupid, they wouldn't have intentionally put in a balance disaster whereby shooting something you don't damage awards your team massive points, which promotes defensive gameplay. i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 19:26 and even if the small chance appears that westwood did intend for the points fix to be put in, Spoony should try something that sometimes can be hard for him to do. Listen. Westwood has nothing to do with this game anymore other that they made it, so why not listen to the people that really matter. The ones that play it. this is technically known as "moving the goalposts". first your argument is "westwood DIDN'T intend the pointsfix, end of story, and we need to take heed of that fact" - which is, of course, absolutely false. then it becomes "but if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter that I'm wrong because when I said we need to take heed of that fact, I didn't really mean it, it's not westwood we need to listen to after all" i0ncl0ud9 wrote I'm absolutely sure that Jelly, the most popular community in Renegade, doesn't support it. not at all, plenty of people either like the idea or don't mind it. It's simply the fact that the people who don't like it are usually very vocal, often going to quite extraordinary lengths. Where the rest of the debate is civilised discussion, you can always rely on a small minority to flame the living shit out of anyone who disagrees with them, lie to everyone to make their 'opponents' look bad, etc. You should see the thread in the moderator section about kong... it's pure gold.
It'd be fairest if there was a way to switch the 'fix' on or off, then everybody wins. To be honest, I'm happy to see people's habits change in-game. Fewer idiots with ramjets shooting at tanks for the points, means more people buying PIC's/Railgun's to actually put the tanks out of commission.
I don't know how to do all this quoting stuff, so ill reply to each of your responses by separating them into different paragraphs. If yes is the best response you have to this, then I win this argument by logic. Unless you have proof to back up what you say, it can't be considered true. It should be assumed by default that if Westwood intended anything then they would have done it themselves. I doubt westwood knew about any of those things at the time, and if they did, probably just hoped nobody would exploit them. To say that Westwood left a coding error in the game that could have easily been fixed before its release is just stupid Spoony, come on. Sorry, I was already writing a long post and didn't want to make it any longer than it needed to be. Here's how I explained it in my other post: [Why is this point fix so important. Basically the only thing that will happen now is 1) people will get even more bored from lack of money, 2) people who want to use infantry will be at a huge disadvantage to get points, which I actually find more of a pointsbug than what we currently have now... This is basically forcing people who want to get points to use tanks.] Sorry, I didn't give you credit that you would be able to create a backup plan in advance of the community not accepting the pointsfix idea. Thats your opinion Spoony, which for some reason you think trumps everyone else's. Your not making much sense. A balance disaster? It is the thing that balances out the game itself Spoony, not that hard to see. Actually, I'm just trying to show that there are multiple reasons why not to put in the points fix, but call it whatever you want. Im sorry Im able to backup my reasoning better than yours.
In fact, you only "backed up" your reasonings by your own opinions. I don't see how that suddenly validates your own arguments and invalidates Spoony's when he tries to present "his opinions". People get bored with no money? Here's something they could try: defend their Refinery and make sure it doesn't get destroyed. They could also make themselves useful by attacking the enemy base. You shouldn't win by losing buildings. Of course tanks should get more points. They do more damage against buildings than small arms and thus should get a bigger reward. Westwood didn't fix it probably because they were broken up before they had the chance to fix it. That's why it's called a bug, and hasn't been fixed.
nikki6ixx wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 20:51 It'd be fairest if there was a way to switch the 'fix' on or off, then everybody wins. Exactly, then there's no need to have 10 page flame wars about it.
i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 20:54 If yes is the best response you have to this, then I win this argument by logic. I'm afraid you don't. It's already been proven that the error in the points calculation formula is exactly that - an error. i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 20:54 It should be assumed by default that if Westwood intended anything then they would have done it themselves. I doubt westwood knew about any of those things at the time, and if they did, probably just hoped nobody would exploit them. Oh dear... they hoped that just because there's a place inside the GDI base where the most powerful GDI long-range tank can completely safely hit the Nod base for the entire game, doesn't mean anybody would. They hoped that just because a GDI player can walk right into the Nod base, doesn't mean anybody would. As for bluescreening, you can't even pretend to claim Westwood hoped nobody would exploit that, since it isn't even a tactic in itself. i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 20:54 Sorry, I didn't give you credit that you would be able to create a backup plan in advance of the community not accepting the pointsfix idea. I don't understand - could you clarify what the "backup plan" is? i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 20:54 Thats your opinion Spoony, which for some reason you think trumps everyone else's. hmmm. that's an odd statement. I do always go to the trouble of asking people to justify their opinions. contrary to what you seem to think, that's not actually a bad thing. i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 20:54 A balance disaster? It is the thing that balances out the game itself Spoony, not that hard to see. oh, wow. I can't believe you just said that. The game is completely fair with the pointsfix. With the pointsbug, quite a few maps are horribly one-sided. That's not even mentioning the absurdity of defensive gameplay trumping offensive gameplay, the sheer nonsense of killing the WF being a disadvantage on some maps, etc etc etc. i0ncl0ud9 wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 20:54 Actually, I'm just trying to show that there are multiple reasons why not to put in the points fix, but call it whatever you want. Im sorry Im able to backup my reasoning better than yours. how indescribably ignorant of you. I'm STILL WAITING for these "multiple reasons".
I concede my argument. For anyone who is interested... It really just boils down to preference of the player. http://jelly-server.com/nuke/modules.php?name=FUDForums&file=index&t=msg &th=9528&start=0&S=f9bace9359cea7a4c7f4b9f9b4b426ac
Westwood probably didn't know about it, otherwise they would have fixed it. This all comes down to a coding error in an alorythm, which was discovered by Stealtheye. Maybe he should show the code so people can understand what happened. Or do you think it's normal that without the point fix, Under is won on points by GDI only using APC's versus anything Nod can throw at them? I don't understand how people can actually argue against the point fix: havocs getting 10 points for every shot on a tank, wtf? Every character's points are always related to the damage they do, except for the characters that were fixed by the points fix. Strange stuff, isn't it? If many people say that they're against it, it's probably because it's new and people like to keep things they know. I haven't heard any real argument against the point fix, really, other than "it sucks". Yes, you need to slightly change some tactics, no it doesn't change the game a lot. I'm personally not against an option to turn it off server side, though: a server owner should be able to do whatever he wants to do. Edit: can't read the jelly topic either.
the fact is error or not pointfix is something which imo most ren'rs do not want. Back walking the ob, c4 glitching are things that are just lame, but point fix is something not that many people have a problem with. I don't see why point fix can't just stay server side and therefore be able to be turned on or off by the server owner. As far as I can see the point fix is being forced upon us. TT team is giving us the choice between *cheat name removed*and pointfix. Which is a no brainer. 'Gozy wrote' I'm personally not against an option to turn it off server side, though: a server owner should be able to do whatever he wants to do. This is what I think should be done.
NuneGa wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 17:19 the fact is error or not pointfix is something which imo most ren'rs do not want. Back walking the ob, c4 glitching are things that are just lame, but point fix is something not that many people have a problem with. I don't see why point fix can't just stay server side and therefore be able to be turned on or off by the server owner. As far as I can see the point fix is being forced upon us. TT team is giving us the choice between *cheat name removed*and pointfix. Which is a no brainer. 'Gozy wrote' I'm personally not against an option to turn it off server side, though: a server owner should be able to do whatever he wants to do. This is what I think should be done. How about you just let them work on it instead of complaining in your poorly written, poorly executed "Points Fix is BAD!" posts. There have been several other posts on the subject, and I'm sure they're going to do what they think is best for the community as a whole. And if that means a switch for the goddamned point fix, then they'll do it. In the meantime, please shut the hell up.
TruYuri, I think these kind of discussions DO matter: this must be a patch by and for the community. So it's not a matter of TT forcing things on people.
Goztow wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 06:20 TruYuri, I think these kind of discussions DO matter: this must be a patch by and for the community. So it's not a matter of TT forcing things on people. I know that they matter, and personally I think they should (and probably will) create a switch for the points fix. I want these discussions, I want a Renegade (and any W3D projects) that is (as much as we can do) bug-free and exploit-less. I just want him and his, as I said, "poorly written, poorly executed" posts to come to a stop. He STILL hasn't given these "reasons" that he claimed he has and Spoony has asked for.
The announcement, which states WHY it is obviously a coding error. Unless you can prove otherwise Ion... I would recommend reading hte long version too, if you decide to not do that, you should perhapss choose a simpler game to play, pinball perhaps? Crimson wrote on Mon, 27 August 2007 17:47 I am presenting this in two versions. The short version for those of you with ADD, and the long version for those of you who want to debate about the subject and/or know all the gory details. SHORT VERSION BlackIntel discovered a bug in the points calculation code while doing research for BIATCH. Fixing this bug results in a better-balanced gameplay by (most noticeably) removing the disproportionate point gains you would get from doing negligible damage to heavy-armored units. This points fix has been running on a few servers, such as Jelly (AOW1), n00bstories, SpoonyServ, and BlackIntel for roughly 2 months. The Ladder Team is confident that this fix provides a more balanced and more fun game experience for the majority of players. We also feel that this is a crucial component to balancing the ladder calculations and will therefore be requiring the use of this fix for servers that wish to participate in the ladder. LONG VERSION (under spoiler) (if you wish to debate this subject, we INSIST that you become familiar with these facts and figures) Click here to read the LONG VERSION StealthEye of BlackIntel (emphasis added) It definitely is a bug, notice how it behaves differently on health than on armor as well. (You don't get many points for shooting health with those weapons). The bug affects all damage on armor with a warhead multiplier of != 1, because it is the warhead multiplier that is missing. Actually, it calculates points like this: vehicledamagemultiplier * rawdamage * warheadmultiplier / warheadmultiplier It should be: vehicledamagemultiplier * rawdamage * warheadmultiplier Because the warheadmultiplier is low for ramjets, and rawdamage (see the tables on http://www.blackintel.org/?page=projects/biatch/weaponinfo) is high, the effect of the missing multiplier is highest. Repair guns have a warheadmultiplier of 1, so those are not affected. C4 2 -> will do half of the points it should do. All other weapons are <1, therefore all those will give more points than they were supposed to. Because the multipliers are closer to 1 it will be less visible though. With the bug fixed, you always get half of the points for repairing than for damaging a vehicle, and you always (regardless of the weapon you used) get the same amount for damaging or killing a vehicle (assuming it was not repaired ofcourse). Without the bugfix, it mostly depends on the weapon you use to damage something with. More than it matters which thing you are damaging or the amount of damage you actually do. Spoony has made the following observations: Letting the WF die isn't valid anymore. On some maps - notably Field, but to a lesser extent Walls Flying and Islands, GDI could turn a losing situation into an advantage by purposely letting their Weapons Factory die. It then became an uphill struggle for Nod, to the point where Nod would still lose despite having a better team. The only reason this worked at all was the points ramjets gained against tanks, something which has always been a bug and something nobody has been able to logically justify why it should happen at all. The points fix means that letting certain buildings die is no longer the clear advantage it used to be, which helps balance these maps. Gaining an advantage by letting buildings die is clearly wrong, and the fact it only worked because of a bug Westwood didn't intend goes to show it's better off fixed. One person in a vehicle isn't teamhampering. Often, many players would dissuade their teammates from using tanks because they'd feed huge points to enemy ramjets (again, something that shouldn't happen). The points fix wipes this problem clean - one new player buying a mammoth or stank or flame tank is no longer a hindrance to their team, even if they don't achieve much with it. People have to use ramjets for stuff they're meant to do (light vehicles and infantry) instead of getting massive points doing something they're meant to useless for. More aggressive play is generally more beneficial. For example, on Field, tanks can attack enemy tanks from relative safety close to their base entrance, as opposed to moving all the way up to attack enemy buildings. Taking this higher risk is now worth relatively higher rewards. Spoony has noted no detrimental effects whatsoever to clan games or 1v1's. On the following chart, "Previous points per shot" value is based on shots on the armour wth a PIC/Rave/havoc/sakura. "Current points per shot" is based on PIC/RAVE doing 80 real damage on a vehicle. For vehicles with light armour it might deal more damage and thus get more points. Object name Damage points Previous points per shot Current points per shot CnC_GDI_Mammoth_Tank 0.06 12 4.8 CnC_Nod_Harvester 0.04 8 3.2 CnC_GDI_Harvester 0.04 8 3.2 CnC_Nod_Apache 0.15 30 12 CnC_GDI_Orca 0.15 30 12 CnC_Nod_Stealth_Tank 0.11 22 8.8 CnC_GDI_Medium_Tank 0.05 10 4 CnC_Nod_Flame_Tank 0.05 10 4 CnC_Nod_Transport 0.09 18 7.2 CnC_GDI_Transport 0.09 18 7.2 CnC_Nod_Light_Tank 0.05 10 4 CnC_Nod_APC 0.04 8 3.2 CnC_GDI_APC 0.04 8 3.2 CnC_GDI_MRLS 0.06 12 4.8 CnC_Nod_Mobile_Artillery 0.06 12 4.8 CnC_GDI_Humm-vee 0.06 12 4.8 CnC_Nod_Buggy 0.06 12 4.8 The following chart details "Damage points" (point gain per 1 damage dealt), "Death points" (bonus for causing the final death), "Total death points" (points gained for causing damage from start to finish): Object name Damage points Death points Total death points CnC_GDI_Mammoth_Tank 0.06 75 147 CnC_Nod_Harvester 0.04 50 98 CnC_GDI_Harvester 0.04 50 98 CnC_Nod_Apache 0.15 45 90 CnC_GDI_Orca 0.15 45 90 CnC_Nod_Stealth_Tank 0.11 45 89 CnC_GDI_Medium_Tank 0.05 40 80 CnC_Nod_Flame_Tank 0.05 40 80 CnC_Nod_Transport 0.09 35 71 CnC_GDI_Transport 0.09 35 71 CnC_Nod_Light_Tank 0.05 30 60 CnC_Nod_APC 0.04 25 49 CnC_GDI_APC 0.04 25 49 CnC_GDI_MRLS 0.06 23 46.5 CnC_Nod_Mobile_Artillery 0.06 23 46.5 CnC_GDI_Humm-vee 0.06 18 35.5 CnC_Nod_Buggy 0.06 15 30 Some people will come back and say that you get "no points" for shooting tanks. These charts prove that is NOT the case. Spoony has also discovered that if you look at the "Total Death Points" for vehicles and round them to the nearest multiple of 5, then compare them to the cost of the vehicle, you get this: Quote: syntax: vehicle/total points/cost Mammoth Tank: 150/1500 Harvester: 100/not applicable Apache/Orca: 90/900 Stealth Tank: 90/900 Medium Tank: 80/800 Flame Tank: 80/800 Chinook: 70/700 Light Tank: 60/600 APC: 50/500 MRLS: 45/450 Artillery: 45/450 Hummvee: 35/350 Buggy: 30/300 Many people are already aware that for infantry, the total points gained for start-to-finish death is 10% of the cost of the unit. (exception: free infantry = 3 points) This also proves that the previous point calculation was definitely a bug. What happens on a server with the fix installed? Actual damage is not affected at all. What changes is points. Points gained by attacking green-health vehicles are calculated the way Westwood intended them to be, the way they currently are against yellow/red health vehicles. Therefore, all weapons gain points which are directly proportional to the amount of damage they're doing. Examples of how this will fix the game: Ramjets, 500 snipers, Auto rifles, shotguns and pistols will get practically nothing for attacking vehicles they don't damage (i.e. heavy armoured tanks) Ramjets, 500 snipers, Auto rifles, shotguns, pistols, APCs, humvees/buggies, and orca/apache machineguns get the right points for attacking light armoured vehicles - in other words, the same points a tank would get for doing the same amount of damage APCs, humvees/buggies, and orca/apache machineguns get the right points for attacking heavy armoured vehicles - in other words, an apache or an APC gets the same points for killing a harvester that a tank would get for killing a harvester C4 gets somewhat more points for attacking vehicles than they do now, roughly double. Tanks get somewhat less points for attacking green-health vehicles than they do now - they get what they're supposed to get, which is what they currently get against yellow/red health vehicles. In a nutshell, it no longer matters what weapon is used to kill, for example, a harvester - the total points gain is constant whether it is destroyed by infantry C4, a tank, an APC or an Apache. Other observations seen: [list type=square] [*]A team who loses the field early has a much better chance of getting it back, whereas before the team who took the field early almost always held it. Also, in most cases, the points difference is not as vast as it was before, meaning the team that got the field back has a real chance of coming back to win. [*]Mammoths are actually worth 1500 points and people who are new to the game can buy one without hurting their team as much [*]Failed Stealth Tank rushes don't give GDI nearly as many points as it used to. The result of this is that you aren't stuck trying these rushes all game because you are so behind on points that base destruction is your only chance to win. [*]Closer scores overall make for more exciting and fun games rather than 30+ minutes of domination and boredom for the losing team. New players will find that: If they save up for a mammoth, stank, or flamer thinking they'll devastate the enemy team single-handedly, or if they fix the Weapons Factory in the belief that keeping it alive will help the team, they don't get barraged with insults by their teammates anymore. They're no longer fooled by the points bug into thinking that shooting heavy tanks with an automatic rifle is helping their team's situation Remember, POINTS, NOT DAMAGE, are the only thing affected by this fix!
i0ncl0ud9: go play on BI1 or TK2 AOW for a few weeks. Then tell me what your opinion of the pointsfix is. Also: C4 not getting enough points really hurts the opening of clan games. Now that this is fixed, Engi rushing the harvester on Field and Walls has taken its rightful place as an early-game staple. Finally, what's so great about buying a Havoc/Sakura on non-Flying maps?
What about the marathon servers? Have you ever tried joining into a game with no refinery(which is a very common thing). That's unbearable enough, but when pointsfix is on, there'll be no way to get credits in an effective way. Sure the points fix makes sense, but it makes the game so much duller. I'd rather have an extremely fun game over one that makes sense. This is just an opinion I don't want to get my post dismantled commented on and then flamed, because it won't change my opinion.
Baker wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 17:39 What about the marathon servers? Have you ever tried joining into a game with no refinery(which is a very common thing). That's unbearable enough, but when pointsfix is on, there'll be no way to get credits in an effective way. Sure the points fix makes sense, but it makes the game so much duller. I'd rather have an extremely fun game over one that makes sense. This is just an opinion I don't want to get my post dismantled commented on and then flamed, because it won't change my opinion. Why even bother to post in an discussion when you already state that your opinion is not going to change? That's just stupid. Though I can see your point, there should be better and more logical ways to fix this. For example just give everyone, always twice the points (and credits) for what he/she does. Or create a base income of (for ex.) 0.5 creds/s,even when ref is dead, that would imply 1 credit every 2 seconds, besides of what you get for doing damage. Also, you shouldn't loose your refinery, and if you do it would be fair for it to make you loose the game. Else you can say the same thing for the WF and barracks. If those 2 are already destroyed when you get ingame you're also fucked... Or just 1 of the 2 and you are reasonably fucked.
Baker wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 17:39 What about the marathon servers? Have you ever tried joining into a game with no refinery(which is a very common thing). That's unbearable enough, but when pointsfix is on, there'll be no way to get credits in an effective way. I'll simply ask: You join a game halfway through, after your refinery has died, and you think the pointsfix is why you've got cashflow problems?
In part, yes. With points fix it's much harder to get credits. But without you can get shooters and hit enemy tanks etc.
Baker wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 18:35 In part, yes. With points fix it's much harder to get credits. But without you can get shooters and hit enemy tanks etc. And in fully logic, you think it's fair that though you don't do any damage, you get more points than an engi with remotes? Something is not right here...
If your Ref is dead and you need credits, GET AN ENGI AND RUN AROUND, FIXING YOUR TEAM'S JUNK. Is that easier said than done?
In Dutch we have an expression that, translated, would say: "there's no man more deaf than the one that doesn't want to hear".
Baker wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 11:35 In part, yes. With points fix it's much harder to get credits. But without you can get shooters and hit enemy tanks etc. It makes no sense whatsoever that you should get credits shooting something you do no damage to, nor was it intended to be in the game, and the fact you also get points for it clearly misbalances the game. As for the case of not having enough money, there are two points to be made here. Firstly, joining a game halfway through, when half your base might already be dead, is strategically stupid. If you want to do join at that time, by all means do so. But don't complain if you can't buy a tank because your WF's dead, if you can't buy advanced infantry because your barracks is dead, or if you are strapped for money because your refinery is dead. Secondly, here are some things you can do if you don't have money: - Get an engineer and heal your teammates. You do get some credits for this, but more importantly, you are very much helping your team. - GDI soldier, and to a lesser extent Nod soldier. These are deceptively useful against light vehicles and infantry. Sure you'll die quite a lot, but that's a small price to pay for helping your team kill them. This won't help much if the entire attacking enemies are heavy vehicles, in which case it's very likely they'll be shelling your base, in which case you can just fix the building for money. - Try sneaking, even with an engineer. On most maps this is at least plausible, if not easy; on other maps you can grenade buildings. All of the above have something in common which the idea of shooting heavy tanks with a soldier does not; they all help your team, and they all make sense.
As a server owner, with a community with very mixed vies on the fix, and servers where game play is very different, I'd like the option of the points fix. I do not think this should be forced on anyone. As I stated in a topic I made earlier, I do not want to install the patch on our marathon server if it involves the points fix being mandatory. Every other thing in the patch is excellent. I've asked for it to be optional, to which I have had neither a yes or a no. If the answer is no, then why? Surely having run a community for over 4 years I have some idea on what's best for the people that play in our servers?
I don't mind an option if does not cause any problems. However I still have not heard any argument against the points fix. The marathon thing comes closest, but you should see that there are more fair ways to fix this than to enforce the players to shoot on heavy armored vehicles with weapons that are clearly not made for that. The argument that it would not be a bug is ridiculous, it doesn't make sense anywhere, as explained in the full version of the original points fix announcement. It is undenyably a bug. About the shotgunner -> grenadier thing, that's indeed a minor change of tactics, but as you already said does not really matter uch after you get used to pressing E-3 instead of E-2 . The point fix hardly affects existing tactics. Many "arguments" I hear about that the points fix would be bad are simply not true, and make me doubt whether the ones posting them even know what they are talking about. This does not apply to all of you, but please try the point fix before trying to argue about it.
This whole pointfix things does actually make sense and makes the game fair and I respect TT's efforts to defend it. The problem is that it should have been fixed years ago, now time has passed, peoples perceptions have changed. 5 years ago people would say " why the fuck do you get so many points for shooting a harvy with a ramjet when it does so little damage? Shouldnt Westwood fix that shit? Its not fair!" The above scenario never was fixed because Westwood is no more. Because it was never fixed, people got used to it and their perception accepted that it was a normal feature of renegade. The current state of affairs is that now people are actually defending the flaw. Is it even a flaw? To a person who thinks logically and methodically it is, the current system is no doubt a complete flaw! But the inconvenient truth is Human nature, people are reluctant to change, dont force it on them..... IMO the time to apply the points fix passed a long time ago, better to leave things the way they are and enjoy what time renegade has left.....Peace out!
So your whole argument is: yes, it's a bug, yes it should have been fixed a long time ago but as it hasn't been, we got used to it so you shouldn't fix it anymore because otherwise people might need to change their well known strategies ever so slightly. That's a bit like saying: Mugabe is a bad dictator for Zimbabwe, we've known that for a very long time, he shouldn't have had the power all this time but now that we get the possibility to elect someone else, we shouldn't do so because we're used to Mugabe being bad now.
I don't struggle with income on lost-refinery-marathon games, and I play marathon (Jelly-RA) only, and I use the tactics Spoony detailed in his post.
Goztow wrote on Thu, 03 July 2008 08:16 So your whole argument is: yes, it's a bug, yes it should have been fixed a long time ago but as it hasn't been, we got used to it so you shouldn't fix it anymore because otherwise people might need to change their well known strategies ever so slightly. That's a bit like saying: Mugabe is a bad dictator for Zimbabwe, we've known that for a very long time, he shouldn't have had the power all this time but now that we get the possibility to elect someone else, we shouldn't do so because we're used to Mugabe being bad now. you're comparing the points system in renegade to a dictator in africa?
Actually, that would only work if they people didn't know he was "bad" per se and accepted it as norm.
cmatt42 wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 22:03 Actually, that would only work if they people didn't know he was "bad" per se and accepted it as norm. How do you think the people in Zimbabwe live?
Are you guys going to refund my money for renegade when you force online to suck?
Goztow wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 15:26 How do you think the people in Zimbabwe live? I don't see where you're going with this, but we're going off topic now. Rocko wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 16:03 Are you guys going to refund my money for renegade when you force online to suck? Yes, how dare they make the game better with boatloads of fixes and improvements.
Rocko wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 23:03 Are you guys going to refund my money for renegade when you force online to suck? Why don't you refund the time I spend using and moderating your stupid messages?
Rocko wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 23:03 Are you guys going to refund my money for renegade when you force online to suck? Are you going to pay for the patch? Are you donating any member of the staff currently? Have you donated for the great piece of work called Renguard? have you donated for something called Corepatch 1/2? Have you donated for something called scripts.dll? Have you donated BlackIntel for BIATCH? Are you donating the serverowner of the server where you currently play the most? I bet that you don't do any of these things, so I also bet that none has ANY reason to refund ANYTHING to you. Besides that, as you should've read, Renegade got a notice ingame, which says that gameplay may change with online play. So you got really NO reason at all to ask for a refund. Actually we should ask for money, jsut because of lame fucktards like you who don't even show a tiny bit of appreciation.
Rocko wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 16:03 Are you guys going to refund my money for renegade when you force online to suck?
Have you actually played on a server with the pointsfix on?
Rocko wrote on Sun, 06 July 2008 23:11 Rocko wrote on Sat, 05 July 2008 16:03 Are you guys going to refund my money for renegade when you force online to suck? No. <Rocko> Thanks for answering You're welcome.
you're doing a lot of hard work for a lot of people who are fine with renegade the way it was released and have played it consistently that way for 6 years that's what Rocko is saying
liquidv2 wrote on Sun, 06 July 2008 17:18 you're doing a lot of hard work for a lot of people who are fine with renegade the way it was released and have played it consistently that way for 6 years that's what Rocko is saying They have put plenty of stress on how this tiny pointsfix will make NEGLIGIBLE changes to your actual gameplay.
so wat, if its "negligible" then why bother putting it in? lol obviously there's something there that is going to be changed a great deal. and living without points fix is not as bad as living under a zimbabwe dictator. that's a really silly thing to say. it's not worth it.
This is clearly a bug in renegade and should be fixed like any other bug in renegade. Westwood should have fixed it but they did not do so If westwood were still around and making patches for renegade, I am sure they would fix this bug in exactly the same way we did. As a programmer, I refuse to deliberatly leave a bug unfixed just because some players are used to how the gameplay works with the old broken code. Westwood never intended for you to get so many points for shooting a harvester with a sniper rifle or other small arms.
no one is saying you can't fix it instead some people are saying they'd rather not play with it fixed i watched a server i've played on for years nearly empty out since the pointmod was added if the pointmod was removed i guarantee more people would play there not everyone wants renegade changed now, six years later after they've learned and embraced it the way it was is it really fair to force it on everyone now? at least make it a serverside option
Our server has more players now compared with the days before we had the pointfix. But I am very sure that the pointfix has anything to do with it. Maybe you should check for other reasons why the server you're referring to has gone emty. However, ppl who leave a server due to the pointfix missed the idea of winning on renegade IMO. I can't really beliefe that westwood intended to win games on points in the first place. For me it looks more obvious that the prime goal is to win on base destruction. In that POV it seems totally unlogical to shoot a harv with a shotgunner or tanks with a sniper instead of killing the vehicles. It would also explain why the map under which is used for multiplayer training was the map that suffered most from the points bug. Without the fix it was a pure sniper/apc point whore map. Nowadays I do have some great games on this map with a quit a variaty of tactics and oportunities.
Rocko wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 03:43 so wat, if its "negligible" then why bother putting it in? lol obviously there's something there that is going to be changed a great deal. and living without points fix is not as bad as living under a zimbabwe dictator. that's a really silly thing to say. it's not worth it. For the 999th time, it's a negligible effect if you play the game normally. It mostly effects people abusing the bug to get more points.
One reason why I would like point fix to remain server side is when I hear 'Harvester under attack' In small games I can look at the enemy teams points and can usually tell what is hitting the harvester, for example if points are going up in 1's really really fast, then it is probably an apache / orca. Different point intervals will indicate different vehicles. I know that it is ridiculous to get 500 points for killing a stank with a orca but I don't really care(once I got 2000 points because some guy kept teching his buds stank ).
Quote: Different point intervals will indicate different vehicles. That's not different with points fix.
you can get a rough idea of what's hitting it by what points are going up... quicker they're going up, more points will be awarded, they're now directly proportionate.
NuneGa wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 17:46 One reason why I would like point fix to remain server side is when I hear 'Harvester under attack' In small games I can look at the enemy teams points and can usually tell what is hitting the harvester, for example if points are going up in 1's really really fast, then it is probably an apache / orca. Different point intervals will indicate different vehicles. I know that it is ridiculous to get 500 points for killing a stank with a orca but I don't really care(once I got 2000 points because some guy kept teching his buds stank ). So basicaaly you're saying that it is perfectly normal and fair to get 2000 points of a stank, just because you're firing on it with a orca. If you where firing on it with a med, then you would've gotten WAY less points, is that fair? About as fair as going ingame with 2 accounts and have one donating the other, so you get twice the starting credits, right Nunega?
can we just please have a yes or no if installing the point fix will be optional?
GrimmNL wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 21:55 can we just please have a yes or no if installing the point fix will be optional? If you meet a good programmer that is willing to do some hacking for you then sure.
a simple yes or no would suffice on whether it will be optional to install points fix
Depends on the beta testing. If we notice during beta testing that it seriously effects gameplay on say marathon servers then we might make iot configurable (depending on wether or not there might be other (better) solutions).
Ghostshaw wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 17:47 Depends on the beta testing. If we notice during beta testing that it seriously effects gameplay on say marathon servers then we might make iot configurable (depending on wether or not there might be other (better) solutions). Like 1 point = 2 creds?
Baker wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 11:39 I'd rather have an extremely fun game over one that makes sense. I agree with that statement
On AOW servers the pointsfix makes a fun game. No more "letting the WF die and whoring w/ ramjets to win even though Nod got the field" games. FAIR. No more people whoring your tank w/ a ramjet so as a med, I give away more points than I would otherwise. FAIR. Failing to see where the unfairness or lack of fun is here. (And, points don't matter on marathon)
Creed3020 wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 17:46 Baker wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 11:39 I'd rather have an extremely fun game over one that makes sense. I agree with that statement Its more fun if its balanced. If you dont realise that, all hope is lost.
Homey wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 00:02 Ghostshaw wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 17:47 Depends on the beta testing. If we notice during beta testing that it seriously effects gameplay on say marathon servers then we might make iot configurable (depending on wether or not there might be other (better) solutions). Like 1 point = 2 creds? Perhaps something like that, or a completely alternative way to recieve credits. But this will be discussed with the owners of marathon servers, so we know that will not pose a real problem.
Goztow wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 01:48 Westwood probably didn't know about it, otherwise they would have fixed it. This all comes down to a coding error in an alorythm, which was discovered by Stealtheye. Maybe he should show the code so people can understand what happened. Any chance that Seye would paste the code and show how easily the coding error might have been to make?
Not exactly the code, but it at least gives you an idea... StealthEye of BlackIntel (emphasis added) It definitely is a bug, notice how it behaves differently on health than on armor as well. (You don't get many points for shooting health with those weapons). The bug affects all damage on armor with a warhead multiplier of != 1, because it is the warhead multiplier that is missing. Actually, it calculates points like this: vehicledamagemultiplier * rawdamage * warheadmultiplier / warheadmultiplier It should be: vehicledamagemultiplier * rawdamage * warheadmultiplier Because the warheadmultiplier is low for ramjets, and rawdamage (see the tables on http://www.blackintel.org/?page=projects/biatch/weaponinfo) is high, the effect of the missing multiplier is highest. Repair guns have a warheadmultiplier of 1, so those are not affected. C4 2 -> will do half of the points it should do. All other weapons are <1, therefore all those will give more points than they were supposed to. Because the multipliers are closer to 1 it will be less visible though. With the bug fixed, you always get half of the points for repairing than for damaging a vehicle, and you always (regardless of the weapon you used) get the same amount for damaging or killing a vehicle (assuming it was not repaired ofcourse). Without the bugfix, it mostly depends on the weapon you use to damage something with. More than it matters which thing you are damaging or the amount of damage you actually do.
Surth wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 19:02 Creed3020 wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 17:46 Baker wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 11:39 I'd rather have an extremely fun game over one that makes sense. I agree with that statement Its more fun if its balanced. If you dont realise that, all hope is lost. qft
How very tempted I am to [B][SIZE=50][COLOR=deeppink] this thread. However, I will refrain from doing so. Instead, let me just ask: Why is it so hard to agree to allow it to be an option? That means servers who want it, will have it. Servers who don't, won't have it. If you have a favorite server, but it has the option against what you want, then either suck it up, or play another server. Or, if you REALLY want it changed, talk to the server owners via a nicely written essay as to why you want what you want. Be sure to have supporters to back you up that play on the server regulerly. Otherwise, you're just being a douche trying to mess up a potentially good change for a server, and should go find another server.
HARHARHAR
StealthEye of BlackIntel (emphasis added) Actually, it calculates points like this: vehicledamagemultiplier * rawdamage * warheadmultiplier / warheadmultiplier It should be: vehicledamagemultiplier * rawdamage * warheadmultiplier Not that I know anything about coding (and I am FOR the pointsfix, for the record), but I have to ask this. If you're a coder, isn't a mistake like that a little hard to make? How do you accidentally do A*B*C/C if your intention was A*B*C? Too bad nobody who was involved with Renegade from Westwood could give any input on this. At the least, it'd stop all the arguing about it.
Copy-paste of an incomplete line. It's very easy to make these kind of mistakes, and they probably didn't notice it because the damage was correct.
Chuck Norris wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 17:43 StealthEye of BlackIntel (emphasis added) Actually, it calculates points like this: vehicledamagemultiplier * rawdamage * warheadmultiplier / warheadmultiplier It should be: vehicledamagemultiplier * rawdamage * warheadmultiplier Not that I know anything about coding (and I am FOR the pointsfix, for the record), but I have to ask this. If you're a coder, isn't a mistake like that a little hard to make? How do you accidentally do A*B*C/C if your intention was A*B*C? Too bad nobody who was involved with Renegade from Westwood could give any input on this. At the least, it'd stop all the arguing about it. Don't forget that when you code something like this, that it looks a *little* more complicated eh So that should be one of the reasons why you can miss such thing.
you would know because you can read westwoods mind right
Rocko wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 16:22 you would know because you can read westwoods mind right We so totally can.
Not that I won't take your guys' word for it, but it does seem to me like it'd be hard to make a mistake like that still. Goztow, copy and paste makes no sene. That'd make sense for omitting something, but here something was added. The latter seems far less likely to accidentally happen. Also, surely they would notice when testing that a Ramjet gets those huge points from shooting a tank? I mean, even IF it was intended, I might be forced to say I'm against it (everything about the pointsfix is both LOGICAL and FAIR), but knowing Westwood's intentions would let me decide if it should be madatory. If it was intended, don't make it mandatory. If it was not intended, and this was indeed a mistake, then it should be fixed and made mandatory, and since this is what you guys think, I totally afree with your reluctance to make this an option. There shouldn't be two versions out there anyway. Anyway, I'm not trying to argue your finds, and I DO believe them, but I just had to get my question answered. It seemed to be like it'd be hard to make a mistake like that if it was done by professionals who likely checked it over, let alone tested it, but we know they were rushed to put the game out afterall (it wasn't even finished), and you guys are coders, so I'll take your word for it. As of now, given what I know, I think the fix should be mandatory.
Chuck Norris wrote on Wed, 09 July 2008 03:19 Not that I won't take your guys' word for it, but it does seem to me like it'd be hard to make a mistake like that still. Goztow, copy and paste makes no sene. That'd make sense for omitting something, but here something was added. The latter seems far less likely to accidentally happen. Also, surely they would notice when testing that a Ramjet gets those huge points from shooting a tank? I mean, even IF it was intended, I might be forced to say I'm against it (everything about the pointsfix is both LOGICAL and FAIR), but knowing Westwood's intentions would let me decide if it should be madatory. If it was intended, don't make it mandatory. If it was not intended, and this was indeed a mistake, then it should be fixed and made mandatory, and since this is what you guys think, I totally afree with your reluctance to make this an option. There shouldn't be two versions out there anyway. Anyway, I'm not trying to argue your finds, and I DO believe them, but I just had to get my question answered. It seemed to be like it'd be hard to make a mistake like that if it was done by professionals who likely checked it over, let alone tested it, but we know they were rushed to put the game out afterall (it wasn't even finished), and you guys are coders, so I'll take your word for it. As of now, given what I know, I think the fix should be mandatory. It's copy/paste/adapt. It's very possible that the damage code was directly copied from an RTS game of Westwood's by an intern where it may have included an additional modifying value that was just removed. WW code quality seems generally lax
Saberhawk wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 23:23 Rocko wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 16:22 you would know because you can read westwoods mind right We so totally can. Well, technically you could call the renegade engine "Westwoods mind". This because they wrote it with a certain motive. @ Chuck Norris: the multiplying and then dividing shows in my view more that it was a mistake. Otherwise you wouldn't multiply and not divide. This would be more effective, and faster to code. So, it certainly is a mistake, and the most logical error is that the divide was placed there unintentionally. Otherwise the same could've been done with less CPU work.
You will not get any closer to Westwood's mind than this, I suppose.
Well, that does it. It clearly seems like nothing but a bug, and it's fair and logical with the pointsfix. That's just about as close to official confirmation as you'll get. I say it be made mandatory, but I think you guys already have that decided so anyway.
watever nazis trying to force stuff on people
Rocko wrote on Fri, 11 July 2008 04:18 watever nazis trying to force stuff on people the reason we're forcing it is because some people are just being gay and don't even want to consider why it's bad. A good HONEST discussion in which everyone can admit that they are wrong that is what we need to not force it...
so you're forcing it on everyone to prove that you're right about it seeming to be and acting like a bug despite the fact that people don't have a problem with it and have played with it for over 6 years you're trying to help but this might damage renegade more than help it and quicken its death overall but ok
liquidv2 wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 22:05 so you're forcing it on everyone to prove that you're right about it seeming to be and acting like a bug despite the fact that people don't have a problem with it and have played with it for over 6 years you're trying to help but this might damage renegade more than help it and quicken its death overall but ok tl;dr Seriously, you're not reading at all and your above post was too convoluted for any sort of comprehension.
cmatt42 wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 23:41 liquidv2 wrote on Sat, 12 July 2008 22:05 so you're forcing it on everyone to prove that you're right about it seeming to be and acting like a bug despite the fact that people don't have a problem with it and have played with it for over 6 years you're trying to help but this might damage renegade more than help it and quicken its death overall but ok tl;dr Seriously, you're not reading at all and your above post was too convoluted for any sort of comprehension. what do you mean you can't understand what he said? are you retarded
Seriously, I understand both parties. It's true that it's just found its way into the silent Renegade tradition that if removed, would make gameplay noticeabley different. On the other hand, it IS a bug, and should be removed to change gameplay for the better. So basically there's three sides here. The people who don't want the points fix atall, the people who want the points fix to be the only option, and people who want it to be an optional feature that only server hosts can control. I'm the third one.
During beta testing points fix will be mandatory. What happens after will be decided after (or maybe during) beta testing...
I still fail to see why it has to be mandatory, if a server owner wants to keep the game how it is, let them do so. If that then raises the question of servers being calculated different as regards to the main ladder, then add a stipulation that non-points fix servers will not count towards the ladder. We will run the points fix on certain server/servers, however not on others. I support the "fix" in the right environment, and will continue to do so as I've done since the day it went beta. However if this is merely pushed down our throats, and we're told we have no choice, and to like it or lump it, I'm going to be far less supportive.
What I say to any server owner (or player) who complains about the pointsfix (on a marathon server or otherwise) is to not complain unless you have actually PLAYED a game with the pointsfix and seen for themselves what the fix actually does (and e.g. what strategies are available to use when in a mid-game marathon server with no refinery left)
jonwil wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 05:36 What I say to any server owner (or player) who complains about the pointsfix (on a marathon server or otherwise) is to not complain unless you have actually PLAYED a game with the pointsfix and seen for themselves what the fix actually does (and e.g. what strategies are available to use when in a mid-game marathon server with no refinery left) I have played on one thanks, since the day BI made made it available. We've run it as long as anyone. And I understand how to play the game just fine. I'd still like the choice (key word here) of whether I want to install it on a particular server. I don't want a group of people dictating that it will be installed, regardless of what myself, and the server regulars want. After all, logical doesn't always make things more fun, making things fair doesn't always make things fun. The purists of the game will argue until they drop dead that it makes the game more fun, and for them it may well do that, and they'll argue reputably with anyone who has their own opinion, on what makes the game fun for them. Basically, all the logic and fairness in the world could be implemented in this fix, that isn't the issue though for me, what players find fun, is what matters to me as a server owner. Like I said, I am all for the fix, I prefer it, on the right server. I just want the option when I install, that's all. If the fix is so unbelievably good you should have some faith in it, and players will make their way to a points fix server, or they will stay away, and that will tell you whether the fix is wanted or not. Just give server owners the choice, that's all I want, that's all I'm asking. Then the players too have a choice, and the number of players that join a points fix / non-points fix server will give you your answer as to whether it makes the game more fun or not. If after reading this all I get back is, "bring us an argument as to why the fix is bad" type comment, then you clearly haven't read what I'm saying. I'm not debating the merits of the fix. I'm asking for an option, and the players who still log on everyday will make the decision as regards what makes the game fun(not fair or logical) for them, and not sitting here with a quote tree arguing between 15 people. Let the 600 players decide who log on to Renegade everyday decide what makes the game fun for them, and the only way to do that is give the server owners the option of whether to install the fix. If you have so much faith in the fix, and think it will make the game so much better, then I see no reason why you wouldn't give us the option.
In regards to marathon servers and the point fix, please continue in the Serverowners subforum.
Jellybe4n wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 11:56 If you have so much faith in the fix, and think it will make the game so much better, then I see no reason why you wouldn't give us the option. That is because from a developer's POV, it is a very bad practice to leave bugs unfixed. It leads to sloppy code and bad programming. Like I said before, the marathon thing is the only real reason I have heard for not using the points fix. I do think however that there is probably a more fair and just as fun solution to that problem without having the points fix.
Jellybe4n wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 04:24 I still fail to see why it has to be mandatory, if a server owner wants to keep the game how it is, let them do so. If that then raises the question of servers being calculated different as regards to the main ladder, then add a stipulation that non-points fix servers will not count towards the ladder. This is perfectly reasonable.
liquidv2 wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 12:43
Jellybe4n wrote on Sun, 13 July 2008 04:24 If that then raises the question of servers being calculated different as regards to the main ladder, then add a stipulation that non-points fix servers will not count towards the ladder. that's a given.
Then I see no reason what so ever to not make it an option on installing the patch. If a server accepts that their results do not effect the WOL ladder, then that server should be allowed to do so. They are not effecting anyone elses play, they are not gaining an advantage over players on other servers, as they will not be competing with them, simple as that.
Considering the current point fix is server side, I suppose the new one would also be?
just make a pointsunfix mod for those who dont like it O.o
^ that would seem the best idea imho. make the pointsfix an automatic update, becoming the "official" renegade (as it clearly should) - but if people really want it, also release an unofficial "pointsbug" you can download, which also makes the server unladdered (if that's possible)
Do it whichever way floats your boat, call it whatever you want to amongst your little team. Just give server owners an option, and not back them into a corner where they have to install something they really don't want in order to benefit the rest of the patch. Which is effectively what will happen on some servers.