Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Suggestions We Maybe Can Add: 1)If possible can you replace the buildings in the maps to use the gmax model buildings that fall apart when they die? 2)Change camera view when inside a vehicle? like 1st and 3rd person view while in a tank? 3)I think it would be cool that instead of when you kill a building the inside its red...change to that it flashes red instead of just solid red 4)You know how on the radar hud has dots to show the players i think be cool if next to the dot has the players name so you know whos where if you cant see them....unless there sbh of course Glitches Hopefully Fixable: 1)Can you guys fix the glitch where you shoot while your still reloading? 2)Can you fix it when u disarm a nuke/ion right when it already just destroyed a building? 3)(I had this glitch twice) where i was on gdi and another gdi member chat was showing up red as if he was on nod can that be fixed? 4)Can you fix the error that a body part or gun sticks out of a wall or something? 5)Can you guys fix glitch killing? 6)Can you guys fix the fact some servers have fog(can be part of weather or crate) where you cant see anything BUT when a building is dead you see the entire building (ever edge or opening) while you cant see anything else cause of the fog? (hope ppl get what i mean i dont wanna go take ss) 7)When you go to you PT and look at chat box to see everything that has been typed (I think public and team chat).....When you scroll up to see message people have typed in the past as soon as someone types a new message or server shows a message it pops you straight back to the bottom of the box so almost impossible to see what has already been typed..I hope this once can be fixed? 8.)Fix it so that humvees and other small vechs cant go inside buildings? 9)Dont know if this is true but i think a bunch of people where saying right click on a tank weapon is MORE powerful then left click on mouse (they said it about flame tank) 10) Can you fix using a PT from other side of a wall? 11)Can you fix the fact when you double stack c4 it does less damage (bad thing if you double stack when trying to kill a building due to lag) 12)Can you fix the glitch where people run down or push up against a wall while while so they wont die? 13) there some glicth not sure how but illl find out that you can use sniper mode and still fire your gun WHILE stealth (rather sbh or suit on another character) Ya i know some shit here is stupid but hey worth a shot right
1) Don't think so. 2) Don't think so either. 3) Not useful, we try to focus on useful things atm. 4) I think that would get crowded on your radar... 1) I think it's lag related, I don't think we can fix it atm. 2) Perhaps. 3) Hard to reproduce thus hard to fix. 4) Hard to fix. 5) Define "glitch killing"? 6) No idea. Another TT member should know more about this. 7) Done. 8) Would be good. 9) Flame tank only damages with one turret instead of two using secondary fire. Not sure whether we can fix this but we will try. 10) That's used by so many people, I don't think fixing it would be good. 11) It doesn't do less damage, it's just that as the first C4 detonates, the second C4 is removed because it is no longer attacked. We could consider working around it somehow, I won't promise anything though. 12) Hm? What do you mean? 13) Probably happens if you wait a while after going in scope. Probably not going to be fixed.
StealthEye wrote on Wed, 23 July 2008 14:37 12) Hm? What do you mean? He means.. On wall flying and other maps.. If you're on the mountain and you need to get back to base to refil.. Instead of walking the long way you can jump down from the middle by just walking off the end and keep pressing w.. I think this is the no-damage-animation thingy. But basically you 'stick' to the wall and walk down it.. I use it all the time.
Ah ok. Don't think that will be fixed though.
lmao everything is possible you can do that already (Not serverside)
Oh yes i forgot TT please fix the glitch that you can Zoom with every Gun
madrackz wrote on Wed, 23 July 2008 10:36 Oh yes i forgot TT please fix the glitch that you can Zoom with every Gun I recall reading that this was fixed.
StealthEye wrote on Wed, 23 July 2008 06:37 5) Define "glitch killing"? Killing your own team mates with a tank by pressing fire while exiting vech at same time...
That's on the todo list. Zoom glitch is fixed as well.
Noooo, Don't fixe number 10.) it's so convenient
SSnipe wrote on Wed, 23 July 2008 09:08 Suggestions We Maybe Can Add: 3)I think it would be cool that instead of when you kill a building the inside its red...change to that it flashes red instead of just solid red dynamic lightning?
SSnipe wrote on Wed, 23 July 2008 10:08 9)Dont know if this is true but i think a bunch of people where saying right click on a tank weapon is MORE powerful then left click on mouse (they said it about flame tank) When u use right click it shoots only from one muzzle and it's easyer to aim And btw about showing names near dots on radar minimap it would be good if you could see a flash at the don of that player when he sais a radio commands (like in cs for eg)
ErroR wrote on Tue, 29 July 2008 11:06 SSnipe wrote on Wed, 23 July 2008 10:08 9)Dont know if this is true but i think a bunch of people where saying right click on a tank weapon is MORE powerful then left click on mouse (they said it about flame tank) When u use right click it shoots only from one muzzle and it's easyer to aim And btw about showing names near dots on radar minimap it would be good if you could see a flash at the don of that player when he sais a radio commands (like in cs for eg) nice idea
The secondary fire muzzle bug was fixed. We can probably do the blinking of a radar blip on radio command, but probably not (yet) in this patch.
StealthEye wrote on Wed, 30 July 2008 03:33 The secondary fire muzzle bug was fixed. We can probably do the blinking of a radar blip on radio command, but probably not (yet) in this patch. cool
what about 3rd person reticle glitch, where the dot moves? is that fixed? and zooming whilst inside shelter sometimes makes your rifle point higher.
the reticle glitch isn't really a bug, it happens because you can't hit the point you are targeting. About the second thing, I don't know exactly what you mean, but from what I understand I doubt it is easy to fix.
theres a glitch to shoot throught walls with 3rd person view
Also anyone who reads this thats working on TT how about the glitch that turret hurts you before it shoots or hurts you before it fully turns towards u....
SSnipe wrote on Fri, 01 August 2008 08:42 Also anyone who reads this thats working on TT how about the glitch that turret hurts you before it shoots or hurts you before it fully turns towards u.... AFAIK that is fixed already in scripts 3.x, based on the BI turret fix.
Quote: theres a glitch to shoot throught walls with 3rd person view Probably too hard to fix. Indeed, the turret lag fix most likely fixes the problem you are describing, SSnipe.
StealthEye wrote on Wed, 23 July 2008 09:37 10) That's used by so many people, I don't think fixing it would be good. But it's obviously a bug, is it not? The Purchase Terminals were NOT intended to be used from the outside or there'd be Purchase Terminals there. Just because so many people do it and it's convenient is not a good excuse in my opinion. I'd like to hear a REAL argument, besides those two, as to why this should stay. I don't like the "it helps against fending off SBHs with nukes" either. SBHs have gotten much less useful because of this, and it's annoying to see $1400 and all that time and effort thrown away by some exploiter switching to a free engineer to disarm your beacon. You have more than 30 seconds and your team to work with (along with the dead give away "I'M OVER HERE" when the SBH starts shooting) to disarm it, so there's NO excuse for that. If "you're the only one around", then by all honest means, that SBH and his $1400 and time DESERVE to get that building. One person using an exploit can ruin that as it is. It was NOT intended to be that way. It's a bug, and should be fixed by the patch that is aiming to do just that, no?
Chuck Norris wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 02:00 StealthEye wrote on Wed, 23 July 2008 09:37 10) That's used by so many people, I don't think fixing it would be good. But it's obviously a bug, is it not? The Purchase Terminals were NOT intended to be used from the outside or there'd be Purchase Terminals there. Just because so many people do it and it's convenient is not a good excuse in my opinion. I'd like to hear a REAL argument, besides those two, as to why this should stay. I don't like the "it helps against fending off SBHs with nukes" either. SBHs have gotten much less useful because of this, and it's annoying to see $1400 and all that time and effort thrown away by some exploiter switching to a free engineer to disarm your beacon. You have more than 30 seconds and your team to work with (along with the dead give away "I'M OVER HERE" when the SBH starts shooting) to disarm it, so there's NO excuse for that. If "you're the only one around", then by all honest means, that SBH and his $1400 and time DESERVE to get that building. One person using an exploit can ruin that as it is. It was NOT intended to be that way. It's a bug, and should be fixed by the patch that is aiming to do just that, no?
StealthEye wrote on Wed, 30 July 2008 05:33 The secondary fire muzzle bug was fixed. How did you fix it? Because the secondary fire isnt a bug. Well mayby a unfixed concept. I hope you made it that way that the animation is only showing on one muzzle, when you use 2nd fire? (Because not only the flametank uses this, MRLS, Rocket emplacement(which makes the rocket turret much more usefull)
Quote: Because the secondary fire isnt a bug. Well mayby a unfixed concept. From the code, it's clearly a bug that it happens, the bug is not that the flames show up at both muzzles. The reason it was bugged is this: the flame tank has two muzzles defined, only the primary fire ones. The game tries to guess what the secondary fire muzzles should be. It changes the muzzles like this: primary muzzle 1: assumed to always be set. primary muzzle 2: if unknown, this is set to primary muzzle 1. secondary muzzle 1: if unknown, set to primary muzzle 1. secondary muzzle 2: if unknown, set to secondary muzzle 1. This works usually, when there is only one muzzle set or when primary1 and secondary1 are set properly. It fails however when primary1 and primary2 are set, but both secondaries are not. In that case, secondary muzzle 2 will be set to primary muzzle 1, which makes no sense. I changed it to set secondary muzzle 2 to primary muzzle 2 if secondary muzzle 1 was not set. Chuck, yes I agree that it is obviously a bug, although since so many players use it I think it would be better to fix it by adding PT's to the outside than to make it impossible to use them through walls. Other than that, I'm unsure about how easy/hard it would be as well. About the defending against nukes: well, in for example 2vs2 games, a barracks nuke would hardly be stoppable if you can not get a engineer on the outside and have to kill the sbh with your hottie/engi. In large games you are right, but in small games I can't say it's totally deserved to get a building with an SBH nuke just because the player had to walk for so long. Nonetheless I don't like a bug to fix that problem, I'd rather have a PT on the outside on the back of the barracks or something. Either way it's probably too much work and/or too controversial.
StealthEye wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 13:51 Quote: Because the secondary fire isnt a bug. Well mayby a unfixed concept. From the code, it's clearly a bug that it happens, the bug is not that the flames show up at both muzzles. The reason it was bugged is this: the flame tank has two muzzles defined, only the primary fire ones. The game tries to guess what the secondary fire muzzles should be. It changes the muzzles like this: primary muzzle 1: assumed to always be set. primary muzzle 2: if unknown, this is set to primary muzzle 1. secondary muzzle 1: if unknown, set to primary muzzle 1. secondary muzzle 2: if unknown, set to secondary muzzle 1. This works usually, when there is only one muzzle set or when primary1 and secondary1 are set properly. It fails however when primary1 and primary2 are set, but both secondaries are not. In that case, secondary muzzle 2 will be set to primary muzzle 1, which makes no sense. I changed it to set secondary muzzle 2 to primary muzzle 2 if secondary muzzle 1 was not set. Chuck, yes I agree that it is obviously a bug, although since so many players use it I think it would be better to fix it by adding PT's to the outside than to make it impossible to use them through walls. Other than that, I'm unsure about how easy/hard it would be as well. About the defending against nukes: well, in for example 2vs2 games, a barracks nuke would hardly be stoppable if you can not get a engineer on the outside and have to kill the sbh with your hottie/engi. In large games you are right, but in small games I can't say it's totally deserved to get a building with an SBH nuke just because the player had to walk for so long. Nonetheless I don't like a bug to fix that problem, I'd rather have a PT on the outside on the back of the barracks or something. Either way it's probably too much work and/or too controversial. Adding PT's outside buildings? Changing the secondary damage-in-one-barrel? I think TT is becoming a mod instead of a 'fix of the ANNOYING glitches in Renegade' patch. There are some glitches that have been used since the start of Renegade (pt from outside buildings), and some glitches which fuck up the game (like blue hell). I'm not gonna mention the pointsfix to prevent a 20 page discussion with Spoony. Secondary fire is actually useful and you can precisely aim with the flame tank, stank and mrls. Even if Westwood didn't intend to do this (not saying they didn't), it has actually added precise aiming for these tanks and has been used by many people since this was found out. Some things will just screw up Renegade instead of making it more fun. Do not fix what the majority of the people like (people that have been Renegading over 3 years at least), please. Focus on stopping all Renegade cheats and exploits and fixing annoying glitches only, and put whatever else you like in a separate patch. Please, thank you.
How can you not see the secondary fire as a bug? There's fire coming from both barrels and only the left one does damage, moreover double damage. Not only that, but at other vehicles like mrls, ... you clearly see that the animation isn't made to have all 6 rockets come out at the right side. Many people got no clue about this bug and are very surprised to be killed in less than a second by a flamer. It seems to be me that a few people that seem to know all possible bugs out there and tend to use it to their advantage don't want them to dissapear.
There is an easy fix for the flametank and it is way better then just making it impossible to use. If you just setup the B muzzle on the model on the right side (as what the secondary fire did) Then you keep the flamer the way it always has been only now it has really a secondary weapon. Thus you arent changing ANY other unit by 'fixing' this. I have to agree with TD please fix the major bugs like bluehell and such first (although the pct outside should be fixed, and the pointfix has to be here too those is what I call clearly bugs) Here is the rocketemplacement. Mostly you cant use it or it seems like it isnt doing anything because you cant hit anything. On this unit using A1 and A2 bone + the weapon setup will not let you hit anything. Though using the 'fake secondary fire. You can finally hit something. By only firing out of one bone. If I get it right out of your post this will no longer be available in TT? Just give the flamer a B muzzle and then people in mods can still use this unique feature and you have your fix without altering the gameplay that is here for 6 years. Please dont take away these features for modders. Otherwise TT wont be useful for them. (and I dont want to make a totalconversion just to use this feature)
StealthEye wrote on Wed, 30 July 2008 11:33 The secondary fire muzzle bug was fixed. . wait :/ I don't think that is really a bug.
Fixing outside pts would change gameplay too dramatically... its a bug that defines renegade rather than hindering it. This fix would change the way renegade is changed sooo much. Please let it be... for me
So wait, has the right click flamer and mrl thing been removed? Those are clearly not glitches, no idea what people are smoking if they say they are....Only thing I would suggest is right click flamer, change the animation so that the right turret doesn't shoot anything but the downside would be your enemy would know you are using it and that is now hidden....those 2 things should be untouched. And I agree, leave pt thro wall untouched aswell. TD put it well when he described what the patch was riginally going for, even though now it has been sidetracked a littlebit.
trooprm02 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 16:47 So wait, has the right click flamer and mrl thing been removed? Those are clearly not glitches, no idea what people are smoking if they say they are....Only thing I would suggest is right click flamer, change the animation so that the right turret doesn't shoot anything but the downside would be your enemy would know you are using it and that is now hidden....those 2 things should be untouched. And I agree, leave pt thro wall untouched aswell. TD put it well when he described what the patch was riginally going for, even though now it has been sidetracked a littlebit. Your whole argument on the right click tank use is super flawed. It's like saying: you should be able to plant an ion without people seeing that you're planting it, otherwise they'll adapt to that situation. There's two possible solutions indeed: * secundary fire == primary fire * change the animation so that you only see fire through one barrel Then at least people will stay away from you and can counter it.
Imo the only problem with the flame tanks secondary fire is the animation, this does indeed seem to be a bug, but as for the damage concentrated on one barrel, that does not.
It is easy to do it on the flamer. Just put a B bone on the right muzzle. After that grand I think the flamerfire animation will get screwed up (Flametank has a double animation so even with a B it will show up)Then you could just use the flamethrower animation for that. It isnt hard to fix and resize it if necesary. But disableing the concept is not a good idea. EDIT: Ok I have been trying to see if it was easy fixable for the flamer by adding a MuzzleB0. I fires from one muzzle but it still plays the animation from the MuzzleA0 bone lets see what I can come up with (There must be some better way then disabbeling the enteire concept)[A dummy secondary fire would work, just something that doesnt do a thing, only that is bypassing and not fixing the flamer]
Screenshot of Weapon_FlameTank_Player with certain details circled. If double damage or other effects were intended on secondary fire, they would be controlled by these settings. Instead, they are the same. Therfore different behavior on secondary fire is clearly a bug.
well a big group of friends and most do clan wars say that right click on flamer can kill a med lot faster...then some other friends of mine said with great bealife on teams peak saying it does really work and they still still by it...iv also heard it somewhere else
StealthEye wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 07:51 Chuck, yes I agree that it is obviously a bug, although since so many players use it I think it would be better to fix it by adding PT's to the outside than to make it impossible to use them through walls. Other than that, I'm unsure about how easy/hard it would be as well. About the defending against nukes: well, in for example 2vs2 games, a barracks nuke would hardly be stoppable if you can not get a engineer on the outside and have to kill the sbh with your hottie/engi. In large games you are right, but in small games I can't say it's totally deserved to get a building with an SBH nuke just because the player had to walk for so long. Nonetheless I don't like a bug to fix that problem, I'd rather have a PT on the outside on the back of the barracks or something. Either way it's probably too much work and/or too controversial. If it's too much work, that's one thing. Otherwise, it's a bug, and it shouldn't be left for laziness and/or exploiting sake. Everyone being used to it shouldn't be a reason either, because that wasn't bought by those wanting the points fix instated (I am for the points fix, by the way). It was not meant to be that way, and is thus a bug. As for the smaller games, that's true, but think about it. It still balances itself out. If it's a 2v2 and I'm on GDI, I'm not too worried. By time someone has $1400 and the time to get your base, you should have $1500 for a Mammoth Tank, or if you prefer a Medium Tank, there's that instead with leftover. I know I'd rather have a vehicle and an ally doing whatever versus 1 Nod enemy (the other is the SBH). The SBH is guaranteed one building, but if played right, GDI is guaranteed AT LEAST as much (and if the other Nod guy snuck in as a Stank, two GDI vehicles should take out Nod's base faster, or it may be really close, depending on who hits first and with what). SBH's are NOT overpowered. Yes, you see it happen alot, but that's because that's what Nod does (just like strength is what GDI does). SBH's aren't overpowered or anything. Because of this bug and more widespread knowledge of it, they're actually alot more worthless. I still see no real reason why this shouldn't be fixed, unless it is actually too much work, as I don't mean to sound disrespectful or demanding of the work being put into this, but with all these features being added, I think bugs should be looked at first, and this one I do think needs fixed and has no real argument for why it should stay.
people just like the bugs cause there used to exploiting them and using them so they fight against it but a bug is a bug and one that throws the gameplay needs fixing anyways another friend told me he always thought that right click on the flamer just damage more cause it was coming out of the right side so pretty much saying only shoots out one side...
SSnipe wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 14:09 people just like the bugs cause there used to exploiting them and using them so they fight against it but a bug is a bug and one that throws the gameplay needs fixing anyways another friend told me he always thought that right click on the flamer just damage more cause it was coming out of the right side so pretty much saying only shoots out one side... Yes atm it is bug that the flametank animation is displayed twice and it should only be one. But you dont have to delete this functionality just because it displayes the animation twice. I would say try to get rit of the double animation. If you look at how it works you clearly see the system isnt a bug. The system is bugged (flamer animation). That are two different things. As I read stealtheyes post they have just changed the checks so it doenst work anymore. Why would you disable a unique system? EDIT: Disabeling is adverting the problem and changing the gameplay. (you are not fixing it)
easy fix....since it only works with one side and still shows fire coming out the other end even tho it does nothing...make it come out both sides when you click ether left or right and make sure it = the same damage as it did with just one shooting out
Reaver11 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 22:05 SSnipe wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 14:09 people just like the bugs cause there used to exploiting them and using them so they fight against it but a bug is a bug and one that throws the gameplay needs fixing anyways another friend told me he always thought that right click on the flamer just damage more cause it was coming out of the right side so pretty much saying only shoots out one side... Yes atm it is bug that the flametank animation is displayed twice and it should only be one. But you dont have to delete this functionality just because it displayes the animation twice. I would say try to get rit of the double animation. If you look at how it works you clearly see the system isnt a bug. The system is bugged (flamer animation). That are two different things. As I read stealtheyes post they have just changed the checks so it doenst work anymore. Why would you disable a unique system? EDIT: Disabeling is adverting the problem and changing the gameplay. (you are not fixing it) What part of the image posted by Saberhawk did u miss?
SSnipe wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 21:24 easy fix....since it only works with one side and still shows fire coming out the other end even tho it does nothing...make it come out both sides when you click ether left or right and make sure it = the same damage as it did with just one shooting out Yeah so now you would have 200% dmg since right click does 100% on just the left barrel.
Reaver11 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 15:05 SSnipe wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 14:09 people just like the bugs cause there used to exploiting them and using them so they fight against it but a bug is a bug and one that throws the gameplay needs fixing anyways another friend told me he always thought that right click on the flamer just damage more cause it was coming out of the right side so pretty much saying only shoots out one side... Yes atm it is bug that the flametank animation is displayed twice and it should only be one. But you dont have to delete this functionality just because it displayes the animation twice. I would say try to get rit of the double animation. If you look at how it works you clearly see the system isnt a bug. The system is bugged (flamer animation). That are two different things. As I read stealtheyes post they have just changed the checks so it doenst work anymore. Why would you disable a unique system? EDIT: Disabeling is adverting the problem and changing the gameplay. (you are not fixing it) We aren't "disabling" anything, we are fixing a "logic" bug. If the flametank was ment to fire two flame rays from the first secondary barrel location, the second secondary barrel location would have been in the exact same location as the first. Instead, there are no secondary barrels defined at all and the logic error places both secondary barrels in the first primary barrel location instead of in the primary barrel locations.
Saberhawk wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 13:33 Reaver11 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 15:05 SSnipe wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 14:09 people just like the bugs cause there used to exploiting them and using them so they fight against it but a bug is a bug and one that throws the gameplay needs fixing anyways another friend told me he always thought that right click on the flamer just damage more cause it was coming out of the right side so pretty much saying only shoots out one side... Yes atm it is bug that the flametank animation is displayed twice and it should only be one. But you dont have to delete this functionality just because it displayes the animation twice. I would say try to get rit of the double animation. If you look at how it works you clearly see the system isnt a bug. The system is bugged (flamer animation). That are two different things. As I read stealtheyes post they have just changed the checks so it doenst work anymore. Why would you disable a unique system? EDIT: Disabeling is adverting the problem and changing the gameplay. (you are not fixing it) We aren't "disabling" anything, we are fixing a "logic" bug. If the flametank was ment to fire two flame rays from the first secondary barrel location, the second secondary barrel location would have been in the exact same location as the first. Instead, there are no secondary barrels defined at all and the logic error places both secondary barrels in the first primary barrel location instead of in the primary barrel locations. say what....
This is the issue, represented graphically. The green "flame" on the last tank represents the fact the the animation plays but does not actually cause damage. The arrows indicate the direction the tank is facing. Understand now?
CarrierII wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 13:48 This is the issue, represented graphically. The green "flame" on the last tank represents the fact the the animation plays but does not actually cause damage. The arrows indicate the direction the tank is facing. Understand now? yup thanks
It seems mayby my posts dont describe it good. My bad then. I get perfectly fine that the flamer weapon as it is and that it is bugged. Heck I even stated I tried to find a way to fix it in a different way by adding a muzzleB0 but no that didnt work. I does work with a different weapon if you need a screeny of it. Only yes the flames then stil display from the two muzzles. Even by setting the 2nd fire to the flamethrower didnt work (same emmiter I assumed it wouldnt work but I did try it) So I didnt post this out of not knowing what is going on. Because I do and I wanted tos ee if there was a different way to fix it. And ofcourse for some units the solution is easy for the rocket emplacement I posted. I could just add a MuzzleB0 and it is still the same. Only I want to see the 2nd mode of the rocketemplacement kept useable server-side without needing an auto download for it -> here a screeny I know it doesnt look good on this ssm launcher (it is from sole survivor) but heck it works so telling me that this would work would be way better then saying 'dont you get these pictures'. So sorry if that wasnt readable in my posts. All I want is that you keep this for the rocketemplacement on server-sided maps it is kinda usefull so you can actually hit something. Otherwise without this system or an muzzleB0 bone to the left side then the rocket emplacement would be renderd useless and yes that is my opinion and doesnt have anything to do with the flamer because I stated it should be fixed. So I'm sorry if you couldn't get this out of my posts. I'm not an hero in english. (duno if those pictures where all for me but o' well, i dont want to hurt anyone with it if i did im sorry)
^ This secondary mode? It remains perfectly usable
Ah damnz0r I assumed that the rocketemplacement worked the same way my bad. I didnt look inside it, okay fix all the stuff it seems ah well that I have got the part of the weapon set of the rocketemplacement wrong because I forgot to look there -.-
Well, IF we would say that it was indeed intended to be able to fire from one barrel, it should do half damage to what it does now. As logically it would not make sense to put on 2 barrels if 1 can fire just as fast as 2, and building 2 is less cost effective then 1, unless it does more damage. So if we keep the right click thing, it would need: 1. half damage 2. a fixed animation Either that or removing it would make sense.
i say if should shoot boths cannons and equal how it is normally
About people mentioning it would no longer be possible to make mods to shoot from a single barrel on secondary fire: it would still be possible. You just need to define the secondary muzzle bones and it will work. If the flamer was intended to shoot from one muzzle only on secondary fire, it would have had secondary fire muzzles. Relying on logic like this is a very unlogical decision for Westwood to make. If they really wanted this to happen, they would have made a weapon setting for it or they would have defined the secondary muzzles. Not coded weird logic to sortof guess what they want. The idea behind the code is clearly: if the secondary muzzle is not defined, use the primary muzzle's position. The code was clearly broken. Also, don't claim things about "half of the people want this" or "the majority want that", because you really don't know. Most people probably don't even know about the bug, and even if they do there is little chance you know about them or their opinions.
StealthEye wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 17:27 About people mentioning it would no longer be possible to make mods to shoot from a single barrel on secondary fire: it would still be possible. You just need to define the secondary muzzle bones and it will work. If the flamer was intended to shoot from one muzzle only on secondary fire, it would have had secondary fire muzzles. Relying on logic like this is a very unlogical decision for Westwood to make. If they really wanted this to happen, they would have made a weapon setting for it or they would have defined the secondary muzzles. Not coded weird logic to sortof guess what they want. The idea behind the code is clearly: if the secondary muzzle is not defined, use the primary muzzle's position. The code was clearly broken. Also, don't claim things about "half of the people want this" or "the majority want that", because you really don't know. Most people probably don't even know about the bug, and even if they do there is little chance you know about them or their opinions. dont listen to what people want...if its broken fix it THE RIGHT WAY
ahhh.. but i like that 'feature'. please don't 'fix' it
Saberhawk wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 17:10 ^ This secondary mode? It remains perfectly usable Listen, im not going to be rude about it, but a)nobody knows wtf that means (and actually the math even may be wrong), and matching math->gameplay when right click flamer and mrl work perfectly ingame and don't unbalance shit. b)right click is fair and makes logical sense, it ads a fire mode to 2 useful vehicles, while at the same time not unbalancing gameplay. c)if you insist on doing something about it, I guess I would accept the animation being redone..... d)most of the community doesn't support the idea of "fixing it", so I hope you guys already haven't, (kiss, keep it simple silly, dont fix what isn't broken...) Now im worried about fixes that people won't agree with concerning gameplay that will make EA retract from the idea behind the TT patch because it isn't supported by the community making it all go to waste, atleast for v1 of the patch, as simple as possible we can discuss everything else (points fix, right click, pt stuff) later, so atleast pretend to EA that we are semi-in agreement.
trooprm02 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 20:50 d)most of the community doesn't support the idea of "fixing it" And where are they? Quote: dont fix what isn't broken Except it is broken and therefore needs to be fixed. Besides, it doesn't make sense that a barrel of a flamethrower can magically do twice the damage. Thus, broken.
Like I said before, there are annoying glitches and glitches that are so overused that it has become normal and does not affect the gameplay in a bad way. If the second set of (good) glitches get fixed it will change the gameplay for a lot of people and this patch will not only stop the cheaters, but will also make normal players leave the game. Cheating and annoying glitches have always been the things that fuck Renegade up... So I repeat, PLEASE FOCUS ON THAT ONLY, AND PUT THE REST IN A SEPARATE PATCH.
cmatt42 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 23:15 trooprm02 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 20:50 d)most of the community doesn't support the idea of "fixing it" And where are they? probably out playing renegade instead of spending all day on this forum
trooprm02 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 20:50 Saberhawk wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 17:10 ^ This secondary mode? It remains perfectly usable Listen, im not going to be rude about it, but a)nobody knows wtf that means (and actually the math even may be wrong), and matching math->gameplay when right click flamer and mrl work perfectly ingame and don't unbalance shit. b)right click is fair and makes logical sense, it ads a fire mode to 2 useful vehicles, while at the same time not unbalancing gameplay. c)if you insist on doing something about it, I guess I would accept the animation being redone..... d)most of the community doesn't support the idea of "fixing it", so I hope you guys already haven't, (kiss, keep it simple silly, dont fix what isn't broken...) Now im worried about fixes that people won't agree with concerning gameplay that will make EA retract from the idea behind the TT patch because it isn't supported by the community making it all go to waste, atleast for v1 of the patch, as simple as possible we can discuss everything else (points fix, right click, pt stuff) later, so atleast pretend to EA that we are semi-in agreement. Those two fields define what gets shot out, how fast, etc from primary and secondary fire for a weapon. They are the same. The math isn't wrong. The animation isn't wrong. The code that *guesses* where the secondary barrels are did not account for the fact that you could have both primary barrels defined. It is clearly a "logic" bug (as in a not fully defined logic, not a typo or other type of bug). The fact that the secondary fire is defined *exactly* like primary fire on the flame tank weapon proves this. The fact that the emitters show up at the correct locations proves this as well.
Trooprm, I find you to be incredibly rude. ?Not only you do not even attempt to understand what the problem is, you also don't even read the posts made by the TT-coders. If you did, you wouldn't have made the comment in "d)". It's also very rude of you to try and take these people in hostage by basically stating "if you don't do it my way, I'll do what I can to make the patch fail". Until now I thought you were somehow a bit "misunderstood" by many people, but I seem to know better now.
Yep Saberhawk is right here, I actually missed the fact of the rocketemplacement here. Only I don't think the flamer is an easy done job to fix it. I tried to fix it myself by adding an MuzzleB0 which is easy but the flamer emitter stil gets played from both the muzzles and when I set the 2nd fire to something different it will work perfectly. Better a fixed animation the new way or the old way. Because it takes most average renegade people(I took me also quite some time to realize it was no joke) quite some time to notice it actually exsists.
The logic should see if it can map the secondary second muzzle to the the primary second muzzle before defaulting to the primary first muzzle. One IF statement missing, that's all.
Reaver11 wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 04:20 Yep Saberhawk is right here, I actually missed the fact of the rocketemplacement here. Only I don't think the flamer is an easy done job to fix it. I tried to fix it myself by adding an MuzzleB0 which is easy but the flamer emitter stil gets played from both the muzzles and when I set the 2nd fire to something different it will work perfectly. Better a fixed animation the new way or the old way. Because it takes most average renegade people(I took me also quite some time to realize it was no joke) quite some time to notice it actually exsists. I think that may actually be another bug, and probably the reason the secondary muzzle bug wasn't noticed in the first place!
Nune wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 16:26 Fixing outside pts would change gameplay too dramatically... its a bug that defines renegade rather than hindering it. This fix would change the way renegade is changed sooo much. Please let it be... for me u can't do it on field at agt cuz the pt's (the invisible thingies) are moved a bit more inside
You can access the PT from outside the AGT on field. Quite easily I might add.
Caveman wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 03:47 You can access the PT from outside the AGT on field. Quite easily I might add. advantage =/
Ok, let me review: 1)Right click flamer/mrl give no kind of "advantage" whatsoever 2)they add a gameplay tactic So the question is, even if it is "mathematically" wrong matching that to gameplay doesn't make sense especially because of the 2 points mentioned above so why remove it? Its the same issue with the points fix, the code might be mathematically wrong, but really WHO FUCKING CARES, ingame gameplay is balanced, if it wasn't westwood would have noticed and fixed it themselves during beta and after release in the patches BUT THEY DIDN'T. And this is in no way personal, I, like the majority of the community disagree with a few of these "fixes".
trooprm02 wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 20:00 Ok, let me review: 1)Right click flamer/mrl give no kind of "advantage" whatsoever 2)they add a gameplay tactic So the question is, even if it is "mathematically" wrong matching that to gameplay doesn't make sense especially because of the 2 points mentioned above so why remove it? Its the same issue with the points fix, the code might be mathematically wrong, but really WHO FUCKING CARES, ingame gameplay is balanced, if it wasn't westwood would have noticed and fixed it themselves during beta and after release in the patches BUT THEY DIDN'T. And this is in no way personal, I, like the majority of the community disagree with a few of these "fixes". Right, so let's review: 1) Right click on flame tank causes double damage via the first primary muzzle, while none via the second primary muzzle. 2) This exploit was not noticed during Westwood QA because of another bug. This other bug causes emitters for secondary fire modes to be displayed at the primary muzzles instead of the secondary muzzles. *No* vehicle in vanilla Renegade has emitter weapons (aka flamethrower) and two sets of muzzles so it's very likely that it was never noticed. 3) There is no documentation whatsoever from Westwood that the flame tank has a secondary fire mode.
Saberhawk wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 18:13 trooprm02 wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 20:00 Ok, let me review: 1)Right click flamer/mrl give no kind of "advantage" whatsoever 2)they add a gameplay tactic So the question is, even if it is "mathematically" wrong matching that to gameplay doesn't make sense especially because of the 2 points mentioned above so why remove it? if u say so Its the same issue with the points fix, the code might be mathematically wrong, but really WHO FUCKING CARES, ingame gameplay is balanced, if it wasn't westwood would have noticed and fixed it themselves during beta and after release in the patches BUT THEY DIDN'T. And this is in no way personal, I, like the majority of the community disagree with a few of these "fixes". Right, so let's review: 1) Right click on flame tank causes double damage via the first primary muzzle, while none via the second primary muzzle. 2) This exploit was not noticed during Westwood QA because of another bug. This other bug causes emitters for secondary fire modes to be displayed at the primary muzzles instead of the secondary muzzles. *No* vehicle in vanilla Renegade has emitter weapons (aka flamethrower) and two sets of muzzles so it's very likely that it was never noticed. 3) There is no documentation whatsoever from Westwood that the flame tank has a secondary fire mode.
who cares? stop trying to make this game perfect. its really old, you cant fix everything, and all glitches that dont get 2/3 vote to remove whould be kept. unless its really dumb like bluescreening.
blly wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 22:06 who cares? stop trying to make this game perfect. its really old, you cant fix everything, and all glitches that dont get 2/3 vote to remove whould be kept. unless its really dumb like bluescreening. Why should we stop trying, you lazy bastard?
blly wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 20:06 who cares? stop trying to make this game perfect. its really old, you cant fix everything, and all glitches that dont get 2/3 vote to remove whould be kept. unless its really dumb like bluescreening. they are not trying to make it perfect just decent...
The team is doing the best that they can to remove all bugs. If you don't like something done, just make a counter-act to it yourself... Not hard to learn a language with google and msdn around
or how about this, you guys listen to the majority of the ren community and to what it tells you to do.
Saberhawk wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 20:13 trooprm02 wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 20:00 Ok, let me review: 1)Right click flamer/mrl give no kind of "advantage" whatsoever 2)they add a gameplay tactic So the question is, even if it is "mathematically" wrong matching that to gameplay doesn't make sense especially because of the 2 points mentioned above so why remove it? Its the same issue with the points fix, the code might be mathematically wrong, but really WHO FUCKING CARES, ingame gameplay is balanced, if it wasn't westwood would have noticed and fixed it themselves during beta and after release in the patches BUT THEY DIDN'T. And this is in no way personal, I, like the majority of the community disagree with a few of these "fixes". Right, so let's review: 1) Right click on flame tank causes double damage via the first primary muzzle, while none via the second primary muzzle. 2) This exploit was not noticed during Westwood QA because of another bug. This other bug causes emitters for secondary fire modes to be displayed at the primary muzzles instead of the secondary muzzles. *No* vehicle in vanilla Renegade has emitter weapons (aka flamethrower) and two sets of muzzles so it's very likely that it was never noticed. 3) There is no documentation whatsoever from Westwood that the flame tank has a secondary fire mode. I obviously know what they do, but how do they effect balance/gameplay at all negatively? They actually even out renegade more if anything, even if it was unintentially we just got lucky then didn't we (ie:mrl right click on hourglass vs arty)? So why remove something that has 0 negative effects and ands an additional strategy to this game? Fine, fix the flamer animation if you really have to, but then the MRL is perfectly fine..
blly wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 20:45 or how about this, you guys listen to the majority of the ren community and to what it tells you to do. of course most people would want exploits and glitches to make game play EASIER
SSnipe wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 22:47 blly wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 20:45 or how about this, you guys listen to the majority of the ren community and to what it tells you to do. of course most people would want exploits and glitches to make game play EASIER you are pretty dum. most of the community would say that pointsfix is bad, pt outside is fine, and bluescreen is bad. so WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
blly wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 23:49 you are pretty dum. Irony. Quote: so WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. You know how you just want to keep the bugs in place to have a clear advantage? He's just emphasizing this fact.
If you guys haven't already you should fix the glitch where if you die in an apache/orca and are right underneat a ceiling you can go through it. Such as the wf roof, or the city bridge.
how is that just an advantage for me? almost all players know about the outside pt using, like everyone uses it, and it just wouldnt be the same without it.
If you want pcts on the outside of your buildings on your server. Even when TT is released. Just add a switch with a pct zone around it and you are done. (all perfectly server-side)
Reaver11 wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 07:39 If you want pcts on the outside of your buildings on your server. Even when TT is released. Just add a switch with a pct zone around it and you are done. (all perfectly server-side) yup.......thats true its SO easy just move pt zone ever so slightly
blly wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 15:17 how is that just an advantage for me? almost all players know about the outside pt using, like everyone uses it, and it just wouldnt be the same without it. Didn't say you specifically. Anyhow, it's a major advantage for the base's team. Going back on your beacon argument, it's unfair that you can simply switch to a repair character via a bug and repair it off in mere seconds. The only home advantage you have and need is already presented by having PTs in the base.