Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Quit fixing stuff that no one wants you to fix
I appreciate a lot of the shit you are doing, but some stuff is pissing me off. You aren't listening to people!
Re: Quit fixing stuff that no one wants you to fix
Nune wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 16:44 I appreciate a lot of the shit you are doing, but some stuff is pissing me off. You aren't listening to people! Fine, we won't fix Renegade's crappy performance because everybody that uses the lag to cheat won't like it.
Quote: You aren't listening to people! Yea and that's good that TT is doing that in 90% of cases. It's like every public-development: the developers have to sort out the few good ideas between all the sh**.
no errors exploits and glitches need to be fixed ill admit add ons and suggestions is one thing but the major bug or little bugs that change game play needs fixing
There's obviously going to be disagreements, but if we can prevent disagreements from becoming large arguments, all the better for our chances. Nothing immature about disagreeing, but not handling those disagreements (and instead arguing) is what causes the problems. So we all know we'll not all agree on everything, so we need to come to an agreement above that. We need alot of support. If the community is split, EA won't budge. We all think Renegade is among the best, and it's an unfinished game, so this could be the first step towards finishing it ourselves (okay, that may be overstating it for now). Remember the goal of this. It's to better the great game of Renegade, and one of the prime focuses is bugs. I say we agree to this. If something is identified as a bug, glitch, or exploit, and it's either common sense or can be proven it is such, I think we should all agree to add it to the fix (if possible) list no matter what (unless it's a seriously insignificant bug) and not argue about what we want, because that guarantees fighting. A bug is a bug and should be corrected. Something that wasn't intended to be should not be, and that's what the patch is about. The points fix is an exception, but I still say make it mandatory and leave the exclusion of the fix for a separate "points unfix.dll" so that it at least has an alternative since it is such a big focus for everyone, but it is technically a bug so it should be fixed within the patch itself. We need to work together and agree to fix what needs fixed, otherwise, EVERYTHING is going to turn into an argument. A few features are fine, but save the features and possible balance changes for a separate patch. P.S. I'm not trying to sound like I'm trying to make any decisions here, but merely offer up a proposition. If we can agree to the bold, we'll probably have less arguments.
Nune wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 23:44 I appreciate a lot of the shit you are doing, but some stuff is pissing me off. You aren't listening to people! Perhaps there is one or two major features/bugs that need to be fixed before we can release it anyway, and unfortunately, only one or 2 coders can effectively work at a feature/bug at any given time. Thus we have about 5 to 10 ppl doing nothing, if it wasn't for the less important stuff.
From what I see there is a lot of open opposition towards some fixes yet you guys imo aren't listening you are just doing as you please. Why can't you make all fixes server side optional... the xwis wide ladder isn't really that important to most people.
If something can be identified as a bug in renegade, I for one intend to do everything I can to get it fixed, even if its not necessarily all that big.
jonwil wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 17:16 If something can be identified as a bug in renegade, I for one intend to do everything I can to get it fixed, even if its not necessarily all that big. thank you
Nune wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 19:13 From what I see there is a lot of open opposition towards some fixes yet you guys imo aren't listening you are just doing as you please. So if Westwood were somehow magically reassembled to make a Renegade patch with all the same fixes and 'forced' it on you (that's called a 'patch' by the way because it's BROKEN and needs to be FIXED), you'd also be completely against it. Am I right? Or are you against all forms of fixes? If that's the case, go play 1.0.
cmatt42 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 23:08 Nune wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 19:13 From what I see there is a lot of open opposition towards some fixes yet you guys imo aren't listening you are just doing as you please. So if Westwood were somehow magically reassembled to make a Renegade patch with all the same fixes and 'forced' it on you (that's called a 'patch' by the way because it's BROKEN and needs to be FIXED), you'd also be completely against it. Am I right? Or are you against all forms of fixes? If that's the case, go play 1.0. wow you sounded so dumb in that post. honestly. it was the dumbest thing anyone could have said lol.
jonwil wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 19:16 If something can be identified as a bug in renegade, I for one intend to do everything I can to get it fixed, even if its not necessarily all that big. that's fine, but does that mean i am forced to play with your changes? it's like you've made the decision for me with me having no say in it, and that doesn't seem fair at all
It's not fair that you won't be able to use and take advantage of exploits and bugs? No one else will be able to either. How's that for fair?
i can agree with that about some things but not others, for obvious reasons
liquidv2 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 23:17 that's fine, but does that mean i am forced to play with your changes? it's like you've made the decision for me with me having no say in it, and that doesn't seem fair at all I don't see a difference between this and a patch for any other game, other than this is a patch made by fans, but if it gets pushed by EA, the same rules as an official patch made by them will apply. liquidv2 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 23:32 i can agree with that about some things but not others, for obvious reasons Obvious reasons? What reasons? If it's a bug that was not intended and in the end brings a negative value to the game, I see no reason why it should not be fixed.
TruYuri wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 23:41 Obvious reasons? What reasons? If it's a bug that was not intended and in the end brings a negative value to the game, I see no reason why it should not be fixed. if we're talking about bluescreening then yes, unless you're a fan of it if we're talking about the original ren points system then no, there are quite a lot of people who like and accept it and don't believe it brings a negative value to the game this isn't like an official patch because like you said it's being done by fans who had no part in making it in the first place
liquidv2 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 23:46 if we're talking about the original ren points system then no, there are quite a lot of people who like and accept it and don't believe it brings a negative value to the game Try telling that to the new players who, once again, get bitched at for making a good investment on a strong vehicle.
Points fix isn't what this topic is for. It's about the disagreements that exist, and I offered up a solution. If we sit there and argue about what bugs we want or don't want, we'll have people arguing at every turn. Bugs are not meant to be, so if something is a bug, it's not meant to be and should be fixed. We should fix all bugs regardless of if we're used to them or like them, as that is not how Renegade was ever intended to be by Westwood. Tiberium Technologies are all highly skilled coders, some of the best in the community, and they're doing their best to identify and correct bugs. It's not that they're not listening to you, but some of us are being a little stubborn. The specific bug everyone is whining about makes sense to be fixed from BOTH a coding and gameplay point of view. If Westwood was still around, they'd probably have fixed it too (we sort of have an unofficial word from an ex-Westwood employee saying it is most likely a bug).
People still don't seem to realise that the point fix problem is solved: alternative solutions will be tested in beta and if they aren't accepted, a pointunfix.dll will be created so servers can choose to disable it. For all the rest: I see a small minority of people that's afraid of change through fixes that seem perfectly logical through how the code works/how most people think. I've actually seen three people really disagree on the right click tank fix so far, and none of them gave any rational arguments. I also have no indication that there's a large amount of things that people disagree on. The pointfix disagreement has found a solution, it seems to me. Last but not least: this game has always been modded a lot. Look at all the different kind of servers. Moreover, an auto download feature will be included to enable client side changes. If some servers cannot agree on the way some stuff has been fixed, then they can and will mod their server to do it a different way. TT enables this option thanks to the auto download. Oh and Nunega, what you mean is: "you aren't listening to me", I think...
blly wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 23:16 cmatt42 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 23:08 Nune wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 19:13 From what I see there is a lot of open opposition towards some fixes yet you guys imo aren't listening you are just doing as you please. So if Westwood were somehow magically reassembled to make a Renegade patch with all the same fixes and 'forced' it on you (that's called a 'patch' by the way because it's BROKEN and needs to be FIXED), you'd also be completely against it. Am I right? Or are you against all forms of fixes? If that's the case, go play 1.0. wow you sounded so dumb in that post. honestly. it was the dumbest thing anyone could have said lol. actually no blly, if ww had made it years ago no one would be bitching tbh, did anyone about the 1.037 patch?? or any patch for any game.
blly wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 00:16 cmatt42 wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 23:08 Nune wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 19:13 From what I see there is a lot of open opposition towards some fixes yet you guys imo aren't listening you are just doing as you please. So if Westwood were somehow magically reassembled to make a Renegade patch with all the same fixes and 'forced' it on you (that's called a 'patch' by the way because it's BROKEN and needs to be FIXED), you'd also be completely against it. Am I right? Or are you against all forms of fixes? If that's the case, go play 1.0. wow you sounded so dumb in that post. honestly. it was the dumbest thing anyone could have said lol. Actually, I completely agree with cmatt42. If the patch was being developed by people hired by EA or Westwood the bugs would inevitably be fixed whether the community agrees or not, the same way the members of TT are fixing bugs. You should all just be thankful we have these dedicated people who are putting so much effort into trying to make this a better game and quit your bitching.
If something is clearly a bug I would say go a head and fix it. The pct buying from behind is clearly a bug, although it might alter the way Renegade is played now and that is where people are affraid of. I myself watch what is happening. That is also why I asked if TT could make a display, in a locked topic or on a site. Just a little changelog table. I got a reaction of stealtheye there, that a fullchangelog is very difficult to make. Which is perfectly understandeble. But I did like to see somekind of changelog appart from scrolling through this forums to look for them. Even if it is just a minor changelog. issue----------Changed to pcts-----------You can no longer buy from behind pointfix-------(Fill in) etc------------etc It doesnt have to have a list of the code where you fix a little byte that was bugging the game. I dont expect it to be 100% correct, I just want to see what you are fixing in general-line. So people get an idea what you guys are fixing appart from the big issues (pointfix,bluehell)
Well, he also said they will make one at beta release. So people will still be able to discuss it + see it in action at the same time (through beta).
True I know he said that but yet I did like to see more and if it is really not possible so be it. I think a early changelog to let people see what TT is doing might be countering the fair, of the unkown changes.
Reaver11 wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 04:09 If something is clearly a bug I would say go a head and fix it. The pct buying from behind is clearly a bug, although it might alter the way Renegade is played now and that is where people are affraid of. I myself watch what is happening. That is also why I asked if TT could make a display, in a locked topic or on a site. Just a little changelog table. I got a reaction of stealtheye there, that a fullchangelog is very difficult to make. Which is perfectly understandeble. But I did like to see somekind of changelog appart from scrolling through this forums to look for them. Even if it is just a minor changelog. issue----------Changed to pcts-----------You can no longer buy from behind pointfix-------(Fill in) etc------------etc It doesnt have to have a list of the code where you fix a little byte that was bugging the game. I dont expect it to be 100% correct, I just want to see what you are fixing in general-line. So people get an idea what you guys are fixing appart from the big issues (pointfix,bluehell) Even a "rough changelog" is rather difficult to keep maintained. We used to have one in our internal wiki and it quickly outlived it's usefulness.
Saberhawk wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 01:23 Nune wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 16:44 I appreciate a lot of the shit you are doing, but some stuff is pissing me off. You aren't listening to people! Fine, we won't fix Renegade's crappy performance because everybody that uses the lag to cheat won't like it. look what u've done nune -_-
Ok if it isnt worth the time/near impossible then indeed better not do it.
Saberhawk wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 05:53 Even a "rough changelog" is rather difficult to keep maintained. We used to have one in our internal wiki and it quickly outlived it's usefulness. What about installing a bug tracker somewhere on the site?
A bug tracker would add even more overhead to our work than a wiki would. Note that we have subversion as version control, when the beta is released we will look through the subversion logs and list everything that was logged in there. The subversion logs do keep complete track over what changes but we can not make them public.
liquidv2 wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 06:17 jonwil wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 19:16 If something can be identified as a bug in renegade, I for one intend to do everything I can to get it fixed, even if its not necessarily all that big. that's fine, but does that mean i am forced to play with your changes? it's like you've made the decision for me with me having no say in it, and that doesn't seem fair at all If EA agrees with out reasoning, then YES you will have to play with OUR patches, and NO you can't do a thing about them when EA approves. Then it would be just like any other patch released by Westwood/EA. You should look at TT as a project group created by fans, but supported by EA. Because of this support, this project group is getting close to the original dev team status. Of course, we don't have access to the source, but many things are fixable thanks to our highly skilled coders. Those highly skilled coders are not easy to find, and you should actually be thankful that these coders are willing to invest their time in a "useless" project as Renegade, while at the same time they could make loads of money by working for a company. Please release that these coders are doing their very best to "read" the RenegadeBible, the Renegade source. While this is encrypted (compiled machine code) it is readable, but it is also a tremendous task to undertake. They want to use the stuff they've read and deciphered to get a better understanding of how Renegade was supposed to work. And in doing this, they will at the same time try to keep everything as much as is as possible, while fixing stuff that seems flawed, particularly when you look at the ReneBible.
The flamer is a expensive and powerful tank, without the right click to kill infantry it would get raped by a pic everytime... what is being missed is that this bug helps balance the game. Same for outside pt, in a 2v2 if a sbh nukes behind barracks on field good luck disarming that. If the sbh is half decent he will kill the hotty or make it fall back to refill everytime. Removing outside pts would make some tactics over the top successful. furthermore, on field ur ref is ioned and covered by a mobius, the closest pt is the obelisk, quite a walk... dead ref. There are many situations where the outside pt balances the game.
The flamer bug does not help balance the game IMO. It just makes the flamer a "kill everything once it's in range" tank. It overpowers it on small rush maps like complex where it's already hard to keep all entrance clear during small games. I don't reall think of pics but more of hotties trying to enter a building to repair it. Moreover, a lot of people don't know about this bug, still the game has like a 50,000000000000000000001 % win for GDI, so it's balanced IMO. The right click flamer bug is +/- to infantry what the flaming APC is to vehicles: instant kill with very little chance of stopping it unless you can keep them out of range. But with infantry that's a pretty darn hard thing to do. I agree with you on PTs though.
The PIC is a $1000 character with a long(er) range and is meant for anti-armor versus an $800 tank meant for close range building attack. Can a Flame Tank beat a PIC? Yes, but the PIC will and should have the advantage. The game on the whole is balanced, but this doesn't mean some units won't be weak or strong versus others. What you're suggesting is covering up a weakness with an advantage through an exploit, and that doesn't add balance, rather it does the opposite. As for the SBH, I already went into that in another topic. If that SBH is nuking you, he already made $1400, which means you should have made AT LEAST as much (more if you weren't sitting around doing nothing), plus whatever was made during the minute or two he took walking to your base. Why weren't you attacking their base then then? If one of them is a SBH, it's 2v1 then. If those two people can't get at least 1 building in the time the SBH nukes one of their's (Mammoth's missles and an ion and cover [or two and cover if you pull it off] are two off the top of my head), they're hopeless anyway and don't deserve a bug to help them. For the last time, SBH ARE NOT OVERPOWERED. I'm tired of people whining that it needs a counter because SBH nukes happen alot. Nod is stealth, so of course that happens alot. That bug destroys balance. It does not balance anything. It's a bug and wasn't intended and needs fixed.
Thats utter bullshit, 2v2 cw, ur agt goes down so now you need someone to camp, there best camping vehicle on field vs infantry is the apc, nod will use the loss of base defences to their advantage and thus probably use a sbh nuke, especially if they have already killed weapons factory. If you both move out with no agt a tech will kill a building, if you camp and they are having trouble killing a further building they may ensue the sbh tactic. On field the gdi ref is very easy to kill and thus if this has happened you won't want to waste money on a mobius when you can camp with a much cheaper apc + hotty, also you can use the hotty for mining so you have a better chance of survival. Without using the outside pt behind barracks a half decent sbh will kill your hotty and with no refill you will only have 2 remotes, if he gets close to you you cannot remote him as now he has hit you down to 150 hp whilst you are running down the narrow area behind barracks where you cannot dodge well, if you do remote you may kill him whilst killing yourself and then it comes down to luck as to whether you get that perfect front of barracks spawn. + what about maps like canyon where the gdi harvester is much slower than the nod harvester. If outside pts are taken eventually someone will make a rule : 'No sbh nukes in certain spots...' - which is just dumb, but only way to balance games in certain situations. p.s you roll out with a mammouth on field with me having an arty @ my base entrance, lets see how far you get.
If they destroyed your AGT, they deserve the ability to plant a Nuclear Strike Beacon with a Stealth Black Hand. It's completely fair. Why can't you see that?
cmatt42 wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 18:47 If they destroyed your AGT, they deserve the ability to plant a Nuclear Strike Beacon with a Stealth Black Hand. It's completely fair. Why can't you see that? harv walk from agt tunnel is very easy to do, it is a last attempt to gain the win when you are getting out tanked, it can occur in about a minute if you know when the harv passes the tunnel.
lol nunega i agree with you but these guys are completely retarded. they obviously have never played a competitive match. if you really try to get rid of the outside pt use, then you will get MAJOR shit from most of the clanwars community plus most of the normal ren community. no one has a problem with it. why bother fixing it. it also would change gameplay way more than points mod.
blly wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 11:43 lol nunega i agree with you but these guys are completely retarded. they obviously have never played a competitive match. if you really try to get rid of the outside pt use, then you will get MAJOR shit from most of the clanwars community plus most of the normal ren community. no one has a problem with it. why bother fixing it. it also would change gameplay way more than points mod. to bad for them..........they learned to use exploits and glitches to win then to bad for them not our faults its like if everyone hacked.....and they got used to playing with hacks and then one day we removed hacks will everyone bitch cuase they dont got there loophole to win?
Quite right. I'm personally torn over the PT issue. I use them from outside all the time, simply because it's faster.
Removing outside pts will change ren gameplay more than any other proposal you have made, tbh I don't care that much about point fix... so you have about 50 credits less big deal! But removing outside pts will change ren gameplay so much.
Except they're not outside, they're inside.
cmatt42 wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 13:48 Except they're not outside, they're inside. ya its an erro fix it people will say it will change gameplay but o well playing with glitches arnt right an dplus it will change to everyone equally so that new game play will still be GAMEPLAY and it will be alright
no but dude, nukes will be SOOO OVERPOWERED NOW lay a nuke back of bar gg every time. lay a nuke top of bar on canyon gg every time. just dont change it make a poll or some shit to see that no one wants this
blly wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 16:16 no but dude, nukes will be SOOO OVERPOWERED NOW lay a nuke back of bar gg every time. lay a nuke top of bar on canyon gg every time. just dont change it make a poll or some shit to see that no one wants this Makes the pointsfix seem all that more logical now, don't you think? Now you'll have more to think about when choosing between getting a beacon or an advanced character class (or vehicle, etc.).
Would you stfu... you obviously know nothing about ren tactics and gameplay yet you keep posting in reply to us talking about gameplay being screwed up.
Nune wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 17:53 Would you stfu... you obviously know nothing about ren tactics and gameplay yet you keep posting in reply to us talking about gameplay being screwed up. If you have any real reasons why the bugs should remain intact (since none of you have provided any thus far), please offer them. Until then, stop crying that I'm hacking down each of your half-baked 'arguments'.
Have you read anything I have written or ae you just gonna skim then come out with straw man arguments. Simply put removing outside pts will largly damage renegade gameplay.
Everyone uses the outside PT glitch, including me. But a glitch is a glitch. If the TT crowd let this one slide, other people may start clamoring for other glitches to be overlooked; and if that happens, why bother making a patch at all? I'm pretty sure people will get used to it, but it'll certainly suck for a while.
nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 17:43 Everyone uses the outside PT glitch, including me. But a glitch is a glitch. If the TT crowd let this one slide, other people may start clamoring for other glitches to be overlooked; and if that happens, why bother marking a patch at all? I'm pretty sure people will get used to it, but it'll certainly suck for a while. people say it will change the game play...WHO EVER SID GAMEPLAY ALL HAS TO BE THE SAME it is how people play if they play without it guess what its still gameplay everything u do is changing the gameplay rushing repairing etc etc since people can choose for there self its all the CLANS that dont want it cause they got eveyr glitch programmed din there head and do the same shit ever clan match well to bad for them its jsut like hugging or wall hoping...all glitches..
Hugging by itself isn't a glitch; alas, there is some sort of bug that makes you not show up to others sometimes when you do that. Also, *hint hint*, PTs are zone-based. So, why couldn't they be accessed from outside the building?
=HT=T-Bird wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 20:32 Hugging by itself isn't a glitch; alas, there is some sort of bug that makes you not show up to others sometimes when you do that. Also, *hint hint*, PTs are zone-based. So, why couldn't they be accessed from outside the building? No, they aren't.
If your team can't use teamwork to stop a beacon without using any glitches, you deserve to lose that building / ion or nuke go off. A bug is a bug; it should be fixed.
gkl21 wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 21:08 If your team can't use teamwork to stop a beacon without using any glitches, you deserve to lose that building / ion or nuke go off. A bug is a bug; it should be fixed. omg you are so retarded, say you are a sbh on some retarded like complex, its like bar vs hon in a 2v2, lay a nuke behind bar, GET LUCKY AS SHIT and kill the hottie, its gg. its just fucking retarded. you guys are appointed to improve gameplay by fixing bugs, not fix every bug ever. you're probably gonna say u shudnt be able to reload inside a tank too. god damn you guys better not get rid of this.
So aim for the head with the sbh, problem solved. Hotty aim for sbh head, problem solved. Works either way. If the sbh kills the hotty fairly for going out, then the bar deserves to die. If you are the sbh that laid the nuke, you would say "gg" and probably say "haha". But if you are the hotty, you would say" wtf is this bs". It affects everyone equally, so its still a fair advantage... btw, if it's 2vs2, where is your partner not helping?
So, wait whats the current status on the pt issue? Has TT said they will fix it or it still in a debate? This is a big deal, anyone whose says "fixing" that is a good thing has obviously never played renegade or knows anything about the fine line of balance in the game, in anycase I hope TT hasn't already gone and fixed this "under the radar"...
you have no idea how easy it is to kill a hottie. thats just retarded say someone gets a lucky ass shot and kils the hottie, should you lose the game for 1 lucky fight? just dont change the pt access and you got my vote for president.
trooprm02 wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 22:41 anyone whose says "fixing" that is a good thing has obviously never played renegade I've played renegade... oh and Quote: fix /fɪks/ fixed or fixt, fix·ing–verb (used with object) to repair; mend. So lets look at repair. Quote: re·pair1 /rɪˈpɛər/ 1. to restore to a good or sound condition after decay or damage; mend: to repair a motor. 2. to restore or renew by any process of making good, strengthening, etc.: to repair one's health by resting. 3. to remedy; make good; make up for: to repair damage; to repair a deficiency. 4. to make amends for; compensate: to repair a wrong done. Hooray for dictionary.com!
man your so cool
blly wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 22:00 omg you are so retarded, Says the one with horrible grammar and sentence structure. blly wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 22:00 its just fucking retarded. you guys are appointed to improve gameplay by fixing bugs, not fix every bug ever. I'm sorry, what?
Haven't read this whole thing so not sure about this flamer thing. But if you are makign a flamer that can pwn infintry then make sure you cover up the spot in the wf where a flamer (and possibly other tanks) can hit techs by shooting through the glass.
bisen11 wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 23:16 Haven't read this whole thing so not sure about this flamer thing. But if you are makign a flamer that can pwn infintry then make sure you cover up the spot in the wf where a flamer (and possibly other tanks) can hit techs by shooting through the glass. We aren't modifying the flame tank at all. We merely fixed a bug in the muzzle prediction code which affected all vehicles that have both primary muzzles defined, but not the secondary ones.
TT was made to fix bugs in the game that were negative to gameplay. This bug isnt negative at all. its a huge part of gameplay. jusyt dont change it.
blly wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 23:47 TT was made to fix bugs in the game that were negative to gameplay. This bug isnt negative at all. its a huge part of gameplay. jusyt dont change it. Do you actually believe the nonsense you type? Oh, and I'm still waiting for some decent arguments against fixing these bugs. "We're used to it" and "it's easier" and similiar arguments aren't valid, so don't bother repeating them.
is the goal of TT to fix every bug ever encountered in renegade?
liquidv2 wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 00:32 is the goal of TT to fix every bug ever encountered in renegade? Every bug we can find and duplicate
Nune wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 12:36 Thats utter bullshit, 2v2 cw, ur agt goes down so now you need someone to camp, there best camping vehicle on field vs infantry is the apc, nod will use the loss of base defences to their advantage and thus probably use a sbh nuke, especially if they have already killed weapons factory. If you both move out with no agt a tech will kill a building, if you camp and they are having trouble killing a further building they may ensue the sbh tactic. On field the gdi ref is very easy to kill and thus if this has happened you won't want to waste money on a mobius when you can camp with a much cheaper apc + hotty, also you can use the hotty for mining so you have a better chance of survival. Without using the outside pt behind barracks a half decent sbh will kill your hotty and with no refill you will only have 2 remotes, if he gets close to you you cannot remote him as now he has hit you down to 150 hp whilst you are running down the narrow area behind barracks where you cannot dodge well, if you do remote you may kill him whilst killing yourself and then it comes down to luck as to whether you get that perfect front of barracks spawn. + what about maps like canyon where the gdi harvester is much slower than the nod harvester. If outside pts are taken eventually someone will make a rule : 'No sbh nukes in certain spots...' - which is just dumb, but only way to balance games in certain situations. p.s you roll out with a mammouth on field with me having an arty @ my base entrance, lets see how far you get. All of this is based on 2v2 games? Not to degrade clan wars, but I think Renegade was made with more than that in mind. I look at about 5v5 as the base minimum. Secondly, all of what you just wrote basically equated to "they were beating me so I should have this exploit to stop it". That's the only thing that's bullcrap here. I think the way the game was intended is pretty balanced, but some of this crap like outside PT access and points errors, though they may be small themselves, alter gameplay too much from what it's supposed to be. Yes, it will alter gameplay, but the gameplay we have as a result of this is NOT the gameplay that is INTENDED, so that's a moot point. As for the Mammoth versus an Artillery, what does that have to do with anything? I was simply saying if it's two versus one, and you two can't find a way to overcome that one, then you deserve to lose. I was using the Mammoth Tanks as as example, and a teched Mammoth will beat that Artillery, because remember it's 2v1 if the other Nod person is a SBH (why would they be a SBH in a clan war on a map with base defenses, and if defenses are down, then you're losing anyway...). Oh, and by the way, I also use this at times, but that does not mean I don't want it fixed. BTW, I don't think saying "omg you are retarded" or acting elitist to everyone who disagrees with your opinion is going to further your argument any (this is to blly, not you Nune). Back to square one, and this goes for all bugs, not just this one being discussed here, a bug is a bug and should be fixed, regardless of how it's changed the game up until now. Hearing jonwill say what he did gave me faith in what Tiberium Technologies is going for, so I hope that is backed up. How it is SUPPOSED to work is how it was INTENDED to be by Westwood, and I think we should do our best to have it that way. Just because a few of these bugs have gotten some of us liking the exploit and making gameplay changes around them is NOT a reason for keeping them. We'll have to get used to doing without if they are corrected. People will complain. Tough shit for a while, but you'll get over it, and it will be as it was intended, and I dare say better as well (I think the coders who made the game knew what was best).
How about TTX - Fixes annoying glitches (voting required for the glitches in the community, my vote counts 50% ) and stops cheating. TTY - All of above, but with ALL glitches fixed. Pointsfix included. TTZ - All of above, and crazy new features like flying mammoths because it's needed for balance, it was Westwood's intention. First release a working TTX, then release the optional TiTTY and TiTZ.
TD wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 07:44 How about TTX - Fixes annoying glitches (voting required for the glitches in the community, my vote counts 50% ) and stops cheating. TTY - All of above, but with ALL glitches fixed. Pointsfix included. TTZ - All of above, and crazy new features like flying mammoths because it's needed for balance, it was Westwood's intention. First release a working TTX, then release the optional TiTTY and TiTZ. So go through 1400+ revisions, find fixes that according to that list should go in a "TTY", disable them, fix all the other code which relies on those fixes being in place and patch them up too, and then keep on going? I know you are trying to get at the KISS principle, but we are already keeping it simple...
Are you guys trying to improve the gameplay for the majority of the Renegaders by fixing annoying glitches that affect the gameplay in a negative way, so not the glitches that have been used for 6 years now and are considered quite normal after that long time and a part of the gameplay and tactics, or are you guys like 'Hey, this was Westwood's intention, see Mathematical Equation X and LevelEdit Preset Y+Z, so let's fix it, no matter what the n00bs (people that don't code, but rather just play the game) say'?
only thing im posting about is the flame tank issue.. I don't think the right click is a glitch in the game at all, simply a secondary fire for the flame tank making it more effective on infrantry i dont seee why it should be changed
blly wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 06:47 TT was made to fix bugs in the game that were negative to gameplay. This bug isnt negative at all. its a huge part of gameplay. jusyt dont change it. Who said we don't find PT's on the outside (WHILE NOT VISIBLE) a negative addition to gameplay? You added an opinion in there, making it an assumption. Also, we didn't say we would only focus on things that have a negative impact on gameplay. For ppl that like to have a shotty and pointwhore the harvester we already created a "negative gameplay change". More to the issue, if we're really going to look into it, then we'll probably also look in to the option of creating the PT's at the outside. That would have the same effect as it has now, but would not look like a bug like it is now. Also, for those that say that it isn't fair for the defending team in a 2vs2 to be nuked and not being able to do something about it because the PT is to far away, remember that you're effectively playing 1 person. As the other will have to walk for about 2 minutes, and then place a nuke. Meaning that if he's going to defend it, he'll be out of his base for nearly 3 minutes. If you can't finish off at least one building in that time, you deserve to lose anyway. Oh, to look at "fairness": SBH + nuke = 1400 (and max 1 building kill) Mrls + med = 1250 (unlimited building kills) Meaning that it is already not a good investment to start with. For that reason, you shouldn't nuke in the first place. Not to mention what can happen in the time you're out of base. And what if you get killed while underway to the ennemies base? Bye 1400 credits.
ive been playing clanwars and renegade for years and i dont know why so many idiots are COMPLAINING about getting rid of the PT on the outside of buildings ...
Is it just me or haven't i actually heard anyone from TT claim that they will stop PT being used from the outside? I don't even know who brought it up but I don't think it's one of the TT-coders. The solution of putting PT's on the outside would be a nice compromis as everyone except for new players already use it this way! So why not make it obvious for all . Also: this patch should be suitable for both CW's and public gaming, keep that in mind! It should stay as balanced on 1v1 - 50v50 as renegade is now!
Heh, I'm surprised you're the first one to bring that idea up. I actually think it's a good one though along with the one-sided-PT fix (btw, can you walk up to the side of a PT and use it?).
Chuck Norris wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 00:40 Nune wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 12:36 Thats utter bullshit, 2v2 cw, ur agt goes down so now you need someone to camp, there best camping vehicle on field vs infantry is the apc, nod will use the loss of base defences to their advantage and thus probably use a sbh nuke, especially if they have already killed weapons factory. If you both move out with no agt a tech will kill a building, if you camp and they are having trouble killing a further building they may ensue the sbh tactic. On field the gdi ref is very easy to kill and thus if this has happened you won't want to waste money on a mobius when you can camp with a much cheaper apc + hotty, also you can use the hotty for mining so you have a better chance of survival. Without using the outside pt behind barracks a half decent sbh will kill your hotty and with no refill you will only have 2 remotes, if he gets close to you you cannot remote him as now he has hit you down to 150 hp whilst you are running down the narrow area behind barracks where you cannot dodge well, if you do remote you may kill him whilst killing yourself and then it comes down to luck as to whether you get that perfect front of barracks spawn. + what about maps like canyon where the gdi harvester is much slower than the nod harvester. If outside pts are taken eventually someone will make a rule : 'No sbh nukes in certain spots...' - which is just dumb, but only way to balance games in certain situations. p.s you roll out with a mammouth on field with me having an arty @ my base entrance, lets see how far you get. All of this is based on 2v2 games? Not to degrade clan wars, but I think Renegade was made with more than that in mind. I look at about 5v5 as the base minimum. Secondly, all of what you just wrote basically equated to "they were beating me so I should have this exploit to stop it". That's the only thing that's bullcrap here. I think the way the game was intended is pretty balanced, but some of this crap like outside PT access and points errors, though they may be small themselves, alter gameplay too much from what it's supposed to be. Yes, it will alter gameplay, but the gameplay we have as a result of this is NOT the gameplay that is INTENDED, so that's a moot point. As for the Mammoth versus an Artillery, what does that have to do with anything? I was simply saying if it's two versus one, and you two can't find a way to overcome that one, then you deserve to lose. I was using the Mammoth Tanks as as example, and a teched Mammoth will beat that Artillery, because remember it's 2v1 if the other Nod person is a SBH (why would they be a SBH in a clan war on a map with base defenses, and if defenses are down, then you're losing anyway...). Oh, and by the way, I also use this at times, but that does not mean I don't want it fixed. BTW, I don't think saying "omg you are retarded" or acting elitist to everyone who disagrees with your opinion is going to further your argument any (this is to blly, not you Nune). Back to square one, and this goes for all bugs, not just this one being discussed here, a bug is a bug and should be fixed, regardless of how it's changed the game up until now. Hearing jonwill say what he did gave me faith in what Tiberium Technologies is going for, so I hope that is backed up. How it is SUPPOSED to work is how it was INTENDED to be by Westwood, and I think we should do our best to have it that way. Just because a few of these bugs have gotten some of us liking the exploit and making gameplay changes around them is NOT a reason for keeping them. We'll have to get used to doing without if they are corrected. People will complain. Tough shit for a while, but you'll get over it, and it will be as it was intended, and I dare say better as well (I think the coders who made the game knew what was best). sorry bro but u might get a 5v5 in this dead game once in a million years so stfu already
"p.s you roll out with a mammouth on field with me having an arty @ my base entrance, lets see how far you get." K DEAL LETS GO LOL
blly, nunega, what's all this crap about the PT-through-walls-fix making clan games unfair? sorry, what? I see you condescendingly act as though you're some masters of how clanwars work, but it sure doesn't seem that way. nobody uses nukes in clanwars anyway precisely because they're underpowered; they're too expensive considering the likelihood they will be disarmed, which is high. they're used perhaps one game in 100, and more often fail than succeed. if anything, making PTs unaccessible through walls will mean there's a damn point buying an SBH nuke in a clanwar - there currently is not. as for the flame tank, sorry but you don't need to right click to rape infantry with a flamer. I've always found it damn easy to kill infantry with the flamer jets if I can get close, long before I knew about the right-click thing.
Exactly, even with a teched mammy rolling towards my base on field, with me having a arty ur tech will die from splash resonably quick and then it will be 1v1. You argue that if they have killed ur agt then they deserve the win, however when I play against players that I admit are just better than me then I will try to get lucky and succeed at agt walk in order to even the odds. By pulling off this technique I have managed to beat players who are far superior to me in skill. Outside pts is a glitch that effects renegade in a positive way. In regards to adding pts to the outside of buildings... dam thats gonna look ugly on the barracks.
switches are the way to go add a pct zone on it and voila an pct zone outside a building. It can be done server-side. So it is still douable. So you can just go ahead and fix the pct glitch. If these clanbewbs really need it I can make your switches with pct zone outside your buildings, when TT is released. Et Voila
Spoony wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 08:51 blly, nunega, what's all this crap about the PT-through-walls-fix making clan games unfair? sorry, what? I see you condescendingly act as though you're some masters of how clanwars work, but it sure doesn't seem that way. nobody uses nukes in clanwars anyway precisely because they're underpowered; they're too expensive considering the likelihood they will be disarmed, which is high. they're used perhaps one game in 100, and more often fail than succeed. if anything, making PTs unaccessible through walls will mean there's a damn point buying an SBH nuke in a clanwar - there currently is not. as for the flame tank, sorry but you don't need to right click to rape infantry with a flamer. I've always found it damn easy to kill infantry with the flamer jets if I can get close, long before I knew about the right-click thing. sbh nukes are used in more games than that, but its ok i know you are exaggerating to try and proove a point. if you're talking about sbh nukes then you're just wrong, if you're talking about nukes in general, then you're completely wrong. im not gonna bother explaining the normal nuke part, but sbh nukes are kinda a good buy. islands, we somehow lose wf and strip, and all vehicles. gdi will try to rush thru the tunnels, cos thats how they roll. gdi also will have a hottie camping. nod gets a sak sbhnuke sak camps till sbh is in base, sbh nukes side bar, sak moves up and its gg. i also wasnt trying to sound as though i speak for the cw community (ignoring the lack-of-skill shot) i play clanwars though, which you cant vouch for, so i would say that i do have some mastery of clanwar tactics, even though i dont do em all that well.
blly wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 16:12 islands, we somehow lose wf and strip, and all vehicles. BINGO! it only happens when all other options are exhausted. that's how underpowered they are. when you've got a choice between a tank or an SBH nuke, nobody ever gets the SBH nuke and ends up winning because of it.
its pretty easy to lose strip and wf. tech rush tunnels, they rush 2 meds, u kill urself back, they kill strip, u double lcg/rave em.
and you're trying to say that since people cant switch out that they will use nukes more often? nukes dont work because usually there are 2 people there, 1 with a hottie 1 with a vehicle/hottie, thats why they dont work. im fine with the pt on the outside though but it will be REALLY UGLY. maybe make them building coloured?
liquidv2 wrote on Mon, 11 August 2008 05:17 jonwil wrote on Sun, 10 August 2008 19:16 If something can be identified as a bug in renegade, I for one intend to do everything I can to get it fixed, even if its not necessarily all that big. that's fine, but does that mean i am forced to play with your changes? it's like you've made the decision for me with me having no say in it, and that doesn't seem fair at all noone forces you to install the patch. and if there are no oldpatchservers up maybe you're the only one don't want that stuff so we could safely ignore your wishes. Not nice, but democratic.
As far as nuking goes...everyone associates the nuke on Nod's side with the SBH. However, it is far more deadly when covered by Artillery shelling or a Light/Stealth/Flame Tank (or even an APC)! So: nukes have their place, especially when the opposing team is repairing a building heavily, as the presence of the beacon will often cause that support to break up (in my public play experience, I don't run around asking for pathetically small CWs). However, it is often NOT with an SBH.
Indeed. Can all those CW.CC players going "OMG MY CLANWARS WILL FAIL!!!!" please remember there are people who play in public servers (and don't start your normal prejudiced atitude about publics, before I challenge you (just you) to take on a whole team of random public server players, for lols) and those who play in publics are easily the majority, even if we're less vocal, for the most part.
CarrierII wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 12:06 Indeed. Can all those CW.CC players going "OMG MY CLANWARS WILL FAIL!!!!" please remember there are people who play in public servers (and don't start your normal prejudiced atitude about publics, before I challenge you (just you) to take on a whole team of random public server players, for lols) and those who play in publics are easily the majority, even if we're less vocal, for the most part. don't make the mistake of assuming blly and nune actually know what they're talking about when they say a particular change will make clanwars 'fail'...
Spoony wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 18:27 CarrierII wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 12:06 Indeed. Can all those CW.CC players going "OMG MY CLANWARS WILL FAIL!!!!" please remember there are people who play in public servers (and don't start your normal prejudiced atitude about publics, before I challenge you (just you) to take on a whole team of random public server players, for lols) and those who play in publics are easily the majority, even if we're less vocal, for the most part. don't make the mistake of assuming blly and nune actually know what they're talking about when they say a particular change will make clanwars 'fail'... yeah because you've played so many games in the past months. in pubs too, get a sbh to nuke bar on walls fly on back corner farthest from pp and have an apache come in and its gg. but you guys arent listening.
blly wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 11:33 yeah because you've played so many games in the past months. and what does that prove? I've still got a better idea of how strategies in clanwars work than... pretty much anybody. blly wrote on Tue, 12 August 2008 11:33 in pubs too, get a sbh to nuke bar on walls fly on back corner farthest from pp and have an apache come in and its gg. yes, I suppose that would be gg if GDI was dumb enough not to have any orcas or havocs.
If you (in general) are so good then none of these changes will affect you. Plain and simple.
Quote: noone forces you to install the patch. and if there are no oldpatchservers up maybe you're the only one don't want that stuff so we could safely ignore your wishes. Not nice, but democratic. first off you're wrong because the patch will autodownload when i try to get on xwis that means the 2nd part of your post also makes no sense since everyone online will have the patch and a server not running it would neither exist nor be open for me to join and renegade is a democracy? really?
thats beyond retarded.. the PT on outside of buildings is one of the most obvious glitches in this game isnt this a patch, to fix glitches Wtf is that going to change in gameplay idiots? GDI has always had the advantage to lay nukes at the end of strip ( a good walk, hard as hell to disarm), now nod can lay them at the back of barracks, and gdi actually has to walk for a tech instead of just refilling behind it the only playesr i've seen complaining are complete idiots (except TD), this patch is trying to help this old ass game.. not hurt yuor gameplay you'll all figure out new tactics, but to say you shouldnt fix the PT's on the outside of a building is fucking RE-TARDED, as its one of the biggest problems/glitches in renegade right up there with bluescreening GKl nailed it,.. the better players will still win the games.. you might have to SLIGHTLY adapt your tactics in a few situations, quit fucking flipping out over it
wtf spoony people use nukes in cws all the time, earlier today in 5v5 game we had 3 arts @ base entrance on islands gdi had meds defending, someone places nuke and arts cover it... gg due to nuke. It wasn't a last option it was just a option. p.s karmai you suck
1v1 nunega? you've seen me play a few games after a long layoff, with some old friends who aren't very good.. don't worry, im making a more serious clan you'll get to see who really sucks soon enough idiot
Now now, stop whinging the e-penis'es and let's get back on topic. Whatever the topic was this started with...
Anyone who wants glitches to remain is only concerned with their own self-interest, and is therefore, a table-scrap pilfering grab-ass. I find it hilarious how much opposition some people have against these fixes... it's a video game for Chrissake. If someone is actually half-decent at Renegade, they'll adapt to these changes. Life sucks, get a helmet.