Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Hey Guys, I want to say thanks for all the time and effort you've spent on making this new patch for the game we all play and enjoy. I am looking forward to the improved anti-cheat measures and enhanced performance. I agree with fixing, if possible, all the "bugs" and "glitches" you can find. Chuck Norris says this: Quote: 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. I agree with everything, and I daresay there isn't anyone who doesn't. But penalizing servers who choose to use "unfix.dll" by excluding them from the main ladder is what I've been hearing from Spoony over in the Jelly forums, and I absolutely don't understand that at all. Why is it necessary to force the pointsfix onto servers like this? By including it in the patch and in turn making the patch mandatory for all servers, then there won't be any servers left without the pointsfix, which leaves no alternative. If you are indeed promoting improved gameplay, I think you should really consider making changes to the pointsfix as it is now before it is fully implimented. Spoony has proposed a "Half-Pointsfix" that would potentially seperate points and credits earned from shooting at a green-health tank (sorry Spoony if I said something about it before you had a chance to ask about it yourself). This is the perfect solution, and I hope you all will try to persue it. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. kong009 Jelly-Server Moderator
kong009 wrote on Fri, 15 August 2008 16:52 Hey Guys, I want to say thanks for all the time and effort you've spent on making this new patch for the game we all play and enjoy. I am looking forward to the improved anti-cheat measures and enhanced performance. I agree with fixing, if possible, all the "bugs" and "glitches" you can find. Chuck Norris says this: Quote: 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. I agree with everything, and I daresay there isn't anyone who doesn't. But penalizing servers who choose to use "unfix.dll" by excluding them from the main ladder is what I've been hearing from Spoony over in the Jelly forums, and I absolutely don't understand that at all. Why is it necessary to force the pointsfix onto servers like this? By including it in the patch and in turn making the patch mandatory for all servers, then there won't be any servers left without the pointsfix, which leaves no alternative. If you are indeed promoting improved gameplay, I think you should really consider making changes to the pointsfix as it is now before it is fully implimented. Spoony has proposed a "Half-Pointsfix" that would potentially seperate points and credits earned from shooting at a green-health tank (sorry Spoony if I said something about it before you had a chance to ask about it yourself). This is the perfect solution, and I hope you all will try to persue it. Thanks for taking the time to read this post. kong009 Jelly-Server Moderator In order for the ladder to be function correctly as ladder of skill, variables other than skill need to be constrained. Points given is one of those variables. If we do not exclude *all* servers that have any modification to the number of points given, the ladder could be exploited by servers which give 10000 points per damage point given.
This argument is irrelevant if you seperate points and credits. What I'm saying is finding a way to limit points as in the pointsfix but leave credits pre-pointsfix. Like I said, all I want is for that possibility to be considered.
kong009 wrote on Fri, 15 August 2008 17:19 This argument is irrelevant if you seperate points and credits. What I'm saying is finding a way to limit points as in the pointsfix but leave credits pre-pointsfix. Like I said, all I want is for that possibility to be considered. The argument then becomes "Why is that Havoc getting 100 credits when he's doing 1 damage and I'm getting 50 credits for 100 damage?" (Yes, the numbers are wrong, but this is only an example.) This points<->credits unbalance would lead to players being scolded for buying a strong vehicle pretty much the same way they are now, except now for giving the enemy credits.
What is wrong with people getting more credits? Can't we agree that more credits = more fun = more players in the server? Sounds to me like you are sacrificing objectivity for a too-strict policy that is being objected to by a vast majority of the players that still play this game. Why even bother having forums if you won't even consider what I'm saying and evaluating the potential of a "half-fix?"
kong009 wrote on Fri, 15 August 2008 17:49 What is wrong with people getting more credits? Can't we agree that more credits = more fun = more players in the server? Sounds to me like you are sacrificing objectivity for a too-strict policy that is being objected to by a vast majority of the players that still play this game. Why even bother having forums if you won't even consider what I'm saying and evaluating the potential of a "half-fix?" There's nothing wrong with people earning more credits by playing the game. The issue is with the players that are constantly grinding as a Havoc or Sakura shooting at heavily armored vehicles to "earn" credits and it leads to other adopting the same passive tactics resulting in boring games where a majority of the people aren't really helping their team to win... Earning credits in proportion to the amount of damage you do discourages that "tactic" and leads to more actual teamwork.
So that's it then? You won't entertain the idea or even commit to doing some testing to that effect? There are many other ways to confront the obvious unpopularity of the pointsfix to make it a little more appealing, I am merely suggesting one I think might be the best. How else do you plan to make the community feel better about it, if at all? Because right now all you have to do is take a look around at your forums and ours to see that people are unhappy. If you think fixing a few bugs and glitches that we've played the game with for the last six years is a fair trade off for DRASTICALLY changing the gameplay, I think you might want to ascertain if that is a valid assumption, as I have certainly not seen any of you ask the community anything to that effect.
If the points are really the same, then I don't really see a problem to this. If a server starts with 350 starting credits, u have the same kind of "falsification" of the ladder. We shouldn't go all to extreme. So as long as gained points are the same, I wouldn't mind it.
The half points fix does nothing more than half fix it. It's still bugged, the same arguments apply, just half as much because the bug is cut in half. There is no difference at all in our arguments. It's a compromise that is worse than either of the original options, so why even consider it? I would rather have a full points fix or none at all, but not a half solution. I don't agree with banning points fix servers from the ladder unless everything that is not vanilla renegade with predefined settings is not counted towards the ladder. There are more important factors in the points calculation that cause unfairness in the ladder that make the changes due to the points fix insignificant. With the current ladder system, and probably with future ladder system as well.
Saberhawk wrote on Fri, 15 August 2008 18:15 In order for the ladder to be function correctly as ladder of skill, variables other than skill need to be constrained. Points given is one of those variables. If we do not exclude *all* servers that have any modification to the number of points given, the ladder could be exploited by servers which give 10000 points per damage point given. So, just out of curiosity, because I don't think I've seen the question or read the reply (forgive me if it's already out there)... It "seems" to me that the sole intent of this pointsfix is to make the ladder "fair".. so all servers reporting to it are on a level playing field. If this is true, I can assume that you will also require all servers to have the exact same 'other' settings. i.e.; Player Count Starting Credits Time Limit Weapons Drop Special Crates Ped Beacon Donate restrictions etc. As well as make them all conform to the same rules such as "allow or disallow hill camping on hourglass", etc. I can only assume that your reply will be a resounding "yes" to these questions, as any single one of them can have an impact on how a player may score in any game, on any server. Disarming a beacon provides 300 points to the disarmer, and robs the person planting it of up to 750 points. How can you legitimately "ask the community" if you should fix outside PT's, knowing full well that it is INDEED a bug, and it drastically affects both the potential outcome of a game as well as the individual points of the players involved? Your arguments about all of these items seem just a little disingenuous and more self serving to me, sorry. Edit Below------ I didnt' read far enough I guess... You pretty much answered my own questions before I even asked them. Quote: The issue is with the players that are constantly grinding as a Havoc or Sakura shooting at heavily armored vehicles to "earn" credits and it leads to other adopting the same passive tactics resulting in boring games where a majority of the people aren't really helping their team to win... The bottom line is this "pointsfix" eliminates the ago-old argument that about 7 people have continually complained about over the years.. "tank sniping". The amount of points you no longer get is completely negligible (an opinion backed up in an above post by stealtheye) when compared to all the other items everyone is completely ignoring. The bottom line is, the people that have bitched about "tank sniping" have finally found an avenue to getting their way after all these years... In my opinion, that's all this has ever amounted to. If you force the pointsfix to every server, whatever.. I'm still going to shoot at your orca and MRLS, and you're still going to bitch about it every time I do it.. And I'll still be close to one of the top scorers in the game, cause I kill a lot of high credit characters at the same time.. Just stop with the propaganda about how this is the "only way" to make a fair ladder.. because it's complete and utter nonsense as long as you ignore all the other items above, and you know it.
Actually...in most bigger public servers, you don't even see havocs shooting at lights/meds and heavy armored vechiles, because most don't even know about this "green health glitch". What you do see, is havocs shooting buggies, arties, etc and they actually do damage, and for this reason (the fact its a minor issues), there is no need what so ever to bother this heavily (9+ page topics) about it, since ingame it only causes a minor disturbance so just leave it as it is...
Played normally, it indeed has little effect. However it can be exploited easily to gain credits quickly, which is nonsense. If you were supposed to be able to get credits in such a cheap way, surely they would have made the ref give out more credits per second. But indeed, it's not worth 9 pages of nonsense. I'm pretty sure noone would have noticed the points fix if they were not told about it, as long as they did not abuse it by shooting the harv with a soldier/sniper to get credits&points quickly. The reason we started a poll about the PT issue and not about the points fix is because we think the PT issue has a much bigger impact on the gameplay. The points fix has far less, which is why people were asked to give valid reasons not to have it. The topic resulted in little valid reasons, the only thing that was slightly valid was that it would be harder to get credits in marathon games when the ref died. We proposed nonbuggy solutions to that but the only response was that TT was supposed to just recreate the points bug. No cooperation whatsoever and no clear reasons why the bug should stay resulted in us deciding making it mandatory, and ongoing insists about wanting it finally got us to make a nonofficial hack to recreate the bug once the beta was done. It's clearly different from the PT bug that does without doubt influence the gameplay significantly (I don't think anyone will disagree there?). Hence the different approach: a poll to ask whether people want the gameplay change or not. I can't say I agree with the poll though. I think it usually leads to more problems than the best solution. Especially since the community is not very well represented here (a lot of players probably do not even know this place exists). Asking how something should be done here is similar to asking one country on how the whole world should be improved. I would have done it in a different way, but I can see why TT did it this way. As mentioned before, two of TT's goals are changing as little as possible to the gameplay and fixing as many bugs as possible. But as soon as these conflict, the result is not predefined.
Once again, do you agree that when you have no money, you go out to field and get ridiculous amount of credits / points for shooting a light tank, mammoth, or medium tank? Get a useful unit, repair a building, sneak upto the vehicle from the back, (see spoony's list basically). Help your team in a useful way and become a team player! Why should the half-point fix (points = fixed, credits unfixed) not be counted towards the ladder? In my opinion, due to the original design of the ladder system, still getting an extra amount of credits and same points leads to an unfair advantage for the ladder points. This is by abling people to 'defend/attack more' due to glitch, thus getting more points because you can spend it on units, sending a wave back and forth, killing more units, etc. The core part of renegade should all be the same in order to qualify, this does not include bots of anykind. Then, if a server uses a bot to regulate extra points / credits, the people incharge of the ladder will then decide if it's a valid concept or not. I think out of msgtpain's list of server settings, the biggest factor would be the player count. The rest seem to be minor (to a point). But if everyone knew how to ladder actually calculated the points, people would abuse it (that I can forsee from a few people). (This part not directed to anyone) Also for people when complaining, if you don't like something, then just don't be a whiner, provide a valid reason and possible solution. Maybe your posts won't be so useless. So far all I been seeing is the people "for" something that have found possible solutions to make all the whiners happy. Edit: Regarding the donating, this does not matter whatsoever. Your team total credits remain the same, but all the other factors modify this number.
Greg my main objection to the pointsfix is it being employed on Marathon servers. Clearly it is not in the interest of speeding games up when you diminish the amount of credits people can get. Now those 5+ hour-long no refinery Islands matches are going to last even longer. Furthermore, if you increase starting creds in a pointsfix game, how do you prevent exploitation of that? I could see somebody joining a no-ref game getting 350 creds and donating them to a teemmate, leaving, joining on a different name, donating again, etc. btw, how can you say donating doesn't matter? In a tight game, limited creds, a team might be able to pool its resources and buy a nuke that might win it, yet it has the same number of team credits.
I completely disagree with you GKL.. if the goal of the ladder is to make it 'fair' across all servers that participate, then a player being able to buy a 1000 credit char, or a med tank when they normally wouldn't have been able to is a significant change to how that player "played".. How can you not agree that this could potentially cause people to migrate only to donate servers, or only to donate servers with a 50 player count, and how does their "skill" measure up to the other players that don't have the opportunity to share credits with their team mates, etc? Unless you force every player, on every server that joins the ladder to be on exactly equal playing ground, you can never accurately measure their skill against one another.. it just isn't possible.
I think everyone can agree with my post, now let's stop until we restart this whole discussion! Please?
It's pointless arguing with people who think logic is the answer to everything. Sometimes the illogical is more fun, but don't let that get in the way of what matters. It's a bug, and it's the sworn duty to fix it, no matter how many people think otherwise. I gave up even trying a while back. There's plenty of people who do not want the point fix to be mandatory, however it's a big fuck you to all those people it seems.
Goztow wrote on Fri, 15 August 2008 19:46 If the points are really the same, then I don't really see a problem to this. If a server starts with 350 starting credits, u have the same kind of "falsification" of the ladder. We shouldn't go all to extreme. So as long as gained points are the same, I wouldn't mind it. This is the most evenly balanced view I've seen, pitty the self imposed team deciding the fate of the game think otherwise.
For this ladder to be fair, all the servers would need to be exactly the same. That would completely defeat the purpose of multiple servers.
ok... quote time Quote: Clearly it is not in the interest of speeding games up when you diminish the amount of credits people can get. Now those 5+ hour-long no refinery Islands matches are going to last even longer. Try to get more people to play as a team, meaning rushing, donating all to a few players to get higher up units, etc. Quote: Furthermore, if you increase starting creds in a pointsfix game, how do you prevent exploitation of that? There is also a time factor calculated within the ladder (if it was not changed). The games should last shorter for those who have starting credits, but that only happens, I'll say 40% of the time. I don't think starting credits affects it too much, but yet, I haven't tested that aspect yet. Quote: I could see somebody joining a no-ref game getting 350 creds and donating them to a teemmate, leaving, joining on a different name, donating again, etc. I aswell; infact it has happened. This is clearly a matter of how the server is being moderated in order to use this "backdoor to credits". I know most places do not allow this kind of activity. Quote: btw, how can you say donating doesn't matter? In a tight game, limited creds, a team might be able to pool its resources and buy a nuke that might win it, yet it has the same number of team credits Congratulations for using teamwork! I'm moreso stating the core part of renegade should be the same. Quote: if the goal of the ladder is to make it 'fair' across all servers that participate, then a player being able to buy a 1000 credit char, or a med tank when they normally wouldn't have been able to is a significant change to how that player "played".. Being more careful is onto the strategy side of things. (How it's being played) Quote: how does their "skill" measure up to the other players that don't have the opportunity to share credits with their team mates, etc? Everyone seems to have their own definition of skill. I've seen people be gunners, havocs, or tank hitting builing all game and all three seperate instances got then higher (and in other games lower) then others. It evens out throughout the games. Quote: It's pointless arguing with people who think logic is the answer to everything Logic? I've played both and do find with the pointfix on it is more fun since you actually have teammates not 'monkeys' running around. Logic and testing is the answer . Quote: For this ladder to be fair, all the servers would need to be exactly the same. That would completely defeat the purpose of multiple servers. Technically yes. In the end, the ladder calculation is done to Westwood's formula (how it suppose to be with the pointfix on anyway). Back to the original post, points calculated the same, ladder it. Other variables most likely will have a factor, but how much? Only time / testing will tell (I don't think other variables will too much -> to an extent). This will probably turn into another 10 page essay...
The point is if you're going to make a fix mandatory to be on the ladder in the name of "fairness" you damn well better make everything else the same too. It doesn't matter how big or small of a difference any extra credits/donating options etc will make. We should all have no skins, no advantages and every server on the ladder should be the exact same. This of course is using their logic.
Homey wrote on Sat, 16 August 2008 13:53 The point is if you're going to make a fix mandatory to be on the ladder in the name of "fairness" you damn well better make everything else the same too. It doesn't matter how big or small of a difference any extra credits/donating options etc will make. We should all have no skins, no advantages and every server on the ladder should be the exact same. This of course is using their logic. What *I* think about the ladder really doesn't matter, as I am not a balance coordinator or gameplay programmer. Unfortunately, I forgot to mention that...
Really Jelly. You don't see to understand that the half points fix is NOT a compromise between points fix and no points fix. Like I posted, the code wise problems are still the same. I'm sure you still prefer the original points bug over the half points fix, so I wouldn't even consider this an option. Quote: It's pointless arguing with people who think logic is the answer to everything. Sometimes the illogical is more fun, but don't let that get in the way of what matters. It's a bug, and it's the sworn duty to fix it, no matter how many people think otherwise. I gave up even trying a while back. There's plenty of people who do not want the point fix to be mandatory, however it's a big fuck you to all those people it seems. There are plenty who want it mandatory as well, not having it mandatory would be just as big of a fuck you to those. This argument really applies to both sides and thus is completely invalid. I just have to replace words and your post is just as valid, but clearly supplies "arguments" for the opposite opinion. Quote: It's pointless arguing with people who think illogical fun is the answer to everything. Sometimes the logical is more fun, but don't let that get in the way of what matters. It's always been like that, and it's the sworn duty to keep it like it is, no matter how many people think otherwise. I gave up even trying a while back. There's plenty of people who do not want the point fix to be optional, however it's a big fuck you to all those people it seems. I repeat, making it optional gives both those who want to be able to use it and those who do not want to use it what they want, however it does not give those who want it mandatory what they want. Making things optional is not a solution everyone can live with. But yeah, I'm going to do exactly what you did a while back. I'll give up posting because there is no way I can convince you.
Because an argument works one way doesn't mean the converse also works. The flaw with saying the pointsfix should be optional and that it's a big fuck you to the people who want it is this: the only people who want it are the people developing the patch, and you are the minority. Please remember that. You are failing to see the reality that (and I'm guessing from what I've seen both here and in Jelly forums) 90% of the Renegade-playing community DO NOT WANT the pointsfix. You at the very least do not acknowledge that, even though the threads with polls and opinions are all over the place. You are also failing to consider the ramifications of implimenting a mandatory pointsfix that the majority of players don't agree with, whether that is drastically lowering your player count or making some Renegade servers fail completely. Bringing down servers entirely, well, that's not an illogical argument against the pointsfix, is it?
kong009 wrote on Sat, 16 August 2008 16:08 the only people who want it are the people developing the patch, and you are the minority. I'm not developing anything, let alone the TT patch. I don't think you're actually reading anything, or you're grossly exaggerating facts and figures to suit your opinion. I still want to see some solid reasoning from this "majority" of players against it.
Bleh, this has been discussed, I don't feel like another 9 pages of this. During beta it will be tested and decided. Until then: topic closed, just like the other one.
To say that the majority of the community is against the points fix is a blatant falsification of non-existent data. My server is still one of the most popular servers and I've been running the fix on my server for over a year now. If the majority of the players didn't want the fix, quite obviously my server would be dead. You are also arguing the ladder in its CURRENT STATE. This is a bad argument as well. The formula used to calculate the ladder will be revamped as part of the TT projects. - Player Count Even the current ladder takes that into account so why mention that? - Starting Credits Since all players have the same starting credits, there is no need for this to impact the ladder score. - Time Limit Even the current ladder takes that into account so why mention that? Weapons Drop - Provide clear and distinct evidence that SSGM weapon drop benefits one team over another and this feature can be one of the things that disqualifies a server to be on the ladder. Special Crates - I agree that special crates shouldn't let a server compete on the ladder. Ped Beacon - Provide clear and distinct evidence that ped beacons benefit one team over another and this feature can be one of the things that disqualifies a server to be on the ladder. Donate restrictions - We are already considering imposing donate restrictions for competing on the ladder. Since there is no dispute that the points fix balances the game and that unfixed servers provide a disadvantage for certain sides on certain maps, I don't see why it should even be argued at all that servers that want to operate in a way that disadvantages one team should be able to compete on a properly configured skill-based ladder.
^^ I concur with most of this post... most. - Player Count Even the current ladder takes that into account so why mention that? yes, although I have been mulling over the idea of having a player 'cap' of, say, 40 - servers bigger than that could absolutely still be laddered, but the top players would get their ladder as though the server was 40-players big. that's just my own thinking though, I haven't consulted anyone else about that yet so don't take it as set in stone. - Starting Credits Since all players have the same starting credits, there is no need for this to impact the ladder score. THIS is the bit I must disagree with. I've made the point many times (mostly on n00bstories forum) that starting credits misbalance the game quite a bit. less than 150 or so is OK, more than that and you just get arties too fast, which basically trumps everything. GDI needs to delay arties in order to survive, and they can only really do that when the starting credits are low. in the ladder-team private forum I've long advocated having a max starting credits of 150 for laddered servers; any more than that and Nod's gonna win the significant majority of games, just you watch. - Time Limit Even the current ladder takes that into account so why mention that? ^ true Weapons Drop - Provide clear and distinct evidence that SSGM weapon drop benefits one team over another and this feature can be one of the things that disqualifies a server to be on the ladder. hmmmm.... debatable, perhaps... Special Crates - I agree that special crates shouldn't let a server compete on the ladder. amen to that Ped Beacon - Provide clear and distinct evidence that ped beacons benefit one team over another and this feature can be one of the things that disqualifies a server to be on the ladder. absolutely true. they don't misbalance the game at all unless it's a very small game (like 6 players or less) Donate restrictions - We are already considering imposing donate restrictions for competing on the ladder. amen to that. !donate in the early game is just wrong, it totally changes the way the game is played (far more so than the pointsfix does). early !donate simply shouldn't be in laddered games... certainly the first five minutes.
Donate Yeah, donating in the first 5 minutes = APC rushes every game. This means whichever team has the higher count of server regulars and/or skilled players (IE, whichever is more likely to get faster !donate teamwork going) will probably win the game due to a successful early APC rush. !donate after the first 5 minutes is fine (Try Jelly servers for an example of this, I'm sure there are others) Marathon servers These are going to have to find alternative credit earning systems. TBH, it's fairer on new players to have a constant stream of credits (slow, and not-ref dependant, say 1 cred per 2 sec) as well as Ref (if it's alive) etc. This is more easily understood by someone new, who will think "Oh, I get a constant income + more if I have a ref and harvester etc". Imagine not understanding Ren's gameplay fully (and it's complex, which is why we all play I'm sure) and then finding that your whole team (who are sniping the enemy harvester, what... "SNIPING THE ENEMY HARVESTER?!") have more credits then you do. That makes no sense to a newcomer, who will become frustrated with the lack of credits, and leave. Non-marathon servers I will simply mention again the issue with people buying mammoths (or anything else expensive, but not effective) and then getting yelled at for making an investment that doesn't pay off (not that they were aware, standard PC game gameplay, and standard C&C gameplay can revolve around powerful units (IE: Mammoths. Yes, it can revolve around more, less powerful units, but that's not the point here) therefore the person who just picked up ren, having played some other game will think "I'll save for that pretty $1500 mammoth and go pwn Nod". What happens: NewPlayer01: "I've got a mammy" People who are used to points imbalance: "YOU IDIOT. GTFO!" Ok, I might have overdone the reaction, but the reaction is not exactly friendly, few I imagine take the time in a time constrained game to explain that mammoths aren't worth it and the new player is left feeling confused and unwelcome. Should we encourage that?
!donate restrictions should be set in relation with starting credits! Donate is absolute fair in the first minutes of a 8v8 game with 0 starting credits! There's still a game start with 0 characters and balance between Nod and GDI. !donate in starting minutes only disbalances the games when there's starting credits and/or a huge amount of players that would all donate to the same player (read: doesn't happen in public servers). I'm simplifying it a bit, but it's the principle that counts for me: !donate restrictions should be set in relation with starting credits.
A formula that could be tried for computing donate restrictions based on starting credits: donate restrict time (in minutes) = starting credits/50. Easy enough, no? Also note that donate restrictions may not apply to all servers (BI1 will not let you donate starting credits so a time based donate restriction isn't needed for that server to be laddered). I'm surprised nobody mentioned taking sniper/co-op/CTF/DM/... servers off the ladder, although it should be done. Sniper games are very low-scoring and unreflective of AOW performance (and yield very few ladder points anyhow), while Co-Op games tend to yield insane amounts of points for killing loads of bots, which skews ladder scoring in the opposite direction. Finally, as far as modified crates go, are you talking about crates beyond the Renegade stock set (ammo refill/100-200 credits)? Or are you talking about non-SSGM crates? The former would leave, like, 1 server (TK2) on the ladder, while the latter might just tick a few people (BC?) off.
Crimson, I mention it because I believe that you are crossing logical points with your arguments, and aren't looking at the bigger picture. Please explain to me what the "pointsfix" does to balance the ladder. As I've always understood it, it simply allows a SINGLE person to receive more points than they should, which artifically inflates the way their skill looks based on the current ladder. As it stands, points trump everything, that is the main goal, that is how you get ladder points. If your argument is that the pointsfix unfairly balances a "team" on a certain map, you're goign to have to explain that a little better, I'm having a hard time invisioning how one team would have an easier time shooting at the harvester on a map early in the game, or how only one team of snipers can shoot at tanks all game.. that argument seems a little shallow. Regardless, the ladder isn't representative of a "teams" skill.. it ranks "people". I'm sure there are some maps that people feel don't allow them to win, and some sides on some maps that they would never play. How will you provide a means to ensure that they don't leave these games, so their ladder isn't negatively affected? And, how you can say that "the current ladder already takes care of that" is beyond me. I do understand that you are changing the way the ladder works, but since no one is explainging how, we're left to discuss what we know. and right now, there is no way you could convince me that the top scorers on the ladder do not come from high player count, no time limit servers. They always have; and if you believe that the "current ladder already takes care of that" then I can only assume you're not sitting down thinking of how you can eliminate the bias that the current ladder has for these servers. People will find a way to exploit even your new ladder. They will realize that they need to kill a certain number of people, as well as score a certain number of points, and that they will get a skill bonus based on how many tanks or buildings they kill, etc.. Then they'll still leave the games that don't provide them with the best layout of these items. As for weapons drop? How many points do I get for killing a sakura in a game? The way it is, a shitload compared to some of the other things I could be doing.. If I don't even have to buy a weapon, not earn or spend a single credit, and I can still be given the opportunity to pick up someone elses sniper rifle and start taking down 1000 credit chars from across the map. How on earth can you wonder how this can unfairly affect my score, and at the same time dig your heels in about the miniscule points the average players gets without the pointsfix? Like I said in a previous post, your arguments are disingenuous at best.
Just an interesting fact....with the points fix, you would get more points for killing a sakura than a stank. If this points logic makes sense, then you must be pro-pointsfix. If not, then....
trooprm02 wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 13:08 Just an interesting fact....with the points fix, you would get more points for killing a sakura than a stank. If this points logic makes sense, then you must be pro-pointsfix. If not, then.... Wow, did you think that up yourself? Another interesting fact: In Renegade, a Patch costs more than a Gunner. If this makes sense, you must be pro renegade! I TOTALLY dont know what I wanted to say with that, anyway, Spoony already refuted that on cw.cc (you know, where you read that argument and thought "WOW LOL MAYBE I CAN CONVINCE NOBS ON RENEGADE FORUMS WITH IT").
A sakura is more expensive than a stank... I didn't test if what you said is correct, though.
Quote: I didn't test if what you said is correct, though. what are you talking about?
It was in reply to the points u get for killing sak >< stank
Goz, with points fix, the rule total kill points = cost / 10 applies for all units. Except for free ones and the harvesters/buildings that is.
Goztow wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 13:16 A sakura is more expensive than a stank... I didn't test if what you said is correct, though. Now, tell me which is more effective? Atleast in a battle pre-pointsfix the sakura would end up with more points, but still lose the battle. I bet 99% of people here don't know that, and its just a co-incidence that they are pro fixing the points system? No. People that know have made their points very clear, and ultimately (if its even put to an official vote), people will clearly understand what kind of big mistake almost would have happened...
I don't know what you're on Troop, but I sure would like to have some of it. It seems to be a very powerful drug as u don't make any sense at all.
as for the points for killing a stank vs the points for killing a sakura: with the pointsfix, you get 10% of what the unit cost. thus, 99/100 (rounded down?) for a sakura and 90 for a stank. this is true for all units except free infantry. the harvester doesn't have a cost, obviously, but is worth 100 to the team that kills it. I've seen quite a few people say: it's ridiculous that you get more points killing a sakura than a stank. well, if you think that, you MUST BELIEVE that stanks are 'worth' more... in which case, why aren't you asking for stanks to be more expensive or sakuras to be cheaper? i've asked that about a dozen times, haven't had an answer yet... msgtpain wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 08:58 Please explain to me what the "pointsfix" does to balance the ladder. it makes the game much fairer, it means the game is decided by which team actually did more damage and achieved more, instead of being decided by which team spent more time pointlessly shooting stuff they don't damage (i.e. ramjets vs heavy vehicles, and the like) it means attacking bases is more significant than just hanging back and killing tanks which come near your own base, which clearly should be the case. it also means Field and Under are fair now; previously, GDI had a pretty easy time on Field and a pathetically easy time on Under.
To my knowledge, I have not falsified or exaggerated ANY of the figures I said before. Your server having a large number of players on it with the pointsfix in place is an anomoly, because from what I've seen in the Jelly community is an exponential decline in players on AOW1, our only pointsfix server, until Jelly stepped in and made changes to the gameplay that make it a completely different server. You have data that clearly indicate the unpopularity of the pointsfix, yet you don't acknowledge it or attempt to find solutions that everyone will be happy with. I see that as YOUR responsibility, since you are attempting to make this a mandatory patch.
kong009 wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 18:11 To my knowledge, I have not falsified or exaggerated ANY of the figures I said before. Your server having a large number of players on it with the pointsfix in place is an anomoly, because from what I've seen in the Jelly community is an exponential decline in players on AOW1, our only pointsfix server, until Jelly stepped in and made changes to the gameplay that make it a completely different server. You have data that clearly indicate the unpopularity of the pointsfix, yet you don't acknowledge it or attempt to find solutions that everyone will be happy with. I see that as YOUR responsibility, since you are attempting to make this a mandatory patch. If the pointfix was on before AND after the changes, then clearly the issue was not the pointfix, but the addition features a server has. Unless I just read that wrong, that is what you basically stated. (I have been told it has been on before and after).
Player count had been declining since PF was put on the server, it had continued to decline until Jelly made changes, I believe.
Homey wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 19:36 Player count had been declining since PF was put on the server, it had continued to decline until Jelly made changes, I believe. Nonetheless, the pointfix was on before and after, thus it was addition settings that made players join / leave.
That's what brought people back. The problem was it being there in the first place.
kong009 wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 16:11 You have data that clearly indicate the unpopularity of the pointsfix, yet you don't acknowledge it or attempt to find solutions that everyone will be happy with. I see that as YOUR responsibility, since you are attempting to make this a mandatory patch. You are squeaky wheels trying to get grease. Just because there's like 10 people on the forums bitching doesn't mean that the 10,000+ players who are still playing agree with you. My server is full or close to it almost all the time, so clearly there can't be a huge amount of people who oppose it. In fact, most of them probably didn't even notice anything different.
Fixing bugs is bad guys, we're too used to Windows crashing...
Crimson wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 22:22 kong009 wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 16:11 You have data that clearly indicate the unpopularity of the pointsfix, yet you don't acknowledge it or attempt to find solutions that everyone will be happy with. I see that as YOUR responsibility, since you are attempting to make this a mandatory patch. You are squeaky wheels trying to get grease. Just because there's like 10 people on the forums bitching doesn't mean that the 10,000+ players who are still playing agree with you. My server is full or close to it almost all the time, so clearly there can't be a huge amount of people who oppose it. In fact, most of them probably didn't even notice anything different. Yeah they probably didn't notice. Points is not a game breaking issue and it's nothing worth "fixing."
Rocko wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 23:06 Crimson wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 22:22 kong009 wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 16:11 You have data that clearly indicate the unpopularity of the pointsfix, yet you don't acknowledge it or attempt to find solutions that everyone will be happy with. I see that as YOUR responsibility, since you are attempting to make this a mandatory patch. You are squeaky wheels trying to get grease. Just because there's like 10 people on the forums bitching doesn't mean that the 10,000+ players who are still playing agree with you. My server is full or close to it almost all the time, so clearly there can't be a huge amount of people who oppose it. In fact, most of them probably didn't even notice anything different. Yeah they probably didn't notice. Points is not a game breaking issue and it's nothing worth "fixing." So because they didn't notice it, we need to go unfixing things?
Saberhawk wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 00:15 Rocko wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 23:06 Crimson wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 22:22 kong009 wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 16:11 You have data that clearly indicate the unpopularity of the pointsfix, yet you don't acknowledge it or attempt to find solutions that everyone will be happy with. I see that as YOUR responsibility, since you are attempting to make this a mandatory patch. You are squeaky wheels trying to get grease. Just because there's like 10 people on the forums bitching doesn't mean that the 10,000+ players who are still playing agree with you. My server is full or close to it almost all the time, so clearly there can't be a huge amount of people who oppose it. In fact, most of them probably didn't even notice anything different. Yeah they probably didn't notice. Points is not a game breaking issue and it's nothing worth "fixing." So because they didn't notice it, we need to go unfixing things? no but the point is that if the majority of players, the ones who just play once in awhile and never talk at all, floating throughout the game servers, did not care about points enough to quit over it, then it's obviously not a big issue. They would probably be happy either way. Jelly Marathon has no points fix and it's full at almost 50 players almost every day. And n00bstories does has have points fix and it does get a lot of players. I don't think many people care about fixing it or not. And if they do then at least they have the choice to decide if they want to go to Jelly-Marathon and play without points fix, or go to noobstories if they want a points fixed game. If you force it on everyone because it's what you believe is right, and just disregard what the people who do talk and disagree with points fix than how can that be a good thing? Coder's honor? lol how stupid is that. p.s. Has anyone seen the anti-TT petition on MCD?
Rocko wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 02:16 Saberhawk wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 00:15 Rocko wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 23:06 Crimson wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 22:22 kong009 wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 16:11 You have data that clearly indicate the unpopularity of the pointsfix, yet you don't acknowledge it or attempt to find solutions that everyone will be happy with. I see that as YOUR responsibility, since you are attempting to make this a mandatory patch. You are squeaky wheels trying to get grease. Just because there's like 10 people on the forums bitching doesn't mean that the 10,000+ players who are still playing agree with you. My server is full or close to it almost all the time, so clearly there can't be a huge amount of people who oppose it. In fact, most of them probably didn't even notice anything different. Yeah they probably didn't notice. Points is not a game breaking issue and it's nothing worth "fixing." So because they didn't notice it, we need to go unfixing things? p.s. Has anyone seen the anti-TT petition on MCD? MCD? Post a link, I wanna see this lol.
Rocko wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 01:16 no but the point is that if the majority of players, the ones who just play once in awhile and never talk at all, floating throughout the game servers, did not care about points enough to quit over it, then it's obviously not a big issue. They would probably be happy either way. Jelly Marathon has no points fix and it's full at almost 50 players almost every day. And n00bstories does has have points fix and it does get a lot of players. I don't think many people care about fixing it or not. And if they do then at least they have the choice to decide if they want to go to Jelly-Marathon and play without points fix, or go to noobstories if they want a points fixed game. If you force it on everyone because it's what you believe is right, and just disregard what the people who do talk and disagree with points fix than how can that be a good thing? Coder's honor? lol how stupid is that. p.s. Has anyone seen the anti-TT petition on MCD? Honestly, I wasn't the one that implemented the pointsfix, it's not even close to "my department". I take pride in the fact that the bulk of what I do often gets completely overlooked by players. That means I'm doing it right.
u6795 wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 01:19 Rocko wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 02:16 Saberhawk wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 00:15 Rocko wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 23:06 Crimson wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 22:22 kong009 wrote on Sun, 17 August 2008 16:11 You have data that clearly indicate the unpopularity of the pointsfix, yet you don't acknowledge it or attempt to find solutions that everyone will be happy with. I see that as YOUR responsibility, since you are attempting to make this a mandatory patch. You are squeaky wheels trying to get grease. Just because there's like 10 people on the forums bitching doesn't mean that the 10,000+ players who are still playing agree with you. My server is full or close to it almost all the time, so clearly there can't be a huge amount of people who oppose it. In fact, most of them probably didn't even notice anything different. Yeah they probably didn't notice. Points is not a game breaking issue and it's nothing worth "fixing." So because they didn't notice it, we need to go unfixing things? p.s. Has anyone seen the anti-TT petition on MCD? MCD? Post a link, I wanna see this lol. Okay here it is, there's at least 50 different people who signed it. http://www.mcd-server.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3067
Number of players isn't influenced by point fix but by a load of other factors: moderators, popularity of other servers, a0000000000000000, community feeling, the fact friends play somewhere, some server side mods, the weather (!),... Our server has had less and more players over a period of time with or without point fix. We never changed any other setting, really either. It's mostly seasons playing: in summer there's less people cause they are on holidays / enjoy the nice weather; in september/october a lot of people come back to play more and in winter times we also see an increase. Maybe that's what happened on Jelly too. I can't believe any player would be stupid enough to leave because their sakura doesn't make 10 points/credits per hit anymore. Edit: never heard of these MCD-dudes and cba to register just to read a topic.
Goztow wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 02:38 Number of players isn't influenced by point fix but by a load of other factors: moderators, popularity of other servers, a0000000000000000, community feeling, the fact friends play somewhere, some server side mods, the weather (!),... Our server has had less and more players over a period of time with or without point fix. We never changed any other setting, really either. It's mostly seasons playing: in summer there's less people cause they are on holidays / enjoy the nice weather; in september/october a lot of people come back to play more and in winter times we also see an increase. Maybe that's what happened on Jelly too. I can't believe any player would be stupid enough to leave because their sakura doesn't make 10 points/credits per hit anymore. Edit: never heard of these MCD-dudes and cba to register just to read a topic. A lot of new players just want to buy expensive characters, without easy money they can't do that.
Goztow wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 01:38 Edit: never heard of these MCD-dudes and cba to register just to read a topic. people from other communities signed up on to the mcd website to sign it. i'm not sure what cba means, "can't bother" ? There is like 50 people that signed it, it's worth a look. http://www.mcd-server.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3067
Homey wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 08:44 A lot of new players just want to buy expensive characters, without easy money they can't do that. Most new players I encounter just buy rather cheap characters like sbh, officer, ... If money flow is a problem, then why not increase the number of credits per second to 3?
Goztow wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 07:47 Homey wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 08:44 A lot of new players just want to buy expensive characters, without easy money they can't do that. Most new players I encounter just buy rather cheap characters like sbh, officer, ... If money flow is a problem, then why not increase the number of credits per second to 3? You can't really look at it that way, not if the ladder wont accommodate leaving the points as they are. Although this whole argument is quite pathetic if you ask me.
The reason is that a points fix server feels more natural. The team that did a better job, wins the game... ridiculous nonsense strategies don't work anymore... when both teams are doing well, the score is close until the bitter end. It's more exciting to play and less frustrating, and I know it will be even better when these other bugs are fixed, too. It's gonna be so great to play without having to worry about loading my pistol, getting in a vehicle at the wrong time and getting into blue hell, getting killed by the WF bug as I'm planting a nuke. All of the elements we love, none of the BS we don't. I'm VERY excited about it!
Wow, see to counter the points fix Spoony and BI suggest now changing around the way credits works ingame (Bi says to change it to 3/creds/sec, and spoony says to change the cost value of some units).... Does anyone else realize how fucking stupid that is? To implement this fix, this means you completely fuck over the most important aspect of the game, how much/fast money you get in order to BUY UNITS. Unless everyone use free units then I guess this wouldn't be an issue, but fixing points to fuck over credits? Points is atleast playable, and credits is fine with this system, but if you fix points, then we would be in a worse position (gameplay wise) because of the credit system...Everything just points to it not being worth it...
trooprm02 wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 11:01 Wow, see to counter the points fix Spoony and BI suggest now changing around the way credits works ingame (Bi says to change it to 3/creds/sec, and spoony says to change the cost value of some units).... Does anyone else realize how fucking stupid that is? To implement this fix, this means you completely fuck over the most important aspect of the game, how much/fast money you get in order to BUY UNITS. Unless everyone use free units then I guess this wouldn't be an issue, but fixing points to fuck over credits? Points is atleast playable, and credits is fine with this system, but if you fix points, then we would be in a worse position (gameplay wise) because of the credit system...Everything just points to it not being worth it... Because clearly, the pointsfix will only apply to Nod. GDI will still be able to ramjet shit for money, right? Dumbass, Nod and GDI will be at equal levels still, unless you count that mammoths won't give the enemy a ton of points now. Which clearly, was NOT intended. Mammoths are supposed to be slow but awesome, not slow and just outright fail in every aspect.
trooprm02 wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 11:01 Wow, see to counter the points fix Spoony and BI suggest now changing around the way credits works ingame (Bi says to change it to 3/creds/sec, and spoony says to change the cost value of some units).... Easy tiger, I didn't say either of those two things. I never commented at all on the 3-creds-a-second business, and as for the sakura/stank business, I was not saying "make stanks more expensive and make sakuras cheaper". OTHER PEOPLE were bitching about the fact that with the pointsfix, you get more points killing a sakura than a stank (99 > 90). My rebuttal is this (and has never been debunked yet): if that's what you think, why aren't you calling for stanks to be made more expensive or sakuras to be made cheaper? that is aside from the rather amusing point that the same people who think 99 points is too much for killing a sakura, don't have a problem with getting 300+ points killing a big slow defenceless harvester.
Spoony wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 11:41 that is aside from the rather amusing point that the same people who think 99 points is too much for killing a sakura, don't have a problem with getting 300+ points killing a big slow defenceless harvester. With that very Sakura, too, lol.
No with that sakura they get a 1000 points without killing it .
I'm not a part of BlackIntel, it seems like Troop is spitting out even more nonsense than usual. I just told people that if their argument to keep the point bug was because you don't get enough quick money otherwise, they should change the income per second. It seems to make more sense, no? Well, to most people in here it would...
Spoony wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 11:41 trooprm02 wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 11:01 Wow, see to counter the points fix Spoony and BI suggest now changing around the way credits works ingame (Bi says to change it to 3/creds/sec, and spoony says to change the cost value of some units).... Easy tiger, I didn't say either of those two things. I never commented at all on the 3-creds-a-second business, and as for the sakura/stank business, I was not saying "make stanks more expensive and make sakuras cheaper". OTHER PEOPLE were bitching about the fact that with the pointsfix, you get more points killing a sakura than a stank (99 > 90). My rebuttal is this (and has never been debunked yet): if that's what you think, why aren't you calling for stanks to be made more expensive or sakuras to be made cheaper? that is aside from the rather amusing point that the same people who think 99 points is too much for killing a sakura, don't have a problem with getting 300+ points killing a big slow defenceless harvester. okay then, make stanks more expensive and make sakuras cheaper. I don't know how much of a point that is though spoony. It seems silly that the game works perfectly fine the way it is, but a group of people take it upon themselves to speak for all of a renegade and force a point system changing patch. And it's not even 100% working if you then even have to change price values and use retarded things like donate in order to balance the game out completely.
Rocko, I don't think WW foresaw marathon in their plans for Renegade.
Donate doesn't balance things out, nor does changing price values. And Spoony never said so, where did u read that?
Price changes should not be made. Nor should donate be a forced thing. Ramjets were meant to be heavy anti-infantry, and anti-light armor. They were NOT meant to give you points. If you still can't grasp that, play in a server that will host a points de-fix.
What Crimson wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 11:00 It's gonna be so great to play without having to worry about loading my pistol, getting in a vehicle at the wrong time and getting into blue hell, getting killed by the WF bug as I'm planting a nuke. All of the elements we love, none of the BS we don't. I'm VERY excited about it! What Crimson Meant on Mon, 18 August 2008 11:00 Look at the big shiny glowing ball, isn't it pretty? no.. don't look away at that little blemish, look here, at the big shiny glowing ball, that's all you should be worrying about... ingore all the other stuff that isn't so great, big shiny ball.. over here... This whole "wait until the beta and see how many people support it" is a farce.. What you should really be saying is "Wait until the beta, when the only cheat free servers are running it, then tell me if you still care." THAT is a more accurate statement. "If you want all our cheat free stuff, you have to swallow the few things you don't like.. that way we can show EA just how much support we have for our project!" The other servers will be like "hey guys, come to our server that cheaters still play on, and get an extra 100 points for shooting at tanks.." How many people will be going there? And how many server owners will want to make a concious decision to go that route? Hardly any, I'm sure.. guaranteeing you that you will be able to show this "overwhelming support" of the community to EA... It's a crock of shit, honestly... No one fron TT has any other response, to anything else I've asked? just look at the shiny ball?
Quote: This whole "wait until the beta and see how many people support it" is a farce.. What you should really be saying is "Wait until the beta, when the only cheat free servers are running it, then tell me if you still care." THAT is a more accurate statement. "If you want all our cheat free stuff, you have to swallow the few things you don't like.. that way we can show EA just how much support we have for our project!" Cool, it's all fixed! Quote: The other servers will be like "hey guys, come to our server that cheaters still play on, and get an extra 100 points for shooting at tanks.." How many people will be going there? And how many server owners will want to make a concious decision to go that route? Hardly any, I'm sure.. guaranteeing you that you will be able to show this "overwhelming support" of the community to EA... We run buggy code. If we allow buggy code, then it's sure no problem that people inject code to do glitches! Well, that is what I just read. Just wait until the testing begins and has a fair chance. Remember the first week of the pointfix only? Everywhere was angry, but after that week (or two) of giving it a fair chance more people seen the benefits behind it. You can look at this either way.
gkl21 wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 17:51 Just wait until the testing begins and has a fair chance. Remember the first week of the pointfix only? Everywhere was angry, but after that week (or two) of giving it a fair chance more people seen the benefits behind it. And then an exponential decline in server population, Crimson's server notwithstanding.
It's a pity so many people write opinions without reading up on previous posts. It was clearly stated before that beta testing will be events-based, so there's no split in server running/not running before the push happens.
It's a pity you don't put more value in our opinions. It's not like we speak for a small group of people, is it? When any company goes into development for a patch for a product, they do research on the product by gathering data from the people that use it. Since you don't seem to want to do it yourself, I'm going to give you some research. 1) Jelly has five main servers with one running the pointsfix right now. We elected to test the pointsfix on one server to see its effect on gameplay. We then hosted a poll asking for opinions on the pointsfix. Of the people that voted, 59% said remove the fix, 28% said leave the fix, and 13% said they were indifferent. 2) Over the last several months (since the pointsfix was put in place), AOW1 [a00] has seen what Jelly describes as a "huge loss of players, and many blame the pointsfix." The month of June 2008, AOW1 used 914.6gb of bandwidth at an average of 30.49gb per day. This is less than half of the bandwidth we pay for, so Jelly decided to make some drastic changes: increase starting credits, change the map rotation, increase player count, enable weapon drops, enable spawn weapons, and enable ped beacons (all of which had previously been disabled). After these changes were implimented on 6 July, AOW1 used 1623.34gb of bandwidth at an average of 54.11gb per day that following month (a 78% increase). Two conclusions can be drawn from these data: 1) The pointsfix is disliked by the majority of players who actually play on a pointsfix server, and 2) the pointsfix caused our most popular server to suffer a massive downward spiral in bandwidth usage over a long period of time that could only be countered by implimenting changes that had previously distinguished the server from any others. The key here is that raising starting credits and enabling weapons drops appear to have (at least temporarily) brought back some of the players we lost to the pointsfix, meaning the pointsfix is flawed without making other changes to the server before implimenting it. I am happy to hear that testing will be conducted, but the finality with which most of you post about the pointsfix definitely being included in the patch as-is worries me. I would encourage you to view this as a fairly unsuccessful "test" for the pointsfix as well, despite your success with it on noobstories. I have given you some very hard evidence that would suggest going ahead with the patch+pointsfix as-is might be a mistake, at least until you work out how to compensate for the lost credits. Again I would present the "half-fix" as a potential solution.
You should have put pointsfix off and see if that brought back your players. Then you could really have concluded this was the reason. You now can conclude that you lost players, which may (partially?) be due to the point fix and that you gained back players by implementing something else than the point fix. Also: my comment wasn't about your arguments against point fix, everyone has theirs and I respect those, it was about your obvious lack of knowing anything about the testing phase, but still drawing obviously wrongful conclusions like Quote: And then an exponential decline in server population No server popularity can suffer as the patch will be tested in "events" to avoid splitting up the community. At least, that's what I read on these forums so far. I think I already showed that I'm actually in favor of allowing the half point fix idea that Jelly proposed to connect to the ladder. So i don't know why you're reacting on my posts, maybe it's just because I make so many . I also don't understand why people keep making topics about the point fix when it has clearly been said there will be a pointunfix.dll which will allow the server owner to get back to a half or complete unfix. Maybe you can enlighten me?
Please note that Goztow is not part of TT, and does *not* represent TT's opinion or views. Everyone is just representing his particular opinion unless it is specifically stated..
Rocko wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 15:31 I don't know how much of a point that is though spoony. It seems silly that the game works perfectly fine the way it is ok... GDI winning easily on many maps is 'perfectly fine', the team that plays far less aggressively is 'perfectly fine', getting high scores by shooting stuff you don't damage is 'perfectly fine'... Rocko wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 15:31 And it's not even 100% working if you then even have to change price values and use retarded things like donate in order to balance the game out completely. We don't. Pointsfix DOES balance out the game completely, as long as the vehicle-alignment modification is there. If the pointsfix is there: 1. you do not need to change anything's price for balanced gameplay (and if you read my posts a little more carefully, you'll see I never advocated that in the first place) and 2. you do not need !donate for balanced gameplay (in fact, the corollary holds true; the gameplay is more balanced WITHOUT IT)
Goztow wrote on Tue, 19 August 2008 04:36 No server popularity can suffer as the patch will be tested in "events" to avoid splitting up the community. The comment I made about exponential decline in server population was based on our one and only server that tested the pointsfix, and that was true. Goztow wrote on Tue, 19 August 2008 04:36 You now can conclude that you lost players, which may be due to the point fix and that you gained back players by implementing something else than the point fix. In the months after we put the pointsfix on AOW1, we steadily lost players until something had to be done about it. The fault clearly lies with the pointsfix, as this was the only change made up to that point. We asked that Jelly remove the pointsfix, but he insisted on leaving it on because we are still in cooperation with Crimson and TT in testing the pointsfix/new patch (although I daresay our conclusions about the pointsfix are hardly being taken into consideration judging from the reaction here). Most of us would like to have seen the pointsfix removed, but this was Jelly's call. The reason why people keep making topics about the pointsfix (and subsequently why "pointsunfix.dll" is insufficient) is because servers that choose to use "pointsunfix.dll" will be penalized, in my opinion, unfairly, by being excluded from the ladder.
kong009 wrote on Tue, 19 August 2008 16:51 Most of us would like to have seen the pointsfix removed, but this was Jelly's call. Congratulations on being the only person at jelly-forums who seems to've figured that bit out :/ kong009 wrote on Tue, 19 August 2008 16:51 The reason why people keep making topics about the pointsfix (and subsequently why "pointsunfix.dll" is insufficient) is because servers that choose to use "pointsunfix.dll" will be penalized, in my opinion, unfairly, by being excluded from the ladder. two points need to be made here. 1. a non-pointsfix server not being laddered is not being 'penalised'. let's say someone comes to me and says: 'spoony, i want to play a clanwar with 1000 starting credits'. I'd say no, not in my league, but if you wanna play those conditions in someone else's league, or a funwar, then go ahead for all I care. am I 'penalising' them? 2. I seem to recall everyone on the jelly thread saying they didn't care about ladder, and if a server not being laddered is the price to pay for being able to get credits for no reason, they can live with it. now, suddenly, it wants to be laddered too. this is one of the two enormous contradictions I've noticed lately. the first is that non-ladderness was a concession the anti-pointsfix crowd granted some time ago, in exchange for being able to get credits for no reason... and now that seems to have retracted. the second is about half the people who've signed roni's petition, the one that calls for individual servers/communities/etc to choose for themselves whether to use pointsfix or not (a perfectly good demand in my view). so I say ok, fine by me... does that mean you'll all respect my right to choose pointsfix in my own community? the answer to that has been a very resounding no... from the same people who signed roni's petition. I think a child of nine could see the colossal irony there. with these two things in mind, let me tell you a little joke: what's the difference between a terrorist and the anti-pointsfix crowd? you can negotiate with a terrorist.
The ladder really doesn't matter, it will prove nothing except who is best at point whoring. Most decent players won't care about being high up on that ladder.
Blah blah blah, you will do what we say as we know what you all need to make the game fun, we have logic and need nothing else, blah blah..... Did I miss anything? Guess not....
Jellybe4n wrote on Wed, 20 August 2008 12:59 Blah blah blah, you will do what we say as we know what you all need to make the game fun, we have logic and need nothing else, blah blah..... Did I miss anything? Guess not.... Now spoony dont overanalyze this...
Quote: - Starting Credits Since all players have the same starting credits, there is no need for this to impact the ladder score. special crates don't pick a certain team to spawn for, and since the chances of either team getting it are the same there's no need for it to impact the ladder score same logic applied to a different example, and how is this any different than starting credits or early donate? one of spoony's posts made me realize that the ladder put in place with the patch will be one of TT's creation, judging and placing rank based on what TT decides is skill if so many people disagree with TT's decisions all they need to do is look at who's all a part of it and who will be deciding how the ladder will work; it's not Westwood's ladder anymore, it's one resurrected in its place by people other than EA and Westwood, so it's not even official (unless TT convinces EA to support this as their official ladder) it will be the "What TT decides is a skilled player" ranking system, and personally i don't mind not being a part of that
So, Jelly's AOW1 decided to mimic the settings that n00bstories has had for years and gained players. I don't see how that HELPS your points fix argument. Like Goz said, put your settings back, remove the points fix, and THEN come back and tell us what happened. Don't let some non-existent loyalty restriction hold you back. We put the point fix on our servers in order to test how it affected gameplay and balance. If Jelly wants to run another test and see if his players come back by removing the points fix, then it's all part of the testing process. Personally, I found the fix to improve gameplay so much that I can't imagine degrading my server to the Neanderthal days of "Og shoot harv. Og no hurt harv. Og get muny!" The ladder team was put together a long time ago with partial input from the community... the same community that now thinks it was done WITHOUT their input. Boggles my mind. So, yeah, I know some of you fucking hate Spoony. And yeah, I wouldn't say he's #1 on my list of people I think are "swell". However, I am mature enough to look past his personality and see the logic in his words and I agree with him, not only because I have been playing this game since the beta test alongside the Westwood developers, but because I have played before and after the bug was discovered and fixed. The core of the pro-bug people is the opposition of change. Can you can honestly look in your brain and tell us that you wouldn't have bothered playing Renegade if it had always been the way it is with the fix in place? Can you tell us that if some random programmer over 6 years ago hadn't put this one tiny bug in the code, that you would never have liked this game and wouldn't have been playing it all these years? Have you spent more time complaining about the fix instead of making a couple tweaks to your strategy? I'm not trying to distract you with a proverbial "shiny ball". I just think it's very counterproductive to bash on a team that is doing work that none of you could have ever hoped to accomplish, who is trying to make Renegade the game it always should have been, without asking for a dime in return. I'm pretty disgusted in fact.
Crimson wrote on Thu, 21 August 2008 04:52 The core of the pro-bug people is the opposition of change. Can you can honestly look in your brain and tell us that you wouldn't have bothered playing Renegade if it had always been the way it is with the fix in place? Can you tell us that if some random programmer over 6 years ago hadn't put this one tiny bug in the code, that you would never have liked this game and wouldn't have been playing it all these years? Have you spent more time complaining about the fix instead of making a couple tweaks to your strategy? No, we probably would have liked it, but since that one programmer put the one bug in over 6 years ago, we learned to love this game the way it is. TBH i dont even know why im arguing, i got everything i wanted: a opportunity to play on a server that doesnt make sense when i want to, and an opportunity to play on a server that does make sense when i want to. just a little extra question: will there be some sort of symbol/lettering that will be mandatory to show wether a server is pts fixed or un pts fixed? such as: [PF]www.jelly-server.com AOW1 [PUF]www.jelly-server.com aow2
im with you Crimson keep up the good work
I don't get why jelly-server is complaining. I f noone wants the pointfix and every server excluding jelly install pointfix... well this should scyrocket your server to most used. You complain about TT trys to make this patch supported via EA. Why not. Currently EA don't support the game so if EA does you can always choose to not use it. Worse/unused support is better then no support. Ladder: Well I don't get why people want a merged pointfix+nopointfixladder its like merging apples and tomatoes. Just imagine how everyone will say the first 10players all noobjet the whole day against a mammy. on the other hand I myself never played to be good in a ladder. I play for fun and I define fun as a good game, I don't get angry being last one in points but know that my med was defending alone the last ion that killed nod forces...(but I still hope that in some day they kill those old stats always present on login. it hurts to see my years old win/loss ratio *sniff* I usually only play on pointfixed servers. And I enjoy it. Actually I'm looking for a european, 30slot+, pointfixed server with <100 startcredits and possible marathonsettings. But hey I can even play on other servers. Its not that I don't find the specific server for me stops me loveing renegade.
Crimson wrote on Thu, 21 August 2008 05:52 I'm not trying to distract you with a proverbial "shiny ball". I just think it's very counterproductive to bash on a team that is doing work that none of you could have ever hoped to accomplish, who is trying to make Renegade the game it always should have been, without asking for a dime in return. I'm pretty disgusted in fact. No one is "bashing" the people creating the fix. What we're bashing is the notion that these people will possibly have the power to determine what every C&C Renengade player gets to see and do when they play. You are no longer creating an "add on".. No one is "modding" the game for a particular server, or for a particular reason. You have elevated yourselves to the position of God, and are attempting to push out a controversial patch that every single player that still plays renegade will be forced to download when they log on to Xwis. You want to make Renbot, corepatch, renguard.. someone else wants to make Biatch, ssaow, niteserver etc.. Everyone has always been able to decide how they wanted to tweak their server, and use their own inginuity to create a community that players with similar desires could join. This is all fine and wonderful.. if we want to download it, great, if we like the 1.037 version, that's fine too.. If you want to make anti cheat stuff, yippee; if you want to make it so you don't blue screen when you get in an APC, horray; the community is behind you 1000%. But, what if you wanted to make mammoths do 1.5x damage, just cause a "balance coordinator" decided that a 1500 credit investement should? Uh... no one asked you to, and we don't want it that way.. why is it so hard for YOU GUYS to understand that from our point of view? Then for you to fill us with this warm and fuzzy notion that you're just forcing "bug fixes" on us.. and then make a vote on whether you you're going to fix one of the largest and most exploited bugs in the game? the outside PT's? Either you're on a moral path to fix bugs, or your on a selfish path to fix what you want, you can't have it both ways. And when you attempt to have it both ways, it just validates our opinions that you aren't really just trying to fix what Westwood left out, only trying to edit the game to the way 12 people want it. If you want to make Core Patch 3 that is pushed out through renguard to only the people that actually bother to download it; you have my full support. But if you're going to force me to download this if I ever want to play again... well, then I think you need to be a little less biased about what you're going to "fix" and actually listen to the people who's games you are "fixing". None of us voted you God... and if you didn't exist, sure, we'd still have to deal with cheaters, but we'd get along just fine... we have been for 4 years. so don't try and use that as a sympathetic way to whine about how much you are doing for us all, for free..
Quote: why is it so hard for YOU GUYS to understand that from our point of view? Probably the paranoia similar to this: msgtpain wrote on Thu, 21 August 2008 21:05 But, what if you wanted to make mammoths do 1.5x damage, just cause a "balance coordinator" decided that a 1500 credit investement should? Such an absurd idea is only grasping for straws. Not once have they changed the way the game plays out because they felt like it, but because it was due to some broken code forgotton and was unable to be fixed. Quote: Then for you to fill us with this warm and fuzzy notion that you're just forcing "bug fixes" on us.. and then make a vote on whether you you're going to fix one of the largest and most exploited bugs in the game? the outside PT's? So now it's suddenly bad to consider not fixing something abused often? Which side are you on here? Quote: Either you're on a moral path to fix bugs, or your on a selfish path to fix what you want, you can't have it both ways. And when you attempt to have it both ways, it just validates our opinions that you aren't really just trying to fix what Westwood left out, only trying to edit the game to the way 12 people want it. And because the supposed "majority" has their own selfish desire to keep the game broken, that's just okay then? Pot, kettle... Quote: None of us voted you God... "You don't vote for God!" "How do you become God then?" -Doesn't matter. They're out to fix the problems that exist. If you have a problem, by all means share with us and present your arguments with valid and logical points. Who knows? Maybe we'll see it your way and they'll leave it the way it is.
ive been programming games for 30 years i dont think points are even bugged at all
For years people have blamed EA because they didn't give us the source code and access to the update servers to fix this game. Now that there's a chance they might grant one of these things, people blame EA/TT for giving/using this chance. It's hard to satisfy people... If you look at the composition of TT, you'll note that it's really a combination of all the best coders of the Renegade community. People that had trouble working together in the past have reunited amongst this cause. Your "servers can't choose anymore" is completely invalid: instead of modding from a bugged game to fix it, you'll mod from a fixed game to bug it (in case of point fix) or to fix it in a different way. It's still up to the server. The possibilities will even be multiplied as there'll be an auto downloader. You will be able to make client side changes for your server. The thing that annoys people here is that they can't have everything like they'd want it in the standard patch. If I had to make all decisions for the TT-patch, I would probably also make some different ones. But I don't and I'm happy to accept to adapt to some things for the benefit of this patch! And if I want it, I can still adapt my server afterwards to suit my special needs. If you can't accept that people that do hours/days/weeks/months of work on this patch don't ask you personally what they should do, then you're going to get lots of deceptions in your life. But you'll notice that yourself sooner or later.
a few things Quote: The ladder team was put together a long time ago with partial input from the community... the same community that now thinks it was done WITHOUT their input. Boggles my mind. the partial input being the community got to vote on who one of the last members was? or is there more to it than just that? Quote: -Doesn't matter. They're out to fix the problems that exist. If you have a problem, by all means share with us and present your arguments with valid and logical points. Who knows? Maybe we'll see it your way and they'll leave it the way it is. i don't recall the renegade community demanding a patch be made fixing all problems that exist fixing physical bugs (on the map) will most likely be favored by 95% or more of the people, but changing the way the game is scored 6 years late won't sit well with most people keep in mind the renegade community as a whole did not ask you to fix that Quote: And because the supposed "majority" has their own selfish desire to keep the game broken, that's just okay then? Pot, kettle... perhaps the majority likes it for reasons other than selfishness it actually seems selfish of you to change the points system for everyone because a small number of people are unhappy with it, but by all means proceed Quote: SSnipe said "im with you Crimson keep up the good work" 1 cheater moron vote for crimson; does that help or hurt the cause?
The fallacy of your argument is that you think the majority is against the fix. You can't base an argument on that which you can not prove, especially when my evidence suggests you are most likely mistaken. I would venture to guess that about 75% of the people who don't go to the websites and don't exploit the points bug didn't even notice a difference.
Hey guys, Let me say a few words of the TT team leader, and about this issue. It's not set in stone that we'll be fixing the ladder for this first patch. We're really focussing on the game and fixing issues, and we think this is more important than the ladder, at this point. Everything that is being discussed are ideas. They're not final. The truth is also that one can never satisfy everyone. Fixing the pointsfix will make one side go mad, not fixing it will make the other side go mad. That is why we're giving server owners the chance to disable it, because we're very well aware that it is a very controversial issue. That's also what testing is for. There will be extensive organized tests on the weekends for several months.. For those people who say noone has elected us to make a patch. I question you - if we're not doing it, who else is? It took me about 2 months to get this team together, and another few months to actually work out on where we're heading. All the best coders of this community are working together now towards one common goal. That's a first. If you really think we're heading in the wrong direction, then please come join us. I'm serious. If someone wants to contribute he's welcome. There have been extensive talks with Electronic Arts about various things, including Source Code and Support. I'm not allowed to speak about details, but let's just say we're very happy with EA currently. Regards, mac