Home » General Discussions » General Discussion » @Crimson
| @Crimson [message #437951] |
Fri, 15 October 2010 10:35  |
 |
trooprm02
Messages: 3266
Registered: August 2005
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Hey, just a debate we had a couple years ago I remembered. Basically, I said Renegade was meant to be played in smaller servers (16-24) and used several gameplay examples to prove my point and you used the fact Westwood's own servers were 40 slots...Well, below is a picture taken from recent (physical) renegade merchandise I bought online and clearly shows 1-16 players 
ALSO, taken from the same box, a Renegade PRO TIP from Renegade Legend, halokid aka hardkil:
My: Videos/Website/Forums
[Updated on: Fri, 15 October 2010 10:38] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #437952 is a reply to message #437951] |
Fri, 15 October 2010 11:13  |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
on the second point, that's actually true in the single player campaign. MCTs can be pistoled pretty quickly.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #437953 is a reply to message #437952] |
Fri, 15 October 2010 11:20 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Spoony's right. Certain wooden barriers can also be pistoled away in the single player missions to get to powerups and health packs. Most enemy vehicles and buildings had somewhat lower hit points in the campaign than what they are in multiplayer so the pistol is quiet powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #437973 is a reply to message #437951] |
Fri, 15 October 2010 23:02 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| trooprm02 wrote on Fri, 15 October 2010 10:35 |
recent (physical) renegade merchandise
|
For $49.99? I think not
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #437998 is a reply to message #437951] |
Sat, 16 October 2010 08:10 |
InternetThug
Messages: 1036
Registered: October 2005
Location: vagina
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
|
D-Pad destroyer was one of the writers for GamePro magazine, I got switched over to that magazine when my subscription to Official Dreamcast Magazine ended because Dreamcast went under .. everyone in Gamepro has a funny name lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438000 is a reply to message #437951] |
Sat, 16 October 2010 08:22 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Then why were the official Westwood servers set to 40 players? The vehicle limit was more of a technical limitation. If I remember correctly, a vehicle sends 4 times as much data as an infantry unit because it sends data for each wheel to each player. Also, most maps are not designed for much more than 8 vehicles per team where they can fit many more infantry units.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438003 is a reply to message #438000] |
Sat, 16 October 2010 09:29 |
 |
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Sat, 16 October 2010 10:22 |
Then why were the official Westwood servers set to 40 players? The vehicle limit was more of a technical limitation. If I remember correctly, a vehicle sends 4 times as much data as an infantry unit because it sends data for each wheel to each player. Also, most maps are not designed for much more than 8 vehicles per team where they can fit many more infantry units.
|
Pretty much this. I mean, 16 player games and 40 player games are both awesome- but you have to admit, Westwood could hardly push out more than 7 vehicles per team for the technology at the time, so that doesn't really define too much.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!   
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438006 is a reply to message #437999] |
Sat, 16 October 2010 10:26 |
|
trooprm02
Messages: 3266
Registered: August 2005
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| danpaul88 wrote on Sat, 16 October 2010 10:19 |
Actually the 7 vehicles per team limit does suggest that Westwood aimed at games not having many more than that number of players per side, which would fit in well with 16 player games (8 per side)...
|
Good point.
@Spoony, I played SP once several years ago so I guess I just forgot. Nonetheless, that sounded really funny in my head.
@Cabal, I never said 40 player servers aren't fun (thats where I got my real start in renegade), but what im saying it by the design of the gameplay mechanics alone (map size, vehicle limits, ingame tactics, etc) its pretty clear MP was optimized for no more than 8 players per team.
My: Videos/Website/Forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438012 is a reply to message #438006] |
Sat, 16 October 2010 13:01 |
|
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| trooprm02 wrote on Sat, 16 October 2010 12:26 |
@Cabal, I never said 40 player servers aren't fun (thats where I got my real start in renegade), but what im saying it by the design of the gameplay mechanics alone (map size, vehicle limits, ingame tactics, etc) its pretty clear MP was optimized for no more than 8 players per team.
|
yeah, I know you didn't say they aren't fun, but it's not like it becomes horribly unbalanced or anything.
Honestly, I'd say Renegade is designed for just about ANY amount of players- I don't think there was any specific size of players in mind, so that's why it works fine with say, 4v4, 8v8, 16v16, or even 20v20.
I will admit that the maps are more accommodating to lower player sizes, but if they were any bigger, it'd be really annoying getting around.
And I think the fact that there's only 7 vehicles per teams works pretty well. If they were more vehicles, maps would become too crowded- instead, it's just filled up with more infantry, which are alot smaller than vehicles (and lag less).
TL;DR: It works well for any size matches, and was never intended for any specific size (just a threshold of anything between 4v4 to 20v20). Anything more than 20v20 is going into over the top territory.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438013 is a reply to message #438010] |
Sat, 16 October 2010 13:09 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| trooprm02 wrote on Sat, 16 October 2010 15:53 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 16 October 2010 13:00 |
No, it's optimized to work under the largest possible amount of players possible in a game.
|
That doesn't even make sense  The only thing the 40+ camp has going for itself are the servers hosted by Westwood during the beta, so its like 5-1 
Theres a reason we don't see 127 player servers even though their possible, (maybe not now because of the player count, but they never existed) because it would just be pure spam. Meanwhile, if anyone has played a lobby/larger clan war (2v2, 3v3 even but ideally 6v6) they will know exactly what im talking about...
|
It does make sense because the word "optimize" means to adjust something in such a way that it can achieve it's highest level of efficiency.
They wouldn't have made the game do something that it can't handle doing is basically what I'm saying.
[Updated on: Sat, 16 October 2010 13:11] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438018 is a reply to message #437951] |
Sat, 16 October 2010 14:16 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
They weren't just hosted by Westwood during the beta. They hosted servers for several months, maybe even a year after the release of the game. And all their servers were 40 players. If they didn't think their game was "designed for" 40 players, they would have run smaller servers.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438019 is a reply to message #438018] |
Sat, 16 October 2010 15:07 |
|
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Crimson wrote on Sat, 16 October 2010 16:16 |
They weren't just hosted by Westwood during the beta. They hosted servers for several months, maybe even a year after the release of the game. And all their servers were 40 players. If they didn't think their game was "designed for" 40 players, they would have run smaller servers.
|
To be fair, Westwood's uh... management, was rather shitty at that point. They barely knew what was going on in their own game most of the time (Obviously bad bugs like blue hell, pointsbug, etc).
Still, though, yeah, it never had a target size for its games, really.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438020 is a reply to message #437951] |
Sat, 16 October 2010 15:31 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
That's not really true. They were very much involved in the game and several of the devs and other Westwood staff continued to play after the retail release.
Any company developing games/programs for profit have to selectively fix bugs. Management must evaluate the time to fix the bug versus the financial impact. A 'showstopper bug' like the beacon-and-leave exploit were given the green light to fix because that bug would have killed the game years ago and they would have made a lot less money. I also helped Westwood develop and test a (a band-aid) fix for an exploit that was allowing people to crash servers fairly easily, which would have also been really bad for the longevity of the game. The points bug wasn't discovered by even the players at large until Westwood was already gone. To say management was "shitty" isn't necessarily true... it was more of budget problems than anything. The devs cared about the game and I'd sometimes trade emails with a couple of them late at night. (I'm in the same time zone as Las Vegas, at least half of the year)
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438062 is a reply to message #437951] |
Sun, 17 October 2010 19:39 |
 |
[NE]Fobby[GEN]
Messages: 1377
Registered: July 2004
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I'm pretty confident Renegade was designed both for large and small games. If it were exclusively for bigger servers, we'd probably have some larger maps as well. Battlefield games, for example, have gigantic maps, and are also designed for larger servers.
Renegade maps on the other hand still take small games into account, as it does not take more than two minutes to get across the field on any map. But whether it's 20v20 or simply 2v2, you don't need more than a couple chokepoints on the map, or a giant or tiny map. That's an element the stock maps perfected that I think some of the custom maps on W3D haven't gotten down perfectly, with some exceptions.
But Crimson is right, I do remember the official Westwood servers back in the demo days, and the playercounts were easily 20-40 throughout the whole day. I personally like more medium-sized games (14-24 players) but that's just a preference.
Unreal Tournament 3 Total Conversion to C&C: Renegade
Check out Renegade X Today!
Mod Wars Veteran
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438063 is a reply to message #437951] |
Sun, 17 October 2010 21:39 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Exactly. But there are a few points one could make to relate the reasons way maps are laid out the way they are.
Hardware limitations meant they had to limit the size of maps and what they put on them. Additionally, this also includes what could be put on them which would answer the question of why there are vehicle limits.
Now, because there are vehicle limits, only 7 people per side could own a vehicle by default. That left everyone else in the server to infantry classes and thus were forced to walk. That would explain why the maps are small - because the majority of people playing had to walk.
Looking at it that way, and including the fact that Westwood servers were for 40 players (20 per team which is well above the vehicle limits), it's fair to conclude that the maps were balanced for vehicle combat but were sized for infantry travel.
Meaning, 40 players is a nice middle ground for a Renegade match.
Less people in a server (12-16 players) result in heavy vehicle combat and slower battle pace (no immediate threats to your team).
More people (60-127 players) result in heavy infantry combat with an intense battle pace (every structure needs at least 1 or 2 people repairing at all times).
40 players would result in intense vehicle combat, chaotic infantry skirmishes, and a steady battle pace where there is always action happening around you.
So, while Renegade can be played at any player level, I believe that a 20vs20 is pretty much the core Renegade experience.
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438069 is a reply to message #437951] |
Sun, 17 October 2010 23:18 |
 |
Goztow
Messages: 9738
Registered: March 2005
Location: Belgium
Karma: 13
|
General (5 Stars)
Goztoe |
|
|
| Quote: |
Less people in a server (12-16 players) result in heavy vehicle combat and slower battle pace (no immediate threats to your team).
|
I don't think you ever played small Renegade games? :-S The less players, the more threat to your base because the harder it gets to keep all entrances cleared.
You can find me in The KOSs2 (TK2) discord while I'm playing. Feel free to come and say hi! TK2 discord
|
|
|
|
| Re: @Crimson [message #438077 is a reply to message #437951] |
Mon, 18 October 2010 06:34 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
What I mean is that if there are less people, but still more than 7, all the game's focus (or at least 80% of it) is devoted to vehicle combat.
If there is too many infantry units on your team, then the enemy will overrun you with their vehicles and vis versa.
There is usually, in these games large amounts of idle playing field behind the action that is currently taking place on the map.
Basically, 12-16 players is a much more laid back environment as opposed to there being 60 players or more.
What I mean by "no immenent threat" is that there is usually a lul period in which your base is not under attack. Sure there are the chance of small infantry rushes, but that's not a constant problem. On a 120 player server, the action is so tight, that you can't affort to leave your base unattended for even a moment because there is always something that needs your attention.
And also, I'm going to disagree with your statement. It is not hard to defend your base with less people. Especially if the teams are even. I used to play on a server that played 4 vs all (usually 16) and the 4 won the vast majority of the time. It wasn't about communication, because a number of times I played on the 4 and there was no teamspeak or anything. It's about knowing your team, how they play, and knowing your own strengths. If you know that, it's easy to merge tactics with your teammates, defend and win, even with the odds stacked 3:1 against you.
[Updated on: Mon, 18 October 2010 06:38] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 28 05:07:07 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01736 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
