Feedback Infantry - Lack of C4, lack of weapons.

[Suspense]

You guys should check out this thread over at Renegade X forums: https://renegade-x.com/forums/topic/76197-rebuilding-cnc-mode-or-ren-for-that-matter/?page=1

They talk about the whole C&C mode of Renegade, and a couple of guys have specifically mentioned A Path Beyond and Reborn:

"Differentiate infantry classes more with full loadouts, as opposed to just one weapon swap and a little health. The biggest issue I had with Reborn/A Path Beyond is how restricted infantry felt. The classes were maybe a little faster, or tougher, but aside from that most just had one weapon... which started feeling EXTREMELY boring to fire when you ran across something you couldn't fight at all. Varied? Yes. Entertaining for more than 10 minutes? No. I think RenX/OldRen did better at this, with at least throwing the timed C4 on units, and X adding in abilities. I'd definitely add more abilities/'Grenade types, and just things to keep characters from feeling like one-tricks. "

"Personally, I'm not into purchasable repair tools as repairing is a special ability and should be something only a special class could. I like if players are forced to work as a team and mix their group with different kinds of characters, not being all-rounders.I'm aware it would limit a player's usefulness in the field, but that's what teammates are for. It wouldn't be as boring as Red Alert Path Beyond and TS Reborn, since those games even restrict C4 and pistols to most classes and Renegade X has more features.  The idea is to make it more RTS-like but even in RTS basic infantry are only limited to rifles, rocket soldiers and engineer/infiltration classes would die easily to even basic infantry (but they are lucky enough to get a pistol, they are completely defenseless in RTS games, forcing you to rely on other combatants to escort them)."

I personally would like purchasable repair tools. But as you can see from the feedback from these die hard Renegade guys, its all a mixed bag. But I like what the first guy said - after 10 minutes it gets boring. Maybe thats why the server only has like 20 guys for a couple hours every couple a days a week. 20 guys is when any Renegade game gets fun.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Suspense

[Pushwall]

Wouldn't giving all infantry the exact same anti-building weapon (timed C4) provide the opposite effect to the intention of "make them more different" and "make them less boring"?

This engine really is not designed for weapon bloat. It's hard enough to use the Engineer right now, they have five weapons and making sure that you can scroll to the exact right one when needed (for example, using clearing charges against mines instead of accidentally throwing your anti-building C4) is awkward. This also why Tanya/Volkov, who used to have binoculars, no longer have them - because it's painful to accidentally switch to binoculars when you want to switch to your C4 as Tanya or switch to your alternate anti-unit option as Volkov. Why should we make this an even bigger issue than it already is?

On top of that, one of the things I see new players have trouble with is characters that have multiple weapons. It is very common to see newbies keep using Volkov's AT cannon against infantry, or keep using the LAW/RPG-7 against aircraft when the Redeye/Strela exist and can clearly be seen holstered on the soldier's back.

In the past I've considered giving most infantry a LAW/RPG with 1 ammo and nerfing the power of bullets vs tanks to compensate, for the purpose of making infantry against tanks look less silly and giving further incentive for the Supply Truck - but the weapon bloat, newbie-unfriendliness, and homogenization issues just complicate matters. It's still up for debate though; it's probably the only "add more weapons" thing that I'll ever consider, but another problem is that it would shake up the balance of a gameplay area that, as far as I can tell, is in a pretty good spot right now and doesn't need much change.

Oh, and if we're supposed to go whole hog giving every infantry a "full loadout" with like 2 or 3 unique weapons each, then we run into the issue of where do we get the weapon models? Most of the old team is long gone and everyone around here with modeling experience is too busy working on stuff for other projects and stuff that's more important than "extra weapons for units that already have a weapon and work just fine with what they have".

[Killing_You]

It's all about picking the right unit for facing enemies, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of both. Sure, if you run across a tank as a lowly Rifle Soldier, you probably won't have a good time, but as a Rocket Soldier? Different story. Having a loadout of 1 or 2 weapons each may seem boring, but to me it just makes it easier to grasp what they can do and where they should go. When the base is under attack and I have to make a snap decision of what I'm going to get to defend my base, I don't want to think in terms of loadouts.

I kind of agree with the purchasable repair tools, though. It is a bit annoying to spend 200+ credits on a unit to help defend, only to throw it away because the base needs to be repaired.

[VERTi60]

We used to have weapon crates on few maps where you could hoard weapons, but those crates' locations were known and easily exploitable by early rushes. Perhaps we could have more random crates on map with weapons/characters/units such as in AR (on APB infantry TDM maps weapon crates used to be always available b/c of the absence of vehicles though).

Giving multiple weapons for each class was always a bad idea for APB and Reborn, even when they had restricted ammo, as it killed diversity and make the game very repetitive, harder for new guys to learn and for vets it was simply less challenging.

 

[FRAYDO]

8 hours ago, Killing_You said:

if you run across a tank as a lowly Rifle Soldier, you probably won't have a good time

the regular guy rush would like a word with you

enough 5.56mm rounds and that tank is toast!

[thedisclaimitory]

I think if you were going to add weapons it would have to be in the cnc universe of that time period like for instance  the calico might have been introduced in late times of the war with the soviets I think maybe not I would have to look but 3 weapons per unit is enough but suspence is right they have been considering apb on renagade x that I have been playing a lot lately and the graphics are far from what apb is but apb can become superior in other ways but I agree with pushwall it does feel kinda silly to kill a t-80 heavy tank with a double barreled turret, but it also feels silly to have a rifle soldier hold a rocket launcher but I to have considered more weapons in the past but I feel as though as if it would be stupid but depending on how many weapons were used in the events in ra1 but for now we can only gues witch I don't really like. all in all I think we need to add some sort of modifications for tanks like mounted mechine guns on tanks or air support calls for units on the maps that have accses to yaks or something but I have mixed feeling about doing this for apb as well as it would change much but it might be call at the same time but again im not very sure of doing this is good at the same time

Edited June 26, 2018 by thedisclaimitory
wording

[Killing_You]

Punctuation is your friend.

[ganein14]

Can someone get us a TL;DR of what thedisclaimitory said?

[Killing_You]

37 minutes ago, ganein14 said:

Can someone get us a TL;DR of what thedisclaimitory said?

Let me try to fix his post... (Yellow is punctuation/capitalization/spelling corrections I've done.)

2 hours ago, thedisclaimitory said:

I think if you were going to add weapons, it would have to be in the C&C universe of that time period. Like, for instance, the calico might have been introduced in late times of the war with the Soviets, I think. Maybe not, I would have to look, but 3 weapons per unit is enough. But Suspense is right, they have been considering APB on Renegade X that I have been playing a lot lately, and the graphics are far from what APB is, but APB can become superior in other ways. But I agree with Pushwall; it does feel kinda silly to kill a t-80 heavy tank with a double barreled turret, but it also feels silly to have a rifle soldier hold a rocket launcher. But I, too, have considered more weapons in the past, but I feel as though as if it would be stupid, but depending on how many weapons were used in the events in RA1, but for now we can only guess, which I don't really like. All in all I think we need to add some sort of modifications for tanks, like mounted machine guns on tanks, or air support calls for units on the maps that have access to yaks or something, but I have mixed feeling about doing this for APB, as well as it would change much, but it might be cool(?) at the same time. But, again, I'm not very sure of doing this is good at the same time.

TL;DR seems to be, "It could be cool, but it might change the game too much to be good."

[OWA]

It's all very well saying that something is "boring", but if they can't say why it's "boring" other than the fact that certain Infantry match-ups vs Tanks are unfavourable for the Infantry then they may as well be stating the obvious; that's the way the game is inherently designed, with counters in mind.

It's not an unknown point that basic infantry don't do well against tanks. They didn't do well in Renegade, they still don't do well in Renegade X (even with C4) and they don't do well in other games in the FPS genre; for example, try taking on a tank in Battlefield using a class that isn't the Engineer and you're going to have a bad time.

I can see that the idea of "more variety = better" sounds good in theory, but that isn't always the case. More variety adds more complexity to the game, which in turn drives up the skill ceiling and makes the game harder to grasp for newer players. It's very important that when you are considering to add something to an established game ecosystem that you introduce features that have strong reasoning behind their inclusion.

On the subject of APB though, I think the main difference here is that APB isn't trying to be Renegade, whereas Renegade X IS. Obviously you're going to enjoy Renegade X more if you prefer Renegade, but the fact of the matter is the choices made in APB are made in order to give infantry clearly defined roles that have strengths and weaknesses, which makes team composition a LOT more important in rushes and such.

In Renegade X, there's not much consequence for picking a single type of infantry class and rolling with it, because:

Every infantry has C4, which means they can combat vehicles to a certain extent and attack structures effectively (this is true with Renegade as well).
Every infantry has the option to buy a repair gun, which really de-values the role of the Engineer classes.
Every infantry has the option to buy additional weapons, which conversely powers up Engineer classes and allows them to do fill in the gameplay roles of other classes (which, in-turn, de-values other classes).
It's almost as if there's an active discouragement in infantry unit diversity because the intention is to let all of the classes buy weapons to fill most of the gameplay roles, apart from more specialist units such as Snipers, the SBH, Anti-Tank specialists and the more expensive versions of them. There are no truly specialist infantry classes in RenX (like the Spy or Thief), who can do unique interesting gameplay things that place them outside of the arbitrary roles of: "Anti-Infantry", "Anti-Tank", "Generalist" or "Engineer". Every character class has a gun that is good at shooting a certain type of thing (which is inherited from Renegade) and the buy-able weapons blur the lines across those four basic class categories even more. Basically, if you make everyone special, then nobody is special.

I'm not sure what they mean when they say "Renegade X has more features". In terms of vehicles, APB has a LOT more. Granted Renegade X just introduced that commander view feature which seems cool, but I couldn't get it to work properly last time I played, so I can't form an opinion on it. It's very hard to say that one game has more features than another without establishing a baseline of what a feature is and then counting them up. Though both games have a good amount of features, I'd say.

tl;dr - Variety is the spice of life, but it's not always the answer.

Personally I think the reason that APB has fairly low player-counts is just a problem of exposure. There's not enough people talking about the game outside of the community to generate more interest. It's not a problem with the game itself, because it is really fun to play.

[Raptor29aa]

I feel the issue with newcomers isn’t learning the infantry. More like its patience with people like me who have played for years. Patience for when I steal your tank, patience when plow through you. Patience when I call you an idiot for buying a demolition truck when the base is under attack. And etc.

Five things that work in newcomers favor are the player count scaling for defenses, the friendly attitude of the staff, the friendliness of the forums where everyone’s opinion is respected, the teamwork aspect of rushes (easy to buy x and shoot at y), and finally the new server feature that picks levels based on player count.

(I’m not as good at strategy as silverlight, but I’ll get there. He uses newbies in tanks as accessories to awesomeness)

Edited June 27, 2018 by Raptor29aa

[Mojoman]

The real solution is the introduction of a poorly thought out ranked-matchmaking system.

And then add loot boxes.

EA would be proud.

[delta]

I feel like the weapons loadouts are probably fine. Sure, you got a guy who's kinda one-dimensional, but he's also usually pretty cheap and cost-effective to begin with. My rifle soldier isn't going to hurt that Mammoth Tank, but the supporting Shock Troopers are another story. Even if I only take out half his health before I die, I've lost zero credits and I preoccupied the enemy for maybe 20 seconds during which he wasn't shooting at something more valuable.

Also I don't recall the Renegade infantry classes being that much more versatile anyway, so eh.

[Raap]

Sorry for being late to this topic, but I just want to mention that, just because you can add something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

With that being said, something I wouldn't mind seeing added is a reinforced concept of "secondary weapons". Riflemen are equipped with a standard assault rifle as their primary weapon, but I always felt like sometimes having a secondary weapon, like some variation of a pistol, would help finish off an opponent since switching to a small weapon is faster than reloading. It would add a little more interaction in the standard infantry gameplay - but not a lot. Just enough to make the "gun play" slightly more modern since the concept of secondary weapons is very common nowadays.

The only problem of course is that you need a new secondary weapon model per faction; One intended as a "primary-type" weapon for classes that do not have traditional heavy primary weapons, and one that behaves differently, and slightly less powerful. So even if this were something Pushwall were to consider, there would still be an art bottleneck, at the moment.

Edit: Lastly, the inventory system W3D uses is a mess. My own plans for a new project hung on this as the system is completely in need of re-writing from scratch in order to be more versatile in use. Until that happens, classes that use a lot of different items or weapons are a challenge to master.

Edited July 14, 2018 by Raap

[Cat]

5 hours ago, Raap said:

The only problem of course is that you need a new secondary weapon model per faction; One intended as a "primary-type" weapon for classes that do not have traditional heavy primary weapons

Wouldn't that be the MP5 or something like it? Sounds good for characters to have secondary weapons but I think all should have the weakest pistol. I don't want a Medic or Technician to be more powerful than a Rifle Soldier that's run out of  primary ammo, they should be like equal in terms of firepower.

[Raap]

Support classes should always remain support-orientated, if you ask me.

I was mainly thinking of the odd cases like Allied Spies and Thieves, possibly Soviet infantry that currently have a bit of a niche focus, when it comes to the topic of a "stronger secondary" compared to the other classes. The Allies actually more or less got this concept half-way given that the silenced weapons are in some ways stronger than their regular variant.

Anyhow, worth mentioning again is that this is, in my opinion, the maximum number of items in the standard unit inventory (two items). Going beyond this is bloating the classes and raising the learning curve, but on the flip side of this, having just one non-switchable weapon can certainly be seen as boring. That's why I came to my conclusion of reinforcing the concept of secondary weapons.

Edited July 14, 2018 by Raap

[Raptor29aa]

I remember back when one time testing where they gave shock toppers pistols and every infantry unit got 5 grenades. (That was when grenades were horrible it was funny).

This idea pops up every other year for either a side arm or grenade or explosive (I do miss the crazy remote C4 things I used to do. Like on a stealth tank)

last time this topic came up I think the team gave every weapon a secondary (which confused newcomers and widened the gap between them and experienced players)

besides alternate weapons are only effective in ambush not during a fire fight. (Example  Volkov getting killed by not switching fast enough to finish off the tank’s driver which is why I usually pack a Captain when driving against kovs)

Edited July 14, 2018 by Raptor29aa