Home » Renegade Discussions » Mod Forum » C&C Tiberium Garden
|
|
|
Re: C&C Tiberium Garden [message #458462 is a reply to message #458442] |
Tue, 25 October 2011 13:45 |
|
Fabian
Messages: 821 Registered: April 2003 Location: Boston, MA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
danpaul88 wrote on Tue, 25 October 2011 08:11 | If you want to optimize performance merge all those power lines (and other identical or very similar objects) into a single mesh prior to exporting to w3d. Based on what saberhawk told me once that will reduce the number of gpu calls required to render a frame and thus improve performance.
|
The five utility poles and all the wiring are currently accomplished with a single draw call. We'll definitely be combining meshes where ever possible, within reason (w3d appears to not support meshes above a certain number of triangles, so combining every single last tree, for example, probably won't be possible)
grant89uk wrote on Tue, 25 October 2011 09:10 |
liquidv2 wrote on Tue, 18 October 2011 04:50 | does the fence block vehicles?
|
I would like to know this too. One major problem with renegade is the way in which everything is so static and unchangable. I know the engine is old and might not be the greatest but some level of destructiveness in the environment would be great. Because lets face it, tanks should be able to run over wooden fences lol..
|
These aren't currently placed in a map and there aren't any collision settings in place. Things that like the fence that look like they shouldn't block vehicles could be placed in areas that vehicles can't access in the first place to avoid the issue altogether.
[Updated on: Tue, 25 October 2011 13:48] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: C&C Tiberium Garden [message #458561 is a reply to message #457940] |
Thu, 27 October 2011 08:19 |
|
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605 Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
So after thinking on the idea of changing infantry up, here's some ideas I have (obviously up for discussion, but I figured I'd present something to contribute).
warning: contains TL;DR and spergin'
Toggle SpoilerFirst, let's pretend all the existing infantry are now inaccessible, and then need to be built back up from scratch (rather than tweaking each one, removing certain ones, etc). Of course, I'll refer to stock Renegade's infantry, but again, as a reference. I'm sure you're already taking this approach, but still.
-The basic class, the minigunner, should have a pretty basic rifle that can do roughly the damage the current laser rifle can do vs infantry, minus the fairly heavy anti-vehicle capability. This means they're consistently useful, but due to their health, aren't going to be a huge threat.
-The second class, rocket soldiers, should be basic (free) infantry. Their movement speed should be slower than minigunners, but they should still have access to homing rockets to deal with vehicle and aircraft threats. They wouldn't be able to huge amounts of damage (unless in groups), but would act as a sort of "go to" free counter to vehicles and aircraft.
Due to their slowness and lack of armor (more than minigunners but still not much), they'd not be a "hurrr everyone get this!1" unit. Just use the shotgunner model (thus replacing them).
-Engineers should remain basically as they are (unless you can find a way to have a weapon that does extra damage to MCT's without modifying the warhead text). Though, maybe an added bonus of being able to take over neutral structures (if ever put in)? It'd be neat to change up the gameplay.
-Flamethrowers should become a purchase unit, and have a boost. I'm thinking an increase in spread, along with a damage increase. I'm not sure if .mix files can use .w3d replacements, but I remember I once messed around with the flamethrower emitter and made the spread larger (and messed with other settings). It actually looked pretty cool- it also fit a hell of a lot more, because the current little exhaust fume gun looks like crap (which fit considering its shit damage).
Because you're probably going to give infantry infinite ammo, might I suggest removing the flamethrower's need to reload? Then, give it a secondary fire mode that shoots a little ball of fire (that has a slow rate of fire so you'd have to wait to use either firing mode).
Basically, make the flamethrower not suck (I haven't played Fjords so I dunno how you handled this, but I'd imagine you'd have to change it up at least a little if you plan on restructuring infantry).
-Grenadiers could... uh... actually, I dunno, but I'm positive you'd come up with a better solution than me anyway (if you haven't already), so yeah. If I recall, you gave them a "cluster" secondary fire, which is pretty neat. Though, they should also be purchase units, so they can actually be useful.
-Technicians/Hotwire can be the same as they are. Or, you can go the badass route, and make them able to place down those sentry guns that were initially planned for them. Of course, that would probably be a pain to implement, and would require some balancing. But damn, it'd be cool.
Also, you COULD switch the roles of Engineer and Technicians (which makes more sense), but that'd mean you'd have to find a replacement for Hotwire. Which, I dunno if you want to find/make a skin/model replacement just for that, so, not really necessary.
-Stealth Black Hands, I feel, could stay- but be given a different weapon. Maybe just the regular autorifle that minigunners would have? Either way, the idea of infantry combat being actually useful (unlike how it was in C&C95) means the approach to it should be treated differently. Given that, Nod should have expanded abilities in infantry combat... namely, stealth.
-Commandos should be given the regular sniper rifle (because FUCK ramjets), and a single remote C4 (as well as a timed C4). Not enough to take down a building single handedly, but enough to aid a base raid and thus be a threat to buildings (instead of just "hurp durp i snipe u"). GDI's should use Logan's model (because Logan is cooler), and Nod's should use the Black Hand Sniper model.
-Chem Troopers should basically be how they are now, but balanced to be up to par with the new flamethrower infantry. The weapon itself should be a more "concentrated" jet of chemicals, so it functions a bit different than the flamethrower (so, y'know, variation and all that rather than the chem trooper being "hurr same thing but better!"). It shouldn't necessarily be able to do more damage (it should be about the same, maybe a bit more) than the flamethrower, because they have the added bonus of being able to walk through tiberium.
--
Obviously, given all that, Nod would end up with two more infantry than GDI, but Nod already has more vehicles, so I don't think that's a huge issue. Besides, GDI gets the grenadier, who should be pretty badass.
I'm sure there's plenty of problems that would arise if all that were to be put in verbatim, but I don't expect that. However, one major thing I'd love to see emphasized is that every unit has its purpose- even the cheap or free ones- during pretty much every point of the game.
I'd also like to see infantry combat expanded a little beyond just "C&C95 in first/third person". This somewhat works with vehicles (although Humvees/Buggies are shitty), but infantry combat is changed pretty radically just by the shift from RTS to action/strategy. So I'd like the approach to be less "hey let's just have only the units C&C95 had", and more "hey let's base things off C&C95, then expand things a little to make sure they're useful and fun to play in first/third person".
Toggle SpoilerScrin 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!!!!!!!!!
|
[Updated on: Thu, 27 October 2011 08:25] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 28 06:27:39 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00986 seconds
|