chosen_ wrote:
I called it featues and bugs, antilag as feature, but it should be possible to fine some better stuff (maybe)
If you want something "better" you first have to coherently describe what you think is wrong, and what would be better. The vague and unsupported statement that "high pingers have an advantage" isn't sufficient.
ogrec wrote:other 3 cvars are client side, if you want to keep them as they are just do it.
Are you seriously suggesting that screen shake, knockback etc should be optional per client ? If they were client options, anyone who wanted to be able to compete would be forced to turn them off, even if they didn't like the overall impact on gameplay.
Configs could force them on, of course, but then you are back to fragmentation of the game.
ouroboro wrote:
The object of etpro is to fix bugs (duh), add clearly beneficial improvements (e.g. b_realhead), options for tweaking balance (class/weapon/spam customization) and make necessary gameplay changes (e.g. the 10-shot Garand). Your proposals are not necessary in order to make W:ET playable competitively. They are drastic, game-altering changes best suited to a lua mod. That's why lua was introduced and is continually improved to allow admins greater flexibility than what is available in etpro-proper.
I guess what options for tweaking and which necessary gameplay changes the game needs is solely down to pov. So obviously the best way to do things is either the OSP way with not changing anything besides fixing bugs and adding useful features (like stats, votes, etc.) or the CPMA way with playtesting and making gameplay changes mandatory for everyone.
ReyalP wrote:
Configs could force them on, of course, but then you are back to fragmentation of the game.
Something that already happened with the introduction of options like b_level_* and b_noskillupgrades.
And what about 5v5 - 6v6? 3rd time this comes argument comes up and now the tourney with the biggest prize purse wants to change.
Ragnar_40k wrote:
At first I would remove all player models. They only distract and cost FPS. Additonally hitboxes and model animation correlate badly. So I suggest to display the hitboxes instead of the player models. Red boxes for axis. Blue boxes for Allies.
Yeah, I actually like this one. The other option is to just get some Brightskins
ReyalP wrote:
Configs could force them on, of course, but then you are back to fragmentation of the game.
Something that already happened with the introduction of options like b_level_* and b_noskillupgrades.
I was responding to ogrecs suggestion that it wouldn't cause fragmentation because they would client options. This is clearly false.
IMHO, you need to strike a balance. Obviously, there is always room for tweaking gameplay, and testing such things requires they are optional (at least for a period of time). OTOH, just adding every option someone thinks is "cool" has significant negative effects (see shrub/etpub)
There is no need to debate whether this does/doesn't fit the "etpro mission". Past performance clearly indicates there isn't a fixed policy. This thread will be plenty long without debating imaginary rules of etpro development.
ReyalP wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that screen shake, knockback etc should be optional per client ? If they were client options, anyone who wanted to be able to compete would be forced to turn them off, even if they didn't like the overall impact on gameplay.
Configs could force them on, of course, but then you are back to fragmentation of the game.
Screenshakes client side, like blood flash, but leave default on. Knockback already is serverside only. And i corected myself before that recoil should be server side, so we have 3 cvars (screenshakes, damagemarkers and weaponshakes) that are client side. Why client side? ppl saying they want to have screenshakes instead of dmg markers can still keep them.
Actually, the only reason for having b_screenShakes as a client-side cvar is because many players see it as an advantage over no screen shakes in the sense of b_screenShakes 0.5 equating to half the shakes amplitudes. Personally, I don't think that would be required if we had b_damageMarkers. It only depends on the player from this point (whether they still prefer some impact shaking as an indicator).
When spread is disabled, the following balances should be implemented:
-Increases sten damage from 14 to 18
-Decreases FG42 damage from 15 to 12
-Decreases MG42 damage from 18 to 16
-Distance damage falloff affects rifles and MG42
ogrec wrote:
Screenshakes client side, like blood flash, but leave default on. Knockback already is serverside only. And i corected myself before that recoil should be server side, so we have 3 cvars (screenshakes, damagemarkers and weaponshakes) that are client side. Why client side? ppl saying they want to have screenshakes instead of dmg markers can still keep them.
You are still completely missing the point, or deliberately conflating the issues because you don't want to admit that your argument was bogus. Go back and read the f***ing posts.
edit:
Allowing some clients to turn off screenshakes changes the game for everyone. People who want to play the game as it currently exists will have to restrict the client option on their servers via cvar limits.
edit:
Also, just because something is implemented on one side doesn't mean it can't be controlled from the other.
ReyalP wrote:Allowing some clients to turn off screenshakes changes the game for everyone.
I think this is a role inversion. If the cvars are implemented and allowed in leagues' config, most players will have screenshakes off. And as I already stated above, the only reason for making b_screenShakes a client cvar is for the few players who still prefer impact shaking over no shaking.
Let it be analogous to clientside b_antilag cvar which let the few players who still prefer to use ETMain antilag to do so.
you guys honestly wont stop until it's two box shaped teams with glowing heads and brightskins fighting on a one coloured flat map with aimbots.
That said, if you really must carry on with this nonsense. Make it a server side cvar only. While I agree hitsounds, etc etc are a preference thing I really think this screenshake crap pushes with limits of preference verse altering the game dramatically for those that use it.
all or none.
Last edited by Syd on Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As you can already read, madscientist made those proposes and his more responsible on the new features.
About the antiwarp / antilag, I'm sorry for confusing you. I propose you ignore the request about it and go on the small b_simplteitems bug, I will have to test it on my own with different settings, players and connections before I can say more about antilag/antiwarp which fits your guidelines.
Thanks so far for listen up so far - I only need somehow a news about a coming release date, pm would help to make it.
Syd wrote:you guys honestly wont stop until it's two box shaped teams with glowing heads and brightskins fighting on a one coloured flat map with aimbots.
