OpenArena Message Boards

Please tell me how it do to enemycolors in green i dont know and i need...... please !!!!

Please give me here the link or the file or the explication for how it do to the enemycolors but please reply this post ....

HELP ME !!!

instead of spamming all over the place you could try practicing, it's really not hard to eye out every enemy in the game.
don't do drugs.

try downloading this and put it in baseoa

http://q3eu.com/site/modules.php?name=Downloads&op=getit&lid=435

if you connect to pure servers it wont load. you will need to set /model  grism (i think, or try sarge).. then cg_forcemodel 1

Only use the cheatskins if you are older than 80 and have hyperopia and cataracts and a tiny screen.

Poor skin visibility is in fact (ab)used to gain unfair advantage. I have talked to players who admitted using models like Orb in VQ3 not because they thought it was cool, but because they found that it became harder to hit them. Of course, the simple solution is to use a normal skin with good visibility for yourself and then force the same model on everybody else. This is not cheating as long as you use one of the standard skins. After all, you will look the same to your opponents as they to you.


I am not yet 80 (but over 60, alas) and do not have cataracts, but I also observed that some player models are quite difficult to see. BTW, I find your reference to age and physical disability quite distasteful.

I view hiding in shadows while using darker character skins such as Sergei/Red or Tony/Blue as an acceptable tactic and in my opinion, no more should be done to combat this than to use the forcemodels command.

I obect to the bright skins because of how unnecessarily conspicuous they make the enemy and used the age and disability (and tiny screen) reference to suggest how much of an advantage I consider using bright skins to be - that perhaps if one experienced all those factors at the same time, it may balance the advantages of bright skins. (This is most probably an exaggeration of the true benefits, but I feel that at least, bright skins are a blatant cheat).

I admit that I should have employed more tact, especially considering this is a public/global forum. I understand how my comment can be seen as distasteful, although personally, I would not be offended upon encountering similar remarks in reference to disadvantages I may or may not experience. Offence is a relative thing, and I put little thought into what I wrote.

Regardless, I apologise for offending you, Speaker and to everyone else who reads or has already read my comment (although I will leave it unedited, as it has already been said). I will use more consideration in future posts.

On some maps the colors are so dull, and the last monitor I had just happened to have a less bright lcd than I have now. It would be impossible to see anything. I'd probably have three choices..

1) to connect to servers which allow bright skins.
2) change half a dozen cvars or more to have next to no textures on a vertex config
3) just dont play oa at all..  i have never seen a single person on q3, whining about the use of bright skins there.

it seems quite a simple solution if you don't want to play people with bright skins.. just connect to pure servers, then practice more. Perhaps your opponent will have a dull lcd, and you will have an advantage with you higher gamma.

I never voiced an objection to bright skins in situations such as yours. My objection is towards those players who use them even with a perfectly good setup just to make it even easier to see the enemy (which I believe is what the majority of players use them for :(  Is this incorrect?). I guess some specific circumstances may justify the use of things such as bright skins, but I failed to mention this.

I don't need more practice 8)  I'm certainly not a n00b who cries "cheat!" when I get beaten, I just think that a player can develop enough skill on their own under normal conditions without taking a shortcut to improve their accuracy.

Ok is great, but only i see the enemys more more blue, and more more red :(....
You Know how it do to see the enemys green?

Thanks^_^.

I suppose that opinion may differ  depending on what gametype you play most. I'm used to TDM and  one of the most important things is you want to clearly see and hear the enemy team. With cpm models, it's the most fairest way to be sure that players you can see what your shooting at, and they can see you equally as clear. I'm more suprised that some people have a problem with it on oa because q3 has models like tankjr, which has very loud sounds - I can see an argument there.  Clans also have team colors, alot of teams on clanbase play with their clan team colors.

Most of the time I dont bother with bright skins, but if they are an option it's better than eye strain.  If someone is missing me, because they cant see me, and I miss them because I'm crap, then I would rather they use bright skins.. and I live with my crapness (or die even :D). Thats only fair

ps. cosmic, there are no pm skin options on baseoa servers. Be happy you can see the enemy models now :D

When settings can be tweaked without using custom game files to make your oa look like this:

(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3439/oamaxcontrastrm9.jpg)

I fail to see the argument against using bright skin pk3's chatoicsoldier. q3 (and so oa) isn't a stealth game and should be just about individual skill compared to that of your opponent, plus anyone can crank the gamma right up on their monitor and be able to see anyone hiding anyway, but it's not nice to play like that.

How ?!?!?! i have the file but now i see the enemys only more red and blue ..... nice but me.... need see the enemys greeen and need see in the model S.MARINE ........ me in the console type /cg_enemymodel S.MARINE and UKNOW ?!?!?!?!? and type /cg_enemycolors green and UKNOW ?!?!?!?!? WWWWWWWWWTTTTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFF

Man need see the enemys green and model S.MARINE or other model big but need see the enemys in colors and other models.

connect to the RN corkscrew server and enable download, there's little green men in there :D

Yes enable autodownload and connect to RN tourney server, it will download a special sarge skin that you can find in your models. Then enable forcemodel and it will be okay.

/cg_forcemodel is a special custom var available only in third party mods like CPMA, NoGhost, XBattle etc...
It was the same in quake 3 arena.

@GrosBedo:

You sure about this? It seems to work in plain OA (w/o any mod loaded). I used it when playing on the net on normal DM servers.

@chaoticsoldier:

It's OK, no problem. I have already cooled down and regret a bit making my previous remark. I believe the offense was unintentional.

I think GrosBedo meant to say.. cg_enemycolor

Guess you are right. I am not familiar with this 'cg_enemycolor' variable. Actually seems to be a good idea. The choice of red as a team color is unfortunate, considering that there are lots of red/brown wall textures in Q3A. Green would have been better.

Check your privat messages.


And relax ;)

How did u tweaked all these visual stuff? Especially the white model :-O

All in all, it's probably just a matter of ethics - in which case there is no right or wrong. I also object to players altering their config as you demonstrated, even considering the game allows for it. (Unless for some technical issue, like mentioned previously - because this would be to make the game playable).

Bright skins and these config changes are not how the game is intended to look. There's no point in creating textures or skins if players don't use them, even when their computer is fully capable of displaying them. OA was designed to appear a certain way (although there must be some leeway to allow for config variations due to hardware etc.) and my main objection is towards players who drastically modify this look in order to make the game easier to play, which I view as cheating.

The purpose of colored skins means players can be able to play to their potential without making drastic changes or remove detail from the game.

it's  great id software hadn't adopted a similar view of "it's not how it's supposed to look". There would be no color crosshairs, instagib, not be able to enjoy different game types. In fact, there would be no OA. I would be that noob on the ground looking up at the white clouds in dangercity with my white crosshair, looking up at the sky.. with red eyes.. trying to seek out chaoticsoldier with his perfectly selected skin which merges into the background. Na not really, the game would be dead within a few months once people got bored waiting for chaoticsoldier to come down :P

:D I don't attempt to use camouflage myself, but I do think it's an acceptable tactic.

I support coloured crosshairs and other improvements like that. I just think a wall should resemble a wall and not just be a featureless monochromatic surface, and that the models should look somewhat realistic instead of over-the-top bright fluorescent green. In fact, I don't mind players changing the HUD at all but I don't like major in-game graphics tweaks unless they are really warranted.

There are some players who prefer more realism over ease-of-use and then there are others who prefer the opposite, which in certain cases I think falls into the category of cheating.

But then what is cheating anyway? In terms of altering graphics in OA and Q3 and similar games, every player has a different view. There are so many different variables and situations and opinions on this issue, it's probably best just to let everyone do whatever they want. I'll still keep playing anyway.

This is one of those never-ending, unresolvable debates :)

I remember seeing some debates (more like rants) with more serious accusations of people cheating. When people defend themselves they usually show that they have some config that must have taken them months to get right. But obviously it would take alot to get used to.. and they used things like zoom often. Yes that makes them good players, but aided with a config that may also take skill to use properly

Noone could really agree on anything, but I think the best comment made was that any changes to a config which changes visuals or functionality to be different from someone elses then it could be considered cheating. Only when everyone is running the same hardware, config etc on a lan would be the only way to ensure people are playing an equal game. raz3r also pointed out that that people will just find other ways to have an advantage.. and the difference between someone being able to see the target maybe down do a players knowledge of cvars, which doesn't sound fair. So since you supported the green crosshairs, then I guess that makes you a cheat to if I'm using the default white against a beautiful skyline with white clouds. :P

yes definately an never-ending agree to disagree debate.. agreed :D

Behind cheating there is often a matter of standards.
And so, cheating consists in modifying these standards to get the edge over other players.
You could imagine a game where "cheating" i.e: getting every weapons at the start, being invulnerable, being able to see through walls, is a standard ; it could limit the interest in playing, but heh, some mods deal with some of these properties to propose new gameplays : see elimination game type, or freestyle defrag ... it could give something which hasn't much to do with the original game.
And I think most of the guys who optimize their games are also keen on sharing how they do that (if they don't want, geeks will do, but it's just to say I doubt satisfaction comes from winning against disfavored players). They "optimized" to sacrify some rules (aesthetics of the game) in favor of some other rules ("move, see target, shoot", which is basically what an FPS seems about), so every interested person could go for it, and it'd become a new standard (where cheating would be adding textures to walls :p ).
At first I wasn't in favor of "pro" versions of FPS, because I don't like communities to be isolated, but finally it does't seem to be a bad idea if it allows these different standards to be more easily respected.
Developpers, in particular opensource ones, shouldn't try to put barriers while designing the game. Freedom in opensource projects is not anecdotal, not only they shouldn't try to forbid variety (with opensource, they can't), but also they shouldn't fear it : what motivates a person who has a goal certainly also motivates others. Public of a game shouldn't be prisoners, that would mean they are the public of something else, can it be some lightened OA with half of the graphics thrown away, nevermind, there will always be a public for the full game if this full game makes sense to its author.
See cube/sauerbrauten, I don't know these games well, but they allow to modify the map while playing, don't they ? this is a crazy idea, you can't have it if you stick to some narrow vision of what a FPS is, but you can have it if you realize you can just follow your will, even if you risk to lose some public because you didn't fulfill their conservative expectations.

If the battlefield doesn't look the same for everyone, then it isn't fair, and that's cheating.

I use /cg_fov 120

So when someone else uses fov 90 im a cheater because my field of view is bigger ???

double post

It's all a prefernce, not a cheat.

e.g.
daler (very famous q3 player) used to use fov 70 making players bigger targets while cutting down his peripheral vision, you increase your peripheral vision while make players smaller targets.

Absolutely. But not as big a cheater as I am. I use cg_fov 130.


Excellent! I can't wait for the OA developers to hand to everyone of us the same graphics card so we can apply this principle to its ultimate consequences!


:D

Yes i though so too.
Im getting a bit tired of al that talk about changin preferencs being cheating!!!!

It seems only people who have a hand in developing this game think this way ???
Next time choose a different engine wich has no options for tweaking and enjoy modifying that :P

 

AND I SUPPOSE SEEIN INVISIBLE PLAYERS IS A PREFERENCE NOT A CHEAT TOO RIGHT?
(http://openarena.ws/shots/fun/intensity4.jpg)

Invisibility's a pretty n00by powerup anyway, you don't get it on competitive maps. Though unless you want to make the invisibility powerup stop the player model being drawn some people will naturally be able to see invisible players more easily than others anyway (just with monitor brightness etc).

On my ffa server alot of the good players avoid picking up the quad. I think this is along the same lines as what cacatoes is saying about standards. If i see the quad i head straight for it.. noone minds.. im shit.. it makes a better game for me and them :D

i would like to think decent people with standards out number the lamers by a significant majority. Ive seen a couple of servers which replaces map items for invisibility / flight etc.. but it's only a bit of a laugh. If anyone wants a competitive game they'll go somewhere else.

may be on to something that its a cheat after some point the tweaking.  this is what my config has changed to look like over the last 6?  months.  no vertex light though and still high quality but is still some advantage.  i'm not sure where to draw the line myself, 1280x1024 compared to 640x480 or 320x240 on an old card could be called an advantage because we get more accurate detail to use when aiming, 90fps vs 120fps (75 vsync with my vsync config) etc.  like 75fps allows you to jump nearly the height of 125fps with only -1 difference in height in units yet gives smooth play with vsync.  btw this is quite a big image as its a screenshot and my effective fov is always 90 unless zooming.  the fov 250 +zoom trick changes how the lightning beam looks making it easier for some to aim.  it becomes thinner the more the fov is set to.  something like 999999999 makes it nearly dissapear lol.  cg_errordecay still seems a worse cvar to me than the rest...

16x aa and af in driver

r_mapoverbrightbits 10
r_picmip 0
r_subdivisions 0
r_lodbias -2
r_texturemode GL_LINEAR_MIPMAP_LINEAR
cg_drawgun 1
cg_fov 250
cg_zoomfov 90
+zoom
weapon 6
+attack

http://jessicara.co.uk/src/img/jgw0wrt9u.jpg (http://jessicara.co.uk/src/img/jgw0wrt9u.jpg)

about the invisible people, i can't see them at all unless they shoot even with this config.

"Fov 200 is for wimps! noone escapes my view muhahaha!"

http://strlen.com/gfxengine/fisheyI JUST MENTIONED AN EVIL WAREZ CHEATFILLED REDISTRIBUTION OF QUAKE/compare.html

^^^ My link got mangled in the preview. That's too funny. :D

LOOKS LIKE SHIT

I'm still seriously considering cvar latching for the next release.

Hmm, in that case it's more about them minding to have a challenging game, at the benefit of everyone ; let's call it gentleness, even if gentleness should be a standard ;)

---

cg_fov has drawbacks, not every tweaking has, such as those pointed out by fromhell.

---

I'd rather say : you can push anything to its limit, it's not a cheat if the option becomes available (and used) by everyone (which is what I call a standard).

Cheating is just getting advantages from tweaks whereas other players don't get these same advantages.
But tweaking/"cheating" can also be a compensation, as we're not equal in terms of hardware and so on.

I consider one with 30 fps should go for some tweaks, to increase his fps ; that will often mean he'll get more visibility by lowering details.
I think people would care less about visibility if visibility wasn't technically linked to this fps issue. Getting a better visibility while increasing fps is a fortunate (or not) coincidence, but at their start, most games, if they are well designed, do not really need these visual tweaks.

I think fps expectations are the primary concern for players, this is one of the reason of why we stick to good old quake engine.
But OA's goal is not to satisfy this totally, otherwise it would have opted for a minimal style since the start.
It seems there is some public for a minimalist game based on Q3 engine, this is why there is this (http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?board=64.0) ;)

@fromhell:


Why should you care? It's not on your screen.


Quote from the Openarena Wiki:


This is a list of stuff we won't do and never will:

    * Change the gameplay. (as in, the physics, the weapons, anything that's the default gameplay)


IMO changing the Cvar mechanism is equivalent to changing the gameplay (at least for those people who use the particular Cvar in their config).

changing the gameplay != enforcing the quality of the gameplay. Oh and for the record, increasing overbrightbits doesn't help FPS issues.


...

You know, if putting in these cvar locks for the next version reduces the whines of desperation of visual advantage exploits (aka "pro player vision") then i'm all for it.   A loss? Not really. Besides, it's 2009, and if you seriously need to play on low detail on your serious gaming machine, then you have a problem. 10 years ago it would have been justified since the Rage Pro was a widespread OEM video chipset; and it certainly isn't the case now.

do you seriously believe people play this game because of the looks? think again. quake 3 looked better 10 years ago than openarena do now. if i wanted eyecandy i would go play games released the last 2-3 years and stick to them. and do you really think cvar locks would REDUCE the whining? i find that rather difficult to believe - it would only result in a new segregation of players - those running 0.8.1 and those running later "good-looking-forced-i'm-your-controlling-god-versions".

edit: more text.

Hehehehe I SO agree with u pulchr.

This game i dont play for the looks, they are ****************
Its the gamespeed that does it for me
Yes i got a 64MB graphics card so i tweak as much as i can for visibility

If you care so much how my game looks fromhell then donate me a good 512MB card and ill be your puppy :D

Like is mentioned before: Not all use the same hardware (for reasons that different for many) so cvars latching is just being *******

So currently this game has probably a 60/40 player base split between new players and those that have been playing the game regularaly, possibly in a clan. Most of the new players I doubt stick with the game, they play it for maybe a month or two then move on to some other game. The other 40% stick with the game and play it persistently, I bet most of them with altered cvars (cg_fov etc). By locking things like this you will most likley isolate yourself from the playerbase that keeps this game going and create yet another fork (0.71, 0.81, 0.9?) dividing the player base. This is not something you want, especialy with quake live on the horizon.

All I know is that if I set the screen to normal detail (i.e. leave the render related Cvars at default) I can hardly distinguish my opponents from the background. The more detail I have, the more difficult it becomes. A good example is UT2003 which for me was unplayable exactly because of this phenomenon. And I don't think that better gear would help me in solving this visibility problem. I have at present an Athlon XP64 dual core machine with an Nvidia 7300 GT video card. I use it at 1280x1024 resolution with 4xAA. With other settings at default my FPS almost never goes below 100. This should be more than sufficient for playing Quake 3. The aim of lowered details is not an increase in FPS.

I think that the root of the problem is the lack of 3D info in the rendered image. Consider how in real life we perceive different objects in 3D. First there is the shift of the object (relative to the background) in the left and right images that gives a sense of 'depth'. Also, when you look at an object standing at some distance in front of a background, the latter will be somewhat blurred because the point of focus is at the object. Both these 3D cues are missing from the images rendered by the Q3 engine. For this reason player models kind of 'blend' into the background unless they are very different in color or brightness. And the more the detail, the more difficult it is to see the outlines.

Setting a lower level of background detail provides half of the 3D cues (i.e. the amount of detail in the object and the background behind is now different and approximates what you see in real life). The problem is that slightly lowering the detail makes you dizzy because your eyes continuously try to focus on the background -- but of course they cannot because the background image is not sharp to begin with. (Try to play for a few minutes using low texture detail setting in a map that has lots of brick textures. You will see what I mean.) So the solution is setting 'r_picmip' to 4 or higher so that the textures look mostly homogeneous (and ugly, but who cares).

I found that setting 'r_picmip' to 4, selecting a nicely visible model (e.g. 'sergei' in OA, no bright skin), and setting 'g_forceModel' to 1 was entirely satisfactory. And I don't care if someone calls me a cheater for this. These are all standard Cvar settings available in the original game, anybody can use them. So where is the unfair advantage? Forcing some predefined settings, or limiting the range of settings of these Cvars is unwarranted and unacceptable IMO. (Not to mention that it is absolutely useless since anybody with a little experience in C coding can easily circumvent it by modifying the client.)

I upgraded my gfx card, my last one was 4 years old.

I believed I would be able to have the best of both worlds. Stable 125 fps with awesome detail.

Reality: yes the detail was awesome, much more detail than I needed or expected, but my fps was poo. I then changed the settings from quality --> performance. It was much more like my 4 year old graphics card, very little difference.

my only gain was a very stable fps (on most maps).

that will happen anyway. Like before if it keeps these whiny "serious" players that play unfairly (as seen in the screenshots) out then i'm all for it.

ROFL you suck then. Not my problem or OA's problem. I bet UT3 would be a NIGHTMARE to play for any of you lol.?!


So you're referring to them by its age now? OK, then my 9 year old graphics card can handle OA fine, 100+ tops, max detail.

well, i won't argue about whether ut3 is a nightmare or not - cause it is for several reasons... :D
the only good thing about that game is the power of the engine when it comes to creating stuff.

not really, unrealengine3 has some of the worst model pipelines i've ever seen since Source.

I think there's a point at which tweaking becomes unfair in competitive play, but I REALLY LIKE how OA looks with untextured walls.  It's reminiscent of the game Another World.  I'd hate for that look to be locked out.  I only ever play 3-4 player LAN games (and I haven't done that in years...), so I have no reason to use that look to cheat (and I probably suck too much for it to matter anyway); I just like the aesthetic.  That's one of the reasons the prospect of OA48 excites me.

oh, yeah - i'm sorry and all these titles and companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Unreal_Engine_3) that picked the engine are of course clueless?

i'll maintain my position that the engine is powerful.

well, they obviously couldn't try the engine beforehand prior to the expensive license. See Silicon Knight's ue3 fiasco

yeah, i'm sure there are examples of when things go wrong.
and i bet they didn't try the engine when the decided to use it for bioshock - another well known fiasco - oh, wait? it sold quite a lot of copies and got high remarks (http://www.metacritic.com/search/process?sort=relevance&termType=all&ts=bioshock&ty=3&x=0&y=0)

anyway - we're way off topic. but i still maintain my position. the engine IS powerful.

fromhell wrote:

Well, again we got the kind of reply we can expect from you. Suggestion:

1. Read my post carefully.

2. Think about it (I know it is difficult but you can at least try).

3. Marshall your objective arguments intended to utterly destroy my stupid assertions.

4. Post them in an informative, constructive reply.

If after performing steps 1 to 3 you still have nothing constructive to say, then don't say anything <-- now this is tactful and polite, I could have said it in an other way.

offtopic since post #3 i believe, the thread's nowhere good