!¿!¿!¿!¿!¿! ENEMYCOLORS ?!?!?!?!?!?

[RudyRailer]

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

[RudyRailer]

double post

[RAZ3R]

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

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.

[kernel panic]

I use /cg_fov 120

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

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

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

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!

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.

[RudyRailer]

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

It's all a prefernce, not a cheat.

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

 

[fromhell]

AND I SUPPOSE SEEIN INVISIBLE PLAYERS IS A PREFERENCE NOT A CHEAT TOO RIGHT?

[RAZ3R]

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).

[fufinha]

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

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.

[jessicaRA]

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

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

[Snickersnack]

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

"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.

[fromhell]

r_mapoverbrightbits 10

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

LOOKS LIKE SHIT

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

[Cacatoes]

On my ffa server alot of the good players avoid picking up the quad.

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.

---

may be on to something that its a cheat after some point the tweaking.

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

[Speaker]

@fromhell:

LOOKS LIKE SHIT

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

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

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).

[fromhell]

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

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

...

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.

[pulchr]

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.

[RudyRailer]

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

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

[RAZ3R]

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.

[Speaker]

... 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 ...

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.)

[fufinha]

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).

[fromhell]

it would only result in a new segregation of players

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.

The more detail I have, the more difficult it becomes.

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.?!

my 4 year old graphics card,

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.

[pulchr]

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

[fromhell]

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

[jute]

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.

[pulchr]

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

oh, yeah - i'm sorry and all these titles and companies that picked the engine are of course clueless?

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

[fromhell]

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