User panel stuff on forum
  94 posts on 4 pages  First page1234Last page
Server Talk
2010-12-11, 19:28
Member
35 posts

Registered:
May 2009
Not trying to start another big thread, just not everyone likes antilag, especially me as i find it really sucks with pl. If not already possible would be nice to switch on and off from prewar.
2010-12-11, 20:16
Member
342 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
+1
2010-12-11, 20:23
Member
100 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
+1
2010-12-11, 21:29
Member
24 posts

Registered:
Dec 2007
-1
2010-12-12, 12:12
Member
485 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
You mean so you can turn it off for yourself only?
2010-12-12, 16:46
Member
100 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
who would dare to ask such a thing...i suggest to set it default on the servers wich has already got, but when 2 antilaghater (like myself, and Buffy, and at least 10 others) wanna play their oldskool crap game, then pls give us a choice.
2010-12-12, 17:15
Member
114 posts

Registered:
Mar 2006
+1
one of the good guys! so please don't ban - jogi.netdome.biz
2010-12-12, 20:20
Member
458 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
-1

set up some dedicated far up ports without antilag instead. like 27509 or smth.
2010-12-12, 20:23
Member
342 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
Rikoll wrote:
set up some dedicated far up ports without antilag instead. like 27509 or smth.

That'll be a good solution too. Just give us the option.
2010-12-12, 22:23
Member
35 posts

Registered:
May 2009
Kalma wrote:
You mean so you can turn it off for yourself only?

Well, sure that would be fine. I don't want to stop anyone else from using it.
2010-12-13, 00:18
Member
355 posts

Registered:
Jun 2006
So... cl_antilag 0?
2010-12-13, 01:22
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
raz0 wrote:
Rikoll wrote:
set up some dedicated far up ports without antilag instead. like 27509 or smth.

That'll be a good solution too. Just give us the option.

That would be a HORRIBLE solution. Since this feature is already so widespread and accepted by a lot you want to split up and without a doubt have arguments on server choice?

Having option so each player for himself, can toggle antilag off would be preferable for sure.
ready!
2010-12-13, 08:31
Administrator
1021 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
"each player choosing antilag on/off for himself..". Wont do much good when you are still affected by other ppl that chose to have it on...

"widespread and accepted", well how were the terms? It was enforced by some misbehaving admin, and only thing we could do was to like the situation. Atleast me and a lot more did _not_.
2010-12-13, 11:12
Member
342 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
ParadokS wrote:
you want to split up and without a doubt have arguments on server choice?

Let the league admins decide whether antilag should be on or off (as they should). Problem solved.
2010-12-13, 17:09
Member
271 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
I for one still won't recommend antilag without minping.
moo
2010-12-14, 00:22
Member
100 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
Say something pls is the bug fixed? All kind of answer is better than this silence....
2010-12-14, 00:27
Administrator
1021 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
miku83 wrote:
Say something pls is the bug fixed? All kind of answer is better than this silence....

What bug?
2010-12-14, 10:01
News Writer
1267 posts

Registered:
Jun 2007
The whole feature is a bug. Feels like those warping hpws with 70-120 ping have aimbot while you can barely see them...
Versus normal nmys (12-50ms) i have around 40% sg over a whole game (4on4) and win most sg-sg fights (sg-sg i probably have around 50-60% sg)
But versus hpws its impossible to win since they almost never miss and they are harder to hit because they warp around...
Chosen
2010-12-14, 13:16
Administrator
1021 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Haha, stupid me .

I agree otherwise, give us back quake the way its supposed to be.
2010-12-14, 14:19
Member
100 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
fog wrote:
What bug?

Well, Bigfoot uploaded a demo file on qw.nu, what i cant find anymore. it was on povdmm4 and he shot a non moving enemy with low ping, and then with high ping. With high ping, he did 2x or 3x damage...LOL. Even Renzo admited he didnt know of this bug. I hope u understand, cos my english is far from perfect XD
2010-12-14, 15:00
Member
271 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
With knockback being applied to you in the past, its harder to dodge lightning beams, yes. But your victim has to actually be trying to dodge it to see any difference. This issue is still present, hence reply #15.

But I'm not sure if that's the demo you describe.
Tbh, I only remember demos of qqshka's original easily-exploitable implementation, which was basically an aimbot in an alias. That particular issue is no longer present, but the other issues are fundamental to what antilag actually is - knockback+antilag sucks.
moo
2010-12-14, 19:05
Member
1433 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
There are hundreds of servers with different settings and different admins. This thread does not look like somebody is requesting something specific from a specific person. (It looks more like typical general QW whine). Also, by following some of the logic above, I suppose some of you already asked EQL admins to change the antilag rule? (Which at the moment says "we recommend antilag" So, what did they say?
2010-12-14, 21:59
Administrator
1841 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
League admins can't really decide on something that players can't change. If the EQL rules says that antilag is required, there is a bunch of servers that can't be used, and if it says that it should be disabled, there will still be a bunch of servers that can't be used.

For league admins to make a rule instead of a recommendation, it needs to be something that the users can set themselves. Asking league admins at this point doesn't really make sense, while asking deurk to implement a toggle in KTX does.

Can't say if angryfish or any of the +1'ers have done that tho.
2010-12-14, 22:18
Member
357 posts

Registered:
Nov 2008
Remember that not everyone plays on the league.
And now my opinion (again) let us turn it off if EVERY player in the server (except spectators) agrees to turn it off. Problem solved.
"the quieter you become, the more you are able to hear"
2010-12-14, 22:40
Administrator
1841 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
time! wrote:
Remember that not everyone plays on the league.

I was replying to JohnNy_cz

JohnNy_cz wrote:
I suppose some of you already asked EQL admins to change the antilag rule? (Which at the moment says "we recommend antilag" So, what did they say?

time! wrote:
And now my opinion (again) let us turn it off if EVERY player in the server (except spectators) agrees to turn it off. Problem solved.

Sorry, but how does proposing something like that solve anything? You still need a command to toggle it.
2010-12-14, 22:49
Member
357 posts

Registered:
Nov 2008
A toggle means that every player can turn it on or off. What i'm suggesting is a voting system that only turns it on if every player agrees.
"the quieter you become, the more you are able to hear"
2010-12-14, 22:55
Administrator
1841 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
So like we vote maps, nospecs etc?
2010-12-14, 23:29
Member
100 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
it would be cool
2010-12-15, 03:40
Member
35 posts

Registered:
May 2009
JohnNy_cz wrote:
There are hundreds of servers with different settings and different admins. This thread does not look like somebody is requesting something specific from a specific person. (It looks more like typical general QW whine). Also, by following some of the logic above, I suppose some of you already asked EQL admins to change the antilag rule? (Which at the moment says "we recommend antilag" So, what did they say?

Well, I posted here not to whine but since the antilag drama calmed down a bit I thought we could have some kind of reasonable discussion.

I don't really see disabling it on one port as a good idea; then lots of server admins have to be needlessly hassled, not enough ports and so on. A voting system seems a little over the top to me too and could possibly provoke arguments.

If we had cl_antilag (preferably as a server command you can execute from any quakeworld client) each player can decide for him/herself whether they want to use antilag or not. If they decide not to use it and therefore have some kind of disadvantage, then that is their own fault. This way, it doesn't split the community in two, no arguments should come of it since it is clear: it is your choice whether to use antilag. If you feel like it's unfair, then don't play. After all, that's how it is already right? Use antilag or don't play.

Anyway, yes this thread was obviously directed somewhat at Ktx developers, I hoped perhaps they'd see this as a good opportunity to keep antilag and come to some kind of compromise.
2010-12-15, 07:57
Member
342 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
angryfish wrote:
then lots of server admins have to be needlessly hassled

They would have to be hassled for _any_ change anyway.

angryfish wrote:
not enough ports and so on

If the server admins simply create a _new_ antilagless port, we won't have that problem. A port that is unused shouldn't use much CPU anyway.
  94 posts on 4 pages  First page1234Last page