User panel stuff on forum
  94 posts on 4 pages  First page1234Last page
Server Talk
2010-12-15, 15:46
Administrator
1843 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
Renzo wrote:
Antilag isn't, the rules about it's usage is. Currently you allow (you are EQL staff last time I checked, right?) antilag, even recommend it.

I've already explained why we can't decide on whether it should be on or off, we can't be sure that serveradmins will follow the league rules, hence a lot of server might end up not being usable for league play.

Renzo wrote:
Antilag setting is still there, if it is required.

So you are saying that new league admins should get in contact with all server admins? How long did it take to get pangela fixed? 2-3 months? What about the servers where we don't even know who's admin? What about multiple leagues running at the same time, should each league have it's own servers then?

Renzo wrote:
Very simple reason, you should be able to figure out too. If you play with antilag enabled for a long enough time on some server, you will soon notice that you don't want to play it disabled on that same server, especially if you have 38ms ping there. Now if league won't allow antilag but it has been on otherwise, people using antilag will have some trouble since they might have gotten used to it. This is something to be avoided, so enabled for everyone, or then disabled.

I've gotten used to teamoverlay in mix/pracs, yet it's still off when we play league games... If leagues are your priority, you will try to play with the settings they use as often as possible.

Renzo wrote:
Every now and then when I'm playing 2on2, someone starts fighting over teamoverlay and sometimes it makes players actually leave the server.

Yeah and I quit the mix when they still refuse dm2 after 5xdm3, what is your point? Also, why is teamoverlay even an option, no league has ever allowed it, yet there is a toggle?! I'm guessing that it's because, it's a nice feature to have for those who wish to use it?
2010-12-15, 16:16
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
@ fog: I'm not going to reply to you, as it seems you are just trying to flame on this thread as you were doing on the "save the bigfoot" thread.


Zalon wrote:
So you are saying that new league admins should get in contact with all server admins? How long did it take to get pangela fixed? 2-3 months? What about the servers where we don't even know who's admin?

If the server admins are not reading leagues' homepages, then I guess you have to contact them if you want to have something changed on their server. If you don't know who is the admin of a particular server, you can always try using /motd or /serverinfo to get the contact info.


Zalon wrote:
What about multiple leagues running at the same time, should each league have it's own servers then?

Well that is a good point actually, in case leagues have different rules about antilag.


Zalon wrote:
Also, why is teamoverlay even an option, no league has ever allowed it, yet there is a toggle?! I'm guessing that it's because, it's a nice feature to have for those who wish to use it?

I don't have an answer to this question, maybe the one coding the feature decided to add it for a reason or another.
Servers: Troopers
2010-12-15, 16:26
Administrator
1843 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
Renzo wrote:
If the server admins are not reading leagues' homepages, then I guess you have to contact them if you want to have something changed on their server. If you don't know who is the admin of a particular server, you can always try using /motd or /serverinfo to get the contact info.

I got contact on all active server admins, yet some of them still take weeks to answer.

Renzo wrote:
Well that is a good point actually, in case leagues have different rules about antilag.

Another reason why a toggle in the mod would be better than a server setting.

Renzo wrote:
I don't have an answer to this question, maybe the one coding the feature decided to add it for a reason or another.

My point was that it had a toggle, even tho it was not allowed in leagues.
2010-12-15, 16:29
Administrator
1022 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Renzo wrote:
@ fog: I'm not going to reply to you, as it seems you are just trying to flame on this thread as you were doing on the "save the bigfoot" thread.

Not exactly. (It seems that as soon as someone points it out for you that you'r way of thinking isn't the only nor correct way, you just go for ignore or ban. But thats offtopic...)

So please reply to my post since I was serious.
2010-12-15, 16:51
Member
344 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
Since it's relevant for the discussion, here is a link to bigfoot's demo.
Quick recap: First, a 2ms is shafting another 2ms player. He gets 4 LG hits in before knockback is applied and the player getting shafted is pushed out of the beam. Second, a 302ms player is shafting a 2ms player. The 302ms player gets 7(!) LG hits in before knockback is applied and the 2ms player is pushed out of the beam.

Renzo wrote:
I also remember the problem bigfoot showed with the demo on povdmm4, but the problem was once again related to very high ping difference AND on an opponent not moving at all. Go find that thread elsewhere and see if there was some explanation of the issue.

Renzo wrote:
raz0 wrote:
Renzo wrote:
13ms vs 51ms is not.

Antilag off better here?

Nope, but 51ms player is still in the worse position due to knockback/etc lag effects

I don't think you can disregard the demo that easily. The only reason bigfoot used that high ping and a stationary player was to make the problem very clear. The problem is still there with lower ping and a moving enemy. In fact, in the case where a 26ms player is shafting a 13ms player, it's possible for the 26ms player to get 5 hits in before knockback is applied, while the converse is not the case. Hence, in your example of 13ms vs. 51ms, clearly the knockback advantage belongs to the 51ms player, _not_ the 13ms player (and that's in addition to the other advantages the 51ms player gets from antilag)?

Renzo wrote:
raz0 wrote:
Sounds to me like you're saying antilag has a quite narrow range of pings where it's acceptable, and is not the silver bullet that many of the people blindly accepting it think it is? 13ms vs. 51ms. is certainly not uncommon for non-league games since people won't bother with picking server based on closest ping difference there. Sounds like it's better off for non-league games at least?

As antilag doesn't fix movement/kickback problems, it's not a solution for games that have big ping difference, like 13ms vs 100ms. Also when it comes to leagues, their rules usually state that very similar ping should be used between the players. This makes usage of antilag good, since the ping differences are not that big and you shouldn't bump into a "bad situation".

I was specifically talking about non-league, which I hope you can agree constitute a non-trivial percentage of all games played. Since antilag is currently always on and non-toggable, non-league games should certainly also be considered.
2010-12-15, 16:52
Member
140 posts

Registered:
Nov 2006
Kalma wrote:
MatriX wrote:
Don't understand why people keep complicating things.

Votable options do complicate things. They lead to arguments on server. And it would be another toggle to mess up. Often matches are started with wrong teamoverlay or spawnmode setting.

So by your logic there should be no votable options, force settings is always better.

Now imagine if some League admin wanted fair games and decided everyone's min ping should be 50ms using the cl_delaypacket (i know its client side, just making a comparison). 13ms players would lift middle finger since they were being FORCED to use something they don't want.
The funny thing is people begging for a voteantilag to turn it OFF are actually high pingers and not 13ms.
The setting should be there simply because QW exists outside Tourneys/Leagues, so if i want to play a duel or 2on2 without antilag at least i can ask people if they allow me to do so and not being forced.
2010-12-15, 17:02
Member
140 posts

Registered:
Nov 2006
razO, people didn't care about that demo then, you think they will care now ?

That demo is one more reason why there should be a voteantilag.
2010-12-15, 17:04
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
raz0 wrote:
Hence, in your example of 13ms vs. 51ms, clearly the knockback advantage belongs to the 51ms player, _not_ the 13ms player (and that's in addition to the other advantages the 51ms player gets from antilag)?

No really. Go play some pov, dm4, or whatever with pings of 13ms and 51ms. Let your opponent have 13ms all the time. Come back and tell which ping felt worse to move, especially when you were being hit? The pushback you get when you have ping of 51ms or more makes your playing really bad, since your player feels like it's warping when you try to move.

MatriX wrote:
razO, people didn't care about that demo then, you think they will care now ?

They cared then and they care now. The only difference is that you should be able to point out the difference with pings that are applicaple, not 2ms vs 300ms. More thorough investigation should be made regarding this specific issue (with moving targets).
Servers: Troopers
2010-12-15, 17:17
Member
140 posts

Registered:
Nov 2006
If you allow me Renzo,
Of course 13ms will always feel better, that's not the point, why are you discussing a demo fact ?
Antilag helps obviously.
But you are and already admited that the pushback of antilag is awful, isn't that enough reason to allow people to at least have an option ?
2010-12-15, 17:20
Member
140 posts

Registered:
Nov 2006
Renzo wrote:
More thorough investigation should be made regarding this specific issue (with moving targets).

That's just it ! How long has passed since that demo was out ? Did you do any more thorough investigation or developers ?
2010-12-15, 17:33
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
MatriX wrote:
That's just it ! How long has it passed since that demo was out ? Did you do any more through investigation or developers ?

The only investigation we made was the aimbot assisted accuracy testing on different speeds and pings and bugfixed antilag vs old antilag vs no antilag. Ever since summer we haven't had the time to even touch MVDSV at all, that's why I said "should be made".

I still have that very accurate aimbot, so "tools" regarding testing the issue should be available. But it requires some free time, which is on the card at the moment.
Servers: Troopers
2010-12-15, 21:43
Member
357 posts

Registered:
Nov 2008
MatriX wrote:
Now imagine if some League admin wanted fair games and decided everyone's min ping should be 50ms using the cl_delaypacket (i know its client side, just making a comparison). 13ms players would lift middle finger since they were being FORCED to use something they don't want.
The funny thing is people begging for a voteantilag to turn it OFF are actually high pingers and not 13ms.
The setting should be there simply because QW exists outside Tourneys/Leagues, so if i want to play a duel or 2on2 without antilag at least i can ask people if they allow me to do so and not being forced.

It's really fun to see how do you ignore the truth and start discussing collateral stuff (Bigfoot's demo)
"the quieter you become, the more you are able to hear"
2010-12-15, 23:07
Member
405 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Renzo wrote:
Zalon wrote:
Also, why is teamoverlay even an option, no league has ever allowed it, yet there is a toggle?! I'm guessing that it's because, it's a nice feature to have for those who wish to use it?

I don't have an answer to this question, maybe the one coding the feature decided to add it for a reason or another.



Well, since ~95% of the KTX coding done by me (bragging detected) including this particular feature, then you simply point at me

2all:

But YES I did teamoverlay default specially, so ppl ACTUALY have chance to get used to it and probably say to admins - ALLOW IT. I like teamoverlay and think its a good feature which make QW a bit more playable and yes I know all retardic arguments against it, but I have own opinion and... power(oversized ego detected). --content removed by admin--

Regarding antilag toggle, I will NOT ALLOW it to be added to MY mod - KTX. Make up your fkn mind, is it good or bad, then turn it off/on in server.cfg. There is enough of settings-mess in KTX alredy, like teamoverlay, spawn model, overtime, dropping back pack, different qizmo settings and such, that is a damned mess. My opinion, there should be 1on1 2on2 4on4 and such commands ONLY, so you can't fuck up, ah, probably ready/break is required too :E Also, adding such toggle will result in community split and brainfucking before match start. Also, something tell me, that for last months nothing wrong was found in feature itself, zero demos which show how it terribly wrong and broken, except bigfoot stunt-demo, there rather enough of ppl who was against this feature and now like it. There was enough of time to make decision, leagues are played with antilag, not like there magically top 3 changed since then, I don't see HPW in the top, same clans, same players, nothing really changed, most of the fears was fears on the paper.

So, you can continue rant in this thread, but final decison will be done by server admins -- content removed by admin -- I would try to not reply in this thread anymore All Renzo fault
<3
2010-12-15, 23:39
Member
357 posts

Registered:
Nov 2008
qqshka: Opinion of some players:
We want to be able to turn it off because we enjoy non-official duels or tdm with our friends without antilag.
We don't care about leagues.
We don't care about people who don't like antilag.
We just want some duels with our foes without antilag.
We are not going to force people to play without antilag.
We don't want to play league without antilag.
Can't we just play with friend with old-style lg?
"the quieter you become, the more you are able to hear"
2010-12-16, 00:49
Member
114 posts

Registered:
Mar 2006
so when is #73 getting moderated?
one of the good guys! so please don't ban - jogi.netdome.biz
2010-12-16, 01:01
Administrator
1843 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
qqshka wrote:
adding such toggle will result in community split and brainfucking before match start.

Are you being serious? This is exactly what we will get unless antilag gets a toggle.

Server Admin A likes antilag, so he activates it on his servers
Server Admin B doesn't like antilag, so he deactivates it on his servers.

League admins will have to decide whether it should be on or off, whatever they decide... Some servers (maybe even most servers) will not be usable for league play. Is this what you want? You are arguing that you don't want a community split, but that is exactly what you are creating.

Even if we forget about leagues, you'll still have the same issue with casual games, where people can't play with their friends, because their friends don't want antilag, and there are no servers without antilag close by.

qqshka wrote:
Then it was banned by failadmins, so I added damn toggle. That how I recall it.

What will you do about antilag then, if admins ban it? It's not like you can take the feature back now that it's out there.

qqshka wrote:
Regarding antilag toggle, I will NOT ALLOW it to be added to MY mod - KTX. Make up your fkn mind, is it good or bad, then turn it off/on in server.cfg.

You are saying you don't want a community split, yet you are still arguing to make it happen.

qqshka wrote:
There is enough of settings-mess in KTX alredy, like teamoverlay, spawn model, overtime, dropping back pack, different qizmo settings and such, that is a damned mess. My opinion, there should be 1on1 2on2 4on4 and such commands ONLY, so you can't fuck up

If that was really your intent, then why isn't the defaults of those commands following the guidelines set by current leagues?

qqshka wrote:
So, you can continue rant in this thread, but final decison will be done by server admins or league failadmins

I've already given quite many arguments to why league admins can't make this decision atm, and I've also given quite many arguments to why server admins shouldn't decide this. Yet the only arguments you've given is, 1. You don't want to and 2. It will result in togglewars.

I seriously can't see how togglewars is worse than splitting up the community, or making half of the servers unusable for league play.

In my opinion, this is your mess... Either you fix it, or someone will fix it for you.
2010-12-16, 01:17
Member
405 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
jogihoogi wrote:
so when is #73 getting moderated?

I can remove it myself, if you wish, this save my time and brain cells.
<3
2010-12-16, 01:40
Member
405 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Zalon wrote:
In my opinion, this is your mess... Either you fix it, or someone will fix it for you.

pfff, had enough of that, bb.
<3
2010-12-16, 01:50
Member
140 posts

Registered:
Nov 2006
qqshka wrote:
pfff, had enough of that, bb.

Exactly... like talking to a brick...

bb, goodluck all...
2010-12-16, 07:52
Member
459 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
Zalon wrote:
Server Admin A likes antilag, so he activates it on his servers
Server Admin B doesn't like antilag, so he deactivates it on his servers.

You forgot Server Admin C that is actually reasonable, and uses most ports with what the majority want atm (sv_antilag 2), but one or two ports without for people that wish that.

I fail to see the how a toggling option would be less splitting for the community than a dedicated server port. In both cases it would involve that all participants in that game agree to play with antilag off, which would be the opposite of what the majority seems to like now days. The advantages with setting up dedicated ports for antilag OFF, is that you could meet the peoples demands / wishes right away without going through any kind of hassle with project developers, and avoid any possible "toggle war". And seriously, should it come to that league admins demand antilag ON or OFF in the future, it's not like all the servers that have the opposite setting is rendered useless. Change one number in the port config, and it's "usable" again.

If people demands are denied (through laws / dictatorship / whatever), they usually get what they want through other means, or quit using it all together. If that happens here, it would certainly be sad to lose one player that we otherwise could maybe have kept active by offering him antilag-free server right away. Who knows, maybe after playing vs various 51+ ms players, or playing on 51+ ms himself, he realize that antilag maybe isn't such a bad thing to even out things after all. :-)

*** edit: just a side note, just saw this in the EQLro rules: "The games shall be played on antilag-servers to make the ping difference matter less."
2010-12-16, 08:19
Member
1433 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
time! wrote:
We want to be able to turn it off because we enjoy non-official duels or tdm with our friends without antilag.
...
We are not going to force people to play without antilag.
...
Can't we just play with friend with old-style lg?

So I'm guessing what was suggested by Kalma early in this thread - "personal toggle for your own antilag only" - that would be quite enough to satisfy your needs? When you play with a friend you both agree you want to play without antilag, so you both disable it for yourself, everyone's happy, k?
2010-12-16, 08:19
Administrator
326 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Puuh, heated discussion. Every time I think this thread is going idle, I return only to see another 20 replies!

There are obviously still strong for/against groups out there and the issues with antilag has clearly not been addressed since the feature was introduced.
If as Renzo says, the antilag feature works best within certain scenarios (ie. 13 vs 25, 25 vs 51, 51 vs 63 etc.) and works bad on high ping difference like 13 vs 100, can't we come to some compromise? Can the server go in and enable/disable antilag feature based on interactions with players in relation to their pings? I guess that will be very hard, if you have a server with players that have ping range from 13 to 70 and everything in between. Antilag for 70ms player would be disabled when shooting at 13ms player but not at 51ms player. Sounds like a whole new set of problems .. or?

The dilemma is that we have grown very fond of antilag in lower ping ranges of 13-51. Now the kurwa pingers can compete on LG/SG stats against scandinavian players, without much/any complaints about knockback/movement drawbacks.

As soon as pings differ even higher it gets very *iffy*. When watching bigfoot's demo, it makes sense now that squeeze's shaft feels so much more powerful than it should. Much like his SNG did when antilag was covertly introduced from the start - reason being there was a bug affecting SNG for high ping players.

I'm really split in this issue, cause I think it's great the gap is minimized for 'kurwa' players in the 50ms range who play vs scandinavians (zero spring to mind). Perhaps we could hear some testimony's from him and others in same situation. How has it affected your game and ability to compete vs LPB's?

Perhaps you can make it like fakeshaft? As I belive it works like this: cl_fakeshaft .5 will simulate 50% ping decrease of what you have on shaft visualization. ie. if you have 50ms, your shaft will look like 25ms.

Is that an option for antilag? That it scales, thus compromising on side effects and advantages?
Perhaps combine that with some upper limit for antilag, That we can decide something that "with ping higher than 70 antilag will not be given further antilag effect.".

If we could come to some agreement the 3 groups between (those who are for, those against, and those who dont care really), we could implement on most servers right away, encourage future admins and others to do the same and have unified rules about this in all leagues.
ready!
2010-12-16, 09:27
Member
35 posts

Registered:
May 2009
Rikoll wrote:
The advantages with setting up dedicated ports for antilag OFF, is that you could meet the peoples demands / wishes right away without going through any kind of hassle with project developers, and avoid any possible "toggle war".

How is there going to even be any "toggle war" if the majority of players prefer using antilag? This entire unnecessary drama is over a few prewar arguments of which there will probably be just that, a few.
2010-12-16, 10:29
Member
35 posts

Registered:
May 2009
Oh right I forgot. Renzo is worried it will be disabled in leagues. Why would it be disabled in leagues? Pretty much everyone is using it already. If that did for some reason happen, surely players can complain to the league admins.
2010-12-16, 10:54
Member
459 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
Err, what?
2010-12-16, 10:59
Administrator
1022 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
qqshka wrote:
But YES I did teamoverlay default specially, so ppl ACTUALY have chance to get used to it and probably say to admins - ALLOW IT. I like teamoverlay and think its a good feature which make QW a bit more playable and yes I know all retardic arguments against it, but I have own opinion and... power(oversized ego detected). -- content removed by admin --

Now that's interesting...

1. Your opinion is that its good (teamoverlay)
2. You enforce it to others by making it default
3. When people complain you say its retarded arguments and you have the power to decide and an oversized ego.
4. We still don't want it, we wan't competitive 4on4 teamplay to be played without more help than mm2.
5. Now we are failadmins that didn't accept your and only your feature because we and the players didn't want it.

I don't think anyone in the scene wan't one(!) person deciding for them. Then I hear arguments like: "It's so hard to get the QW community to accept new stuff".
Take a moment and figure out why: the community are obviously happy the way it is.

I think your whole post nailed it.
2010-12-16, 11:03
Administrator
326 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
And all of the above is remedied by the fact that he actually did follow league admin and community's desire to create a toggle for this feature so it would comply with rules.

Now how about taking a look at my latest post, which I think is more important and could resolve all our problems =)
ready!
2010-12-16, 11:07
Administrator
1022 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
ParadokS wrote:
And all of the above is remedied by the fact that he actually did follow league admin and community's desire to create a toggle for this feature so it would comply with rules.

Now how about taking a look at my latest post, which I think is more important and could resolve all our problems =)

Now this is for antilag:
qqshka wrote:
Regarding antilag toggle, I will NOT ALLOW it to be added to MY mod - KTX.
2010-12-16, 11:16
Administrator
326 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Who cares what he writes? If we can agree on a compromise it will be a NON-ISSUE, and if everything ends up with a toggle, which I don't believe it will, maybe he will change his mind, or we can release some independent KTX version with a toggle?
ready!
2010-12-16, 12:07
Administrator
1843 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
Rikoll wrote:
You forgot Server Admin C that is actually reasonable, and uses most ports with what the majority want atm (sv_antilag 2), but one or two ports without for people that wish that.

Server Admin C is actually A+B, because he will have unusable servers (in regards to league play) no matter what leagues decide upon.

Rikoll wrote:
I fail to see the how a toggling option would be less splitting for the community than a dedicated server port. In both cases it would involve that all participants in that game agree to play with antilag off, which would be the opposite of what the majority seems to like now days. The advantages with setting up dedicated ports for antilag OFF, is that you could meet the peoples demands / wishes right away without going through any kind of hassle with project developers, and avoid any possible "toggle war".

And I fail to explain it... or so it seems at least. However, you are talking about a short-term fix that can be applied now, the toggle I (and others) propose is about a way to handle it in the future. We already had antilag free ports on both wargamez and foppa. Regarding the hassle with project developers, you can't really get around that when they don't want to follow community wishes.

Rikoll wrote:
And seriously, should it come to that league admins demand antilag ON or OFF in the future, it's not like all the servers that have the opposite setting is rendered useless. Change one number in the port config, and it's "usable" again.

It's easy to just say "Change one number in the port config, and it's "usable" again", but we needed to change 1 number in the pangela configs to get demos working again, yet that took 3 months. We needed geeky servers back online, yet that took a whole season. I salute you if you can just change server settings on servers where admins aren't active members of the scene anymore.

Now I don't really got the point of you post, are you opposed to the idea of a toggle? Or do you just want something that can be applied now? Because if it's the latter, then good luck getting Renzo to set different settings on his servers. He already said that he wanted it either on or off.

-------
Oh, and ParadokS you should go make your own topic if you want to discuss changes to antilag.
  94 posts on 4 pages  First page1234Last page