Re: [hlds_linux] Players-in-the-sky bug
James Clark wrote: > Linear algebra. > http://www.anth.org.uk/NCT/images/Plancoor.gif Well, traditionally X is the horizontal axis, Y is the vertical axis, and Z the depth. Look at the Z-buffer in graphics -- it describes the coordinate of an object perpendicular to the user's screen (i.e., which objects can be viewed and which are "hidden" behind something else). No idea if Valve follows this tradition. jupe ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] WWCL or HLG alias/cvar block?
Eric (Deacon) wrote: > It's a pain in the butt for those of us who end up having our names > changed and net_graph set to a different value, etc, etc, because it > executes all your config files, including those you might have saved > for other people that play on your computer. So unless you want to > get pissy about people using net_graph 3 instead of net_graph 1 and > calling it "abusing cvars"... I don't think WWCL execs any and all .cfg files it happens to find in your game directory. That would be a mess if, for example, you had rcon.cfgs for a few servers. It only executes autoexec.cfg and config.cfg, which are executed by the client anyway. So the only way someone else's config is overriding yours is if you have an "exec" command at the end of your config to call it. And in that case it's being executed everytime you start CS anyway, regardless of WWCL. Or am I missing something? The name issue is the only annoyance I experience with WWCL, but I gladly sacrifice the two seconds it takes to type "name newname" in console to have a level playing field, config-wise. Perhaps you like being interp'd by AWPers; I don't. jupe P.S. The net_graph cvar isn't blocked in CAL's WWCL, which seems to be by far the most used on American servers. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Radar Bug
Eric (Deacon) wrote: > That's the first time anyone has ever reacted with such hostility and > venom to the concept of stopsound, and ancient command that is as > useful as it is simple. How you consider it a "cheat" is beyond me, > and the idea that "CAL forbids its use" is new to me. Perhaps the > next time you play as_oilrig or cs_office, you'll wonder to yourself > "how can anyone be so 'lame' as to want to stop this beautiful > sound?!" Guess you don't read the CAL forums much -- at the start of every season there is always a giant thread about whether it's legal or illegal. As far as being a cheat, think of it this way: except for the most unsophisticated players sound is as important as vision. By stopping ambient noise you increase your ability to hear, which is almost as unfair as not having walls. Consider this realistic scenario on de_prodigy: A CT is covering top of spawn, above the steps with an AWP, facing the zig-zag hall. The Ts are quietly pushing to CT spawn from the APC/vending machine room -- they will eventually run into the CT with the AWP. If you know prodigy, you know that the zig-zag hall is a very noisy area. Normally the loud ambient noise masks small, distant, but profoundly meaningful sounds: the scoping of an AWP (it makes a barely audible *click*), or a T dropping from the outside ledge. Now, let's say the CT hasn't messed with stopsound -- the constant whirring of the pipes masks quiet sounds, so he never hears one of the Ts drop. This T (we'll call him Eric ;o), however, has bound stopsound to his scoreboard key, which he uses repeatedly. As Eric quietly approaches the corner, he suddenly hears the unmistakable *click* of a zooming AWP. Eric now has knowledge which the legit CT does not -- a huge tactical advantage. And in this case, an advantage achieved through unfair means. There are countless other examples on every map with noise. The argument that stopsound is an HL command, available to all, and therefore not a cheat isn't valid. Stopsound has been deemed illegal by the premiere CS league in North America with good reason: ambient noise is as much a part of a map as are walls. It's likely that Valve added stopsound to deal with sound bugs (such as the cs_office garage), not as a leet method for players to hear better. And like other Valve-added commands that were abused (fakelag, etc.), it's time for this one to go. I know fixing this isn't headline material, such as improving VAC. But like the ex_ cvar "hacks" (which is being addressed), this is a real issue that affects serious play everyday. And it would take minimal time. The garage door bug in cs_office is quite annoying, indeed. But shouldn't the solution be to fix the map? I don't know about any sound bugs in oilrig (why would anyone play that ridiculous map, anyway?), but those should be fixed as well, I suppose. Oh, and if anyone *is* fixing maps, please fix the clipping on prodigy that allows you to see into the vending machine room. And the floating box in de_nuke's ramp room. And stop introducing only maps that look better but play worse. :) jupe ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] weapon restriction
From: "Jules (aka Buddha-Pest)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > in agreement... look at most top clan matches, it's all awp vs. awp. Not really. Granted, the AWP is a huge factor in match-play, and could possibly be considered the most important weapon in the game. But you very rarely see a top clan buy 4 or 5 AWPs in a round in a match. For one thing, the economics of the game usually preclude everyone from being able to afford one (there's a reason the AWP is so expensive), but even if the entire team were rich it doesn't make tactical sense to have 5 snipers -- it's much more effective to have several assault rifles supporting your sniper(s). The notable exception is on defense in de_aztec, which can be controlled totally by a team of five good snipers. I seem to remember old X3 using all AWPs as CTs on de_dust2 in a match once, but again, it's much more usual to see one or two snipers per side. > i think the awp in it's current rendition is an important part of the game. > it means you don't just run around crazy in open spaces, you have to respect > open terrain, long hallways, etc just like real teams/soldiers do. but i > think that in the hands of an awp expert the weapon becomes unbalancing. i > have a couple of regulars on my server who can work absolute magic with that > thing. it makes it no fun for the others. Totally agree it's an important part of the game, but I disagree with the logic of how it unbalances the game. Yes, an AWP in the hands of an expert will wreak havoc, but then again so will any weapon in the hands of an expert. The real issue is balance of skill, not balance of weapons: a CAL-i level player armed with a glock will own a server of casual players. On the other hand, if everyone on the server is on the same talent curve, then AWPs should make for much more interesting games (as long as there's room to improve, more on this later). You say the AWP "makes it no fun for the others", but that's placing a premium on the fun of the unskilled. This is your choice, of course. But remember that for skilled players, the fun comes in the perfection and execution of their skill. I guess some feel they have to sacrifice the fun of the skilled for the fun of the unskilled, and it seems to me that the servers which restrict the AWP are making that claim. But consider this: while some players may not care about improving at CS in any way, I think many (if not most) of your regs actually try to become better. With a little wise prodding, you may be surprised to find that your regs come to love the AWP. I speak from experience here. I had a strong community on my 16-player pub for two years, with about 200 regulars. Back then I wasn't aware of the beauty of competitive CS, so we ran a "free money", AWP-restricted server. In our minds the scout was more manly since it wasn't a one-kill weapon, and whenever newcomers would protest we'd call them "AWP pussies" and such. Then I started playing in and following the competitive CS scene, and realized how important the AWP is (and, equally as enlightening, how *difficult* the AWP is to use). Suddenly our ban on the AWP seemed silly; our ignorance of the economics of CS (since we always had $16,000) seemed naive. With much protest and many forum debates I took off the free money, enabled the AWP, and let the players taste a more "true" CS. After a while, some of the die-hard AWP haters where themselves becoming experts with the big green gun. People learned how to save money, which put a premium on winning (and thus encouraged teamplay). In short the average talent-level on the server grew, people were having more fun, and a wealth of (still competing) clans were born on our humble pub. CS is a multi-dimensional game, which is why I think it's the best FPS ever created. If you agree with that statement, why remove such an important dimension? The AWP is definitely the most misunderstood and maligned weapon in CS. Obviously there's something special to it. If you think that "specialness" is just because it's unbalanced, and easy, or wimpy, or any other AWP-hating term, I highly recommend you give it another look. Try using the AWP exclusively for a week -- even if you forbid it on your server, pub [under a different name if you wish ;)] on another server and go AWP crazy. I bet after that week's up you'll have a whole new appreciation for the weapon of kings. > i think a simple fix that causes the accuracy to go to hell the moment the > sniper moves would be the ideal way to nerf the awp down. require the > sniper to be still for 2-3 seconds before accuracy returns and the awp > becomes a completely different weapon. Oof. It's probably been nerfed the most of all the weapons. Remember the old days when you could shoot AWP in the air accurately, when you could quick-switch with pistol, when a leg-shot would kill? By further nerfing the weapons you are lowering the talent ceiling. This means it takes less time for a
Re: [hlds_linux] New beta security modules - August 28
From: "James Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Is there a reason that latency is different to ping? > > In game the latency (via tab) is usually double the ping (via netgraph). > > > eg Netgrap 3 will show your ping (!= latency you get from pressing tab) > > while you play. I don't believe network latency (ping) is shown in netgraph. There is one "variable" field that sometimes shows, which is measured in milliseconds (like latency), but I don't think it's ping. If you notice, on good connections (0 choke, 0 loss) with optimal client netcode settings, it approaches 0 and then disappears. This leads me to believe it represents some kind of in-game latency, as if it measures time to flush a buffer or time spent waiting for a buffer to fill. In other words, if your netgraph shows 20ms, that doesn't mean you have a network latency of 20ms to the server; seems more likely that the client's processing is "backed-up" by 20ms (or something to that effect). Anyone know what exactly that "disappearing" value represents? jupe ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
