quakeworld out this weekend??
Beavman
Check out this page.. it says quakeword will be ready this weekend.. i
sure hope so..
http://www2.softwarechoice.com/revco/
--
Tommy Humphries
E-Mail---->tom...@flash.net
Homepage---->http://www.flash.net/~tommyh/
Stephen Moore
If you read it again, you'll see that it doesn't say that at all.
It implies that it might be out this weeknd, but it definitely does
not say it'll be out this weekend.
I reckon at least another week...possibly two...
Don't quote me on that tho...
Steve.
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Steve Moore - aka Granny Killer |
| Punishment Squad Quake Clan |
| mailto:*st...@shpcorp.dnet.co.uk* |
| WWW: http://www.niweb.com/dnet/dnetKhbw |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Remove *'s before replying by email!! |
| SEX MURDER ART |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
The Driver
On Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:23:34 -0600, Beavman <tom...@flash.net> wrote:
>Check out this page.. it says quakeword will be ready this weekend.. i
>sure hope so..
>
>http://www2.softwarechoice.com/revco/
>--
It now says it'll be another two weeks as some bugs have surfaced.
Humph, figures! "When it's ready," seems to be the appropriate release
date, although the RevCo guys assure us that this is soooooon...
They are doing their best :)
---------------------------------------------------- _. ._
Geoff Peagram | e-mail: dri...@rogerswave.ca .!' '!.
a.k.a. The Driver | Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA .!' '!.
---------------------------------------------------- :!. '!' .!:
:!:..!..:!:
Quake ANSI Art courtesy of Tristan Gilder ----> '!!!!!!!'
!
-- Many thanks to the Rogers Cable guys :-) -- :!: -TG
Victor Laking
dri...@rogerswave.ca (The Driver) writes:
>It now says it'll be another two weeks as some bugs have surfaced.
>Humph, figures! "When it's ready," seems to be the appropriate release
>date, although the RevCo guys assure us that this is soooooon...
I prefer to wait a while longer and get a working product than to get a
game like Duke 3D only to find that the network option is buggy (sync and
packet size errors) with the authors saying that they couldn't be bothered
with fixing it.
I am not sure how much of QuakeWorld will be of use to me as it seems
almost entirely dedicated to playing Quake as a clan member over the
Internet. I mostly play Quake on a LAN with a group of friends. Still, I
would like to see QuakeWorld make it out as it apparently has some stuff
that will speed up modem play which is one of the main complaints I hear
around here.
Shaitan
v...@MBnet.MB.CA (Victor Laking) wrote:
>dri...@rogerswave.ca (The Driver) writes:
Personaly I'm skeptical. Anything that helps us modem guys helps the
ethernet guys more. At this point I've given up playing Quake over the
internet. Its too slow and I can't stand losing based on technology.
This isn't to say I gave up Quake! I play.... at lan partys. And at
this new VR cafe that opened in my area. Like you pointed out, Duke's
code is a little buggy, but its damn better than Quakes. I really have
a hard time believing that the self proclaimed "King of DM games"
sucks so badly over a modem. You'd be suprised how many people
haven't bought it for that reason.
Before you flame me for not singing Quakes praises, ask yourself if
you really think its cool that without a lan quake is unplayable.
Comes the light
Comes the flame
Comes the child who is
Come the night
Come the death
Down the path out of
Barry R Smith
On 10 Dec 1996, Victor Laking wrote:
> dri...@rogerswave.ca (The Driver) writes:
>
> >It now says it'll be another two weeks as some bugs have surfaced.
> >Humph, figures! "When it's ready," seems to be the appropriate release
> >date, although the RevCo guys assure us that this is soooooon...
>
> I am not sure how much of QuakeWorld will be of use to me as it seems
> almost entirely dedicated to playing Quake as a clan member over the
> Internet. I mostly play Quake on a LAN with a group of friends. Still, I
> would like to see QuakeWorld make it out as it apparently has some stuff
> that will speed up modem play which is one of the main complaints I hear
> around here.
>
Also, it's win95-only, isn't it?!? (I read in bluesnews). Not much use
for DOSsers out there. I guess most people use win95, but there are still
lots that don't (-->me). I'm not interested in the modem stuff :> but
some of the other features sound quite cool. And, yes, I'm into the LAN
stuff more now, and Reaperbots are *fantastic* too :)
baz.
The Driver
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:56:35 GMT, ro...@lucifuge.com (Shaitan ) wrote:
>Before you flame me for not singing Quakes praises, ask yourself if
>you really think its cool that without a lan quake is unplayable.
>
Well, I certainly don't intend to flame you for expressing a valid
opinion. However, Quake *is* playable over the internet. It takes
perhaps a little too much work, but it is workable. I get excellent
games over the internet now with my cable modem, and I also had good
games before with my 28.8 dial-up connection. This really is Quake's
strong suit.
There are many factors to consider re internet Quake that are beyond
the control of the game programmer. Just one of which is the
overloaded internet routers that we must all contend with. Have you
used QSpy to find the best servers for you on the net? It is of
primary importance that the server you connect to is as close to you
on the network as possible.
As far as direct modem to modem play is concerned, you are probably
right. I don't play this way at all, though, so I can't really comment
fairly.
Apocalypse
I've got to set the record straight about the LAN support for these
games.
Duke is in no way more stable than or faster than Quake across a LAN.
Duke has serious trouble with more than six people (although they claim
eight is feasible). I haven't been able to push quake to sixteen (only
because we didnt have that many pentiums available). We did run twelve
people on a dedicated server. The server ran on the old trusty DX4-100
and the games were flawless! The machines were a mix of Win95 and Dos
loads and still ran great.
Of course, you will have huge firefights that slam the network with
traffic. The way the game handles that traffic is what defines it's
"net-worthiness". Yes, Quake will occasionally get sluggish during a
huge firefight, but it recovers quickly. In Duke, a huge firefight (6
people is "huge" for duke) will knock the game out of synch. At this
point, Duke starts a downward spiral and eventually no one can move.
Darren J. Peloso
Hi Geoff,
Just waiting for Rogers Wave right now here in Vancouver. Expected in
about a month for the service to be available in our area - when it debued
a couple of months ago, the service line ended a mere 4 blocks from where I
live. I could've cried :( How are the pings with the Cable modem? Are
they as good as ISDN? From what I understand, cable is still analoge, like
phone lines, so is any latency added by the cable modem in the digital to
analoge conversion like on a regular modem? Greater? Less? Or am I way
out to lunch here and the wave is digital all the way, the the cable
'modem' just a mini-router? Questions, questions, questions.
How much better is play over the wave than your ol' 28.8? A LOT better, or
is ISDN still the best choice for LPB's?
See Ya
Darren aka Peldar in Quakeland
"may the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house"
> I get excellent
> games over the internet now with my cable modem, and I also had good
> games before with my 28.8 dial-up connection. This really is Quake's
> strong suit.
>
Bertal
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Apocalypse wrote:
> I've got to set the record straight about the LAN support for these
> games.
>
> Duke is in no way more stable than or faster than Quake across a LAN.
> Duke has serious trouble with more than six people (although they claim
> eight is feasible). I haven't been able to push quake to sixteen (only
> because we didnt have that many pentiums available). We did run twelve
> people on a dedicated server. The server ran on the old trusty DX4-100
> and the games were flawless! The machines were a mix of Win95 and Dos
> loads and still ran great.
I can definitely back this statement up from my experiences. Duke was
unbelievably choppy with just 2 people (one PPro 200 & my P100), it was
barely playable it was so choppy. I run it at 640x480 w/o netplay and it
runs fine, but networked it wasn't worth the bother. Some guy on my
campus sometimes sets up his computer as a server (Dragonfire) and we
usually get around 14 people on at once, and it runs very smoothly. I've
seen it with the full 16 and it still worked great. Only times it seemed
to break down is when Quake is sending tons of packets as three people
frag each other in a small room over the water (or other similar
situations).
> Of course, you will have huge firefights that slam the network with
> traffic. The way the game handles that traffic is what defines it's
> "net-worthiness". Yes, Quake will occasionally get sluggish during a
> huge firefight, but it recovers quickly. In Duke, a huge firefight (6
> people is "huge" for duke) will knock the game out of synch. At this
> point, Duke starts a downward spiral and eventually no one can move.
Quake's system of multiplayer is clearly better in allowing "pure"
servers and a TCP/IP stack. Having to know the exact IPX address is a
pain, and Kali costs money (especially for poor college students although
Kahn I don't know much about). Besides, Quake's engine is just that much
better anyways. ID didn't "cheat" on the 3d like the build engine does.
All in all, Quake is the superior choice for LAN multiplayer at the moment.
-Albert
Ismail Saeed
Adnan Zafar wrote:
>
> Shaitan <ro...@lucifuge.com> wrote in article
>
> Im curious. Did you know that in Islam, shaitan means Devil? Im sure you
> probably did.
>
> --
> Adnan Zafar
> za...@hal-pc.org
> "Dont flame me. I'd laugh in your face"--AFZ
Yes it does, but that has no bearing here I'm sure. Now, if his name
is Iblis, that might be a problem for me.
Most people probably didn't know due to my nick Slipgate, but yes I am
Muslim. However, this is probably the only time I will make a post
related to my religion because I feel this group is to talk about Quake,
and thats what I talk about here.
Slipgate
Adnan Zafar
Kevin Podszebka
>
> I've got to set the record straight about the LAN support for these
> games.
>
> Duke is in no way more stable than or faster than Quake across a LAN.
> Duke has serious trouble with more than six people (although they claim
> eight is feasible). I haven't been able to push quake to sixteen (only
> because we didnt have that many pentiums available). We did run twelve
> people on a dedicated server. The server ran on the old trusty DX4-100
> and the games were flawless! The machines were a mix of Win95 and Dos
> loads and still ran great.
>
> traffic. The way the game handles that traffic is what defines it's
> "net-worthiness". Yes, Quake will occasionally get sluggish during a
> huge firefight, but it recovers quickly. In Duke, a huge firefight (6
> people is "huge" for duke) will knock the game out of synch. At this
> point, Duke starts a downward spiral and eventually no one can move.
I have had the benefit of playing Quake 16 player over IPX LAN. And I
am glad to say that we experienced no sluggishness during play at any
time(unless there was a bad cable). You are also perfectly right about
Duke not supporting 6+ players.
If you run 10BT cords and a hub with Quake, you should experience
sluggishness. Think about why..
--
___
_/_ _ _ /) . _ _
_/__ ><_(__(/_//_/)_/_(_)/(_
August Branchesi
I find Quake to be quite playable, even before my ISP setup 3 quake servers
for it's customers ;) Before that, it was just a matter of finding a good
server and QSPY does a pretty good job of that.
------
August Branchesi
Systems Programmer / Apex Mrsketing Group
http://members.visi.net/~muja
Shaitan <ro...@lucifuge.com> wrote in article
>
> Personaly I'm skeptical. Anything that helps us modem guys helps the
> ethernet guys more. At this point I've given up playing Quake over the
> internet. Its too slow and I can't stand losing based on technology.
> This isn't to say I gave up Quake! I play.... at lan partys. And at
> this new VR cafe that opened in my area. Like you pointed out, Duke's
> code is a little buggy, but its damn better than Quakes. I really have
> a hard time believing that the self proclaimed "King of DM games"
> sucks so badly over a modem. You'd be suprised how many people
> haven't bought it for that reason.
>
Nutbutter
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:56:35 GMT, ro...@lucifuge.com (Shaitan ) wrote:
>Before you flame me for not singing Quakes praises, ask yourself if
>you really think its cool that without a lan quake is unplayable.
I agree in part, *nothing* is more frustrating than getting fragged to
hell, just because of a half second lag between your mouse button and
the rocket launcher. I've never played LAN Quake (the closest I have
come is a serial link with Reaper Bots in there), but I've had OK
games over the net... it helps if the other server isn't too busy
(today I played CTF with only one opponent, and it ran OK for a server
that's quite a while away), but I couldn't manage any sub480 pings.
After 1 whole day of begging with my internet provider to set up a
local quake site, it has occured, and this was *far* better. Basically
just a slightly slow modem game, but with more people. In game pings
of around 270-330, but this will come down as things are sorted out
(it's quite playable at this speed, though).
If anyone out there is wishing they could have decent speed internet
quake, simply ask your provider about the possibility of setting up a
dedicated server - how much are 486's today? Doesn't even need a
monitor! The best part is that a lot of people playing are from your
own provider, and it's more fun to frag people you know!
Nutbutter - POV-Ray Artist, Apocalyptic Visions
"To Be Sad Is A Mad Way To Be"
http://www.peninsula.starway.net.au/~nutbuttr
Linux: the choice of a gnu generation.
Melbourne Radio Unite! Anti JJJ!
Joel Baxter
In article <58mapg$d...@news1.voicenet.com>,
Shaitan <sha...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Personally I'm skeptical. Anything that helps us modem guys helps the
>ethernet guys more.
...
You know, I've heard this before, and I'm not sure I agree. I'm an All
Digital Quake Player myself, no modems allowed, so I am quite open to
correction from non-LPBs. But as I see it, anyone worth the LP in LPB can
look hard enough and find a Quake game that is not going to be improved much
by anything that QuakeWorld can do. On the other hand, modem drivers can
use PushLatency to vastly improve their gameplay at the expense of the
occasional weird "warping" effect as the server corrects the client-side
prediction.
Sure, you may still occasionally come up against players that have a better
gameplay than you. I've played players with 25 pings when mine was 200 or
more -- yes, I know, lots of you would kill to have 200, but maybe this
situation is similar to what a modemer-vs.-LPB match might feel like under
QuakeWorld. If the 25-ping player is someone that I wouldn't crush on a LAN
game, I can have a tough time beating him, but the game is still fun. It
CERTAINLY is better than sitting around shooting rockets into walls and
chewing on doorframes with a 500+ ping, so if this is what QuakeWorld will
give the modem users (and they claim it will), then I can't see how any
high-pingers would be less than excited.
Like I said, I'm open to correction, especially from anyone more
knowledgeable about the benefits supposedly provided by QW. As a footnote:
I wish, to cut out the unfair games experienced by high-pingers and the
endless whining experienced by low-pingers, that servers could enforce an
average ping limit. ("You must be this tall to ride this ride.") Say,
sample people's pings, and every few seconds eject anyone that has a ping
below the limit. If the limit is low, this is an LPB server, and you get
what you deserve if you choose to run with the big dogs. If the limit is
high, it's a modem-player's server, and no LPB can crash the party.
This is doable currently, but it would take a boatload of work: a
ping-sampling client "bot" continuously connected, sending impulse commands
to the server to inform it who needs to be booted. At least for the current
Quake servers; dunno about QW. Wish that it was a simple server option. I
may end up hacking something up and making it available sooner or later if
no one else does -- although of course I wouldn't install it on my server,
since my server would be for LPBs. :-)
--
Joel Baxter jba...@lemur.stanford.edu http://lemur.stanford.edu/~jbaxter/
When the brakes are applied, the car's motor becomes a generator,
which makes kinetic energy.
-- San Jose Mercury News
Kent_haug
jba...@lemur.Stanford.EDU (Joel Baxter) wrote:
>game, I can have a tough time beating him, but the game is still fun. It
>CERTAINLY is better than sitting around shooting rockets into walls and
>chewing on doorframes with a 500+ ping, so if this is what QuakeWorld will
>give the modem users (and they claim it will), then I can't see how any
>high-pingers would be less than excited.
hmm.. I guess the HPM (High Ping Moron) must carefully plan his path
of walking in advance. If he's walking towards a doorway, he'd better
get his course straight ASAP. If not, QW will predict him going into
the wall. QW has no idea there's a doorway somewhere.
Just a thought..
Personally, I just hope QW predicts HPMs into my isdn-rockets on a
regular basis. Would be nice not having to do that exhausting aiming
all the time..
--
note fake email in header. redirect replies to kent...@image.no
Christian Figenschou
Spade [Amir Ebrahimi]
Kevin Podszebka wrote:
>
> If you run 10BT cords and a hub with Quake, you should experience
> sluggishness. Think about why..
> --
wondering why that slows down Quake or makes Quake sluggish...Please
e-mail me back if you read this, because I might miss your reply on this
newsgroup.thanx.
--
Amir Ebrahimi \\\|/// Chrome World:
--s...@iquest.com-- -(o o)- http://iquest.com/~spade/
+------------------------oOOOo--(_)--oOOOo------------------------+
Jim Ronski
ro...@lucifuge.com (Shaitan ) wrote:
>Personaly I'm skeptical. Anything that helps us modem guys helps the
>ethernet guys more. At this point I've given up playing Quake over the
>internet. Its too slow and I can't stand losing based on technology.
>This isn't to say I gave up Quake! I play.... at lan partys. And at
>this new VR cafe that opened in my area. Like you pointed out, Duke's
>code is a little buggy, but its damn better than Quakes. I really have
>a hard time believing that the self proclaimed "King of DM games"
>sucks so badly over a modem. You'd be suprised how many people
>haven't bought it for that reason.
>Before you flame me for not singing Quakes praises, ask yourself if
>you really think its cool that without a lan quake is unplayable.
It's not unplayable. It must be YOUR setup or YOUR modem or YOUR
cheesy ISP. I don't have many problems with it. Sure there's some lag.
If I have any more lag than in a modem game across town (about 2miles)
I just go to another server. There are plenty of servers out there.
Yes it is STILL cool.
<stupid sig deleted>
Jim Ronski
jba...@lemur.Stanford.EDU (Joel Baxter) wrote:
>In article <58mapg$d...@news1.voicenet.com>,
>Shaitan <sha...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Personally I'm skeptical. Anything that helps us modem guys helps the
>>ethernet guys more.
>...
>You know, I've heard this before, and I'm not sure I agree. I'm an All
>Digital Quake Player myself, no modems allowed, so I am quite open to
>correction from non-LPBs. But as I see it, anyone worth the LP in LPB can
>look hard enough and find a Quake game that is not going to be improved much
>by anything that QuakeWorld can do. On the other hand, modem drivers can
>use PushLatency to vastly improve their gameplay at the expense of the
>occasional weird "warping" effect as the server corrects the client-side
>prediction.
>Sure, you may still occasionally come up against players that have a better
>gameplay than you. I've played players with 25 pings when mine was 200 or
>more -- yes, I know, lots of you would kill to have 200, but maybe this
>situation is similar to what a modemer-vs.-LPB match might feel like under
>QuakeWorld. If the 25-ping player is someone that I wouldn't crush on a LAN
>game, I can have a tough time beating him, but the game is still fun. It
>CERTAINLY is better than sitting around shooting rockets into walls and
>chewing on doorframes with a 500+ ping, so if this is what QuakeWorld will
>give the modem users (and they claim it will), then I can't see how any
>high-pingers would be less than excited.
>Like I said, I'm open to correction, especially from anyone more
>knowledgeable about the benefits supposedly provided by QW. As a footnote:
>I wish, to cut out the unfair games experienced by high-pingers and the
>endless whining experienced by low-pingers, that servers could enforce an
>average ping limit. ("You must be this tall to ride this ride.") Say,
>sample people's pings, and every few seconds eject anyone that has a ping
>below the limit. If the limit is low, this is an LPB server, and you get
>what you deserve if you choose to run with the big dogs. If the limit is
>high, it's a modem-player's server, and no LPB can crash the party.
Great idea. I'd like to see this implemented as well. I will say that
I have to wonder about any LPB that gets a kick out of beating up on
HPW's. I believe it is likely that many of those players cannot hold
their own with equal conditions.
Jim Ronski
kent...@want.no.spam (Kent_haug) wrote:
>hmm.. I guess the HPM (High Ping Moron) must carefully plan his path
>of walking in advance. If he's walking towards a doorway, he'd better
>get his course straight ASAP. If not, QW will predict him going into
>the wall. QW has no idea there's a doorway somewhere.
>Just a thought..
>Personally, I just hope QW predicts HPMs into my isdn-rockets on a
>regular basis. Would be nice not having to do that exhausting aiming
>all the time..
Guys like this maggot here.
You're a punk.
Timo Ulmanen
Stop writing here and go get the client and try it for yourself! :)
Nobodys propably reading this, though, 'cos you're all playing on QW
servers (of course.)
Heikki Ulmanen
Gully Foyle
In article <597n6o$5...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, ru...@ix.netcom.com(Brant Rusch) wrote:
>....ehhh, just had a somewhat aggrivating evening server-hopping
>(Bitching that the Quakeworld Main server isn't up).....and felt like
>venting....figured other people do to....what the hell:
>
>What Pisses me off the most while playing Quake:
>
>1) Campers ---- Need I say more? I mean, hanging around a respawn is
>one thing. Hanging around for an hour is another story.....compounded
>with annoying little notes "Ha ha..I fragged you. Ha Ha". Yes, it is
>amusing to blow them into chunks.....because once you get them out of
>their holes, they're meat. (is this how guys with joysticks play
>Quake!?)
>
No, I play with joystick and I can wipe the floor with most Quakers, sometimes
even ones that have half my ping rate. I agree though "players" who stick like
shit to the floor annoy the fuck out of me. Notice how they are mostly
pissweak "players".
>2) T1 and ISDN guys: hehehe..ok, sorry. But when you've got a good
>even game going.....everyone has pings in the 250-300 range, the table
>is even. Suddenly in pops "**MR QUAKE NIGHTMARE** on his 55 or 110
>ping line, and just blows the hell out of everyone.
>
>I've been on games where I was the fastest ping (say 220 as opposed to
>everyone else in the 3-400's). Its like your opponents are standing
>still. They're shots are going where you *were*. IE: its not much of
>a challenge to blow everyone away, so...why do these guys linger??
>Egos??
>
Plain stupidity for sure, I'd go and find some guys with similar ping times,
but then it's no fun having to work for frags is it?
>3) Campers who camp behind respawn points, waiting for people to spawn
>in...armorless....to blow away.
>
Yep, absolute shitheads.
>4) Quake itself: For respawning in players without armor....this should
>be fixed so that the player could at least survive one rocket blast,
>etc.
>
i hate it when you just respawn and get blown away again again and again...
>5) Guys who take Quake just a bit too seriously........
>
What the fuck do you mean?!?!?
>6) Idiots on multiplayer games who don't REALIZE its coop, and blow the
>hell out of everyone...over and over again....no matter how many times
>you tell them...
>
And on DM which have teamplay switched on. Dicks with the same pants color
keep coming up to me again and again pumping rockets etc.while I stand
there telling them that they are just wasting their ammo. Do you think telling
them to change pants color helps? The next time they see me they run up and
start blasting away. I'm going to have to add an alias to quickly change pants
color and back, so I can roast these fuckers while they scratch their empty
skulls.
>Quake also needs to have multiple respawn points......IE: not the same
>item in the same spot so camping becomes "less useful"....
>
Agree.
>I dunno...just venting after dealing with assholes all night..
>
>Santa better bring that T1 for Xmas... :D
>ANd I promise to stay out of 400 ping games. :D
>
Wish you luck with the T1, maybe if you write a nice letter to Carmack...
TNT
Brant Rusch
>Stop writing here and go get the client and try it for yourself! :)
>Nobodys propably reading this, though, 'cos you're all playing on QW
>servers (of course.)
Since the main server has been down all day, the most I can do is look
at the Qspy error screen as it says "Could not process, try again
later!". *sigh*
Brant Rusch
...ehhh, just had a somewhat aggrivating evening server-hopping
(Bitching that the Quakeworld Main server isn't up).....and felt like
venting....figured other people do to....what the hell:
What Pisses me off the most while playing Quake:
1) Campers ---- Need I say more? I mean, hanging around a respawn is
one thing. Hanging around for an hour is another story.....compounded
with annoying little notes "Ha ha..I fragged you. Ha Ha". Yes, it is
amusing to blow them into chunks.....because once you get them out of
their holes, they're meat. (is this how guys with joysticks play
Quake!?)
2) T1 and ISDN guys: hehehe..ok, sorry. But when you've got a good
even game going.....everyone has pings in the 250-300 range, the table
is even. Suddenly in pops "**MR QUAKE NIGHTMARE** on his 55 or 110
ping line, and just blows the hell out of everyone.
I've been on games where I was the fastest ping (say 220 as opposed to
everyone else in the 3-400's). Its like your opponents are standing
still. They're shots are going where you *were*. IE: its not much of
a challenge to blow everyone away, so...why do these guys linger??
Egos??
3) Campers who camp behind respawn points, waiting for people to spawn
in...armorless....to blow away.
4) Quake itself: For respawning in players without armor....this should
be fixed so that the player could at least survive one rocket blast,
etc.
5) Guys who take Quake just a bit too seriously........
6) Idiots on multiplayer games who don't REALIZE its coop, and blow the
hell out of everyone...over and over again....no matter how many times
you tell them...
Quake also needs to have multiple respawn points......IE: not the same
item in the same spot so camping becomes "less useful"....
ShuflY
>....ehhh, just had a somewhat aggrivating evening server-hopping
>(Bitching that the Quakeworld Main server isn't up).....and felt like
>venting....figured other people do to....what the hell:
>
>What Pisses me off the most while playing Quake:
>
>1) Campers ---- Need I say more? I mean, hanging around a respawn is
>one thing. Hanging around for an hour is another story.....compounded
>with annoying little notes "Ha ha..I fragged you. Ha Ha". Yes, it is
>amusing to blow them into chunks.....because once you get them out of
>their holes, they're meat. (is this how guys with joysticks play
>Quake!?)
>
There is nothing wrong with Camping... It is a strategy... Sitting
in front of respawn points though, I'll get to that later...
>2) T1 and ISDN guys: hehehe..ok, sorry. But when you've got a good
>even game going.....everyone has pings in the 250-300 range, the table
>is even. Suddenly in pops "**MR QUAKE NIGHTMARE** on his 55 or 110
>ping line, and just blows the hell out of everyone.
>
>I've been on games where I was the fastest ping (say 220 as opposed to
>everyone else in the 3-400's). Its like your opponents are standing
>still. They're shots are going where you *were*. IE: its not much of
>a challenge to blow everyone away, so...why do these guys linger??
>Egos??
>
Uh huh...
>3) Campers who camp behind respawn points, waiting for people to spawn
>in...armorless....to blow away.
>
Ok, this shoulden't be called "camping", it should be called "being a
coward"...
>4) Quake itself: For respawning in players without armor....this should
>be fixed so that the player could at least survive one rocket blast,
>etc.
>
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...
>5) Guys who take Quake just a bit too seriously........
>
Hmmm...
>6) Idiots on multiplayer games who don't REALIZE its coop, and blow the
>hell out of everyone...over and over again....no matter how many times
>you tell them...
>
If people are that stupid, you should find some other people to play
with, and when that dumb-ass who kills his team-mates get's pissed
because no one will play with him, he'll say "Why are you not playing
with me." and you can tell him why, and he will understand...
>Quake also needs to have multiple respawn points......IE: not the same
>item in the same spot so camping becomes "less useful"....
uh huh...
Need 2 Know Basis
Brant Rusch (ru...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:
: What Pisses me off the most while playing Quake:
:
: 1) Campers ---- Need I say more? I mean, hanging around a respawn is
: one thing. Hanging around for an hour is another story.....compounded
Camping is just another tactic... you can't WIN with camping, you
can, however, get some easy frags. *IF* a camper kills you more than
twice from the same spot, it's not his camping that's the problem, it's
your inability to crack his defenses.
I *like* campers... because when I finally *DO* flush them out and
blow them into itty bitty pieces it's worth 10 regular kills to me.
I say, "More power to them."
: 2) T1 and ISDN guys: hehehe..ok, sorry. But when you've got a good
: even game going.....everyone has pings in the 250-300 range, the table
: is even. Suddenly in pops "**MR QUAKE NIGHTMARE** on his 55 or 110
: ping line, and just blows the hell out of everyone.
You'd think they'd get tired of beating up on the little kids... but
chances are that these are the same people that have gotten beaten up on
all their life and Quake gives them an opportunity to be the dominator
(heh, LPB's are gonna love that one ;)
Just give the LPB's your lunch moeny and everything will be alright.
: 3) Campers who camp behind respawn points, waiting for people to spawn
: in...armorless....to blow away.
You'll respawn elsewhere again... then go get them.
: 4) Quake itself: For respawning in players without armor....this should
: be fixed so that the player could at least survive one rocket blast,
: etc.
I agree with you here, there needs to be a 5 second grace period
(sort of like the protect mod in ServerModules) where you are
invulnerable.
: 5) Guys who take Quake just a bit too seriously........
Hey... you're the one complaining... ;)
: 6) Idiots on multiplayer games who don't REALIZE its coop, and blow the
: hell out of everyone...over and over again....no matter how many times
: you tell them...
I'm all for a minimum IQ requirement.
(IF UserIQ <= 10 THEN Kick User.)
Adam Williamson
In article <597n6o$5...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, Brant Rusch
<ru...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>I've been on games where I was the fastest ping (say 220 as opposed to
>everyone else in the 3-400's). Its like your opponents are standing
>still. They're shots are going where you *were*. IE: its not much of
>a challenge to blow everyone away, so...why do these guys linger??
>Egos??
That's because Quakeworld sorta swaps the lag around - now the HPM isn't
actually lagged, but he sees everyone else lagged - basically, if you
have a high ping, you see everyone else where they were a half second or
so ago. Fun. :)
--
Adam Williamson
Terry Harris
ser...@clark.net (Need 2 Know Basis) wrote:
>: 1) Campers ---- Need I say more? I mean, hanging around a respawn is
>: one thing. Hanging around for an hour is another story.....compounded
>
> Camping is just another tactic... you can't WIN with camping
I was called "The biggest camper I have ever seen" in a level the
other day which surprisingly I did win (surprisingly because I was a
bit lagged and started the level a few frags down).
Camping (defined as staying in about the same place a lot) can work
and can win (particularly on busy servers) you just have to pick the
right camp sites.
>: 4) Quake itself: For respawning in players without armor....this should
>: be fixed so that the player could at least survive one rocket blast,
>: etc.
> I agree with you here, there needs to be a 5 second grace period
>(sort of like the protect mod in ServerModules) where you are
>invulnerable.
But when you do have that mod they don't use it, most of them just
shoot you twice with a shotgun before getting a rocket in the face?
I don't particularly frag respawns, but If I happen to see one and
need the frags he/she gets a rocket. When I don't need the frags I
sometimes give them the opportunity to run away, but mostly they turn
(slowly) and start pumping me with the shotgun - then they get a
rocket.
Cheers Terry...
Glenn Pearce
Kent_haug <kent...@want.no.spam> wrote in article
> of walking in advance. If he's walking towards a doorway, he'd better
> get his course straight ASAP. If not, QW will predict him going into
> the wall. QW has no idea there's a doorway somewhere.
>
> Just a thought..
A bad one though.
The QuakeWorld client isn't predicting ahead of itself. That would be
called prognostication and might get a write up in the national enquirer.
The QuakeWorld client is preidicting ahead of the QuakeWorld server. The
client is always on it's current tic. And the fact is that QuakeWorld knows
EXACTLY where the doorways are. If not then it really surprises me how it
manages to DRAW them. QuakeWorld knows all about the level. That's what
them funny little .bsp files are all about.
Declan Grady
I tried my "First" TCP/IP connection last night, and had about -24
frags within 2 minutes.
I was blasting like crazy, even with a rocket, and when shoudl have had
about 5 or 6 frags, but I was tooo lagged, and when my rocket finally
fired, teh guy was gone !
How do I see the "ping" time ?
(Im only using q95.bat with the w95 winsock.)
Dark1
On 18 Dec 1996 03:08:08 GMT, ru...@ix.netcom.com(Brant Rusch) wrote:
>What Pisses me off the most while playing Quake:
>
Get over it. Would you complain if you were ambushed in a jungle
during 'Nam? Ok, maybe you would complain, but you wouldn't whine that
it's "unfair." Camping is a strategy, if you can't beat them, then
you're the loser not them.
I am so tired of this thread, quit your bitching and kill the bastard.
>2) T1 and ISDN guys:
It sucks yes, but what are you going to do about it? It would be nice
if we server admins had the ability to disconnect anyone with a ping
lower than 180 or 200 or whatever we want. In fact it would be great
if we could specify a range, e.g. 180 - 400.
I'm not totally sure, but it seems that when there is a person with a
very high ping, it slows everyone down... again not totaly sure on
this one, just anecdotal "evidence."
>3) Campers who camp behind respawn points, waiting for people to spawn
>in...armorless....to blow away.
I've added a 5 second "safty" period to my servers. When you respawn,
you have 5 seconds to get away, you can't shoot and you can't be hurt.
>4) Quake itself: For respawning in players without armor
Again, this is easily changed. Just by changing one line in QC.
>5) Guys who take Quake just a bit too seriously........
Like you (or me)?
>6) Idiots on multiplayer games who don't REALIZE
"Morons shouldn't be allowed to use technology."
Joe on "News Radio"
Dark1
DarkLand
quake.microhouse.com
204.132.131.75
-= mike =-
On 18 Dec 1996, Brant Rusch wrote:
>1) Campers ---- Need I say more? I mean, hanging around a respawn is
i *still* fail to see why all the hatred for camping; some levels are
*very* conducive to it, especially when you nab that nice 100 rocket BP
and feel like a little "break" ;)
>2) T1 and ISDN guys: hehehe..ok, sorry. But when you've got a good
this also annoys me; a 250 ping is plenty fast enough, and i regularily
can beat people of average skill with <100 pings. Granted, a *good* player
with a good ping is rather harder. Treat it as a challenge (like
shambler), not something to whine about
>3) Campers who camp behind respawn points, waiting for people to spawn
yea, ok got a point....but they won't be winning, so who cares? maybe they
just happened to be there when you respawned...
>4) Quake itself: For respawning in players without armor....this should
this is fixed on many servers.
>5) Guys who take Quake just a bit too seriously........
indeed. :)
>6) Idiots on multiplayer games who don't REALIZE its coop, and blow the
yea! i was on a CTF server, and some guy picked up enemy flag and
proceeded to try and kill all of his teammates (me, et al) trying to
protect the moron... ahh well, idiots are *everywhere*, so why not in
quake ? ;)
+--. .--+ MIKE warren "great spirits have always received
| \/ | mbwa...@acs.ucalgary.ca violent opposition from mediocre
|__|\/|__| [ www.ucalgary.ca/~mbwarren ] minds" -- albert einstein
`->[ the Temple of Mike ]<--'
Adam Williamson
In article <022c0b8f$30f7cda0$0f80b9ce@glenn>, Glenn Pearce
<gpe...@dxnet.com> writes
of not having had any problems with doors of any description at
pushlatency -500. Wow.
--
Adam Williamson
Brant Rusch
>Get over it. Would you complain if you were ambushed in a jungle
>during 'Nam? Ok, maybe you would complain, but you wouldn't whine that
>it's "unfair." Camping is a strategy, if you can't beat them, then
>you're the loser not them.
I didn't whine that "its unfair"......I said "it pisses me off
sometimes".
>I am so tired of this thread, quit your bitching and kill the bastard.
Did that. As for "quit yer bitching", I don't really think one fucking
post constitutes bitching....
>>2) T1 and ISDN guys:
>
>It sucks yes, but what are you going to do about it?
Do you have something against "Discussion" in general here or....???
>I've added a 5 second "safty" period to my servers. When you respawn,
>you have 5 seconds to get away, you can't shoot and you can't be hurt.
Thats cool.....I like that ability......it should have been
considered..who knows, maybe a patch someday?...i dunno...
>Like you (or me)?
I should have re-wrote that note to read "Quake Assholes". Which are
usually just Assholes who play Quake.......
But hey....I find another server.
The Maxxz
>have a high ping, you see everyone else where they were a half second or
>so ago. Fun. :)
Then how can you kill someone if you only know his position in the
past ?
Seems to me that quakeworld isn't what people where hoping for ?
>--
>Adam Williamson
Werner / The Maxxz
Chris White
Dark1 wrote:
>
<snip>
> >2) T1 and ISDN guys:
>
> if we server admins had the ability to disconnect anyone with a ping
> lower than 180 or 200 or whatever we want. In fact it would be great
> if we could specify a range, e.g. 180 - 400.
>
> I'm not totally sure, but it seems that when there is a person with a
> very high ping, it slows everyone down... again not totaly sure on
> this one, just anecdotal "evidence."
ping guys that slowed the game down. At least it seemed to me, it could
be either.
> Dark1
>
> DarkLand
> quake.microhouse.com
> 204.132.131.75
--
Chris
*------------------------------------*
| cjw...@mindspring.com |
| L810C, Internet Quakematch |
| http://www.rockski.net/alligator/ |
*------------------------------------*
Adam Williamson
In article <32b9c061...@news.ping.be>, The Maxxz
<Werner.B...@ping.be> writes
>On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:12:36 +0000, Adam Williamson
><Ad...@scss.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>have a high ping, you see everyone else where they were a half second or
>>so ago. Fun. :)
>
>Then how can you kill someone if you only know his position in the
>past ?
>Seems to me that quakeworld isn't what people where hoping for ?
However, if you have a normal ping (200-300ms) all that happens is the
other players are a little jerky. By high ping I mean 600+.
>
>>--
>>Adam Williamson
>
>Werner / The Maxxz
--
Adam Williamson
John
Guardian wrote:
> Exactly..it's just a slight improvement over regular netplay, and in
> certain situations, it's worse :(
> I get an average ping of 600-750ms..
> It's not really QW's fault tho, it's the internet's design that's at
> fault..it was never meant for mplayer gaming.
EXACTLY!! Why did id target the internet for multiplayer gaming in the
first place!?!? Smooth internet gaming is worlds away from becoming
reality for your average gamer. We all know that telephone lines just
won't cut it. Didn't id know this? Did they think we'd all run out and
get T1 lines to play Quake?? What a joke! id knows they dropped the
ball on making that call. Why else would Carmack rewrite the internet
code (QuakeWorld) to simulate the lack of lag? I even read in his .plan
awhile back that he grudgingly admitted that he screwed up when he
failed to consider that the majority of people connect to the internet
with dial-up connections. Now he's trying to remedy this with
QuakeWorld. The problem is that the internet is just too slow for 1st
person perspective 3d games. Regardless of what kind of software patch
is written to speed the game up, the internet is just slow by nature so
there is little that can be done. Better communications hardware is
what is needed here but nobody will be able to afford it for a good
while yet. Is Quake a game ahead of its time? Yes! Is it a practical
game for today? No!
-mutant
-mutant
Guardian
> Then how can you kill someone if you only know his position in the
> past ?
> Seems to me that quakeworld isn't what people where hoping for ?
>
Stan Lobunets
In article <32BDFE...@one.net>, John <mut...@one.net> may have said something like:
>Guardian wrote:
>
>> Exactly..it's just a slight improvement over regular netplay, and in
>> certain situations, it's worse :(
>> I get an average ping of 600-750ms..
>> It's not really QW's fault tho, it's the internet's design that's at
>> fault..it was never meant for mplayer gaming.
>
>first place!?!? Smooth internet gaming is worlds away from becoming
>reality for your average gamer. We all know that telephone lines just
>won't cut it. Didn't id know this? Did they think we'd all run out and
>get T1 lines to play Quake?? What a joke! id knows they dropped the
>ball on making that call.
Internet Quake is very playable. It's not silky smooth, but good enough. Maybe
you just have a crappy ISP.
Stephen Moore
All valid points there lads. Personally though, I think QuakeWorld is a
great
improvement. I get a ping of around 140-200 with my ISP's quake server
and with
pushlatency set to -100 it's almost like playing on a LAN. It's damn
good! My phone
bill are gonna be huge this quarter!!!
Just a wee prob here, perhaps someone could help me with. I use qwcl.exe
to
log onto QuakeWorld - qwfe sucks - but when I get to the console prompt,
I
can't type anything for about 2 - 3 minutes. I have to wait until the
message "Server timed out" appears. I'm using the -master switch on the
command line to connect to the revco server. After this message, I can
type in my userid and connect to any server. But what's going on - it's
a waste
of valuable fragging time!!!
Please email if you have a solution! Cheerz!
Marry Xmas,
Steve.
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Stephen Moore - aka Granny Killer |
| Punishment Squad Quake Clan |
| mailto:*st...@shpcorp.dnet.co.uk* |
| WWW: http://www.niweb.com/dnet/dnetKhbw |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Remove *'s before replying by email!! |
| ***** M E R R Y Q U A K E M A S ***** |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Steve Thoms
>Smooth internet gaming is worlds away from becoming
>reality for your average gamer.
<snip>
>The problem is that the internet is just too slow for 1st
>person perspective 3d games.
Why does Descent play as well as it does?
Not a flame, just a question...you networking gurus know why this is?
--
=================================================================
Steve Thoms |
www.winternet.com/~magicman/base.html | "Ban All Sigs!"
=================================================================
Ed Jankovsky
Stan Lobunets <st...@syberia.com> wrote:
: >
: >EXACTLY!! Why did id target the internet for multiplayer gaming in the
: >first place!?!? Smooth internet gaming is worlds away from becoming
: >reality for your average gamer. We all know that telephone lines just
: >won't cut it. Didn't id know this? Did they think we'd all run out and
: >get T1 lines to play Quake?? What a joke! id knows they dropped the
: >ball on making that call.
: Internet Quake is very playable. It's not silky smooth, but good enough. Maybe
: you just have a crappy ISP.
What's strange, since QW came out, I now have 5-6 more servers that are
200-250 range. In the past I could find 3-4 servers that would be
playable, now with QW there are usually 4-5 under 200ms and close to 10 in
the 200 range. Did they do some chopping somewhere to reduce other
latencies?
Ismail Saeed
Steve Thoms wrote:
>
> >Smooth internet gaming is worlds away from becoming
> >reality for your average gamer.
>
>
> >The problem is that the internet is just too slow for 1st
> >person perspective 3d games.
>
> Why does Descent play as well as it does?
>
> Not a flame, just a question...you networking gurus know why this is?
> --
> =================================================================
> Steve Thoms |
> www.winternet.com/~magicman/base.html | "Ban All Sigs!"
> =================================================================
Descent deals with dropped packets and compensates........ Doom and
Quake and other doom engine games have no idea what to do when they see
packets dropped...... they temporarily hang at that.
Quakeworld attempts to compensate.
Slipgate
ShuflY
John <mut...@one.net> wrote:
>Guardian wrote:
>> Exactly..it's just a slight improvement over regular netplay, and in
>> certain situations, it's worse :(
>> I get an average ping of 600-750ms..
>> It's not really QW's fault tho, it's the internet's design that's at
>> fault..it was never meant for mplayer gaming.
>EXACTLY!! Why did id target the internet for multiplayer gaming in the
>first place!?!? Smooth internet gaming is worlds away from becoming
>reality for your average gamer.
I only have a 14.4, and although I can't get a game of Quake going for
shit, I can play awesome games of Decent, Duke3d, War2, and
MechWarrior 2 games running just fine over the internet. I coulden't
even tell that there was a difference between Inet play and over a
modem (at least in Duke and Mech2). The internet may not have been
designed for game playing, but every day they are makeing software and
hardware improvements that are makeing it a great (and Cheap) gaming
platform...
Glenn Pearce
Declan Grady <dec...@nuvotem.iol.ie> wrote in article
<32BA8A...@nuvotem.iol.ie>...
> I tried my "First" TCP/IP connection last night, and had about -24
> frags within 2 minutes.
>
> I was blasting like crazy, even with a rocket, and when shoudl have had
> about 5 or 6 frags, but I was tooo lagged, and when my rocket finally
> fired, teh guy was gone !
>
>
> How do I see the "ping" time ?
Depends. In Quake you pull down the console and type ping. In QuakeWorld
you hit the tab key to show the scores.
Glenn Pearce
The Maxxz <Werner.B...@ping.be> wrote in article
<32b9c061...@news.ping.be>...
> On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:12:36 +0000, Adam Williamson
> <Ad...@scss.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >have a high ping, you see everyone else where they were a half second or
> >so ago. Fun. :)
>
> past ?
> Seems to me that quakeworld isn't what people where hoping for ?
I read the original post with a bit of confusion. I see people where there
really are. However when I press the fire button my shots will go where I
was aiming slightly before that so you have to learn to lead but that's
about it.
And it seems that QuakeWorld isn't what SOME people were expecting. It
lived up to my expectations. The only thing that keeps me from playing it
more is the lack of a grappling hook in CTF. :(
Glenn Pearce
John <mut...@one.net> wrote in article <32BDFE...@one.net>...
> Guardian wrote:
> EXACTLY!! Why did id target the internet for multiplayer gaming in the
> first place!?!? Smooth internet gaming is worlds away from becoming
They targeted the Internet because the Internet is the technology that's
there. Would the better answer be 'sorry folks we just can't give you a
multi-gaming experience right now'. And if they don't develop these now,
then when the tech comes availabile don't you want them to have experience
developing multi-player games that run on large scale non-centralized
networks?
> won't cut it. Didn't id know this? Did they think we'd all run out and
> get T1 lines to play Quake?? What a joke! id knows they dropped the
> ball on making that call. Why else would Carmack rewrite the internet
> code (QuakeWorld) to simulate the lack of lag? I even read in his .plan
> awhile back that he grudgingly admitted that he screwed up when he
> failed to consider that the majority of people connect to the internet
> with dial-up connections. Now he's trying to remedy this with
> QuakeWorld.
What makes you think that POTS isn't fast enough. I play on several
servers throughout the country (even one in canada) and I am not the only
Dial-Up player in the world. Evidently there are plenty of people who think
POTS is fast enough. Before I got flamed for using terms not everyone
knows, POTS is Plain Old Telephone Service.
> The problem is that the internet is just too slow for 1st
> person perspective 3d games. Regardless of what kind of software patch
> is written to speed the game up, the internet is just slow by nature so
> there is little that can be done.
This might be true if 1st person 3d games were sending each graphic frames
info across the wire. Quake makes less demands on bandwidth than FTP. The
difference is this, if it takes 1000 ms for a request for a file transfer
to travel from your machine to a server who cares, if it takes 1000 ms for
a request to fire a rocket to travel from your machine to a server, well,
that's a different story. There is nothing about the internet that
inherently causes lag.
>Better communications hardware is
> what is needed here but nobody will be able to afford it for a good
> while yet.
There are already people out there with cable modems. It's going to be
very hard to find better communications hardware than the cable modem. And
if you find it, so what, cable modems are the answer and they are coming
very quickly.
> Is Quake a game ahead of its time? Yes! Is it a practical
> game for today? No!
Quake is not ahead of it's time. It's right on time. Is it practical for
today? Yes. Or I would be the only one playing I guess. I am user #4303 on
the 'best internet ' QuakeWorld server. Are all 4000+ of these people
deluding themselves into thinking their having fun. Or am I the only POTS
player there?
Glenn Pearce
Steve Thoms <magi...@winternet.com> wrote in article
<59m7tc$rpo$1...@blackice.winternet.com>...
> >Smooth internet gaming is worlds away from becoming
> >reality for your average gamer.
>
>
> >The problem is that the internet is just too slow for 1st
> >person perspective 3d games.
>
>
> Not a flame, just a question...you networking gurus know why this is?
It plays no better than Quake does.
Glenn Pearce
Ed Jankovsky <syr...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<59mcj9$s...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...
> What's strange, since QW came out, I now have 5-6 more servers that are
> 200-250 range. In the past I could find 3-4 servers that would be
> playable, now with QW there are usually 4-5 under 200ms and close to 10
in
> the 200 range. Did they do some chopping somewhere to reduce other
> latencies?
me.
Quake used a reliable data stream. This was great if you had a high speed
connection but kinda blew if you didn't. All the packets sent to the server
had to be acknowledged by the server. QuakeWorld uses an unreliable data
stream. No ACK packets.
Quake servers only processed information from the clients once per server
tic. So if you're packet arrived immediately after a server tic it would
not be processed until the next server tic and that introduced more time
into the ping. QuakeWorld servers process info as soon as it is received.
Carmack mentioned other improvements in his .plan files but I can't
remember them all.
Adam Williamson
In article <022c0ef8$fa56de40$1d80b9ce@gpearce>, Glenn Pearce
<gpe...@dxnet.com> writes
high ping, as in 800+, using a high pushlatency. You don't get the
problem at less than about 600.
--
Adam Williamson
Glenn Pearce
Adam Williamson <Ad...@scss.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<vcGM7nAj...@scss.demon.co.uk>...
> Yes, my post casued a little confusion...when I say high ping, I _mean_
> high ping, as in 800+, using a high pushlatency. You don't get the
> problem at less than about 600.
Oh my god! PUSHLATENCY -800? Yeah that might be a little hard to deal
with! :)
Tim Smith
In article <32BDFE...@one.net>, John <mut...@one.net> wrote:
>EXACTLY!! Why did id target the internet for multiplayer gaming in the
>first place!?!? Smooth internet gaming is worlds away from becoming
>reality for your average gamer. We all know that telephone lines just
>QuakeWorld. The problem is that the internet is just too slow for 1st
>person perspective 3d games. Regardless of what kind of software patch
>is written to speed the game up, the internet is just slow by nature so
>what is needed here but nobody will be able to afford it for a good
>game for today? No!
Nope. The problem is not the internet. The problem is ISP's whose
SLIP or PPP software and/or internal network takes 500 ms to get a packet
from the customer to the outside world. If you get an ISP with good
equipment at their site, and has a good backbone connection, you'll get
good Quake (regular Quake, not just QuakeWorld) play on a modem. You
can check your ISP's performance by using traceroute (tracert on Windows
95) to see where the time goes between you and the Quake server. If it's
more than 150 ms before the packet gets out of your ISP's machines and
onto someone with a fast backbone (such as MCI or Sprint), get a new
ISP, and let the old one know the reason you are leaving.
--Tim Smith
Raven
What annoys me the most ? 5 words - "Dumbass with the Rocket Launcher."
Here's the situation: I have a chain gun (weapon #4 or #5), the Dumbass has
a rocket launcher. He stands still in the corner wasting his rockets while
I circle-strafe around and whipping his ass. After that, I wonder: Why the
hell did you even get the Rocket Launcher ??? Suckers like you don't
deserve it !!!
Adam Williamson
In article <022c0f67$a7ff4fa0$1680b9ce@gpearce>, Glenn Pearce
<gpe...@dxnet.com> writes
--
Adam Williamson
ShuflY
"Glenn Pearce" <gpe...@dxnet.com> wrote:
> It plays no better than Quake does.
Apparently you've never played Descent over the internet, or have a
connection slower than 14.4...
steven
In article <32BDFE...@one.net>, mut...@one.net says...
>
>Guardian wrote:
>
>> Exactly..it's just a slight improvement over regular netplay, and in
>> certain situations, it's worse :(
>> I get an average ping of 600-750ms..
>> It's not really QW's fault tho, it's the internet's design that's at
>> fault..it was never meant for mplayer gaming.
>
>first place!?!?
They didn't target the internet. Read the techinfo.txt that came with quake.
Under TCP/IP it states that it is an OPTION. IT says: How well will it work?
who knows? How smooth will it be? Who knows? They also state that there are
just too many variables to make ANY PROMISES about internet quake. READ IT.
> Smooth internet gaming is worlds away from becoming
>reality for your average gamer. We all know that telephone lines just
>won't cut it. Didn't id know this?
Yes they did. TCP/IP is an OPTION.
> Did they think we'd all run out and get T1 lines to play Quake?? What a
joke! id knows they dropped the
>ball on making that call. Why else would Carmack rewrite the internet
>code (QuakeWorld) to simulate the lack of lag?
It is an unsupported product, and he did it for FREE and out of the kindness
of his heart to make quake more enjoyable for those of us who decide to rough
it out on the net. By using quakeworld, we are all also contributing to
development of future gaming technology that will make 3d gaming over the net
near-perfect. Consider yourself a virtual-reality beta tester. :)
>I even read in his .plan awhile back that he grudgingly admitted that he
>screwed up when he
>failed to consider that the majority of people connect to the internet
>with dial-up connections. Now he's trying to remedy this with
>QuakeWorld. The problem is that the internet is just too slow for 1st
>person perspective 3d games.
No, the technology that makes internet 3d gaming possible is still being
developed and is in its infancy. quake is to internet gaming what wolfenstein
was to 3d shootemups- a damn good start.
> Regardless of what kind of software patch
>is written to speed the game up, the internet is just slow by nature so
>there is little that can be done.
The internet is EXTREMELY fast! you can send a packet of data anywhere in
the world in MILLISECONDS. Did you hear me? MILLISECONDS. But, modems are
slow, and the current multiplayer games send too much data to operate. As
time passes, the games will become more optimized, sending less data, and
modems will get faster.
>Better communications hardware is
>what is needed here but nobody will be able to afford it for a good
>while yet. Is Quake a game ahead of its time? Yes! Is it a practical
>game for today? No!
Agreed, it is not practical. But it shure is fun, and id rather use the
current methods to play games with people all over the world, than to use
none at all.
>
>-mutant
>
>-mutant
Also remember that it was US who pushed the gaming companies to start
developing multiplayer for the internet. Remember that doom and descent only
supported IPX networks, because that is all that is practical. When jay
cotton released kali, which has to FOOL your computer into thinking its on an
ipx network, we all jumped on it-using the games on the net when they weren't
even developed for it.
steven
In article <59m7tc$rpo$1...@blackice.winternet.com>, magi...@winternet.com
says...
>
>>Smooth internet gaming is worlds away from becoming
>>reality for your average gamer.
>
>
>>The problem is that the internet is just too slow for 1st
>>person perspective 3d games.
>
>
>Not a flame, just a question...you networking gurus know why this is?
>
Descent DOESN'T play well. You just have complete freedom of movement whether
or not you have data flowing. If your connection becomes completely broken,
you can still move freely around in descent. This manifests itself as ships
that instantly move from the left side of your screen to the right, shooting
another ship and the hits dont register, etc etc..
Quake world has added sort of a descentish quality to the gameplay, you can
be killed by people that you never even saw, you can continue to take hits
from a player seconds after you have killed him, etc etc.
Descent makes its way by not checking to see if all the data is arriving, it
just plows ahead anyway. for example, you hit a 28.8 player with a mega,
he WILL die. You hit a 9600 or 14.4 player with a mega, chances are hell
escape because the "Take damage" packet never got to him. Let's all pray that
quake does NOT go in this direction much further.
Ryan McGinnis
>> Oh my god! PUSHLATENCY -800? Yeah that might be a little hard to deal
>>with! :)
>>
>Yep, that's what I meant. :)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was told that your pushlatency should
be your negative ping. I was told this by a beta tester (from Revco,
I believe), and they've been testing QW for a loooong time.
Nick Darlington
Ryan McGinnis <mcg...@iastate.edu> wrote in article
<32c707e0...@nntp.cntfl.com>...
It really is a matter of personal taste - and personal connection. Since
ping is not always a consistent benchmark for your connection to a server,
set pushlatency to a value that feels most responsive for you. For some
people, the 'set it to negative' ping rule, is the probably the best
starting point, and customise it from there. I think after you've used it
for quite a while however, you are more likely to run it at a rate far
below your ping (if you are like me anwyay).
I use a 28.8, get approx 240+ pings in good servers for me, and typically,
set pushlatency to -50 or 0. It is, however, a custom thing, and so no
answer is really any better than another.. you just have to play and
change/accept the value as you desire.
Nick
Stephen Moore
Nick Darlington wrote:
> I use a 28.8, get approx 240+ pings in good servers for me, and typically,
> set pushlatency to -50 or 0. It is, however, a custom thing, and so no
> answer is really any better than another.. you just have to play and
> change/accept the value as you desire.
>
> Nick
Quite correct. I get a ping of around 140 to 180 with my ISP's server,
and I set pushlatency to -100 and it works lovely. It's almost like
playing on a LAN. Although not quite... ;)
Steve.
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Stephen Moore - aka Granny Killer |
| Punishment Squad Quake Clan |
| mailto:*st...@shpcorp.dnet.co.uk* |
| WWW: http://www.niweb.com/dnet/dnetKhbw |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Remove *'s before replying by email!! |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Kirk
A ping of 140 t 180 is about the same as a lan ping... you don't need QW.
I like it, but I don't think it is all that much better my ping is between
200 and 500
I find it hard to aim very accurately with the prediction. ( I guess). The
QW Hook can't hang and switch weapons. Hey though it's better than 500 ping
without QW and I'm sure someone is working on the bugs.
Apocalypse
Kirk wrote:
>
> A ping of 140 t 180 is about the same as a lan ping...
Either your LAN is bogged down with heavy traffic or you have never
played on a LAN. On a slow server, our client pings are 60-80ms. On a
pentium dedicated server they drop to 40-60ms range. This will spoil you
quickly and you'll forget about lagged inet play.
Apocalypse
Shark
Stephen Moore <*st...@shpcorp.dnet.co.uk*> wrote:
>Nick Darlington wrote:
>> I use a 28.8, get approx 240+ pings in good servers for me, and typically,
>> set pushlatency to -50 or 0. It is, however, a custom thing, and so no
>> answer is really any better than another.. you just have to play and
>> change/accept the value as you desire.
>>
>> Nick
>Quite correct. I get a ping of around 140 to 180 with my ISP's server,
>and I set pushlatency to -100 and it works lovely. It's almost like
>playing on a LAN. Although not quite... ;)
Doesn't this make you sick. This jerk says "I get a 140 to 180
ping"... "and it works lovely". NO SHIT!!! Jez, these guys don't
have a clue as to how the rest of the world lives.
The Shark
Adam Williamson
In article <01bbf9c5$803bd920$0fdc02cf@excalibur>, Kirk
<The_St...@msn.com> writes
>
>A ping of 140 t 180 is about the same as a lan ping... you don't need QW.
Uhhh, no. On a direct IPX connection to the PC next to me (5x86/133
linking to P120, Genius PCI network cards) the client gets a ping of
about 50ms.
--
Adam Williamson
SCryE
Try A Faster Server. Get Quake Spy And Set The Discriptions To A More Than
Decent 150 Ping Time. Then Work Your Way Up. I Always Have At least 5 150
Ping Time Servers And Alot more 300 ping time Servers That Run Great. Or
Maybe it is just Your System. Cuz Performance counts alot in quake over the
net.
Glenn Pearce <gpe...@dxnet.com> wrote in article
<022c0ef4$29419e20$1d80b9ce@gpearce>...
SCryE
Everyone else has 20 frags and u got 3. I hate that!! Or the teams in CTF r
6 on 9 or sumthing.
Glenn Pearce <gpe...@dxnet.com> wrote in article
<022c0ef8$fa56de40$1d80b9ce@gpearce>...
> The Maxxz <Werner.B...@ping.be> wrote in article
> <32b9c061...@news.ping.be>...
Rhino
ammo trying to blow me away since they're not smart enough to look at
the color of my drawers!
R-Factor
Nicholas Doylend
In article <5aju9v$b...@news.usit.net>, Shark <sh...@dirtcheap.com>
writes
>Doesn't this make you sick. This jerk says "I get a 140 to 180
>ping"... "and it works lovely". NO SHIT!!! Jez, these guys don't
>have a clue as to how the rest of the world lives.
I had a taste of how the rest of the world lives the other day when I
tried tcp/ip quake over a 14.4k modem... I didn't like it! Looking
forward to having a lan connection again. ;)
(hash)
--
Nick Doylend
Stephen Moore
Shark wrote:
>
> Stephen Moore <*st...@shpcorp.dnet.co.uk*> wrote:
>
> >Quite correct. I get a ping of around 140 to 180 with my ISP's server,
> >and I set pushlatency to -100 and it works lovely. It's almost like
> >playing on a LAN. Although not quite... ;)
>
> ping"... "and it works lovely". NO SHIT!!! Jez, these guys don't
> have a clue as to how the rest of the world lives.
>
I *am* the rest of the world. I have a 28.8 connection to a local
ISP who are kind enuff to run a quake and a QW server for us.
On any other server, even ones close by, my pings go to 600+, and
anything outside of the UK (or Europe on a good day), I can
move at all.
My phone line is crap and I get frequent disconnections, so I'm
no LPB.
Granny 'Don't call me a LPB' Killer.
Stephen Moore
Kirk wrote:
>
> A ping of 140 t 180 is about the same as a lan ping... you don't need QW.
You're network must be really really shite. And QuakeWorld makes that
ping seem
more like 40 - 80 which *is* like a LAN ping (I play on a LAN every day
in
work, and host LAN partys at my house - everyone invited - it's in N.I.
tho!!!!)
> I like it, but I don't think it is all that much better my ping is between
> 200 and 500
It should make a ping of 200 feel very playable indeed.
> I find it hard to aim very accurately with the prediction. ( I guess). The
> QW Hook can't hang and switch weapons. Hey though it's better than 500 ping
> without QW and I'm sure someone is working on the bugs.
>
Prediction is a lesser evil than lag in my opinion, but that's a whole
different thread...
Steve.
Granny Killer
M.N. Cahill
Rhino wrote:
>
>
> What annoys me most is when my stupid teammates waste all their good
> ammo trying to blow me away since they're not smart enough to look at
> the color of my drawers!
>
Skins in Quakeworld make it awefully hard to see a guys pants.
Especially when two or three nitwits are wearing the same skin, but not
the same pants.
Mark
Nick Darlington
M.N. Cahill <mnca...@telegram.infi.net_Remove_This> wrote in article
<32D179...@telegram.infi.net_Remove_This>...
I agree that this could be a little difficult. I would have thought iD
would have recognised this as a problem (maybe not though..) and done
something about it.
I know some colors in the palette for Quake are like a 'permanent
full-bright' color, meaning that they glow in the dark areas as well as
normal settings, and I would have thought a good idea would be to make sure
that any skins submitted have at least one identifying section that uses
the 'base' color which re-colorises itself to adhere to the pants/shirt
rules. Since iD approve every skin that a clan submits, I am sure this
method would have worked (they could return the skin saying 'not enough
color 4' or whatever).
Just an idea :)
Nick
Steven Bolbot
On Sat, 04 Jan 1997 15:53:03 -0500, Rhino <x-ph...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>What annoys me most is when my stupid teammates waste all their good
>ammo trying to blow me away since they're not smart enough to look at
>the color of my drawers!
>
>R-Factor
I always find that if the whole team wears the same color TOPS as well
as pants, there are a lot less "accidents".
- SB
Roger Moraga
Rhino wrote:
> What annoys me most is when my stupid teammates waste all their good
> ammo trying to blow me away since they're not smart enough to look at
> the color of my drawers!
> R-Factor
It was probably me, but hey, you were once ago a rookie too, huh?
-- =
_______________________________________________________________________
Roger Moraga <mor...@mail.ddnet.es> | Sonr=EDa, ma=F1ana ser=E1 peor
http://www.ddnet.es/personales/moraga/ | Smile, tomorrow it'll be worse
/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\
Roger Moraga
Well, the only way I've found to play a decent Deathmatch is getting
a couple of bots in my own system, or pringing another PC and use a
null-modem connexion, but I still prefer bots (they're better opponents)
than a null-modem with a friend (who prefers cooperative.. Yuk!).
Teresa Testerman
How do you set push latency?
Christopher Schulte
On 14 Jan 1997 04:42:25 GMT, in rec.games.computer.quake.misc, "Teresa
Testerman" <test...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>How do you set push latency?
At the command line type "pushlatency -[your ping here]". Yes that's
supposed to be a negative number.
--
Christopher Schulte
Minneapolis, MN
sch...@winternet.com
http://www.winternet.com/~schulte/
See My Bootleg List For Trading
(NIN, Manson, Metallica + More)
http://www.winternet.com/~schulte/ninboots.html
Scott Lyon
Teresa Testerman wrote:
>
> How do you set push latency?
at the console.....
pushlatency -# between -1 to -20000
--
********************************************
sco...@cyberlynk.com
GAMERS CORNER -> http://www.cyberlynk.com/~scottl
Handle -> MUGGER. NET QUAKE Rules !!!!!
********************************************
Stephen Moore
Teresa Testerman wrote:
>
> How do you set push latency?
pushlatency -<your ping>
Only in QuakeWorld though...
Tim Smith
Stephen Moore <*st...@shpcorp.dnet.co.uk*> wrote:
>You're network must be really really shite. And QuakeWorld makes that
I'll admit that I was not aware that a network could be religious, but
even if it is, I don't see how what particular sect it belongs to would
be relevant.
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Kirk <The_St...@msn.com> wrote:
>A ping of 140 t 180 is about the same as a lan ping... you don't need QW.
>200 and 500
Anyone on our LAN at work who gets a ping above 70 is likely to start
complaining about LPBs because the rest of us get 30 to 40. If 140 to
180 is what you experience on a LAN, you need to upgrade some hardware!
--Tim Smith
Drew Nichols
What is quake like at such a ping?
like a one player game ?
Drew
--
Plusweb Communications
The Cheapest Web Hosting prices on the 'Net !
http://www.n-i.com
Ismail Saeed
Precisely.
Like a single player game.
American McGee reports pings of 2 msec on the id_public server, and
seeing how well he played in the tokay vs. cash demo makes me believe
it.
Yes I know, demos play as smooth as single player games, but he was
performing at a skill as if there was no lag. I can kinda tell by the
flubs made what kind of lag was in a game when i watch demos.
Slipgate
John Oliver
On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:06:14 -0500, Ismail Saeed <isa...@erols.com>
wrote:
>American McGee reports pings of 2 msec on the id_public server, and
>seeing how well he played in the tokay vs. cash demo makes me believe
>it.
That's funny. I can't make those demos play, so I haven't seen them,
but a friend of mine said they were terrible. He couldn't believe
Cash and Tokay played so badly...
I know what you're thinking... "Let's see him put up or shut up!"
He plays from Disruptor's server, I believe, in the San Diego area,
and goes by "Monger".
*****************************************************
Please email responses.
My "reply-to" address has been altered
to foil bulk-emailers. To reply to this
message, remove the asterisk from the
end of my email address.
"If I thought you needed an opinion, I'd give you one!"
Kent_haug
t...@coho.halcyon.com (Tim Smith) wrote:
>Anyone on our LAN at work who gets a ping above 70 is likely to start
>complaining about LPBs because the rest of us get 30 to 40. If 140 to
>180 is what you experience on a LAN, you need to upgrade some hardware!
or software.
with v1.06 server(dos), we experienced normal pings (20-50ms range)
with v1.06 clients, whereas some v1.01 clients struggled in the 100ms
range.
--
note fake email in header. redirect replies to kent...@image.no
Chicken Shit Commandos [CSC] HQ -> http://www.image.no/~cf/
Tim Smith
In article <32E022...@erols.com>, Ismail Saeed <isa...@erols.com> wrote:
>American McGee reports pings of 2 msec on the id_public server, and
>seeing how well he played in the tokay vs. cash demo makes me believe
>it.
Just how good are McGee and Cash? I watched the demo, and they didn't
really seem to stand out compared to some of the players I've run into
on assorted Quake servers on the net. It was good to see that they seemed
to have as much trouble aiming rockets as I do! Are they among the top
Quake players, or are they just average players whose match was of interest
because they are famous Id guys?
--Tim Smith
Daniel Langdon
What annoys me is when all those goody-goody-two-shoes tell me that
idSoftware is Satanic and that DOOM is the work of the devil. But then,
LAG is the ultimate AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Adam Williamson
>American McGee reports pings of 2 msec on the id_public server, and
>seeing how well he played in the tokay vs. cash demo makes me believe
>it.
>
>performing at a skill as if there was no lag. I can kinda tell by the
>flubs made what kind of lag was in a game when i watch demos.
>
0, and on an IPX it's impossible to get below 20-30, in my experience
anyway.
--
Adam Williamson
Namae
On Sat, 18 Jan 1997 03:40:14 GMT, jol...@pacbell.net* (John Oliver)
wrote:
>He plays from Disruptor's server, I believe, in the San Diego area,
>and goes by "Monger".
Hmm, "Monger" is listed 948th in "top 1000 skilled ones." Not very
good.
Ismail Saeed
I really doubt Monger is Tokay or Cash.
Slipgate
Dave Poythress
In article <32e00901...@195.0.200.200>,
kent...@want.no.spam (Kent_haug) wrote:
: t...@coho.halcyon.com (Tim Smith) wrote:
:
: >Anyone on our LAN at work who gets a ping above 70 is likely to start
: >complaining about LPBs because the rest of us get 30 to 40. If 140 to
: >180 is what you experience on a LAN, you need to upgrade some hardware!
:
: or software.
: with v1.06 server(dos), we experienced normal pings (20-50ms range)
: with v1.06 clients, whereas some v1.01 clients struggled in the 100ms
: range.
:
1.06 is great when you have bandwidth. It's exactly the opposite for
modems however
joe...@freemails.com
Hey,
I watched the demo also and was very dipleased. When I say it I
HONESTLY thought it was a joke and it was either them goofing off or
some other wankers playing as them. I couldn't believe my eyes.
EVERYONE was saying how good they were and that they were the best,
but personally I think I could woop their butt easily.
American can't hit a house stading 5 feet in front of himself. I can
clearly remember when him and Cash were fighting in the middle room on
DM4 they would go around and around in the place and American would
just throw some rockets around and not even come close to hitting
Cash. He evetually got him after Cash stopped and picked his nose. And
American doesnt' use the mouse fluently at all, He looks like a
KEYBOARDER. Also he doesn't pay ANY attention to who is around him. I
rememeber several instances where he will just be sitting on the ledge
staring into the level, and then Cash would come up behind him, or he
wouldn't even come close to defending himself.
Cash was also bad. He JiTtErS around like crazy. Falling into the lava
and doing really STUPID moves that just get him killed. He doesn't
seem to have much control and once again is lousy at hitting.
The guys at id made a killer game, but move over guys there are plenty
of Quake players that will EASILY WOOP YOUR BUTT.
Thanks,
--Joeseph
>>Just how good are McGee and Cash? I watched the demo, and they didn't
>>really seem to stand out compared to some of the players I've run into
>>on assorted Quake servers on the net. It was good to see that they seemed
>>to have as much trouble aiming rockets as I do! Are they among the top
>>Quake players, or are they just average players whose match was of interest
>>because they are famous Id guys?
>>
>>--Tim Smith
>
>Well, I was pretty unimpressed by both players, particularly American.
>They are definately not among the top Quake players. They might be
>considered "average" among people that don't play alot, but when
>grouped with the players who take the game seriously they would be
>down near the bottom of the heap.
>
>No wonder we have threads like "Why don't they die?" when people are
>impressed with the play in that demo. It also kinda explains the LPB
>versus modem player stuff that goes on here.
>
>Please note that the following is for ping times below 300 or so.
>
>I would guess that there are alot of players not quite as talented as
>American that think they are really very good. If that player (lets
>call him Fred) is playing on a modem, lots of LPB's are going to beat
>him. So, since Fred thinks he's really good, it must be the LPB's
>ping causing the upset. If the LPB and Fred were to play on a LAN,
>the LPB would kick Fred's butt anyway.
>
>On the other hand, if Fred is an LPB, he will probably win the
>majority of the matches. So, since he thinks he's good anyway, his
>ping can't have anything to do with his victory.
>
>I know this has been said before, but here goes again. Players on
>both sides of the aisle run the gamut of *actual* skill levels. Some
>LPB's suck rocks, they couldn't win a game if you had a gun to their
>head. Some LPB's kick some serious ass, you couldn't beat them if
>they played with one hand. Some modem players also suck rocks, they
>couldn't win if you gave 'em a T3 wired right into their computer.
>Some modem players tear ass, you couldn't beat them if they stood in
>one place with the axe for half the game.
>
>People need to realize that there are some extremely talented players
>out there. Players that routinely and effortlessly use moves and
>techniques that you may have never even heard of. Remember that.
>
>Amen and God bless America! :)
>
>treeWolf - (I suck at Quake)
>======================
>
Jim Ronski
ja...@inil.com (John Castelli) wrote:
>On 19 Jan 1997 04:29:44 GMT, t...@coho.halcyon.com (Tim Smith) wrote:
>>In article <32E022...@erols.com>, Ismail Saeed <isa...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>American McGee reports pings of 2 msec on the id_public server, and
>>>seeing how well he played in the tokay vs. cash demo makes me believe
>>>it.
>>
>>Just how good are McGee and Cash? I watched the demo, and they didn't
>>really seem to stand out compared to some of the players I've run into
>>on assorted Quake servers on the net. It was good to see that they seemed
>>to have as much trouble aiming rockets as I do! Are they among the top
>>Quake players, or are they just average players whose match was of interest
>>because they are famous Id guys?
>>
>>--Tim Smith
>Well, I was pretty unimpressed by both players, particularly American.
>They are definately not among the top Quake players. They might be
>considered "average" among people that don't play alot, but when
I was quite underwhelmed myself. I was expecting to see a couple of
truly awesome frag gods....NOT. I'm not saying I'm better or anything.
But I've seen demos of Clan matches in which the players seem much
more skilled. And have played against some, too. I think the original
post was correct about being high profile.
Jim
Rambo
In article <32e8deed...@snews.zippo.com>, joe...@freemails.com says...
<<<<Big Time Snip>>>>
>The guys at id made a killer game, but move over guys there are plenty
>of Quake players that will EASILY WOOP YOUR BUTT.
>
>Thanks,
>
>--Joeseph
>
>
>
Well, Not to cut you down or anything...but I dont think the point of
the demo was to brag about how good they are. Just to show some of
the ID guys in action. And yes they made an awsome game, but where
would ID be if all they did was play quake from work????????????
no quake world, no vQuake, no GLquake...etc...get my point?
Dont flame them because they are not the "awsome" players that hype
made them, just appreciate their efforts in giving us a demo:)
--
***********************************************************************
Rambo
CyberReich Clan
E-mail-> tdo...@awinc.com
Clan Web Page-> http://courses.cstudies.ubc.ca/~quake/crc_clan
***********************************************************************
LagMaster
>
> >Well, I was pretty unimpressed by both players, particularly American.
> >They are definately not among the top Quake players. They might be
> >considered "average" among people that don't play alot, but when
>
> I was quite underwhelmed myself. I was expecting to see a couple of
> truly awesome frag gods....NOT. I'm not saying I'm better or anything.
> But I've seen demos of Clan matches in which the players seem much
> more skilled. And have played against some, too. I think the original
> post was correct about being high profile.
>
> Jim
Yes but one thing yall all have to rembember is that this is two highly
highly skilled players playing each other.. whats it suppost to look
like...?? Yes it did you like american was missing alot with the rockets
but remember hes going agiast another great player..
thats all,
--
LagMaster
tom...@swbell.net
userID 12644 on disruptor's master
Tim Smith
In article <32e8deed...@snews.zippo.com>, <joe...@freemails.com> wrote:
> American can't hit a house stading 5 feet in front of himself. I can
>clearly remember when him and Cash were fighting in the middle room on
>DM4 they would go around and around in the place and American would
>just throw some rockets around and not even come close to hitting
>Cash. He evetually got him after Cash stopped and picked his nose. And
>American doesnt' use the mouse fluently at all, He looks like a
>KEYBOARDER. Also he doesn't pay ANY attention to who is around him. I
>rememeber several instances where he will just be sitting on the ledge
>staring into the level, and then Cash would come up behind him, or he
>wouldn't even come close to defending himself.
>
>Cash was also bad. He JiTtErS around like crazy. Falling into the lava
People who circle and jitter can be hard to hit with rockets. Heck, last
night I was playing DM2 and got into a fight with a guy who had a ping
200 better than me (T1 vs. modem), an awesome rank and skill (something
like 3000 kills, 200 deaths), and rockets. This was in the area where
there is a rocket launcher next to the three or for oscillating floor
sections over lava. I circled and jittered, and it took him six rockets
to get me. It's often best in a smaller room to just go for the walls
near the target and let the splash do the work.
Most of the times American sat on the ledge, he seemed to know exactly
where Cash was, and so was in no danger.
The other thing I noticed that American did well was keeping track of
his health. He'd run past Cash and go for health, and then come back
to fight. When I see the enemy, I rarely have the presence of mind to
note that I don't have the health for a fight.
One thing to keep in mind is that in one-on-one play, both players tend
to be better equiped when they meet. For example, if you've got 8 players
in DM4, and go for the red armor, and find that it is gone, and so wait
for it to reappear, and then take it, you probably now have the best
armor of anyone there--whomever previously took it has probably lost
most of it. With one-on-one, the other player will still be at 200
when you encounter him.
--Tim Smith
FraggyBalls
In article <5ccdsj$dlg$2...@noc.van.hookup.net>, tdo...@awinc.com (Rambo) wrote:
>In article <32e8deed...@snews.zippo.com>, joe...@freemails.com says...
><<<<Big Time Snip>>>>
>
>
>>The guys at id made a killer game, but move over guys there are plenty
>>of Quake players that will EASILY WOOP YOUR BUTT.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>--Joeseph
>>
>>
>>
>Well, Not to cut you down or anything...but I dont think the point of
>the demo was to brag about how good they are. Just to show some of
>the ID guys in action. And yes they made an awsome game, but where
>would ID be if all they did was play quake from work????????????
>no quake world, no vQuake, no GLquake...etc...get my point?
>Dont flame them because they are not the "awsome" players that hype
>made them, just appreciate their efforts in giving us a demo:)
But the hype was unreal. I've heard ppl say tokay was the best Dmatcher in
the world. Jeez... looked like he was using the keyboard only.
XoLeRaS^Do
why where they ever good players to beging with??
joe...@freemails.com wrote in article
<32e8deed...@snews.zippo.com>...
> Hey,
>
> I watched the demo also and was very dipleased. When I say it I
> HONESTLY thought it was a joke and it was either them goofing off or
> some other wankers playing as them. I couldn't believe my eyes.
> EVERYONE was saying how good they were and that they were the best,
> but personally I think I could woop their butt easily.
>
> American can't hit a house stading 5 feet in front of himself. I can
> clearly remember when him and Cash were fighting in the middle room on
> DM4 they would go around and around in the place and American would
> just throw some rockets around and not even come close to hitting
> Cash. He evetually got him after Cash stopped and picked his nose. And
> American doesnt' use the mouse fluently at all, He looks like a
> KEYBOARDER. Also he doesn't pay ANY attention to who is around him. I
> rememeber several instances where he will just be sitting on the ledge
> staring into the level, and then Cash would come up behind him, or he
> wouldn't even come close to defending himself.
>
> Cash was also bad. He JiTtErS around like crazy. Falling into the lava
> and doing really STUPID moves that just get him killed. He doesn't
> seem to have much control and once again is lousy at hitting.
>
> The guys at id made a killer game, but move over guys there are plenty
> of Quake players that will EASILY WOOP YOUR BUTT.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Joeseph
>
>
>
> >>Just how good are McGee and Cash? I watched the demo, and they didn't
> >>really seem to stand out compared to some of the players I've run into
> >>on assorted Quake servers on the net. It was good to see that they
seemed
> >>to have as much trouble aiming rockets as I do! Are they among the top
> >>Quake players, or are they just average players whose match was of
interest
> >>because they are famous Id guys?
> >>
> >>--Tim Smith
> >
> >Well, I was pretty unimpressed by both players, particularly American.
> >They are definately not among the top Quake players. They might be
> >considered "average" among people that don't play alot, but when