I`m an LPB and I play fair!!!
James Boswell
Like it says in the header i`m an LPB, so what, I`m not the greatest Quake
Player on the planet... but I`m not the worst either...
My `net connecton is a Aggregated 4xE1 setup (that`s 4 x E1 lines, at 2.048
mb/s ea.) but I usually connect to a slower server (one that Qspy detects
as 150+,And i usually get a good game, sometime i win, sometimes i lose,
depending on who else is on that server.
But then again, if i connect to a `Fast` server (like Demon`s quake server)
i get a ping of -75 but the game plays almost exactly the same as a 150+
game, I admit that it can be an unfair advantage, BUT i do try to even
things out (like starting a massive download, or something similar) when
i`m playing Quake over the net. So my moral for people on fast lines is :
Level off the Playing field, kill some bandwidth...
Just my Ł665.99 worth, James
--
_____________-------------------_____________-------------------
*Ś James "FlashFire" Boswell Ś*Ś e-mail :: Flas...@inorbit.com Ś*
*Ś Website :: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/s.boswell/index.htm Ś*
*Ś Administration, QuakeC Programmers mailing list, mail me to join... Ś*
*Ś Head honcho, ACEsoft software developments. Ś*
*ŚThe #1 sign that you`ve been playing to much Quake is... You compensate
for lag and walk into the wall Ś*
*Ś Intel's log, stardate 10/30/1994] We are Pentium <TM> of borg. Division
is futile. You will be approximated. Ś*
Ken Martin
On 4 Feb 1997 21:15:08 GMT, "James Boswell" <flas...@inorbit.com>
wrote:
>Like it says in the header i`m an LPB, so what, I`m not the greatest Quake
>Player on the planet... but I`m not the worst either...
>My `net connecton is a Aggregated 4xE1 setup (that`s 4 x E1 lines, at 2.048
>mb/s ea.) but I usually connect to a slower server (one that Qspy detects
>as 150+,And i usually get a good game, sometime i win, sometimes i lose,
>depending on who else is on that server.
>But then again, if i connect to a `Fast` server (like Demon`s quake server)
>i get a ping of -75 but the game plays almost exactly the same as a 150+
>game, I admit that it can be an unfair advantage, BUT i do try to even
>things out (like starting a massive download, or something similar) when
>i`m playing Quake over the net. So my moral for people on fast lines is :
>Level off the Playing field, kill some bandwidth...
> Just my £665.99 worth, James
>--
The easiest way to do it is to use Qspy and connect to a server where
you have a 250 ping. Then you're playing as if you're on a modem.
It's that easy.
KM
Wraith
>Like it says in the header i`m an LPB, so what, I`m not the greatest Quake
>Player on the planet... but I`m not the worst either...
>
(SNIP)
Wow! I don't. I play when I'm at school and have access to their
fractional T1. I try to find a ping of less than 100. I don't feel
guilty at all. You use what you have. It's great winning for a
change.
Note that I don't claim to be some great Deathmatch player.
On my very best day I'm average. But it's simply fun to win.
Joe
Ken Martin
Joe ,here, has illustrated the reason why low pingers are bastards,
and why Quake basically sucks. He really thinks he is winning when he
plays with such an advantage. This is the typical low pinger attitude.
They don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word 'winning'.
Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
This is why Quake basically sucks!
BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
fodder.
Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
KM
PS, Quakeworld isn't it. It's just a weird version of Quake.
Unknown
mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
>KM
What a poor sad bastard you are. Right now I play with a 14.4 modem
and everyone has a better ping than me. Should I say that people with
28.8's are jerks with an unfair advantage over me and should not be
allowed on a server? That 14.4 works well enough to give me a good
connection on my Dwango server where it is rare that someone can beat
me at a doom match. From this I go onto the internet to play Quake
where I get a sucky connection and get fragged left and right without
ever being able to even react many times. Of course I know going in
that its going to be this way and I still manage to have fun. Just
gotta savor every frag that I get. Yah a low ping is an advantage but
if you can get it then its perfectly fair. If you have a sucky ping
and cant hack it then do something else. AMERICA *IS NOT* a worthless
socialist country and id software doesnt owe you or anyone jack shit.
If you cant appreciate what you are getting for free then go fuck
yourself and move to England :)
wyrm
Nyarly wrote:
>
> mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 23:30:07 GMT, wra...@cyberramp.net (Wraith) wrote:
>
> >Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
> >this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
> >included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
> >This is why Quake basically sucks!
>
> >BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
> >ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
> >everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
> >Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
> >they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
> >fodder.
>
> >Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
> >Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
> and everyone has a better ping than me. Should I say that people with
> 28.8's are jerks with an unfair advantage over me and should not be
> allowed on a server? That 14.4 works well enough to give me a good
> connection on my Dwango server where it is rare that someone can beat
> me at a doom match. From this I go onto the internet to play Quake
> where I get a sucky connection and get fragged left and right without
> ever being able to even react many times. Of course I know going in
> that its going to be this way and I still manage to have fun. Just
> gotta savor every frag that I get. Yah a low ping is an advantage but
> if you can get it then its perfectly fair. If you have a sucky ping
> and cant hack it then do something else. AMERICA *IS NOT* a worthless
> socialist country and id software doesnt owe you or anyone jack shit.
> If you cant appreciate what you are getting for free then go fuck
> yourself and move to England :)
i wouldn't respond so harshly as that, but i think that Mr. Martin was
a bit hasty in his judgement that quake 'basically sucks'. not counting
that ping disparity is only one aspect of a deep and rich game, there
are several reasons why this isn't so bad. 1st - the alternatives suck
worse.
1st, I've played Descent II (great game) over the internet, and it takes
a different approach to the game. All movement, firing, and positioning
are done locally, and then the local machine tries to update the remote
ones of what the player is doing. if the ping value is low, then the
updates will be infrequent. The upshot of this is that while you are in
one place, everyone else will see you in another. They will shoot at
you, and to them it will look like they hit you, but really you are long
gone. this is actually worse than quake.
2nd, the problem does not really lie with Quake. the problem lies with
the internet. internet connections are slow, and different people
connect at different speeds. There is great disparity in this. the
difference between someone with a 14.4 modem and someone with a t1
connection is dramatic. the fact that these games run at all is a
technological acheivement.
3rd, a ping restriction would only have 1 of 2 effects (depending on
what was meant by that term). if that meant restricting who could get
on a server because of ping, that would only keep people from enjoying
internet gaming. if it meant reducing everyone to the same ping rate,
it would mean that *everyone* would get choppy, slow updates so that no
one could kill anyone else. and it would be even slower than the lowest
person's ping, since the server would have to spend extra processing
time keeping track of when to send to the fast-pingers.
the solution does not lie with something that id should have done.
the answer lies with advances in internet technology. when everyone has
56k modems, or even better fiber-optic connections, then this will all
be mute. until then, frag all you can, cus it can't get any better.
Namae
On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 11:23:36 GMT, mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
>BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
>ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
>everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
>Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
>they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
>fodder.
I get the real messages: "you are winning just because you have low
ping" or "I bet I can beat you if I have ping like you." The best
one: "I have bad connection because you sucked up all the bandwidth."
These guys sure know the word "whining."
>
>Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
>Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
Thanks, one less whiner on the Quake servers.
Kenvor Cothey
On 4 Feb 1997, James Boswell wrote:
> Like it says in the header i`m an LPB, so what, I`m not the greatest Quak=
e
[snippity snip snip]
> But then again, if i connect to a `Fast` server (like Demon`s quake serve=
r)
> i get a ping of -75 but the game plays almost exactly the same as a 150+
> game, I admit that it can be an unfair advantage, BUT i do try to even
> things out (like starting a massive download, or something similar) when
> i`m playing Quake over the net. So my moral for people on fast lines is :
> Level off the Playing field, kill some bandwidth...
> =09=09=09Just my =A3665.99 worth, James
=2E.. or you could start a Linux kernel compile and play while that's going
on ....
PBRSTREETGANG
go preach somewhere else
On 5 Feb 1997 19:12:34 GMT, kc...@ppp166.cfr.usf.edu (/proc/kcore)
wrote:
>Nyarly () wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: gotta savor every frag that I get. Yah a low ping is an advantage but
>: if you can get it then its perfectly fair. If you have a sucky ping
>: and cant hack it then do something else. AMERICA *IS NOT* a worthless
>: socialist country and id software doesnt owe you or anyone jack shit.
>: If you cant appreciate what you are getting for free then go fuck
>: yourself and move to England :)
>:
>
>Yep, greed, money, power... Those who seek them are rewarded in both
>real life and Quake. The game reflects the sad state that our society
>is in.
M. N. Cahill
> 3rd, a ping restriction would only have 1 of 2 effects (depending on
> what was meant by that term). if that meant restricting who could get
> on a server because of ping, that would only keep people from enjoying
> internet gaming.
Actually, wouldn't it just keep LPB's from making a mockery of the game
and destroying everyone else's enjoyment? Think about it, it's not as
though every server would be no LPB, just a few so that we HPI (high
ping impaired) can have some semblence of a fair game. Most LPB's don't
realize that they generate so much information running around at double
and triple our speed that it ruins our connections. I've been playing
on a no low ping server, and when ever a LPB wanders in, the excellent
connection goes bad, and everyone complains about the disconnect icon.
Doesn't seem like a coincidence. When I've got a ping of 300 and
someone with a ping of 30 joins,it ruins my einjoyment of the game. By
allowing no lpb severs, we make it so we can ALL he game.
if it meant reducing everyone to the same ping rate,
> it would mean that *everyone* would get choppy, slow updates so that no
> one could kill anyone else. and it would be even slower than the lowest
> person's ping, since the server would have to spend extra processing
> time keeping track of when to send to the fast-pingers.
You're right, ping adjustment is a waste of time.
> the solution does not lie with something that id should have done.
> the answer lies with advances in internet technology. when everyone has
> 56k modems, or even better fiber-optic connections, then this will all
> be mute. until then, frag all you can, cus it can't get any better.
I'm not nolding my breath for 56k. It can and will get better with no
ping under 100 servers. I've tried it. It works.
--
Mark N. Cahill
For E-mail remove the _Remove_This from the reply to address. I'm sorry
but I am tired of being e-spammed by souless commercial e-mailers who
harvest e-mail address from usenet newsgroups.
"The good men do is oft interred with them, while the evil lives on."
/proc/kcore
Rambo
mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
SNIP
>Joe ,here, has illustrated the reason why low pingers are bastards,
>and why Quake basically sucks. He really thinks he is winning when he
>plays with such an advantage. This is the typical low pinger attitude.
>They don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word 'winning'.
>Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
>this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
>included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
>This is why Quake basically sucks!
>BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
>ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
>everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
>Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
>they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
>fodder.
>Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
>Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
>KM
>PS, Quakeworld isn't it. It's just a weird version of Quake.
Holy shit Ken, you are really bitter towards LPB's!!!! Personally I
enjoy playing LPB's because it poses such a challenge...as long as
there arent 7 lpb's and me...Im fine!!!! And it really feels good
when u win the level. Play them more, and u have a better chance of
beating them....Run away, and u will lose.
ps. I agree on quakeworld...I dont like it at all:(
***********************************************************************
Rambo
CyberReich Clan
E-mail-> tdo...@awinc.com
Clan Web Page-> http://courses.cstudies.ubc.ca/~quake/crc_clan
***********************************************************************
Ismail Saeed
> >
> >>Like it says in the header i`m an LPB, so what, I`m not the greatest Quake
> >>Player on the planet... but I`m not the worst either...
> >>
> >(SNIP)
> >
> >Wow! I don't. I play when I'm at school and have access to their
> >fractional T1. I try to find a ping of less than 100. I don't feel
> >guilty at all. You use what you have. It's great winning for a
> >change.
> >
> >Note that I don't claim to be some great Deathmatch player.
> >On my very best day I'm average. But it's simply fun to win.
> >
> >Joe
>
> and why Quake basically sucks. He really thinks he is winning when he
> plays with such an advantage. This is the typical low pinger attitude.
> They don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word 'winning'.
>
> Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
> this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
> included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
> This is why Quake basically sucks!
Some things to remember here: They have extremely low pings in
testing Quake out because of the speeds and connections of the
computers over at id. They'd all have gotten kicked out of their
playtests!
Also, the type of connection you have on the Net affects
yourself no matter what on the Net. What can they do about it? Its
internet usable, they did that and thats all they can do. The manual
made no garauntees on internet play, remember?
>
> BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
> ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
> everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
> Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
> they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
> fodder.
So just because they are at a university or own a T1 themselves
they don't get to play? I'm afraid that this lpb stuff isn't applicable
to all people with a t1 or better.
>
> Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
> Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
And what did you expect them to do? If a person happens to have
a really good connect despite a modem or whatever, they get kicked off a
game? The point is to get us all good connects, not all crappy ones.
Also, if they happen to be playing using the University of Virginia
network coz thats what internet connect they have, are we supposed to
shun them? What the hell?
>
> KM
>
> PS, Quakeworld isn't it. It's just a weird version of Quake.
Maybe true.
I might add here that I've played in games where a lot of people
were much more favorably pinged then me. So? The thing in Quake
connects that makes it better than doom connects is that doom games were
slowed to the speed of the slowest computer (so all players could handle
it) plus the lag from the connect (if any, which was usually true on
the net or on long distance modem calls). In Quake, they were going to
have it so that people could freely enter and leave. Well, if someone
with a 486 DX2 50 enters the game, are all of our games supposed to
become choppy as crap? We get to play at our computer's speed, minus
lag factors. Instead of getting slowed down just coz of some guy that
joined, each player plays at a speed equal to his own speed minus the
lag. That way a guy with a pentium and a 28.8 doesn't suffer in a 16
player game from a player with a 486 and a 14.4. The fact that this can
let some players run circles aroudn other players is a sad truth. But
it makes the game a lot more playable in general then hoppy graphics and
choppy action and sound present in lagged doom games. Aside from the
lag, your playability as far as speed isn't reduced. I'm happy.
Slipgate
wyrm
M. N. Cahill wrote:
>
>
>
> Actually, wouldn't it just keep LPB's from making a mockery of the game
> and destroying everyone else's enjoyment? Think about it, it's not as
> though every server would be no LPB, just a few so that we HPI (high
> ping impaired) can have some semblence of a fair game. Most LPB's don't
> realize that they generate so much information running around at double
> and triple our speed that it ruins our connections. I've been playing
> on a no low ping server, and when ever a LPB wanders in, the excellent
> connection goes bad, and everyone complains about the disconnect icon.
> Doesn't seem like a coincidence. When I've got a ping of 300 and
> someone with a ping of 30 joins,it ruins my einjoyment of the game. By
> allowing no lpb severs, we make it so we can ALL he game.
actually this doesn't seem like to bad of an idea, now that i look at
it. the problem might be that there are less people with the high ping
rates, and locations for them to play might be scarce. i mean, if there
was a no lpb sever, and you were HPI (as you so aptly put it) wouldn't
you go to that server instead of one where everyone is on a t1? thats
the only objection i have, that lpbs would lack someplace to play. and
the whole idea of internet gaming is to let everyone possible play.
>
> I'm not nolding my breath for 56k. It can and will get better with no
> ping under 100 servers. I've tried it. It works.
my problem with this is more philisophical than anything else. just as
a 2400 modem is inadequate for web browsing, perhaps a 14.4 is
inadequate for internet gaming. this should be the kind of demand that
creates a force for new technology. To my mind, the whole idea of the
computer revolution is to strive for better, not make due with what you
have. i'm speaking of this on a market level, not individual, where in
this case the market is quake-internet gamers.
on a slightly related note, i hear of a dumb-modem (just a DAC-ADC)
controlled by software, allowing it to be somewhat faster and much, much
cheaper ($20) than conventional modems. this was the whole idea behind
IDE, which greatly increased the speeds of hard disks. anyway, if what
i hear is correct, start looking for this around June.
Namae
On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 14:48:53 -0500, "M. N. Cahill"
<mnca...@telegram.infi.net_REMOVE_THIS> wrote:
>wyrm wrote:
>>
>> Nyarly wrote:
>> >
>> > mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
>> >
>Snipped for space
>
>> 3rd, a ping restriction would only have 1 of 2 effects (depending on
>> what was meant by that term). if that meant restricting who could get
>> on a server because of ping, that would only keep people from enjoying
>> internet gaming.
>
>Actually, wouldn't it just keep LPB's from making a mockery of the game
>and destroying everyone else's enjoyment? Think about it, it's not as
>though every server would be no LPB, just a few so that we HPI (high
>ping impaired) can have some semblence of a fair game. Most LPB's don't
>realize that they generate so much information running around at double
>and triple our speed that it ruins our connections. I've been playing
>on a no low ping server, and when ever a LPB wanders in, the excellent
>connection goes bad, and everyone complains about the disconnect icon.
>Doesn't seem like a coincidence. When I've got a ping of 300 and
>someone with a ping of 30 joins,it ruins my einjoyment of the game. By
>allowing no lpb severs, we make it so we can ALL he game.
This is purely your imagination. Quake servers do not care the speed
of client side connection (not sure about QW though). The slow down
is due to the server not being able to handle so many players. LPBs
are NOT running around at double or triple your speed. This is very
similar to the popular false conception that LPBs can shoot at faster
rate than modem players. Nobody can run faster or shoot faster than
the speed set by the server, period. Moreover, the information sent
to the clients are regulated by systicrate variable. This is set at
the server side so clients with faster connection cannot receive the
packets at any faster rate than everyone else does. For proof, LPBs
DO experience the server side slow down. When the connection goes
bad, we still keep quite good ping but the game becomes very choppy,
just like it is for the modem players (for the note, we get phonejack
icon too).
LPBs have a lot of advantage, but some of you modem players who never
played over T1/T3 seem to mistake what faster connection can do.
rj
In article <32f863c...@news.usit.net>, mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
>Joe ,here, has illustrated the reason why low pingers are bastards,
>and why Quake basically sucks. He really thinks he is winning when he
>plays with such an advantage. This is the typical low pinger attitude.
>They don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word 'winning'.
Oh god, when will some modem players learn to play better and kick
ass in lag? There are 3 modem players in my clan alone that kick
the living shit out of at least 90% of the low ping population.
And I know there are other modem players that can do this also.
It IS possible, it just takes a lot of skill. I have witnessed my
fellow modem clan members destroy T1/T3 clans in teamplay and in
1on1 matches with a 150ms ping disadvantage, 100ms to 250ms...
And we are talking good clans and good clan members, and no I
am not saying names. There is no need for that, they know who they
if they have lost at the hands of a modem LGD member.
>Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
>this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
>included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
>This is why Quake basically sucks!
No, you basically do not have the skills it takes to play well
in lag.
>BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
>ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
>everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
>Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
>they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
>fodder.
No, you are skill fodder. I used to win matches against T1's/ISDN
etc as a modem, and I am now ISDN myself and guess what? I still
win. Whoa, what a concept.
>Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
>Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
Want some cheese with your whine?
>PS, Quakeworld isn't it. It's just a weird version of Quake.
QW will get better, beta testers tell me it is QUITE a bit better
than the current QW.
rj, Clan Legends (LGD)
--
sig? I don't need no stinkin sig
Steele Raine
First part snipped as it wasn't worthy of a response.......
> >BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
> >ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
> >everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
> >Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
> >they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
> >fodder.
>
> >Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
> >Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
>
> >KM
>
> >PS, Quakeworld isn't it. It's just a weird version of Quake.
1) How do you define winning? If it's a 1000 ping and 500 frags everybody
is a loser :-)
2) I have a 28.8, through a crowded university server. I ONCE had a 300
ping at about 3:00 in the morning. Normal is 450-650 (I just put
pushlatency -500 in config.cfg and I'm fine :-) ) I've never been top dog
on any of the charts, nor will I ever be. But it's true that playing alot
has helped me, and I've worked my skill from over -500 to around -130 in
the last month to prove it. Query "Steele Raine" in 204 server if you
think I'm lying. Better yet visit NugFortress some time and verify my
pings.... then look at my score. I'm always around 1/2 way up
regardless of who else is playing.
Point is--- you need practice. If you can't kill somebody that is your
problem, --- crippling low ping connections isn't the answer.
3) For every low ping conection there is somebody who has paid for it. If
you want to play you have to pay.
'Nuff siad
=============================================
REALITY.SYS corrupted; Reboot Universe (Y/N)?
cap...@mustang.uwo.ca
=============================================
John Oliver
On 5 Feb 1997 07:53:01 -0700, (Nyarly) wrote:
>What a poor sad bastard you are. Right now I play with a 14.4 modem
>and everyone has a better ping than me. Should I say that people with
>28.8's are jerks with an unfair advantage over me and should not be
>allowed on a server? That 14.4 works well enough to give me a good
>connection on my Dwango server where it is rare that someone can beat
>me at a doom match. From this I go onto the internet to play Quake
>where I get a sucky connection and get fragged left and right without
>ever being able to even react many times. Of course I know going in
>that its going to be this way and I still manage to have fun. Just
>gotta savor every frag that I get. Yah a low ping is an advantage but
>if you can get it then its perfectly fair. If you have a sucky ping
>and cant hack it then do something else. AMERICA *IS NOT* a worthless
>socialist country and id software doesnt owe you or anyone jack shit.
>If you cant appreciate what you are getting for free then go fuck
>yourself and move to England :)
Amen and hallelujah!!
*****************************************************
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!"
Bill MacEachern
In article <32f863c...@news.usit.net>, mar...@usit.net says...
>>>Like it says in the header i`m an LPB, so what, I`m not the greatest Quake
>>>Player on the planet... but I`m not the worst either...
>
>Joe ,here, has illustrated the reason why low pingers are bastards,
>and why Quake basically sucks. He really thinks he is winning when he
>plays with such an advantage. This is the typical low pinger attitude.
>They don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word 'winning'.
<blah blah blah ad nauseum...>
>Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
>Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
You could always take up knitting, but then you'd complain about people with
better needles than you.
Jim Ronski
tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) wrote:
>the speed set by the server, period. Moreover, the information sent
>to the clients are regulated by systicrate variable. This is set at
>the server side so clients with faster connection cannot receive the
>packets at any faster rate than everyone else does.
No. That's *not* what that means. All it means is that all the
players are sent packets at the same time. None faster, non slower.
But, as soon as the packet leaves the server those with faster
connections will receive their packets sooner. Just as packets sent
from a fast connection will be received by the server faster than
those of slower connection.
As far as ping restrictions are concerned. I think it would be nice
if there were *some* servers that were no LPB. If someone wants to
setup some servers for no HPW that would be fine, too. Although I
doubt there would be many modem players going onto these servers. I've
played against LPB's that weren't worth a shit. I have also played
against many who were decent or even very good. These very good LPB's
don't belong on a server with a bunch of modem players. With QW
sometimes it's very easy to see who the REAL LP Bastards are.
Sometimes I'll find a couple of servers that are *all* LPB. Then I'll
see the rest with one or two LPB's beating up on some HPW's Why are
they there? I think because either they KNOW that they will get the
shit kicked out of them on the LPB servers OR they are just there for
an ego trip. I play on one server regularly where ther are a couple of
LP's that are regulars also. I batter them.......and like it. But
atthe same time, I know that when (if ever) they become good I
probably wont have a chance. They've still got the ping advantage.
Oh well. As long as I can stay at (or near) the top of the modem
player lists I'm happy. If I can kill a couple LPB's on the
way...GREAT!!
Later
Jim
EX-Stoner.lag
Jim Ronski
kc...@ppp166.cfr.usf.edu (/proc/kcore) wrote:
>Nyarly () wrote:
>[snip]
>: gotta savor every frag that I get. Yah a low ping is an advantage but
>: if you can get it then its perfectly fair. If you have a sucky ping
>: and cant hack it then do something else. AMERICA *IS NOT* a worthless
>: socialist country and id software doesnt owe you or anyone jack shit.
>: If you cant appreciate what you are getting for free then go fuck
>: yourself and move to England :)
>:
>Yep, greed, money, power... Those who seek them are rewarded in both
>real life and Quake. The game reflects the sad state that our society
>is in.
If you are soooo upset about what capitalism has done. Move to
fucking China.
Later
Jim
John Oliver
On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 11:23:36 GMT, mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
>Joe ,here, has illustrated the reason why low pingers are bastards,
>and why Quake basically sucks. He really thinks he is winning when he
>plays with such an advantage. This is the typical low pinger attitude.
>They don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word 'winning'.
There's nothing wrong with Joe at all. If he can enjoy the game a
little more with a better connection, that doesn't make him a
"bastard".
>Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
>this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
>included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
>This is why Quake basically sucks!
If you think Quake sucks, why do you play, and what are you doing
posting here?
>BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
>ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
>everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
>Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
>they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
>fodder.
You loser. So you'll only play people with a higher ping than
yourself? As soon as it looks like you might start to lose, you pack
it in and go home? That's a wonderful way to play.
>Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
>Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
And nobody gives a shit about you! So take your whiny crybaby
attitude somewhere else.
John Oliver
>Yep, greed, money, power... Those who seek them are rewarded in both
>real life and Quake. The game reflects the sad state that our society
>is in.
And those who don't starve in the gutter. What's your point?
Ian McLean
In article <32fc00c2...@news.cc.columbia.edu> tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) writes:
[ blah blah blah ]
> LPBs
>are NOT running around at double or triple your speed. This is very
>similar to the popular false conception that LPBs can shoot at faster
>rate than modem players.
Umm...they can! If you get a good connection you can shoot much faster than
a bad connection. I've had it both ways and this is my experience. This is
not a modem connection, but depends on how busy things.
> Nobody can run faster or shoot faster than
>the speed set by the server, period.
What's your point? People With Low Latency (PWLL :-) perhaps can shoot as
fast as the server will let them. Higher latency players may only be able to
shoot at half this rate (or less).
>Moreover, the information sent
>to the clients are regulated by systicrate variable. This is set at
>the server side so clients with faster connection cannot receive the
>packets at any faster rate than everyone else does. For proof, LPBs
>DO experience the server side slow down.
Yep. Except that it takes less time for the packets to actually get there.
Higher bandwidth does help a bit.
>When the connection goes
>bad, we still keep quite good ping but the game becomes very choppy,
>just like it is for the modem players (for the note, we get phonejack
>icon too).
>LPBs have a lot of advantage, but some of you modem players who never
>played over T1/T3 seem to mistake what faster connection can do.
I usually enjoy a nice connection (pings of 150 to 250). However, I've played
on a server with 15 other people playing, over a 28.8 modem connection and
didn't notice any difference! I have played on a local server with a ping of
20-30, but this was only with other people on the same LAN.
None of this is with a Pentium and none from Windows 95. DOS with a 486DX4
100.
Ian
Nick Darlington
Namae <tt...@columbia.edu> wrote in article
<32fc00c2...@news.cc.columbia.edu>...
> .....
> This is purely your imagination. Quake servers do not care the speed
> of client side connection (not sure about QW though). The slow down
> are NOT running around at double or triple your speed. This is very
> similar to the popular false conception that LPBs can shoot at faster
> the speed set by the server, period. Moreover, the information sent
> to the clients are regulated by systicrate variable. This is set at
> the server side so clients with faster connection cannot receive the
> packets at any faster rate than everyone else does.
Would you think it a false conception that a game containing just high-ping
players would all have approx the same firing rate, etc, but -under- the
sys_ticrate setting? T1's, etc., can just about keep up with any
sys_ticrate setting.. the lowly modems cannot (example, ping = 200 (avg for
28.8?) means 5 updates per second? Even when sys_ticrate is set to 0.1 the
modem player's response and reactions are going to be half that of the <100
ping players..).
So although I believe you when you say that players cannot operate quicker
than the server allows them to, it doesn't stop them from being any slower
(which would then constitue the players appearing to be twice as quick - to
the player, not the server).
Not that you need to know, but it's like comparing a game with average
machines across a lan, with one player running in 1024x768 (or any
resolution that causes fps to be higher than sys_ticrate) and the other
playing in 320x200.. I would be highly surprised if the 1024 player won,
wouldn't you?
It seems to sound theoretically correct about what you said on the server
not caring about the speed of who joins, but more likely, the number of
people in the game, but that's because I still think it's a client based
problem. With standard modems, you just can't fire rockets as quick
(generally) as you would be able to single player - especially if you try
pressing the key to fire after each aim (not so bad when you just hold down
fire.. but then you'll miss anyway), and so the general rate at which an
LPB could fire (without holding down the fire key) would appear to be
quicker than is possible - for the modem player - and also spawn enough
fast-rate entities(?) on screen for the rockets and smoke being fired at
LPB rate, that it -can- spoil the game for modem players who were otherwise
not having as bad a time until the LPB player joined.
> For proof, LPBs
> DO experience the server side slow down. When the connection goes
> bad, we still keep quite good ping but the game becomes very choppy,
> just like it is for the modem players (for the note, we get phonejack
> icon too).
It's a shame it doesn't seem to matter what equipment you have that the
amount of packet drops/retries cause the jacks to appear.. kind of
apocalyptic huh? ;)
> LPBs have a lot of advantage, but some of you modem players who never
> played over T1/T3 seem to mistake what faster connection can do.
If someone has a slower machine on the LAN (as fast a connection as you'd
ever need to experience), you have a better chance of beating them (we know
this by having two players of an equally high skill exchange machines when
playing each other with their own chosen configs), and although the cause
of the problem is in a different area, the outcome of modem to fast-rate
connections when compared have the same effect.
I'm not meaning to be whiny or anything about LPB'ers, they have a faster
link than me, and that's life, since it's no different to when some flash
bastard in an F40 goes tearing past me on the motorways (now if only I
could win the tourney that John Carmack is proposing then it would no
longer be a problem...) ;)
Nick
P.s. Just had an idea - if John does want to create any
tourneys/competitions in the future after this one (the 328GTS is it?.. I'm
not that knowledgable on performance cars being a biker myself..), perhaps
there could be an offline one too, the prize being the installation and one
years fast connection to the 'net perhaps? Still, if he's ever seen any of
my previous posts, I doubt he'd even bother reading this far down this one
to ind out.. ;)
Namae
On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:02:44 GMT+1100, i...@trumpet.com.au (Ian McLean)
wrote:
>In article <32fc00c2...@news.cc.columbia.edu> tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) writes:
>
>[ blah blah blah ]
>
>> LPBs
>>are NOT running around at double or triple your speed. This is very
>>similar to the popular false conception that LPBs can shoot at faster
>>rate than modem players.
>
>Umm...they can! If you get a good connection you can shoot much faster than
>a bad connection. I've had it both ways and this is my experience. This is
>not a modem connection, but depends on how busy things.
I know there are some very unfortunate modem users who cannot find a
server with good connection but I had played Quake over modem for half
a year and I could always find a server with little packet loss.
>
>> Nobody can run faster or shoot faster than
>>the speed set by the server, period.
>
>What's your point? People With Low Latency (PWLL :-) perhaps can shoot as
>fast as the server will let them. Higher latency players may only be able to
>shoot at half this rate (or less).
LPBs have little latency, thus they can shoot (respond) faster than
the modem players can. But the "rate" of firing is the same whether
you have 300ms or 50ms, assuming there is no packet loss.
Namae
On 5 Feb 1997 19:16:08 -0500, r...@cet.com* (rj) wrote:
>In article <32f863c...@news.usit.net>, mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
>>Joe ,here, has illustrated the reason why low pingers are bastards,
>>and why Quake basically sucks. He really thinks he is winning when he
>>plays with such an advantage. This is the typical low pinger attitude.
>>They don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word 'winning'.
>
>Oh god, when will some modem players learn to play better and kick
>ass in lag? There are 3 modem players in my clan alone that kick
>the living shit out of at least 90% of the low ping population.
>And I know there are other modem players that can do this also.
>It IS possible, it just takes a lot of skill. I have witnessed my
>fellow modem clan members destroy T1/T3 clans in teamplay and in
>1on1 matches with a 150ms ping disadvantage, 100ms to 250ms...
>And we are talking good clans and good clan members, and no I
>am not saying names. There is no need for that, they know who they
>if they have lost at the hands of a modem LGD member.
You said it right: modem users can kick ass. Mediocre T1/T3 players
cannot beat good modem players. If you get kicked around by too many
LPBs, you probably suck.
Nick Darlington
rj <r...@cet.com*> wrote in article <SqN+ykw8...@cet.com*>...
> Oh god, when will some modem players learn to play better and kick
> ass in lag? There are 3 modem players in my clan alone that kick
> the living shit out of at least 90% of the low ping population.
Online, I can have 'ok' days, and I can have 'nightmare' days when playing
online.. I have a 28.8 with >20fps graphics rate, and yet lag is
over-bearing unfortunately. In contrast, I'm currently (no big deal with
you lot I know, but..) the highest 'ranking' player on the LAN circuits I
play on (3 of), and this has remained the same since about August/September
last year..
With me, I knot it's not simply a case of 'being better than the lag',
since I can only play on about 2 or 3 of the servers that exist in the
world (that is all), since the others are just way too slow (nearer 1FPS,
sometimes 3 if I'm lucky). Sometimes, even those few servers I play are
unplayable.
I'm not meaning to bitch at you, I'm just standing up as one of the
'afflicted' (though I don't quite act with the same temperamental attitude
that the poster you replied to represented ;).. I hate feeling quite sure
I could make an impact on the playing arena if the odds were evened up..
whether this is just the same symtpon I feel just before and after the
lottery is drawn each week I don't know...
> And I know there are other modem players that can do this also.
I think this has something to do with having a fortuitous link to an local
ISP and cleaner phone lines than it has to do with playing skill
personally... otherwise, everyone would get the phone jack and lag problems
equally right? Well.. they don't.. it affects people differently because
of the hardware locally and all the way down the wire, so it's not just
player-skill that is the factor at hand.
> It IS possible, it just takes a lot of skill. I have witnessed my
> fellow modem clan members destroy T1/T3 clans in teamplay and in
> 1on1 matches with a 150ms ping disadvantage, 100ms to 250ms...
> And we are talking good clans and good clan members, and no I
> am not saying names. There is no need for that, they know who they
> if they have lost at the hands of a modem LGD member.
> ...
> No, you basically do not have the skills it takes to play well
> in lag.
That really would never be said (I think) by someone who has played on a
variety of (low-speed modem) connections.. the difference even between one
dial-up and the next because u connect to a shitty modem at the ISP can
make 10 worlds of difference alone.
> No, you are skill fodder. I used to win matches against T1's/ISDN
> etc as a modem, and I am now ISDN myself and guess what? I still
> win. Whoa, what a concept.
I guess you are in an area where playing Quake over modem is kinder to
you.. not saying you don't have skill, but that would cloud your judgement
of other modem players I think. I am not a bad player, but I do have to
struggle like hell all the time to achieve anything.
> ....
> Want some cheese with your whine?
No thanks.. not too fond of cheese myself ;)
> QW will get better, beta testers tell me it is QUITE a bit better
> than the current QW.
Well, I for one would like to see it.. of course, there's probably a pig
flying past my window right now, but I'll remain cynical until the game
plays respectfully on what I've got.
> rj, Clan Legends (LGD)
> --
> sig? I don't need no stinkin sig
Nick.. :)
P.s. I know you replied to a rather umm.. more impolite poster than normal,
but if you were speaking about the masses and not just that one person when
you talk about modem players, I disagreed and so wrote... :)
Mark Bell
"M. N. Cahill" <mnca...@telegram.infi.net_REMOVE_THIS> spewed forth in such a
glorious tone the following gruel:
>Actually, wouldn't it just keep LPB's from making a mockery of the game
>and destroying everyone else's enjoyment? Think about it, it's not as
>though every server would be no LPB, just a few so that we HPI (high
>ping impaired) can have some semblence of a fair game. Most LPB's don't
>realize that they generate so much information running around at double
>and triple our speed that it ruins our connections. I've been playing
>on a no low ping server, and when ever a LPB wanders in, the excellent
>connection goes bad, and everyone complains about the disconnect icon.
>Doesn't seem like a coincidence. When I've got a ping of 300 and
>someone with a ping of 30 joins,it ruins my einjoyment of the game. By
>allowing no lpb severs, we make it so we can ALL he game.
This is a good observation. I have notice on a consistent basis that if
I have a ping around 250-350 (which is nirvana range for me. I can routinely
have to play in the 350-550 range),and the other players stay in the 150-200, my
connection is decent but can bog down ever so slightly. If all the players are
above 200, it is damn good. It is when players with 110-150 pings enter the game
that my connection starts to get choppy. If it is under 110, the connection goes
completely to hell. It especially becomes bad when an extreme low pinger is in
my range. My connection just bogs down horrendously.
I have been monitoring this very closely the last few weeks, selectively picking
and staying on servers with high pingers, and the consistency of my connection
has stayed good for 90%+ of the time. It gets annoying when even ISDN players
shake up the game and leave my connection horrendous, timing out, modem going
crazy and my guy floating out in frozen, time out limbo <g>. T1/T3 players make
it an absolute chunkfest most of the time, and it is more frustrating than
anything. I have contemplated getting an ISDN connection, but with an initial
cost of $650, and an additional $50-70 a month in connect charges from our local
telephone company on top of ISP charges, it really starts to get outrageous.
Plus our local company and ISP only supports 64kb single channel, not 128kb
(Does ISDN *really* make that much of a difference??).
But will I stop playing? Nope. Will I exit games with LPBs? Only if it gets that
bad as to be a total mismatch. I have no problem sniping and camping when the
game is filled with LPBs. If I happen to get caught up in a fight, oh well, I'm
usually toast unless the LPB is a crap player. The best thing is to remember to
play for fun and if a LPB is in the game, just take it in stride, crack a few
jokes at them in a friendly manner (no hard feelings) and frag on. It is better
to play with LPBs than to not play at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------
| Mark Bell |"A sufficient quantity of delusions |
|(Quake addict, lover of |constitutes a valid reality, while a|
|all 1st per. games and |lack of an appreciable amount of |
|things that go "BOOM!") |reality constitutes a delusion" |
| | |
---------------------------------------------------------------
Email: Byte...@mindspring.com Quake: Lag 'O Leer
Ethan
/proc/kcore wrote:
>
> Nyarly () wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> : gotta savor every frag that I get. Yah a low ping is an advantage but
> : if you can get it then its perfectly fair. If you have a sucky ping
> : and cant hack it then do something else. AMERICA *IS NOT* a worthless
> : socialist country and id software doesnt owe you or anyone jack shit.
> : If you cant appreciate what you are getting for free then go fuck
> : yourself and move to England :)
> :
>
> real life and Quake. The game reflects the sad state that our society
> is in.
> I absolutly agree.
Brad Murray
>Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
>this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
>included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
>This is why Quake basically sucks!
Wah! wah! wahhhh! Do you see race car drivers dropping out of the Indy 500
complaining that the other guy's car is faster? Should Michael Johnson not be
allowed to run because he's faster than everybody else? Playing a game with a
bunch of HPWs is like being in the Special Olympics.
Quit your bitching and go get ISDN. It's not that expensive any more. If I'm
not a cheap bastard like you I should be able to reap the rewards.
>BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
>ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
>everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
>Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
>they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
>fodder.
I have an idea. I'll start roaming servers looking for games with the most
HPWs I can find. Then I'll jump in and toast them all.
JAB van Ree
> >Joe ,here, has illustrated the reason why low pingers are bastards,
> >and why Quake basically sucks. He really thinks he is winning when he
> >plays with such an advantage. This is the typical low pinger attitude.
> >They don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word 'winning'.
> Oh god, when will some modem players learn to play better and kick
> ass in lag? There are 3 modem players in my clan alone that kick
> the living shit out of at least 90% of the low ping population.
> And I know there are other modem players that can do this also.
> It IS possible, it just takes a lot of skill. I have witnessed my
> fellow modem clan members destroy T1/T3 clans in teamplay and in
> 1on1 matches with a 150ms ping disadvantage, 100ms to 250ms...
> And we are talking good clans and good clan members, and no I
> am not saying names. There is no need for that, they know who they
> if they have lost at the hands of a modem LGD member.
We ourselves are a clan with a shared T1, but we've got kicked and we
have kicked. RJ is right : it's more a matter of skill than connection
speed. As long as your ping is below 500 you can KICK ASS.
> >Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
> >this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
> >included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
> >This is why Quake basically sucks!
> No, you basically do not have the skills it takes to play well
> in lag.
id Software knew from DOOM and other games that even TCP/IP play is
appreciated by a lot of players so they included it. Don't like it?
Don't use it.
> >BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
> >ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
> >everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
> >Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
> >they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
> >fodder.
That suxx... if ya do that you are a real wanker. Guess you are also the
kind of guy that leaves when the no. 1 of the neighbourhood drops by.
> >Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
> >Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
> >PS, Quakeworld isn't it. It's just a weird version of Quake.
Right... but DID you even BUY Quake or just copied it??? And if you
really don't like it then just FUCK off and don't post this shit. We
DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU AND YOUR STUPID TALK IN HERE!
--
JAB van Ree | WTF Producions administrator
http://www.gamers.org/wtf | Writer of DOOM editing guide
http://www.gamers.org/~javanree | Member of the RGCD-team
_ _ ___________
| | | |_ _| ___|
| | | | | | | |_
| |/\| | | | | _|____ _ _ _
\ /\ / | | | || ___ \ | | | | (_)
\/ \/ \_/ \_|| |_/ / __ ___ __| |_ _ ___| |_ _ ___ _ __ ___
| __/ '__/ _ \ / _` | | | |/ __| __| |/ _ \| '_ \/ __|
| | | | | (_) | (_| | |_| | (__| |_| | (_) | | | \__ \
\_| |_| \___/ \__,_|\__,_|\___|\__|_|\___/|_| |_|___/
Paul Bernat
tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:02:44 GMT+1100, i...@trumpet.com.au (Ian McLean)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <32fc00c2...@news.cc.columbia.edu> tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) writes:
>>
>>[ blah blah blah ]
[snip]
>>
>>> Nobody can run faster or shoot faster than
>>>the speed set by the server, period.
>>
>>What's your point? People With Low Latency (PWLL :-) perhaps can shoot as
>>fast as the server will let them. Higher latency players may only be able to
>>shoot at half this rate (or less).
>
>LPBs have little latency, thus they can shoot (respond) faster than
>the modem players can. But the "rate" of firing is the same whether
>you have 300ms or 50ms, assuming there is no packet loss.
I think I see what you mean but I'm not sure you're right.
Say an LPB (ping 50) comes across a modem player (ping 300). Both
press fire at the same (real world) time and keep their finger down.
The LPB gets several shots off before the first packet arrives from
the modem player. Thereafter, the rates of fire depend upon whether
the server receives packets from the modem at the same rate as from
the LPB device. It should be easy for someone on a QW server console
to test.
If LPBs get more packets through to the server then that might explain
some circumstances of servers slowing down when a lot of LPBs connect.
I've only seen this a few times and setting the rate command tidied
things up a bit for me.
Paul Bernat (x.gurgeh)
e-mail work: pz.b...@ptl-uk.com
home: pberna...@u-net.net
Joe Winett
On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:50:24 +0100, JAB van Ree <java...@gamers.org> wrote:
>That suxx... if ya do that you are a real wanker. Guess you are also the
>kind of guy that leaves when the no. 1 of the neighbourhood drops by.
Don't ya hate that?
M. N. Cahill
Jim Ronski wrote:
>
> tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) wrote:
>
> >the speed set by the server, period. Moreover, the information sent
> >to the clients are regulated by systicrate variable. This is set at
> >the server side so clients with faster connection cannot receive the
> >packets at any faster rate than everyone else does.
>
> players are sent packets at the same time. None faster, non slower.
> But, as soon as the packet leaves the server those with faster
> connections will receive their packets sooner. Just as packets sent
> from a fast connection will be received by the server faster than
> those of slower connection.
Or not received. What I was trying to say, and I thank you for clearing
it up, is simply that my connection goes bad and I spend most of my time
looking at the phone cord icon when there's too many LPB's. Ping isn't
that much of a problem. I can frag guys in the 50 range, but I can't do
it when I get the #$#@% disconnect. I was on a ping restricted server
last night, and several lpb's joined, having seen the "No pings < 100
welcome in the rules section of QSPY. The sys admin has told me before
he needs a remote kick command, so he doesn't have to add all the LPB's
to the autokick. My connection went to garbage and I had to leave.
It's no fun if you can't move.
>
> As far as ping restrictions are concerned. I think it would be nice
> if there were *some* servers that were no LPB. If someone wants to
> setup some servers for no HPW that would be fine, too.
Freedom of choice. Personally I wouldn't want to play all the time
against people who seem more like cannon (rocket?) fodder than competent
players.
Although I
> doubt there would be many modem players going onto these servers. I've
> played against LPB's that weren't worth a shit. I have also played
> against many who were decent or even very good. These very good LPB's
> don't belong on a server with a bunch of modem players. With QW
> sometimes it's very easy to see who the REAL LP Bastards are.
> Sometimes I'll find a couple of servers that are *all* LPB. Then I'll
> see the rest with one or two LPB's beating up on some HPW's Why are
> they there? I think because either they KNOW that they will get the
> shit kicked out of them on the LPB servers OR they are just there for
> an ego trip.
That's it. It isn't ALL LPB, it's onaly a few that make everyone else
look bad. Kids coming of university servers that have no consideration
for the rest of us.
I play on one server regularly where ther are a couple of
> LP's that are regulars also. I batter them.......and like it. But
> atthe same time, I know that when (if ever) they become good I
> probably wont have a chance. They've still got the ping advantage.
> Oh well. As long as I can stay at (or near) the top of the modem
> player lists I'm happy. If I can kill a couple LPB's on the
> way...GREAT!!
Personally I prefer to play against better players. I pick up new
tricks and am forced to play smart (or as smart as I can).
Brad Murray
>Say an LPB (ping 50) comes across a modem player (ping 300). Both
>press fire at the same (real world) time and keep their finger down.
>The LPB gets several shots off before the first packet arrives from
>the modem player. Thereafter, the rates of fire depend upon whether
>the server receives packets from the modem at the same rate as from
>the LPB device. It should be easy for someone on a QW server console
>to test.
How many shots can you get off in a quarter of a second?
Joel Baxter
In article <32F8F6...@engin.umich.edu>, wyrm <wy...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>actually this doesn't seem like to bad of an idea, now that i look at
>it. the problem might be that there are less people with the high ping
>rates, and locations for them to play might be scarce. i mean, if there
>was a no lpb sever, and you were HPI (as you so aptly put it) wouldn't
>you go to that server instead of one where everyone is on a t1? thats
>the only objection i have, that lpbs would lack someplace to play. and
>the whole idea of internet gaming is to let everyone possible play.
>
Could be, but I would think that there would always be a place for
low-pingers. Since there are less of us, we wouldn't need than many
"open-class" servers to support us. Just the servers run out of .edu
domains would probably do it, and the .edu servers are usually the ones with
serverops that would have no motivation to install a ping restriction.
Actually the problem is finding serverops that WOULD want to install such a
restriction (much less take the time to develop the necessary code). Maybe
people who run Quake servers for their ISP customers.
--
Joel Baxter jba...@lemur.stanford.edu http://lemur.stanford.edu/~jbaxter/
aka lemurboy Clan 9 From Outer Space http://lemur.stanford.edu/clan9/
Jeff Miller
In article <32f863c...@news.usit.net>, mar...@usit.net says...
>
>On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 23:30:07 GMT, wra...@cyberramp.net (Wraith) wrote:
>
>Joe ,here, has illustrated the reason why low pingers are bastards,
>and why Quake basically sucks. He really thinks he is winning when he
>plays with such an advantage. This is the typical low pinger attitude.
>They don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word 'winning'.
I play at work occasionally, and we have multiple T3's. I still loose
consistantly. I have my moments, but my low ping doesnt always help me.
>
>Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
>this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
>included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
>This is why Quake basically sucks!
>
>BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
>ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
>everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
>Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
>they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
>fodder.
>
>Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
>Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
>
>KM
>
>PS, Quakeworld isn't it. It's just a weird version of Quake.
>
>
Basically what I am trying to say is, it all depends on the person. NOT THE
CONNECTION. Yes it can help sometimes but when you meet your match, its up to
you to win, not your connnection.
Joel Baxter
In article <32fc00c2...@news.cc.columbia.edu>,
Namae <tt...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>This is purely your imagination. Quake servers do not care the speed
>of client side connection (not sure about QW though). The slow down
>is due to the server not being able to handle so many players.
I used to think this too; now I'm not so sure. Certainly the Quake server
doesn't care. But the TCP/IP layer may. I won't speculate any more since I
have only second-hand "facts" about this, but maybe it isn't just their
imagination.
> LPBs
>are NOT running around at double or triple your speed. This is very
>similar to the popular false conception that LPBs can shoot at faster
>rate than modem players. Nobody can run faster or shoot faster than
>the speed set by the server, period.
Of course, what the modemers are claiming is not that the LPBs are FASTER
than the server limits, it's that the modemers are SLOWER. :-)
But I think you're basically right. AFAIK all the client does is send the
"start shooting / stop shooting" or "start moving / stop moving" signals to
the server, and then the server figures out the resulting shots or motion.
So ping won't affect anything other than when the actions start and stop; it
can't affect your firing rate or run speed.
However, especially in rocket duels, you're not just holding down the "fire"
key. You're pressing and releasing it multiple times to do several
individual shots. So for a modem player in this situation, each shot will
be delayed. Similarly, if you want to make a series of moves rather than
just running straight ahead, each move will be delayed, so that the entire
series takes longer. (Unless, of course, you're a good enough player to
just go ahead and start the next move or shot before the previous one has
completed, to "get it in the pipeline". Playing with fire there, though.)
Namae
>Would you think it a false conception that a game containing just high-ping
>players would all have approx the same firing rate, etc, but -under- the
>sys_ticrate setting? T1's, etc., can just about keep up with any
>sys_ticrate setting.. the lowly modems cannot (example, ping = 200 (avg for
>28.8?) means 5 updates per second? Even when sys_ticrate is set to 0.1 the
>modem player's response and reactions are going to be half that of the <100
>ping players..).
Another false conception. Ping=200 does not mean 5 updates per
second. You are still updated every systicrate. You just receive
those updates .2 secs later than LPBs.
Again, modem players must understand. If you are having no packet
loss, you are firing at the same rate as LPBs and LPBs are running at
the same speed as you are.
Namae
On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 21:00:08 GMT, phar...@jetlink.net (Jim Ronski)
wrote:
>tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) wrote:
>
>
>>the speed set by the server, period. Moreover, the information sent
>>to the clients are regulated by systicrate variable. This is set at
>>the server side so clients with faster connection cannot receive the
>>packets at any faster rate than everyone else does.
>
>
> No. That's *not* what that means. All it means is that all the
>players are sent packets at the same time. None faster, non slower.
>But, as soon as the packet leaves the server those with faster
>connections will receive their packets sooner. Just as packets sent
>from a fast connection will be received by the server faster than
>those of slower connection.
Read my post again: faster *rate*. I hope this clarifies.
Namae
On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:53:47 GMT, pz.b...@ptl-uk.com (Paul Bernat)
wrote:
>>LPBs have little latency, thus they can shoot (respond) faster than
>>the modem players can. But the "rate" of firing is the same whether
>>you have 300ms or 50ms, assuming there is no packet loss.
>
>I think I see what you mean but I'm not sure you're right.
>
>Say an LPB (ping 50) comes across a modem player (ping 300). Both
>press fire at the same (real world) time and keep their finger down.
>The LPB gets several shots off before the first packet arrives from
>the modem player. Thereafter, the rates of fire depend upon whether
>the server receives packets from the modem at the same rate as from
>the LPB device. It should be easy for someone on a QW server console
>to test.
>
>If LPBs get more packets through to the server then that might explain
>some circumstances of servers slowing down when a lot of LPBs connect.
>I've only seen this a few times and setting the rate command tidied
>things up a bit for me.
Again, the send/receive rate is controlled by the server. Ping just
means how late you send/receive the data. Unless you are the server,
setting systicrate youself does practically nothing.
When the first crop of Quake servers were created, there were
complaints from the modem players that systicrate is too low and modem
cannot handle the amount of data the server sends. Many servers now
have higher than default systicrate thus most 28.8 players should have
no problem.
Don Ambridge
Ken Martin <mar...@usit.net> wrote in article
<32f863c...@news.usit.net>...
> On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 23:30:07 GMT, wra...@cyberramp.net (Wraith) wrote:
>
> >On 4 Feb 1997 21:15:08 GMT, "James Boswell" <flas...@inorbit.com>
> >wrote:
>
> Joe ,here, has illustrated the reason why low pingers are bastards,
> and why Quake basically sucks. He really thinks he is winning when he
> plays with such an advantage. This is the typical low pinger attitude.
> They don't have a clue as to the meaning of the word 'winning'.
Actually, as a LPB, I take exception to your assumption that we must
automatically have no 'real' talent. Is it so politically incorrect to not
only claim low-ping status but talent as well? I feel comfortable taking
anyone on, be they a higher or lower ping connection. I'll take my lumps
either way.
>
> Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
> this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
> included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
> This is why Quake basically sucks!
Granted, there are some weaknesses in Quake's architecture. So what? That's
what a free economy is all about. If you have a gripe or suggestion, tell
them. As a capitalistic enterprise, it's in their best interest to listen.
>
> BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
> ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
> everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
> Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
> they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
> fodder.
What 'message' are we low pingers supposed to get? That we're not welcome
anywhere simply because you're a whiner? Grow up. When I'm on a server on
which I have the lowest (or one of the lowest) pings, I ask everyone on the
server from time to time if they want me to leave. I guess you haven't been
there, because no one has asked me to yet. I understand the issue here -
but if everyone is willing to work it, then so be it. In a perfect world,
certain servers would be set up to accomodate players of bracketed ping
times - I could support that. But in the meantime, we all have to tough out
the glitches.
>
> Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
> Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
You can't be serious - Id didn't give a shit? What do you think, they all
gleefully rubbed their hands together and thought, "Let's screw them all,
let's leave this thing out!" If it's a shortcoming, a problem, a mistake,
an oversight, whatever - tell them. It's in their best interest to fix it.
RickH
Mark Bell wrote a lotta stuff I didn't want to include in this reply:
I don;t understand all the complaining about the low pingers and the high
pingers. I grant you if I cant get a ping in the 300 range or less I will
switch to one of the many available servers in my area. I haven't had
problems kicking butt on servers with low pingers. Every once in a while
I will pause but my connection comes right back as strong as ever. Maybe
alot of the problems are the ISP's that you guys are using. Well good
luck and just keep in mind that the slower your connection is the more
you have to try to predict what the other guy is going to do, makes it
really fun...
Matthew A Piechota
In article <32f863c...@news.usit.net>, Ken Martin <mar...@usit.net> wrote:
>Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
>this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
>included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
>This is why Quake basically sucks!
okay, all the players who happen to have a low ping would be pissed
because they can't be connected to the game??? That sounds like a
great marketing scheme: if you have to play at school, or are blessed
with a high speed connection, you can't play our game (btw, i'm
neither, it kinda looses most of the fun when I can't yell obscenities
at the other players)
>Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
>Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
okie, we'll all see ya later...
--
__| Matt Piechota http://www.cs.buffalo.edu/~piechota (/defiant.html)
\o The sad thing about this world is I can go out in my yard w/ a chainsaw
( \ and make all the noise I want and I wouldn't get one complaint, but if go
~~~~~ and make music there with 3 friends, the police are banging down my door.
Aveek Datta
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.computer.quake.misc: 5-Feb-97 I`m an LPB
and I play fair .. by Ken Mar...@usit.net
> ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
> everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
> Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
> they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
> fodder.
That's ridiculous. I have access to a T1 connected directly to a T3. I'm
also a good player on my own. I can tell that because I generally play with
other people on the LAN and generally beat them. About the same ping times.
Having a low ping is definitely an advantage; if you want it, go get
yourself a fast connection and connect to a close server. We paid for our
connection in one way or the other; we want low ping times so we use fast
connections.
But one of your ideas, ping limits, is not bad. Shouldn't be too hard to
implement either (dunno about Quake C, but from what I've seen done, seems
easy enough). Just have LOW_PING and HIGH_PING and only allow
LOW_PING <= PLAYER_PING <= HIGH_PING
Aveek Datta _ _ _ _ Email: av...@andrew.cmu.edu
_ __ ___ _ _ ___| (_) |_| |_ |W| HomePage: datta.ml.org
_| ' \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | | _| ' \ _ |E| FreeDNS: www.ml.org
(_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B| Work: www.itc.cmu.edu
Demonstar
tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) wrote:
>I get the real messages: "you are winning just because you have low
>ping" or "I bet I can beat you if I have ping like you." The best
>one: "I have bad connection because you sucked up all the bandwidth."
>These guys sure know the word "whining."
Then we'll get messages back like, "Oh yeah? Even with the 5000 ping
I'll get on your listen server, I'll still kick your ass!" ;)
Demonstar
kc...@ppp166.cfr.usf.edu (/proc/kcore) wrote:
>Yep, greed, money, power... Those who seek them are rewarded in both
>real life and Quake. The game reflects the sad state that our society
>is in.
<LOL>
The correlation isn't quite that direct, but a very humorous comment
indeed! ;)
Demonstar
r...@cet.com* (rj) wrote:
>1on1 matches with a 150ms ping disadvantage, 100ms to 250ms...
Uhhhhh... that's not that big a deal. A (reasonably smooth) sub-300
ping is pretty ideal for a modem player.
>No, you are skill fodder. I used to win matches against T1's/ISDN
>etc as a modem, and I am now ISDN myself and guess what? I still
>win. Whoa, what a concept.
Tell the class why you moved to ISDN if, as you seem to imply, you
didn't really need it to win? :)
>QW will get better, beta testers tell me it is QUITE a bit better
>than the current QW.
Are these the same beta testers that said we were supposed to "sp00ge"
over the current version of QuackWorld? >;)
Demonstar
wyrm <wy...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>actually this doesn't seem like to bad of an idea, now that i look at
>it. the problem might be that there are less people with the high ping
>rates, and locations for them to play might be scarce. i mean, if there
>was a no lpb sever, and you were HPI (as you so aptly put it) wouldn't
>you go to that server instead of one where everyone is on a t1? thats
>the only objection i have, that lpbs would lack someplace to play. and
>the whole idea of internet gaming is to let everyone possible play.
I'm not exactly sure what you just said. :)
Anyway, a ping restriction feature is a good idea, IMO. I honestly
don't think it'd be used that extensively, since server ops seem to
like playing their own servers on the lan, and a realistic low ping
restriction (no < 150) would prevent that. But there would be a few
restricted servers, and I'm sure they'd be pretty popular and the
feature would be much appreciated by all (the HPWs would have a safer
haven, and the LPBs wouldn't have to put up with as much incessant
bitching).
>my problem with this is more philisophical than anything else. just as
>a 2400 modem is inadequate for web browsing, perhaps a 14.4 is
>inadequate for internet gaming. this should be the kind of demand that
>creates a force for new technology. To my mind, the whole idea of the
>computer revolution is to strive for better, not make due with what you
>have. i'm speaking of this on a market level, not individual, where in
>this case the market is quake-internet gamers.
Well, "better" already exists, it's just that most of the gaming
population can't afford it. So the "po' boy" would have his
basketball (a low-ping restricted server... say no < 150), and the
rich kids (or lucky ones... with good connects and access from school
or work) would have their polo (a high-ping restricted server... say
no > 150).
Noah Dowd
> >>>Player on the planet... but I`m not the worst either...
> >
> >Joe ,here, has illustrated the reason why low pingers are bastards,
> >and why Quake basically sucks. He really thinks he is winning when he
> >plays with such an advantage. This is the typical low pinger attitude.
>
> <blah blah blah ad nauseum...>
>
> >Id knew, but they didn't give a shit. I probably won't buy any more
> >Id products. If they don't give a shit, I don't give a shit.
>
> better needles than you.
I don't like knitting, and I'm not going to complain if some people
have an advantage over me.
But, I have a question. Is there a significant advantage for a 200 ping
over a 300 ping? Every time I play internet quake, the absolute best
that I've been able to get is a 300 ping. But I usually lose to those
with pings of 150-250. So is this due to a significant ping advantage,
or is it skill?
-Noah
Pro-MagnoN
Lucky.
I'm a I-LPB (insanely low ping...) +3000 and
i can't stand it ARGH no proper servers here anywhere! It's
UNFAIR. (even tho i got 3 frag once I'm sure it was pure luck.)
If maybe one day I get a reasonable ping, you all better
watch out ... Pro-Magnon will be a stalkin'...
<cue scary music...>
BTW: The ping is so bad because I live in South Africa and
for some odd reason we have NOTHING local. No kali, no
Quake, no war2, no nothing... sad, isn't it.
Namae
On 6 Feb 1997 19:11:54 GMT, jba...@lemur.Stanford.EDU (Joel Baxter)
wrote:
>However, especially in rocket duels, you're not just holding down the "fire"
>key. You're pressing and releasing it multiple times to do several
>individual shots. So for a modem player in this situation, each shot will
>be delayed. Similarly, if you want to make a series of moves rather than
>just running straight ahead, each move will be delayed, so that the entire
>series takes longer. (Unless, of course, you're a good enough player to
>just go ahead and start the next move or shot before the previous one has
>completed, to "get it in the pipeline". Playing with fire there, though.)
You are exactly right. But this is true for all modem situations,
whether you are shooting multiple rockets or just one rocket.
Mark Bell
"Don Ambridge" <d...@monolithic.net> spewed forth in such a glorious tone the
following gruel:
>Actually, as a LPB, I take exception to your assumption that we must
>automatically have no 'real' talent. Is it so politically incorrect to not
>only claim low-ping status but talent as well? I feel comfortable taking
>anyone on, be they a higher or lower ping connection. I'll take my lumps
>either way.
This I will agree with. I have seen LPBs who are AWESOME, and their LPB
status simply enhances a serious set of skills. This is especially proven
when other LPBs join the game and the awesome LPB wipes the mat with not
only them but us HPW as well. I have run up against LPBs who suck or can
not fight adequately and are toasted by moi and other decent HPWs.
>Granted, there are some weaknesses in Quake's architecture. So what? That's
>what a free economy is all about. If you have a gripe or suggestion, tell
>them. As a capitalistic enterprise, it's in their best interest to listen.
Also there is the fact that you can play QUAKE for no more than your ISP
connection. :) I am not going to complain about something that is essentially
free, eh?
>What 'message' are we low pingers supposed to get? That we're not welcome
>anywhere simply because you're a whiner? Grow up. When I'm on a server on
>which I have the lowest (or one of the lowest) pings, I ask everyone on the
>server from time to time if they want me to leave. I guess you haven't been
>there, because no one has asked me to yet. I understand the issue here -
>but if everyone is willing to work it, then so be it. In a perfect world,
>certain servers would be set up to accomodate players of bracketed ping
>times - I could support that. But in the meantime, we all have to tough out
>the glitches.
Whilst I run into packet problems with LPBs, I have *never* asked one to leave.
It is not only rude but pompous of the user asking them to leave. Yes, LPBs
do have an advantage, but that's life. I can bitch, whine, moan and complain,
but that is my problem, not theirs. Hell, they got the kickin' connection!
BrewMan
In article <01bc1469$e63e5ea0$a2ab03c4@lawson>, "Pro-MagnoN" <fa...@email.address> wrote:
=>Lucky.
=>
=>I'm a I-LPB (insanely low ping...) +3000 and
=>i can't stand it ARGH no proper servers here anywhere! It's
=>UNFAIR. (even tho i got 3 frag once I'm sure it was pure luck.)
Actually you are an I-HPW
A low ping is sub-150. I myself wouldn't/couldn't play with a 3 second delay
in ping time. That would be like constantly playing in E1M7 with 15 other
players. ARRRRRGGGGGHHHH.
=>
=>BTW: The ping is so bad because I live in South Africa and
=> for some odd reason we have NOTHING local. No kali, no
=> Quake, no war2, no nothing... sad, isn't it.
I could have sworn I saw a few ads for S. African Quake servers. Damned if I
could remember them though (being in the US I naturally wouldn't). You must
have terrible connections to the outside world though. I tried a server in
Taiwan once to see what it was like and I was only pinging about 600-1000
there on my 28.8 modem connection. That's half a world away from me.
---------------------------------------------------------------
: Bob Marotte :
: bmarotte(at)shore.net :
: :
: "Chacun a sa marotte. Le brassage est la mienne." :
:(fr.) "Every man has his hobby. Brewing is mine." :
: :
: :
: Bob's Wicked Bad Brewery :
: "If it ain't Bob's, it ain't Wicked Bad" :
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Darlington
Namae <tt...@columbia.edu> wrote in article
<32fd150...@news.cc.columbia.edu>.......
> >sys_ticrate setting? T1's, etc., can just about keep up with any
> >sys_ticrate setting.. the lowly modems cannot (example, ping = 200 (avg
for
> >28.8?) means 5 updates per second? Even when sys_ticrate is set to 0.1
the
>
> Another false conception. Ping=200 does not mean 5 updates per
> second. You are still updated every systicrate. You just receive
> those updates .2 secs later than LPBs.
>
> Again, modem players must understand. If you are having no packet
> loss, you are firing at the same rate as LPBs and LPBs are running at
> the same speed as you are.
Maybe.. That's why I was querying my own theory (note the '?' everywhere).
I still find that if I constantly held the fire down on a rocket launcher,
an lpb can fire more of them, and I only 'see' packet drops about once
every 20-30 seconds, and then it is only one or two. Are they even mine?
I wasn't sure.. but even if they are, it doesn't seem to matter much to the
playing.
Nick
Nick Darlington
Brad Murray <bmu...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in article
<5dcm2t$f...@world2.bellatlantic.net>...
> ...
> Quit your bitching and go get ISDN. It's not that expensive any more.
If I'm
> not a cheap bastard like you I should be able to reap the rewards.
> ...
Depends.. Can't say I can easily quantify paying out an initial one years
fee of $1,500 US dollars (hardware and line) on top of my normal $200 per
month telephone fees, also, for me, the call charge will go up making it
higher than $200 per month with line rental being an extra $350 per year on
what it is now for, each successive year after the first.. (estimated at an
ADDITIONAL $2,000 for the first year, and an additional $850 per year after
that, on top of the $2,400 per year I pay now).
Cheap bastard? Maybe you think I am too by my reckoning, but there are
other things in life such as providing a roof over my head at night (which
incidentally, is a requirement for the ISDN line too of course).
> ...
> I have an idea. I'll start roaming servers looking for games with the
most
> HPWs I can find. Then I'll jump in and toast them all.
> ...
Plenty of others do this for you as it is (to keep in line with your
categorisation above, I would call these people 'useless bastards'). Why
lower yourself too?
Nick
Brett Robson
Surely that is enough OPINION, WHO CARES????
=======
--
All hail Dogbert! First Ruler of the Internet
O-
Carl Schroeder
I think u guys need to cut the crossposting down a little ( i know i
am doing it but it is to alert u all :) ) I mean, what the hell does
this have to do with quake-c? (ok, the code for the lame idea of hp
only servers....so sue me)...
but on the subject so this isnt a total waste...
I have a 28.8, a 300 ping, and i could care less who kills me, i tell
them all "good shot" and hit space...
its not like my ego is going to suffer if i get killed by someone with
a higher ping than mine or a lower..
why should you begrudge lpb's (hey, its a good acronym not exactly
nice but o well.) playing with their modem friends or clan members
just because some little weenie cant stand being fragged by someone
who has the luxury of a fast connect...
and to the dorfus who suggested we should all get isdn...
i dont care how cheap it gets, its still a lot of money...
and we all arent rich :(
(not saying you are....)
but your reply probly would have been better phrased by saying...
"if it really bothers you that much go buy isdn"
that way you dont insult anyone...
ok well, enuff babbling..
Carl
[DTH]mNk3y
Ken Martin
Why DO low pingers play High Pingers?
When you win a game in which you have 75 ping and all the others have
over 250 ping, do you feel like you've accomplished something?
It seems to me that ping restricting the games, would make it better
for everyone. It would provide better games for high pingers and
decent competition for low pingers. Or, is the only reason you play
high pingers is so you can have the highest score? But since you
have great advantage in game play over them, did you win? Why did you
continue to play the game?
Is this what our society has become? It doesn't matter how you win,
just so you win.
People say it's only a game. Playing cards with your friends is only
a game, but you wouldn't cheat there just to win would you? Why is
Quake any different?
The game as it is now is basically unfair. Players are not evenly
matched during game play. Since this is true, it is not a game.
It is something else. It basically sucks!
Many of you want to restrict my right to post these type of messages.
Many of you consider people who state these facts to be whinning. Why
is that? Why is stating facts whinning? The game also basically
sucks because of you. I'll continue to play only in high ping games,
and post these messages until the game is revised. Get use to it.
KM
John Shalamskas
j...@vigoris.net (Joe Winett) wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:50:24 +0100, JAB van Ree <java...@gamers.org> wrote:
>
>>That suxx... if ya do that you are a real wanker. Guess you are also the
>>kind of guy that leaves when the no. 1 of the neighbourhood drops by.
>
>Don't ya hate that?
>
The height of wimpiness is when you start beating the guy who has a
better ping than you do, and the bastard quits before you can even the
score. Quakeworld's crude scoring makes it more important to find a
server full of lagged modemers than to play amongst your equals.
That's one of the reasons I avoid QW these days. An analogy would be
if the 49ers quit the game at half-time because Da Bears mounted a
comeback in the second quarter.
I have multiple-T1 at work, and ISDN at home. Some guys with
super-low pings are still invincible, and I still get lag (or a
slid-show!) when one of them enters the room or fires rockets nearby.
There's definitely a major bug in Quake which allows the super-low
ping players to effectively slow down everyone else around them. It's
not their fault, but it still sucks.
If you are a good player, and you have a ping of 30-50, it's like
shooting fish in a barrel. Heaven forbid that you get quad damage or
one of those noise-making runes!
On the other hand, I really get a sense of accomplishment when I gib
those guys! If they are not first-rate players, they can be beaten.
First-rate players are invincible since they have that big advantage,
though.
The next time a wanker with a 50 ping gloats to me, I'll be able to
ask them to "step outside" to _my_ server. No cheats, just a 50 ping
for _me_. They will flee the server within 5 minutes, guaranteed.
Jerks.
John Shalamskas http://www.mlh.com/ jo...@mlh.com
dba MLH Consulting phone (808) 566-6742
1620 Keeaumoku St #701 pager 252-9122
Honolulu, HI 96822 "Lucky I live Hawaii!" FAX/Data 566-6742
rob
rec.games.computer.quake.editing
not
rec.games.computer.quake.ping.discussion.killthisthreadalready
Wraith
On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 12:50:57 GMT, mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
>Why DO low pingers play High Pingers?
>
I can see both sides of the issue. At school, I'm on a fractional T1
and sometimes get a ping of around 70. Generally, it's around 120.
And this does give me some advantage. I would characterize myself as
an average player. Most of the time, I do NOT dominate the level. I
do a little better, but if there is a REAL player in the game, he will
dominate.
>When you win a game in which you have 75 ping and all the others have
>over 250 ping, do you feel like you've accomplished something?
Sure, it's a win and I'll take all the wins I can get.
>
>It seems to me that ping restricting the games, would make it better
>for everyone. It would provide better games for high pingers and
>decent competition for low pingers.
I think this is a VERY good idea. A balanced playing field is better
for everyone.
Or, is the only reason you play
>high pingers is so you can have the highest score? But since you
>have great advantage in game play over them, did you win? Why did you
>continue to play the game?
>
Well, I can't speak for everyone who has a low ping...for that matter,
I don't think anyone can. It's human nature to use every resource you
can to win. You certainly can't paint all NetQuakers with the same
brush. But I suspect that the reason that most continue to play is
that they like to win.
>Is this what our society has become? It doesn't matter how you win,
>just so you win.
>
>The game as it is now is basically unfair. Players are not evenly
>matched during game play. Since this is true, it is not a game.
>It is something else. It basically sucks!
Let's analyze that statement. You are saying that because of the
conditions of the game, the game is unfair. But isn't this true of
many conditions? What conditions could possibly affect the game to
give a player an advantage or disadvantage?
1. Connection speed
2. General play skill
3. Computer speed
I think that these factors cover most of it. If I've missed
something, please point it out. Of these three factors, you have
COMLETE control over at least two. You decide what kind of connection
that you have. Sure, you might not be able to afford a T1, but
ultimately, that's a decision YOU make. You decide what kind of
computer you use. An argument could even be made that if you continue
to play the game, you will get better. Personally, I believe that
some people have a special ability at these kind of games and will be
better than the rest of us no matter what we do.
>
>Many of you want to restrict my right to post these type of messages.
>Many of you consider people who state these facts to be whinning. Why
>is that? Why is stating facts whinning? The game also basically
>sucks because of you. I'll continue to play only in high ping games,
>and post these messages until the game is revised. Get use to it.
>
>KM
Of course, you are not posting facts, you are posting opinions. This
is clear to anyone reading your post. Put yourself on the other side
for a moment. If you had a consistent ping of aroune 50, would you
play? Most people would. I suspect you would as well. Generally
speaking, the only people who cry "CHEAT!!!, UNFAIR!!" are the people
who do not have access to the advantage. Once they have access, it's
no longer cheating.
IMHO
Joe
JAB van Ree
Ken Martin wrote:
>
> Why DO low pingers play High Pingers?
Because there are no servers with low-pingers only perhaps???
> When you win a game in which you have 75 ping and all the others have
> over 250 ping, do you feel like you've accomplished something?
Nope... ping of 250 is still good enough to play with. As long as ping
is below 400 you can play OK. Then it's wether you have the skills or
not.
> It seems to me that ping restricting the games, would make it better
> for everyone. It would provide better games for high pingers and
> decent competition for low pingers.
Are you gonna set up all the new servers then??? This is a STUPID
idea... This would mean we need tons more servers just because you and
some other dudes aren't prepared to pay some extra cash for a good
connection. Playing with ISDN gives an excellkent connection for 99% of
the time so stop complaining.
> The game as it is now is basically unfair. Players are not evenly
> matched during game play. Since this is true, it is not a game.
> It is something else. It basically sucks!
> Many of you want to restrict my right to post these type of messages.
> Many of you consider people who state these facts to be whinning. Why
> is that? Why is stating facts whinning? The game also basically
> sucks because of you. I'll continue to play only in high ping games,
> and post these messages until the game is revised. Get use to it.
If you keep doing that... you'll find out what will happen. Sounds to me
you're just frustrated because you can't play or don't have enough money
to buy a good modem/ISDN.
I live in Holland... only 4 or 5 good Quake servers there. All sorts of
people play there, 28K8 to T1 and it works fine. Not much complaints
there. SO why don't you just STOP playing Quake and get a life...
--
JAB van Ree | WTF Producions administrator
http://www.gamers.org/wtf | Writer of DOOM editing guide
http://www.gamers.org/~javanree | Member of the RGCD-team
_ _ ___________
| | | |_ _| ___|
| | | | | | | |_
| |/\| | | | | _|____ _ _ _
\ /\ / | | | || ___ \ | | | | (_)
\/ \/ \_/ \_|| |_/ / __ ___ __| |_ _ ___| |_ _ ___ _ __ ___
| __/ '__/ _ \ / _` | | | |/ __| __| |/ _ \| '_ \/ __|
| | | | | (_) | (_| | |_| | (__| |_| | (_) | | | \__ \
\_| |_| \___/ \__,_|\__,_|\___|\__|_|\___/|_| |_|___/
Jim Ronski
"M. N. Cahill" <mnca...@telegram.infi.net> wrote:
> I play on one server regularly where ther are a couple of
>> LP's that are regulars also. I batter them.......and like it. But
>> atthe same time, I know that when (if ever) they become good I
>> probably wont have a chance. They've still got the ping advantage.
>> Oh well. As long as I can stay at (or near) the top of the modem
>> player lists I'm happy. If I can kill a couple LPB's on the
>> way...GREAT!!
>Personally I prefer to play against better players. I pick up new
>tricks and am forced to play smart (or as smart as I can).
Just a small correction. I didn't say there weren't better players on
that server. Just that at this time they aren't the LPB's. There are
some other regulars that are HPW's that are as good or better.
Later
Jim
Jim Ronski
tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 21:00:08 GMT, phar...@jetlink.net (Jim Ronski)
>wrote:
>> No. That's *not* what that means. All it means is that all the
>>players are sent packets at the same time. None faster, non slower.
>>But, as soon as the packet leaves the server those with faster
>>connections will receive their packets sooner. Just as packets sent
>>from a fast connection will be received by the server faster than
>>those of slower connection.
>Read my post again: faster *rate*. I hope this clarifies.
>>>the speed set by the server, period. Moreover, the information
sent
>>>to the clients are regulated by systicrate variable. This is set at
>>>the server side so clients with faster connection cannot receive the
>>>packets at any faster rate than everyone else does.
I did read it again and it's still wrong. Just because the server
sends out packet at a specified rate does not mean that someone cannot
receive them faster once those packets *leave* the server. If you
can't send and receive information across that I-Net faster with an
ISDN what's the point of having it?
Later
Jim
Jim Ronski
jba...@lemur.Stanford.EDU (Joel Baxter) wrote:
>But I think you're basically right. AFAIK all the client does is send the
>"start shooting / stop shooting" or "start moving / stop moving" signals to
>the server, and then the server figures out the resulting shots or motion.
>So ping won't affect anything other than when the actions start and stop; it
>can't affect your firing rate or run speed.
Sorry. But this does actually happen. For instance, anyone with a
modem has experienced the "catch up" syndrome. So, if this can happen
with movements what is to prevent it from happening with firing?
Later
Jim
Jim Ronski
tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:53:47 GMT, pz.b...@ptl-uk.com (Paul Bernat)
>wrote:
>Again, the send/receive rate is controlled by the server. Ping just
>means how late you send/receive the data. Unless you are the server,
>setting systicrate youself does practically nothing.
Once again..flawed logic. If the packet coming from the modem takes 3
times as long to get to the server as the packet coming from the ISDN.
The ISDN can get 3 times as many packets to the server in the same
amount of time. Unless systicrate is set to something like 200+ ms
this difference is very important.
Later
Jim
M. N. Cahill
Mark Bell wrote:
>
> "Don Ambridge" <d...@monolithic.net> spewed forth in such a glorious tone the
> following gruel:
>
> >Actually, as a LPB, I take exception to your assumption that we must
> >automatically have no 'real' talent.
Snip, point agreed
> >What 'message' are we low pingers supposed to get? That we're not welcome
> >anywhere simply because you're a whiner? Grow up. When I'm on a server on
> >which I have the lowest (or one of the lowest) pings, I ask everyone on the
> >server from time to time if they want me to leave. I guess you haven't been
> >there, because no one has asked me to yet. I understand the issue here -
> >but if everyone is willing to work it, then so be it. In a perfect world,
> >certain servers would be set up to accomodate players of bracketed ping
> >times - I could support that. But in the meantime, we all have to tough out
> >the glitches.
>
> Whilst I run into packet problems with LPBs, I have *never* asked one to leave.
> It is not only rude but pompous of the user asking them to leave. Yes, LPBs
> do have an advantage, but that's life. I can bitch, whine, moan and complain,
> but that is my problem, not theirs. Hell, they got the kickin' connection!
No, the point was that *some* low ping restricted servers is a good idea
for the High Ping Impaired. The idea isn't to get away from LPB (low
ping blessed), the idea is to get a playable game for some of us. I've
played on one and the LPB's generally respect it, althought there are a
few that don't even though the rules section of Qspy clearly states no
pings under 100 please. Since there isn't a quake-c mod to autokick
them, they run around ruining our connections.
I have never complained to anyone on an unrestricted server. They have
every right to be there. If my connection goes bad, I find another
server. Frankly, there's some LPB's that I love playing against IF my
connection's okay.
A whiner? Not hardly. You won't hear it from me on a server, unless
it's supposed to be a high ping server. I'll frequently be in the top
three on a server, but I can't do anything if I can't move.
--
Mark N. Cahill
For E-mail remove the _Remove_This from the reply to address. I'm sorry
but I am tired
of being e-spammed by souless commercial e-mailers who harvest e-mail
address
from usenet newsgroups.
"The good men do is oft interred with them, while the evil lives on."
M. N. Cahill
...And many modemers are used to the following scenario. Get into
battle with someone, press the attack button, nothing happens, get the
disconnect icon, get fragged while unable to move, respawn, then shot
seven times, while jumping around like a lunatic (or a reaper set on 3).
CN
> Of course, you are not posting facts, you are posting opinions. This
> is clear to anyone reading your post. Put yourself on the other side
> for a moment. If you had a consistent ping of aroune 50, would you
> play? Most people would. I suspect you would as well. Generally
> speaking, the only people who cry "CHEAT!!!, UNFAIR!!" are the people
> who do not have access to the advantage. Once they have access, it's
> no longer cheating.
>
average..ive had worse and better. I look at it as a challenge..not
EVERYONE who has a low ping is a good player<G>....so im in a game with
a bunch of guys with an ISDN line and they all got a two digit ping time
and im up at 250...well I learn to compensate. THEN...when i go play my
friends via network I kick all their asses cause im used to playing
"tougher" opponents<G>
-Myst
jjoh...@dwx.com
Jim Ronski wrote:
>
> jba...@lemur.Stanford.EDU (Joel Baxter) wrote:
>
> >But I think you're basically right. AFAIK all the client does is send the
> >"start shooting / stop shooting" or "start moving / stop moving" signals to
> >the server, and then the server figures out the resulting shots or motion.
> >So ping won't affect anything other than when the actions start and stop; it
> >can't affect your firing rate or run speed.
>
> Sorry. But this does actually happen. For instance, anyone with a
> modem has experienced the "catch up" syndrome. So, if this can happen
> with movements what is to prevent it from happening with firing?
>
> Jim
Ummm...No, it can't happen.
PING=RESPONSE. The time it takes the PC to tell the HOST what to do.
Actual running speed is NOT affected by lag, its affected by your amount
of RAM,and your processor speed. In certain area of the game things
might get a little slow, usually in big rooms or the like. Its cuz Quake
is having to process ALOT of information and it can slow things down at
times. Just thought I'd put in my 2 cents worth since it looks like
everyone and their GRANDMA has done the same with this OUT OF CONTROL
BITCH FEST THREAD!
PS: WHAT THE FUCK DOES THE B STAND FOR IN "LPB"??, and please change the
Subject in the reply.
ShrooM-[DL]
Adam Williamson
In article <01bc13c9$f7ad1140$767a...@nickd.demon.co.uk>, Nick
Darlington <ni...@nickd.demon.co.uk> writes
>Would you think it a false conception that a game containing just high-ping
>players would all have approx the same firing rate, etc, but -under- the
>sys_ticrate setting? T1's, etc., can just about keep up with any
>sys_ticrate setting.. the lowly modems cannot (example, ping = 200 (avg for
>28.8?) means 5 updates per second? Even when sys_ticrate is set to 0.1 the
>ping players..).
>
Ping isn't like that. Ping is a measure of the time a packet takes to
get to a certain IP address from you and back again, so your ping to
server xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx from your PC with IP yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy is the time
a small packet takes to do this journey:
yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy---->xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx---->yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy.
--
Adam Williamson
Adam Williamson
In article <32F8F6...@engin.umich.edu>, wyrm <wy...@engin.umich.edu>
writes
>> though every server would be no LPB, just a few so that we HPI (high
>> ping impaired) can have some semblence of a fair game. Most LPB's don't
>was a no lpb sever, and you were HPI (as you so aptly put it) wouldn't
<nitpick>
HPI would mean you were impaired of a high ping, ie, you had a low ping.
(If you say someone is sight-impaired, you mean their sight is bad).
What you really want is LPI. :)
</nitpick>
--
Adam Williamson
Adam Williamson
In article <ian.2231...@trumpet.com.au>, Ian McLean
<i...@trumpet.com.au> writes
>In article <32fc00c2...@news.cc.columbia.edu> tt...@columbia.edu (Namae)
>writes:
>
>[ blah blah blah ]
>
>> LPBs
>>are NOT running around at double or triple your speed. This is very
>>similar to the popular false conception that LPBs can shoot at faster
>>rate than modem players.
>
>Umm...they can! If you get a good connection you can shoot much faster than
>a bad connection. I've had it both ways and this is my experience. This is
>not a modem connection, but depends on how busy things.
>
That isn't due to ping, or necessarily a speedy connection - it's packet
loss. You can be on a server with a 50 ping and be shooting slower than
someone with a 400 ping who has less packet loss. It's just unlikely,
because the kind of lines that give low pings tend to be more error-free
than normal phone lines, and will normally drop less packets (the other
way packets get dropped is through a data overload, and here HBBs (High
Bandwidth Bastards - slightly different from LPBs, note, but in practice
almost always the same thing) *do* have an advantage, because they will
not be overloaded as easily.
--
Adam Williamson
Adam Williamson
In article <32f863c...@news.usit.net>, Ken Martin <mar...@usit.net>
writes
>Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
>this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
>included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
>This is why Quake basically sucks!
>
Bollocks. If someone offered you a T1 connection to play Quake on, would
you refuse? No. And, having accepted, if someone came along and said
"right, you've got a low ping, i'm going to make it higher because it's
unfair", would you feel happy? No.
--
Adam Williamson
jjoh...@dwx.com
Ken Martin wrote:
>
> Why DO low pingers play High Pingers?
>
> over 250 ping, do you feel like you've accomplished something?
>
> for everyone. It would provide better games for high pingers and
> high pingers is so you can have the highest score? But since you
> have great advantage in game play over them, did you win? Why did you
> continue to play the game?
>
> just so you win.
>
> a game, but you wouldn't cheat there just to win would you? Why is
> Quake any different?
>
> matched during game play. Since this is true, it is not a game.
> It is something else. It basically sucks!
>
> Many of you want to restrict my right to post these type of messages.
> Many of you consider people who state these facts to be whinning. Why
> is that? Why is stating facts whinning? The game also basically
> sucks because of you. I'll continue to play only in high ping games,
> and post these messages until the game is revised. Get use to it.
>
What a DipShit
jjoh...@dwx.com
JAB van Ree wrote:
>
> Ken Martin wrote:
> >
> > Why DO low pingers play High Pingers?
>
>
> > over 250 ping, do you feel like you've accomplished something?
>
> is below 400 you can play OK. Then it's wether you have the skills or
> not.
>
> > for everyone. It would provide better games for high pingers and
> > decent competition for low pingers.
>
> idea... This would mean we need tons more servers just because you and
> some other dudes aren't prepared to pay some extra cash for a good
> connection. Playing with ISDN gives an excellkent connection for 99% of
> the time so stop complaining.
>
> > matched during game play. Since this is true, it is not a game.
> > It is something else. It basically sucks!
> > Many of you want to restrict my right to post these type of messages.
> > Many of you consider people who state these facts to be whinning. Why
> > is that? Why is stating facts whinning? The game also basically
> > sucks because of you. I'll continue to play only in high ping games,
> > and post these messages until the game is revised. Get use to it.
>
> you're just frustrated because you can't play or don't have enough money
> to buy a good modem/ISDN.
> I live in Holland... only 4 or 5 good Quake servers there. All sorts of
> people play there, 28K8 to T1 and it works fine. Not much complaints
> there. SO why don't you just STOP playing Quake and get a life...
> --
> JAB van Ree | WTF Producions administrator
> http://www.gamers.org/wtf | Writer of DOOM editing guide
> http://www.gamers.org/~javanree | Member of the RGCD-team
> _ _ ___________
> | | | |_ _| ___|
> | | | | | | | |_
> | |/\| | | | | _|____ _ _ _
> \ /\ / | | | || ___ \ | | | | (_)
> \/ \/ \_/ \_|| |_/ / __ ___ __| |_ _ ___| |_ _ ___ _ __ ___
> | __/ '__/ _ \ / _` | | | |/ __| __| |/ _ \| '_ \/ __|
> | | | | | (_) | (_| | |_| | (__| |_| | (_) | | | \__ \
> \_| |_| \___/ \__,_|\__,_|\___|\__|_|\___/|_| |_|___/
Amen, Brother
jjoh...@dwx.com
Demonstar wrote:
>
> r...@cet.com* (rj) wrote:
>
> >1on1 matches with a 150ms ping disadvantage, 100ms to 250ms...
>
> Uhhhhh... that's not that big a deal. A (reasonably smooth) sub-300
> ping is pretty ideal for a modem player.
>
> >No, you are skill fodder. I used to win matches against T1's/ISDN
> >etc as a modem, and I am now ISDN myself and guess what? I still
> >win. Whoa, what a concept.
>
> Tell the class why you moved to ISDN if, as you seem to imply, you
> didn't really need it to win? :)
>
> >QW will get better, beta testers tell me it is QUITE a bit better
> >than the current QW.
>
> Are these the same beta testers that said we were supposed to "sp00ge"
> over the current version of QuackWorld? >;)
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH
Rubicant
I kinda hate to bring this up, but if that option were put into place, I
think most servers would disallow people with high pings. Why? Well,
they have low pings, and they're probably tired of the whining. I know I
would, and I know quite a few LPB server running types...
--
A vic'try eludes, yes, but war still goes on
My child, choose now for the cause thou shalt die
Choose knowledge, choose freedom, and fight for the dawn
Or follow thy brethren of darkening sky. ---Rubicant---
Ken Martin
>>The game as it is now is basically unfair. Players are not evenly
>>matched during game play. Since this is true, it is not a game.
>>It is something else. It basically sucks!
>
>Let's analyze that statement. You are saying that because of the
>conditions of the game, the game is unfair. But isn't this true of
>many conditions? What conditions could possibly affect the game to
>give a player an advantage or disadvantage?
>
>1. Connection speed
>2. General play skill
>3. Computer speed
>
>I think that these factors cover most of it. If I've missed
>something, please point it out. Of these three factors, you have
>COMLETE control over at least two. You decide what kind of connection
>that you have. Sure, you might not be able to afford a T1, but
>ultimately, that's a decision YOU make. You decide what kind of
>computer you use. An argument could even be made that if you continue
>to play the game, you will get better. Personally, I believe that
>some people have a special ability at these kind of games and will be
>better than the rest of us no matter what we do.
>
No one, I mean No one, buys a T1 line to play quake. They buy it for
something else, and having low latency is just a benefit. So, your
statement that the fact that I don't play on a T1 is a personal
choice, is nosense. The cost of a T1 is far too prohibitive for a
home computer. You know this. The only people on T1 lines are
students or those who have access to one at work. Neither of which
personally pay for the line. Either the school or the business owns
it. Even if you are sole owner of the business, the T1 was not
purchased to play Quake. Only a very few ISP's will sell you a T1
connection anyway.
Now, an ISDN is also outrageously expensive. Anyone who buys an ISDN
to play Quake is doing it for one reason, to get an advantage over
most of the other players so he can win. Nothing to do with skill or
their computer.
All this is a vicious circle and you people know it. You all know
that the connection is the major reason why low pingers are winning.
You all know it. All this rationalizing away of this major advantage
is bullshit.
Now the computer. If you have the minimum as stated on the box, a
P75, then your computer will play the game. That is all you need.
Anymore won't help you much.
Skill is what this is all about. Measuring skill, not your computer,
not your connection, but your skill. That is what playing the game
should measure. It doesn't. Only winning against players of
comparable latency, means anything. If you beat players with 200 ms
less latency, those players are incompetent, and you haven't proved a
damn thing. If you beat players with 200 ms more latency, you may be
better but how can you tell? One doesn't need that much skill to beat
players with 200 ms more latency. I have played both ways. If you
have 200 ms more latency than I do, I will win. I know how to play
this game well enough to know that.
KM
Ninja
Ken Martin wrote:
>
> Why DO low pingers play High Pingers?
Where else are they gonna play? There aren't that many choices. I thin
k a better question would be why do all the low pingers always flock to
the same team :) (I mostly play CTF)
>
> When you win a game in which you have 75 ping and all the others have
> over 250 ping, do you feel like you've accomplished something?
Why don't low pingers every aknowedge that there's an advantage? That's
one that bugs me...some do, but there are some that say it doesn't make
a difference at all...I'm at 350 he's at 70, he kills me before I even
see the rocket fired, but there's no difference whatsoever. If it's no
big deal, why don't we trade connections? :)
> It seems to me that ping restricting the games, would make it better
> for everyone.
That wouldn't work at all. First of all, that's an unrealistic goal.
Tell everyone to restrict their pings. Second of all, you'd be kicking
people off their favorite servers cause their ping wasn't good enough or
it was too good. I don't really mind people with low pings, I just want
them to at least spread out on both teams equally in team games and not
get a big head about beating up on the 400 ping crowd in a lagged level
:)
Now that I think of it, I've never noticed people with higher pings in a
deathmatch. I don't play deathmatch too much, but I've never looked at
someone and said, I've gotta find out the ping on that guy.
Nick Darlington
Adam Williamson <Ad...@scss.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<RAZSxUAm...@scss.demon.co.uk>...
> Ping isn't like that. Ping is a measure of the time a packet takes to
> ...
> Adam Williamson
*nods* thanks for that.. I kinda knew really and should have checked how I
was saying it.. burnign too much midnight oil again I'm afraid is my only
excuse :)
Nick
rj
In article <32fb200a...@news.usit.net>, mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
>Why DO low pingers play High Pingers?
Er, to play quake. You know, sometimes there are no nearby
servers to me that have LPB's on them. Sorry, but I am not
going to stop playing quake just so I won't bruise your frail
ego.
>When you win a game in which you have 75 ping and all the others have
>over 250 ping, do you feel like you've accomplished something?
Depends on who is playing with the 250 ping. I know some 250 pingers
that can do _damage_ to a LPB in a BAD way. So, the answer is yes.
>It seems to me that ping restricting the games, would make it better
>for everyone. It would provide better games for high pingers and
>decent competition for low pingers. Or, is the only reason you play
>high pingers is so you can have the highest score? But since you
>have great advantage in game play over them, did you win? Why did you
>continue to play the game?
Read above. Why do you even play if you suck bad enough that you
cannot beat half or more of the LPB's out there when you ping
200ms-250ms? Face it, the 'average' Quake player is just that,
average. This goes for LPB and HPW.
>Is this what our society has become? It doesn't matter how you win,
>just so you win.
Ya that's it. You should win an award from the Whine of the Month
club.
>People say it's only a game. Playing cards with your friends is only
>a game, but you wouldn't cheat there just to win would you? Why is
>Quake any different?
Being a LPB is NOT cheating. Let's get that straight right now pal.
Just because I can afford to pay out my own pocket for an ISDN line
and you cannot does not make me cheater. You are pathetic.
>The game as it is now is basically unfair. Players are not evenly
>matched during game play. Since this is true, it is not a game.
>It is something else. It basically sucks!
No, I guess you basically suck. Why? You whine too much and cannot
beat an LPB (read above).
>Many of you want to restrict my right to post these type of messages.
>Many of you consider people who state these facts to be whinning. Why
>is that? Why is stating facts whinning? The game also basically
>sucks because of you. I'll continue to play only in high ping games,
>and post these messages until the game is revised. Get use to it.
Hahah, get used to being called a whiner. Because that is all you are.
Winners don't whine, they win. Get a clue pal.
rj, Clan Legends (LGD)
--
sig? I don't need no stinkin sig
Han-Do-Jin
On 5 Feb 1997 19:16:08 -0500, r...@cet.com* (rj) wrote:
>Oh god, when will some modem players learn to play better and kick
>ass in lag? There are 3 modem players in my clan alone that kick
>the living shit out of at least 90% of the low ping population.
>And I know there are other modem players that can do this also.
>It IS possible, it just takes a lot of skill. I have witnessed my
>fellow modem clan members destroy T1/T3 clans in teamplay and in
>1on1 matches with a 150ms ping disadvantage, 100ms to 250ms...
>And we are talking good clans and good clan members, and no I
>am not saying names. There is no need for that, they know who they
>if they have lost at the hands of a modem LGD member.
Although I normally play Ctf rather than Dm I find that at around a
ping of 250 - 300 I can kick almost all the players on the servers bar
maybe the top LPB or maybe my fellow TBFs. This said I don't mind one
or two LPB in the game, but it gets bad when there are 3-4 LPB on one
team and HPB on the other, the HPB no matter how good get smoked, I've
seen it and it's happened to me. I ain't a bad player, but 4 LPB
against a stack of 500 pingers is a bit hard to win against.
One question though, how come I can get a lush ping of about 250 in
quake (very rare) but the game is lagged to hell? What gives?
-- Hand...@buddhafinger.demon.co.uk --
The Buddha Finger Clan
Namae
On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 04:24:28 GMT, phar...@jetlink.net (Jim Ronski)
wrote:
>>Read my post again: faster *rate*. I hope this clarifies.
>
> >>>the speed set by the server, period. Moreover, the information
>sent
>>>>to the clients are regulated by systicrate variable. This is set at
>>>>the server side so clients with faster connection cannot receive the
>>>>packets at any faster rate than everyone else does.
>
> I did read it again and it's still wrong. Just because the server
>sends out packet at a specified rate does not mean that someone cannot
>receive them faster once those packets *leave* the server. If you
>can't send and receive information across that I-Net faster with an
>ISDN what's the point of having it?
Ok, ok. It might be a little coplex so I will go slow. Faster
connection surely sends/recieves packets faster. But this does not
mean LPBs can send/receive packets at faster *rate*. For example,
modemers can click shoot three times and the first shoot-message
reaches the server slower than that of LPBs. But Quake do not need
the confirmation from the server to send the second shoot-message.
Thus the server receives three shoot-messages at exactly the same rate
as you sent them, assuming your ping is fairly constant and you have
little packet loss.
What's the point of having T1? Remember, ISDN/T1 can get files much
faster from ftp servers because ftp servers do not limit the amount of
data clients can receive at a time. Quake sends packets at
systicrate.
Unknown
mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
>Why DO low pingers play High Pingers?
Well Im a high pinger and when i come into the game those low pingers
better pay attention or I'll just have to frag em.
>When you win a game in which you have 75 ping and all the others have
>over 250 ping, do you feel like you've accomplished something?
I always like playing the most difficult opponents cause it teaches me
how to be a better player. When I frag one of those power dudes, low
ping or not, its awesome!
>It seems to me that ping restricting the games, would make it better
>for everyone. It would provide better games for high pingers and
>decent competition for low pingers. Or, is the only reason you play
>high pingers is so you can have the highest score? But since you
>have great advantage in game play over them, did you win? Why did you
>continue to play the game?
No resistricting the game would suck. That means I wouldnt be able to
use a cable modem when they come out. But if we do restrict the game
then 14.4 should be the highest connection allowed since thats what I
have : )
>Is this what our society has become? It doesn't matter how you win,
>just so you win.
What has become with you Ken Martin? Has your greed shadowed your
vision so much that you would bring everyone else down to your level
just so you can have a better chance to win? And when you still cant
win what then? Its too bad that we have so many leeches in our world
today that just cant stand other people's success. Go ask for a
handout somewhere else.
>People say it's only a game. Playing cards with your friends is only
>a game, but you wouldn't cheat there just to win would you? Why is
>Quake any different?
Wrong. NO ONE is cheating dolt. Your the type of person who would
walk out on your friends card game as soon as you started losing.
>The game as it is now is basically unfair. Players are not evenly
>matched during game play. Since this is true, it is not a game.
>It is something else. It basically sucks!
Wrong again. Its a game that allows alot of different people to play.
Instead of only being playable by people with good connections you
can play with a 28.8 modem too. Things are not fair or unfair just
because of the way they affect Ken Martin. Have you ever considered
NOT blaming YOUR problems on everyone else?
>Many of you want to restrict my right to post these type of messages.
>Many of you consider people who state these facts to be whinning. Why
>is that? Why is stating facts whinning? The game also basically
>sucks because of you. I'll continue to play only in high ping games,
>and post these messages until the game is revised. Get use to it.
>KM
The only person who has suggested restricting anyone else is you.
You have presented absolutly no facts at all. In fact you are a
little cry baby. The game sucks for you because you cant handle
getting you ass kicked : )
Namae
>In article <01bc13c9$f7ad1140$767a...@nickd.demon.co.uk>, Nick
>Darlington <ni...@nickd.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Would you think it a false conception that a game containing just high-ping
>>players would all have approx the same firing rate, etc, but -under- the
>>sys_ticrate setting? T1's, etc., can just about keep up with any
>>sys_ticrate setting.. the lowly modems cannot (example, ping = 200 (avg for
>>28.8?) means 5 updates per second? Even when sys_ticrate is set to 0.1 the
>>modem player's response and reactions are going to be half that of the <100
>>ping players..).
>>
>Ping isn't like that. Ping is a measure of the time a packet takes to
>get to a certain IP address from you and back again, so your ping to
>server xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx from your PC with IP yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy is the time
>a small packet takes to do this journey:
>
>yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy---->xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx---->yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy.
Thanks. Looks like some people do understand.
Namae
On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 04:35:47 GMT, phar...@jetlink.net (Jim Ronski)
wrote:
>tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) wrote:
!?@!!! Yes, it DOES take modem 3 times as long to receive the packet.
THAT'S NOT THE POINT. Here is the super easy simplified for-dummies
explanation. Lets suppose packet 1 was sent at time 0, the packet 2
was sent at time 1, and the packet 3 was sent at time 2. In case of
LPB, he receives the packet 1 at time .1, the packet 2 at time 1.1,
and the packet 3 at time 2.1. For you with three times the ping, your
packet 1 will come at time .3, the packet 2 at time 1.3, and the
packet 3 at time 2.3. Now what is the rate of receiving? In both
cases, 1 for 1 time unit.
ISDN can receives the packet three times faster. But it cannot
receive three times the amount. It cannot receive more than
systicrate. Your modem, 200ms, does not mean you will receive packets
only at .2 sec interval. You are still getting them at systicrate.
It's just that those set of packets will come .2 secs later than with
ISDN.
Namae
On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 06:16:00 GMT, dem...@fn.net (Demonstar) wrote:
>tt...@columbia.edu (Namae) wrote:
>
>>I get the real messages: "you are winning just because you have low
>>ping" or "I bet I can beat you if I have ping like you." The best
>>one: "I have bad connection because you sucked up all the bandwidth."
>>These guys sure know the word "whining."
>
>Then we'll get messages back like, "Oh yeah? Even with the 5000 ping
>I'll get on your listen server, I'll still kick your ass!" ;)
We say that only when somebody is whining with single digit frags :)
William Taylor Wilson
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.computer.quake.editing: 5-Feb-97 Re: I`m
an LPB and I play f.. by r...@cet.com*
> ass in lag? There are 3 modem players in my clan alone that kick
> the living shit out of at least 90% of the low ping population.
Unfortunately, you reach a point where you simply can't get any better
without a lower ping. Assuming two players of equal skill, the low
pinger will always win. Once you get to be really good, everyone has
skill within a smaller and smaller envelope, and the gap between players
narrows. Therefore, the ping effect increases. I'm normally a
low-pinger myself, but I also play in lag from time to time, and while I
do know how to "play" with lag (i.e. I don't fall of bridges, get stuck
in doors, blow myself up, etc.) there's simply nothing you can do when
you die before you see the other guy.
Wraith
On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 18:57:33 GMT, mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
>
>No one, I mean No one, buys a T1 line to play quake. They buy it for
>something else, and having low latency is just a benefit.
This statement would indicate that you KNOW this to be true. You
don't. It may seem highly unlikely that anyone would buy a T1 to play
a game. But the truth is, you don't know that for a fact. If we
stick to the facts and avoid assumptions, we'll do better.
>
>Now, an ISDN is also outrageously expensive. Anyone who buys an ISDN
>to play Quake is doing it for one reason, to get an advantage over
>most of the other players so he can win. Nothing to do with skill or
>their computer.
No argument here. Anyone who gets ISDN to get a better ping is trying
to win. Just like I'm trying to win. And there's nothing wrong with
that.
>
>Now the computer. If you have the minimum as stated on the box, a
>P75, then your computer will play the game. That is all you need.
>Anymore won't help you much.
This is simply incorrect. You are saying that someone playing on a
P-75 with a slow video card and 8 megs will have EXACTLY the same
gameplay as someone with a PPRO 200, 3D Blaster and 32 megs. I think
there about a million people who can verify that your computer makes a
BIG difference here. I play Quake over a LAN one weekend a month and
the guys with the hot machines DO have an advantage. They get a
better framerate. That equals smoother play and more control. That
is a simple fact, not an opinion.
>
>Joe
Phillip George Geiger
: When you win a game in which you have 75 ping and all the others have
: over 250 ping, do you feel like you've accomplished something?
Waaaaaaaaaaah! Waaaaaaaaaah! Waaaaaaaaah!
Give it a rest. Or better yet, instead of crossposting your whining
to every Quake group, you might try *politely* asking low-pingers to
leave the server you're playing on.
I and many other players with fast internet connections are more than
willing to find another server (there tend to be a lot of playable
servers for us) when asked to take our <100ms pings elsewhere. I have
never stayed on a server after even a single player has asked me to
leave because I'm unbalancing the game.
But hey, if you want to be a dick about it, fuck off. I'm not going to
lose any sleep worrying about your latency woes when all you can do is
launch aimless ad hominem attacks at people who own better computers
than you.
--
Phil Geiger
gei...@cs.ucdavis.edu
dec...@wolfenet.com
Brad Murray wrote:
>
> In article <32f863c...@news.usit.net>, mar...@usit.net (Ken Martin) wrote:
>
> >Id knew that the type of connection one had would affect game play in
> >this way when they dropped the program on us. They could have
> >included a ping restriction if they chose to, but they chose not to.
> >This is why Quake basically sucks!
>
> complaining that the other guy's car is faster? Should Michael Johnson not be
> allowed to run because he's faster than everybody else? Playing a game with a
> bunch of HPWs is like being in the Special Olympics.
That's a twisted anology. More like should be: Should Michael Johnson
not be allowed to run because he taking steroids.(that's not to say he
does or doesn't, but is a more logical analogy) Faster in a race would
be a comparison to skill with quake.
>
> Quit your bitching and go get ISDN. It's not that expensive any more. If I'm
> not a cheap bastard like you I should be able to reap the rewards.
>
You make assumptions that the previous poster has alot of money like
you. I doubt if he's cheap if a modem is all he can afford. Not
everyone can afford ISDN. And in some places of the world it's alot
more expensive than in others. Not everyone is able to have a high
paying job and/or live in a country where technology is easily
accessible or affordable. Maybe you should wake up and take a look
around but majority of the world is barely surviving let alone making
enough money to have creature comforts.
> >BTW, the only time I play is in games with players higher than 200
> >ping, and as soon as a low pinger enters the game, I drop off. If
> >everyone did this, low pingers might get the message, but I doubt it.
> >Because they don't even know the meaning of the word 'winning', so,
> >they probably won't understand the message. But, I won't be ping
> >fodder.
>
> I have an idea. I'll start roaming servers looking for games with the most
> HPWs I can find. Then I'll jump in and toast them all.
Somehow this doesn't surprise me. It's typical for LPBs to do this. It
don't think it's any coincidence that it's very rare to see servers with
alot of LPBs. Usually there's only one of two preying off all the
analog modem players on a server. No matter what any of the LPBs say
it's not a level playing field when they are playing over a digital line
that has the more than 10 times the bandwidth(and that's puting it very
ultra conservatively). Bandwidth aside, modems suffer alot of latency
and packet loss due to poor phone lines and, analog to digital
conversion and digital to analog conversion on both side of the
connection.
See the point is it would only be close to fair if Modems played modems,
and LPBs played LPBs. Still wouldn't be a level playing field even in
this scenario due to many other factors. But I'm sure alot more people
would find the game enjoyable. And I'm sure alot of the modem
population would be quite happy with that.
Call it whining if you want, but newsgroup are for the discussion of
issues. This one is specifically about issues related to quake and
playing. This topic is definitely an issue for modem users playing
quake.
dec...@wolfenet.com
Nick Darlington wrote:
>
> Namae <tt...@columbia.edu> wrote in article
> <32fd150...@news.cc.columbia.edu>...
> > On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 01:07:45 GMT, "Nick Darlington"
> > <ni...@nickd.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ....
> > >sys_ticrate setting? T1's, etc., can just about keep up with any
> > >sys_ticrate setting.. the lowly modems cannot (example, ping = 200 (avg
> for
> > >28.8?) means 5 updates per second? Even when sys_ticrate is set to 0.1
> the
> >
> > Another false conception. Ping=200 does not mean 5 updates per
> > second. You are still updated every systicrate. You just receive
> > those updates .2 secs later than LPBs.
> >
> > Again, modem players must understand. If you are having no packet
> > loss, you are firing at the same rate as LPBs and LPBs are running at
> > the same speed as you are.
>
> Maybe.. That's why I was querying my own theory (note the '?' everywhere).
> I still find that if I constantly held the fire down on a rocket launcher,
> an lpb can fire more of them, and I only 'see' packet drops about once
> every 20-30 seconds, and then it is only one or two. Are they even mine?
> I wasn't sure.. but even if they are, it doesn't seem to matter much to the
> playing.
>
> Nick
Here's the thing that screws up us modem players and puts us at a
disadvantage. Let's say you have an LPB at 50ms and Modem player at
250ms(250ms and lower is very rare for modem BTW). The LPB fires a
rocket at the modem player and he see the rocket coming and reacts. His
dodge action happens .25 seconds after he sees that rocket. (ie the he
hits the key immediately upon seeing the rocket, which the action of
him hitting the key doesn't happen until .25 seconds later. LPB in same
scenario it happens .05 seconds after he hits the key. Doesn't take a
rocket scientist to know who's got the advantage here. And that's only
taking in one factor, ping. Many other factors besides that.
Han-Do-Jin
On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 09:15:24 -0500, rob <n...@injersey.com> wrote:
>rec.games.computer.quake.editing
>
> not
>
> rec.games.computer.quake.ping.discussion.killthisthreadalready
>
nah, this is a good thread. quit being a killjoy
Han-Do-Jin
I didn't realise it but I have just been playing in a game and about
5-8 100-150 pingers entered the game and lo my connection did get
choppy, I didn't realise the connection till I read the below
passages, I'll know to look out for it in future. (here was me
wondering why a game full of 400pings was smoother than a game with
200pings!)
On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:26:06 GMT, byte...@mindspring.com (Mark Bell)
wrote:
>"M. N. Cahill" <mnca...@telegram.infi.net_REMOVE_THIS> spewed forth in such a
>glorious tone the following gruel:
>
>>Actually, wouldn't it just keep LPB's from making a mockery of the game
>>and destroying everyone else's enjoyment? Think about it, it's not as
>>though every server would be no LPB, just a few so that we HPI (high
>>ping impaired) can have some semblence of a fair game. Most LPB's don't
>>realize that they generate so much information running around at double
>>and triple our speed that it ruins our connections. I've been playing
>>on a no low ping server, and when ever a LPB wanders in, the excellent
>>connection goes bad, and everyone complains about the disconnect icon.
>>Doesn't seem like a coincidence. When I've got a ping of 300 and
>>someone with a ping of 30 joins,it ruins my einjoyment of the game. By
>>allowing no lpb severs, we make it so we can ALL he game.
>
>This is a good observation. I have notice on a consistent basis that if
>I have a ping around 250-350 (which is nirvana range for me. I can routinely
>have to play in the 350-550 range),and the other players stay in the 150-200, my
>connection is decent but can bog down ever so slightly. If all the players are
>above 200, it is damn good. It is when players with 110-150 pings enter the game
>that my connection starts to get choppy. If it is under 110, the connection goes
>completely to hell. It especially becomes bad when an extreme low pinger is in
>my range. My connection just bogs down horrendously.
>
>I have been monitoring this very closely the last few weeks, selectively picking
>and staying on servers with high pingers, and the consistency of my connection
>has stayed good for 90%+ of the time. It gets annoying when even ISDN players
>shake up the game and leave my connection horrendous, timing out, modem going
>crazy and my guy floating out in frozen, time out limbo <g>. T1/T3 players make
>it an absolute chunkfest most of the time, and it is more frustrating than
>anything. I have contemplated getting an ISDN connection, but with an initial
>cost of $650, and an additional $50-70 a month in connect charges from our local
>telephone company on top of ISP charges, it really starts to get outrageous.
>Plus our local company and ISP only supports 64kb single channel, not 128kb
>(Does ISDN *really* make that much of a difference??).
>
>But will I stop playing? Nope. Will I exit games with LPBs? Only if it gets that
>bad as to be a total mismatch. I have no problem sniping and camping when the
>game is filled with LPBs. If I happen to get caught up in a fight, oh well, I'm
>usually toast unless the LPB is a crap player. The best thing is to remember to
>play for fun and if a LPB is in the game, just take it in stride, crack a few
>jokes at them in a friendly manner (no hard feelings) and frag on. It is better
>to play with LPBs than to not play at all.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>| Mark Bell |"A sufficient quantity of delusions |
>|(Quake addict, lover of |constitutes a valid reality, while a|
>|all 1st per. games and |lack of an appreciable amount of |
>|things that go "BOOM!") |reality constitutes a delusion" |
>| | |
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Email: Byte...@mindspring.com Quake: Lag 'O Leer
Nick Darlington
Ken Martin <mar...@usit.net> wrote in article
<32fb728...@news.usit.net>...
> No one, I mean No one, buys a T1 line to play quake. They buy it for
> statement that the fact that I don't play on a T1 is a personal
> choice, is nosense. The cost of a T1 is far too prohibitive for a
> home computer. You know this. The only people on T1 lines are
> students or those who have access to one at work.
Umm.. John Carmack did! :) In his house, whether or not it was
specifically for Quake might be questionable (he hasn't denied it yet tho
<g>), although I am pretty sure his 'home' computer is linked to it, I am
only guessing I could probably sell his 'home' computer for the price of
getting myself an ISDN or T1 line of my own, considering his taste for
phone lines and fast cars ;)
> .......
> KM
Just a little injection of 'humour', however tainted.. :)
Nick
Adam Williamson
In article <32ff7813...@news.fn.net>, Demonstar <dem...@fn.net>
writes
>>No, you are skill fodder. I used to win matches against T1's/ISDN
>>etc as a modem, and I am now ISDN myself and guess what? I still
>>win. Whoa, what a concept.
>
>Tell the class why you moved to ISDN if, as you seem to imply, you
>didn't really need it to win? :)
It's still more fun...
>
>>QW will get better, beta testers tell me it is QUITE a bit better
>>than the current QW.
>
>Are these the same beta testers that said we were supposed to "sp00ge"
>over the current version of QuackWorld? >;)
>
It's one hell of an improvement on normal Quake. I tried normal 'net on
WinQuake last night...eurgh. I had a server with a 140 ping in Quakespy,
and it pinged about 250 in the game, but it still sucked badly. In
QuakeWorld I use servers with about 220 ping in Quakeworld, but they
ping about 33o in the game, and are a lot better than the normal Quake
game.
--
Adam Williamson
Adam Williamson
In article <32fb200a...@news.usit.net>, Ken Martin
<mar...@usit.net> writes
>Why DO low pingers play High Pingers?
>
>When you win a game in which you have 75 ping and all the others have
>over 250 ping, do you feel like you've accomplished something?
>
quick flick through Quakeworld list will give you the answer - it's
_impossible_ to find a server without at least one person with a ping
above 250.
--
Adam Williamson