191 replies to this topic

[Gagzila]

AsianJoyKiller, on February 04 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

I... I actually think you have done more damage to your own argument and point of view than I could ever hope to do. You are so determined to have the last word and be right, that you are actually defying basic logic to try win your arguments and contradicting yourself.

H... How so_ I like how you always say things like this but never provide any evidence.

Also I couldn't care less about getting the last word in but if we are still debating an issue and I don't agree with something said after me then off course I am going to correct and comment.

Edited by Gagzila, February 04 2013 - 11:34 PM.

[NBShoot_me]

Gagzila, on February 04 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

BLLLARRRRRGGG!!!!

Cheers,

Gagzila

If you allow for the filter to be too granular, it WON’T WORK.  You can do this kind of filtering with a server browser just fine, but you’d otherwise end up with such a small number of people with like filter settings that you’d have people waiting in a perpetual queue.  You might require camera shake on, but I might requires camera shake AND bloom on.. and/or cockpit lag..  it goes downhill FAST from there.  But even in other games that have a hardcore mode, it’s usually a toggled option server side that has an ESTABLISHED and well defined group of settings forced that constitute a “hardcore” mode.  Not some piecemeal mess that what is currently being suggested would turn into.

The paragraph that you’ve dubbed “spirit of hardcore” addresses the REASON WHY the original poster started this hilarious thread; he got all bent out of shape because he apparently thinks turning camera shake off gives people an edge, he wants to play Hawken with it on, and because he’s apparently not doing as well as he’d like, he wants to ONLY play against people with camera shake on.  It’s called demanding a more level playing field.  Not a hard or new concept.  You’re even acknowledging this..  so I’m somewhat (but not really) surprised that I lost you with that paragraph.  I’m sure you know what Field of View is_  Locking that would keep people from being able to see a wider field of view than others, that’s a configurable advantage.  The same goes for any of the other settings or hardware that can give players an advantage as distinct as .. turning camera shake off.

What you are talking about a server side mode and what I’m arguing against, an opt-in filter a quite different.  But again, like I’ve been touching on, why stop at camera shake_  Kinda dumb really if you’re going to argue along the lines of immersion.  Cranking even the detail quality down makes this game easier as you can actually see when near death, mechs don’t disappear into the landscape, etc. etc.

I don’t care what you think about Beemann and AJK and their views, that’s not why I’m replying here.  I just happen to agree with them, and not with you.

[Gagzila]

NBShoot_me, on February 05 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

...

You are correct that we need a server browser for this to properly work...I simply suggested a possible way that MM could incorporate such an option, but once you start adding more it isn't a feasible option.

But anyway, for now forget the hardcore mode... that's a separate topic (as I've tried to say a few times but also comment on since it was part of the OP). Let's just talk about forced camera shake as a server side option.

Re-reading your paragraph with your explanation above in mind now, it makes sense but at the time it seemed completely left field in response to what I had just said and so I admit I mostly glossed over that paragraph with a "WTF" face.

So re-commenting on that paragraph, you've got some valid points. Some settings just help players adjust the game to run at a decent FPS on their machine where others such as FOV if too far different from one player to the next can make a significant difference in the amount one sees to the next and can cause combat to be affected by differences in settings rather than in skill. The thing is once people figure these settings out they then advertise and abuse them to gain the upper hand and other players really have no choice but to change as well to re-level that playing field, resulting in the end with the same competitiveness  but with a poorer game experience. So in order to re-establish this level playing field with the optimum game experience a lot of people want to play with, you need server side options to force these settings.

Next paragraph...actually I'm talking about server side options that are configurable on top of whatever game mode it is hosting whether that be DM, TDM, MA or Siege. If you aren't talking about that, please specify exactly what you ARE talking / arguing about / against otherwise my comments are going to sound hell weird to you since I figured we are discussing the same thing.

Finally, I commented further about those two because you commented on my comments about them previously

So basically once we get the server browser back, the idea would be that at a quick glance either from the server description, columns of check boxes / ticks indicating options forced or a hover over popup, you can see what the server is offering in terms of a standard game or one with forced options. For myself, I might choose to go a "future" hardcore server with screen shake forced...after half a night of that, I might get tired of all the jostling around myself and jump back into a hardcore server without it forced or even a standard server with screen shake disabled to see out the last hour with a bit more of a casual match (compared to hardcore).

You basically give players the options they need to enjoy Hawken without excluding them from the experience they want from the game.

Cheers,

Gagzila

PS...AJK, I'm still waiting for that proof of my self contradiction...I was able to provide it for Beemann's until he in a very round about way, finally clarified himself enough to clear up the contradiction.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Gagzila, on February 05 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

PS...AJK, I'm still waiting for that proof of my self contradiction...I was able to provide it for Beemann's until he in a very round about way, finally clarified himself enough to clear up the contradiction.

Geez... Sorry I want to sleep during the night.

And sorry I have to go to class now that it's morning. I'll get back to you after that.
In the meantime, can you answer this_

Why is camera shake a more important immersion option, that warrants a server side toggle, than cockpit lag, motion blur, PhysX, texture quality, Experimental Reticle, HUD color or any other graphical immersion options_

[N0stalgia]

Why not make screen shake a server-side option. All players in that server have screen shake or they dont. It's probably a lot more complicated in terms of programming and I don't understand all that stuff. Just throwing an idea out there.

Frankly, I like screen shake for the immersion and I can tear it up.

[AsianJoyKiller]

N0stalgia, on February 05 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

Why not make screen shake a server-side option. All players in that server have screen shake or they dont. It's probably a lot more complicated in terms of programming and I don't understand all that stuff. Just throwing an idea out there.

Frankly, I like screen shake for the immersion and I can tear it up.

Because then you're excluding people based on whether or not they want, or can even physically handle, screen shake.
Are you telling me it's worth excluding a decent amount of people just because of a single graphical immersion option_

[AsianJoyKiller]

Gagzila, on February 04 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

It's a little hard for you to reply because you've got no meat to your arguments. My analogies are spot on and no amount of ALL CAPS IN RED TEXT will change the fact that because you have a limitation, you have to hold everyone else back.

EDIT: Here's one of them again with a bit more detail so you can see where I'm coming from - 8 people go to a restaurant, who engage in a competition to see who can eat a cherry pie the fastest. 2 of them say they are allergic to cherries and will have to eat the smaller lemon tart which 2 of the other 6 people don't like. So 6 of them go to have a competition with just lemon tarts instead, otherwise the 2 with allergies would have an unfair advantage. The other 2 that don't like lemon tarts want to have their own competition with cherry pies but the 2 that are allergic to them complain and carry on about the unfairness of it all, that they are being excluded to the point that through no fault or limitation of their own, the 2 that don't like lemon tarts are forced to eat them to compete since the restaurant owner would not serve cherry pies in order to shut up the 2 with allergies making a scene in his restaurant (either that or leave the premises), leaving a sour taste and wishing they had somewhere to have a good cherry pie eat off without lemon tart eaters so that they don't have to compromise on their enjoyment and have a level playing field to start with.

That is so wrong.

You are trying so very hard to make it seem like I'm trying to keep people from playing with screen shake just I can't physically handle it.

But here the problem with all your analogies.
I don't care if they want to play with screen shake. I am perfectly okay with it. It is their choice and I will not stop them from doing so.

For your analogy to be accurate, your pie eating contest would need to have a selection of different flavored pies for the contestants to choose from, because some may be allergic, and some may just prefer other flavors.

Let's say, for some crazy reason, I'm allergic to all flavors except apple (and in order for this analogy to work, in this world, nobody is allergic to apples). So in order to take part, I must choose apple. Apple pies happen to be 2cm in diameter smaller than the other pies, and it gives anyone who eats apple pie an small advantage.
The thing is, apple pies are available to all the contestants, and it is their choice whether or not they pick them.

Some people may not prefer apple, so they may choose a larger pie. But it was their own choice to do so, and they willingly put themselves at a possible disadvantage of their own accord. They are even allowed to change pie flavors at any point in time during the contest.
Some people who choose to eat larger pies may not be at any sort of disadvantage because they can eat faster than others. Some people who eat apple pies may be slower eaters, and still lose to people who eat large pies.

Either way, nobody was forced to put themselves at a disadvantage, and any disadvantage that was gained from choosing a larger pie could have been avoided if they chose to do so.

You analogies fall flat because you insist we are forcing people to do what we do and restricting options.
We play with no screen shake because we either can't physically tolerate it, just do not like it, or may feel it gives us an advantage. But at no point do we say, "You have to play the way we do."

We play with options that may give us an advantage, but those options are available to every single person who plays Hawken.

Quote

What does it matter to you personally, that a group of people are playing on a different server from you with forced camera shake_ You can still go play the same game on any other server without it. What is it that makes you unable to allow this_ How are we excluding you from playing and enjoying Hawken_

And what happens if one of these Screen Shake On servers happens to be one I want to on, or where my friends are at_
Am I just out of luck_ Too bad, so sad, just because playing with Screen Shake makes me vomit on my keyboard_

Quote

Yes servers that offer this as a singular option. Others can be implemented as well to provide a greater range of gameplay tastes. It's hardly unheard of as part of server customisation.

So you want to start splitting up the community based on singular graphical immersion options_
Do realize how impractical that is_

Quote

Again, the whole idea (from my POV) is not about excluding anyone...that's just an unfortunate part of having a game that caters to so many different people. It's actually about the inclusion of people that want to play with such settings and there's nothing stopping you joining but if you can't play with those settings, well that's your bad luck - go play on the majority of other servers than don't run this option, sheesh! These people DECIDE that they want to play this way (again - which the game allows and runs as default), who are you to deny them and look down your nose, demanding they play by your limitations. Yes you can say they could choose to turn the setting off, but what choice do they actually have if not wanting to be easy meat.

Do you know that the definition of "excluding" is_ It means "to prevent or restrict the entrance of" or "to bar from participation, consideration, or inclusion."

What you've just described is the opposite of inclusive. It is exclusive because you are preventing and restricting the entrance of certain people.

"there's nothing stopping you joining but if you can't play with those settings, well that's your bad luck - go play on the majority of other servers than don't run this option"
This is why I said you are contradicting yourself. That is a statement of exclusion.
That is saying "if you can not meet these requirements, then you can not join."

And again, at no point are we excluding people.
Our viewpoint is "Come join us. We don't care what graphical settings you have. Play however you want"
Our standpoint is the inclusive one, because there are no requirements forced upon anyone in order for them to participate.

Quote

And no, it's my choice to play the game as it was advertised and meant to be played. An option that makes such a difference in competitive play should not actually be changeable by the player and if it is, a solution put in place that ensures a level playing field is maintained.

Can you prove definitively that screen shake provides a major disadvantage to a large majority of players_
You first need to prove that in order for that argument to stand.

[fwip]

AsianJoyKiller, on February 05 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

We play with options that may give us an advantage, but those options are available to every single person who plays Hawken.

Some people would say the same about EMP.

I don't support making screen shake mandatory, though.

[AsianJoyKiller]

fwip, on February 05 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on February 05 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

We play with options that may give us an advantage, but those options are available to every single person who plays Hawken.

Some people would say the same about EMP.

I don't support making screen shake mandatory, though.

Screen Shake doesn't affect players other than yourself.

[fwip]

It does if it lets you kill them easier.

[robotokom]

WoW some people like this shake Idea_ not safe to buy MC if the game might start shaking more then it shakes on low.

[AsianJoyKiller]

fwip, on February 05 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

It does if it lets you kill them easier.

But again, it was their choice to put themselves at that disadvantage.
You cannot choose whether or not your opponent is going to EMP you, but you can choose whether or not you will subject yourself to screen shake.

[NBShoot_me]

Gagzila, on February 05 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

********************

Next paragraph...actually I'm talking about server side options that are configurable on top of whatever game mode it is hosting whether that be DM, TDM, MA or Siege. If you aren't talking about that, please specify exactly what you ARE talking / arguing about / against otherwise my comments are going to sound hell weird to you since I figured we are discussing the same thing.

Finally, I commented further about those two because you commented on my comments about them previously

So basically once we get the server browser back, the idea would be that at a quick glance either from the server description, columns of check boxes / ticks indicating options forced or a hover over popup, you can see what the server is offering in terms of a standard game or one with forced options. For myself, I might choose to go a "future" hardcore server with screen shake forced...after half a night of that, I might get tired of all the jostling around myself and jump back into a hardcore server without it forced or even a standard server with screen shake disabled to see out the last hour with a bit more of a casual match (compared to hardcore).

You basically give players the options they need to enjoy Hawken without excluding them from the experience they want from the game.

Cheers,

Gagzila

PS...AJK, I'm still waiting for that proof of my self contradiction...I was able to provide it for Beemann's until he in a very round about way, finally clarified himself enough to clear up the contradiction.

Server side options can mean two things here, so you need to be specific (EDIT: I'm talking about where it's enforced, not the setting itself so much, well separately, two pronged argument on my part).  Server side could mean that there is a pool of “hardcore” servers that MM attempts to populate, or it could mean that there are servers started by players (via server browser) that have a “hardcore” or just simply custom restrictions put into place.  I’m against anything that affects the already broken MM directly.  As for something that is implemented in the server browser, I’m fine with that.


Once the server browser is back, servers with restrictions could be designated by an icon and/or via a server filter option.  Basically, how it’s been done for years in gaming.  And if servers listed in the server browser are eligible for players who deployed via MM, I’d have any custom servers excluded from that pool.  But honestly, I’m not sure how granular these settings should be.  How many and what settings could be, or really, SHOULD a player be able to enforce upon others_  Worst case scenario for the player; he/she sits around in an empty server for a long while.  For Adhesive / meteor, they could end up with a heavily splintered community that might //EDIT// not //EDIT// grow.

Edited by NBShoot_me, February 05 2013 - 03:44 PM.

[Gagzila]

AsianJoyKiller, on February 05 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Geez... Sorry I want to sleep during the night.

And sorry I have to go to class now that it's morning. I'll get back to you after that.
In the meantime, can you answer this_

Why is camera shake a more important immersion option, that warrants a server side toggle, than cockpit lag, motion blur, PhysX, texture quality, Experimental Reticle, HUD color or any other graphical immersion options_

LOL, fair enough...it's not necessarily more important than other immersion options but because it is one of the main ones that give you an advantage by turning it off, there should be a server side option to force this setting. This can be said of cockpit lag as well. The others I would say do not make as much of an impact on the actual combat itself, lower texture quality for lower end PCs may make it easier to spot someone in the distance but it doesn't give you an advantage during an actual battle.

The second you start opening up options to players that affect the ability to maintain a level playing field for all that join the server, you need server side options to force these options either on, off or at a certain level. That doesn't mean every server will use these but then the game devs can't be held accountable for making people play at a disadvantage when wanting to use certain settings that others either don't want on or can't have on due to medical reasons, you simply join a server with the settings forced that you want to play with or create one yourself (via a hopefully returning server browser).

AsianJoyKiller, on February 05 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

That is so wrong.

You are trying so very hard to make it seem like I'm trying to keep people from playing with screen shake just I can't physically handle it.

Well you are basically, if you look at it from the POV that people really have no choice about having to turn it off it they want to remain competitive against you. By denying them servers to play with these settings forced, you are actually indirectly excluding them from the experience they want.

Response's in bold orange below:

AsianJoyKiller, on February 05 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

But here the problem with all your analogies.
I don't care if they want to play with screen shake. I am perfectly okay with it. It is their choice and I will not stop them from doing so.

As above...

For your analogy to be accurate, your pie eating contest would need to have a selection of different flavored pies for the contestants to choose from, because some may be allergic, and some may just prefer other flavors.

Did you read it_ Cherry pie = normal gameplay experience, Lemon tart = reduced gameplay experience granting an advantage. 2 people allergic to cherries, 4 of the 8 don't mind either and 2 prefer cherry pie.

Let's say, for some crazy reason, I'm allergic to all flavors except apple (and in order for this analogy to work, in this world, nobody is allergic to apples). So in order to take part, I must choose apple. Apple pies happen to be 2cm in diameter smaller than the other pies, and it gives anyone who eats apple pie an small advantage.
The thing is, apple pies are available to all the contestants, and it is their choice whether or not they pick them.

My analogy works perfectly fine, you are simply not making the connections to the current scenario.

Some people may not prefer apple, so they may choose a larger pie. But it was their own choice to do so, and they willingly put themselves at a possible disadvantage of their own accord. They are even allowed to change pie flavors at any point in time during the contest.
Some people who choose to eat larger pies may not be at any sort of disadvantage because they can eat faster than others. Some people who eat apple pies may be slower eaters, and still lose to people who eat large pies.

4 of the people choose to also have lemon tarts to keep a level playing field. Some of them could have chosen to still eat cherry pies if they wanted to if they weren't too concerned about actually competing...but such is the essence of online FPS multiplayer yes_ Why would you put yourself at a disadvantage on purpose if it's avoidable, hence they choose lemon tarts. 2 don't like lemon tarts and so choose to have their own competition still with cherry pies which means everyone gets to compete at the same type of competition. No ones is actually excluded from competing, yes the 2 that are allergic are excluded from the cherry pie comp but through their own inability to eat cherries, NOT by the other people simply wanting to eat cherry pie.

Either way, nobody was forced to put themselves at a disadvantage, and any disadvantage that was gained from choosing a larger pie could have been avoided if they chose to do so.

You analogies fall flat because you insist we are forcing people to do what we do and restricting options.
We play with no screen shake because we either can't physically tolerate it, just do not like it, or may feel it gives us an advantage. But at no point do we say, "You have to play the way we do."

Already answered above.

We play with options that may give us an advantage, but those options are available to every single person who plays Hawken.

Yes available but not accessible if wanting to remain competitive.

And what happens if one of these Screen Shake On servers happens to be one I want to on, or where my friends are at_ Am I just out of luck_ Too bad, so sad, just because playing with Screen Shake makes me vomit on my keyboard_

Why would you want to be on one of those servers apart from having some friends on their who I am sure would be happy to go to another server to accommodate you. At the same time, if your friends are on one of these servers, they obviously want to play by those forced options and you are making them play by your limitations by moving to another server (which I'm sure being friends they would, but such was my point in an earlier post which you've just helped prove for me).

So you want to start splitting up the community based on singular graphical immersion options_
Do realize how impractical that is_

As said before, BF3 and rFactor have no issues here and actually thrives on the diversity. ARMA 2 servers have any range of options, the generally standard ones are 3rd person on / off ("on" allows switching from 1st person to 3rd), crosshairs on / off and difficulty regular / veteran (affects level of item spawns, AI strength, etc.)

This thread and others like it are essentially gathering interest on such matters for a time when they have enough of a player base that they can implement such changes.

Do you know that the definition of "excluding" is_ It means "to prevent or restrict the entrance of" or "to bar from participation, consideration, or inclusion."

Do you know how to read_ I am NOT saying it is not excluding anyone, I AM saying it is not ABOUT excluding anyone. Through the act of inclusion you are always excluding to some degree another demographic. As already detailed above, through including people with medical issues by allowing the setting to be turned off, you are in fact excluding people that want to play solely with these settings on and not cop a disadvantage, to play in a level playing field.

What about all the people that have a PC not even capable of running Hawken at all and can't afford to upgrade. By creating bigger and better games we are in a constant state of excluding people from playing them that can't afford to upgrade but would love to play them all the same. The gaming companies are not ABOUT excluding these people but advancing the technology in games, pushing the boundaries and for those not able to keep up...bad luck, they're going ahead with it anyway...why should they be held back by other's limitations_

Hawken has made an effort to be as inclusive within reason but the side effect is it gives advantages, so to those looking to compete with the complete experience, they need server side options to also cater for and INCLUDE these type of people.

What you've just described is the opposite of inclusive. It is exclusive because you are preventing and restricting the entrance of certain people.

"there's nothing stopping you joining but if you can't play with those settings, well that's your bad luck - go play on the majority of other servers than don't run this option"
This is why I said you are contradicting yourself. That is a statement of exclusion.
That is saying "if you can not meet these requirements, then you can not join."

Actually, I haven't contradicted myself since I never said specifically that it doesn't exclude anyone. Yes it excludes you from a server with this option toggled to force camera shake, it DOES not exclude you from playing Hawken or experiencing it as you want / have to. This option is not ABOUT excluding anyone but creating a level playing field for those that want to play with forced camera shake and this should be considered for other player controlled options that can be changed to affect an advantage over other players.

And again, at no point are we excluding people.
Our viewpoint is "Come join us. We don't care what graphical settings you have. Play however you want"
Our standpoint is the inclusive one, because there are no requirements forced upon anyone in order for them to participate.

That's fine, my viewpoint is "Thanks but no thanks, you play over their with everyone else that is happy to and we'll keep playing over here with people of like mind. We don't want to stop you from playing and so won't make a stink about you having to play the way we play because its unfair to us otherwise"

Can you prove definitively that screen shake provides a major disadvantage to a large majority of players_
You first need to prove that in order for that argument to stand.

The proof is in the obvious fact that if your screen is being shaken around, you aren't going to be able to see or aim half as well as someone not having their screen shaken.

NBShoot_me, on February 05 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

Server side options can mean two things here, so you need to be specific (EDIT: I'm talking about where it's enforced, not the setting itself so much, well separately, two pronged argument on my part).

Your edit just undid the specificity of your original comment. "not the setting itself so much, well separately, two pronged argument on my part", sorry but what do you mean_

When I talk about a server side option - the host starts a new server and they have an "forced on / forced off / variable" option for forced screen shake. It should be a single set level of what is available from the slider, the devs would need to decide an initial level and then review community feedback. Say for example it is set at 70%. A host starts a new server and sets the forced camera shake option to "forced on", everyone joining is then forced to have 70% screen shake turned on. If set to "variable", then players joining are free to have the slider manually adjusted to whatever they want, including off. If set to "forced off" then everyone joining will have screen shake forced off (since we need to cater for the other side of the forced on coin).

NBShoot_me, on February 05 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

Server side could mean that there is a pool of “hardcore” servers that MM attempts to populate, or it could mean that there are servers started by players (via server browser) that have a “hardcore” or just simply custom restrictions put into place.  I’m against anything that affects the already broken MM directly.  As for something that is implemented in the server browser, I’m fine with that.

I thought we just agreed that this won't work with MM. Yes, wait for the server browser to come back. Also forget about discussing a hardcore mode as it's only clouding the main topic, we are discussing the merits of a server side option for forced camera shake.

NBShoot_me, on February 05 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

Once the server browser is back, servers with restrictions could be designated by an icon and/or via a server filter option.  Basically, how it’s been done for years in gaming.  And if servers listed in the server browser are eligible for players who deployed via MM, I’d have any custom servers excluded from that pool.  But honestly, I’m not sure how granular these settings should be.  How many and what settings could be, or really, SHOULD a player be able to enforce upon others_  Worst case scenario for the player; he/she sits around in an empty server for a long while.  For Adhesive / meteor, they could end up with a heavily splintered community that might //EDIT// not //EDIT// grow.

Agreed.

Also you should look at it from a POV as the host enforcing settings on the server and players CHOOSING to accept the rules of that server by joining...no one is forcing them to join and play by these rules.

And for the last time man, this would be implemented down the track when / if Hawken gets big enough

Cheers,

Gagzila

[AsianJoyKiller]

Wow. Do you not understand the definition of "exclusive"_

[Gagzila]

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Wow. Do you not understand the definition of "exclusive"_

Wow, can you not read_ (Already asked this above to, so it seems you can't)

Edited by Gagzila, February 07 2013 - 06:05 PM.

[The_Silencer]

Well, camera shaking makes me feel literally and physically dizzy. As me there're many other players who will experience the same issue. I think would not be a good idea to detract (the contrary of attract) players of playing Hawken because of this, IMHO, triviality.

I've to admit that I've been during many years on the most puristic side of the gaming scene. The most realistic the better, but sometimes man may go far beyond... so not always that's better..

My 2c.

Edited by The_Silencer, February 07 2013 - 06:14 PM.

[Ryuronin]

@AJK.
What would be so bad about them implementing such a system down the road if/when they have the time/money/player base to do it____ I dont understand why theres such a huge argument. For example Blacklight you can do all kinds of crazy things like limit health, melee only, headshot only, no HRV, ect. And sooooo many more games do the same thing. WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT IT_ Why can't there be multiple server types (or server owner defined), some catered for Hardcore crowd and others for casual and those for the competitive crowd_ More is always better.

EDIT: It doesn't have to be something put into effect tomorrow. It's just something obviously some people would like. My gaming community loves to put on events to have fun in different games. We love it when we can take a private server and do whatever we want with it.

Just a few events weve had on BFP4F.

Edited by Ryuronin, February 07 2013 - 06:31 PM.

[Kazinsky]

I could opt for settings that make minor shaking (for queasy stomachs) of the cockpit mandatory - but which also cause the targeting reticule to meander a bit until the mech re-stabilizes. Low-powered + spash-damage weapons would make it shake a bit off target, high-powered single shot weapons would throw it off considerably. This would make the effect on close-combat negligible (but more immersive) and the effect of out-sniping or successfully TOWing an opponent at-range more rewarding.

Or so I believe, I haven't been playing for very long.

Kazinsky

[AsianJoyKiller]

Gagzila, on February 07 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Wow. Do you not understand the definition of "exclusive"_

Wow, can you not read_ (Already asked this above to, so it seems you can't)

Why are you being so extremely nasty_

I'm asking if you know the definition of "exclusive" because you literally describe a system that purposefully excludes a certain group of people and immediately go on to say it's not about excluding anybody.
If the system is not about excluding anybody, then it can not exclude anybody.
You are arguing that this option purposefully filters out and prevents inclusion of anybody not using the option. It is thereby exclusive.