191 replies to this topic

[Gagzila]

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

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.

Not being nasty, I'm flinging your cheeky responses straight back at you. It's quite obvious I know the definition of exclusive / exclusion / exclude / etc. and you are simply flinging mud very sneakily.

And your question here is completely provoking and diversionary since I clearly explain my stance on exclusion and it's place in my arguments. Go back and read my response properly and respond in context otherwise don't bother posting....or maybe because I know you purposefully wont, here it is again:

Quote

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....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.

If you're going to continue to complain about being excluded from something you don't want to be a part of, I can only laugh in disbelief from here on in....

Cheers,

Gagzila

Edited by Gagzila, February 07 2013 - 07:38 PM.

[Beemann]

But it IS about excluding people
It's about keeping the people who don't want to play with your specific settings out, and not all of those people have any choice anyway

Edited by Beemann, February 07 2013 - 07:40 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Gagzila, on February 07 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

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.

Not being nasty, I'm flinging your cheeky responses straight back at you.

And your question here is completely provoking and diversionary since I clearly explain my stance on exclusion and it's place in my arguments. Go back and read my response properly and respond in context otherwise don't bother posting....or maybe because I know you purposefully wont, here it is again:

Quote

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....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.

If you're going to continue to complain about being excluded from something you don't want to be a part of, I can only laugh in disbelief from here on in....

Cheers,

Gagzila

I was surprised that you made an definitively contrary statement and didn't consider it as such, and I expressed that surprise. I then asked a perfectly legitimate question.

You decided to interpret that as "cheekyness" and insulted me for absolutely no reason.

You have also yet to prove, with concrete evidence, statistics and hard science, that camera shake provides a significant disadvantage over those who don't use it.

And let's say it does, then that opens a whole other can of worms. If we could exclude people based on the possible advantage that screen shake gives, then what other reasons should we be able to exclude people for, just because it provide an advantage_

[Moderator03]

Keep posts constructive to the topic and inviting to other members.

[Gagzila]

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

I was surprised that you made an definitively contrary statement and didn't consider it as such, and I expressed that surprise. I then asked a perfectly legitimate question.

You decided to interpret that as "cheekyness" and insulted me for absolutely no reason.

You have also yet to prove, with concrete evidence, statistics and hard science, that camera shake provides a significant disadvantage over those who don't use it.

And let's say it does, then that opens a whole other can of worms. If we could exclude people based on the possible advantage that screen shake gives, then what other reasons should we be able to exclude people for, just because it provide an advantage_

LOL

- I made no contrary statement, you inferred or twisted a meaning from my comments that was clearly never made. I have already cleared the supposed contradiction you made a feeble attempt of trying to backup.

- You decided to ignore my whole response that I responded very concisely to yourself with and ask a silly, provoking stab of a question that was clearly null and void.

- What evidence do I need to produce when the laws of physics and the way our eyes and brains work already point out the obvious...you're simply floundering for ways to undermine my arguments. The fact you get sick from it should be reason obvious enough, those that don't get sick are still affected by it.

- You cannot deny that it does, it may not stop some players from winning but that is because they are overcoming the disadvantage with sheer skill in other areas, it's still something extra they have to contend with in combat versus someone with it off.

Both your's and Beemanns POVs are so narrow that you can't see it any other way than US wanting to exclude you when it's actually the game that allows us to play it a certain way and YOUR medical condition that excludes you from playing it that way. So allow us an option to play it our way and you can continue playing it your way and neither side need be put out by it any further.

You're so caught up in not being excluded from something you don't want a part of anyway, it really is a laughing matter...

ROFL!!

Cheers,

Gagzila

[Ryuronin]

I would very much like to see in the future a system where you can enable/disable features of the game much like alot of different games allow now adays. And from what ive read AJK, it does not exclude anyone from playing on said servers it just simply makes it so camera shake or whatever options are activated to automatically be enable or disabled. It does not block anyone from joining the server. I like this idea it is extremly popular in many other titles and I do not see why it wouldnt be for Hawken.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

I would very much like to see in the future a system where you can enable/disable features of the game much like alot of different games allow now adays. And from what ive read AJK, it does not exclude anyone from playing on said servers it just simply makes it so camera shake or whatever options are activated to automatically be enable or disabled. It does not block anyone from joining the server. I like this idea it is extremly popular in many other titles and I do not see why it wouldnt be for Hawken.

If they can't play with screen shake, then they are excluded from the servers.

Do you also realize your side of the argument is based around the idea of "I have intentionally made the choice to put myself at a disadvantage. I find it unfair that other people have not made the choice, or are physically/technically unable, to put themselves at the same disadvantage. I therefor request that I be able to exclude those people because I will not make the choice to put myself on even ground with them."

Would you find this argument reasonable_: "I choose play C-Class in turret mode. I am at a disadvantage against people who don't use turret mode. I request that I be able to exclude those people because I choose to put myself at a disadvantage."

[Ryuronin]

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

I would very much like to see in the future a system where you can enable/disable features of the game much like alot of different games allow now adays. And from what ive read AJK, it does not exclude anyone from playing on said servers it just simply makes it so camera shake or whatever options are activated to automatically be enable or disabled. It does not block anyone from joining the server. I like this idea it is extremly popular in many other titles and I do not see why it wouldnt be for Hawken.

If they can't play with screen shake, then they are excluded from the servers.

Do you also realize your side of the argument is based around the idea of "I have intentionally made the choice to put myself at a disadvantage. I find it unfair that other people have not made the choice, or are physically/technically unable, to put themselves at the same disadvantage. I therefor request that I be able to exclude those people because I will not make the choice to put myself on even ground with them."

Would you find this argument reasonable_: "I choose play C-Class in turret mode. I am at a disadvantage against people who don't use turret mode. I request that I be able to exclude those people because I choose to put myself at a disadvantage."

Why do they have to play on a server with it active_ They can easily choose a server that does not make it mandatory. Do you understand this idea_ I don't understand your argument and what your basing it off of. I would recomend you read more closely.  May I give you an example_ In Blacklight there are many servers. I can play on a regular server to play as I would like. Or I may choose to play on 1 of many different servers offering different setups. As I have a choice to do so does everyone else. I think you are failing to realize that there isnt going to be just servers with shake active only. Please read again and note the talk about MULTIPLE server types. I would also sugest you read up on how popular private and rented servers are and how much profit they bring to the game companies. Thank you

And again they are not forcibly excluded from the server. I too am abit sensitive to the shaking sometimes but I do enjoy bouncing around and play with camera shake sometimes. I just believe it is something that would bring more excitement and such to the game. If renting servers becomes a possiblity i would rent servers it would give me even more incentive to give my money to the company if i can for example make it so you can only use a certain class or no countermeasures ect, ect and ect. There is so much you can tweak, alot of people play video games to enjoy themselves and have fun with friends. Like I said this is already proven to be highly popular and a big profit source for companies why shouldnt it be allowed_

Edited by Ryuronin, February 07 2013 - 09:11 PM.

[Gagzila]

LOL AJK, please go back and respond in context to my post HERE and then we can continue discussing the matter...you're not getting any further by continually stating "they are excluded from the servers" and that it IS exclusion because this is NOT BEING DENIED and really isn't the issue here. It's just you being your unreasonable self that is the only reason this thread is not progressing on actually discussing the merits of such a system.

Your only line of argument is "AHH! I'm being excluded!"

Cheers,

Gagzila

[AsianJoyKiller]

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

I would also sugest you read up on how popular private and rented servers are and how much profit they bring to the game companies. Thank you

Show me where Gagzilla specified private and/or rented servers. Or did he only mention the return of the server browser, which were public servers_

And can you prove, beyond a doubt, that turning screen shake off provides a significant enough advantage to warrant the separation of people who use it and people who don't_ Forget the medically disadvantaged people. Let's assume this on the premise of people who do not suffer from illness due to motion sickness.

[Ryuronin]

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

I would also sugest you read up on how popular private and rented servers are and how much profit they bring to the game companies. Thank you

Show me where Gagzilla specified private and/or rented servers. Or did he only mention the return of the server browser, which were public servers_

And can you prove, beyond a doubt, that turning screen shake off provides a significant enough advantage to warrant the separation of people who use it and people who don't_ Forget the medically disadvantaged people. Let's assume this on the premise of people who do not suffer from illness due to motion sickness.

I brought it up myself, as a suggestion in hopes the community will see it and discuss it and it may come to the attention of the devs. And it is simply abit more of my thoughts. If you read closely and do not just pull bits and pieces out of my reply you will see what parts were directed to you. All I see is you ignoring my questions and arguing about stuff that doesn't have anything to do with what I replied to you about.

To make it easier for you please refer to this and ignore everything else.
Why do they have to play on a server with it active_ They can easily choose a server that does not make it mandatory. Do you understand this idea_ I don't understand your argument and what your basing it off of. I would recomend you read more closely.  May I give you an example_ In Blacklight there are many servers. I can play on a regular server to play as I would like. Or I may choose to play on 1 of many different servers offering different setups. As I have a choice to do so does everyone else. I think you are failing to realize that there isnt going to be just servers with shake active only.

[Ryuronin]

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

I would also sugest you read up on how popular private and rented servers are and how much profit they bring to the game companies. Thank you

Show me where Gagzilla specified private and/or rented servers. Or did he only mention the return of the server browser, which were public servers_

And can you prove, beyond a doubt, that turning screen shake off provides a significant enough advantage to warrant the separation of people who use it and people who don't_ Forget the medically disadvantaged people. Let's assume this on the premise of people who do not suffer from illness due to motion sickness.

Im going to make this BLUNT. In the proposed multiple server type suggestion. People with motion sickness and ect and those who just like to turn it off can play in regular servers with no restrictions and those who want to do the opposite can go to a restricted server and enjoy what ever options it provides, now both parties have access to each others servers whether or not they want, dont want, or cant play on them.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Why do they have to play on a server with it active_

Why can't people who have it active play with people who don't_

Quote

They can easily choose a server that does not make it mandatory. Do you understand this idea_ I don't understand your argument and what your basing it off of. I would recomend you read more closely.

Basis of my questions regarding exclusivity and private/rented servers.

[Ryuronin]

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Why do they have to play on a server with it active_

Why can't people who have it active play with people who don't_

Quote

They can easily choose a server that does not make it mandatory. Do you understand this idea_ I don't understand your argument and what your basing it off of. I would recomend you read more closely.

Basis of my questions regarding exclusivity and private/rented servers.

Thats the thing you see they can. I and everyone else am free to play in both types of servers and I myself would do so.

Why do you want to hold scrims and comps_ Why can't you just play with everyone_ <- not serious just giving example of how preposterous your question sounds.

Ive explained how it isnt exclusive. If you want to argue exclusivity one can argue against competitions under the basis theyre excluded because they dont have a team to compete with or theyre not good enough ect. Or hey I dont want private servers because that excludes me from being able to play on them. Its a stupid argument much like the one now. Your acting like we are proposing something along the lines off, your not allowed to play hawken. It does not harm anyone.

I would like to see a discussion on the matter of allowing/disallowing different settings and ect on some servers much like other games feature. So if possible keep trolling to a minimum.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Why do they have to play on a server with it active_

Why can't people who have it active play with people who don't_

Quote

They can easily choose a server that does not make it mandatory. Do you understand this idea_ I don't understand your argument and what your basing it off of. I would recomend you read more closely.

Basis of my questions regarding exclusivity and private/rented servers.

Thats the thing you see they can. I and everyone else am free to play in both types of servers and I myself would do so.

Why do you want to hold scrims and comps_ Why can't you just play with everyone_ <- not serious just giving example of how preposterous your question sounds.

Ive explained how it isnt exclusive. If you want to argue exclusivity one can argue against competitions under the basis theyre excluded because they dont have a team to compete with or theyre not good enough ect. Or hey I dont want private servers because that excludes me from being able to play on them. Its a stupid argument much like the one now. Your acting like we are proposing something along the lines off, your not allowed to play hawken. It does not harm anyone.

I would like to see a discussion on the matter of allowing/disallowing different settings and ect on some servers much like other games feature. So if possible keep trolling to a minimum.

Except there's a major difference between casual/competitive levels of skill and graphical immersion options (that you have yet to prove makes any significant impact on player skill outside of medical cases).

Why do we need to separate people based on something that may or may not have an impact on gameplay if it is enabled_

[NBShoot_me]

Gagzila, on February 07 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

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).

Been a little while since I’ve read this whole thread, so sorry if I’ve lost my place.. working on some SQL / APACHE / PHP stuff ATM, so I might sound a little aloof.


The edit means what it means.  I’m trying not to tunnel vision on this one, because if I do I’m either in complete disagreement over a “hardcore” mode or in a partial agreement with a “hardcore” mode.  But, to attempt to clarify:


When you argue server side options that are configurable, you can be talking explicitly about the options themselves, like the camera-shake configuration, bloom, or really any configurable option in the game.  You can also be talking about the enforcement side, which is where game filter option via MM, or server browser filter.  Sorry, I just really tend to overcomplicate this stuff.


What you describe would be the latter (server browser filter), though, which is the method I’m least opposed to.  What you describe however does raise some concerns on my part though.  Mostly, what other configuration options should players be allowed to enforce when they start a server, I seriously doubt it’d be worth the ADH’s time to work on said functionaliy for JUST camera_shake.. but where does the line on what you can enforce get drawn_

Gagzila, on February 07 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

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.

I’m simply clarifying here, but when you get to my second paragraph, why I brought up MM again should then be more apparent.  And yes, I am running under the assumption that we’re in agreement that this won’t work with MM.  The reason I am still referencing a “hardcore mode” is also hopefully covered in the second paragraph, though I’ll clarify in a moment on that.

Gagzila, on February 07 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

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

Well, I think I touched on the host perspective a bit, and that basically boiled down to the hosting player’s perspective followed by the possible overall impact on the community.  And while I have no problem with the model where a player agrees to, though is still forced to abide by a host enforced configuration, I’m more concerned about which configuration options, or more to the point, how many should be available to a hosting player as far as enforceable options go.

Also, MM was brought up because I wanted to be very clear, that I didn't want ANY custom game modes affecting the server pool used by MM.  I didn't and still don't know if servers listed in the server browser could be populated by MM.

The hardcore mode I referenced earlier would come into play here.  The idea is nothing new, but basically, an established set of configuration options or other restrictions that constitute either a more level playing field or more realistic-ish experience depending on the implementation.  This would be the route that would allow for people to feel the least cheated by others, but at the same time not end up with a sizeable portion of the servers all having a wide variety of different config enforcement rules, because remember, we’re talking about camera-shake now, but you and I both know that actually going forward with the idea would include much more than just camera-shake.  This is where the concern over a splintered community comes from, and it *can* hurt even a more established and large community if there is not continuity from one server to the next as far as what is considered acceptable / allowed.  The isn’t Half-Life where you used to have thousands of community run servers ranging from vanilla to low gravity unlimited funds “fun” servers (CS mod).  .. though I wouldn’t mind doing away with the thruster vmax.. but that’s off topic.

One tidbit that I mentioned a while back (I think), concerning enforcement from the host perspective (more of a ADH issue really..) would be making sure enforcing camera shake on (in the scope of this discussion) results in players actually playing with camera shake on.  Movement restrictions, accuracy restrictions, heat restrictions, and all that can be enforced server side just fine, but forcing a client variable_  NOW you’re getting into the area where people can more easily hack something like this.  To truly be partially sure that people are abiding by say.. camera-shake being forced on, you’re going to need some form of cheat-detection in Hawken.


Back to my ini files and SQL console!

[Gagzila]

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Why do they have to play on a server with it active_

Why can't people who have it active play with people who don't_

You're answering his questions with more questions AJK_...that's called side stepping / avoiding the question.

If private servers are what it takes, then so be it...and then AJK you are actually being excluded by the private host who are quite within their rights to host whatever type of server they want. This goes for Hawken as it is, if the devs actually made screen shake mandatory for all servers, then again it's the game / company excluding you, not the people that don't have a medical issue with the setting.

Maybe think of it this way, the game originally had a set level of screen shake. To INCLUDE YOU in the Hawken experience, they made a version of Hawken that allows you to turn it off but forgot to add a server side option to cater for people still wanting to play with the original settings. They could add this option in and the game now caters for both sides without having to exclude anyone from the Hawken experience.

Ryuronin, you are about to go through what I am already going through with AJK and Beemann...and that is no where. Save your breath mate. He won't ever respond in the fashion that we do where we actually listen to what the person is saying and respond to that...as you noticed he just picks out bits and tries to twist you into saying what he wants.

The funny thing in this thread is they keep asking loaded questions to get me to say that it's excluding them from these server side option enabled servers..when I have never denied it isn't but that the whole thing isn't about excluding them at all but providing an option for people that want screen shake in their game without being easy meat.

Cheers,

Gagzila

Edited by Gagzila, February 07 2013 - 10:37 PM.

[Ryuronin]

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on February 07 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Why do they have to play on a server with it active_

Why can't people who have it active play with people who don't_

Quote

They can easily choose a server that does not make it mandatory. Do you understand this idea_ I don't understand your argument and what your basing it off of. I would recomend you read more closely.

Basis of my questions regarding exclusivity and private/rented servers.

Thats the thing you see they can. I and everyone else am free to play in both types of servers and I myself would do so.

Why do you want to hold scrims and comps_ Why can't you just play with everyone_ <- not serious just giving example of how preposterous your question sounds.

Ive explained how it isnt exclusive. If you want to argue exclusivity one can argue against competitions under the basis theyre excluded because they dont have a team to compete with or theyre not good enough ect. Or hey I dont want private servers because that excludes me from being able to play on them. Its a stupid argument much like the one now. Your acting like we are proposing something along the lines off, your not allowed to play hawken. It does not harm anyone.

I would like to see a discussion on the matter of allowing/disallowing different settings and ect on some servers much like other games feature. So if possible keep trolling to a minimum.

Except there's a major difference between casual/competitive levels of skill and graphical immersion options (that you have yet to prove makes any significant impact on player skill outside of medical cases).

Why do we need to separate people based on something that may or may not have an impact on gameplay if it is enabled_

I'm not arguing if it provides a disadvantage or not and i never did. I'm merely supporting the idea of customizable servers. Please do not put words in my mouth.

[Ryuronin]

NBShoot_me, on February 07 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

Gagzila, on February 07 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

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).

Been a little while since I’ve read this whole thread, so sorry if I’ve lost my place.. working on some SQL / APACHE / PHP stuff ATM, so I might sound a little aloof.


The edit means what it means.  I’m trying not to tunnel vision on this one, because if I do I’m either in complete disagreement over a “hardcore” mode or in a partial agreement with a “hardcore” mode.  But, to attempt to clarify:


When you argue server side options that are configurable, you can be talking explicitly about the options themselves, like the camera-shake configuration, bloom, or really any configurable option in the game.  You can also be talking about the enforcement side, which is where game filter option via MM, or server browser filter.  Sorry, I just really tend to overcomplicate this stuff.


What you describe would be the latter (server browser filter), though, which is the method I’m least opposed to.  What you describe however does raise some concerns on my part though.  Mostly, what other configuration options should players be allowed to enforce when they start a server, I seriously doubt it’d be worth the ADH’s time to work on said functionaliy for JUST camera_shake.. but where does the line on what you can enforce get drawn_

Gagzila, on February 07 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

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.

I’m simply clarifying here, but when you get to my second paragraph, why I brought up MM again should then be more apparent.  And yes, I am running under the assumption that we’re in agreement that this won’t work with MM.  The reason I am still referencing a “hardcore mode” is also hopefully covered in the second paragraph, though I’ll clarify in a moment on that.

Gagzila, on February 07 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

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

Well, I think I touched on the host perspective a bit, and that basically boiled down to the hosting player’s perspective followed by the possible overall impact on the community.  And while I have no problem with the model where a player agrees to, though is still forced to abide by a host enforced configuration, I’m more concerned about which configuration options, or more to the point, how many should be available to a hosting player as far as enforceable options go.

Also, MM was brought up because I wanted to be very clear, that I didn't want ANY custom game modes affecting the server pool used by MM.  I didn't and still don't know if servers listed in the server browser could be populated by MM.

The hardcore mode I referenced earlier would come into play here.  The idea is nothing new, but basically, an established set of configuration options or other restrictions that constitute either a more level playing field or more realistic-ish experience depending on the implementation.  This would be the route that would allow for people to feel the least cheated by others, but at the same time not end up with a sizeable portion of the servers all having a wide variety of different config enforcement rules, because remember, we’re talking about camera-shake now, but you and I both know that actually going forward with the idea would include much more than just camera-shake.  This is where the concern over a splintered community comes from, and it *can* hurt even a more established and large community if there is not continuity from one server to the next as far as what is considered acceptable / allowed.  The isn’t Half-Life where you used to have thousands of community run servers ranging from vanilla to low gravity unlimited funds “fun” servers (CS mod).  .. though I wouldn’t mind doing away with the thruster vmax.. but that’s off topic.

One tidbit that I mentioned a while back (I think), concerning enforcement from the host perspective (more of a ADH issue really..) would be making sure enforcing camera shake on (in the scope of this discussion) results in players actually playing with camera shake on.  Movement restrictions, accuracy restrictions, heat restrictions, and all that can be enforced server side just fine, but forcing a client variable_  NOW you’re getting into the area where people can more easily hack something like this.  To truly be partially sure that people are abiding by say.. camera-shake being forced on, you’re going to need some form of cheat-detection in Hawken.


Back to my ini files and SQL console!

In short I am not talking about MM, you dont use match making when you are selecting a server you would like to play on with settings specific to what you want to play. That would require a server browser. I apologize I figured people would be able to put that together themselves.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Ryuronin, on February 07 2013 - 10:37 PM, said:

I'm not arguing if it provides a disadvantage or not and i never did. I'm merely supporting the idea of customizable servers. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Since when did I say I'm against customizable servers_

I'm arguing against exclusion because have yet to see any justification for said exclusion based on graphical immersion.

I can see the justification of excluding people based on skill, clans, and gamemodes.
But I cannot see the justification for exclusion based on choices made by individuals that allegedly cause them to be at a disadvantage.