ESR - Fixed hitboxes next week.

<< Comment #1 @ 02:00 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

h8m3

they worked for a year on the size of hitboxes and haven't made any netcode changes?
seriously...

<< Comment #2 @ 02:12 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lorfa - Reply to #1

what exactly is wrong with the netcode? I hear many complaints about it but rarely an explanation.

<< Comment #5 @ 04:59 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #2

hitboxes lagging behind the model

<< Comment #7 @ 06:14 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #5

it only looks that way in demos.

<< Comment #8 @ 06:33 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #7

so they changed the hitbox because hitboxes are lagging in demos? lol

<< Comment #10 @ 06:36 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #8

they are lagging in reality...
there were several cam recordings of a monitor where this happens as well

<< Comment #11 @ 06:38 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #10

sauce?

<< Comment #12 @ 06:42 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhcs_iEpk6E
(its posted by walter, dont get a heart attack)

<< Comment #15 @ 06:54 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #12

well that's hardly proof that the hitbox is lagging behind. to prove that we'd need some shots where he shoots the actual model and misses. this video shows that the hitbox is too big and can be hit from behind the model.

Edited by tourist at 06:55 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #17 @ 07:03 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #15

some of those shots were miles away...
I dont think those hitboxes are 500 % wider than the model
and it cant be hit in front of the model...

Edited by Valvalis at 07:09 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #19 @ 07:21 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #17

well we don't know till we test it, do we?

ok I just tested this a bit ingame... it could be true actually. when the guy was moving fast enough many times I shot him dead straight and it missed. either that or I can't aim for shit.

Edited by tourist at 07:34 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #26 @ 08:14 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Nukm - Reply to #19

probably both
funny how you actually tested it, thought you were trolling him, wasnt it quite obvious from the beginning that its not just the hitbox?

<< Comment #28 @ 08:29 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #26

yea I did think it acted somewhat random, but then I hardly play ql these days. but I guess you can't tell for sure until you test it yourself.

Edited by tourist at 08:30 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #42 @ 11:42 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #26

yeah so what else is it, mr. wise guy?

<< Comment #58 @ 14:19 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Nukm - Reply to #42

some part of the netcode like extrapolation? the main problem is where the game puts hitbox and not how big it is the

<< Comment #59 @ 14:22 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #58

wasnt it quite obvious from the beginning that its not just the hitbox?

<< Comment #60 @ 14:30 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Nukm - Reply to #59

have you read the posts before? it was about the hitbox size
i just also used the word hitbox now in hope you would understand the different context

<< Comment #62 @ 14:39 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #60

If you meant hitbox size, you should have said hitbox size...
In #27, in that context, It was safe to assume that by hitbox you mean everything regarding the hitbox in general...
Yeah, the context is different, but it seems like you're the one that doesn't understand it...
What are you trying to prove here anyway?

<< Comment #64 @ 14:46 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Nukm - Reply to #62

im not trying to prove anything, i just found it funny that tourist wasnt actually trolling. thats what i wrote and then you dragged me into this useless and stupid discussion. im out

<< Comment #65 @ 14:54 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #64

good

<< Comment #91 @ 18:29 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #64

"m not trying to prove anything, i just found it funny that tourist wasnt actually trolling."

what was there to troll? it's not like it's exactly common knowledge here, just a hunch some people have about the hitbox lagging. neither of these little tests we did is conclusive.

<< Comment #61 @ 14:34 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stingerrayer - Reply to #59

i don't understand what's going on here.

what he's saying is in accordance with your opinion?

<< Comment #63 @ 14:41 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #61

its a quote

<< Comment #79 @ 17:31 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ix - Reply to #58

It is extremely complicated and neither of you have the faintest idea about it. I'm not saying your feeling that it's not right is invalid but all this talk about hitbox positions and hitbox size is nonsense.

<< Comment #80 @ 17:44 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Nukm - Reply to #79

well i dont have any idea about the technical background but i dont think i need any to distingish here. if you exchange a rectangle hitbox with a hexagonal one, you make it a bit smaller from some angles but all you change is a small hit or not section at the sides of the model. but there is no way this can fix what we see in the video. or am i wrong here? but in the end we dont exactly know what id actually changed so this discussion is kinda useless anyway

<< Comment #85 @ 18:05 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rmplr - Reply to #80

but there is no way this can fix what we see in the video.
what if there is nothing that is wrong in that video?

that one always looked quite a lot like cg_predictlocalrailshots 0 to me. simply just lagged rail trails, delayed graphics. combine the fact that such a possibility exist, and the fact that there aren't even any game sounds in that short little clip, and the fact that he's not tracking the guy, but firing at him right as he's going behind a wall (wtf,dude) and you'll have one pretty freaking inconclusive video.

what arqon said

Edited by rmplr at 20:27 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #94 @ 19:16 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

arQon - Reply to #80

> or am i wrong here?

you are.
this is a complex issue that involves about a dozen different things. i'm going to simplify it down to the two primary ones, which won't be entirely accurate but will hopefully clear things up a bit for you:

this is what a model "really" looks like. mynx is basically 40 pixels wide in that shot. "behind" her is *80* pixels of "non-mynx space", but that still counts as a hit.

in front of her is 90+ MORE pixels of "non-mynx". you generally "ignore" a lot of that mentally, because at least there's a weapon there, but it's still a LOT of empty space, and it also counts as a hit.

that's the first piece you're wrong about. it's not "a small hit or not section", it's an absolutely friggin HUGE one.

when models run, the animations for them generally move a fair bit towards the edge of the box they're running "to", shifting that huge total dead space around. for simplicity's sake, let's say it's 70 "in front" and 100 "behind" at a full sprint.

now look at that picture again. you'd ALREADY get the "zomg hit behind teh modelz!" whine just from that massive chunk of space when she's STATIONARY. "aggravate" that by the model adjustments for running, and it's pretty easy to see why such whine exists, even though it's been exactly the same in osp since 2000.

--

the other "big" factor is the persistence and latency of rails. even if you're using client-side rails, the beam stays there long after the hit actually happened, and by the time your brain actually registers it, the target has moved even further away, etc. if you're using server-side rail draws it's even worse, and in both cases the hit BEEP is server-side anyway, which also makes you mentally time the hit as nontrivially later than it actually was.

41%

<< Comment #96 @ 19:38 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

arQon - Reply to #94

now that you understand at least a little more than before:

"the netcode" is provably correct. the hitboxes and animations, not so much. the new hitboxes remove about 40% of that dead space, which is a big improvement.

HOWEVER...

there'll still be the "shift" on most animations, rail trails and hitbeeps and etc will still trick you into misreading hits and misses, demos will still be worse than live play, and it will still be easy to create artificially "bad" youtube videos if that's your goal.

1%

<< Comment #107 @ 02:37 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

leopold ' - Reply to #96

The funny thing about what arqon said is that everyone that actually uses his brain could come to this conclusions in 5 minutes (of course not down to pixel numbers, but the general idea). But nooo, whine, whine whine.

<< Comment #124 @ 04:08 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

trippy - Reply to #107

I don't remember this issue in quake3... so why is it such a big issue for quakelive... it's not like the game is that different :o)

Edited by YOSEN at 04:08 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #132 @ 04:43 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

jal - Reply to #124

Because Q3 netcode was too bad to notice it.

<< Comment #143 @ 05:12 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

trippy - Reply to #132

cpm netcode was pretty good and i never noticed it there :P

<< Comment #282 @ 04:14 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dansen - Reply to #124

i remember this issue in q3.. from time to time it would always look like you hit your enemy with rail, but it would infact be a miss.

ofcourse the main problem is, that nowadays people expect to hit when the crosshair is on the enemy .

that trend started when cpma's netcode got good enough, that that was actually possible.

however, (and all q3 and osp netcode fanboys read this) 5 or 6 years ago you would never have noticed something like this, because you were all leading your shots anyway due to the netcode being so horrible.

and even if you saw the rail trail behind the enemy and got a hit anyway, the only thing you would've thought is

"yeah this is internet, i way leading my shot to hit, so why complain when it actually hits while being drawn behind the enemy".

Edited by dansen at 04:15 CST, 4 December 2009

<< Comment #283 @ 04:24 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

trippy - Reply to #282

i quit osp in 2001 and played cpm since so i don't honestly remember it :|

<< Comment #298 @ 10:39 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini ' - Reply to #283

OSP 1.03 has the same netcode as CPMA did at the time of release iirc.

<< Comment #133 @ 04:46 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #96

okay this explains the "omg I hit far off the model" issue but what about the "omg I shot the model but my rail goes through"???

I think this can be caused by the player lean animation... in this case I would suggest to fix the hitbox to the stomach or to give us the option to turn of player lean animation.

btw I still think the model is lagging when its moving fast. Best example is on dm6: you are on mid floor and enemy takes the jumppad at mh. Try to hit him directly and try to hit behind the model on purpose.

btw I know the head is out of the hitbox
Maybe the old scale of the models were actually better to represent the hitbox.

Edited by c1 at 04:54 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #274 @ 20:47 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

JayDee_ - Reply to #96

There must be a different way to solve this problem. Lowering the hitbox size is going to create more problems than it fixes. Why doesn't id make a new model that fits the hitbox at all times? Or work hard at fixing the animations so the model never leaves the center of the box?

<< Comment #97 @ 20:10 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #94

Thank you for explaining it. I "get" what's going on with it a lot better than before.

<< Comment #98 @ 20:28 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini ' - Reply to #94

It's keel who is one of the worst at sticking to the hitbox right?

<< Comment #100 @ 00:02 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

hemostick - Reply to #98

He used to be one of the best fitting models if you ignored his head sticking out. With the scaling of taller models in QL, he essentially fits in the hitbox but as a result, has more blank hittable space around him (though not as much as on arQ's screenshot).

<< Comment #128 @ 04:19 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini ' - Reply to #100

I thought that during his lean/jump animations Keel was supposed to move outside of the hitbox a lot (Not the model size).

In comparison tankjr has very limited animations and sarge is both smaller and "less animated".

<< Comment #261 @ 17:09 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

yikes - Reply to #128

Didn't SyncError himself say to use keel since his animations weren't as drastic as tankjr's?

<< Comment #262 @ 17:12 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini ' - Reply to #261

Ever watched tankjr?

<< Comment #264 @ 17:33 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

yikes - Reply to #262

Yep.

Keel is pretty good already...Just use keel. ;)

http://www.esreality.com/index.php?a=post&...pid1700385

<< Comment #266 @ 17:59 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini ' - Reply to #264

That's not even close to the same thing!

Anyway, I don't use keel for many reasons :P

<< Comment #105 @ 02:21 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

LoCK - Reply to #94

See, now this is the kind of answers we want. Not the silent treatment. Thanks.

Still though, there seems to be so much more that is wrong with QL than Q3. I never had these experiences while playing Q3 (being hit while being behind a wall, hitting shots that seemed to be far off). It just feels wrong. Something has to have changed since Q3, and it's not for the better!

<< Comment #108 @ 02:43 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

leopold ' - Reply to #105

Hmm, I see this quite often in vq3/coma when I look out for it, most obvious on hub, but to a lesser extend, mainly to the models (keel) beeing bigger and maybe some very minor changes in the way QL displays hits to the player.

<< Comment #119 @ 03:47 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

LoCK - Reply to #108

That's the thing. I'm not on the look out for it in either Q3 or QL. You just feel it if you play enough. It doesn't feel right by a longshot. Not even Q2, where you can move fast like hell, had these problems.

<< Comment #123 @ 04:04 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

leopold ' - Reply to #119

well, yes, in the end it has to feel right for the player. As far as feeling goes, the new hitboxes feel right.

<< Comment #129 @ 04:22 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini ' - Reply to #105

I noticed this even in OSP, in fact I remember sitting on GTV during ESWC 2005 watching Toxic warmup on ztn hitting rails way behind models moving about.

<< Comment #196 @ 09:09 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #105

you're getting hit behind a wall because of unlagged netcode. and it's a good thing.

<< Comment #200 @ 09:16 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

LoCK - Reply to #196

No, it's not. It affects your game in a totally different way than you would expect, which is BAD.

<< Comment #202 @ 09:18 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #200

I like my insta just fine.

<< Comment #252 @ 15:36 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Anonymous (197.31.233.220.exetel.com.au) - Reply to #105

So because the community thinks something is broken the devs should answer?

Fuck no.

If something is working as intended then it is fine, fuck pandering to the slavering masses.

<< Comment #275 @ 01:38 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

LoCK - Reply to #252

Yes they should, they always ask the community for feedback. Give some feedback back then.

<< Comment #130 @ 04:25 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lejoon - Reply to #94

Could you take a similar screenshot of a 500 ups strafing keel/tankjr model? cg_debugflags doesn't work anymore!

<< Comment #139 @ 04:57 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #130

I would like to see it too

<< Comment #135 @ 04:52 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mammon - Reply to #94

I remember the same problem from Quake 4, but it was exacerbated by the fact hitboxes were square in 2 dimensions (same depth and width). This meant that by looking from one of the sides, you saw [X pixels] of 'hittable' space, while by looking directly at the corner, you saw [X^2 pixels] available for hit, i.e. the whole diagonal. Some mods even fixed it by adding cylindrical hitboxes. Are you guys considering this as well?

<< Comment #146 @ 05:45 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #135

you mean X*SQR(2) or X*1,41

4%

<< Comment #158 @ 06:33 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mammon - Reply to #146

yes, to illustrate:
______
|........|
|........|
|_____|

side look

_________
|......|......|
|......|......|
|____|____|

corner look

Edited by ___HELL___ at 06:39 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #136 @ 04:53 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Memento_Mori - Reply to #94

I'd like to see the hitbox while the running animation plays. Could you post a picture? Is there a way I can do it?

<< Comment #332 @ 04:35 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

cx ' - Reply to #136

btw, why don't we just play against hitboxes instead of models,
would be better for the fps and there would be no delusion.

<< Comment #338 @ 07:03 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Memento_Mori - Reply to #332

I think there would be delusion anyway, as lag and lag compensation would produce strange situations no matter what.

If possible, I would rather have the hitbox transparent. There is quite a lot of information about what the opponent is doing that you see from his model (looking/moving direction, weapon, etc) and you need that to play properly.

Edited by Memento_Mori at 07:04 CST, 5 December 2009

<< Comment #344 @ 10:15 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

cx ' - Reply to #338

well you could indicate the stuff diferently,
you could give the 4 sides of the hitbox different colors, so you could see the direction, and you could draw a weapon icon over the hitbox or draw some letters into the hitbox as abbrevation for the weapon like rl or sg, for example ... :-), it wouldn't look good, but it probably would be the most efficient.

<< Comment #347 @ 12:30 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

deotrip - Reply to #332

yeah ultrono arena style

<< Comment #140 @ 05:03 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

netrex - Reply to #94

So if you hear a hitsound, you have a registered hit for sure?

<< Comment #165 @ 07:08 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #140

Yes, always was like that.

<< Comment #293 @ 09:58 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

netrex - Reply to #140

Then my LG is defect. I keep hearing lots of hitsound, but people never die, when I meet others with LG I die right away though, regardless of HP and armor.

<< Comment #324 @ 14:43 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #293

lg damage is 5-6-7 for long-medium-short distance in QL, so from far you are not doing so much damage as from near.

Also when playing defensively you have to remember the enemy can fire a few miliseconds before you see him fire, so you have to dodge in advance!

Edited by crea* at 14:44 CST, 4 December 2009

<< Comment #149 @ 06:06 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

trippy - Reply to #94

this is a great articulate post although one thing i want to know is.. why can't you just build the hitboxes into the animation?? why does the animation have to move inside the hitbox?

Edited by YOSEN at 06:07 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #155 @ 06:22 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ambro - Reply to #149

that complicated collision detection would most probably be an overkill to calculate and might complicate thing even more.

<< Comment #161 @ 06:40 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mammon - Reply to #155

doom 3 had per pixel hitscan and it was a mess to work with and main reason why they had to cap it at 60 fps iirc

Edited by ___HELL___ at 06:41 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #164 @ 06:59 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Mitritch - Reply to #155

Nope.

<< Comment #227 @ 11:59 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Something - Reply to #94

Does quake live use more backwards reconciliation than cpma?

<< Comment #230 @ 12:12 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ix - Reply to #227

Yes, unless they changed it.

<< Comment #374 @ 04:39 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

jal - Reply to #94

And that thing they added at QL of rescaling the models to make them fit inside the box is probably making these issues more present, at least for the ones which had their heads coming out of the top the box.

<< Comment #461 @ 22:37 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Demiurge ' - Reply to #94

What are the other items in that ~12 list of things besides:
1. hitbox/model size differences
2. hitbox/animation lag/disparity
3. ?

On 2, what is this disparity from, why isn't there a single centre point being used for both the model and hitbox?

Edited by Demiurge at 22:41 CST, 8 December 2009

<< Comment #469 @ 12:02 CST, 10 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

reslox - Reply to #94

Not countering anything you've said, but I think it's a little bit disingenuous to use mynx in your example when most ppl, especially on ESR use TankJr or Keel enemy model which would fill that hit box far more and subsequently mitigate some of the issues you've raised, especially on stationary shots

<< Comment #470 @ 18:11 CST, 10 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini ' - Reply to #469

In QL the models are smaller.

<< Comment #205 @ 09:41 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lizahd - Reply to #58

how is it possible than to hit far more mg/lg % ?

if the hitbox is just misplaced, hitscan weapons should actually miss as many as hit.

<< Comment #211 @ 10:03 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zealot - Reply to #205

'unlagged' netcode.

<< Comment #33 @ 09:28 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Terbo - Reply to #12

Don't use tankjr in your hitbox examples plz we allready know he's fucked up.

<< Comment #74 @ 16:44 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

madbringer - Reply to #33

This ain't q3 bro.

<< Comment #51 @ 12:50 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

hemostick - Reply to #12

The one at the end is clearly a case of the 45� angle cheap frag :)

<< Comment #75 @ 16:46 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

luKrek - Reply to #12

there this predict local rail setting that does that.

<< Comment #13 @ 06:52 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #10

it was meant ironicly

<< Comment #14 @ 06:53 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #13

oops, 1 of us should l2irony

<< Comment #9 @ 06:35 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #7

um...no

<< Comment #89 @ 18:15 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Fejl(Folklore) - Reply to #7

Yes but we are not talking about demos now..

<< Comment #3 @ 04:44 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1

I remember when the hitbox/netcode whine has begun... a smart guy said it has nothing to do with the hitbox or netcode. It has sth to do with extrapolation (xerp). And now... lol

<< Comment #18 @ 07:05 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Weird - Reply to #3

well extrapolation is usualy considered to be a part of the netcode though (at least what I am concerned)

<< Comment #4 @ 04:55 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini '

I like how he first implies it's not really a changed hitbox but something else, then just flat out says they just made the hitbox smaller.

Sounds like they couldn't be bothered fixing the real issue so just made it harder to hit through the hitbox.

<< Comment #36 @ 10:22 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rmplr - Reply to #4

actually, no.

<< Comment #6 @ 05:07 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther

that sounds bad

<< Comment #16 @ 06:58 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Six16

Our new hitboxes more closely match the size of a player's body.

There goes my accuracy, Ive gotten used to railing behind the enemy :(

<< Comment #20 @ 07:23 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tbone - Reply to #16

I for one welcome our new aim overlords.

<< Comment #21 @ 07:26 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Six16 - Reply to #20

Maybe it will knock you down a peg :p

<< Comment #22 @ 07:56 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tbone - Reply to #21

My aims barely average :P Not my fault lg is stupidly easy on QL.

<< Comment #25 @ 08:12 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Nukm - Reply to #16

aiming behind = netcode, not hitbox

<< Comment #27 @ 08:22 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Six16 - Reply to #25

but if then hitbox is smaller = less aiming behind ?

<< Comment #76 @ 16:47 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

luKrek - Reply to #27

being smart = less stupid?

<< Comment #77 @ 16:53 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Six16 - Reply to #76

Emo hair = more gay?

<< Comment #78 @ 17:15 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

luKrek - Reply to #77

being stupid can't be treated though :(
hair can be cut. You lose!

<< Comment #104 @ 01:33 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Six16 - Reply to #78

So you are saying stupid people cant learn?

Also, hair can be cut but the gay cannot. You Lose!

:\

<< Comment #110 @ 03:00 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis - Reply to #104

the gay can not be cut?

<< Comment #115 @ 03:38 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Anonymous (LCaen-151-92-15-213.w217-128.abo.wanadoo.fr) - Reply to #110

I find this hard to believe, there is overwhelming evidence of the existence of emofags on the internets.

<< Comment #184 @ 08:11 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Six16 - Reply to #110

I was trying to explain that you can take the emo out of the hair, but you cant take the gay out of the person.

<< Comment #186 @ 08:17 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis - Reply to #184

who knows!

<< Comment #190 @ 08:28 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Six16 - Reply to #186

Unless you go to one of those American Bible camps...

or so i hear :I

<< Comment #170 @ 07:37 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

luKrek - Reply to #104

You seem to confuse stupidity with ignorance :(

<< Comment #177 @ 07:50 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

trippy - Reply to #170

you seem to confuse women with men... .ZING!

<< Comment #183 @ 08:08 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Six16 - Reply to #170

You seem to confuse me with someone who cares.

<< Comment #315 @ 13:11 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

luKrek - Reply to #183

Nice. Ignorance is bliss.
Good luck with that!

<< Comment #83 @ 17:58 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini ' - Reply to #77

You had/have emo hair anyway ffs...

<< Comment #23 @ 08:11 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Nukm

hitbox tweaks are good, but the netcode could/should also be updated

<< Comment #55 @ 13:21 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Dynamix - Reply to #23

This fixes the hitscan weapon issues, they haven't changed the netcode AFAIK but it definitely fixes the issues.

<< Comment #24 @ 08:11 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio '

Shattering news for my 23 percent railgun.

Edited by Jamerio at 08:12 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #30 @ 08:51 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

hkrep - Reply to #24

Do you have any good comments on the Netherlands like you do for Iceland?

<< Comment #82 @ 17:48 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #30

Yes, you're not as bad as them.

<< Comment #29 @ 08:39 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

wata

I guess they mean they're fixing the netcode, not the hitbox (what could be wrong with it anyway ? too big ? too small ? that's not fix but tweak)

<< Comment #52 @ 12:52 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

AnthonyJ - Reply to #29

Strange you cannot think of anything wrong with the Q3 hitboxes, since there are several issues I can think of. I'm sure you were the one who pointed out the issues with AABB in this thread. Shame the images are gone, I remember them as being quite funny /o\

<< Comment #53 @ 13:05 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

wata - Reply to #52

"Strange you cannot think of anything wrong with the Q3 hitboxes, since there are several issues I can think of."

now that's a stupid statement
also try not being a prick and instead teach me what issues this hitbox have would be more constructive isn't it ?

Edited by wata at 13:07 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #54 @ 13:13 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

AnthonyJ - Reply to #53

Well I did link *your own post* which points out one issue that applies to the squarical hitboxes in Q1-Q3 and Q4 <1.4.

Edited by AnthonyJ at 13:14 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #56 @ 13:23 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

wata - Reply to #54

octogonal vs squarical hitbox ? I'm pretty sure that's not what q3 players are complaining about in ql
if that's not the topic, whatever, I don't like riddles

btw, does octagonal hitbox create more data to send/receive (on a relevant level) ?

forget about the prick insult, sorry about it I took your previous post a bit harshly, must be steroid rage or something

Edited by wata at 13:27 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #57 @ 14:06 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

AnthonyJ - Reply to #56

It's probably a factor in some of the "omg I hit but I should have missed" whine, I would say.

It's also well known that due to the wide variety of animations and model shapes, the models don't fit /stay inside the hitbox very well. If you make them stay rigidly inside the box, you end up with boring vertical sticks like in Q4.

Edited by AnthonyJ at 14:07 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #67 @ 14:58 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

wata - Reply to #57

right but isn't the core problem related to netcode's prediction stuff (dunno how it's called, the things that would make the hitbox way ahead or way behind the model, eg "I totally passed the corner yet I got shot by the guy in the previous corridor", a bad gameplay experience compared to cpma's netcode -and there hitbox's shape is out of question) ?

Edited by wata at 14:59 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #113 @ 03:26 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #57

out of curiosity would it be possble to make the hitbox tilt depending on movement speed?
Not that I think it would be a particulary smart move, but maybe for fun :)

<< Comment #197 @ 09:11 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ix - Reply to #113

So what do you do if a fast moving player moves under something low and stops, where the overhang is lower than the standing hitbox?

<< Comment #209 @ 09:58 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Nukm - Reply to #197

i thought they now have one box for mevement and one box for hits?

<< Comment #212 @ 10:04 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #197

laugh my ass off?

I guess you could make it a Parallelepiped where the bottom and top planes are parallel to the map floor.
But I'm sure there are other problems and it's not worth the effort. :)

<< Comment #299 @ 10:40 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

.syL - Reply to #212

Easily fixed by adding a head-bump animation and cartoon birds

<< Comment #302 @ 10:45 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #299

And a roadrunner zooming past you! :D

<< Comment #246 @ 13:29 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #197

becks knew that, he was just testing you to see if you'll notice.

<< Comment #301 @ 10:44 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #246

no I didn't, you moron, I asked a simple question, even with "for fun" which made it quite obvious I didn't give it any thought at all. And yeah ix reacted in exactly that fashion.

Can you fail any harder?

<< Comment #308 @ 12:07 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #301

we know you knew becks, don't pretend now. you tricky tester you.

<< Comment #309 @ 12:08 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #308

yes, you can :(

<< Comment #312 @ 12:11 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #309

:D

<< Comment #31 @ 09:19 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stunt.us

good id rather aim at the target anyways. :o

<< Comment #32 @ 09:24 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zoinks

Can't wait to see how this is going to turn out. :D

<< Comment #34 @ 09:30 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

yikes

"Fixed hitboxes next week."

Finally.

<< Comment #81 @ 17:48 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Mitritch - Reply to #34

I wouldn't be so optimistic about it. It's id.

<< Comment #263 @ 17:26 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

yikes - Reply to #81

True. There's always hope, tho...

<< Comment #35 @ 09:43 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

JohnBarbour

In addition to hitboxes, a fix for netcode is coming soon and SyncError is also working on new maps. Good stuff on the horizon.

<< Comment #37 @ 10:49 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

kaliberr44 - Reply to #35

source?

<< Comment #71 @ 15:30 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

JohnBarbour - Reply to #37

private testers

<< Comment #68 @ 15:15 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

extone - Reply to #35

please, nothing like q4cmp0

<< Comment #38 @ 10:51 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

acidreign

Sounds good. I wonder if they are changing to a hexagonal hitbox.

<< Comment #39 @ 11:17 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis

now q3 gets ruined the same way q4 got ruined :/

7%

<< Comment #40 @ 11:36 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stingerrayer - Reply to #39

i'm unfamiliar with the demise of q4. what's happening here that happened to q4?

<< Comment #41 @ 11:38 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis - Reply to #40

i started hating q4 when they added the cylindric hitboxes and stopped playing it

<< Comment #43 @ 11:53 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #41

you didnt like it because of slightly worse aim or changed movement?

I think cylindric hitboxes are a big step forward because it doesnt make the hitboxes smaller... it just fits better to the model.
btw I dont think they will change the hitbox size or shape. I hope they will just change the position of the hitbox so it will fit to the model in fast fights.

<< Comment #46 @ 12:02 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis - Reply to #43

"slightly" ...
the whole game got more arcade style and aiming became a lot less fun

and i don't have to guess/think what the new ql hitboxes are like :F

<< Comment #66 @ 14:56 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #46

the hitbox kept his min. width so there isnt much difference.

Maybe I am wrong but I think they changed the q4 netcode at the same time so we have to put a cvar to a specific value and so on...

In the end (pr 1.4.2 + latest q4max) q4 hitscan weapons became actually strong. Mostly due q4max

btw ql will benefit from octagonal hitboxes. You wont hardly notice the difference when its properly done. The hitbox width just wont vary so much.

Edited by c1 at 15:02 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #72 @ 15:37 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis - Reply to #66

we are already testing them, and the difference is huge.

1%

<< Comment #90 @ 18:19 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Fejl(Folklore) - Reply to #72

Nice to hear!(L)

<< Comment #95 @ 19:28 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolvc - Reply to #72

+1 :(

<< Comment #101 @ 00:56 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #72

so they changed the shape of the hitbox to compensate the lagging hitbox? *facepalm*

<< Comment #106 @ 02:31 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Mitritch - Reply to #101

I hope this is not so hopeless. However, it's id again, so we can expect any retarded move from them.

Prepare popcorn and cola - an epic whine wave coming ahead...

<< Comment #187 @ 08:20 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

BlindGuardian - Reply to #106

more like: build an arch, a whine-wave of 2012 proportions is coming

4%

<< Comment #117 @ 03:45 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

1ecb61110 - Reply to #101

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1796679#pid1796679

And fyi, the new hitboxes DID actually fix that problem, which means that all the whine about lagging hitboxes is false

<< Comment #121 @ 03:56 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther - Reply to #72

lol that is so stupid

they will make it harder to aim and lose many players, since it will be less noob friendly

+ they have to rebalance the weapons

<< Comment #354 @ 16:07 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Heartlesss - Reply to #121

lol

<< Comment #131 @ 04:26 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Kill_ - Reply to #72

How is the rail gun with the new hitboxes ?

Imo they need to boost it to 100 if the new hitboxes will affect the accuracy with it...

<< Comment #336 @ 05:55 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Terifire - Reply to #131

Rail isn't affected as much, and it sure as hell shouldn't be buffed.

<< Comment #337 @ 06:20 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Kill_ - Reply to #336

Well I find it fair to buff it if the rail accuracy will fall, otherwise there will be alot of one sided games imo since it will be very difficult to do anything out of control.

<< Comment #340 @ 08:07 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Terifire - Reply to #337

As I said, rail isn't suffering from this.
It's because of the nature of rail gun.
Most rail gun use is camping, holding crosshair and pressing fire when the enemy is on the crosshair.
And even reflex shots stay pretty much the same.

<< Comment #351 @ 13:20 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Kill_ - Reply to #340

ok, thanks for the input.

<< Comment #87 @ 18:10 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

baron Railgun ' - Reply to #46

agree here
smaller hitboxes = more random hits, less strategy
I think cooller will be pleased, though, because he will dodge rockets more efficient :p

<< Comment #423 @ 02:23 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Anonymous (ip-78-94-78-78.unitymediagroup.de) - Reply to #87

i don�t want to get into arguments..but

how can smaller hitbox be more random hits?
i�d say..hits register that are aimed..and not spammed

so far i like quake live..i played 4 games..

it needs netcode fixing..or smaller hitboxes..
and here i wonder about what i heard some time ago..that ql will get cpma netcode..is it true? so it will get xerp at some point? :O
just wondering..actually got used to the feel of this now..

it also needs ramp jumps...or whatever its called..going up stairs fast...i like

and i haven�t managed to get my hud and textures look like in q3..but well..gottta get used i guess

<< Comment #99 @ 20:43 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ix - Reply to #46

Why does smaller and more accurate hitboxes make the game arcade-style? Other than that being a useful go to negative term. Surely larger and easier to hit hitboxes would be arcady.

7%

<< Comment #109 @ 02:59 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis - Reply to #99

its a lot easier now to just rush with rockets into a shafter for example

<< Comment #111 @ 03:12 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Mitritch - Reply to #109

Did you (private testers) said them this is fucking stupid idea???

<< Comment #112 @ 03:21 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #109

then its time to make the lg 7-7-7 + increased knockback :)

<< Comment #114 @ 03:38 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #109

hmm, maybe I got something wrong here, but with octagonal hitboxes the size that you can hit when someone it looking right at you should not be any smaller.

It's just that when the player turns that the hitbox does not get bigger(!) as it did until now.
Based on that the player firing rockets could even suffer because if the rockets his the floor diagonally from the player (can't think of a better wa to write it atm) the distance between the impact point and the actual hitbox should be bigger.

All that, of course, requires that only the shape was changed, not the actual size.

Or am I wrong here?*

Apprantly this line can trigger a response from Arqon, so let's hope :D

<< Comment #116 @ 03:43 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis - Reply to #114

its harder to hit with all guns, its just worse for some than for others

<< Comment #118 @ 03:46 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #116

well yes, of course it is.

I was more thinking of your specific example: Rushing against lg with rockets.

There I would think that, as long as the players are facing each other, the lg has the advantage.

<< Comment #120 @ 03:50 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis - Reply to #118

yeah one would think so, but its damn hard to keep tracking your opponent with the lg now

<< Comment #141 @ 05:06 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

oreozz - Reply to #120

Get them to slow the rockets back to q3 speed at least.. it's been needed for a long time :)

edit: perhaps even stock q3 settings would be ideal with smaller hitboxes. rail+lg are going to hit less so 7/7/7 and 100dmg seems good.

only issue is that toxjq is going to win every tourny :p

Edited by oreozz at 05:07 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #144 @ 05:33 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #141

toxjq dominated q4 before the octagonal hitboxes were introduced. But I think it will favor his playstyle :)

<< Comment #145 @ 05:38 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

leopold ' - Reply to #141

Ye, I would love to see the old q3 RL back. I like it a lot more then the QL one. Other then that I am fine with the weapons. Balancing weapons is overrated anyway:)
I mean, both q3 and ql balances have their pro and cons.

<< Comment #355 @ 16:14 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Heartlesss - Reply to #120

i don't get it,
why would it be harder to aim with shaft than with rockets ?
i mean, the "new" hitboxes are for all the weapons...

<< Comment #360 @ 16:56 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Anonymous (91-115-140-92.adsl.highway.telekom.at) - Reply to #355

i don't remember shaft having any sort of splash dmg

ps: for some reason i can't see any comments anymore in this thread when im logged in

<< Comment #361 @ 17:06 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Heartlesss - Reply to #360

yeah but, splash dmg isn't full dmg, and also, the worst you aim, the less splash dmg you will do.

for example, with exactly the same RL aim, and at exactly the same distance from the explosion :

old hitbox (large) : dmgs caused by splash --> 75
new hitbox (smaller) : dmgs caused by splash --> 60
old & new hitboxes : dmgs caused by direct hit --> 100, but it's harder to direct hit with the new hitbox
(cuz they are smaller...)

Edited by He4rTL3sS at 17:11 CST, 5 December 2009

<< Comment #122 @ 04:01 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

1ecb61110 - Reply to #114

There's 2 factors here:

The cylinderical hitbox has a slightly smaller diameter (like 5-10%).

But another factor is that as far as I understand, the hitbox doesn't actually turn with the player. It is relative to the map. So if you are looking in eachother's eyes BUT are diagonal from the map's axis then the hitbox is like 40% larger (Pythagoras' theorem).

<< Comment #138 @ 04:57 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #122

thanks for info about the 5-10%

And yeah now that you mention it I think I do remember someone bringing up those "aligned" hitboxes.
In that case, this change is even more vital, imo.

So, if my very rusty math doesn't betray me. Going a square hitbox is on average 28,5% bigger than a cylinder. Adding those 5-10% sure makes quite a difference.

No wonder our Austrian friend is sad.

<< Comment #151 @ 06:11 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stingerrayer - Reply to #122

that's pretty awful if that's true. if it isn't then a lot of the complaining is unjustified. granted weapon tweaks may need to be implemented but that's fine isn't it?

people are ultimately complaining because the effectiveness of a gun has diminished because they can't... miss and still register a hit?

i don't get it.

Edited by becks at 06:14 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #153 @ 06:14 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #151

moved it.

<< Comment #157 @ 06:30 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis - Reply to #151

i really wonder why cpma never had that problem

<< Comment #160 @ 06:39 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #157

I'd go with:

People were used to it and only "found" it in quakelive because they were looking for things to complain about.

It's also possible that other changes, e.g. netcode made it more obvious. But afaik the problem with square hitboxes existed in q3 as well.

<< Comment #162 @ 06:41 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis - Reply to #160

was more of a rhetorical question since i thought its kinda obvious that the netcode differences is whats causing it ... :)

<< Comment #166 @ 07:12 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #162

I really wouldn't count out the psychological element which I why I answered your question.

People tend to be way more critical of something "new" than what they are used to.

<< Comment #168 @ 07:22 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

User1067 - Reply to #160

Are you suggesting that people were not looking things to complain about cpma? I think the cpma development team would like a word with you.

I sure would like to see someone come up with one of these "easy to create" youtube videos using osp or cpma.

Edited by User1067 at 07:23 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #176 @ 07:45 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #168

no. I mean that the hitboxes in cpma and osp behaved very similar (dunno if they were perfectly the same)
so that would make no sense to complain about for an osp'er.
Even though (I think) they also had a hitbox that was, at times, up to 41% bigger than at other times. (At lesst when you look at hitscan).

I kinda suck at expressing myself well, today. What I meant was this:

Both games QL and Q3 had that problem (square hit boxes).
QL does something different in registering hits than Q3, which I think we all agree results in different behaviour.

That different behaviour plus the fact that they were looking for faults is what led the to find the problem.

Yet, that does not necessarily mean that QL's netcode really makes the problem worse!

Sure the type of "odd" frags in QL might not be doable in Q3 (dunno if anyone actually tried yet), but maybe there are other types tof frags in Q3 that look normal to us but would look weird to someone who only played QL.

Hope this makes my point a bit clearer. :/

That said, personally, I do think that QL makes the hitbox problem worse, but that's just a feeling and also based on random statements. On the other than, that square hitboxes or suboptimal and that people are more suspicious about something new are way more established points.

<< Comment #180 @ 07:59 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #176

here you go again, arguing technical things you don't understand.

<< Comment #208 @ 09:51 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #180

here you go again trying desperately to find flaws without being able to provide anything substantial.

<< Comment #210 @ 10:01 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #208

I'm still laughing from the last self ownage/ragequit you put yourself in. :)

<< Comment #214 @ 10:10 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #210

yeah, yeah.

Yeah well, I'm still laughing that you said nothing the first two times I mentioned "analogue". And now you pretend you knew that all along and chose not to point it out or something. Even though your post here shows how desperate you are for finding flaws with me.

And ultimately the point was made by someone else, damn that's gotta hurt :P

<< Comment #215 @ 10:23 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #214

hahaha the mental gymnastics you do are amazing. you wrote something wrong while trying to look smart and got called on it. twice. just move on man, it's not the first time you got owned, you ought to be used to it by now.

<< Comment #216 @ 10:30 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #215

yes, I got called on it.

I was just trying if you would find that out by yourself. If I had something right away you would have just said that you knew all along and so on. So, the only way to find out is to bring it up a few more times and to wait and see how you respond. You never managed to say that there is no analogue signal.
If I had behaved like you, you would have jumped at me right away, claiming I had no clue of technical stuff and so on.

Granted, it would have been awesome fun if I had thought of writing someone an imsg which I could show you now, but I didn't :[

Also, for the record, yes I have been proven wrong on this site. Just never by you. I guess that's why you keep following around :]

<< Comment #218 @ 10:36 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #216

so your regular way of operation is writing stupid shit and when you get called on it write I'M NOT STUPID! I JUST WROTE STUPID SHIT TO TEST U!11 brilliant

<< Comment #223 @ 11:51 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #218

regular? hardly.

<< Comment #226 @ 11:59 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #223

like saying it's likely that a software update can fix a shit mouse?

<< Comment #228 @ 12:04 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #226

no, that was the part of your brain that like to imagine things.

<< Comment #229 @ 12:08 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #228

lol

<< Comment #231 @ 12:19 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #229

so to you likely and possible are synomynous?

<< Comment #232 @ 12:23 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #229

also: lol this guy also writes it's possible
maybe you should discuss this topic with him.

Edited by becks at 12:23 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #233 @ 12:26 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #232

which part of 0.01% did you not understand?

<< Comment #234 @ 12:31 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #233

the one where "possible" is suddenly not the same as "possible" but instead the same as "likely".

<< Comment #235 @ 12:36 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #234

0.01% is also possible.

<< Comment #236 @ 12:46 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #235

trying to evade the question, are we?

<< Comment #237 @ 12:47 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #236

not at all. if it's not likely, what probability (in percentage) would you give to it being a pure software error?

<< Comment #239 @ 13:05 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #237

why would I wanna do that?

How about you wirte you imagined I wrote "likely".

<< Comment #240 @ 13:10 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #239

so you were arguing a possibility you have no measure for except that it's "not likely". and you wrote 100000 lines of text arguing for this unquantified possibility you are afraid of naming. impressive

<< Comment #241 @ 13:23 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #240

stop your twisting, it's embarassing.

<< Comment #243 @ 13:25 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #241

yea I'm the one arguing for "unknown possibility" here.

<< Comment #244 @ 13:26 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #243

I'm bored.

<< Comment #245 @ 13:27 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #244

and owned.

<< Comment #248 @ 14:16 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #245

well, you have proven very imaginitive, so in your mind anythings possible.

<< Comment #250 @ 14:39 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #248

I'm not the judge of that. real world is.

<< Comment #255 @ 15:51 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #250

will you ever stop misreading statements or is that some innate defect of yours?
We've been over this several times, my theory won't be disproven by that. Bringing that up again and agin, only makes you look more like a rat

also it's quite rich that you rely one someones personal experience. Coming from the guy wrote several posts claiming how he wouldn't rely on the other's opinion (just look on you cheating accusations). Not that I don't believe stunt in this matter, but you were trying to set those standards, or do you think your own opinion is worthless now?

I do.

<< Comment #258 @ 16:05 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

euclid - Reply to #255

....can't we all just get along?

<< Comment #259 @ 16:06 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #258

be careful, he might read an insult into that ;)

<< Comment #265 @ 17:37 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #255

yes your theory won't be disproven only little less probable. I gave it 0,01% probability to begin with and guess I was too generous. :)

<< Comment #276 @ 01:50 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #265

Well, at least you agree that you were wrong once again.
That's a start.

<< Comment #286 @ 06:15 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #276

as in my theory that had 99.99% chance of being correct and it was, yours had 0.01% and it wasn't. but yea, I was wrong. just as I was wrong saying that a mouse sensor can hardly be treated as an analogue device? or when I said that yuka cheats? damn, I'm always wrong.

Edited by tourist at 06:35 CST, 4 December 2009

<< Comment #295 @ 10:34 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #286

is the sensor replaced and was it proven to be faulty?
did you even write the word "analogue" before now?
did you mention the lift off distance, like bullveyr hinted?
do you have any basis for your 0.01% besides "personal experience" and "but in all the mice I know", both of which really don't even give you anything you could calculate a probability from?

Whoops, that's "no" four times in a row.

Your's is the science of taking guesses and hoping to be write in the end. ridiculous.

I don't think I'll wait around for you to make another bad interpretation of what I wrote or one more wild guess.

<< Comment #305 @ 12:02 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #295

it's just my "guesses" turn out to be correct every time. but sure, go ahead and file this under another lucky tourist guess if you like.

<< Comment #313 @ 12:17 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #305

no they don't (it's still not proven the sensor is "shit")
But it would take at least 100 posts to point that out to you and in the end you still would not accept that your guesses can be wrong.
For example you tried to attribute statements to me countless times, either intentionally or because you guessed and your memory was wrong. "likely instead of possibly" and "disproven my theory" and "You said yuka was innocent" are just some examples.

Just remember, that everyone gives up trying to explain something to you does not make you correct or smarter, it simply means you are better at denial. I wonder if you'll ever find that out for yourself, because obviously you won't accept this coming from me.

<< Comment #314 @ 12:45 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #313

ah man, I keep stating facts you keep tooting semantics. the only way to settle this is reality. guess who wins there?

<< Comment #319 @ 14:06 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #314

since for you your imagination equals reality, you win by a landslide.
why don't you keep on imagining facts for now?

<< Comment #325 @ 14:58 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #319

oh I'm sorry, yuka doesn't cheat. I feel so bad for my imagination, let me log out with my analog mouse now.

<< Comment #334 @ 04:42 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #325

walter, sensor proven shit, me saying yuka doesn't cheat, me saying software fix is likely, you saying software can't improve sensor problems so that the average user says it's fixed.

<< Comment #281 @ 03:56 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

AnthonyJ - Reply to #226

"likely.... will" and "likely.... can" are two very different things.

Software updates can hide (aka "fix") many hardware issues - it is a running joke between me and the hardware engineers at work that I fix all of their hardware problems in software (because the turn around time on hardware fixes is usually too long or involves physically recalling hardware).

There are some hardware faults that simply cannot be resolved in software, but it seems that the majority can be.... so yes, I'd say it is likely that a software update can fix it.

It isn't necessary likely that a software update *will* fix it, because that makes the assumption that they've put the effort into finding a software tweak to hide the failing hardware, which in the case of a mouse probably isnt going to happen.

<< Comment #288 @ 06:29 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #281

of course I agree with everything you wrote but we're not talking about general hardware/software relationship here. the subject is computer mice, and to my knowledge a new software update has never so far fixed terrible tracking errors. latest tests confirm it. if you know examples of the opposite, please do share.

the reason for this is probably very simple: mice companies know their mice are shit, I mean how hard to is it to test a mouse? especially companies like razer, steelseries etc. they got all these PRO gamers working for them, surely some of them tell the manufacturers that their mice skip and end up looking at the sky when you move them fast? so they probably do try to correct these issues via software long before release. they still do release faulty mice regardless, because nerds will buy them anyway.

<< Comment #296 @ 10:35 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #288

:)

<< Comment #307 @ 12:06 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #296

oh please do share.

<< Comment #310 @ 12:08 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #307

:)

<< Comment #346 @ 11:45 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Memento_Mori - Reply to #114

My understading is that the hitboxes used so far are world aligned, not character aligned.

Edited by Memento_Mori at 13:55 CST, 6 December 2009

<< Comment #387 @ 09:33 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #346

that's what cylent said, and to which I agreed in the following post :)

<< Comment #191 @ 08:57 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ix - Reply to #109

Most attacks are axial to the gameworld so the old hitbox is the same width as the new one, if it were a problem it would already have been in those situations. It's absurd for the hitbox to be so much wider diagonally than axially, this really sounds like made up whine at this stage.

<< Comment #201 @ 09:17 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis - Reply to #191

you see, the technical explanation might be valid, but it doesn't really matter since ppl simply hit 5-10% less even tho theoretically they shouldn't ... ;)

as in, maybe you missed something somewhere.

Edited by noctis at 09:18 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #206 @ 09:43 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

BlindGuardian - Reply to #201

so why is this a bad thing? really? why is it good to hit 50% lg and 60% (or more) rail? for the vast majority of players like me dwell far away from the top, a reduction might not be the worst thing the world. actually it sounds quite positive to me.

<< Comment #207 @ 09:51 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

noctis - Reply to #206

i can only dream of 50% lg, im usually around 35 :/ and now prolly around 25 :(

<< Comment #213 @ 10:07 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

BlindGuardian - Reply to #207

so then you really suck at lg :<

<< Comment #242 @ 13:25 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #207

youre average lg accuracy is around 39% and I've seen matches from you with 50% lg accuracy. Dont fool around

<< Comment #247 @ 14:01 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

extone - Reply to #207

so that's right time to bring back cripple effect for LG, transform PG projectiles into small boxes, reduce SG spread ...
octagonal hitboxes are not a problem. there are many many ways to compensate it

3%

<< Comment #249 @ 14:34 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

butcher_kgp - Reply to #247

my thought exactly

<< Comment #260 @ 16:06 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

MUNG>esh - Reply to #207

Until you and everyone else gets used to it and percentages push back up again....

<< Comment #356 @ 16:34 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Heartlesss - Reply to #207

you could reach 30 with some weeks of practice @ new hitboxes, i'm sure.

matter of "getting used to it" i guess. maybe you have to aim a bit differently ?

<< Comment #221 @ 10:39 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

acidreign - Reply to #206

Exactly.

<< Comment #253 @ 15:45 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lizahd - Reply to #109

it was a weapon not a hitbox issue in the end than.

<< Comment #419 @ 00:43 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

KitesAreFun - Reply to #46

Arcade style?

<< Comment #420 @ 01:57 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Anonymous (ip-78-94-78-78.unitymediagroup.de) - Reply to #419

420 bra!

<< Comment #103 @ 01:10 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #43

I think cylindric hitboxes are a big step forward because it doesnt make the hitboxes smaller... it just fits better to the model.

By that logic, we should be using per-pixel hit detection.

<< Comment #47 @ 12:16 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #41

The addition of cg_unsmoothclients helped in a ton in making the game more playable, but the shitty servers nowadays (at least in NA) lead to 25% shaft and 35% rail becoming quite standard for me nowadays. They should have reverted back to rectangular hitboxes and kept it a hidden option to be used at LAN's, really.

Not like it ruined the game -- it was a great concept that helped make the game less about rail and shaft, but it was just on such a poor engine that Q4 was all about rockets after that.

<< Comment #50 @ 12:47 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

hemostick - Reply to #47

Well, I think the octagonal hitboxes didn't help *added* to the increased speed changes on the ground from 1.3 which already made players harder to hit. OTOH, I don't remember 1.3 being much less of an aimfest than what we had before.
Not having played Q4 in a while, I found the super fast direction changes of other players very annoying when I dabbled with it recently.
I'd like to see what Q4 would play like with the 8 sided hit pillars and weapon balance/movement closer to what they were in 1.2...

<< Comment #44 @ 11:53 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther - Reply to #39

also if by changing that makes it harder to aim, they have to rebalance the weapons, since weapons like lg and rg are nurfed cause it is easy to aim.

<< Comment #45 @ 11:58 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther

I just hope they don't make it harder to play with ping, because if that happens many of us will be forced to quit.

<< Comment #48 @ 12:26 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

MadLag - Reply to #45

buy something that u can call internet ...

<< Comment #49 @ 12:36 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #45

One thing is sure, they will fuck it up somehow, as always.

<< Comment #69 @ 15:17 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* '

That won't fix the main netcode "problem", which is "getting shot behind walls", ie. serverside hit detection with hitscan weapons.

I chose Tankjr as model for a reason, I know very well the model is bigger then the hitbox, that's why I like it!....only complete noobs could be confused by that, no "netcode fix" there.

<< Comment #73 @ 16:41 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Dynamix - Reply to #69

It does fix that problem, there's no more hitbox lag behind the model.

<< Comment #92 @ 19:04 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #73

Oh ok, I thought it was only the model size fitting that changes.

<< Comment #70 @ 15:21 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* '

I wonder why the hitboxes are rectangular, that makes no sense, they should always have been cylindrical....

<< Comment #86 @ 18:06 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

fws - Reply to #70

Not many early FPPs had any cylindrical thing in them :P
Such things tend to stick, especialy since it is of no matter in casual single player games, and what would they consider next is rather per pixel collisions.

Edited by fws at 18:07 CST, 2 December 2009

<< Comment #84 @ 18:02 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

fws

Is this only the change of shape?
I mean the orginal post said they will be more closesly matched to the size of the player, cause right now they are bigger. The very first thing that came to my mind was literaly size, not shape. Since models got different sizes it made me wonder what is they actualy want to archive?

I mean casual player reading that post would get an idea that now hitboxes will fit models, so using bigger model would result in bigger hitbox. You can say this is overintepretation, cause they would never pull such thing off, wouldnt they? :P

<< Comment #93 @ 19:06 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #84

Nah no way, I don't think it's meant like that, but either way I'm fine with Tankjr :p

<< Comment #88 @ 18:13 CST, 2 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

baron Railgun '

this perfectly fits the new definition of reduced cylinder size, bodzo case, viagra needed

<< Comment #102 @ 00:57 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

wch

\o/

<< Comment #125 @ 04:09 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther

someone make a poll fast

<< Comment #126 @ 04:11 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ambro

this is a dawn of some online heroes

<< Comment #127 @ 04:11 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

trippy

finally i don't have to think about missing the player to hit!!

<< Comment #134 @ 04:49 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

wata

so will we end up having the hitbox fitting better the comon models, and thus having a rather pillar like hitbox with all the shitstorm which will occur from it, or will they finally make a dwarf model to fit the hitbox

quake : played better by fat dwarves
this on the other hand http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1669/20091017095047703.jpg is sure ugly gameplay wise

this would be better
http://www.image-mp3-video.com/i/upi/2289-179...047703.jpg

or wait, better
http://www.image-mp3-video.com/i/upi/9818-57-...47f703.jpg
now that's optimized

Edited by wata at 04:55 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #137 @ 04:56 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

h8m3 - Reply to #134

true, need cube enemymodel :)))

<< Comment #350 @ 13:15 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sixide - Reply to #137

Actually what would be pretty awesome would be a glow effect that exactly matches the hitbox. It wouldn't look completely terrible like a box model.

1%

<< Comment #148 @ 06:05 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #134

Or, one up from the cube by making it 2 dimensional, doom-style.

<< Comment #171 @ 07:38 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

valvalis - Reply to #134

Why not, it would be nice if they added the command to disable model and show the hitbox.
We don't care about how our quake looks like anyway...

<< Comment #142 @ 05:11 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

CAREEM

omg, plz do not change anything!

6%

<< Comment #147 @ 05:46 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

GUArd

after this update in 1 week we will lose 1/3 players :)) fixing not problem, but tweaking something is bad idea! its like from 1 problem , we will have now 2! nice ID :D

<< Comment #150 @ 06:06 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stingerrayer - Reply to #147

tweaking.. fixing.. you're arguing over semantics there.

<< Comment #169 @ 07:37 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther - Reply to #147

I totally agree

I am already thinking to quit playing from next week. At my level and under, the games are all about rl. According to my stats, I use rl 46%. With the new hitbox, I will have to probably increase it to 60%. So please change the name to RAL (rocket arena live) or something similar. Even at pro level the best players are those who have the edge in rl, like rapha, cypher and cooller. Also the worst weapon with ping is the rl and since is by far the best weapon in ql it makes it even harder for high pingers.

I normally don�t whine, but now I have to whine because iD listened to the stupid whines about registered missing shots. And yes, they are stupid and childish, since is the same for everybody.

<< Comment #178 @ 07:54 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stingerrayer - Reply to #169

an increase in the damage lg and rg deals could combat this?

<< Comment #181 @ 07:59 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther - Reply to #178

it would surely help

<< Comment #182 @ 08:03 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #169

Even at pro level the best players are those who have the edge in rl, like rapha, cypher and cooller.

I see you dont know toxjq

<< Comment #219 @ 10:37 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

duumed - Reply to #182

since when has toxjq been a top player in QL?

<< Comment #357 @ 16:39 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Heartlesss - Reply to #182

toxjq isn't playing quakelive.

<< Comment #188 @ 08:21 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #169

since is the same for everybody.

Worst justification EVER.

<< Comment #189 @ 08:25 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Mitritch - Reply to #169

Also the worst weapon with ping is the rl...

Edited by sk4ut at 10:05 CST, 9 December 2009

<< Comment #268 @ 20:08 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dem0n - Reply to #169

actually I think rockets are even more efficient now that people will miss you more with all the other hitscan weapons like LG, MG,...

Edited by dem0n at 20:08 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #358 @ 16:41 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Heartlesss - Reply to #169

the new hitboxes also apply for the rl you know...
i mean, it will also be more difficult to hit with rl properly...

that said i'm all for an LG buff (like 7-7-7 dmg instead of 7-6-5)

<< Comment #408 @ 12:54 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Erk - Reply to #358

Smaller hitboxes did not affect rocket launcher in Q4, why should it do so in QL? The hitboxes are only smaller from certain angles, which will really change the impact LG has (people went from 30-35 lg in Q4 to 22-28 with added knockback). Rail will only see a small reduction in hit percentage, prob around 5% for most people.

Edited by Erk at 12:57 CST, 6 December 2009

<< Comment #411 @ 14:48 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Heartlesss - Reply to #408

"Smaller hitboxes did not affect rocket launcher in Q4"

wat ?

<< Comment #412 @ 15:25 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Erk - Reply to #411

The hitboxes in Q4 were made smaller in 1.4.x in a way that is similar to what they are doing in QL now. The RL and GL were about the only weapons that didn't lose any effectiveness.

<< Comment #413 @ 15:30 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Heartlesss - Reply to #412

"The RL and GL were about the only weapons that didn't lose any effectiveness. "

why ?

<< Comment #416 @ 15:37 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Erk - Reply to #413

Go troll somewhere else.

<< Comment #417 @ 15:58 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Heartlesss - Reply to #416

"The hitboxes in Q4 were made smaller in 1.4.x in a way that is similar to what they
are doing in QL now. The RL and GL were about the only weapons that didn't lose
any effectiveness."

1) I'm not trollin' ;D

2) How do you know it is similar ?

3) The "new" octogonal q4 hitboxes affected RL & GL aswell. So that's why i'm asking
why you're saying that they weren't affected... I mean -->
"The hitboxes in Q4 were made smaller in 1.4.x in a way that is similar to what they
are doing in QL now" --> in what way exactly ?

<< Comment #444 @ 09:25 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Erk - Reply to #417

The Q4 hitboxes removed dead space by making the cross-section of the hitbox more consistent across different angles. Arqon said the new hitboxes will have about 40% less dead space (keep in mind he said dead space, not 40% smaller hitboxes) and syncerror said that the change would more closely resemble the models. Since the models are closer to circular than square, it would indicate that the hitboxes will be changed into a shape that is more similar to a circle.

The difference between 1.3 and 1.4.x patch in Q4 was pretty much non-existent for the players ability to do damage with the rocket launcher. Something like 90% of the damage done with rocket launcher is done with splash damage. Even high damage rockets are seldom aimed at people above the feet, since you would risk not getting any damage at all. This is why slightly smaller hitboxes did not change the strength of the rocket launcher. If you played Q4, you would have noticed how the game became mostly rocketlauncher after the 1.4.2 patch came out, due to LG and RG being nerfed a lot. Even with a buff (175dmg/s vs 160dmg/s and stronger knockback), LG was still weaker in 1.4.2 than in 1.3.

<< Comment #421 @ 02:08 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #416

Out of curiosity, do you know how splash damage is calculated? Do they calculate the distance between impact and the nearest edge of the hitbox, or the distance to the center of the hitbox?

Because if it's the first one there should be a difference.
And direct hit rockets should be affected in any case, I would think.

<< Comment #445 @ 09:32 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Erk - Reply to #421

Not sure how they calculate the damage, however the hitbox is only slightly smaller from certain angles so even if the calculate to the edge of the hitbox, the difference should be negligible. Q4 has already shown that there will be little difference between the hitboxes for RL. The 1.4.2 patch changed the game from slightly rail heavy but balanced RL and LG to very rocket heavy. This was due to the amount of effect the new hitboxes had on RL, almost none. How many direct rockets do you see that do only hit around the edges of the model? Not many, and the direct rockets that hit the outside the edge of the model, are the only ones that would be affected by the change.

<< Comment #152 @ 06:12 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ambro

jeeej, a brand new game to play over (and after) christmas

<< Comment #154 @ 06:16 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dlx

atm the whine sounds like: "omg i cant hit 827342789% shaft anymore MOTHER FCUKING RAGE!!!!!"

whats the problem?

<< Comment #156 @ 06:22 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stingerrayer - Reply to #154

agreed, that's how i'm interpreting most of it too :/

<< Comment #173 @ 07:43 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

1ecb61110 - Reply to #154

There isn't any whine about hitpercentages. The argument is about whether these changes should result in a buff to the weapons that suffer from this. The amount of damage the LG and RG could deal was reduced in quake live due to people hitting more. Now that people will hit less again, that would mean a double nerf to the LG and RG. This argument is valid as the RL might get overpowered and there might be a shift in the balance of control versus aim.

Edited by Sc00T at 07:44 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #159 @ 06:34 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Raist

Alot of comments here but I can easily summarize it with arqon's

40% difference means alot of noobs will finally stop hitting those bs rails and I am very fine with that. The level of "aim" in qlive atm is retarded and I want the distinction between a good player and a bad one back.

<< Comment #172 @ 07:40 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther - Reply to #159

"40% difference means alot of noobs will finally stop hitting those bs rails "

... and they will quit playing ... exacly what ql needs

also the game is all about rl already and +back heavy because of that

<< Comment #203 @ 09:21 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Raist - Reply to #172

Alot of noobs already stopped playing regardless of hitbox. I am speaking about the remainder who sticked around and will likely stick around even with this change.

Also, the preference of rl has nothing to do with hitboxes. It's because of the lg nerf and the boosts it got with splash damage and other stuff I can't remember right now. As for +back, at what point in quake 3 vq3 and quakelive history did +back not reward the user? That will never change unless you get CPM style changes which won't happen.

4%

<< Comment #204 @ 09:29 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stingerrayer - Reply to #203

pretty much hit the nail on the head.

<< Comment #269 @ 20:10 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dem0n - Reply to #172

why would they quit playing if everyone else misses more aswell ?

I mean the fact that the 'noobs' will hit less will obviously be compensated by the way they'll get hit less aswell, resulting in less stupid railwhoring and dying 50 times on ctf2 mid for example.

If you can't understand that I don't know what to say Oo

Edited by dem0n at 20:11 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #271 @ 20:14 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther - Reply to #269

lol u can't understand what I am saying for start

<< Comment #359 @ 16:44 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Heartlesss - Reply to #271

he's right.

and no, smaller hitboxes won't make RL dominant.
7-6-5 shaft makes RL & Rail dominant, not the hitboxes.

<< Comment #163 @ 06:51 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolvc

All you get is a game that doesn't work online :)

If you thought coolers russian ping and lg sucked online, think again, "your lg is nothink on lan" incoming atleast once a minute as he loses even more online.

cya 1/4 of ql players

<< Comment #175 @ 07:44 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

1ecb61110 - Reply to #163

That's a valid point and I think this hasn't been thoroughly tested yet.

<< Comment #167 @ 07:20 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

gyr0

Well this is bad for people playing with high pings since rocket will clearly be the dominant weapon and rockets fucking suck with high ping =/

Edited by gyr0 at 07:20 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #174 @ 07:44 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther - Reply to #167

exactly what I thought

<< Comment #270 @ 20:13 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dem0n - Reply to #167

what tells you id hasnt thought of it already ? What if the next update included a change on LG damage e.g. ?

And why the hell do you keep whining before even seeing and testing it ? Really people your negative comments might be the number 1 cause of ppl leaving quakelive

Edited by dem0n at 20:14 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #272 @ 20:29 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther - Reply to #270

lol negative comments is what this update is addressing (and aren't coming from us, since I accept ql the way it is, have accepted that is no q3 and haven't whined)

but yes this thread turns out to be too negative from both sides and I don't like that tension. All the whiners are glad that iD finally listened to some of their whines and now they pretend to be the positive ones!

The irony

<< Comment #422 @ 02:23 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Anonymous (ip-78-94-78-78.unitymediagroup.de) - Reply to #272

ye ...wait until u find a game u love and play for a couple of years..and then have the developers "making it easier" for the "beginners"....

u lack empathy and brains...not sure about empathy though

<< Comment #448 @ 12:28 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #422

my thoughts exactly.

<< Comment #179 @ 07:56 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1

in case off unbalanced weapons caused by octagonal hitboxes:
just make the octagonal hitbox width bigger to average width of the old hitboxes or max. width of the old hitboxes. This way the accuracys (lg/rail) should stay and weapon balacing wont be necessary.

Nethertheless I prefer octagonal hitboxes with minimum width of the old hitboxes because this way shafting/railing will become actually a skill.

Edited by c1 at 08:01 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #185 @ 08:13 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

wata

anyway, this is the schedule :
1-make octagonal hitbox to reduce width difference induced by the angle you attack
2-adust the width and height to balance resulting gameplay
3-balance again the weapons to fine tune gameplay

some could slow down the rampant onoz-omg paranoia imo (although the game will not be balanced until ages, since everything seems to take ages with ql, justified or not)

<< Comment #192 @ 08:58 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolvc

On another note, it makes maps like dm14 suck so hard in TDM

imagine trying to get into Red armor room with broken MG and LG vs. rocket launcher and shotgun on higher ping and with current damage values.. it can be difficult enough already!

Edited by nVc at 08:59 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #193 @ 09:05 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stingerrayer - Reply to #192

if they've gone to this much trouble adjusting the hixboxes/netcode, i'm sure they can tweak the weapon damage.

<< Comment #194 @ 09:05 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ix

Sad to see so much of the community is still at the Chicken Little level when it comes to change.

<< Comment #195 @ 09:09 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolvc - Reply to #194

I don't know about anybody elses oppinion but from playing CPMA & QUAKELIVE after Q3 OSP & Q4, i can safely say that i prefer playing a game that works online.

It's not just about being chicken of change, it's about facing the facts of not everybody having 5-30ms in a game that's trying to be equally as competitive online as it is on lan, and especially when a larger chunk of players are online (ffa, tdm, ctf, ca)

But yea. If they delay the release and the damages get tweaked a little bit before it goes live, rather than rush it out to compensate for the difference, maybe i could try and bear with it i suppose.

Though i have a sneaking suspision i may have to go ahead with my 11player fifa10 team on the ps3.

Edited by nVc at 09:13 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #198 @ 09:13 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ix - Reply to #195

Because in the past all higher pingers played the whole game diagonally?

<< Comment #199 @ 09:13 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolvc - Reply to #198

Point is that with the current hitboxes/game I can play the game with my 40ms ping jitter and 65ping due to bad routing on .de servers.

With the new ones? I doubt it very much. Yes i could buy a new house and a new connection to go with it, so �30000 later i might be able to play it. Or i could continuously use my student loan to pay for a huge tdm and lan event every week so that i don't have to play online. So do you want to sponsor me?

We'll see anyway. Maybe my whine will be unjustified, waiting on other tweaks..

Oh and please don't get me wrong, i do think the change could be great, for lan.

Edited by nVc at 09:21 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #280 @ 03:27 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #199

I hate this fucking argument, but quake live is still beta, you're supposed to test stuff you know

<< Comment #284 @ 04:59 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #280

yeh.
first people complain that it isn't a beta because id isn't changing anything.

Now they complain that they change the game.

And if id said the game is completely done, people would probably complain that a lot needs to be changed and id shouldn't try to sell us this unfinished beta as a final version.

O.O

<< Comment #285 @ 05:26 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

jal - Reply to #284

I've seen complaints of the game being free. Nuff said.

<< Comment #294 @ 10:30 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

unihumi - Reply to #284

this

<< Comment #320 @ 14:08 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolvc - Reply to #280

Who said i havn't tested it

<< Comment #321 @ 14:26 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #320

ye, who said that?

just make it clear then ;)

<< Comment #326 @ 15:02 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lolvc - Reply to #321

who said i have tested it?

<< Comment #328 @ 16:39 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #326

<3

<< Comment #217 @ 10:31 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

madbringer

hurr

Edited by madbringer at 10:31 CST, 3 December 2009

37%

<< Comment #222 @ 11:47 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tbone - Reply to #217

<3 plif

<< Comment #225 @ 11:58 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dlx - Reply to #217

omg its so beatiful

<< Comment #317 @ 13:50 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ShadyVoltaire - Reply to #217

Nice work, Brother Crapbringer.
The joke works on so many levels.
Kifflam, Brother!

<< Comment #425 @ 08:59 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

baron Railgun ' - Reply to #217

daddy's home

<< Comment #426 @ 09:04 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

baron Railgun ' - Reply to #425

there's no light in the room
much better this way

<< Comment #220 @ 10:39 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

h8m3

i dont get all the whine about weapons becoming unbalanced
it's not like only lg and rg will get worse, it's basically gonna happen with every weapon :/
Shotgun, mg, plasmagun
the only question is how splashdamage of rl and nades are calculated. they will become imba if only it's calculated between the center of explosion and the center of the hitbox. While they will become just as much nerfed as other weapons if it's counted between the center of explosion and the closest edge of the hitbox
Direct hits will become harder aswell

Anyway rail is imba now and even if rl splash becomes more powerful it wouldnt make rail useless, just make lg 7-6-6/7-7-6 or smth + maybe decrease the mg & shotgun spread

Edited by h8m3 at 10:40 CST, 3 December 2009

<< Comment #224 @ 11:53 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

1ecb61110 - Reply to #220

It's not really whine. It's just something that needs to be taken into account, which id does.

<< Comment #251 @ 15:04 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #220

It's not a matter of it hurting all the accuracy, it's the risk/reward situation of each weapon. Why use a more aim-based weapon and risk a lack of accuracy when you can just use an RL and at least get splash?

<< Comment #256 @ 15:56 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ini ' - Reply to #251

uNkind tactics

<< Comment #278 @ 02:44 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #251

using rl is risky for me regardless of the range. LG is a safe weapon to hit but the damage doesnt compensate good aimed rockets. We really need 7-7-7 or even 8-8-8 + increased knockback

<< Comment #238 @ 13:03 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

oneroomdisco

I think there might be some other good changes too ;)

<< Comment #254 @ 15:50 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lizahd

btw i love cute people , threatening with their withdrawl from ql.

quote syncerror: and many likely won't notice a major difference.

lets wait and see what happens

also, im really looking forward to maybe have the ability to dodge rails/shaft again by confusing movement. that doesnt exist anymore in ql.

its so wayne how someone moves. it was really a important nuance of skill.

im talking of "dodging" targets, no walking or jumping etc. they are ofc still easier to hit

Edited by lizahd at 15:59 CST, 3 December 2009

8%

<< Comment #273 @ 20:43 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dem0n - Reply to #254

[+]ed for speaking truth.

<< Comment #279 @ 03:15 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lejoon - Reply to #254

Many players will surely notice a significant decrease in LG accuracy no doubt but remember that it's almost impossible to have much less than 30% in many cases, mainly because of people walking into your shaft when dodging/strafing.

The skill gap with LG will be higher. Players with better tracking will be rewarded. And rightly so, some people fear that +back play will be even more effective than it is now but don't threat, id has a plan.

<< Comment #372 @ 04:11 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Kaloos - Reply to #279

Players with better tracking and better connection will be rewarded.

<< Comment #257 @ 16:04 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

wocK_

GG id

<< Comment #267 @ 19:38 CST, 3 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

oreozz

Isn't it funny to see people panic about a change they havent even experienced yet? Reminds me of xerp. :)

stfu and play. if it's substantially bad they'll obviously change it. Note that "different" and "bad" are not the same thing you whiny idiots.

<< Comment #277 @ 01:58 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

squishy

what oreozz said:

STFU AND PLAY

<< Comment #287 @ 06:25 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

User1067

This was a non-issue with osp, it was a non-issue with cpma, it WAS an issue with xbattle that used the so called unlagged netcode. It's painfully obvious that it is a QL netcode problem, problem that did not exist in OSP or CPMA at this magnitude.

Most of the people who "panic" or say they will quit are the ones that have actually tested it. Rest are more or less guessing how it could potentially change the gameplay. This is a good sign for id, people still care.

Why are they running a secret beta for a game in beta? Can someone point me to a crowd, in any field of life, that likes changes and decisions that they had no way of affecting or giving input for?

10%

<< Comment #289 @ 06:43 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stingerrayer - Reply to #287

you can email syncerror with your ql account name to become a tester of the proposed changes.

<< Comment #349 @ 13:07 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dlx - Reply to #289

did it 4 days ago. NOTHINK happened!

<< Comment #370 @ 23:18 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

yikes - Reply to #349

Same.

<< Comment #290 @ 06:48 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lejoon - Reply to #287

Ever heard of a controlled beta environment? Is the current public beta controlled?

<< Comment #291 @ 07:09 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

User1067 - Reply to #290

Never heard that term, no. Is that same thing as closed beta that QL was in for a year, year and a half?

What would you consider "not under control" for a game that can be played only from certain website, only in current version, only in their servers and without the ability to mod it?

Edited by User1067 at 10:03 CST, 4 December 2009

<< Comment #292 @ 09:50 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #287

Why are they running a secret beta for a game in beta?

Excellent question. It still has no business being out of closed beta.

<< Comment #300 @ 10:41 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #287

I'd take a wager almost every company that has public beta tests their changes in their own environment for some time before updating the public beta.

Sure having players from abroad test it first is different, but considering the reactions from the quake crowd to other changes in the past the step is quite understandble. Cause as you know the reaction weren't exactly "Hooray, they are working on making the game better."

<< Comment #306 @ 12:05 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

User1067 - Reply to #300

I think their unwillingness to experiment in the "beta no.1" is more to the fact that there is now money involved in tournaments and streaming rights and what not.

Quake community does not have a monopoly on suscpicion of suddent changes for unkown. Id has done very poor job in communicating to their beta testers what is their vision for the game, and how are they planning to achieve it. That makes them look visionless, and is valid basis for sceptistic attitude towards their ability to steer the ship to the right course.

I made the comment about this, because after realizing that they had painted themselves in to a corner, where they have to run an open beta inside an open beta, my first thoughts were not that these guys know what they are doing, and we should not under any circumstances criticize what they are doing.

<< Comment #311 @ 12:10 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #306

hey, I'm not saying you shouldn't criticize them or that their entire approach is awesome or anything.

I'm just trying to analyse why they are doing this closed beta thing now.

<< Comment #322 @ 14:31 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

slunge - Reply to #287

[+]

<< Comment #323 @ 14:38 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

1ecb61110 - Reply to #287

Those behind shots are solved with this.

<< Comment #414 @ 15:33 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ix - Reply to #287

"Why are they running a secret beta for a game in beta?"

Signal to noise ratio, it's a pre-beta phase essentially.

<< Comment #297 @ 10:36 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

unihumi

That's a source hitbox, by the way:

Edited by unHuman at 10:36 CST, 4 December 2009

<< Comment #333 @ 04:37 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

cx ' - Reply to #297

the way it should be

<< Comment #335 @ 04:48 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

AnthonyJ - Reply to #333

No, the way it shouldn't be. Unless you really want the animation of your model to affect whether you're hit or not. With the arms separate like that, they're either going to be totally wrong when you're using force-model keel and I am using Orbb as my player model, or you don't get the choice of forcemodel.

<< Comment #352 @ 13:22 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sixide - Reply to #333

Not in quake. People strafejump, turn, duckjump, move their viewport up and down, and a million other things while moving at 700 ups. A skeleton hitbox would make the effective hitbox a great deal smaller, like COM sized.

<< Comment #415 @ 15:35 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ix - Reply to #333

Yes, the possibility of shooting between someone's arm and hand through the wrist gap adds so much.

<< Comment #341 @ 08:09 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Terifire - Reply to #297

And they are bugged as fuck.

<< Comment #303 @ 10:53 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

.syL

Thank you everybody. I can't believe how long esr went without some serious drama.

<< Comment #304 @ 11:00 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

unihumi - Reply to #303

the last drama we had was the yuka incident :)

<< Comment #318 @ 14:04 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Mitritch - Reply to #304

That drama is over and this one even not started yet. :)

<< Comment #316 @ 13:14 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

luKrek

Will we be able to dodge rails now?

<< Comment #327 @ 16:14 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Raist - Reply to #316

No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.

25%

<< Comment #329 @ 18:30 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Legie

i like the changes

+ ID

<< Comment #330 @ 18:46 CST, 4 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Bob

.

Edited by Bob at 19:52 CDT, 27 June 2024

<< Comment #362 @ 17:45 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dem0n - Reply to #330

unrequired? Wait and see ;-)

<< Comment #365 @ 18:47 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Bob - Reply to #362

.

Edited by Bob at 19:52 CDT, 27 June 2024

<< Comment #367 @ 19:56 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dem0n - Reply to #365

thats something they just cant add now. MAP editing/creating and such gameplay changes have NOTHING in common, this will not imply the same devs... Which makes your post totally irrelevant imo :/

The work they put into map editing/creating is probably just going on and couldnt go any faster than it is going now.

Or what you should complain about is rage.
And tbh who knows, maybe rage owns ? lol

<< Comment #371 @ 03:14 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Bob - Reply to #367

.

Edited by Bob at 19:52 CDT, 27 June 2024

<< Comment #331 @ 02:55 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

deith

What about weapons rebalancing?

<< Comment #339 @ 07:28 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ironbyte

A cylindrical hitbox inscribed inside a cubical hitbox:

Edited by ironbyte at 07:30 CST, 5 December 2009

9%

<< Comment #342 @ 08:11 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Terifire - Reply to #339

Have a + for your paint skills.

<< Comment #343 @ 09:23 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

LoCK - Reply to #339

Dude.

<< Comment #353 @ 14:46 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

madbringer - Reply to #339

SO THAT'S WHERE THE SECRET CHAMBER IS IN THE TEMPLE OF SALOMON

<< Comment #418 @ 18:14 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ironbyte - Reply to #339

For those of you who are retards:

At the "best" angle of view the old hitbox is 41% wider (assuming the new one is an inscribed cylinder). In average it's about 25% wider.

<< Comment #427 @ 09:55 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #418

My calculation said it was 28.5% wider. Did I make a mistake or you?

Curious cause I'm really rusty in trig :(

<< Comment #431 @ 16:27 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ironbyte - Reply to #427

Edited by ironbyte at 16:27 CST, 7 December 2009

<< Comment #435 @ 01:52 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #431

hah, it's not below 7th grade rusty ;)

I guess I was a bit unclear, I was talking about the average, I wanted to know how you arrived at 25%.

<< Comment #439 @ 04:04 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ironbyte - Reply to #435

I didn't arrive at 25% - that was just an approximation. :)

We'll have to assume we fire at our opponent equally much from all angles.

y = sqrt(2) * cos(x), 0<x<pi/4
int(y, x=[0,pi/4]) / (pi/4) = 1.2732
27.3% wider in average.

How did you get 28.5%?

Edited by ironbyte at 04:09 CST, 8 December 2009

<< Comment #462 @ 06:09 CST, 9 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #439

pretty sure the 28,5% are wrong.

I just went the size difference between the square and the circle and then divide it by the circumference, which results in 13,6 % difference, which is half of your 27,3% and I think is correct.

I am not sure how you arrived at y = sqrt(2) * cos(x).

<< Comment #464 @ 06:50 CST, 10 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ironbyte - Reply to #462

Using the circumference was a whole lot easier. :)
(2r * 4) / 2*r*pi= 4/pi
The result is the same (4/pi = 1.2732).

d = sqrt(2) * r * cos(x)
so y = d/r = sqrt(2) * cos(x)

<< Comment #465 @ 07:24 CST, 10 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #464

I still don't see your way of calculating, as I don't think yo can just take cos(x) :/

But, my way is probably wrong, cause I completely ignored/forgot that I am dealing with polar coordinates :(

So, now I took the somewhat brutal approach. MS-Excel.

The distance between the center and the edge of the circle is always r.
The distance between the center and the edge of the square for one eigth, starting with the point where both touch (so [0;Pi/4] is:

d = sqrt(r� + r�*tan�(x))
that equals d= r/cos(x) [some trig rules]

If my memore serves me right you can't do a normal integration here, since these are polar coordinates.

Instead of trying to read up on how those work, I took the crude approach with MS-Excel:

I just made a table with 250 steps from x= 0,000*Pi to x=0,250*Pi (=Pi/4) and let it calculate 1/cos(x) for those steps. The average is 1,127.

So, that's not an exact statement not elegant at all but if you don't find anything severely wrong with it, I'll just handle it the engineering way and say it's good enough for me :D

Edited by becks at 07:38 CST, 10 December 2009

<< Comment #467 @ 10:39 CST, 10 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ironbyte - Reply to #465

The projected width you see on your screen is

f(x) = sqrt(2) * r * cos(x)
(in the unit circle, cos(x) is the x-coordinate)

The relative difference in size is
g(x) = f(x) / r = sqrt(2) * cos(x)

If you don't trust this, verify it yourself using my nice image ;). The rotation of the box is 0, 15, 30 and 45 degrees.
For instance f(15) = sqrt(2) * 138 * cosd(15) = 188.5.

Even just averaging these four widths results in an increase of 1.2482. Pretty close to 1.2732.

Edited by ironbyte at 10:39 CST, 10 December 2009

8%

<< Comment #468 @ 11:09 CST, 10 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #467

looks like I shouldn't have ignored the projection...
cause just now I realized I only tried to calculate how much wider a square is than a circle on average, (which is actually harder :P)

thanks.

<< Comment #443 @ 09:03 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

zoinks - Reply to #431

I was told there would be no math.

17%

<< Comment #424 @ 08:58 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

baron Railgun ' - Reply to #339

second guy looks scared like hell

<< Comment #345 @ 10:28 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jubei

I am all for any change that stops terribad players hitting 60+ rail and 40+ lg.

<< Comment #348 @ 12:42 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Memento_Mori

I think that the current hitboxes being axis aligned and therefore wider depending on the angle is just wrong. This means that if you open a map, turn it by 45 degrees, save it and play it, you will end up with old beefy spots (aimwise) no more working, a new spots to be found. This sounds wrong to me. Of course you can adapt, but it is counter intuitive and might have weird implications during combat.

So anything that will fix this is welcome ideally. Now, the problem is that this will likely spoil other aspects of the gameplay, and because of these potential problems some people would prefer the hitbox fix not to happen. I disagree. I personally think that the coming issues have to be fixed with other means (fixes to netcode, weapon balance, whatever).

Edited by Memento_Mori at 12:44 CST, 5 December 2009

8%

<< Comment #363 @ 17:51 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dem0n

The real problem in this thread is the amount of people who don't know a shit about what they're actually discussing but still think they're in a position to say that it's going to be a bad move from ID, although they're the same ones whining for months about newbs hitting all their rails whatever effort they've put into dodging them.

I can tell you that soon a majority of you will probably have to either edit or delete some of their comments.

Sorry it's Sat night and I'm a bit bored :O!

<< Comment #364 @ 17:59 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #363

Is it just me or has whine reached a whole new level on esr lately.

A lot more whine whine :/

<< Comment #366 @ 19:20 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

madbringer - Reply to #364

esr = rage, whine and alchemist03

<< Comment #388 @ 09:36 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #366

FU, you are alwas bringing up alchemist and doing nothing yourself.

;)

<< Comment #369 @ 23:00 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

btl - Reply to #364

Everything these whiners do is so dramatic and flamboyant it just makes me want to set myself on fire

7%

<< Comment #382 @ 06:30 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #369

nah, what I meant was that a lot more people were whining about other people whining on esr.
I mean what do you think you're supposed to get if you visit esr?

<< Comment #409 @ 13:18 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ShadyVoltaire - Reply to #369

[+] cos arrested development reference

Edited by ShadyAK at 13:18 CST, 6 December 2009

<< Comment #368 @ 20:07 CST, 5 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

fur*q

Coollers really had it now.

<< Comment #373 @ 04:25 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Anonymous (chello084113036163.3.12.vie.surfer.at)

long overdue fix

just don't strengthen shaft and rail in a kneejerk reaction,
few days/weeks and %ages will be the same

rail/shaft should be weakened instead, 70 or 75 and 5-5-5, rockets slower, reduced splash damage, SG 80-90 dmg, mg 4

also fix ammo caps in CA

10 rail, 100 shaft, 10 GL etc
so it's not just a rails+shaft fest with insane GL spam

<< Comment #375 @ 04:52 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

oreozz - Reply to #373

if you make all the guns weaker and the hitboxes smaller it will be too hard to finish someone off and the scores on every map will be veryyy low :)

<< Comment #377 @ 05:17 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #375

with a 10 minute timelimit like we have it now, every frag is important, so you should work for it more, imho decreased weapon damage would reward consistent ability to aim well, besides the obvious timing, positioning, map knowlegde blabla

it would be harder to finish someone off, but also more rewarding, with how it is like now, people aiming behind/in front of the model on purpose, noobs hitting 50%+ rail aund 40% shaft, having 0 dodging skills,
netcode was awful in q3, even worse in ql, regretably i have not yet had the chance to play it on lan, maybe all those issues are irrelevent with 0 ping

but to balance a game for the very highest tier of competition @ LAN is FAIL when the intent is to broaden the player base by attracting noobs

again, the pros who put in countless hours will adapt soon enough
maybe it's just all in my head, i just cannot get used to how you "should" play to be successful online, howver thats a problem thats been plaguing quake3 since the beginnig, be it baseq3, osp, cpma, ra3, whatever

excuse my rant, i'm just fed up with how this great game has been neglected and ruined over the years

<< Comment #378 @ 05:35 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

oreozz - Reply to #377

the problem is the game wont be fun for most people if the scores are 2-1 every game.. i can play quake regardless of what the damage of weapons are but you cant make it boring to watch :p

<< Comment #379 @ 05:45 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #378

yes, you're right, quake how it is now is mainly a tool for iD to spread brand awareness after multiple failures, the higher the number of viewers the better the game?

Of course high scoring games attract more people, because there's action all the time, but why not focus on TDM if you desire such a thing
4v4 200-199 result 20 minutes pure carnage.. etc..

i can only talk about how I as a casual player view this game; suffice to say it's highly frustrating and unrewarding

@ demon, i understand your viewpoint about weapon balance, considering that you try to earn money playing this game, but if you stepped back for a minute an considered how q3 has developed over the last decade (...)

i just can't get it, ihgh LG and rail damage would play to my strengths also, but i don't want the easy win, i wan't the ridiculous air rockets and plasma kills, shaft and rail is boring

i don't want the random SG kills, or spawn weapon MG spam

i could ramble on all day, and make less and less sense every minute, maybe someone will understand where i'm coming from

<< Comment #380 @ 06:12 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

oreozz - Reply to #379

i dont think making it harder to kill people is going to help casual players :)

think about casual fps games: do people have a lot or a little health?

<< Comment #381 @ 06:21 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #380

it won't matter for casual players, if you use shaft and use 30 cells to finsh an enemy or 20, there's no difference, about 2 seconds maybe, that hardly go noticed in a hectic game

same with rail, i kind invalidate my points when i admit i mainly play CA, but anyways 200/100 starting health, 80 or 70 rail makes no real difference

4 or 5 shots does not matter, the whole % system is flawed to begin with
where is my /topshots
+acc is a shitt half baked solution

casual players may care about percentages, but with how shitty they are displayed it cannot be counted as a factor against weapon damage rebalancing

for the quake noob who plays for the very first time, audio/visual feedback that goes further than the worn out impressive/excellent/humiliation announcements would be a nice incentive to keep playing

HOLY SHIT and air rocket rewards in RA3 were awesome, why not use such a basic feature in this "new" game

<< Comment #383 @ 06:53 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #381

Wow, when I read this bullshit I'm really glad nobody cares about CA as your proposed changes would fuck up duel on so many levels and would promote an +back style even more.

And your point that a great game to spectate doesn't make a great game to play is flawed since almost every great spectator sport has been changed in the past to be rather spectator friendly than more skillful. Making it spectator friendly is what ultimately will bring viewers to the stream and sponsors to the tournaments.

Edited by sk8erboi at 06:54 CST, 6 December 2009

<< Comment #384 @ 07:08 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #383

for the casual gamer all of this does not matter
i admit that my viewpoint may be flawed since i want quake to be rebalanced from a CA/FFA players persepctive

still i tend to think, having played countless duels / ctf and tdm games in the past that considering how aim has generally improved across the board, weakening the hitscan weapos would prove to be positive for all aspects of quake

duel rail spawn kill, still 2 shots needed, 70 or 80 dmg

finishing of opponoent gets harder with mg, but does it make that much of a difference if it's 3 or 5 shots with mg?

randomness would be decreased, if the opponent is skilled enough to evade and get away from an obviously lopsided confrontation, more power to him, on the other hand a comeback would perhaps be more difficult, spawn system comes into play, etc

many years ago, the golden age of Q3, EuroCups etc, nobody cared about sponsors, streams, what have you

the pro gamer mentality has ruined the game, like any other game where the stakes are oh so high

only goes to show that quake for all its + points is a deeply flawed game

<< Comment #385 @ 08:53 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #384

Think about a situation when you would rush a player who missed a railshot with lg even if you had less armor. You usually were able to shave away enough health and armor until he changed his weapon.

With weaker weapons it would be even harder to regain control, dm6 wouldn't only be bad but unplayable and so on. Of course general aiming skills have increased and that is why rail/lg have been nerfed and rl has been buffed, not to mention the new hitboxes which will make it harder to hit.

Randomness wouldn't be decreased since the initial spawns would be a lot more important and especially on dm6 the player spawning bridge/red would have an extreme advantage. With your alterations you'd have to redesign almost every single map to fit the gameplay.

How has pro gaming mentality ruined the game? I very much doubt the level of competition was as high as it would have been with more money involved, and since Eurocup still had LAN finals back then I have to assume that players cared a lot about sponsors just to get to the events.

Show me one and only one flawless game. Ultimately it doesn't matter how the game is designed but how the people playing it will adapt to them. QW is a great game and look how much damage an lg deals there. As long as a game - no matter how stupidly designed and unbalanced it is - promotes exciting play it will have success.

<< Comment #386 @ 09:12 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #385

very eloquently put and for a minute you nearly convinced me

but you put 1v1 pro duel above all else like everyone else

quakelive is not only 5000� 1st place reward duel
it's mostly casual ctf, tdm, ca, ffa, duel between clanmates and friends

spawn system is a can of worms even bigger than netcode and hitboxes, it should not be opened, rather thrown away, very far away

i admitted that weaker weapons would favor the player in control, alluded that a spawn system reinvention was needed

however this only applies to top level duel, which is only fun @ LAN

however it is no surprise really that QL is mainly 1v1
maps maps maps
1v1 suffers, dm13, dm6, t4
jesus christ, what is it? 2001?
multifail again by iD

i really like q3/ql, i want it to evolve beyond what it has been for close to 10 years
QL would have been a big chance
missed opportunity it has become instead

<< Comment #389 @ 09:39 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

son1dow - Reply to #386

no you don't get it
Breaking the game for the highest level is no option. The time you start thinking will be the time you realise it, till then, glhf trying to prove your flawed logic.

<< Comment #390 @ 09:47 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #389

what is flawed about the factoid "rail and LG are overpowered considering the level of aim in 2009/2010 & internet connections & etc."

rebalancing the game coming from that standpoint would hughely improve all gametypes

focusing on top level 1v1 and at the same time wanting for more noobs to join the community to make quake "!ive" again is absurd

super players like cooller, rapha or noctis won't give a shit about it, the will still own

casual players like me will enjoy the game more, and maybe dcide to put in the effort to reach the top

i recognize this "discussion" has become fairly ridiculous
but still, i try to see this problem from all angles and just can't come up with another solution

for all it's worth, rail 100 and shaft 8 would highly benefit my game, 70 and 50 % acc

worthless grandstanding fitting for a game like QL has become

<< Comment #391 @ 10:08 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #390

Well, the "discussion" mostly got its ridiculousness from your contradictory statements.

<< Comment #392 @ 10:12 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

son1dow - Reply to #390

you said:

"however this only applies to top level duel, which is only fun @ LAN"
ONLY... only. It would break the game from the core man, the problem is you don't think the core is important.

<< Comment #394 @ 10:22 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #392

okay, you guys are right, i maybe a little imbalanced myself
lol

but i just don'T know where to start to express my dissatisfaction with how it currently is
maybe my ideas are shit, probably are, i just don't see it how it could become better

the core is us, players that play nearly every day for FUN
top level is a fringe, just catering to them is not good for quake as a whole

what we need is a challenging promode for the money lans, and a type of CA with duels with multiple small maps and big maps also for 4v4 or 5v5

<< Comment #396 @ 10:24 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #394

xD

<< Comment #397 @ 10:28 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

son1dow - Reply to #394

;)

Dividing the community wouldn't help too. I, for one, started to play because I saw what was possible in the game and wanted to do that. IMO, It's one of the main things that keeps the casual level (not newbies and not pros) here.

<< Comment #398 @ 10:39 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #397

the community already is divided imho
there's us and there's the pros

of course the argument that a game should be balanced for the highest level of play has merit

however in my opinion the highlevel players would quickly adapt to a game balanced for 99% of players, LAN event results would not differ dramatically etc.

it will still boil down to who puts in the most time, who played the longest, who knows the maps best, etc

<< Comment #399 @ 10:41 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #394

Mhh, if id wanted to have a cpm style gameplay they would've implemented it from the start, asking for that is a lost cause.

And a pro duel mode with vq3 physics would pretty much leave the non-pro mode dead because everyone in the duel community accepts rule changes rather quickly. When for example have you played the last t4 or t6 duel?

QL is fine as it is if the new hitboxes fix what they're supposed to fix and lg is tweaked.

ID should work on some maps now and maybe GTV, after that we could consider the job done imho ;)

<< Comment #395 @ 10:22 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #392

Ye, but he doesn't stop there! He wants to fix the game for players that do not even care.

<< Comment #401 @ 10:47 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dem0n - Reply to #390

Your logic would MAYBE be valid if you didnt take into consideration that it's gonna be harder to hit.

I saw one of your lines was about the dodging factor and the fact it has disappeared nowadays... Well the fact people will hit less % will reward dodging more.

Wait and see next update as I said

<< Comment #402 @ 10:52 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #401

it will be harder to hit for a few days, couple of weeks at most

then we are back were we started

aim evolves quickest of all, ping whine will increase, but a level plaiying field is an unrealistic expectation anyhow

<< Comment #403 @ 11:57 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #402

No, percentages won't be that high even if pros will get used to it.
With the old hitboxes you could get a good angle on your opponent and hit insane LG accuracies since the hitbox' face is much bigger from an 45� angle, you won't ever be able to do that with the new hitboxes.

look at #339's picture

Give the new lg balance some time 7-7-7 is just a test not a definite value ;)

<< Comment #404 @ 12:30 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #403

i know all about hitboxes and hitable area, i'm still of the opinion that the very best will not suffer

maybe there'll be a more noticeable differentiation between "tiers"

time will tell

<< Comment #405 @ 12:38 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #404

If you know all about it then take a quick look what happened to the q4 scene when the hitboxes were changed, then come back and tell me again that you know all about hitboxes.

<< Comment #406 @ 12:42 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #405

quake 4 was a massive failure from the start

the whole heap of shit that is doom3 engine games is best forgotten

<< Comment #407 @ 12:52 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #406

Alright then, let's just neglect the fact that the same changes have been made and that accuracies haven't been the same because you say so...seriously it doesn't even make sense to argue with you since you will say let's just forget about history and what we have learnt.

Seriously, wanna meet up to burn some books? We could even start WW III when everyone's forgotten about WW II.

Edited by sk8erboi at 12:53 CST, 6 December 2009

<< Comment #429 @ 16:10 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #407

your reply is stupid, sorry

let's print this site and burn it together

you'll bring the gasoline i'll bring the matches

Edited by ultronij at 16:12 CST, 7 December 2009

<< Comment #432 @ 16:35 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #429

You're clearly just trying to avoid facts, how is it stupid that I tell you just that then?

<< Comment #433 @ 17:26 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #432

i enjoy your replies, expect that one, because it's just retarded

<< Comment #442 @ 05:18 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #433

Same goes for me but still just taking things out of the equation won't work for me.

<< Comment #410 @ 13:46 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dem0n - Reply to #402

it's very funny to hear you say that without even testing it first.

Stunning

Edited by dem0n at 13:47 CST, 6 December 2009

<< Comment #430 @ 16:14 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ultronij - Reply to #410

i just know

<< Comment #393 @ 10:18 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

supersonicwaffle - Reply to #386

Ye, it's really a shame there are only a few playable TDM maps in QL and those have also been around for ages, but imho ESL made a huge mistake in supporting a gametype that isn't ready for competition because of its lack of maps. 2v2 or CTF would've been a much smarter choice in my opinion.

<< Comment #400 @ 10:43 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dem0n - Reply to #379

do you realize the hitboxes will get fixed and that you will hit less % on every weapon?...

<< Comment #449 @ 12:38 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #377

Don't be expecting to play quake live on lan without a bevvy of ID support staff nearby.

Should you opt out and decide to play the game yourself on lan, you might find your account banned.

Wow, doesn't this just sound like a game we all want to play?

<< Comment #376 @ 05:07 CST, 6 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

dem0n - Reply to #373

so not gonna happen...

Thank god

<< Comment #428 @ 14:35 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

timmah

tl;dr

so what does all this mean? "smaller" hitboxes?

<< Comment #434 @ 20:23 CST, 7 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Bartender - Reply to #428

more like more reliable hitboxes

hopefully..

<< Comment #446 @ 09:54 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Dynamix - Reply to #428

Apparently not meant to talk about this yet, but it feels better anyway .

Edited by Dynamix at 15:56 CST, 8 December 2009

<< Comment #466 @ 10:09 CST, 10 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

luKrek - Reply to #428

Pretty much.

<< Comment #436 @ 03:03 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1

today is the day :)
I am really looking forward to the hitbox update :)

ID dont disappoint us by not releasing it!

<< Comment #437 @ 03:40 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

shqdow - Reply to #436

they'll probably release it, but most likely you won't notice anything :>

<< Comment #438 @ 04:00 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #437

I hope we will notice a proper hitscan registration :)
this will make me happy

<< Comment #441 @ 04:50 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

timmah - Reply to #438

Doesn't bother me that much right now. I've fragged at least as many people around the corner as I've been killed when I was around a corner already.

But yes, sometimes it registers ridiculous hits.

<< Comment #447 @ 10:39 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

oneroomdisco - Reply to #438

Oh you will, you will.

<< Comment #440 @ 04:08 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stripy ' - Reply to #437

u'll notice

<< Comment #450 @ 14:51 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Kaide

no patch? expected! : D

<< Comment #451 @ 15:02 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

stingerrayer - Reply to #450

wat

<< Comment #452 @ 15:19 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Mitritch - Reply to #450

The day is not over yet! Last time they started update on 4:00 PM their local time (CST), now it is 15:20 PM CST so do not worry.

Looks like id guys do love work overtime after hours... :)

Edited by sk4ut at 15:20 CST, 8 December 2009

<< Comment #453 @ 15:23 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

h8m3

(12:22:53) �� Topic is "QuakeLive :: Updating nearish to 6pm CST."
(12:22:53) �� Set by SyncError|afk on Tue Dec 08 23:42:06 2009

= 1 CET afaik

Edited by h8m3 at 15:24 CST, 8 December 2009

1%

<< Comment #454 @ 16:22 CST, 8 December 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Mitritch - Reply to #453