Func_Msgboard: Accessibility To Maps

News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Register | Log in

|  | Accessibility To Maps

Posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/03/26 23:24:13

This is a discussion that may not have any easy answers, but a thought I wanted to introduce into the wild in a place where the issue could be explored.
One crime in single player Quake is the sheer pain a new player has in learning how to load a custom map.
First, the player must find out where to put the map. Second, the player has to type the name in the console like "map ac2" to load the map. The *only* engine that has a built-in maps menu to take that pain out is JoeQuake, and I might add it even finds maps in pak files and displays them separately.
The user-unfriendliness is a killer.
Here is a possible solution I want to introduce into the wild.
There is a mod called RuneQuake. The source is available and it is actively maintained by Slot Zero at http://www.runequake.com and http://forums.runecentral.com
It is available in both Quake and Quakeworld varieties.
It has been run on multiplayer servers for ages and is very powerful, easy to use and user friendly.
1. It can be run in cooperative mode with monsters.
2. It has an amazing "vote-map" capability with support for up to 200+ maps.
3. On maps without a sufficient number of spawn points, it will spawn a player somewhere else.
To see it in action, a recommended servers to check out are:
QW: hoh.dtdns.net:27500
quake.msmcs.net:27500
NQ: quake.shmack.net
Type "custom" in the console and it lists the maps available. Type the map name in and it will initiate a vote for that map.
vb pointed out to me a list of Quakeworld servers at quakeservers.net and there are a grand total of 3 servers running coop in the whole world listed there.
It seems to me that something that would be very logical would be a Quakeworld server running various custom single player maps in coop mode (that don't require a progs, of course, that would throw a huge wrench into things).
I think it would be a great way to expose players to single player maps without them having to do anything/learn anything.
It would be a totally lazy way for players to experience single player maps and they could "vote" for the map they wanted to play on the server.
There are a million server hosts out there, one server host that is known to do a great job and has a lot of experience with Quake/Quakeworld is Essentrix.net and, for the sake of thoroughness, the contact email address there is chris ---at--- essentrix.net. There are many good hosting companies, but I'm a thorough guy and wanted to provide at least one name for research purposes.
Anyway, I don't know if anything will ever come of this, but I wanted to introduce this thought into the wild somewhere that cares about such a thing.
If such a thing existed, I'd make sure a lot of players know about it. I've seen a post about coop servers at quakeworld.us and basically, there aren't any.

Coop Server Example
#1 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/03/27 00:30:06
vb pointed this server out to me last week:
QW: 150.101.153.18:27507
It runs Quake Mission Pack #2. It is also laggy as hell for me because the server is in Australia and I am in the US.
Just trying the server .. after the map/model/sound downloads complete ... makes one marvel at the possibilities.
Of course, a server running single player maps without custom models, only the map would download.
Hmm...
#2 posted by metlslime [71.202.21.157] on 2006/03/27 00:51:10
seems like installing a map and typing "map blah" isn't much harder than finding a server and typing "connect blah." Voting for maps can't be any easier than typing "map blah," either. Oh, and if you're that much of a noob, you probably don't have a QW client installed, either.
However, ignoring the "noob-friendly" angle for a second, the idea of having some permanent COOP servers with a bunch of custom SPQ maps on them is pretty cool.
Yeah...
#3 posted by Bal [84.14.13.212] on 2006/03/27 00:58:27
I dare hope people who still play quake are smart enough to quickly find out online how to load maps...
Having sp maps on servers might help them getting played by more dm oriented people who aren't really interested in sp maps to start with though, which can't be a bad thing.
Indeed
#4 posted by negke [82.82.175.111] on 2006/03/27 01:23:02
this notion sounds like user-friendliness was synonymous with dummy-compability.
copying maps to the right destination and running them isn't that hard - besides it works similar in almost all fps games, there are heaps of faqs and it's even explained in most text files coming along with the maps. if people are to lazy to read (or do a simple google search), they can't be helped anyway.
and if people find typing "map x" too exhausting, they are free to use some launcher program, like http://paul.fov120.com/qlp.html .
some coop severs running custom maps would be great, indeed. (though i must admit i haven't checked yet if there are). one problem might be that most modern maps do not really support coop, at least not in an appropriate way, i believe.
What Would Be Cool
#5 posted by czg [213.115.252.84] on 2006/03/27 01:49:31
You could have a small service running on your computer that handled a new protocol, (like http, it could be qglp (Quake Game Launch Protocol) or something.) that would contain information about what mod a map is for (id1, rogue, zer etc), the map name, a server the map can be downloaded from, maybe a little string of what it requires from the engine (skybox support, .lit support, etc) and so on.
Websites would then use these urls to let users launch a map just by clicking on a link. The service would check if the user already has the map, if not it would download it from the server into the correct maps directory and wait for user confirmation to launch the game (would suck if the game suddenly started by itself while you were out on the loo or something).
Example:
qglp://id1/hdn/skybox+lit/ republika.pl/quake_1/hdn.zip
Launches Ankh's map in a engine that supports skyboxes and .LIT.
Of course a lot of details would have to be figured out, like how it would handle using different progs, and where to get the mod resources, and also what to do with commercial resources (rogue, hipnotic).
Several conventions would have to be agreed upon, and I know the Quake community is pure shit with agreeing upon conventions.
An interesting idea though...
Negike
#6 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/03/27 01:52:26
> user-friendliness was synonymous with dummy-
> compability
This isn't so much of an issue of superiority. It is more an issue of exposure and accessibility.
1. Most people ARE lazy.
2. Most multiplayer types scoff at singleplayer ... "Single player? *laff* What's that?"
I did do a lot of homework in that first post, there are ..
#1 exactly 3 coop servers in the whole world according to quakeservers.net
#2 The RQ mod mentioned in the first post can run standard coop and it deals with insufficient spawn points by spawning the player somewhere else, so not having multiple spawn points on a map isn't an issue with that mod.
And, as any custom dm mapper will attest to, Quakeworld map download makes playing new maps very easy.
The typical server costs about $4 per player per month last time I checked.
Oldest rule of thumb in Quake:
"You can get a player to connect to a server, but you can't get them to download a map."
There are about 200 idle Quakeworld servers at any given point in time because they are mostly run the same thing.
> there are heaps of faqs and it's even
> explained in most text files coming along
> with the maps
Half the players out there are too lazy to even register for FilePlanet. In fact, I've seen many a mapper bitch that a map is hosted by FilePlanet and they don't want to register.
In all fairness, if there are mappers that are "too lazy to register for FilePlanet" it is a little unkind to have a higher standard for non-mappers.
Oh Yeah And Also.
#7 posted by czg [213.115.252.84] on 2006/03/27 01:55:07
Steam already uses this for launching games:
You can click a link like
steam://purchase/220
which will open steam and ask you to purchase Half-Life 2.
I think it's something like
steam://launch/220
to launch games.
Btw ... Exiting The Building
#8 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/03/27 02:21:17
I won't be posting in thread again. I did some research and wanted to present the information and about 96% of what it takes is in that first post.
I don't want you guys to feel like an external influence is trying to get you to do something.
I like your work a great deal. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves.
[ /me exits the building ]
Fileplanet
#9 posted by bear [202.47.247.116] on 2006/03/27 02:36:04
I don't think it has as much to do with being lazy, but rather not wanting to sign up.
Well, You Have A Point
#10 posted by negke [82.82.175.111] on 2006/03/27 03:04:59
though i don't really get what you meant by some mappers being too lazy to register at fileplanet.
(anyhow, fileplanet isn't a valid source for quake1 stuff anymore)
the autodownload in qw is a neat thing, indeed, but what sucks about it is that text (and additional) files are missing from the maps then.
this would also be the case with coop servers.
in this respect, czg's idea is very good. it somewhat reminded of the mpq3 (or whatever it was called) plugin that was listing a lot of information about q3 servers, such as map, settings and players, and could also join the game with only one mouse click. of course, it didn't have any advanced download/string features.
Coop Server Would Rock
#11 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.180.235] on 2006/03/27 06:32:17
One small catch is that the QW protocol limits the number of edicts or something (?) but the result is that larger maps such as czg07 won't load in QW without a modified progs.
Baker, were you suggesting that Rune Quake has coop ability? If it's actively maintained, does that mean the maintainers would be willing to add support for huge maps?
Since You Said My Name ... RPG ...
#12 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/03/27 07:26:49
Yes, it does have coop ability on ANY map, regardless of whether or not it has coop spawn points.
Keep in mind, the only types of maps that could run on a permanent coop server would be standalones. No custom monsters, no custom models .. anything that uses it's own QuakeC wouldn't be plug and play. (And even then it might not be completely plug and play, but should be pretty damned close in the scheme of things.)
Limits? I do know ... this is going to sound funny ... that I have played deathmatch on czg07 on a regular Quake server (not Quakeworld).
I could not tell you where the limits fall, but it seems reasonable to me that maps that aren't trying to set records, work with WinQuake, and don't use their own QuakeC should all be very plausible ... but maybe there are other limits in play I am not aware of.
Summary:
It seems like without a whole ton of effort, it should be possible to make a server with solid maps like CZG's Doom-style ones and stuff like SM82 and Antedivulian, cherry-picked speed maps, and most maps that would otherwise run in WinQuake that you just toss in the maps folder.
Going outside that box gets VERY difficult and adds a ton of complications.
And your question about the maintain, the main benefit of it being actively maintained is that he does answer questions about it, can give you advice, can answer configuration questions and is very experienced. Customization/changes to the code is typically a "you are on your own" thing. He is a busy guy.
I hope that answered your question.
Connecting to those servers above (ignore the runes, they can be turned off) should be pretty enlightening and, for reference, the mod download location:
ftp://ftp.runequake.com/quake/rune...
Gateway Map
#13 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/03/27 07:42:47
http://www.quakeone.com/q1files/im...
I can very quickly turn map screenshots in mass into great looking, Quake paletted texture files. I also have the ability to mass produce automated textures with map names in the Quake font.
A finishing touch, should something like this ever happen, would be to select a map of maps with screenshots and the name of the map above teleporters so someone could select a gallery map on a server, look around at the different map screenshots and names and then select the map they want to play.
I spent a lot of time automating the process and, in fact, produced such things for all the E1M1-E4M8 maps.
But not being a mapper per se, didn't have all the necessary time to finish a gateway map and being a novice, it probably would have sucked anyway being a first map ;)
Neg!ke
#14 posted by Mike Woodham [86.136.82.239] on 2006/03/27 10:35:28
So, where do you get QLP? There does not appear to be a link on the page.
Uhh, No Idea
#15 posted by negke [82.82.175.111] on 2006/03/27 10:56:55
i thought this program has been released ages ago. i only wanted to use it as an example and didn't check for any dl link...
'sa Shame...
#16 posted by Mike Woodham [86.136.82.239] on 2006/03/27 11:00:02
...it looked good
I'm Using
#17 posted by aguirRe [213.101.73.179] on 2006/03/27 14:40:01
the simple and very small QStart:
http://quakestuff.telefragged.com
or
http://www.gamers.org/pub/idgames2...
Baker.
#18 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.180.235] on 2006/03/27 20:09:00
Thanks. Yeah, you did answer my questions. :) czg07 and other such maps will load on NetQuake protocol, but not on QW. Actually, now that I think of it, it might only be the server.exe that needs to be modified. It's been a long time since I used nb's fix, and I've forgotten what he did.
My main complaint with most QW coop was the lack of map voting, which meant you needed the operator there to switch maps. If RuneQuake can be setup to be just plain Quake coop on QW with map vote, that would certainly be cool! :)
And...
#19 posted by than [220.97.92.40] on 2006/03/28 07:25:48
Do we have proper coop support in Quakeworld at all? Afaik it's still a mod that you must run in order for coop to function semi correctly.
Is it not possible to add improved netcode, dynamic progs switching, map voting, downloading etc. into one of the already heavily modified netquake (win/gl) engines?
I can imagine this being a huge job, but there is so much code out there that does half of these things that could perhaps be taken and used to create a special coop engine?
Progs switching is quite a big deal, because it would allow us to try coop in mods. I suppose coop spawn enhancements that add spawnpoints or delay spawns depending on whether or not the map supports coop (obviously, if it does, then this wouldn't be needed).
I also like czg's idea.
Imagine all of this stuff happening for QExpo 2006 ;)
Than
#20 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.180.235] on 2006/03/28 09:40:50
As Baker said, map voting is part of RuneQuake. Downloading is part of any QW engine. But what's this about improved netcode? What's wrong with the existing situation?
RPG
#21 posted by than [220.97.92.40] on 2006/03/28 15:55:34
The only half decent netcode is in Quakeworld, and to play coop, you need a modification (right?), which means it is impossible to play mods, unless the progs are recompiled to include the coop code.
Also, the best engine mods imho are the SP oriented ones, which have higher limits and more non-flashy features.
The netcode of netQuake is pretty shit though :(
But maybe it's ok on fast modern connections. I must admit I haven't tried playing netQuake over the internet since I got fast net access.
Oh, Right
#22 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.180.235] on 2006/03/28 19:29:14
I know DP has improved the NetQuake code, but my sense of propriety disappears when using that.
AguirRe
#23 posted by Mike Woodham [86.136.82.239] on 2006/03/29 10:13:42
Thanks for the link. I'm now using Spawn at the moment, which seems the best of what was there.
Having written my own compiler GUI I might even have a go at a Quake Map Launcher myself.
There Are Still Q1 Players...
#24 posted by Fern [71.208.213.164] on 2006/03/29 22:53:23
who don't know how to load a custom map? where are these people?
The NetQuake Option
#25 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/03/30 03:30:48
I've been reading through the thread and it seems like there is a strong sentiment to be able to use regular Quake clients (DarkPlaces, FitzQuake, <insert your choice here>).
That is incredibly easy to do in the form of a permanent server with map voting.
The downside is that it would require users to seek out a download outside of the Quake client, but depending on your goals that may be a better option.
And being from a primarily NetQuake, primarily multiplayer community myself (QuakeOne.com), I can tell you that there is no special advantage of QW if you have broadband, it is like playing on a LAN for the most part.
Any spikes or lag comes from the same unavoidable ISP route issues that give lag in Quakeworld, your computer acting up or spyware. It isn't like in Quakeworld you can connect across the Pacific and expect to not have lag.
Broadband has a bitrate capacity 20 to 40x higher than dialup, dialup players do significantly benefit from Quakeworld's improved netcode however, but dialup will still be dialup.
If you just want to have a coop server up for single player enthusiasts who are willing to do a download, that could still be very popular but a map pack would have to be assembled and hosted somewhere for download.
I just wanted to do some myth busting and provide additional information. There are some NetQuake coop servers, and I've actually tried to see if one of the servers would be willing to run custom maps.
I guess part of the reason I started this thread is because
1. I'd like to play coop on a lot of these maps, even the ones that don't have the right spawn points and the RuneQuake mod makes that easy. And I can tell you, it's NOT just me. Lots of people like it.
2. For those maps, you can just turn on "weapon stays" so the coop players can still get armed, etc.
3. Coop servers are more popular than you think, but the boring factor of the standard maps which is on almost all of them is a real interest killer.
4. I guess there just isn't anything as fun as shooting the monsters with some buds on a map you've never played before. That's why I suggested the Quakeworld option due to map download so someone could experiment and vote, and try something new and surprising without much thought or effort involved.
...
#26 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/03/30 03:40:58
I might add, over at QuakeOne.com, me and others have been seriously discussing what is wrong with Quake for over a year and coming up with ideas.
Admittedly, this more focused on multiplayer, at first but then I discovered single player.
There is actually a Doom II community with 3600+ members and I've always felt that is embarassing considering how much better Quake is than Doom II. I've always used this as a compare and contrast to demonstrate how poorly Quake 1 is managed overall.
Quake is outstanding, especially the single player part which for far too few is actually something they've tried ...
(Btw ... FitzQuake lacks a vital small code fix that is, if i recall, only a few lines long, fix that DarkPlaces, JoeQuake and a couple of other clients have. If you were to try to connect to a server with FitzQuake and use a router or a cable/dsl modem with routing capability, it will have problems connecting to the server and just sit there and say "Connection Accepted" with the cursor blinking)
[/rant]
Eh...?
#27 posted by Bal [84.14.13.212] on 2006/03/30 05:26:23
Doom2 is a great game, and that is why there are still lots of people playing it (not to mention making good custom wads).
I don't see the problem with how quake is "managed".
Baker
#28 posted by JPL [213.30.139.243] on 2006/03/30 05:51:51
OTOH last DarkPlace engine is crashing when playing big maps in SP mode (e.g CDA...) when FitzQuake does not... Does it mean DarkPlace has only been developped to support multiplayer/coop mode ? What about single player then ? Come on... And don't flame FitzQuake here: this is THE engine... doh !
Bal
#29 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/03/30 05:59:38
Well ...
1. There isn't a good coop server anywhere? You'd think with 300 Quake/Quakeworld servers, most of which are empty 24 hours a day, that there would be 1 good coop server running custom maps ;)
Or ...
2. Why isn't there a distribution of greatest maps all in a single zip file that the authors have collectively agreed to assemble?
3. This thread, the interest in a launcher has been discussed, but players have long been complaining there isn't a good map/mod manager.
4. DarkPlaces, the most advanced engine, doesn't have a maps menu in it like JoeQuake does. Anyone who has ever used the JoeQuake maps menu knows how great that is.
I am just pointing out some things here and there. CZG said it best ...
"Several conventions would have to be agreed upon, and I know the Quake community is pure shit with agreeing upon conventions."
And Without Further Ado ...
#30 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/03/30 06:09:14
I was hoping just to drop up some information whether or not it got used and head back to HQ.
After I left this thread about 7 posts down, I was determined to follow the Prime Directive and not interfere with other Quake civilizations.
But when RPG asked me a question, I just couldn't not answer it because of how nice he was back when I first posted here asking map questions.
[/me exits the building again, heh]
Hehe
#31 posted by Bal [84.14.13.212] on 2006/03/30 06:11:59
Dunno, all this stuff just goes right over my head I guess... I know how to load mods/maps/etc, and I know where to find'em. Fitzquake (and aguirre's engines for developing) are just fine for me, and if I really want to play coop I know a couple people I could pester into joining me on irc.
Problem with a coop server is that it would automatically miss out on lots of brilliant maps that use custom progs.
You Don't Need An Excuse To Post Here.
#32 posted by czg [213.115.252.84] on 2006/03/30 06:12:31
Just As A Little Note Here, (and A Sort Of Self Plug :P )
#33 posted by necros [142.150.4.59] on 2006/03/30 06:53:05
if anyone hasn't tried it, quoth has slightly tweaked AI so that monsters in coop won't switch back and forth between players if they are both attacking at the same time (ie: with NG) which should lead to a little more interesting fighting, instead of one monster being totally incapacitated by two player's shotguns or something. :)
they still switch, just not instantly.
if you're using netquake for coop, you could just load up normal maps with quoth instead.
Wot Wot!
#34 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.180.235] on 2006/03/30 07:20:38
FitzQuake lacks a vital small code fix that is, . . . it will have problems connecting to the server and just sit there and say "Connection Accepted" with the cursor blinking
I think I had that problem while attempting to play Quoth coop with Kell, Gom, Bal, et al.
#35 posted by Trinca [85.88.130.59] on 2006/03/30 07:35:36
necros go make a QuothQ1.qrk
:p
i want to make a map for quoth!
JPL
#36 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/03/30 11:02:49
I wasn't flaming FitzQuake. The QuakeOne.com site has a link to FitzQuake and I often mention it when discussing single player such as:
http://www.quakeone.com/forums/sho...
I was providing information. Rather than let you guys wonder/get frustrated/not understand that aspect of FitzQuake, I wanted to make that known.
This is a coop thread, I figured I'd give you a heads-up in advance so you knew what was going on with that.
#37 posted by czg [213.115.252.84] on 2006/03/30 11:16:56
This is a coop thread, I figured I'd give you a heads-up in advance so you knew what was going on with that.
oh
Ok, Throwing In My Ideas
#38 posted by bambuz [193.167.6.25] on 2006/03/31 10:22:01
I come from qw background and honestly don't know much, but think it's much smarter to base multiplayer on the qw net engine. Physics is a different question.
It would be cool if sp/coop could be added to mvdsv and ktpro (the de facto qw server and mod/progs.) Or something similar. Vb, put it in jteams please?
In ktpro, one can change map by voting, just say it's name. If there are 8 people on the server and 5 of them say "dm2" then the server changes to dm2. There's also the command "maps" that shows all the maps on the server (except the ones in paks I think).
Download should be better somehow though, sp maps are often large and that non-compressed udp transfer sucks. This has been on the working list of people making servers and clients, I don't know how much of it has been implemented yet.
A question I don't remember seeing answered to, how hard would it be to add 1 frame of drag making bunnies not accelerate much in a qw mod? Or would a server side mod even suffice? Would it fuck up prediction? Could it be remedied with an universal client that still would predict both normal qw and dragbunnyqw (like netquake) ok?
Poll
#39 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/04/02 03:40:31
I've set up a poll:
http://www.quakeone.com/forums/sho...
And posted about it also on the SDA forum because I know they are single player fans.
After a 2 or 3 days, it will be interesting to see if there is enough interest. I think it is a great idea and I'm hoping for strong interest in the concept.
Or interest might my minimal to non-existent .. you never know for sure.
#40 posted by vb [211.30.158.51] on 2006/04/13 22:09:59
Be
vb pointed out to me a list of Quakeworld servers at quakeservers.net and there are a grand total of 3 servers running coop in the whole world listed there.
No, I pointed out a search on Quakeservers.net for servers with coop in their hostname, because there isn't a specific catergory for co-op servers @ that site. There isn't a grand total of 3 SP QW servers in the world - even servers with co-op instead of coop in the hostname wouldn't have shown up in that query. Additionally, not all co-op mods are straight forward monster bashing, check this out for example:
http://www.quakeservers.net/?p=new...
Do we have proper coop support in Quakeworld at all? Afaik it's still a mod that you must run in order for coop to function semi correctly.
SP/co-op has been around in QW since the year dot, thanks to id releasing the game source (not engine source) from early on. SP in NQ is 'just a mod' too (progs.dat/qwprogs.dat), remember, it just comes with the game.
The only half decent netcode is in Quakeworld, and to play coop, you need a modification (right?), which means it is impossible to play mods, unless the progs are recompiled to include the coop code.
The mods just have to have a QW port is all. There's no special co-op 'mod' you have to include because it's QW. QW didn't come with co-op/SP (the community created that soon after), but not because there was reason it couldn't work.
And being from a primarily NetQuake, primarily multiplayer community myself (QuakeOne.com), I can tell you that there is no special advantage of QW if you have broadband, it is like playing on a LAN for the most part.
Incorrect. QWCL's 0ms player movement, more efficient netcode (eg: 1 net message per super shotgun shot instead of 14), NAT support, extra bandwidth control etc. aren't it's only advantages. It also has native spectator support, customizable skin support, team names/ping/pl in scoreboard, extra renderer configurability, just to name a few features. And that's just QWCL. Proxies like Qizmo added more and more functionality (like routing, 32 spectators per proxy at the cost of only 1 client slot, voice communication, team communication macros, skin/color forcing, networking configuration, extra visual configurability & more), still lacking from NQ. Then the engine source came out - making even more improvements possible.
Any spikes or lag comes from the same unavoidable ISP route issues that give lag in Quakeworld, your computer acting up or spyware.
I've never heard of this 'issue' you mention in all my years of QW. Computer problems/spyware affect most things, not specifically QW, NQ, or games.
It isn't like in Quakeworld you can connect across the Pacific and expect to not have lag.
Really? Guess they forgot to tell all the American players playing in this competition played on servers on the other side of the Pacific:
http://www.QuakeWorld.biz/Duel/?se...
or the many QW players who've played trans-Atlantic over the years. When playing over long distances, you can expect some latency, but this is largely negated thanks to the fact that latency doesn't affect movement thanks to QW's player prediction. Lag spikes aren't something QW specific - you won't get any in QW you wouldn't get in NQ. I don't ever get any when I play in North America, and it doesn't seem the Americans who play in New Zealand don't either.
#41 posted by vb [211.30.158.51] on 2006/04/13 23:03:17
Oh, and if you're that much of a noob, you probably don't have a QW client installed, either.
Not necessarily. With eQuake pimped everywhere, a lot of people who have never played Quake 1 start out with a QW engine.
#42 posted by vb [211.30.158.51] on 2006/04/14 00:28:54
There are about 200 idle Quakeworld servers at any given point in time because they are mostly run the same thing.
There are more idle servers, because there are more servers (as well as more players). I disagree that they all run the same thing either.
Dude
#43 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/04/14 01:27:36
You get so defensive, hah. ;) You like QW better, it's ok man!
Btw .. you agreed with everything I said. You could have slimmed your post down to "Yes" and found something better to do for an hour, heheh.
#44 posted by vb [211.30.158.51] on 2006/04/15 03:26:53
It's not being defensive, it's correcting your inaccuracies. I like Quake, I just choose QW because it's the improved version of the game.
P.S I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I spent an hour detailing how I agree with you, considering my prose was 1 big, long rebuttal.
#45 posted by vb [211.30.158.51] on 2006/04/15 03:27:33
1 big, long rebuttal blurted from the top of my head, I meant to say.
Maps That Work/don't
#46 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/04/18 05:03:55
rpg was correct, Insomnia does work! Strange enough, some maps that do not work:
sm82 (sigh)
moonlite (no!)
rpgsp1
Plus any map with a progs.dat.
There is a permanent server that will be running custom maps in cooperative mode, I've been playing there ;)
#47 posted by Trinca [85.88.130.59] on 2006/04/19 10:03:33
moonlite play last night :) map what a fucking great map!!!
I Get Sick
#48 posted by inertia [24.164.73.173] on 2006/04/20 00:32:49
of this defense of NQ as something that is superior over QW for multiplayer.
Yes, ok, for singleplayer its fine and/or wonderful -- but for multiplayer, QW's netcode is vastly superior and its clients have all sorts of DELICIOUS spectating and customization features... why not take the isolationist quakeone.com community and integrate it a little more into the qw/nq hybrid community we have here at func?
Errr ...
#49 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/04/20 01:32:59
I never said it was superior. In fact, about the only time the Quake v. Quakeworld seems to come up is when vb posts.
I Might Add ...
#50 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/04/20 01:42:22
First my first post in the thread ...
"It seems to me that something that would be very logical would be a Quakeworld] server running various custom single player maps in coop mode (that don't require a progs, of course, that would throw a huge wrench into things)."
Stop Getting Angry We Don't Like QW
#51 posted by Yellow No. 5 [66.41.58.28] on 2006/04/21 00:48:55
Why do QW people get so mad not everyone agree's QW is better? I started out with NQ (as did millions of others) and I liked QW about as much as I liked Q2. Why don't I like it? Cause it doesn't *feel* like quake. Yes, it's netcode is more efficient. That doesn't make me like it.
I could post all day long about how QW is junk, and not true to original quake, or whatever. No one who likes QW would give a crap cause they like QW. Nor do netquakers care when you tell us we're dumb cause we like netquake. If you like QW better, great, play that and enjoy yourself.
#52 posted by vb [211.30.158.51] on 2006/04/21 02:58:58
I never said it was superior. In fact, about the only time the Quake v. Quakeworld seems to come up is when vb posts.
Haha are you serious? You brought up the NQ v. QW thing yourself, as you've done on... How many sites is it now? I've lost count, because you seem to try and bring it up everywhere you go.
Yellow No. 5: Nobody is angry at you for liking NetQuake as far as I know, nor do I see anybody labelling you dumb. I for instance, was simply correcting Baker on stuff he had seemed to have invented himself (eg: his comment regarding trans-Pacific QW).
Ahem
#53 posted by Bal [84.14.13.212] on 2006/04/21 04:17:57
Nice friendly community you people got going here... ;D
HMMM
#54 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/04/21 05:22:12
Never have I had so many ppl in a single thread tell me who I am and what I like/don't like.
I never knew these great things about myself, heheh.
Things I have learned about myself in this thread:
1. I was flaming FitzQuake. Which is weird.
2. My favorite engine is DarkPlaces. Hmm. I always thought I was a hardcore JoeQuake guy myself, heheh. I guess I'll have to stop helping out Mr. Jozsef.
3. I hate QW. Hmmm, I'll have to take out all the links in http://www.quakeone.com/navigator and remove all the 24-bit textures that mostly get used by QWers from the downloads section.
Plus, I'll have to stop making the texture installers compatible with QW. And delete that post @ QuakeOne.com where I announced that Inertia's Aerowalk guide has been setup.
I have a lot of work to do!
-------------
In all seriousness, it would have been nicer if only ppl that are interest in a cooperative server participated in this thread instead of trolls barging in.
If Qw Doesn't Feel Like Quake
#55 posted by bambuz [213.169.30.111] on 2006/04/21 05:39:14
how much could it be helped by a qw mod? This is the third time I ask. You know about this stuff, vb.
I understand that the single player mappers intended many of their maps to be played in quake. That is, no qw bunny, and other differences. Now, would that be easy to achieve in qw?
#56 posted by vb [211.30.158.51] on 2006/04/21 06:38:48
Nobody is saying you hate QW, Baker. You are the first to even use that verb in this thread ;)
In all seriousness, it would have been nicer if only ppl that are interest in a cooperative server participated in this thread instead of trolls barging in.
If somebody doesn't agree, or corrects a false claim, they are a troll? :D
bambuz: You can bunny in NQ, especially when playing locally (eg: SP) :>
O RLY?
#57 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.180.235] on 2006/04/21 13:11:22
¬_¬
Vb
#58 posted by bambuz [213.169.7.115] on 2006/04/22 07:12:20
bunny is much harder at least in fitzquake than in fuhquake.
#59 posted by vb [211.30.158.51] on 2006/04/22 08:19:24
Harder perhaps, much wouldn't be my personal choice of words though.
There is 1 frame of friction when you land whilst bunny-hopping in NetQuake that isn't present in QuakeWorld.
Well
#60 posted by bambuz [213.169.28.234] on 2006/04/22 18:19:38
is it possible to have that in quakeworld?
It's very much harder for me! If I bunny in a circle in nq, I don't speed up much at all, ever.
W00t! Hehe
#61 posted by Baker [67.149.145.114] on 2006/05/03 17:25:21
screenshot:
http://www.quakeone.com/q1files/im...
I suck, but my determination makes up for my suckage.
bsp: http://www.quakeone.com/maps/rquak...

Post A Reply:

Name: |
Title: |
Body: |

Website copyright © 2002-2011 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.