Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
qwertz

Public PvP gameplay: not quite dead!

Recommended Posts

I love the AAS game mode, have since I first found it.

I play on ArmAcalypse whenever I can (no where near as much as I'd like)... lots of extremely good players (some of ArmAs best imo... Nedved for one), well run and administered server and best of all a friendly, fun environment.

check me sig fa places ta play AAS :thumb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where an actual thread for the most common AAS missions is so I'll just summarize some improvement suggestions.

* Make the name tag loop more rapidly. A ~0.1 second refresh makes it look very choppy and almost heavy.

* Get rid of the grass: it makes for unfair pvp gameplay (the stance/distance paradox) and drops fps even for powerful PCs

* Restrict the weapon selection: every side using every weapon (usually just the few imba ones) is pretty dull. Standard weapons for each side would be a refreshing change.

* Make people spawn at the second objective because spawning at the one you're fighting over creates a Berzerk-like chaos

* Make vehicle availability depend on player count: some maps are ridiculous when everyone has their own MBT or attack chopper

It's a nice mode of play but those features make it a little frustrating at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Celery,

here's the "official" AAS thread: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=96871

Just a few comments here:

* Make the name tag loop more rapidly. A ~0.1 second refresh makes it look very choppy and almost heavy.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you sure you a playing the AAS made by coolbox ? (There's a few other AAS packs and derivatives out there).

Have never seen or heard about that problem on our servers. But maybe I am blind and deaf :-)

* Get rid of the grass: it makes for unfair pvp gameplay (the stance/distance paradox) and drops fps even for powerful PCs

70% want it, 30% don't. I would challenge the statement that it is unfair (everyone has to deal with it) and since 1.5 it got a lot better (ground layer texture at distance for prone players). We have a wide range of PCs from low to high end playing on the server and so far no one has complained about performance. My rig runs between 30 and 60 FPS dependent on mission/island at all times, 1920x1200, all very high (besides PP), with grass on - can't be THAT big of an issue.

* Restrict the weapon selection: every side using every weapon (usually just the few imba ones) is pretty dull. Standard weapons for each side would be a refreshing change.

This is a standard feature of AAS, based upon the rule-set setting. 5 out of the 6 predefined rule-sets included in the AAS package have seperated weapons for each side. We currently use the CLASSIC rule set which allows all weapons for both sides, just because we are a 100% public server and weapon restrictions would lead to chronically imbalanced teams (or constant re-allocation of players), both of which is not practical for public play.

* Make people spawn at the second objective because spawning at the one you're fighting over creates a Berzerk-like chaos

I don't know why this argument always pops up again. It just does not happen in real gameplay. You CANT spawn at any point has that lost as little as 1% cap value. 90% of the time, the hot cap point is not fully owned by ANY side.

The only scenario where you spawn at a hot zone is when the enemy launches a flawed attack attemp with less people than your defending team has at the particular cap point. In that case they usually die fast.

In any case, you are completely free to choose to spawn at ANY other point your team ownes, if you don't feel safe spawning at the front, and choosing between those two options adds tactical depth to the gameplay.

* Make vehicle availability depend on player count: some maps are ridiculous when everyone has their own MBT or attack chopper

That would be bad mission design. Most missions are infantry focused and don't have any vehicles other than transport vehicles (I would guess 50 out of the 80 missions available).

Me thinks you have not checked AAS out in a while :p.

Feel free to hop on our server, your feedback would be appreciated.

Cheers mate :cheers:

qwertz

Edited by qwertz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure what you mean. Are you sure you a playing the AAS made by coolbox ? (There's a few other AAS packs and derivatives out there).

Have never seen or heard about that problem on our servers. But maybe I am blind and deaf :-)

The tags work fine but their positions are updated quite slowly resulting in sluggish movement of the text when you turn your head.

70% want it, 30% don't. I would challenge the statement that it is unfair (everyone has to deal with it) and since 1.5 it got a lot better (ground layer texture at distance for prone players). We have a wide range of PCs from low to high end playing on the server and so far no one has complained about performance. My rig runs between 30 and 60 FPS dependent on mission/island at all times, 1920x1200, all very high (besides PP), with grass on - can't be THAT big of an issue.

It's unfair in the sense that if you're prone or peeking behind a ridge, there's grass blocking your view while people over 50 meters from you can see you just fine. My PC isn't bad and there is a considerable (maybe 20-30 %) drop in fps just because of the grass. I'm not sure where you got the 70-30 figure but if it's from the BI forum poll, I'd say many of the voters were coop players or didn't know about the gameplay problems it causes in pvp before voting. Most true pvp missions have grass off because the issues are known by players and mission makers.

I don't know why this argument always pops up again. It just does not happen in real gameplay. You CANT spawn at any point has that lost as little as 1% cap value. 90% of the time, the hot cap point is not fully owned by ANY side.

The only scenario where you spawn at a hot zone is when the enemy launches a flawed attack attemp with less people than your defending team has at the particular cap point. In that case they usually die fast.

In any case, you are completely free to choose to spawn at ANY other point your team ownes, if you don't feel safe spawning at the front, and choosing between those two options adds tactical depth to the gameplay.

In practise the current system means that both defending and attacking a zone are frustrating. In public games there are always people watching the other side's spawn areas, and attacking a zone is very difficult because of respawning enemies because you just can't coordinate such things in a public game.

Me thinks you have not checked AAS out in a while :p.

I actually did check it out just prior to writing my feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The tags work fine but their positions are updated quite slowly resulting in sluggish movement of the text when you turn your head.

I have never recognized that, but you are right, there is a little sluggishness to the text movement it. Has not bothered me so far, though (but now that you mention it - damn! :))

It's unfair in the sense that if you're prone or peeking behind a ridge, there's grass blocking your view while people over 50 meters from you can see you just fine.

The grass layer since 1.5 is doing a pretty good job IMHO - I can usually only see a little head/helmet sticking out of the ground at distance.

In terms of gameplay, PvP is typically much less a sniper fest compared to some non-PvP modes, so it is not that big of an issue anyway. AAS is a rather dynamic mode with a lot of movement across the battle areas, so hiding on some hill to score some kills is a losing strategy anyway.

On short distances below 30-40m, I think it is actually pretty realistic that you can see the guy crouching in thick grass much better than he can see you.

My PC isn't bad and there is a considerable (maybe 20-30 %) drop in fps just because of the grass. I'm not sure where you got the 70-30 figure but if it's from the BI forum poll, I'd say many of the voters were coop players or didn't know about the gameplay problems it causes in pvp before voting. Most true pvp missions have grass off because the issues are known by players and mission makers.

I would call that a myth. I am not talking about BI forum polls, but concrete feedback from the people that play on our server every day. We had a handful of guys so far that would advocate turning off the grass at most.

Point being - where does it stop? My frames drop considerably when a lot of smoke is in the air, and in urban areas such as Chernogorsk. Shall we switch off smoke and buildings now as well?

ArmA 2 looks very old without the grass/foilage - in fact, the grass/foilage and nature simulation is one of the aspects of the engine that is truly great and outstanding.

Everyone with a half way decent PC can just turn down the details on his video settings a tick and will have decent frame rates. On the other hand, forcing off grass means that everyone has to look at a game that looks like 2003 again.

I sometimes play on my work PC which is a 2 year old office box, and it works fine with details down a tad. My gaming rig is no bleeding edge PC either and frames are great on high/very high.

In practice the current system means that both defending and attacking a zone are frustrating. In public games there are always people watching the other side's spawn areas, and attacking a zone is very difficult because of respawning enemies because you just can't coordinate such things in a public game.

We actually do focus on coordination on our public server and usually more than half of the people on each team are communicating on Teamspeak, and we very much do coordinate our attacks. Hence, this is really a non issue, at least not for us. :bounce3: I see your point though, without jumping on TS and therfore lacking any coordination this might indeed be a problem, but that would apply to many more game modes as well...

I actually did check it out just prior to writing my feedback.
On a live and well run server or against bots/alone?

In any case, your feedback is very appreciated, even if I don't necessarily agree with every single bit you said. We run the server strictly to serve the community and are therefore dependent upon feedback.

:cheers:

qwertz

Edited by qwertz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The grass layer since 1.5 is doing a pretty good job IMHO - I can usually only see a little head/helmet sticking out of the ground at distance.

In terms of gameplay, PvP is typically much less a sniper fest compared to some non-PvP modes, so it is not that big of an issue anyway. AAS is a rather dynamic mode with a lot of movement across the battle areas, so hiding on some hill to score some kills is a losing strategy anyway.

On short distances below 30-40m, I think it is actually pretty realistic that you can see the guy crouching in thick grass much better than he can see you.

The problem is this:

Grass on: prone looking at standing

a2_grass2.jpg

Grass off: prone looking at standing

a2_nograss2.jpg

Grass on: standing looking at prone

a2_grass1.jpg

Grass off: standing looking at prone

a2_nograss1.jpg

As the pictures show, the prone guy is at a massive disadvantage when grass is on because the standing guy can see him quite well on flat ground but the prone guy doesn't see anything. It should also be noted that even with grass off, soldiers still sink into the grass layer at a distance meaning that the setTerrainGrid command doesn't affect how you're seen from a distance. In my books it's a big letdown to be forced to stay up to see your enemy as well as he sees you. Especially in a pvp setting where fairness and smooth fps should always come before eye candy.

I would call that a myth. I am not talking about BI forum polls, but concrete feedback from the people that play on our server every day. We had a handful of guys so far that would advocate turning off the grass at most.

Have you tried playing an AAS mission with no grass and if so, how many complained about it?

Point being - where does it stop? My frames drop considerably when a lot of smoke is in the air, and in urban areas such as Chernogorsk. Shall we switch off smoke and buildings now as well?

ArmA 2 looks very old without the grass/foilage - in fact, the grass/foilage and nature simulation is one of the aspects of the engine that is truly great and outstanding.

Everyone with a half way decent PC can just turn down the details on his video settings a tick and will have decent frame rates. On the other hand, forcing off grass means that everyone has to look at a game that looks like 2003 again.

I sometimes play on my work PC which is a 2 year old office box, and it works fine with details down a tad. My gaming rig is no bleeding edge PC either and frames are great on high/very high.

Smoke and buildings are important elements of a mission's gameplay, grass only drops fps and creates a false illusion of being in cover when you actually stick out from the ground like a sore thumb. A slippery slope isn't a real justification for having grass on in a pvp mission, in fact I can't think of any besides that it makes the ground look nicer in screenshots, the rest is negative impact on gameplay. The question of what is enough fps is a matter of personal preference or how your brain works: 20 fps might look totally playable for one person but for someone else it's a slideshow that hurts the head.

Edited by Celery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'problem' is well understood and it's true the grass layer isn't a perfect solution (less because it reveals too much than because there isn't noise of sufficient frequency in the surrounding texture to mask what it does reveal) but...

1. Rewarding people for lying down in the grass (rather than capturing territory) does nothing to enhance the P-v-P experience.

2. No grass sets this game back 5+ years visually. Personally I wouldn't return to a no-grass server unless I had no other choice. I'd sooner have to choose my concealment more carefully than play what looks like the original OpFP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Rewarding people for lying down in the grass (rather than capturing territory) does nothing to enhance the P-v-P experience.

In that case I think you have misunderstood the meaning of pvp (it's player vs. player with no further implications). The right thing to do in pvp or any other game mode is what makes you the winning party, excluding exploits. Making prone players blind but visible to others takes away a big part of individual tactical options. Remember that grass introduces more gameplay problems than having it off does.

2. No grass sets this game back 5+ years visually. Personally I wouldn't return to a no-grass server unless I had no other choice. I'd sooner have to choose my concealment more carefully than play what looks like the original OpFP.

Sadly that's the only sound argument for having grass on, and it has nothing to do with gameplay itself. On the other hand there are numerous gameplay related reasons for turning it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In that case I think you have misunderstood the meaning of pvp (it's player vs. player with no further implications). The right thing to do in pvp or any other game mode is what makes you the winning party, excluding exploits. Making prone players blind but visible to others takes away a big part of individual tactical options. Remember that grass introduces more gameplay problems than having it off does.

Sadly that's the only sound argument for having grass on, and it has nothing to do with gameplay itself. On the other hand there are numerous gameplay related reasons for turning it off.

I think I start to understand why we have a different view on things. No right or wrong here I guess. But the reason I play is to have fun. Thats my personal reason I play ArmA2. That does include feeling immersed in a realistic looking environment, not dumbing all settings down so it looks like Half Life 1 just to sqeeze out some more frames when the simple solution is "get a decent video card".

I love this game and the community, but sometimes I think why can't we just play the game as is rather that focusing on the negatives and whining about all the perceived "bugs"? The grass and vegetation in ArmA 2 is by far the best out of any games out there. The grass "bug" (since 1.5) is dealt with on a reasonable level. Is it perfect? No. Do I care ? Nope, its good enough and when I know that going prone in grass does not give me a magic cap than I deal with it by seeking different concealment or cover.

You say smoke is an important element of the game? I agree, but guess what - smoke is client side so everyone sees it differently. Unfair ! Unplayable ! :yay:

Can't we just enjoy it ? Its a game....

:cheers: cheers mate,

qwertz

Edited by qwertz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In that case I think you have misunderstood the meaning of pvp (it's player vs. player with no further implications). The right thing to do in pvp or any other game mode is what makes you the winning party, excluding exploits. Making prone players blind but visible to others takes away a big part of individual tactical options. Remember that grass introduces more gameplay problems than having it off does.

There's nothing to misunderstand. If "what ever it takes to win" involves staying still and waiting for somebody else to make the mistake of revealing themselves it's going to be a bloody big yawn as everybody does so. Given we have to choose I'd much rather sacrifice camper comfort than decent visuals. If people want to test their patience they should play against AI, they won't mind how long people lie in wait to cheap shot them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is this:

(...)

As the pictures show, the prone guy is at a massive disadvantage when grass is on because the standing guy can see him quite well on flat ground but the prone guy doesn't see anything.(...)

I actually think that is a better simulation of how real life works than what most other games provide. Nothing wrong with the principle of it.

grass1.gif

grass2.gif

Edited by qwertz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually thought the same (given grass of the height found throughout Chernarus) but didn't care to get into a discussion about it without pics. :bounce3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I start to understand why we have a different view on things. No right or wrong here I guess. But the reason I play is to have fun. Thats my personal reason I play ArmA2. That does include feeling immersed in a realistic looking environment, not dumbing all settings down so it looks like Half Life 1 just to sqeeze out some more frames when the simple solution is "get a decent video card".

I also play A2 to have fun. However, a visibility paradox at the cost of fps doesn't help people have fun. And I do have a very decent PC, and like I said earlier, "enough" fps is a subjective thing. I just wonder if the community really has turned into the very thing it has bashed so much when talking about other games: graphics hoes.

I love this game and the community, but sometimes I think why can't we just play the game as is rather that focusing on the negatives and whining about all the perceived "bugs"? The grass and vegetation in ArmA 2 is by far the best out of any games out there. The grass "bug" (since 1.5) is dealt with on a reasonable level. Is it perfect? No. Do I care ? Nope, its good enough and when I know that going prone in grass does not give me a magic cap than I deal with it by seeking different concealment or cover.

I love the game and the community too, and in my opinion eliminating negative things makes the game better. If you don't care, why don't you try AAS without grass or give individual players an option to turn it off? You might be surprised at how much the gameplay improves.

You say smoke is an important element of the game? I agree, but guess what - smoke is client side so everyone sees it differently. Unfair ! Unplayable ! :yay:

setWind can force wind strength and vector to be the same for everyone, meaning that smoke will be almost identical.

Can't we just enjoy it ? Its a game....

Exactly my thoughts. So why insist on having a feature that decreases performance and gameplay enjoyability?

There's nothing to misunderstand. If "what ever it takes to win" involves staying still and waiting for somebody else to make the mistake of revealing themselves it's going to be a bloody big yawn as everybody does so. Given we have to choose I'd much rather sacrifice camper comfort than decent visuals. If people want to test their patience they should play against AI, they won't mind how long people lie in wait to cheap shot them.

If proning indeed is synonomous with camping to you, you might be playing the wrong game. How does it make sense that players who always stand will always have the advantage?

I actually think that is a better simulation of how real life works than what most other games provide. Nothing wrong with the principle of it.

http://www.armacalypse.com/grass1.gif

http://www.armacalypse.com/grass2.gif

There would be no issue if the grass would actually be drawn hundreds of meters from you, but as it is it only blocks the prone player's view while anyone else can clearly see him with no grass covering him (the layer leaves him exposed until ~700 meters). It's a compromise between visuals and gameplay that does both in a half-assed way, which is why disabling the clutter covering your initial surroundings is the better way to make the game fair and enjoyable. Plus, the game looks fabulous even without grass.

Edited by Celery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the visibility paradox thing is a major issue, especially in a competitive environment.

Have you guys considered SAP clutter addon? Sure if only some people use it it's an unfair disadvantage, but if everyone use it (after all, why shouldn't they if it gives you an advantage and the server allows them to) then you get both some pretty grass yet it's not ridiculously high to the point where the above issues arise. If I was running a public server I would definitely approve this addon's signature and recommend all players to get it installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If proning indeed is synonomous with camping to you, you might be playing the wrong game.

It's a pointless discussion if you're just going to deflect by suggesting anyone with a contrary view either misunderstands P-v-P or is playing the wrong game. Equally it is disingenuous to suggest I've equated proning & camping as synonymous but the context is concealment (or a lack thereof) and as a prone player could only ever expect to be concealed if they've not already given away their position and as most often this will mean they were prone when the standing player arrived, implied is a sufficient description of 'camping' for this debate.

Again, given technology demands we have to make a choice, better to reward the player who, by standing, displays the greater propensity to move (and by so doing encourages an actual outcome whatever the victory conditions) than the player who, by remaining prone, waits for victory to stumble into his sights. Better yet that choice also yields us a vastly better looking game.

How does it make sense that players who always stand will always have the advantage?

Qwertz has illustrated (beautifully I might add) the sense, what say you to his illustrations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just wonder if the community really has turned into the very thing it has bashed so much when talking about other games: graphics hoes.

If (!) thats true, maybe the community should step down from their high horse and stop bashing other games and feeling so ridiculously "elite" about themselves. It is not a sign of "noobness" to appreciate sophisticated visuals. Ironically, even in that ArmA is not special, you have these discussions in many games - e.g there are still people being religious about playing Counter Strike 1.6 with details on low on a CRT, for the same reasons you are arguing here. Nothing wrong with that, just not my cup of tea.

I love competitive game play, and have done so for the past 20 years, but that does not stop me from preferring to compete in a virtual environment that is visually as close as possible to reality. Of course you could argue now that the current grass system in ArmA is not perfectly realistic, everyone understands that. But it is orders of magnitude better than any other game out there, and I for one prefer it for many reasons over playing on green painted concrete which is not realistic either. If that makes me a graphic hoe, I can live with that.

I love the game and the community too, and in my opinion eliminating negative things makes the game better. If you don't care, why don't you try AAS without grass or give individual players an option to turn it off? You might be surprised at how much the gameplay improves.

I don't think grass is a negative thing, thats why I am not trying to eliminate it, as that would make the game worse in my humble opinion. That's where we have a different opinion, which is fine.

I also very much doubt it would improve the game play, it would just dumb it down. It would severely limit the ability to sneak up to a player or hide inside a cap zone. Mind you, we are talking about a style of PvP gameplay here that does not focus on 200m+ sniper skeet shooting. And allowing some players to switch it off individually would now introduce the unfairness that you initially were concerned about.

Fun in game play very much comes from the feeling of achievement, which comes from creatively approaching and mastering the challenges a game creates. As long as I am aware of the challenges, it is fair. If I know that grass doesn't give me full concealment at distance, then I don't use it to give me full concealment at distance. Switching it off would just reduce the complexity of challenges I have to deal with (and looks shit :p).

As Defunkt alrady pointed out, giving people the ability to be virtually invisible at distance (as you seem to expect from a "proper" grass system) would NOT improve many PvP game styles. But switching off the ability to find some limited concealment in CQC altogether would not help either.

Exactly my thoughts. So why insist on having a feature that decreases performance and gameplay enjoyability?

Because it improves gameplay enjoyability in our view, as said before.

If proning indeed is synonomous with camping to you, you might be playing the wrong game. How does it make sense that players who always stand will always have the advantage?

ArmA is many games, not one, and you can pick and choose what you like. I don't think that the slow pace coop-style gameplay has a minority problem in this community.

You don't have to "always stand". You can kneel down, lean, and of course go prone. The latter is very helpful in many situations. Just don't expect that just because you are blocking your own view when choosing to lay down flat in thick grass, no one else can see you. As long as you have that in mind, there is no problem with going prone.

There would be no issue if the grass would actually be drawn hundreds of meters from you, but as it is it only blocks the prone player's view while anyone else can clearly see him with no grass covering him (the layer leaves him exposed until ~700 meters). It's a compromise between visuals and gameplay that does both in a half-assed way, which is why disabling the clutter covering your initial surroundings is the better way to make the game fair and enjoyable. Plus, the game looks fabulous even without grass.

No one disagrees with you that the grass is not perfect. But for me and many others it is better than no grass. And it is not unfair because everyone has to deal with it. But it does disencourage a specific kind of game play behavior that is usually not helpful for PvP.

Celery, galhozar - I honestly appreciate your views and feedback, but I think we are at a point where there is no right or wrong, just different valid views that are catering different gaming styles or priorities. The great thing about ArmA is that it gives us the flexibility to choose.

The reason I created this thread is to send a positive signal after all the discussions about PvP being dead. PvP is certainly a minority in ArmA, but far from being dead.

ArmAcalypse is a server that specifically addresses to a niche in ArmA game play that some people (including myself) prefer over the predominant other (mostly coop-based) styles. Not everybody will like it, and that's ok.

:cheers:

qwertz

Edited by qwertz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The illustrations are pretty bad IMO and do not represent what it would look like if it was actual people involved. The fact is that in the game you can be completely covered with grass and completely blind and yet quite visible IF (and only if) the observer is far enough away. In real life when someone is laying in grass you don't move AWAY from them in order to see them better.

As for camping/whatever, I'm sure you can find better ways to reward actually working towards taking the objective different to practically forbid players from going prone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celery, galhozar - I honestly appreciate your views and feedback, but I think we are at a point where there is no right or wrong, just different valid views that are catering different gaming styles or priorities. The great thing about ArmA is that it gives us the flexibility to choose.

The reason I created this thread is to send a positive signal after all the discussions about PvP being dead. PvP is certainly a minority in ArmA, but far from being dead.

ArmAcalypse is a server that specifically addresses to a niche in ArmA game play that some people (including myself) prefer over the predominant other (mostly coop-based) styles. Not everybody will like it, and that's ok.

:cheers:

qwertz

Ive stayed out of this because my views on grass are the same as Celery's

SBS server virtually every map on there is Grass off.. thats our choice and we enjoy it that way.....

BUT the end of your post basically sums it all up...

PvP aint dead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's sum up the grass pros and cons.

Pros

1) Game looks better (how much better and whether it even does is subject to opinion)

2) You have a chance to hide on the ground within 40 meters from an enemy

Cons

1) You are completely visible to enemies from 40 meters and up

2) You can't see anything in front of you on level ground when prone

3) Proning is seldom a viable tactical option as a result of the above two points

4) The above points result in illogical gameplay that has no basis on the real world

5) Worse FPS = more inequality between hardware: low and mid range especially struggle with grass

Here are my illustrations that I think are more accurate than drawings:

Grass on: prone looking at standing

a2_grass2.jpg

Grass off: prone looking at standing

a2_nograss2.jpg

Grass on: standing looking at prone

a2_grass1.jpg

Grass off: standing looking at prone

a2_nograss1.jpg

My question is: how do the pros overweigh the cons unless you value hardware-demanding visuals over fair and logical gameplay in competitive pvp missions? The grass is comparable to a failed attempt at simulating local fog where one player has heavy fog and the other doesn't, resulting in the first one seeing nothing and the second seeing the first, even though logically it should be impossible in a situation it tries to simulate.

Edited by Celery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you tried the "middle ground" of using SAP clutter? It gives you the good looks of grass without making you see nothing but grass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shorter grass would obviate the problem but (and I'm assuming we're talking public P-v-P here) your cure (which advantages just a few) is worse than the problem (which disadvantages everybody equally).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well nothing stops *everybody* from getting the addon, you can just add it to the pack just like you add the littlebirds/islands/etc to make things even more equal for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have any of you tried the "middle ground" of using SAP clutter? It gives you the good looks of grass without making you see nothing but grass.

Hey galzohar, besides the"problem" not being very high on my list, I will certainly give it a try - thanks for sharing.

Then best solution (if there is one needed) imho would simpy be to allow prone players to "raise their head" to look over the clutter. That would also be most realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100% with Celery.

I also appreciate qwertz's dedication to keeping PvP active and keeping a popular server going (unfortunately for me I'm not too fond of AAS though).

Grass is eye candy. I like it. It looks nice in screenshots. I don't like it in PvP (in it's current form) though. And it's not a FPS issue for me either. It's for the reasons Celery has pointed out already.

That's all I got, carry on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×