304 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Chemie, on 31 January 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

which begs the question, did they implement this "reduce cockpit visibility" feature in 1PV just to force more 3PV?

It's a "supporting feature" after all!

[Mycrus]

this no cockpit mod is the cat's pyjamas!

[Hellen Wheels]

RG Notch, on 30 January 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

Not according to PGI.

Nevertheless, it is a crutch for the weak. When are these folks going to man up and stop playing Crutchwarrior?

[Dimento Graven]

Hellen Wheels, on 03 February 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

Nevertheless, it is a crutch for the weak. When are these folks going to man up and stop playing Crutchwarrior?

Hey Hellen! Nice to see you again.

Do you even still play?

[CPL Madison]

i really dont think pgi can afford to ban players, infact hundreds have voluntarily left due to no game content

also...

editting your config file to give you an unfair advantage, this argument would be valid if only 1 player on mech had a config file

But seeing as every single player can adjust their cockpit in the same way then noone is getting an unfair advantage

Edited by CPL Madison, 03 February 2014 - 09:28 AM.

[Ngamok]

Not sure what this entails totally but:

Posted Today, 04:17 PM
[color=orange]User.cfg Cheating[/color]

Coming back after the December holidays we received a number of requests from league players to investigate and reduce the potential for visibility cheating via the user.cfg file. We investigated and a number of CVars that can be edited via this file have had their ranges restricted to ensure they are used in keeping with the original intention. The user.cfg file is provided to allow users to tweak their configurations in regards to controls/performance etc. but only to provide a better play experience not to allow cheating of the game. As always we take reports of hacking/cheating seriously and as described this should be much harder with these checks in place. These changes release with the next patch.

That said we cannot prevent all possible client side hacks, though we can make them harder to accomplish. As always if you suspect a player is not abiding by the terms of service feel free to report them and upon investigation if they are found to be cheating the CSR team will deal with them. We continue to put work into our internal telemetry that allows us to spot cheating behavior and highlight it to the CSR team. The team has had for a while now the ability to spectate suspected cheaters to monitor their behavior and we don’t see widespread cheating in MWO.

A couple of factors can play into a view that the game is being unfair. One simple source is players not being fully familiar with all aspects of MechWarrior weaponry/equipment e.g. not understanding PPC minimum range or forgetting about coolant flush as the reason an enemy Mech was able to stay in a fight so long without overheating etc.

http://mwomercs.com/...83#entry3120183

[Tekadept]

Can no longer use No cockpit to remove glass as its unfair, I demand they remove peoples ability to use Triple screen, that is unfair and I consider it Cheating because they have more money then me.

Triple screen gives more of an advantage WITH the cockpit, then a Single screen WITHOUT the cockpit.


VS

Edited by Tekadept, 03 February 2014 - 04:07 PM.

[Noesis]

http://mwomercs.com/...ng the cockpit.

Thanks PGI

[CB Pilot]

I have to add my two cents on this issue.

I play Cicada's and this glass features simply makes the game look more like {Scrap}.!
Honestly who ever forced the glass and film grain should be fired and maybe hire the guy who adjusted his FOV.

Like he said and showed, it offers no advantage other than clear glass and less of PGI's bad "Artistic vision" ?

PGI take afternoon a make it a option and you may keep some players.

[Noesis]

RG Notch, on 30 January 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

But feel free to continue to be wrong.

Looks like me and PGI agree.

[Mycrus]

Noesis, on 03 February 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

Looks like me and PGI agree.

Feel free to send a complaint to support about me. I'm using no cockpit plus triple screens after all.

[pbiggz]

InsectMech, on 03 February 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

I have to add my two cents on this issue.

I play Cicada's and this glass features simply makes the game look more like {Scrap}.!
Honestly who ever forced the glass and film grain should be fired and maybe hire the guy who adjusted his FOV.

Like he said and showed, it offers no advantage other than clear glass and less of PGI's bad "Artistic vision" ?

PGI take afternoon a make it a option and you may keep some players.

Really? Artistic vision? You are gonna criticize them for that? You're in another world if you think their art is an issue.

[Dymlos2003]

InsectMech, on 03 February 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

I have to add my two cents on this issue.

I play Cicada's and this glass features simply makes the game look more like {Scrap}.!
Honestly who ever forced the glass and film grain should be fired and maybe hire the guy who adjusted his FOV.

Like he said and showed, it offers no advantage other than clear glass and less of PGI's bad "Artistic vision" ?

PGI take afternoon a make it a option and you may keep some players.

When the game looks like this most of the time? How...

[CB Pilot]

Yes I am going to criticize them for horrid "Artistic" decisions. This is visual entertainment so why make Blu Rays look like a beta tape ?

Why would I want to look at a non functional dash or stupidly placed cockpit glass bars anyway? I can just use 3PV and "Cheat" even more than clear glass so whats the point of the realism?

[RG Notch]

Noesis, on 03 February 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

Looks like me and PGI agree.

Doesn't change the fact you were wrong. But continue to try alter history.

[Noesis]

RG Notch, on 03 February 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

Doesn't change the fact you were wrong. But continue to try alter history.

No I just had a better grasp of the issues now vindicated by the change I expected being put into effect. I knew that Kyle was reiterating the application of user.cfg file could have changes whilst identifying that the rules also said if not also an advantage to the player then under review. Hence why for me Destined's comment still held validity for that specific point in relation to the issue.

But if you want to be a pendant with the language specifically to one event said rather than looking at the issue more holistically you can arrive at your conclusion since it is a narrow view only using one literal event as opposed to seeing the bigger picture of events and how the issue was handled and treated. The point being the issue was under review when things where stated and in dissonance with each other.

Ultimately I end up being "right" however as a result of not being so narrow minded. So history has now proven me correct. Deal with it.

[RG Notch]

Noesis, on 03 February 2014 - 06:31 PM, said:

No I just had a better grasp of the issues now vindicated by the change I expected being put into effect. I knew that Kyle was reiterating the application of user.cfg file could have changes whilst identifying that the rules also said if not also an advantage to the player then under review. Hence why for me Destined's comment still held validity for that specific point in relation to the issue.

But if you want to be a pendant with the language specifically to one event said rather than looking at the issue more holistically you can arrive at your conclusion since it is a narrow view only using one literal event as opposed to seeing the bigger picture of events and how the issue was handled and treated. The point being the issue was under review when things where stated and in dissonance with each other.

Ultimately I end up being "right" however as a result of not being so narrow minded. So history has now proven me correct. Deal with it.

You can spin it however you like and try to use fancy terminology to try to hide you were and at this moment still are wrong, but I as I said continue to try to not be wrong all you like. You were and still are wrong, deal with it.

[Noesis]

RG Notch, on 03 February 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

deal with it.

Cockpits can no longer be removed as I said would be beneficial to do, I'm quite content to deal with it, lol.

[RG Notch]

Noesis, on 03 February 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

Cockpits can no longer be removed as I said would be beneficial to do, I'm quite content to deal with it, lol.

As long we're clear you were wrong, who cares? It wasn't cheating. I'm quite content to be right. I never removed the cockpit or planned to, I just knew that it wasn't cheating to do so. So it won't bother me one way or the other, being wrong sure seemed to be an issue for you.

[Noesis]

RG Notch, on 03 February 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

As long we're clear you were wrong, who cares? It wasn't cheating. I'm quite content to be right. I never removed the cockpit or planned to, I just knew that it wasn't cheating to do so. So it won't bother me one way or the other, being wrong sure seemed to be an issue for you.

No I just dislike pedantry and was glad to be vindicated that my open mindedness at the time allowed me to see the bigger picture as suggested whilst others like yourself simply sticking to "being told" what to think by one literal piece of text in a linear fashion of a thread as opposed to considering everything that was being done and going on with the matter, especially as the issue was under review.

So no I wont accept I was wrong, only that you foolishly bound yourself to the linear terms of one posting in a thread rather than looking at the actual issues as they were occurring. Such is the failing of the pendant or those incapable of more realistic thinking perhaps since you cannot accept the grey area of a review holding the fact of an outcome with two points of dissonance to be determined by that process.

I'm now found to be correct on the issue of course as a result of that process. Have fun with your locked mindset however.