304 replies to this topic

[TygerLily]

:popcorn:

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

All this rationalization because it's a modification of the USER.cfg which is "allowed."

So... if I made a modification to the User.CFG, that made, oh I don't know, every mech show up on the map with a box around them even if I couldn't actively see them, that would be ok?

Or if I made a modification to the user.cfg that allowed me to look though mountians, or disabled fog, or returned heat vision to it's old style. or or or.


Are you seeing the pattern here? Just because you CAN do something, does not mean that you should. Also, removal of the cockpit confer's a clear advantage to the player using said .cfg configuration, as they do not have to compensate for screen clutter, which is part of the game experience of MWO.

You, are, cheating. Own up to it.

[Shamous13]

Madw0lf, on 29 January 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Thig is I like seeing the cockpit, and the glass (when I notice it....) and if I had to deal with the distortion his videos show....like I said it would drive me batty.

Thats not saying it isnt worth a run just for "science"

the distortion that you see in his video is caused by his FOV being set to 100, max that most people set it too is 85 default is 75

Edited by Shamous13, 29 January 2014 - 12:43 PM.

[Madw0lf]

Shamous13, on 29 January 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

the distortion that you see in his video is caused by his FOV being set to 100, max that most people set it too is 85 default is 75

Ahh gotcha

[Shamous13]

Kazly, on 29 January 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

Significant?

Kyle Polulak, on 29 January 2014 - 12:03 AM, said:

Quote

Can we use this USER.CFG change to remove the cockpit?

Yes, it's in user.cfg afterall.

found in this post. http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3108225

[RG Notch]

Shamous13, on 29 January 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

found in this post. http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3108225

Please, you're going to ruin all the people calling it cheating. I mean just because some one from PGI said it's ok doesn't mean it's not cheating.....

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Shamous13, on 29 January 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

found in this post. http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3108225

So... let me get this straight... you're quoting the PGI "Web Devloper" about a gameplay design flaw?

Edited by Jade Kitsune, 29 January 2014 - 12:50 PM.

[RG Notch]

Jade Kitsune, on 29 January 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

So... let me get this straight... you're quoting the PGI "Web Devloper" about a gameplay design flaw?

And you basing you ideas on .....

[Dimento Graven]

Void Angel, on 29 January 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

Nonsense.

First, I'm intentionally considering all of the rules instead of picking one to pursue with monomaniacal intensity. Nor am I 'enforcing' a rule by pointing it out to you. If any modification of the user.cfg file is acceptable, why is the phrase "in good faith" included?

That's a great question, especially since it's NOT defined. If I'm looking to fix a situation which causes me physical discomfort, is that "bad faith"? If I'm trying to return the game back to a previous level of quality, is that "bad faith"? I think we can safely assume that attempts at modifying the file to be able to "see through" buildings and such, are 'beyond' the "in good faith" limitation, but, we need some actual stated boundaries.

Quote

Why did PGI's own fracking post on this thread point you to that very FAQ? It's no good to try and claim that PGI's answer to the second question only applies to third party software and modifications other than to user.cfg. First, which files are modified is not mentioned in that question; you made that up. Second, and more importantly, their response differentiates between "these types of modifications" in general and "any type of modification" in particular which alters visibility significantly from the original product (to create a tactical advantage; this is a valid possible argument, but not a compelling one.) The term "in good faith" is not "undefined" it means what it always means. Applied in the context of "is this allowed under the rules," good faith means ";as long as you're not violating other rules." See next question. You are cherry-picking your quotes in order to create permissions that do not exist. You should probably stop it.

First off, let's get the quote from PGI here in order to keep it referenced, part 1:

Viterbi said:

Q: Can I change my user.cfg file?

A: Yes. This is the only file open to user modification. We understand that at times there can be a need to modify the user.cfg, for example certain joystick configurations are not fully implemented on the in-game options screen and may require manual configuration through this file. As long as you are editing the user.cfg file in good faith, this is not a concern. As always, Support will not be able to troubleshoot or support clients that have modifications to this file. Users can request via Support ticket or forum post that the developers open additional parameters in the user.cfg, and we will determine if the request is reasonable.

That paragraph is complete, all rules are set. "In good faith" is not defined, nor do they have a reference to Wikipedia as their definition to what "in good faith" might mean.

NEXT QUESTION:

Quote

Q: May I use graphical enhancements through third-party applications, such as SweetFX or other CBar modifiers to enhance my graphical performance?

A: We do not encourage the use of these types of modifications and in particular should we detect the use of any modification that does any of the following we reserve the right to suspend/ban the account responsible.

a) Alters visibility significantly from the original product to gain unfair tactical advantages
b ) Changes game assets sounds, models, or maps, to gain tactical advantages
c) Attempts to circumvent the map selection process
d) Exploits bugs or existing game mechanics

As you can, while the subjects are similar, the responses are completely different and separate. The only file in either question they mention is the USER.CFG, and they specifically state it's ok for us to modify it.

You can go ahead and assume that their subset of rules a-d from the second question applies to the first, but, to me that doesn't appear to be the intent. The USER.CFG is controlled via other .CFGs embedded in the ENGINE.PAK that PGI has total and complete control over, thus limiting the effectiveness of the USER.CFG. Maybe we find an option that provides us with a better view, but the intent was NOT to use it out of "bad faith" but an interest in improving our own gaming experience.

PGI can later disable that function if they want, the second question is specific to modifying either the texture files, or the embedded non-user CFG files which PGI can't easily control or maintain and would provide the users with untold ability to do things not commonly available to everyone else.

Quote

The crux of the issue with removing cockpit glass is that they haven't implemented an intended feature to toggle film grain? Uh... are you sure you thought that through?

No, the crux of this issue is whether or not PGI has given express permission to modify the game client in this way. They have not, of course. The FAQ is clear on that, and the TOS is very clear that modifications are not permitted except by their express permission. The user.cfg question on the FAQ specifically references "need" and gives hardware configuration as an example. This does not constitute the express permission you need to claim that PGI has unequivocally allowed this modification.

I haven't said it's 'unequivocal' I've said that any change that we make does not necessarily fall into the 'cheating' category, as 'in good faith' has as much to do with intent as result in this circumstance.

Quote

You're harping on a bad reading of one rule and claiming it supercedes all others to create a permission that does not exist. You stop it. By this kind of amateur, D&D-ish rules-lawyering, you succeed only in embarrassing yourself. Given the gushing flood of defensiveness and misrepresentation my comments have provoked from you, I'm going to re-iterate that I don't see any grounds to punish you, nor do I think you're 'cheating,' as the OP fears (but he is violating the Name and Shame policy; heck, this kind of thing is exactly what that policy is designed to prevent.) But you simply don't have any grounds to claim that you were told by PGI that you could circumvent the cockpit glass in this manner. Whether they agree you should or not remains to be seen.

Yes, I do give precedence, where it occurs, and in this case, the first rule is as stated. You apparently want to pile on all the rules ever written, mush 'em all together and then try and interpolate "the rightness" of a situation.

My standing is, here's the specific rule on what I've done. Was it allowed or not, THE LAST WORD, we received from an ACTUAL PAID PGI EMPLOYEE was, "Yes."

This portion of the discussion is no longer moot, and hasn't been so, for a few pages...

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

RG Notch, on 29 January 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

And you basing you ideas on .....

The fact that it says "Web Devloper" right under the guy's name...

[Dimento Graven]

Madw0lf, on 29 January 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

Is your view really THAT distorted when you play like that? That would drive me mad, and yet you think its "much nicer to look at".... o_O

Honestly this should either be disabled or added as an in game option (with balancing, like 3PV) Because, yes, it does give a mild advantage in the form of situational awareness

Im not going to fault you for the performance increase, but it seems rather trivial to me. But then my system can just barely run this game on lowest settings.....

EDIT: And now i see youre running on a high end machine, with high end settings enabled.....

I don't notice the distortion. My LCD panel is a literal 27" horizontal width, so, it looks awesome to me!

[RG Notch]

Jade Kitsune, on 29 January 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

The fact that it says "Web Devloper" right under the guy's name...

No, I'm saying you're basing your idea that it is cheating.

[Dimento Graven]

Kazly, on 29 January 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

Significant?

Not any longer since THIS post later in the thread:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3108225

[Roland]

This highlights an issue that will tend to follow any attempt to limit visibility in the game.

We had the same issues back in MW4...

If you make weird limits to player visibility, then folks will find ways to eliminate those limits.. Then you will be left with a game which penalizes players who don't know how to work around things in the game.

In MW4, there were ways to turn off things like fog, or for night maps you could just jack your gamma (which is exactly what folks do on night maps in THIS game). So in many leagues, they just eliminated those game modes from competitive play. Since you couldn't tell if someone was jacking their gamma, or turning off their fog, they just made all of the games take place with the environment set to day/clear.

It's always bad to make players have to choose between the game looking pretty, and being competitively. The game should look the best when set up for the most advantageous view.

[Dimento Graven]

Jade Kitsune, on 29 January 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

All this rationalization because it's a modification of the USER.cfg which is "allowed."

So... if I made a modification to the User.CFG, that made, oh I don't know, every mech show up on the map with a box around them even if I couldn't actively see them, that would be ok?

Or if I made a modification to the user.cfg that allowed me to look though mountians, or disabled fog, or returned heat vision to it's old style. or or or.

Since that's not possible, it's not worth debate.

Next.

Quote

Are you seeing the pattern here? Just because you CAN do something, does not mean that you should. Also, removal of the cockpit confer's a clear advantage to the player using said .cfg configuration, as they do not have to compensate for screen clutter, which is part of the game experience of MWO.

You, are, cheating. Own up to it.

No, I'm not, as stated by PGI's own employee.

Just because it looks different, doesn't automatically mean it's cheating. If that were the case then everyone who adjusts FoV to fit the display to their monitors better, or buys a multi-monitor supporting video card and sets up a near 180 degree display is "cheating".

And we all already know that's not the case.

Jade Kitsune, on 29 January 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

So... let me get this straight... you're quoting the PGI "Web Devloper" about a gameplay design flaw?

Actually I'm going to take the word of an actual PAID PGI employee over the word of an IGP 'volunteer' Forum Moderator, yes.

Let me clarify, I'm not dis'ing Destined on this at all, but the 'intimacy' of knowledge would be limited to someone not direct contact with the development staff.

Also, the initial knee jerk reaction was based off of WILD speculation of how I managed the change. I saw posts in various threads of people accusing me of modifying the skins on up to actually rewriting a portion of the Crysis engine.

Crazy.

It "felt" like I had to cajole them into even contacting me, and when they did, again it "felt" like I had to force the facts into their faces, which was only adding a total of 14 characters to my USER.CFG.

Then shortly AFTER that message, and I hope were reviews of comparisons of the before/after, a new message was delivered from someone else and this time someone from the actual development staff (probably Destined was home for the evening as it was pretty expletive late when the new stance was published, and this thread reopened).

Edited by Dimento Graven, 29 January 2014 - 01:22 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roland, on 29 January 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

This highlights an issue that will tend to follow any attempt to limit visibility in the game.

We had the same issues back in MW4...

If you make weird limits to player visibility, then folks will find ways to eliminate those limits.. Then you will be left with a game which penalizes players who don't know how to work around things in the game.

In MW4, there were ways to turn off things like fog, or for night maps you could just jack your gamma (which is exactly what folks do on night maps in THIS game). So in many leagues, they just eliminated those game modes from competitive play. Since you couldn't tell if someone was jacking their gamma, or turning off their fog, they just made all of the games take place with the environment set to day/clear.

It's always bad to make players have to choose between the game looking pretty, and being competitively. The game should look the best when set up for the most advantageous view.

In the end, these items should never be introduced without the ability to toggle them in the Options menu.

Here is how cockpit glass should have worked...

"We've implemented cockpit glass, it is by default turned off in the client. If you would like to use the feature, go in and turn it on to try it."

No one starts out at a disadvantage, and anyone that wants to use it can do so.

FOV should probably be the same way.

"We have implemented a field of view slider, it is by default set so you are in the "middle", you may now move it to where you want it.

Honestly with FOV going from middle to extreme isn't that big a difference.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Dimento Graven, on 29 January 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

Actually I'm going to take the word of an actual PAID PGI employee over the word of an IGP 'volunteer' Forum Moderator, yes.

Who's position has 0 to do with the game design.

You may as well be siding with the Pope on this issue.

As for my reason that it's a cheat... I also frankly consider using MACRO's a cheat also... as it's an external program doing the imput of the button command and not yourself.

I also side with orginizations like MLG that states that use of Turbo controllers is cheating. [which is what a macro does essentially]

You are explicitly modifying a file, to change an implimented feature that was put on everyone, meaning the feature was intended to be something that impacts everyone. by removing this, you are not playing the game as intended... thus cheating.

This line of logic is NOT hard to follow.

Edited by Jade Kitsune, 29 January 2014 - 01:17 PM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Think on the bright side.

Without the need for a cockpit there's no need to put any dev effort towards making more cockpit items to sell and they can work on more worthwhile things such as maps ect.

This is exactly why they'll nerf it eventually.

[Almond Brown]

FupDup, on 27 January 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

I honestly can't really blame him for wanting to play the game without cockpit glass obstructions. If something annoying gets added to the game, it shouldn't come as a surprise when people try to find ways around it.

Yup. Just like getting around the added Heat when players liked clustering multiples of the same weapon type on a chassis.

[Almond Brown]

Sandpit, on 27 January 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

Dunno, don't know what the status on adjusting FoV is.

Totally allowed, they even set up maximums. Not sure if going that far forward is a good thing or not. To listen to him though, he got a new video card. I have seen Trees on that Map forever.

He should have went to Mordor and cranked up the RES. It is hot, but that Map is sweeet to look at when the Lava is flowing free, the ash is flying around and the Volcanoes are erupting.

Edited by Almond Brown, 29 January 2014 - 01:28 PM.