I think it would be cool if they added a new rule set to cpma, that would mimic the painkiller movement. So you only have to use the mouse to strafe around the map like crazy. I think a lot of begginers would like that.

LOL! That's just priceless.MidnightQ4 wrote:you will find me arguing with him about things quite a bit, and winning imo.
I read the comments, but I just went back through them unthreaded and dug out one I hadn't seen from newborn.pF.arQon wrote:As far as code goes wrt to the Commons project, try actually reading the comments. Being better informed might help clear up some of your (plural) confusion.
Which does cover the issue of coding for Quake 4. But in the thread it's been asked about releasing the CPMA/OSP code, and I think when people are asking about code here, they're talking about the quake 3 code, not quake 4. After all, you've haven't released anything for Quake 4 yetPosting of code will NOT be allowed - at least at first. There are issues to clear up with id/raven before we can
all is fair in love and war, and arguements about video games. but seriously whether my arguements were more correct or not, that point is not determined by hundereds of gamers not involved in the discussion who could care less about two random peoples' arguement rallying around them or not.pF.arQon wrote:LOL! That's just priceless.MidnightQ4 wrote:you will find me arguing with him about things quite a bit, and winning imo.
Here's a clue: if anyone BUT you thought you'd "won", the rules would reflect that. Denial must do wonders for your self-esteem though, so don't let me stop you if you need to live in a fantasy world to get by. :P
But promode wasn't made to play dm6, or there would have been a Swelt remake of it included in CPMA with double jumps and tuned item placement etc. Play real promode maps if you want to enjoy cpm physics...R00k wrote:It's cool to be able to fly around pro-dm6 at 50 mph without having to stop for any curves, but not all the time.
I'm trying to read up on it and learn more about it, because as I said, it sounds like a good idea.pF.arQon wrote:As far as code goes wrt to the Commons project, try actually reading the comments. Being better informed might help clear up some of your (plural) confusion.MidnightQ4 wrote:you will find me arguing with him about things quite a bit, and winning imo.
R00k, you can blow me. My work is in every major Q3 mod and several minor ones, freely given. You OTOH have never done ANYTHING and you have the gall to call me selfish?!
Erm, yeah.R00k wrote: I never called you selfish
I've never been holier-than-thou
R00k wrote:It's his own selfish vision of the problems.
R00k wrote:He ... totally ignores the thought of open coding (ed: i.e. "but I, the mighty R00k, don't - because despite not having a clue about any of the aspects involved, I'm posting on a forum so I must know better than the people who've actually gone through this")
When we're talking about Q3, that would exclude changes in gameplay style like weapon changes, but would include fixing of bugs in physics that lead to jump height exceeding bounce pad destination and things like that. Technical bugfixes like that impact on gameplay too though, like you said, which is one of the reasons that the CPMA-OSP merge didn't and never will happen. Such important fixes must be done in an early stage of a mod.blakjack wrote:when for example cpma guys consider physics changes, weapon changes etc to all be bugfixes and anything else subpar, and you'd just end up with arguments and sub-builds again. not forgetting that many key gameplay elements are as a result of bugs.
110 updates in 5 years? That's about an update every 2 weeks! Isn't that making it rather hard for server admins and players to stay up to date?regurge wrote:Also a good thing at battle is the ownage support, champi released in that 5 years about 110 updates for his mods and 90% of all community suggestions were included.