brightskins or darkskins?
•
2 Feb 2007, 22:44
•
Journals
So, I thought about the idea of brightskins:) Ofc it's a good idea but tbh as long as the maps are more or less bright with configs most people use, darkskins would be much better - let's say you would have brightskins at supply - you wouldn't see allied classes on the rocky background, but if they had black skins, they would be perfectly visible:) This applies to most maps so I think darkskins would do better actually. (or maps should be re-made with dark textures so that brightskins would be useful).
Discuss
edit: I'm just bored n stuff...
Discuss
edit: I'm just bored n stuff...
So why isnt cb config capped at 125fps? Just an example of how immobile CB is imho... If CB.et understood the value of fair, equal gameplay they would have fixed that spread bug in the config, and they would actualy do something about the cheaters. If you really believe hiding in the background of the map is a 'skill', something that adds to the competetive game that ET is, maybe its time you start playing those realistic wargames where one bullet kills you and hiding in the shadow is considered very very gosu gameplay...
I'm not saying we want the purple or green brightskins of Quake, but a simple showmatch with more visible version of ET skins is all we need. Pls dont make the same mistake as with 5on5, flaming ideas before you have actually given them a chance, and tried to make them work.
€: both cb and frop are to blame for ET still allowing +125fps. Fairplay = equal chances for all. Not people with uberfps having less spread. I find it amusing how simpleitems got banned, because at rare occasions it gave an advantage ( everybody had the same advantage, but nvm) while bugs that affect accuracy are left untouched... Whats the difference between using hax that give you less screenshake or using bugs that give you less spread? Both give you an advantage over an equally skilled player.