Messages

1

Paintball 2 Discussion / Re: Best promotional video for DP?

« on: March 18, 2014, 09:37:52 PM »

You could show them this? :-) 
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThkYKnMRvs

That was actually quite entertaining. Good commentary.  I will show them that one, but probably as the second video for those wanting to see good examples of competitive play.

I would like to show them a bit more of a fast montage for the first video to draw them in, with first person.

2

Paintball 2 Discussion / Best promotional video for DP?

« on: March 18, 2014, 05:51:33 PM »

Howdy folks. I searched around some on the forums and youtube, but haven't found quite what I am looking for. I am currently playing a different game with my clan, but I could possibly interest them in DP2. If someone could point me to a good promotional video that has common maps, fast action, good jumps, etc.

I don't want just a jump video however. I want them to see a bit of what the game would be like. I particularly don't want scenes outside of first person. I want them to experience the speed of the game.

I am sure there are good videos around somewhere, but I have missed years of forum activity and don't know where to look any longer.

3

Paintball 2 Discussion / Re: Dead Nicknames

« on: March 05, 2014, 01:30:13 PM »

An alternative suggestion:

limit to one nickname per account. Then there will be plenty of names left instead of folks taking up multiple names.

4

Cheater Reports and Bans / Re: New Ban Times

« on: February 02, 2012, 12:40:03 AM »

Thank you Jitspoe for this move.

5

Paintball 2 Discussion / Re: Re-installing DP--thoughts from the experience

« on: December 15, 2010, 07:53:09 PM »

That could be something good for the "What's most important to spend time on?"-vote from jitspoe next year.

Maybe add a "PLAY NOW"-option to the menu, which searches a server with many players, but free slots and a good ping and then connects to it automatically.

Good idea.

6

Paintball 2 Discussion / Re-installing DP--thoughts from the experience

« on: December 14, 2010, 08:24:29 PM »

My wife's computer, which she had for some time, finally gave out. My son usually uses her computer while playing so we loaded a new install of DP on the notebook.

However, he, and my wife who was helping him, had trouble figuring out how to get his existing dp account to load into the in game menus.

And even when they just skipped that part and went to find servers they at first thought there were none that you could use.

They did not know to clear and update the servers.

How many people download this game and simply can't figure out how to get to the good part, so they just forget it?

I know folks talk about the ugly graphics. But is there a way to simplify the experience?

Also, is there a way to set the server list to auto clear and update upon first install so that they see servers right away?

7

Other Stuff / Re: Mount and Blade Warband is 10 bucks at Steam

« on: September 04, 2010, 06:52:25 PM »

Here is a tutorial on the basics of multi-player fighting.  As the video demonstrates you can swing in four basic ways (left, right, overhead and thrust).  You can also block in those directions. Within that you can also use the mouse to angle shots down or up to look a bit more deceptive or to get under a smaller shield.

There are knock downs, stuns, kicks, etc.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9jHcZjWw9U


Some multi-player gameplay footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZZnl09qBKM&feature=related

8

Other Stuff / Re: Mount and Blade Warband is 10 bucks at Steam

« on: August 31, 2010, 08:49:24 PM »

I think the guy actually created his own engine. And yes, it is quite fun.

Unfortunately the weekend sale is over.The game is back up to 30 bucks. There is still the free demo if you want to try it out.


edit:
This is an old forum post by the lead developer confirming that they made their own engine.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,511.msg3941.html#msg3941

9

Other Stuff / Mount and Blade Warband is 10 bucks at Steam

« on: August 26, 2010, 09:03:15 PM »

Warband is an indy title which focuses on middle ages combat without spells, elves, faires, etc.

It includes multi-player and single player modes with an active modding community. 

It is a bit weak in the quest area but the combat is the strong point. It is a sandbox approach so you can go wherever you want in the game and take what course you wish.  You fight with various weapons and with or without a horse. You can choose which direction the sword will swing when you strike so the combat is pretty dynamic. You also have to watch for the direction the blow is coming from if you use manual blocking. And the engine accounts for body or horse momentum, either forward or backward as well, adjusting damage with this speed bonus.

As a result a good shot to the head can knock you out in an instant if you are charging in on your horse. Or you can backpedal when they swing and the damage from their weapon is reduced.

The engine accounts for encumbrance, weapon speed, length, etc.  You also command a small (or sometimes large) army of men and can make your own kingdom or serve a kingdom as a vassal.

Overall it is pretty fun game, and for a bit over 10 bucks it is worth checking out.

10

Paintball 2 Discussion / Re: DP on a netbook? What stats would be needed?

« on: July 05, 2010, 03:19:37 PM »

Thanks for the specs.

I went to Best Buy and tried it out. On a Toshiba with the video card you linked to above, and the 1.66 Atom processor, with 1 gig of Ram on Windows 7 it played Midnight and PP1 at around 30-80 fps.

I don't know how it would do on other maps. Figured I was pushing my luck as it was installing a game and running two maps.

I also connected to the CC pub and had no issues with lag, etc.

I would imagine on an xp it would be better, but I would have to test it.

On the Win 7 performance tab the processor was the biggest limiter. 

11

Paintball 2 Discussion / DP on a netbook? What stats would be needed?

« on: July 05, 2010, 10:07:39 AM »

From reading another thread with one example of a tech support issue it looks like DP may run on either win 7 with like 3 gigs of ram, or xp with 2gigs of ram.

Anyone had experience running dp on a netbook without lag?

If so what are your specs?

I have a notebook and a desktop right now that we play DP on, but I am considering a netbook for the battery life and for an extra web browser for the kids. If it played DP that would be a bonus.

12

Paintball 2 Discussion / Re: New Vent SERVER!!!

« on: July 03, 2010, 06:45:33 PM »

Since I have not used TS3, what are the advantages?

It used to be that you could host your own without renting, is that still the case?

13

Paintball 2 Discussion / Re: New Vent SERVER!!!

« on: July 02, 2010, 09:25:18 PM »

I was shocked to find the other day that even jits uses the modern vent version now.

And I have never seen Jits ban or kick folks just for something to do.

Host: dplogin.com
Port: 3784

14

Paintball 2 Discussion / Re: Dp map and texture reboot and re-launch?

« on: June 27, 2010, 12:48:02 PM »

Hm, does sound quite unlikely if you involve renderer and map change formats. I didn't figure those would have to be done just to redesign some plain ole ugly maps. There are some maps that don't look terrible now.


Well then if nothing else the high rest texture pack should happen. I don't exactly get the hold up on that one. Maybe you could explain it. There are already a variety of packs to draw on. Is the concern that some are not drawing on free use images, or is it something else?

Or is it just more work than it seems like?

15

Paintball 2 Discussion / Re: Dp map and texture reboot and re-launch?

« on: June 27, 2010, 07:07:40 AM »

Most of the people play quake with awful picmip settings (makes the textures one color) and it looks very awful. What I mean by this is that the good looks is not vital.

Redoing the maps? Impossible. Most of the most played maps are made by fellows who are long gone. And I do not think that you can just release map after map which is based on an old map :/. Dunno, doesn't feel right.

I agree about there being too many maps. And some clans use maps what are unbalanced (one route dominates rest of the map [that snowy map by the dude who made prolandr is the best example]) to get an edge in a match. Just does not feel right.

 DP has like what 1000 maps? More? I think it is impossible to select 30 out of those. I think many of those maps are never played. Most rarely. And few special maps get played every day.

Maybe tournament organizers could change something here. They can create their own maplists (as good and fair as possible), which makes the clans play those maps in regular matches as well. Of course there are tournaments atm, but I think most clans are ignorant and care about their stupid record more than playing in tournaments.

Most important, imo, is that you can not just concentrate on the pubscene and newbies. You have to keep the old player base intrigued. If the matching scene dies, then have fun with your pubstars, who come and go, but never stay.

And m7, Vic is developing dp:pb2 too, not only jits

I don't see the issue with re-designing old maps. They could get credit for the idea.

On the too many maps issue, that would be for the competitive scene too. A set number of quality maps would reduce the time to select tie maps, would allow folks to hone their skills to a greater degree on less maps, etc.

It would help noobs not to have to learn them. But helping noobs does help the clan scene. If you don't ever get noobs to stay you do not get future clan members.

Has Vic been given the source, or is he only allowed to develop to a point?

16

Paintball 2 Discussion / Re: Lets take a look...

« on: June 26, 2010, 08:32:22 PM »

myers, theres wayy too much information in this post for one to read,. i got bored after the first paragraph.

Then this thread is clearly not for you.

That does not make it a bad thread.

17

Paintball 2 Discussion / Re: Dp map and texture reboot and re-launch?

« on: June 26, 2010, 08:12:41 PM »

I have thought recently about a similar idea to this. This is basically it:

• Stop releasing alpha builds for a few months
• Concentrate on one build with major updates:
• Change and update the map format so more can be accomplished in maps
• Upgrade renderer likewise - this may remove support for super old cards, but 2002+ cards should be fine - make it scalable
• High res texture pack
• Work on open sourcing the gamecode for more active development. The anti-cheat component would not be immediately required with the new protocol and map format.
• Change the version either to Beta instead of alpha or Paintball 2.1 or 2.5 or something.

Not sure just maps+textures would be enough.

Enough for what? To make it look decent? Maybe not. But it would certainly be an improvement. There are some maps that are not horrible out there now.

You probably have a lot better idea that I do of what your list would take. But that sounds like a lot for Jits to do.  And up until now at least Jits is the one doing the major work, and has not seen fit to open up all the source, at least from what I understand. So how would the list get done?

18

Paintball 2 Discussion / Re: Dp map and texture reboot and re-launch?

« on: June 26, 2010, 06:17:06 PM »

The two in the name is not a version. It's because the game is based on the quake 2 engine, i think.

Everything else is old. Here are some links:

http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/feature.php?id=10107
http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/feature.php?id=10019
http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/feature.php?id=10099
http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/feature.php?id=10080
http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/feature.php?id=10136
http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/feature.php?id=10124
http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/feature.php?id=10201
http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/feature.php?id=10145
http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/feature.php?id=10148
http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/feature.php?id=10202

and all of this:

http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/index.php?type%5B%5D=2&status%5B%5D=0&category%5B%5D=5&category%5B%5D=4&category%5B%5D=7&category%5B%5D=1&category%5B%5D=10&category%5B%5D=2&category%5B%5D=9&category%5B%5D=6&category%5B%5D=8&category%5B%5D=3&summary=

I am not suggesting most of the things you just posted, other than the textures, which I mentioned being an age-old question.

Those that you posted are all about engine changes, etc.

The map requirements for new maps  is closer to my idea. But I am not suggesting requirement for new maps but tanking the old maps and re-starting with higher quality ones based on the CURRENT engine and abilities. A new visual theme would be called for.

The current engine is not capable of a lot of things. But it is still fun. It still works for the game. I don't think we need most of the things in your list of feature votes, though they wouldn't hurt. But they take work from Jits,  or a fundamental change in the way updates are done, and his time is a limited commodity.

The current texture theme is based around things that are ugly even if you do get a good image of them for a texture. Plywood and dirt are not likely to look good even if they are more realistic.

And the outdoor thing would be fine but the engine cannot handle it. So why put so much dirt and grass?

I am just suggesting that we keep the engine but redo the aethetics AND trim out a bunch of maps.

As to the name, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.

In that case dp 3 would not make sense, but a new name that incorporates the dp idea would be helpful to a re-launch.


On a related note I was just in the CC pub and the first two maps that came up were palmtree and ecclissi.

Those are two hideous looking maps. If those were the first two dp maps a player ever saw what would they think?

19

Server Discussion / Re: Carbon servers?

« on: June 26, 2010, 06:12:16 PM »

Ah ok. They were the pub of choice lately it seemed. Now it is hard to find a game going.

20

Paintball 2 Discussion / Dp map and texture reboot and re-launch?

« on: June 26, 2010, 05:43:02 PM »

Myers has raised the age-old question of the default hi-res texture pack in the (latest) future of dp thread. Certainly a new texture pack would make the game more visually appealing.

But apart from textures, I think DP in it's decade-plus lifespan may have reached the point that it just has too many maps. And some of them are not very great, and not very pretty.

The map-making community has been a strength over time. And I think that we have reached a point of more precision in the maps that have come out lately. The maps now make things look better and play faster, with more emphasis on speed and jumps.

But the huge number and variety of maps is not necessarily good, at least in my mind.  And it grows all the time.

One of the reasons that I am not wanting to get back into the clan scene (apart from the fact that I cannot aim and get capped on) is that it takes time to learn all the maps necessary to play at an adequate level.

Even taking a break from DP for six months and then coming back meant I had to learn a number of new maps just to consider matching. And for someone just joining the community it is an even more daunting task.  The game has a big learning curve to start with, but to match you have to learn all of the jumps, and all of the lining spots for all of the maps.

Many of the most popular maps, often older ones that have stood the test of time,  play well but do not look good.

Could both aesthetics and map issues be solved by a re-boot of sorts?

What if the community settled on 30 maps that encapsulate everything they love about dp, and re-did them to look and play better?

They wouldn't just have to incorporate better grass and stone and plywood textures, but why not change the basic look of dp to be more modern?

The current  dirt, grass, wood and stone backyard warrior motif comes from actual paintball. But actual paintball isn't what this game is about. It is about fast paced, jump oriented, one-shot-one-kill gameplay. And if you could really play paintball anywhere, in any kind of arena, and jump as high as you wanted without killing yourself, without worrying about real-word problems such as cost,  would you make it somewhere as ugly as some of the dp maps?

The engine that dp uses is just not designed for lots of fine detail and organic matter. Trees have almost always been hideous beyond belief in dp, and plants are usually not much better.

So why put those things in? Why not make it more about large spaces with fast jumps and more modern textures?

What if dp did not look visually terrible? What if everyone could focus on learning a core of decent looking, decent playing maps? What if two issues could be solved at once?

What if the more skilled mappers of today were to build on the proven ideas of yesterday to create a new core of maps that would be played most of the time. (You could still have some classic servers, the engine wouldn't change)

I imagine some  would get bored by the same maps all the time. But it is the people that add challenge and variety, not so much the map. And everyone gets bored of a particular game at some point.

We could have a decent looking game and competition might be benefited by having a set of maps that everyone learns and knows well.  

Maps are one of the things that can be customized by the community. For a lot of features Jits needs to be involved. But to re-boot the maps he doesn't have to be. He could certainly get on board if he wanted to though. And with the faster downloading of today a default texture pack is less important.

To get server operators on board perhaps a whole new re-launch campaign could be designed. The site could be updated a bit on the aesthetics, the name could be changed slightly, either dp3 or some new twist, and some buzz could be generated.

It would give new players an excuse to check it out.

So what are your thoughts? Don't hold back. Not that holding back is usually an issue for this crowd.

And Jits, what do you think? You have said before in the past that there are some maps that should not be played and should not be on servers.