2on2 Masters (Sponsored)

Select Season:

Sponsored Events
2on2 Masters

Tournament
News Signups Text Bracket Fragrank *hot!* Matches *hot!* Awards *hot!* Rules Servers Admins

Latest Matches

carapace_milton - Gt_mur
bps_locust - Gt_mur
Gt_mur - BLooD_DoG_BogoJoker
Gt_mur - mazer_henu
dot_bulat - BLooD_DoG_BogoJoker
mm_shaka - mazer_henu
dirtbox_yeti - BLooD_DoG_BogoJoker
Grc_raket - BLooD_DoG_BogoJoker
mazer_henu - an1k_snoopy
carapace_milton - bps_locust
insane_macler - BLooD_DoG_BogoJoker
carapace_milton - dot_bulat
Quake_BGNR - an1k_snoopy
dirtbox_yeti - billyK_glad
bps_locust - Gt_mur

[more]

User

Forgot password
Register

Network
Network News Statistics Results

Registration open!

[gLAd - 2021-01-06 12:22:45]

Hey guys!

Today we open registraion for QW 2on2 sponsored tourney - "Money for nothin' and gibs for free"!
Map pool: dm2, dm4, dm6, aerowalk, ztndm3. But if both teams agree they can play other maps too (map approval from admins is necessary).

Prizes:
🥇	$3000
🥈	$1500
🥉	$1000
4.	$500
5-6.	$250
5-6.	$250

IMPORTANT NOTE:
Prizes can only be received by teams that have never lost in WO.
A team that has lost with WO in WB will automatically lose with WO in LB too.

Be proactive if you are interested in prizes!

Registration close: 16/01/2021 23:50MSK = 20:50UTC.

You can find rules HERE.
You can register HERE.
Official tourney Wiki HERE.
Discord.

#1 bps (213.80.102.xxx) 2021-01-11 13:20:23
https://www.quakeworld.nu/wiki/Money_for_nothin_and_gibs_for_free

#2 VVD (109.252.199.xxx) 2021-01-15 20:58:32
[DP]BLooD_DoG:

In what will surely reignite the drama, I’ll throw in my 2 cents. I’ll do my best to remain impartial, and I feel like I’m part of all communities (NA, EU, BR, AU, doesn’t matter to me). Although I’m very close to the NA community and mostly play there these days, I’ve also had some major disagreements with bogo and dusty around unezquake and their interpretation of rulesets. I’m going to make a bunch of assumptions and put words in people’s mouths that may not always be correct. With that said:

1- Unezquake is 100% not a cheat or sneaky client, and was never intended to be. It allows some more permissive and interesting gameplay and teamplay options that certain people want to try out.

2- It also doesn’t represent all of the NA community. I personally never even tried it (yet, though I will), neither did some others in NA.

3- The community has traditionally been very conservative when it comes to adding new functionality. Sometimes that’s good as it keeps the game from becoming like all the other crap games out there, sometimes it’s bad because it hinders genuine progress.

4- I think it’s perfectly fine for people to fork the ‘de facto’ standard client (ezquake) and do what they want with it. That’s the spirit of open source. Sometimes it’s easier to experiment with things that way and see what ends up being good. Of course it’s preferable if the more promising and mature changes/improvements are then submitted back into the “standard” client, and I believe that is bogo and dusty’s original intent, but they may have lost some of that interest with the push back they’re getting on unezquake in general.

5- It’s also perfectly fine for the broader community to question any new features added to the client in the context of tournaments (especially, but not only, if money is on the line).

6- I personally think some of the features are harmless and maybe even valuable for QW in general (including tournaments). Smartspawn is not really different from smartjump (combines +moveup with +jump so you don’t need a separate key for water movement) which has been around for years. Other features are questionable to me for tournament play but I encourage their use/experimentation outside of that.

7- Admins are free to allow whatever clients/features they want for whatever reason they want. Since ezquake has become the ‘de facto’ standard client, I don’t think it’s a fair comparison to say that “ezquake 3.6 has more features than ezquake 3.2 in the same ruleset, so why can’t unezquake do the same thing?”. Ezquake gets special treatment specifically because it is the standard, and that’s fine. If admins didn’t like some of the new stuff in a newer version of ezquake, they can set an upper bound on the allowed version (e.g. <3.5) in addition to a lower bound (3.2.2+). It’s happened for some of the 3.6 alpha versions that had a bug that could be exploited, many tournaments said 3.2.2+ and 3.6-alpha18+ but not <3.6-alpha18.

8- Admins can’t be expected to look at all offshoot clients to approve/disapprove them. It’s maybe doable when there are 1 or 2 offshoots, but hiring an impartial developer to look at 20 different clients is not reasonable. That’s also why ezquake gets special treatment, nearly everyone sees the new stuff and if any new feature causes concern it would easily and quickly be discussed and either allowed or put behind a ruleset restriction. But that hasn’t been necessary very often in recent years, save for the alpha bug I mentioned.

9- Rulesets are meant to allow for an even/common playing field. I don’t agree with the argument that unezquake ruleset qcon is equivalent to ezquake ruleset qcon because it has the same sets of checks/restrictions. That argument can work from a developer’s view since restrictions are strictly equivalent from a code perspective, but most normal humans (developers, including me, are not normal) can’t be expected to see it that way. It is equivalent for the features that are common to both clients, but unspecified for the features that exist in only one client. That makes it problematic for tournament play when everyone should have the same capabilities available to them. Yes, you can argue that FTE and Fodquake and etc are also not identical to ezquake with qcon, but over the years “people” decided (or actually “realized”) that none of those other clients give a meaningful advantage, so nobody cared. If it came out that you could use FTE to win games more easily, tournaments might modify their rules accordingly and ban that client, or those FTE-specific features would be accepted by the community and be integrated into other clients, or everyone would migrate to those clients. Unezquake’s new features haven’t had the time to be digested by admins, so a default starting position of “not allowed in this tournament” (especially when money is involved) is perfectly reasonable. It would then of course be appreciated if the admins took a deeper look and gave specific reasons for why something is not allowed, or to then allow it after review, but that’s not always possible with time constraints and because admins aren’t necessarily developers or gameplay experts. It’s also not reasonable to expect admins to say “ok, ezquake with qcon is allowed, unezquake with qcon is allowed but only if you promise and don’t forget to disable +pogo, australiaquake with ruleset koala is allowed but only if you promise and don’t forget to not use +kangaroo, etc.).

10- To go further on point 9, rulesets should not only make it easy for tournament rules to say what is allowed, but also for the players to adhere to those standards. They don’t in any way stop cheating (in either unezquake or ezquake), but it doesn’t mean that a ruleset called qcon in one client should allow “gameplay” things (see point 11 below) that are not possible in another client, otherwise it’s not only difficult to run tournaments but also for players to play matches with reasonable confidence that their opponents are playing by the same rules (assuming no willful cheating, which is impossible to stop). The majority of players aren’t config/CVAR experts and don’t know that something isn’t allowed, e.g. they could get used to rollalpha or +pogo in FFA games so don’t even remember to disable those options for a tournament match. If ruleset shows as qcon, they and their opponents should be able to reasonably conclude they’re on an even playing field. It’s not purposeful cheating if someone forgot to turn off a feature, but it is a problem, and something that rulesets make easy to avoid. Especially when players sign up for multiple tournaments with different restrictions, nobody is going to keep track of thunderdome vs qcon vs thunderdome in unezquake vs qcon in brazilianquake. Of those that want to cheat on purpose, the majority wouldn’t even know how to get the source or modify it and compile it, so again a ruleset keeps them honest. True, rulesets are useless for the very small number of people that want to cheat and know how to do it, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t useful for 99% of the players or that they shouldn’t be standardized.

11- During the getquad debate about unezquake, there was discussion about what “features that affect gameplay” means, since those are the ones that wouldn’t be allowed without explicit permission. The definition of “gameplay” was left up in the air. To me, the game is about receiving information (e.g. teambinds, voice chat, enemy positions, item pickup times), processing and remembering that information, and moving the mouse and pressing the right buttons at the right time in response to that information. Anything that affects what you know, when you know it, and what inputs you have to press affects gameplay. So, autoshownick (which is a cool feature to help beginners learn better teamplay) affects gameplay, because it gives you more information more often while freeing up brainpower and a finger. Maybe it’s stupid and a relic of the 90’s to force people to repeatedly press a bind to get that information, maybe it’s not, maybe it’s even mostly automatable in ezquake today if you add ‘shownick’ to all your movement binds, but it does affect gameplay so it’s reasonable IMO to say it can’t be accepted in the ‘standard’ qcon tournament ruleset, at least as a starting position.

Otherwise, people who use ezquake are at a disadvantage because they need to think about more things (“should I bother pressing this button now, or do I already know what my teammate’s stack is?”), and use up valuable keyboard real estate that could be used for another useful bind, and also use up valuable finger time (pro Starcraft players measure their button presses per second, so it’s not stupid to argue that saving button presses in quake gives some advantage). +pogo is similar: it allows what many other AFPS games do so is friendlier to people trying out QW, and it doesn’t allow any easier trick jumps or faster movement since manually jumping between each hop isn’t difficult and has become second nature to even div3 players, but again it does free up some brainpower and potentially makes it easier to script bunny hopping. That can put those not using non-unezquake clients at a disadvantage. You can argue that the advantages of these new features are immaterial, or even that they’re beneficial to the game and community and should be used by everyone, but that needs to be proven first. It’s also a problem if a total beginner comes from a game which does autojump and uses +pogo in a tournament vs another total noob that uses ezquake. Both players are still struggling with basic movement, and the one that doesn’t use unezquake is at a disadvantage without either player even realizing it. It’s also harder to change your mind and become more restrictive if it turns out that something was allowed when it shouldn’t have been, because you can’t easily withdraw an older client. The majority of people don’t even know how to modify source code so just end up using what is published, and if a new feature is ‘locked’ behind a ruleset, it effectively is not usable by anyone unless they’re using that ruleset.

12- I personally think allowing unezquake in tournaments would have been a done deal by now without any major debate (as it was for getquad) if any new gameplay features weren’t available in smackdown/qcon rulesets. It takes about 2 lines of copy-pasted code to put new features behind rulesets, so I don’t buy the argument that it’s unreasonable effort :slight_smile: Nobody should care if there are new gameplay features that are part of other brand new rulesets, or features/bugfixes that don’t affect gameplay. For the reasons I mention earlier, people do care if new features are available in rulesets that mean something different in other clients.

13- I saw some things thrown at bogo/dusty/unezquake which are totally unfair characterizations, so I see where they’re coming from with their defensive position. At the same time, when people have concerns about possible cheating or sneaking in advantages, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re accusing the developers of those things. There are valid concerns that future users of the client could get advantages, knowingly or not (see point 10 about accidental cheating), which is a source for some of the push back. At some point, all players and ezquake itself may even be forced to accept those new features against their will to remain competitive against users of other clients.

14- Summary: Most eSports force everyone to use a single version of the single up-to-date official client coming from the single publisher. QW shouldn’t be like that or it wouldn’t be where it is today, so things like unezquake should be encouraged. However, that doesn’t mean new gameplay features from unezquake showed be allowed as a default starting position, or that rulesets which mean something in the main client shouldn’t be kept up to date in a forked client so that tournament play can be even. Yes, that means that to avoid confusion, and claims of cheating or unfair advantage, and admin headaches, and to ensure that players have the same capabilities available to them, etc. all new gameplay features should be put behind new rulesets at least until the ‘standard’ client accepts them as part of the old rulesets.

15- To end on a positive note, I genuinely like some of the stuff that unezquake is doing and encourage everyone to read the notes that bogo is putting together. Some of the stuff will surely make it back into ezquake (actually some bugfixes already have).

#3 VVD (109.252.199.xxx) 2021-01-15 21:00:00
BogoJoker:

unezQuake explainer document:
https://github.com/dusty-qw/unezquake/blob/bogo/doc/UNEZQUAKE.md

This is meant to directly address some misconceptions about unezQuake and to address feedback from folks raised here about docs / rationality / why not do X.

You have to be logged in to comment.
If you don't have an account, create one.