| Account Details | |
|---|---|
| SteamID64 | 76561197991320838 |
| SteamID3 | [U:1:31055110] |
| SteamID32 | STEAM_0:0:15527555 |
| Country | Nauru |
| Signed Up | July 19, 2012 |
| Last Posted | February 21, 2017 at 1:47 PM |
| Posts | 2736 (0.6 per day) |
| Game Settings | |
|---|---|
| In-game Sensitivity | 1.6 |
| Windows Sensitivity | |
| Raw Input | 1 |
DPI |
800 |
Resolution |
1920x1080 |
Refresh Rate |
120hz |
| Hardware Peripherals | |
|---|---|
| Mouse | Razer Deathadder Black Edition |
| Keyboard | Corsair K-90 |
| Mousepad | Razer Goliathus Control Edition |
| Headphones | Sennheiser HD 280 Pro |
| Monitor | BenQ XL2411T |
So I am working on some smooths, let's say I'm smoothing a rocket but with the camera pointed against the soldier firing it, the soldier (which the pov demo is from) is not appearing in the smooth, only the rocket being fired out of where he should be.
Is there any workaround for this or is there something I am missing?
after demos have been fixed (yay no more ghost stickies) I was finally able to produce the first video of this series, this one was a pain to smooth because I had to use another player pov demo and sticky trajectory was quite tricky.
Hope you like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5m_8yi9_9g
Feedback is appreciated
Posted here as well:
http://www.reddit.com/r/truetf2/comments/1v2nxm/comptf_presents_a_new_tf2_video_series_featuring/
http://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/comments/1v2nsa/comptf_presents_a_new_tf2_video_series_featuring/
LionxLiterally downloaded Lawena yesterday, and then this comes out. I wasn't around when pldx was out but I've heard good things about it.
Lawena is still a great tool with some features this doesn't have :) And the dev is a great guy as well...
I guess as both tools mature there will be some really useful resources out there for the community.
Now if only there was an Easy Smooth Creator™, that's something I could really use
Excited for all the new possibilities with this tool. Great work!
Any info regarding vdm files like lawena has? Queuing demo recording,etc, etc?
At this point the thing I would really love is more automation of the various tedious tasks involved.
If you ever need to compare 2 text files or configs again I would advise to use Notepad ++ with the Compare plugin you can find here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/npp-compare/
It's really useful for me
There's no perfect map. Variety is good and good maps promote different play styles.
Just look at common denominators among the most used competitive maps and try to work from there
Won't be using the servers since Im in EU but much <3 for supporting the scene!
eXtineIn my opinion tense stalemates are only boring in hour long matches, 30 min matches plz.
Exactly, even if you try to stalemate in a 30 minute match, it wont be as effective as on a 1 hour match because it will pressure one of the teams to do something with the timer ticking down.
Not mentioning the biggest downside for me which is the NA ruleset is a pain to run any amateur or community-run league or tournament (speaking from experience) compared to the EU ruleset where all you need is 1 single config.
I have heard what pharaoh__ said from friends who are nutritionists, not sure how true or not that is tho.
Mr_OwlAre you telling me that you would enjoy playing a match involving two stalemates of 7+ minutes in order to run the game to halftime? If you're the team in control, you would want that?
I think for some people it might be fun to be in control of the positional aspect of the game. Much like some people get enjoyment from watching barcelona "tiki-taka" soccer style which I don't appreciate myself.
You shouldn't just dismiss it right away. It's a subjective thing. I also like to play a lot of strategy games and I see how It could be fun to be in control of a match from that perspective.
Mr_OwlIf so, that's an incredibly defeatist way to play. You have the advantage, and if you don't trust enough in yourself and in your team's abilities to use that advantage and would rather sit around waiting for the other team to hand you more advantages, that's really unfortunate. It's not tactical, it's scared. Don't tell me that it's smart from a tactical POV, because smart from a tactical POV is using your advantage to win the game. It's fucking dumb to sit around and hold mid at a one-round advantage because the timer will eventually run out and the other team will have another go at mid. If any team played it perfectly, it was UP. If you're not at an advantage, you wait until the advantage is gone. They could have just waited out the round timer and gotten a fresh reset at mid. There is no incentive to push into a disadvantageous situation.
It's not defeatist or dumb, they didn't do any mistake, in fact, by doing nothing they didn't allow mistakes from happen on their side, If I was playing a match for the title and we were 1 round up and I knew we were inferior dm-wise you could be damn sure I would do everything to give us the tactical advantage, and that's one way it could be done.
Why are you putting the blame on iNg team and not on Slin's team? They were the ones at a disadvantage, they were the ones supposed to make something happen to break that stalemate, and instead they just allowed it to happen for 7 long minutes, instead of trying something different as I mentioned.
Mr_OwlThe reason the EU ruleset is poor is because it encourages the leading team to do this stalemate stuff no matter what if they hold mid. You say that it encourages pushes, but only from the team at disadvantage. I don't know about you, but I'd rather see two teams push back into each other with advantage shifting rather than one team being forced to run into a wall of defense and get wiped. In the EU ruleset there is no incentive for iNg to push at all, even if they go 5 up against UP. They can just cap 2 and give themselves another 10 minutes. If time gets low they could just back off to mid and let UP cap 2, giving themselves another 10 minutes with which to run out the game. In NA rules there is at least a halftime that resets everyone to neutral ground.
You play up to 1 hour in the NA ruleset, you play up to 30 minutes in the EU ruleset, you have more pressure to make things happen under the EU ruleset because you are more limited in terms of time, it's simple math. I never even understood where everyone got that idea that the NA ruleset promotes more agressive play.
MR_SLINBut isn't that the point Kaneco? Why should we design the game to be boring as hell? As I mentioned in the video, we have the power to change our own game to be less boring. We ban overpowered/fun-sucking weapons. We banned double heavy and double engineer strategies. Why can't we change the game to be more fun?
Fun to me is not sitting in a corner hiding from the enemy sniper while I wait for my sniper to make a play. The 6v6 game is fantastic except for this one specific scenario that is totally boring as hell, as you put it.
Well that's a good point, if we can objectively change our game to the better why wouldn't we do it? Personally I think it could be a good idea but more importantly I think it would be just another thing distantiating us even more from pub community.
As for the Fun point, already mentioned above.
Mr_Owl1) TF2 is a game that's meant to be fun. There are no real stakes in this game, and there's a reason that teams play aggressively rather than defensively. That reason is that it's not fun to sit around for 10 minutes at a time.
Fun is subjective.
For you fun could be a great back and forth game with a lot of action. FOr other players it might be actually win the match no matter what tactics used. From what I saw in the video that was a high stakes match (even if no money at stake) and the losing team had a lot to lose.
More importantly, competitive people always play to win, and they feel good and have fun by winning even if that means employing these stalemate tactics.
From a tactical POV to me they played that perfectly, even if it was boring as hell.
MR_SLINKanecoRegarding your first part I also don't think stalemates are inherently bad, I think they are a natural part of the game where the more experienced and organized team usually comes on top.
One interesting thing to point out (and this is not an in-your-face iNg thing) is that while the first half ended 1-0 iNg > UP, the final score for the match was 5-2 UP > iNg. If we assume that the final score reflects the better team coming out on top, do you think that we simply played the stalemates incorrectly? If the game never had halftime, I suspect that we would have lost the match.
I didn't watch the video when I made the post I was just pointing out my general opinion on stalemates.
But now that I have watched I have some stuff to say.
Team iNg were in the lead, they didn't have to push, they did the smartest thing they could have done, which is play defensively and wait for your mistake, even when you made mistakes they didn't push on that and preferred to hold position which is completely fine since they are in the lead and they didn't want to take risks.
I counted 2 obvious advantages on your side during the stalemate, both number advantages, you didn't take any of them, you were the ones that needed to be making the move, not them. Team iNg tested your patience and they came out on top, to me they were the more organized and experienced team at least during that stalemate. They forced you to make mistakes and only pushed on risk free situations. They played that very smart.
I also didn't even see any attempt from your team to even disrupt their defence, you didn't push when you had number advantage, ok, it was still risky, I understand, but that's the moment where you try something different, get one of your players to suicide and change to sniper, or spy. Try a heavy push. Get one of your soldiers to go to spawn and swap to the concheror and try a push with that. YOu didn't even attempt anything different, you just did the same thing every time and expected a different outcome (you know how the old saying goes).
They clearly outplayed your team during that stalemate, to me that was a very good tactical choice even if it was boring as hell...
ALso, I have heard a lot of people say the american ruleset encourages fast paced action, I beg to disagree, when you have a 1 hour timer it's obvious at least for me that you would have much more potential for a stalematey situation than a 30 minute timer where you will be running out of time much quicker, and you need to do something about it. That's one of the reasons I prefer and support the EU ruleset rather than the NA one.
I don't know if you americans are very familiar with soccer, but there's a Portuguese manager called José Mourinho that is considered one of the best managers in the world (multiple champions leagues, national leagues, etc.) and he is very renowed for his defensive style of play. He won an unthinkable champions league with a run of 1 goal advantage matches which is impressive to say the least. They literally parked the bus for 50-60 minutes at a time in some matches, but he had such a beautiful positional strategy and coordination that was the smartest and less risky thing to do for his team, which technically was much worse than some teams he faced, and it worked out in the end, numerous times, even against teams like barcelona, teams that got impatient and made mistakes attacking and then eventually got outplayed in a counter-attack.
If anything I'm more impressed more top level teams don't try a more defensive approach to the game and try to hold 1-2 round leads instead of trying to expand the advantage
Regarding your first part I also don't think stalemates are inherently bad, I think they are a natural part of the game where the more experienced and organized team usually comes on top.
It's also a great opportunity to study the game at that point and to try out new things
bluee- Fixed projectiles not drawing correctly in old .dem files:D
They're still working on the viewmodel bugs, but this is good news!
I'm so happy :D