| Account Details | |
|---|---|
| SteamID64 | 76561198010123351 |
| SteamID3 | [U:1:49857623] |
| SteamID32 | STEAM_0:1:24928811 |
| Country | Sweden |
| Signed Up | February 26, 2013 |
| Last Posted | November 1, 2025 at 3:53 AM |
| Posts | 695 (0.1 per day) |
| Game Settings | |
|---|---|
| In-game Sensitivity | 3.9 |
| Windows Sensitivity | 6/11 |
| Raw Input | 1 |
DPI |
400 |
Resolution |
1920x1080 |
Refresh Rate |
380Hz |
| Hardware Peripherals | |
|---|---|
| Mouse | Logitech G Pro |
| Keyboard | Varmilo VEA88 Charcoal V2 TKL MX Red |
| Mousepad | SteelSeries QcK+ |
| Headphones | HyperX Cloud Alpha Wireless |
| Monitor | ASUS XG259QN |
mastercomsYeah I'd still use null movement, it was just a neat fact I thought I'd bring up in conversation. The amount of input delay it adds is so small compared to the benefits and the possible increase in responsiveness due to brain/finger delay for releasing keys :)
Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?
ZestyU wouldnt expect this thread to be so heated from the title
the fact that there are people out there calling a triple a "double sync" is very upsetting to me
The decision to not have a fall season is to me puzzling and I am not really buying the reasons that were given in the post.
First of all, experimental cups are not a proper replacement for a full season, for various reasons. One reason is that experimental cups are supposed to test new things, not be the main way of playing the game, which it would be in the absence of a proper season. A second reason is that winning an experimental cup is far less rewarding than winning a season. Furthermore, these cups have historically been held without impacting the schedule of the main season, so I don't really understand what conditions have changed in order to necessitate experimental cups as a replacement of a season.
Secondly, the reason given to align the seasons with Copenhagen Games is strange to me as well, given that this event most likely will not even happen due to the fact that we are currently in a pandemic. Even if the event does happen, I don't see how aligning the seasons with the event provides such a benefit that it is worth skipping an entire season for.
Consider the risk of not having a fall season. The risk of players quitting is fairly high in the absence of a season, and it would be naïve to think that this decision has no impact on the player base. As such, ETF2L is taking big risks with small potential rewards. We need the player base to be as strong as possible in order to be able to arrange LANs in the future. We have the luxury of being the only region that is able to have two big LANs annually. If the player base – and consequently LAN attendance – dwindles, then this privilege will definitely be under question. The risk simply outweighs the reward greatly in this case.
wolsneondkajawolsnesnip
Not really. Most AC software is proprietary and owned by for-profit companies, and these very rarely make software open-sourced. Whether it's more secure or not is not a factor.
Not sure if you're saying that for-profit companies don't make open source software frequently, or that they specifically don't make open sourced anti-cheats, because the former is certainly false.
While there is ways to data mine, reverse engineer, and/or circumvent close source software and this code is not publicly audited, I think we'd both agree that it is probably better than just giving cheat developers the keys to your game.
Having the source code is more like having the blueprints to a lock than the keys. If the lock is a bad lock, then having the blueprints will make it easier for an attacker to bypass it, but if it is a good lock, it doesn't matter whether the attacker has the blueprints or not. Hiding the implentation behind layers of obfuscation is called security through obscurity and is generally considered a bad practice as it allows security flaws to stay present for longer than if the implementation could openly be scrutinised by everyone. Not only malicious hackers can look at the source code and find flaws in the code, anyone can.
As for the open-source discussion. Companies defintely don't frequently develop open-sourced software compared to how often they develop proprietary software. Almost all software I have installed on my computer is proprietary software. The reason for this is simply to make more money and prevent theft of code, not to enhance the security.
wolsneWhile I love the idea of seeing an open source anti-cheat be developed, it's existence brings up problems of it's own. By giving cheaters and/or cheat developers direct access to see exactly how the software works, you're inviting them to create proxies or bypass these catching mechanisms altogether. Regardless, I hope the projects bodes well and you continue to catch disingenuous players trying to get an edge, just some food for thought. This is why most anti-cheat programs are closed source.
Not really. Most AC software is proprietary and owned by for-profit companies, and these very rarely make software open-sourced. Whether it's more secure or not is not a factor.
I think you should ctap as often as possible. No reason not to. If you fail you just need more practice (which you get by trying it as often as possible).
Hogosakiso what do I use on hitscan and projectile?
negligible or no packet loss:
cl_interp 0; cl_interp_ratio 1
non-negligible packet loss:
cl_interp 0; cl_interp_ratio 2
Wizardcl_cmdrate / cl_updaterate: should usually always be at 66 for a stable packets to the server. You can go to 100 if you wish but that's recommend if you have a god tier connection.
Don't spread misinformation. Setting these above the server tickrate (66.666 ticks/second) will not give you any benefits as that is the limit on how many packets can be received/sent. On the other hand, setting these higher than the tickrate can fuck up your other network settings.
hoolihitscan: cl_interp_ratio 2;cl_interp 0.0303
projectile: cl_interp_ratio 1;cl_interp 0
further reading: https://www.teamfortress.tv/52942/
The thread you linked recommends putting cl_interp on 0 so not sure why you are going against your own source. Also, I'd recommend using cl_interp_ratio 1 even on hitscan if you have a decent connection that doesn't drop packets. Higher interp ratios mitigates the effects of packet loss, but if there are no packet losses to mitigate it's not really necessary.
Dr_FezDidn't the crossbow used to not have passive reload, and it was only rarely used because of it?
Nah, it was by far the most used unlock even before the passive reload buff. I think Mirelin was pretty much the only notable medic that primarily used another weapon than the Crossbow.
You can go back to i49 (2013) to see that it was the most used unlock by top medics. Hard to find any information before then as logs were not as detailed.
http://logs.tf/search/log?s=i49
EDIT: For reference, the passive reload buff was added two months after this LAN.
Matthesbeing considered
-crossbow nerf (remove passive reload?)
If you are going to nerf the crossbow I think uber building should be removed (possibly in addition to removing passive reload). It will still be better than all the other med unlocks, but at least abusing arrows in the wrong situation will cause a significant uber disadvantage which good players can recognise and capitalise on.
(arrows used to not build uber and have reload time... it was still the most widely used unlock by far)