Battlefield 2142 - Punkbuster kicking for widescreen res

Microtia · Post by **Microtia** » 18 Oct 2006, 16:12

I am not sure if what eZ` said about BF2 is the same for BF2142, but let's look at what you have just said. You are trying to compare in-game settings to outside tweaks to improve the gaming experience. Sure, setting fog distance to the max let's you see farther, and therefore gives you an unfair advantage over other players. But this option is available to change in the game settings. What I am talking about is outside tweaks, to force the resolution (not available at the resolution selector in-game) to a widescreen resolution, such as command line options or .ini changes. It's comparable to using a modified DLL in half-life games to remove the fog when you are underwater. Obviously there are factors they cannot control, like what kind of hardware is used on the end-users side, but these are the things they can attempt to control. Obviously if the game had support for the widescreen resolkutions, this would not be an issue.

I remember when Diablo II: LoD came out and it offered 800x600 resolution, which was widely considered unfair advantage over the old 640x480 resolution. This is sort of the same thing, but not really.

Modifying a DLL isn't quite the same as simply using a res changer BUILT into the game.

What I was saying is that widescreen (especially that doable via BUILT-IN commandline switches or editable INIs) do not offer anymore advantage than the things I mentioned.

xocomaox · Post by **xocomaox** » 18 Oct 2006, 16:16

If it's not in the settings of the game, then I would say it's fair game to consider it being a cheat.

L3TUC3 · Post by **L3TUC3** » 18 Oct 2006, 19:54

If it's not in the settings of the game, then I would say it's fair game to consider it being a cheat.

Disabling the videos is cheating. Hooray!

Barf.

Microtia · Post by **Microtia** » 18 Oct 2006, 20:07

Oh did I loathe when they started kicking for removing the BF2 intro videos.

Post by **skipclarke** » 18 Oct 2006, 23:24

I just don't understand this argument about widescreen being a cheat/unfair advantage. Both CS Source (and in effect all source games) plus CS 1.6 (in effect all GoldSrc games) have full widescreen support, 16:9 and 16:10, with zero issues. Absolutely no-one complained about the widescreen support, and welcomed it in fact. Being two games that are fairly competitive, if widescreen was such an unfair advantage there's be far more complaining about how widescreen gamers have an extra advantage over all others and so on. CS players are known to be fairly vocal in their complaints. But there's was/is still next to nothing to hear about it.

But with the BF games, oh no! Widescreen is too much of an advantage, and not only that, people start defending EA/DICE for some reason and agree with this being the case. Why are people defending BF2/BF2142 and not having issue with the many other games with full widescreen support in multiplayer? Damn fanboys.

/rant

Quazimojo · Post by **Quazimojo** » 19 Oct 2006, 03:59

No disconnects from Widescreen yet, been playing at 1920x1200 for hours but the moment i tried to disable any of the intro vids, started the game back up and whamo booted by PB changed them back and no disconnects since then . after looking on Gamefaqs and all the people getting booted for no apparent reason by PB im thinking it could be other things than running the game in WS just my thoughts.

warisfun · Post by **warisfun** » 19 Oct 2006, 07:37

If they want to get rid of everything that gives one player an advantage over another why dont they ban people with joysticks, fast connections, and overall better computers? I had a friend who was a really hardcore cs player.. he would say how all the competitive players ran at really low res'es even though they had nice computers because it allowed them to target the enemy faster. I think EA/DICE are just to lazy to add built in widescreen res so they come up with some bullshit to spew to the public.

Contra33 · Post by **Contra33** » 19 Oct 2006, 08:05

well now that i have the full version (and no t doesnt support widescreen)

i am running the hack and it isnt kicking me

xocomaox · Post by **xocomaox** » 19 Oct 2006, 14:30

I just don't understand this argument about widescreen being a cheat/unfair advantage. Both CS Source (and in effect all source games) plus CS 1.6 (in effect all GoldSrc games) have full widescreen support, 16:9 and 16:10, with zero issues. Absolutely no-one complained about the widescreen support, and welcomed it in fact. Being two games that are fairly competitive, if widescreen was such an unfair advantage there's be far more complaining about how widescreen gamers have an extra advantage over all others and so on. CS players are known to be fairly vocal in their complaints. But there's was/is still next to nothing to hear about it.

But with the BF games, oh no! Widescreen is too much of an advantage, and not only that, people start defending EA/DICE for some reason and agree with this being the case. Why are people defending BF2/BF2142 and not having issue with the many other games with full widescreen support in multiplayer? Damn fanboys.

/rant

Just because Valve doesn't classify it as being an unfair-advantage doesn't mean it isn't. Clearly, all bias aside, seeing more on screen than people with non-widescreen monitors is an advantage, no matter how you look at it. All I am saying is that EA chose to include that as something they feel the game should be without. Hence, not including the resolution in the selection, and kicking people with Punkbuster. (I am not sure if Punkbuster is run by EA or not, but it doesn't really matter.)

You can complain about their standards all you want, but EA will probably not listen, or care.

Microtia · Post by **Microtia** » 19 Oct 2006, 15:11

If seeing a little more is unfair, then so is seeing better and farther. So is a lower ping etc. Like I said it's not a great argument.

Post by **skipclarke** » 19 Oct 2006, 15:27

You can complain about their standards all you want, but EA will probably not listen, or care.

Which is precisely why it's called... a rant. :twisted:

IndianScout · Post by **IndianScout** » 19 Oct 2006, 15:27

http://www.bfroe.com/12.png

hmm no problems here playing online

xocomaox · Post by **xocomaox** » 19 Oct 2006, 16:12

If seeing a little more is unfair, then so is seeing better and farther. So is a lower ping etc. Like I said it's not a great argument.

I am talking about the controllable vs the uncontrollable. These contollable rules or standards are set up by the game ÃƒÂ la game settings. Once you start modifying these settings in an external manner, well, then you've got conflict.

Since it seems this kicking is just a rumor, there really isn't any point discussing it anymore.

Post by **g00seberry** » 19 Oct 2006, 16:36

[quote]If seeing a little more is unfair, then so is seeing better and farther. So is a lower ping etc. Like I said it's not a great argument.

I am talking about the controllable vs the uncontrollable. These contollable rules or standards are set up by the game ÃƒÂ la game settings. Once you start modifying these settings in an external manner, well, then you've got conflict.

Since it seems this kicking is just a rumor, there really isn't any point discussing it anymore.

I don't think you have a great point. What about editing your .cfg for Counter Strike? It's not in the options but you can change 90% of things there happily. Infact, when you join some servers they force you to change your rates and other settings, but yet these are nowhere to be seen in the ingame options menu?

Is editing your cfg considered cheating? Is it giving you an unfair advantage? Because PB only kicks for values way out of the range, but again these aren't anywhere in your option settings, but i'm sure the top clans in the world would never even consider playing with a default .cfg.

If you can change rates, maxfps, cmdrate fov etc, then why not the resolution too?
I'm just using CS as an example , i'm sure EVERY other online game out there you can edit your cfg in some way without it being considered an "unfair advantage"

xocomaox · Post by **xocomaox** » 19 Oct 2006, 17:14

I'm not talking about what is cheating and what isn't. What could be considered cheating in a particular game, well, that's what I am trying to get at. Those things you have talked about, changing variables and commands in configs and ect, could be considered cheating, if Valve wishes.

Did you know there is a weather variable you can turn on and off via config for counterstrike? This, I believe, is a "cheat variable" and is not allowed on certain servers. There are others, too. Here is the perfect example of the kind of cheating I am talking about. Valve considers the variable a cheat, therefor does not allow you to enter the server with it on. Same could be said for resolution.

Geordie · Post by **Geordie** » 19 Oct 2006, 17:48

http://www.bfroe.com/12.png

hmm no problems here playing online

Try using widescreen since last two days.

That shot is a few days old

Thin_J · Post by **Thin_J** » 19 Oct 2006, 23:16

It was working fine for me just a couple of hours ago.

I did have a problem with punkbuster kicking me, but downloading the manual updater from the evenbalance website and manually updating the 2142 version of PB completely solved my problems.

Post by **skipclarke** » 20 Oct 2006, 00:01

Did you know there is a weather variable you can turn on and off via config for counterstrike? This, I believe, is a "cheat variable" and is not allowed on certain servers. There are others, too. Here is the perfect example of the kind of cheating I am talking about. Valve considers the variable a cheat, therefor does not allow you to enter the server with it on. Same could be said for resolution.

You make an fair point. In the end it's up to EA/DICE to decide what is a cheat or not, and if they figure any extra peripheral vision is bad, then they don't properly support the technologies. That's their choice, it's their company. Certainly makes my decision easy if they continue to remain stubborn.

O/T: People kept asking about your av? Now I know why, cos I wanted to as well. :wink:

damicatz · Post by **damicatz** » 20 Oct 2006, 02:05

I've been boycotting EA games for sometime and this just reaffirms my position. EA does nothing but suck up good game studios and milk their games for cash by releasing sub-standard products that are rushed out as soon as possible for the sole purpose of increasing their bank account.

The fact that BF2142 does not support widescreen is nothing short of incompetence on DICE's part. It is just plain bad coding practice to make assumptions about the users hardware and then to hardcode them into a program as has been done with BF2142.

And I don't buy the crap about widescreen being an unfair advantage. Having an optical mouse gives you an advantage over someone with a ball mouse. Having a faster computer gives you an advantage over someone with a slower computer.

xocomaox · Post by **xocomaox** » 20 Oct 2006, 16:16

And I don't buy the crap about widescreen being an unfair advantage. Having an optical mouse gives you an advantage over someone with a ball mouse. Having a faster computer gives you an advantage over someone with a slower computer.

If you are claiming that an optical mouse over a ball mouse and faster computers are obvious advantages, which I completely agree with you (who wouldn't?), then widescreen is clearly an advantage over players using 4:3 resolutions. How are they going to control this? They can't really. They just chose to remove people from servers who are running widescreen resolutions. Am I mad? No, because I don't play EA games, they are rubbish.

Now, I would protest against Valve doing this on Counter Strike: Source. They wouldn't do this because they care about their player base. I could see this possibly coming into play for CAL though, since it's taken so seriously.

Okay, I am done debating over such a poor game that I will never want to play.

Widescreen Gaming Forum