Search options (Page 11 of 19)

You said you run the server in the cmd console. The cmd console is that black window. Yes, exactly that output.

Be sure to look at the date of the last post of a thread before posting in it. This thread is not relevant anymore for sure. If you have any questions of your own, use the search function and look in the documentation and if you don't find any answer create your own thread in the support section, if it is not a mod related question.

There is already a ticket about that on github: Issue #182.

//Edit:
You can also read there, that the shown ping is not really correct anyways. However, solving this issue would need a complete separation of the network stuff and the graphical stuff and that would require the use of threads wich will imply the heavy use of mutexes (locks) and similar stuff. This is a huge task, so it might not be done in the near future, as this issue is not very crucial.

I also changed the map ctf6 a bit so it is playable better:

Changes to the movement:
My changes mostly were in the base: I tried to narrow everything a bit so the map is not as wide as it was before anymore. I also made the bases a bit higher so you can gain faster movement more easily. I also changed the movement in general so you can gain speed better and also can go the upper way a bit easier.

What I am not satisfied with:
The lower base entrance/exit. In my opinion it is still far to easy/fast to go in and out there. I couldn't really come up with a solution for that though.

Changes to the item placement:
I did not care about item placement a lot, I just moved some hearts to the base and added a new spawn point I think.

Summary:
All in all this is just an experiment, I don't know if this will work better than the original map, but I like the movement better now. I also think that many of the things var has done could be combined with my modification of the map. Also note that my changes mostly are about macro structure (referring to the ctf2 analysis thread).

Screenshot:

Download:
ctf6_modified_1.map

Notes:
I removed most of the graphic stuff so I don't have to mess around with it while mapping.
I'll try to be hosting a server with this map most of the time. The password will be ctf6.

It is already reported on github and is also set to be done for 0.6.1

You are right to some degree: Those maps may be fun for low- or midlevel games. However, as stated before for highlevel they suck. You say the mappers should not care about the opinion of the highlevel scene. Why? The goal main goal for official maps should be that they are both competitive and also fun for the average player. This is not an easy job, as especially making a map competitive and balanced is quite hard. This is why I think the input from the highlevel scene is definitely needed for future map development. Of course it should not only be about the pros. We should also think about whether noobs will be able to move in that map and so on. This means criticism and suggestions from other players should be welcome, too. Of course we can't satisfy everybody's needs, but getting a wider rage of opinions and ideas will help to make the maps better in general.

If the official mappers for some reason decide to follow your suggestion, and stop taking tips from the highlevel scene, what'll happen is exactly what magnet said earlier: We will stop playing the official maps and start using the old ones or even create our own competitive maps (e.g. ctf_lava).

Once again: I agree that teeworlds is not only about highlevel, but it is ALSO about highlevel and thus the official maps should be made competitive enough for the highlevel scene.

In all these posts one thing was left out: ctf4. The new version is actually quite good in my opinion, and it's also very different from all the other maps (in terms of shape). Playing there at a high level would be a very unique and interesting opinion. However, as far as I understand, it's meant to be a 4on4 map. But 4on4 games are played on ctf2 mostly. The problem is that until now, most of the "pro" players have not started training on this new map (even less than on ctf6). I hope that this might change in the future and a greater variety of maps will be played in the "pro" scene. We already had a change like that with the release of 0.5 with ctf3. 3on3s are played there regularly. Why not start playing 4on4s on ctf4? Most people agree that ctf2 is too big for 4on4s (well they can be played, but if it is possible, people will always try for 5on5s), so ctf4 would be a really good alternative.

About ctf2 in general: I think it is a great map. There is a reason it is the map played the most in the highlevel ctf scene, and I think we should acknowledge that. However, as Var already pointed out, other maps (e.g. ctf3, ctf4, ctf6) do not stand behind ctf2, and a lot of people in the "pro" scene seem to be too narrow-minded and conservative to realize that (this is not meant to be offending). Maybe and hopefully with this thread this will change.

Please use pms for that

About your problem:

Maybe try deactivating your firewall.

Are you behind a filtered nat? It may be possible that your router/whatever blocks the port used by the master servers. This was the case at my old school, I could not get any servers there, because the requests to the masters servers were dropped by the rooting server of the school, maybe something similar happens to you.

He said so. However, if that is the case he either does not use a standard teeworlds server or client, in which case we can't help, because we don't support modifications. Just use the standard teeworlds server and it should not be any problem.

@Theolol: No, you are wrong. You can't host one of the standard gametypes with non standard tuning, the server automatically discards the changes in the tuning. Also you are not supposed to do that with a modified server, I believe you might even get banned for that. You have to use the mod gametype or use your own gametype. What TeeKilla and Elite Tee said is exactly correct.

This bug is already fixed in the trunk version, meaning it will be fixed in a 0.6.1 release. (If I am not mistaken)

Did you forward the port in your router...?