Fakeshaft creates an illusion on the player's screen. Is that a benefit? It doesn't matter if it's on or off, the shaft is in the same place either way. It's not a cheat, just a preference. Some players like huge crosshairs and some like small crosshairs. Some players like some eye candy, even if it does hurt their performance. Should eye candy be disallowed then?

It's not a cheat. I don't use it and never will because I usually ping at least 40 here in the USA, and I don't need the game to create a fake image to show me that my crosshair is still in the same place it has always been.

Well, that is the point. You "feel" that its easier. That is why it is called an illusion. In reality it is harder, for the reason I explained above, and can hopefully make clearer here: with fakeshaft enabled, approximately 60-80% of the frames drawn on your screen per second, represent the *wrong* shaft position, so there is no possible way you could actually use that and that only to enhance your aim, because it is actually pointing in the wrong place from where the shaft is actually hitting.

Maybe this can explain it: It's like if when you shot the super-shotgun, the grey particles on the wall of the shotgun charge exploding would actually move (centered around your crosshair). Now, you can place those shotgan-charge-exploding-particles on the enemy after they have already exploded, but it wont make any difference as to the original shot hitting him. I hope that makes it clearer why it is an illusion.

Fakeshaft makes things easier because it is easier to concentrate where the crosshair is. Stop saying it's cheat, because cheat is just a word with thousands of explanations. Stop comparing it to something else, because it will always be different in some aspect from the subject of your comparision.
If you don't have the guts to admit that it helps those players who are too lazy to concentrate on the crosshair or don't have the guts to admit that it is a nice feature that makes QuakeWorld look less outdated, your debate will never end.
Why you people always think about QuakeWorld using some simplified stupid rules? Think about each change in QuakeWorld as if it was completely independent from the others.

As someone said, this would already be possible with a custom crosshair so why the fuck are we arguing?

well said JohnNy_cz.

time to stop discussing now.
grow or die

agreed

Here you go. Your own l33t haxx0r fakeshaft and nobody will know!
No need to download custom pictures or anything. Just put it in the end of your cfg and ... Let's Roll (c) GWB.
You got the best of two worlds - aiming with the fakeshaft and keeping eye on the real shaft, so hpbs will be happy.

Stop arguing. Remove f_fakeshaft. It serves no purpose.

Peace, love and fucking bubblegum.

omg! you have set up us the bomb!
get sassa's expertise on this or quickly!! ban teh console!!!111

pwnt! :lol:

This is what the posted hudshaft looks like. I'm pretty sure it could get even better than this too if you made it smaller at the top too, making it more precise. Should we ban hudshaft (which i prefer to call this version :p) and crosshairshaft (i guess it would be possible to make a big greenish crosshair like this too?) in order to get rid of fakeshaft - which is a nice gfx improvement that some people consider a cheat (without any proof what so ever).

Then I also vote for banning sassa's lg script which does change your crosshair color, size and type, fov, viewheight, sensitivity and rollangle setting :>

We need to go back to original non cheating setups such as this one

Xatah in his interview expressed the same opinion that i hold: It's better to know where the shaft REALLY is.

EDIT: ROFL at that shaft terrorhead Yet another way to make things 'easier on the eyes' xD

But seriously, none of this stuff makes a lick of difference in the end... but it may make things easier on a noob in the beginning - which isn't so bad, considering where we are at with Quakeworld.



I soo need an Avatar. Its been how long now without one? couple of years? xD

I'm playing without fakeshaft since last week. And now I'm shafting 5% better in LGC!

If it's a cheat, it's the worst cheat ever!

I'm playing with aimbot, wallhack, quad timer and now i own everybody ^^

ffs. Let me change the shaftmodel so i can see the enemies!

hell, nice

sassa, where r u? :<

Sorry for bringing an old topic back from the dead, but I just had to counteract this, and thought it might be better than to make a new topic (less ground to cover).


False. If the value on cl_fakeshaft could only be set to 0 or 1, then yes, this would be true. But it's not.

"Fakeshaft = hudshaft = crosshairshaft" (not a quote, just the general idea of this that some people seem to have)

Also not true, and mostly for the same reason. Not only does this 'hudshaft' or 'crosshairshaft' interfere with your general gameplay in a way that fakeshaft never does, but it also is an integer value in a way that cl_fakeshaft never could be - it can only be there or not. It can't be percentual.

The percentual values is what makes fakeshaft something that cannot be accomplished by any other way, and the reason it should be banned.

That doesn't make any sense. Just because it is a percentual value does not nullify the very good comparison to crosshair. Here is why:

When fakeshaft is at 0 it has no effect. When fakeshaft is at 1 it has maximum effect. The values between 0..1 simply make the effect weaker. The principle behind the comparison is the same: at the maximum effect, fakeshaft is like crosshair.

Obviously no comparison will be exact, but the take home message is: the crosshair, when turned to 1, has the same effect that fakeshaft has, when turned to 1. So banning fakeshaft would give a precedent to banning crosshair, which is ridiculous.

P.S. Crosshair can have percentual values too, but thats moot because it just changes the alpha

Well, you're missing the point I think. The analogy between fakeshaft and crosshair only goes as far as the on/off stage, beyond that there's simply no comparison between them.

I'll try to explain it further.

Lets say we're tracking an enemy that goes in a wide arc in front of us - we have to turn, lets say, somewhere between 45-90 degrees to track him the entire path. If we do this with fakeshaft 0, the shaft will pop up every X frames of that track, making jagged appearances that actually disturb us as much as they help us - while they tell us exactly where the shaft is hitting, they also tell us the "bold truth" that the shaft isn't tracking smoothly, and in so doing, we subconsciously try to correct for an error that is by definition uncorrectable.

Try the same with fakeshaft 1. This time we track smoothly, but the higher our ping is, the bigger the lie that the fakeshaft is telling us. The higher your ping, the further and further it's away from the truth. This "complete lie" can actually be far worse than the "bold truth" that fakeshaft 0 tells. If this was all that fakeshaft did, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

However, when one mixes the above cases together, a sincere improvement occurs. The "white lie" of a percentual fakeshaft fills in the blanks left behind by the "bold truth" of the real shaft. It helps us track our opponent smoothly, counteracting our subconscious attempt to correct an error that doesn't exist, simply by lying to us and telling us the error isn't there - all the while maintaining the greater part of the truth that the shaft is where it's pointing.

I hope that makes sense.

i rather suck at shafting (and i do) and play with fakeshaft on, than playing without it.. no need to impose your preferences on the rest of us

Someone with fakeshaft 1 and a 13 ping gets a perfectly smooth shaft with no jerking between zaps that hits exactly where it looks like it's hitting.

Someone with fakeshaft 1 and a 39 ping gets a perfectly smooth shaft with no jerking between zaps that doesn't accurately represent where it's hitting.

I don't think you can fairly argue that fakeshaft 0/1 is ok but fractional values of fakeshaft aren't. Perhaps the problem is really with the way fakeshaft works (by getting rid of that jerkyzappyness).

Maybe if fakeshaft could be set to a frametime (ie 1/2/3/4 for 13/26/39/52) and still have the jerkyness of a normal shaft but would appear like a shaft for those pings then you'd be happier with marginal values?

Not even at localhost does fakeshaft 1 hit exactly where you aim it 100% of the time. But it's true that with a very low ping (13 and below), you gain much more from fakeshaft 1 than at higher pings.

Take note that I'm not arguing for allowing fakeshaft 0/1. I'm actually arguing against the whole concept. I'm just saying that there's no comparing it to the crosshair.


I'm not exactly sure what that means by the way

Tested this feature with 25ms, trying all diffrent cl_fakeshaft 1 - 1,5 - 2,5 - 3 - 3,5 etc etc...
Around (50 rounds)

Best LG % i get with cl_Fakeshaft "0" - what so ever.
Or i get the same as 0 when using 0.1 - 3,5
Then i get a few %procents worse (0,5 - 3%)

Prove me wrong.

Uh, value is 0..1. Going above 1 doesn't actually do anything. Maybe you meant 0.1 - 0.15 - 0.2 etc?


http://www.pici.se/124031/
http://www.pici.se/124032/

I meant that it would still appear like a normal shaft - ie, kinda jerky due to the zaps, but with the delayed/lagged appearance of whatever frame time you set. So fakeshaft 1 would look like a 13ms shaft, fakeshaft 2 like a 26ms shaft, fakeshaft 3 like a 39ms shaft etc.

Ah, yes. That might be better, if it can be done. But why not remove the jerks if you can simulate the delay? If we can remove the jerkyness completely without affecting the delay, fakeshaft would be working ideally, instead of favoring low pings.

Still, I'd say I would vote against it all the same. I believe that the shaft is powerful enough as-is, without making it easier to aim with.

very good. thats exactly what i said: see post #92 above.

theres no improvement. fakeshaft 0 tells you where the shaft is, and fakeshaft 1 gives you No New Information, the interpolated frames are all either old info, or Wrong Information.

again, follow what i suggested earlier this year (in this thread): copy paste whatever argument into notepad and do a search and replace changing all "fakeshaft" to "crosshair" now read it again and see how much sense it makes


That quote makes no sense at all.
1) Forget about percentual crosshair/fakeshaft, lets talk about 0 and 1, the values in between are just weaker versions of 1.
2) The "fill in the blanks" are Wrong Information. It is _Not_ where the shaft is pointing, as you say in the very last part of that quote! Even you yourself said that earlier in the very same post.
3) Correcting an error has to do with latency, in which case no matter what fakeshaft you use, you will still have to "lead ahead" of the enemy, in which case i can make a better argument that fakeshaft is not helping, but hurting, because you can only see the actual position of your shaft something like 10-20% of the time.

No, they're not. And until you accept that, I don't think there's anything further to argue.

Yes, it is wrong information. It is however better than NO information. Lets slow everything down to frame by frame. This timelime is of course completely fictional, and the only reason I'm using it is to attempt to drive a point across.

F | P | P+
1 | 1 | 1
2 | 1 | 1.5
3 | 3 | 2.5
4 | 3 | 3.5
5 | 5 | 4.5
6 | 5 | 5.5

F being the frame, P being the position without a percentual fakeshaft, and P+ being the position with a percentual fakeshaft. Since without fakeshaft we don't update the actual shaft position every single frame, we get the jagged approach seen in the P column. However, when we apply a percentual fakeshaft, we smooth that curve out without giving up too much of our "real" shaft. The "white lie" - the lie that does us good - is this smoothing of the curve. It attempts to tell "enough" of the truth that we can see where the shaft really is (due to latency) while attempt to remove as much of the jaggedness as possible (due to game dynamics).


The error I speak about isn't the latency, but the fact that the jagged shaft does not follow a smooth curve behind our crosshair. Since there is a delay due to latency however, we might believe that we're off course with our tracking even when we're not, and attempt to modify our aim. This is the subconscious act of a confused mind, and what would lead you to miss where you would, with a smooth curve, hit.

If you are, for example, in F=4 and you know only your actual P=3 then how can you know if next P is gonna be exactly 5, not 10 or 1 again? I mean, from where do you (your client) know the future? I get the idea of compensating changes and making them smoother for an eye when you move shaft in one direction, but when you change direction this kind of compesation won't work too good as P+ will give you less accurate result than P. So if you were moving shaft quickly in both directions then fakeshaft, by using P+, would give you worse average information than original P.

I'm glad to see someone agrees with me on fakeshaft, but the conversation is kinda fruitless now as the fakeshaft has already been accepted into leagues.

Also I disagree on great shafters benefiting from fakeshaft at all (where did I saw this one, another thread?). There is still the limit on how good human can shaft, and those players near it can't get any better using any available trick.

However, worse shafters CAN benefit from it, even if it's more or less (note: I'm not saying they WILL), and I've seen it happen on many occasions.