Do you play on a Lapop, or have a widescreen computer?

[DankNuggets]

I'm just saying try it for yourselves.

The point made by Dank about the resolution not making much of a difference from 1600 x whatever is absurd. It only makes sense that if you have more viewing distance and you're fighting at your maximum range you have more time to react to a shot and that means more time to dodge. The hardest bullets to dodge are always the ones that are fired from the closest distance to you because you have less time to react.

yes, my point about my own experiences is absurd. i obviously can't tell when i've got a great advantage over someone or when i don't. you got me. If you're playing at a maxed out resolution, then you're even more vulnerable to close range shots, because your ship is smaller and it's harder to see to dodge. that's what I meant about diminishing returns.

And I agree with reaver about danknuggets comment... If you play long range on a very large res THEN it gives you a much better advantage... danknuggets probably does not do that so it doesn't work for him... The only thing we would see out of the res change is probably more longrange/radar squads and less rush happy and midrange squads, it would move back to the old era of subspace

I play both ways, but it's not a whole lot easier to play with the higher resolution and keep your oppenent in that small window that's the difference between mine and his resolution. It's pretty obvious to your oppenents what you're trying to do by staying on the edge of the screen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry if I didn't state my comment correctly, but that's not at all what I was getting at guys. I'm not talking about theories here, I'm talking about actually trying it out.

We can all agree that on pen and paper, it's an advantage. What I'm suggesting is you go play a few elims with the higher resolution and see if it really makes that much of a difference in your final score.

What I was saying is that I went and played with the highest resolution that was supported. I did about my average. Yes, I could take advantage of the extra two inches or so sometimes, but most of the time my opponents either moved within their screen's range (logical) or they moved farther off my screen (trying to snipe). The total time where I had an advantage offensively was minimal. I maybe got one or two shots off without the other person noticing, and at that distance and smaller size, it's not as easy to aim long range.

The only way it's an advantage is that you have more time to see a stray shot. It doesn't give you more time for aimed shots in a 1v1 battle unless you are both off screen sniping each other. In fact, if your oppent is mid-range or close, it gives you a disadvantage because the bullet will travel a smaller distance on your screen, and your bullet will travel farther on his.

All I'm saying is that there are balances to increase resolutions. It has its pros and cons. I'm just sharing my experience with using it in elim for a handful of games. I suggest everyone give it a try too. If you post a screenshot where you won 40-0 because you had a gianormous resolution, i'll listen. It just didn't turn out that way for me.

[veetee]

Increased resolution limit to 1600x1200 and 1680x1080 wouldn't be a bad idea after all, since a lot of old players like sika, skyout, rage, mjollnir would definitely return to trench wars from chaos zone. The reason they quit is because the resolution capacity is far too small for them to manage.

[Jones]

so i randomly decided to try 1680x1050 the other day and i won elim with 4:1 ratio

points to note:

pros
-total immunity vs rushes
-5 seconds more time to dodge shots on my screen (which would have been a radar battle with 1280.)
-lag was easier to deal with
-overall more consistent slow gamestyle
-rushes were easy to pull off because of the greater visual effects

cons
-lag was still a bitch to deal with
-harder to hit (more aim needed, personal problem, not res)
-lower fps (doesnt matter)
-people ran away more often

Conclusion: As you can see, the advantage gained from higher resolution is vastly superior, the only problems with it was personal usage, meaning: inexperienced usage of higher resolution and mediocre players can't pull of rushes that would work on lower res but doesn't work on higher because they are not doing it right.

Regarding wide-screen: I've said this before and I will say it again: Don't change anything or don't limit it. If you want to use your max resolution, go play 4v4 in chaos zone.

[Burnt]

I'll explain this one time, enabling the wide screen res gives an advantage to those people in twdd/twld. Here's how it works, with that resolution you can see much further left and right and less top to bottom, players with that resolution can use their advantage by constantly fighting left to right.

Why can't a 1280x1024 user counter a 1440x900 user left to right strategy with a top to bottom one?

It's not that hard to do in twdd/TWLD and in fact, that's how most fights are done naturally

I disagree. I watched a half twdd game of skepsis and a full game of reaver. Skepsis took about 16 vertical to 14 horizontal shots and Reaver took 36-19 vertical to horizontal.

'But they have less pixels to work with top to bottom?' It doesn't matter, a good warbird is going to continue moving and positioning himself and his enemy until they are side by side, it's not hard to do.

Of course it matters. I check people's resolutions all the time on the public statistics, people using 1280x800 in warbird are always averaging less than 1:1 in twdd games. The vast majority of players who average above 1:1 are using 1280x1024. There were no 1280x800 users who playing this season in twld I don't believe, this is because having lower resolution, regardless whether it's vertical or horizontal, makes a big difference.

I'd only be ok with the wide screen res if they rotated twdd and twld map by 90 degree's so it's taller than it is wide.

currently the map is 8 horizontal sectors by 6 vertial sectors. You could change it to 7 by 7, but really I don't see how that would make much of a difference.

The other thing is, the fact that the res limits are where they are at is kind of silly considering how cheap monitors are today and how common larger monitors are (I've been using a 21" or 22" CRT that I got for $50 for the past 2 years, no excuses). The only way keeping the current res limits makes sense to me is if you want to keep the style of gameplay tw has, which isn't a bad reason at all. If you wanted to change things up you could increase the res limit for everyone, maybe 1600 x 1200, but I know how whiny some of the warbirds are today and how they'd whine it out rather than try to adapt.

Are large monitors really that common? check out the steam hardware survey: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ less than 30% are using 1600/1680 and above. Also if we were allow 1600x1200, wouldn't you still be against allowing 1680x1050 on the same basis you don't want 1440x900 allowed?

Increased resolution limit to 1600x1200 and 1680x1080 wouldn't be a bad idea after all, since a lot of old players like sika, skyout, rage, mjollnir would definitely return to trench wars from chaos zone. The reason they quit is because the resolution capacity is far too small for them to manage.

Sika played for years (6 twl seasons) AFTER the resolution limit, so to assume he's going to come back if we change it now is silly. Skyout (sky) uses 2560x1600 resolution so I doubt a change to 1680x1050 would make a difference to him. Rage hardly ever played tw in the first place and he also was on twl squads for years after the resolution limit was put in place. So maybe you get 1 player. How many players will you lose because they don't feel like upgrading their monitors to play a 10+ year old game at a high level?

You can't limit it like that. So, for example, enabling 1440x900 would also enable 1440x1024, etc.

Hopefully matchbots could be modified not to allow those players in the game or a bot could be made that automatically kick people entering the zone with 1281-1440x901-1024 resolutions.

[DankNuggets]

so i randomly decided to try 1680x1050 the other day and i won elim with 4:1 ratio

well i won't argue with that, except to say: What do you usually get in elim, and is it "rare" for you to go 4:1 (which for all I know was 12-3) ? I mean as someone who's supposed to be one of the better wbs in the game shouldn't you expect to win a majority of the games? And as such, what could we expect to learn from someone who's already winning a lot? It's not like you're going to get worse. But I did ask you to try it and report back.

Maybe i'm just a bit perplexed as to why you'd word it like you did...

pros
-total immunity vs rushes

BS. I don't play TWL so maybe I'm not the best at avoiding rushes, but you're never immune to ships chasing you after you miss, no matter what resolution you play on. Maybe you're somewhat immune in a 1v1 situation, but in elim, where you might have 3 or more people shooting at you from different directions, there's no reason why they couldn't have rushed you. I'm sorry, but that's not a valid observation at all. I guess if you spent 100% of your time with one opponent on your screen and never shot without missing, then you could consider it immunity. As it stands, that statement kinda discredits anything that's going to follow it...

-5 seconds more time to dodge shots on my screen (which would have been a radar battle with 1280.)

what do you mean five seconds? a bullet takes less time than that to travel my WHOLE screen, let alone the half needed to kill you. Again, it's hard to believe anything you say when you're assessment has such exaggerated examples.

-lag was easier to deal with

lag is always easier to deal with the farther you get away from your oppnent if you're talking about fast/invisible bullets. If you're talking about them eating shots, I don't see how that's a product of resolutions what-so-ever.

-overall more consistent slow gamestyle

that's not a pro... some people prefer to play fast... this is just a personal preference, which is neither a +/- as far as overall gameplay.

-rushes were easy to pull off because of the greater visual effects

??? what do you mean "greater visual effects" You just said a second ago that it led to a slow gamestyle, now you're saying it leads to easier rushing. Maybe if I knew what you meant by visual effects i'd be better able to comprehend how it's both better for fast and slow play at the same time.

cons
-lag was still a bitch to deal with
-harder to hit (more aim needed, personal problem, not res)
-lower fps (doesnt matter)
-people ran away more often

lower FPS matters a lot to me and other people too, not that I noticed a lower one myself. Being harder to hit is NOT a personal problem... it's completely a product of the resolution you're playing at... it's silly to say otherwise. The opponent is smaller, you're smaller, what's not harder about that?

Conclusion: As you can see, the advantage gained from higher resolution is vastly superior, the only problems with it was personal usage, meaning: inexperienced usage of higher resolution and mediocre players can't pull of rushes that would work on lower res but doesn't work on higher because they are not doing it right.

The only conclusion I got from that was "it's not the resolution that matters so much as the skill of the player". Funny, that's a perfect reason to allow higher resolutions. Also, like you've mentioned in threads before, you've played with high resolutions before, and are automatically given an advantage against others (who may or may not be using them) soley because of your previous experience. Compound that with already being good at wb, and you're pretty much the least useful test subject in all of TW to report on this. You've got just about every bias going in your favor.

Basically you're saying "I'm not doing it right." Well, the same could be said at any resolution, and that kinda invalidates your argument. We'd still be at the same relative skill level and the game would be just as competative.

Regarding wide-screen: I've said this before and I will say it again: Don't change anything or don't limit it. If you want to use your max resolution, go play 4v4 in chaos zone.

Keeping it exactly like it is now amounts to nothing more than quiet acceptance that, given time, more and more people are going to take your suggestion.

[Jones]

well i won't argue with that, except to say: What do you usually get in elim, and is it "rare" for you to go 4:1 (which for all I know was 12-3) ? I mean as someone who's supposed to be one of the better wbs in the game shouldn't you expect to win a majority of the games? And as such, what could we expect to learn from someone who's already winning a lot? It's not like you're going to get worse. But I did ask you to try it and report back.

it depends on how i play, naturally being more offensive leads to more deaths. I could have probably went 21-8 with 1280. Even so, I've gone 21-2 on 1024x768 and 31-6 on 1280. The ratio is not important I can explain this later.

BS. I don't play TWL so maybe I'm not the best at avoiding rushes, but you're never immune to ships chasing you after you miss, no matter what resolution you play on. Maybe you're somewhat immune in a 1v1 situation, but in elim, where you might have 3 or more people shooting at you from different directions, there's no reason why they couldn't have rushed you. I'm sorry, but that's not a valid observation at all. I guess if you spent 100% of your time with one opponent on your screen and never shot without missing, then you could consider it immunity. As it stands, that statement kinda discredits anything that's going to follow it...

They can't rush me because 99% of the people "rushing" - even on higher squads - don't realize that i have full energy, even if I stand still and wait they will naturally be further away from my ship if I decide to shoot. The problem is that when my resolution was higher I saw them moving in a long time before I do on 1280, which just lead me to believe that positioning better was the way to go. This is what people call running, this is what I call suiciding, people rush as close as they can to you and hope you will miss, when I try and with better resolution I will definitely make sure you will not come as close unless I will certainly hit.

what do you mean five seconds? a bullet takes less time than that to travel my WHOLE screen, let alone the half needed to kill you. Again, it's hard to believe anything you say when you're assessment has such exaggerated examples.

Ok, I threw out 5 seconds out of the blue, of course I don't count, but the bottomline is that there were atleast 1.5 times more time to dodge the bullet which you can agree on that it makes it easier to react and survive AND since it was all on my screen I didn't have to use radarshots, which made it even easier.

lag is always easier to deal with the farther you get away from your oppnent if you're talking about fast/invisible bullets. If you're talking about them eating shots, I don't see how that's a product of resolutions what-so-ever.

With a bigger resolution you have more time to dodge the delay of the aussies.

that's not a pro... some people prefer to play fast... this is just a personal preference, which is neither a +/- as far as overall gameplay.

The TWL battles are almost always more slow, you typically want to aim to be 3-0 instead of 10-5. These fast paced rushing games only work now because there arent as many good players anymore. Sika uses a fast paced game, I'm certain a higher resolution would benefit him and he would still use an aggressive style. Do you remember demonfaze? He was always killing people people with radarshots because of his amazing aim, he used a very slow gamestyle which in turn made him the most consistent playoff warbird for a few seasons, which really makes the whole ratio in the beginning of my post not so important, staying alive is key in league games, higher resolution guarantees that.

??? what do you mean "greater visual effects" You just said a second ago that it led to a slow gamestyle, now you're saying it leads to easier rushing. Maybe if I knew what you meant by visual effects i'd be better able to comprehend how it's both better for fast and slow play at the same time.

Ok, this is probably just me, but I hardly ever rush, even if I move in close, I don't see it as a rush because that's simply not what it is in my vocabulary, rather I label it as a push/pressure, which is meant to force the opponent to dodge where I want him or shoot so teammates can pick up the kill, in elim I just go for positioning like this and try to see what their energy is like.

When rushing however, you typically want to dodge about 2 shots before you move in extremely close and with a bigger resolution this is easier to pull off.

You will also see his flightpath sooner and with your superior momentum (after you've dodged his 2nd shot) you can boost exactly where he will be which leads to an easy kill. Sure, bigger ships make it easier to hit, but it is the dodge you want to pull off.

lower FPS matters a lot to me and other people too, not that I noticed a lower one myself. Being harder to hit is NOT a personal problem... it's completely a product of the resolution you're playing at... it's silly to say otherwise. The opponent is smaller, you're smaller, what's not harder about that?

I threw that out because I didnt think anyone would care about it. i can get 1000 fps on 1280 and 300 on 1680... The problem is that my screen refresh rate can't go higher than 85, so any fps higher than that is obsolete.

The only conclusion I got from that was "it's not the resolution that matters so much as the skill of the player". Funny, that's a perfect reason to allow higher resolutions. Also, like you've mentioned in threads before, you've played with high resolutions before, and are automatically given an advantage against others (who may or may not be using them) soley because of your previous experience. Compound that with already being good at wb, and you're pretty much the least useful test subject in all of TW to report on this. You've got just about every bias going in your favor.

I don't really know what to say... In this zone you will need to maximize your resolution, otherwise you can't do anything in a league game.

Basically you're saying "I'm not doing it right." Well, the same could be said at any resolution, and that kinda invalidates your argument. We'd still be at the same relative skill level and the game would be just as competative.

Keeping it exactly like it is now amounts to nothing more than quiet acceptance that, given time, more and more people are going to take your suggestion.

conclusion:
I would love to be allowed to maximize my resolution, maybe I would play this zone more then.

But you can't argue the facts that higher resolution will make you a consistently better warbird in important games, and naturally all 10 players in twld would need a good reso, which in turn wouldn't change much other than good players on 1280 now who can't go higher would be rendered useless.

[DankNuggets]

Ok, I think I have a much better understanding of it now. Thanks.

I guess what I was seeing is that it really doesn't affect the game as much for the average player. I guess if you're already playing at the top of your game, and you use the strategies you've suggested, it would be a great advantage. However, it's not that it's a huge offensive advantage so much as a great defensive one (re: lag, strays, seeing rushes sooner). I guess that's another point where it may not seem like a big advantage because you're not dominating in the sense of a lot of fast, easy kills but rather in the sense of avoiding any situations where you're a sitting duck.

I guess it all still falls back to the argument of "leaving players behind" who can't use higher than 1280. I just think that it's OK to do so.

Going with the logic (may be flawed) that most of the top caliber players use the highest resolution allowed, it would seem that they would then also use whatever new higher resolution was allowed. I'd be interested in knowing how many TWL participants use 1024x768. Since we've sorta come to the conclusion that the advantages in having a bigger resolution become greater as your skill level improves (why it's not such a big help for me, and a bigger help for you) then it would be good to know how many people aren't using the maximum resolution, yet still play in TWL. It would seem that they would be the people who would suffer the most from any change, as they would then be 2 iterations behind instead of just one.

All that being said, it would also be nice to know how many are currently capable of going beyond 1280, and would then not be affected by a resolution upgrade.

I understand the need to keep TWL on as even a footing as possible given the already unfair (dis)advantages of lag and current resolution differences between players. This is exactly why I would be happy to see any changes not take affect in TWL (at least for teh first year - also wouldn't affect me )

But as we've (or just me in this post) concluded, the difference isn't as apparent at lower skill levels and in mixed competition, where existing discrepencies in lag/skill/resolution are just as big if not a bigger deciding factor in the outcome of a game. This is why I'd like to see the limit lifted (or raised slightly) in other arenas (pub and elim might already have it, just on a temporary basis).

I completely agree that having a bigger resolution improves your game. I'm evidence of it: went from 1280 down to 1024 when i first got a LCD monitor years ago. My game went downhill sharply, only to slowly be brought back up by luck and lots of close range dodging. I then got a 22" LCD widescreen so i could once again play 1280, and I can safely say it makes it a lot easier.

My point is that it's not like only a handful of people will take advantage of this, and most people will eventually be playing on the same resolutions. Yes a few will now be 2 iterations down (still on 1024) but I see it as no more "unfair" than the people who are forced to play below that (assuming they exist). And most importantly, TWL players will invest in a monitor that's capable of hitting the higher resolution. I say that based on the assumption that very few people play TWL on 1024 and that 1280 isn't necessarily a "default" resolution of a lot of computer set-ups (though it might be now, it certainly hasn't alwasy been. though i think most CRTs can obtain 1280, the first generation of LCDs couldn't).

After saying all of that I don't think i've added much besides keeping the status quo (that's being tested ofc) allowing unlimited in elim and a higher limit in pub.

[freddie]

Since big resolution seems to be problem only in wb arenas, why dont we free other arenas from reso cap?

[Money]

allow the widescreen equivalent already and stop forcing us widescreen users to play windowed or stretched. how fair is it that ppl with 4:3 monnitors now have the advantage? since they can play full screen with no distortion..... trench wars is racist against widescreens

[Money]

spend some money and buy a normal 4:3 widescreen monitor

simple as that

new technology is 4:3 not shitty widescreen that is just cheaper to make, I have a widescreen 4:3 monitor that plays both widescreen and 4:3 resolutions just fine

LOL PLZ TELL ME U WERE JOKING/DRUNK WHEN U WROTE THIS LOL CUZ IT MADE NO SENSE... WIDESCREENS ARE EITHER 16:9 OR 16:10.... 4:3 IS THE SHAPE OF A TV. THEREFORE OLD TECHNOLOGY. YES MY WIFESCREEN SUPPORTS 4:3 I CAN CHANGE IT, BUT WHY SHOULD WE BE FORCED TO PLAY WITH BLACK BARS ON EACH SIDE OF THE SCREEN.... so what a 200 something pixel advantage from left to right is too much? seeing how wed lose 100+ vertical...... try playing pub with 1280x1024 on a widescreeb then switch to 1440-900, THERE IS NO NOTICEABLE ADVANTAGE OTHER THAN UR SHIP DOESNT CHANGE SHAPES/DISTORT WHEN U TURN........ WHICH IS RIGHT. WOW SO NO WE GOTTA PLAY FULLSCREEN ON WS MONITORS WHERE SHOTS FROM LEFT TO RIGHT GO FASTER AND TOP TO BOTTOM SHOTS ARE SLOWER. its less total pixels and wtf, why is 1680x1050 allowed in elim..... why is it beging tested... we have a fucking problem allowing 1440-900 and were testing 1680x1050? u serious? pretty useless, seems like u would be testing the resolution that is being asked for.

but no this is trenchwars, we dont make progress

[Dutch_]

This thread is getting out of hand. Why are you guys actually talkin about a 1680x1050 resolution? Thats the opposite of what i want. I want for everyone to be able to play on a fair screensize. 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 is way too high for laptop users and players that do not have a 19+ inch screen.

ATM the best choice widescreeners have is 1280 x 800, anything higher stretches out the picture. That is just not fair and is not acceptable. The only solution is allowing 1440 x 900. I dont get what there is to whine about because 1280 x 1024 still is the highest resolution. Yes 1440 is wider horizontaly but that gets compensated by the 900 pixels vertical. Meaning 4:3 users have a slightly better view up and down, and widescreen users have a slighly better view left and right. It magicly evens eachother out. You dont need Captain Obvious to point that out

[Money]

they are using 1680x1050 as max res in elimbeta now for testing...... my point was, if they have such a hard time allowing 1440x900 why the fuck are they testing at 1680x1050??????......... pretty sure thats alot bigger than 1440x900 of course its going to cause an advantage at 1680x1050, in fact every time i play elim with that res i get 17+ kills and i win... so what the fuck is the point of testing a resolution that big when all were asking for is the equivalent of the 1280x1024 res for widescreen users

and i have to play at 1280x960 to play full screen, the way we should be able to play. and its still stretched

[Reaver]

Why can't a 1280x1024 user counter a 1440x900 user left to right strategy with a top to bottom one?

You all of people should know that you can control the positioning of your opponent, I watched you keep two warbirds at a distance to you in a TWLD match for quite a while, and eventually 1v1. This isn't an attack on your play style, it's proof that you can control the positioning of your opponents.

I disagree. I watched a half twdd game of skepsis and a full game of reaver. Skepsis took about 16 vertical to 14 horizontal shots and Reaver took 36-19 vertical to horizontal.

And I told you already that you can't take a look at one dd and draw conclusions, that's called skewed data. On top of that, you cannot compare TWDD to TWLD, most of the time I couldn't care less about the outcome of a TWDD.

Of course it matters. I check people's resolutions all the time on the public statistics, people using 1280x800 in warbird are always averaging less than 1:1 in twdd games. The vast majority of players who average above 1:1 are using 1280x1024. There were no 1280x800 users who playing this season in twld I don't believe, this is because having lower resolution, regardless whether it's vertical or horizontal, makes a big difference.

I made statement "A" and your arguing the validity of some other statement. My point was that you cannot simply say this resolution has fewer pixels total than that resolution, therefore it must be fair. I followed that up by saying that a good warbird will maintain their opponent where they want them. Of course TWLD players are using 1280x1024 and of course people that are using the highest resolution typically have better records, how does this disprove anything I've said.

My point isn't that it's an even match up when a player with 1280 x 1024 is against a player with 1280 x 960, my point is that it would become uneven if the wide screen resolution was allowed.

currently the map is 8 horizontal sectors by 6 vertial sectors. You could change it to 7 by 7, but really I don't see how that would make much of a difference.

I already said, based on where players start and the shape of the map, you're more inclined to play left to right. It's not a sure thing but it's enough of an inclination.

Are large monitors really that common? check out the steam hardware survey: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ less than 30% are using 1600/1680 and above. Also if we were allow 1600x1200, wouldn't you still be against allowing 1680x1050 on the same basis you don't want 1440x900 allowed?

I don't know, I guess it was a bad assumption on my part that if I could afford a monitor much larger than the wide screen monitors you guys are getting, and I could get it for 1/4 the price, maybe more people would do the same thing. If this isn't the case then maybe it wouldn't be such a good idea to increase the resolution to 1600 by whatever.

According to that website the most common is 1280 x 1024 then the 2nd most common is 1680 x 1050 and the third most common is 1440 x 900. There's twice as many people that use 1280 x 1024 as there are 1440 x 900.

Also, you are correct about me being against allowing 1680 x 1050 if we allowed 1600 x 1200, but I wouldn't be as adamant about it, hell I don't even know if I'd say anything. The reason is because 1680 only has 80 pixels more left to right whereas 1440 has 160 more pixels left to right. In addition to having fewer pixel advantage, both resolutions were increased quite a bit which actually makes the pixel difference even less significant.

Sika played for years (6 twl seasons) AFTER the resolution limit, so to assume he's going to come back if we change it now is silly. Skyout (sky) uses 2560x1600 resolution so I doubt a change to 1680x1050 would make a difference to him. Rage hardly ever played tw in the first place and he also was on twl squads for years after the resolution limit was put in place. So maybe you get 1 player. How many players will you lose because they don't feel like upgrading their monitors to play a 10+ year old game at a high level?

Well that wasn't my quote but I'll respond anyways. I agree with you that it'd be silly to increase the res to 1600 in some hopes of bringing back long gone players. However, I'm not really sure that losing some players because we're unwilling to make the game uneven makes sense to do either.


In conclusion, I'm not too worried about losing a few players that only play warbird, or they enjoy warbird enough to quit if they didn't get 1440 x 900 resolution because if they're too cheap to pay $50 to at most $100 for a big CRT that would easily do the trick, why would I think they're going to go buy a game and play it instead of Continuum. If anything they'd quit continuum altogether and I guess that would be better than making the game uneven, don't you think? I'm talking purely about warbirds because I do think they should allow this resolution in all other arena's aside from TWDD/TWLD.

Two other notes:
1) I think what you're (burnt) doing with the squad you're running is a great help and I have to give respect for that.


2) it was nice of Jones to prove what I had already said. I'm not attacking you Dank but you have to understand, just because your own personal experience in warbird didn't seem to do better with the added resolution, I'm 100% without a doubt certain of the advantages of more time to react.

[Nockm]

. . .

[Money]

looks like its allowed in twdd now.