<!--quoteo(post=1732061:date=Oct 13 2009, 11:42 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Oct 13 2009, 11:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1732061"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry, I just don't buy it. Mice and headphones have wildly different specs too, but you don't have people requesting that sounds be removed or aim be fixed to a resolution becuase of that. Lighting is only an obstacle if someone circumvents it(easy to do) meaning everyone else has to in order to be on the same playing field. And, IIRC, the very brief 95% cloaking visibility change was subverted by differences in video cards, not monitors. I'm not calling it an exploit, anymore than I would call using ventrilo an exploit(it's not).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) All engines drop off sounds at a finite level well before the capabilities of even a $10 pair of headphones. More expensive headphones add very little beyond atmosphere. In fact, most "gaming" headphones have horrible frequency response with horrible bass.
2) You are also massively overstating the differences between low end mice and a high end mice. Enough said.
3) As for cloaking...I have played NS on maybe 6 or 7 difference monitors. The difference is HUGE when it comes to seeing 5% cloaking. Its the difference between knowing the enemy is there or not; its the difference between killing the enemy or dieing without shooting a shot. This is a HUGE swing in gameplay for a MINOR difference in hardware/client configuration.
The MOST someone could argue about a $150 pair of headphones is that it allows players to pinpoint enemy position behind walls with slightly higher accuracy. The effect on gameplay is minor in comparison.
I'm not sure if people have read my suggestion, but we'e got no comment about it so far :(, so i edited my op to add my suggestion (which is the only one so far that isn't affected by brightness settings)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think i have an idea on how to use lighting without worrying about the player's brightness settings:
Is the flashlight still present in NS2? Because if it is still there then there could be some spots in the map that are completely dark, so no matter how much you played with the brightness it won't matter, the only way you will see is to turn your flash light on and considering that NS2 has occlusion lighting then there should be enough light once the flashlight is on for the player to see what's lurking in the dark. That's a simple way to use lighting without worrying on the brightness that people have their game set to. Of course I'm not suggesting to make large areas of the map completely dark, but perhaps a few small locations here and there *cough* gorge hide outs *cough*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the main problem with lighting affecting the gameplay is not that people don't want any kind of darkness in maps, but they rather not be in a situation where they have the "right" brightness settings to let the lighting play its role whereas another player has his brightness blasted through the roof where it looks like he's holding the sun in his hands wherever he goes; which will give the latter player a big advantage. So the solution is to find a way for lighting to have an important role (other than eye candy) without it being affected by brightness settings.
<!--quoteo(post=1732003:date=Oct 13 2009, 01:48 PM:name=Scythe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scythe @ Oct 13 2009, 01:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1732003"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sadly, lighting will be restricted to having an aesthetic effect, never a significant gameplay effect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's this extension of the argument to encompass all instances of lighting that I find troubling.
In terms of balancing for competitive play I agree lighting should never form an integral part of game balance. But lighting actually does a lot more for game design outside of this arena and beyond aesthetics.
<a href="http://agamesdesignblog.com/2009/03/01/continuity-level-design/" target="_blank">http://agamesdesignblog.com/2009/03/01/con...y-level-design/</a> (see the <i>Lighting</i> and <i>Altogether Now</i> sections)
The same concepts extend to multiplayer level design. And this all links in to the argument I keep coming back to. The faster players learn the game the sooner they arrive at the stage where they begin to master it. If a game is more intuitive to newcomers its competitive community stands a greater chance of establishing itself and greater longevity. The most important thing is of course the core mechanics, but that's not to say intuitiveness can't augment this quality. Lighting is a significant part of intuitiveness in addition to its aesthetic qualities.
<!--quoteo(post=1732172:date=Oct 14 2009, 10:23 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crispy @ Oct 14 2009, 10:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1732172"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lighting is a significant part of intuitiveness in addition to its aesthetic qualities.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I concur, I stand corrected. Well-designed lighting plays an important role in guiding the experiences of a new player. For example, if a newbie dies to a skulk that s/he couldn't see due to poor lighting, they're likely to become frustrated because they died by no (apparent) fault of their own.
Is it then possable that other means of gameplay mechanics not exploitable could be used, such as making aliens have X amount of visability based on the lighting conditions? Or, my personal favorite idea of giving aliens a chameleon effect? Maybe having their skin textures or "skins" change color slightly in certain areas? So around the map they would be regular "alien color," then when they are near infestation they change a bit to a JUST SLIGHTLY matching texture, and when they are in dark areas they also change to 50% dark grey? So no matter WHAT someone does with his monitor (because he sucks), the aliens will still match the darker surroundings of the map?
Even if cheater X turns up his monitor, the alien skin will also be "turned up" to the same degree no matter what the contrast or brightness, so it really wont help much at all, and then it also adds the possabilities of gameplay mechanics being more dynamic?
I am not saying they change from grees neon to all black, but after 3-5 seconds their skins change to a much darker version, so they sorta blend a bit more....?
Good? Idea sucks? hehe
It would not only serve the purpose of anti-cheaters, but it would actually add something to the game. Question is, would it be worth it?
Here are some ideas of lighting's effect on gameplay made possible by the new engine.
Would it be possible for the game to determine a skulk is in a sufficiently dark area that he cannot be seen therefore giving him 100% cloak? Then no amount of gamma cheats or monitor quality can affect the experience. However when the flashlight shines on him then the skulk is visible within the cone of light.
OR...
Alien have cloak just like in NS1 but the marines can buy a lamp that casts a special ultraviolet light (or something) that reveals cloaked aliens. These lamp could be used in a similar fashion as scans/sensor tower in NS1, but the dynamic light code would enable a real line of sight alien reveal. rather than just a radius.
OR...
Also maybe the commander could drop battery operated very bright lamps that would light up and area within it's line of sight. These would work outside the grid but for a limited amount of time. They would be using a special wave lengtht that hurts the dynamic infestation or at least stops it's growth within line of sight. And it would also do a small DoT to aliens in it's line of sight.
<!--quoteo(post=1731521:date=Oct 9 2009, 06:43 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Oct 9 2009, 06:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1731521"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lighting is a terrible when it comes to a game that aims to be even a bit competetive. I think the best way to handle lighting in NS is to avoid creating any direct connections between the gameplay and lighting and leave the rest for the mapper to decide. Just as NS1 had it, except that hopefully the better mapping tools will cause more maps of both types to be created. Right now there are a lot of hybrid maps with dark and creepy lighting and then again they are still played competetive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree... your idea of "competitive" sounds to much like standard deathmatch. Lighting (i.e. the lack of lighting ... i.e. darkness) will play a major part in ns2 for the sake of immersiveness and slowing down the run-around-spraying-bullets-everywhere-in-a-100%-well-lit-room gameplay that plagued NS1, simply because of the engines limitations. To many people think "fast-paced" is the only design requirement for this game... personally i would enjoy a slow-paced scifi aliens-vs-marines experience. Something which amplifies the environment experience and decreases the mad rush for pointless kills while all the while building up for a final team sized firefight (attack the hive).
<!--quoteo(post=1732047:date=Oct 13 2009, 07:17 PM:name=homicide)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (homicide @ Oct 13 2009, 07:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1732047"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Has nothing to do with "proleets exploiting the gammas". EVERYONE'S monitors are different; this includes casual players and new players. Assuming EVERYONE cares about balance, lighting is a obstacle more than a feature. Developers struggled to balanced cloaking for years in NS1...until they finally just made aliens 100% invisible.
Maybe in 10 years when monitors are reasonably similar will lighting be a reasonable game mechanic. Until then, the goal is to make high range, high contrast lighting that adds depth to the environment without effecting gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhm you know that's why EVERY single game (even console games) have an option to correct gamma and a helpfull screen so the player can set the gamma to the optimal setting?
Yes there are differences in monitors and gpu's, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to "calibrate" gamma settings so the game looks more or less the same on most monitors. Personaly i'm using these options so i can enjoy the game the way it's meant to be enjoyed by the developers. Setting the gamma to the reight ammount which often means lower than you usually would often make a huge difference in atmosphere.
Sure it ends up as a small disadvantage because you won't be able to see things somebody with daylight-like gamma could see, but he loses out on the atmosphere. And the atmosphere is something i enjoy in games, even MP games. And i really don't want it to be thrown out of the window just because clanners think the game should be daylight bright so nobody could hide in any shadow regardless of their gamma setting.
In the end it's like i said before: You have to chose between competive gameplay or fun gameplay. These don't alllways go hand in hand, what might be fun to play for a regular player in a non-competive enviorment can be a big no-go for a competive game. That's why i don't like this "cater to the competive scene" behavior... if devs really want to do something like that they should offer different flavours of gameplay, one for the usual non-competive public gameplay and one for the competive people that demand balancing above all, even above gameplay and fun.
<!--quoteo(post=1732401:date=Oct 16 2009, 02:49 AM:name=FocusedWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FocusedWolf @ Oct 16 2009, 02:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1732401"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I disagree... your idea of "competitive" sounds to much like standard deathmatch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> By similar simplification your idea of NS2 doesn't sound like NS one bit.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lighting (i.e. the lack of lighting ... i.e. darkness) will play a major part in ns2 for the sake of immersiveness and slowing down the run-around-spraying-bullets-everywhere-in-a-100%-well-lit-room gameplay that plagued NS1, simply because of the engines limitations. To many people think "fast-paced" is the only design requirement for this game... personally i would enjoy a slow-paced scifi aliens-vs-marines experience. Something which amplifies the environment experience and decreases the mad rush for pointless kills while all the while building up for a final team sized firefight (attack the hive).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're making demands based purely on your idea of a game. Your idea of slow paced gameplay wrecks it for a big part of NS players that enjoy the faster paced style. The style wasn't particularly a result of engine limitations and I can't see why they picked HL if it didn't allow them to design a game they like. See CS, DoD, Battlegrounds and Insurgency(?) for slower gameplay on same engine, those even have dark rooms!
<!--quoteo(post=1732273:date=Oct 15 2009, 06:00 AM:name=corpsman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (corpsman @ Oct 15 2009, 06:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1732273"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is it then possable that other means of gameplay mechanics not exploitable could be used, such as making aliens have X amount of visability based on the lighting conditions? Or, my personal favorite idea of giving aliens a chameleon effect? Maybe having their skin textures or "skins" change color slightly in certain areas? So around the map they would be regular "alien color," then when they are near infestation they change a bit to a JUST SLIGHTLY matching texture, and when they are in dark areas they also change to 50% dark grey? So no matter WHAT someone does with his monitor (because he sucks), the aliens will still match the darker surroundings of the map?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->This isn't a terrible idea, but I don't think it's ever been tested in a multiplayer game. In games like Thief, Penumbra, etc. the player's character is given different abilities depending on how much darkness they are in.
However, this sort of thing is difficult to fool-proof, especially if the darkness gives some sort of visibility scale. The cooler it looks the more likely it would involve advanced shader settings, which could be disabled with a script or even a 3rd-party program, or may be unsupported on lower graphics settings. NS does it on a very basic level with, importantly, the extreme of pure invisibility at the far end of the spectrum. This is important because any level of 'semi'-visibility will depend on hardware settings which can be 'gamed' to give more of an advantage. This is about where my understanding of shader tech ends, but I have to say if the devs hope for NS to continue its competitive heritage, as well as its (let's be honest) wider-appealing aesthetic and design features, they would probably be best off leaving lighting as an aside.
Most people look at the problem as how to alter the game for competitive play from the more atmospheric default settings. I wonder if looking at it the other way round could lead to better results for all concerned. For example, it seems easier from a conceptual standpoint to take a more sterile and neutral template to begin with and ramp on the 'atmosphere' from that (a massive simplification, I know!). In effect this isn't dissimilar to how levels and games are traditionally created. World lighting, rendering effects, particle effects, visual and aural environmental details, GUI styling: all of these things are created in the later stages of the game (although the tech is surely implemented prior to this). If you compile an NS map without lighting and remove all the bells and whistles from the compile process you end up with the bare essentials, the sort of arena-style hunting grounds competitive players at the top end of the spectrum strive for.
What I would find interesting would be a togglable 'atmosphere' option in the game settings, perhaps even some sort of personalisation stage of the installation process. Perhaps a simple 'How do you like your NS?' question, the answer to which would define just how you would experience the NS universe.
I say this would be 'conceptually' easy but it would almost certainly be far less achievable in practise, and require far more extra hours of polish for a feature that doesn't justify the time and money spent on it for the relatively narrow audience it would make a difference to. Designing and creating a game once is enough of a challenge for an indie studio, let alone doing it all twice to keep everyone happy.
I think the closest I can see to this actually happening would be if the devs released the source versions of their maps (hey, it's not entirely out of the question, Valve has done it with some of the TF2 maps, afterall). With the source versions the community could recompile them with minor adjustments for competitive play. It would be an interesting project, I'd definitely be interested in getting stuck in to make it a reality if the devs supported it, but I don't think it gets around the issue at the root of all this: the one that splits the purists and tailor-makers right down the middle.
The biggest problem is that a lot of the changes that end up getting made in NS are done by changing the way the game functions on a fundamental level, and are done with 'insider knowledge' that is not accessibile from within the game. I think the best way to settle the problem is to acknowledge the difference within the game: let players know that competitive players will and CAN change their settings from within the game to the point where they can be confident none of them is getting a significant advantage from their modifications. Show all players that this can be done and acknowledge that it is supported by the devs. Give players the tools to make their own decisions from within the game so the <i>atmosphere versus performance</i> argument becomes instead <i>atmosphere OR performance</i>.
Comments
1) All engines drop off sounds at a finite level well before the capabilities of even a $10 pair of headphones. More expensive headphones add very little beyond atmosphere. In fact, most "gaming" headphones have horrible frequency response with horrible bass.
2) You are also massively overstating the differences between low end mice and a high end mice. Enough said.
3) As for cloaking...I have played NS on maybe 6 or 7 difference monitors. The difference is HUGE when it comes to seeing 5% cloaking. Its the difference between knowing the enemy is there or not; its the difference between killing the enemy or dieing without shooting a shot. This is a HUGE swing in gameplay for a MINOR difference in hardware/client configuration.
The MOST someone could argue about a $150 pair of headphones is that it allows players to pinpoint enemy position behind walls with slightly higher accuracy. The effect on gameplay is minor in comparison.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think i have an idea on how to use lighting without worrying about the player's brightness settings:
Is the flashlight still present in NS2? Because if it is still there then there could be some spots in the map that are completely dark, so no matter how much you played with the brightness it won't matter, the only way you will see is to turn your flash light on and considering that NS2 has occlusion lighting then there should be enough light once the flashlight is on for the player to see what's lurking in the dark. That's a simple way to use lighting without worrying on the brightness that people have their game set to. Of course I'm not suggesting to make large areas of the map completely dark, but perhaps a few small locations here and there *cough* gorge hide outs *cough*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the main problem with lighting affecting the gameplay is not that people don't want any kind of darkness in maps, but they rather not be in a situation where they have the "right" brightness settings to let the lighting play its role whereas another player has his brightness blasted through the roof where it looks like he's holding the sun in his hands wherever he goes; which will give the latter player a big advantage.
So the solution is to find a way for lighting to have an important role (other than eye candy) without it being affected by brightness settings.
In terms of balancing for competitive play I agree lighting should never form an integral part of game balance. But lighting actually does a lot more for game design outside of this arena and beyond aesthetics.
<a href="http://agamesdesignblog.com/2009/03/01/continuity-level-design/" target="_blank">http://agamesdesignblog.com/2009/03/01/con...y-level-design/</a> (see the <i>Lighting</i> and <i>Altogether Now</i> sections)
The same concepts extend to multiplayer level design. And this all links in to the argument I keep coming back to. The faster players learn the game the sooner they arrive at the stage where they begin to master it. If a game is more intuitive to newcomers its competitive community stands a greater chance of establishing itself and greater longevity. The most important thing is of course the core mechanics, but that's not to say intuitiveness can't augment this quality. Lighting is a significant part of intuitiveness in addition to its aesthetic qualities.
I concur, I stand corrected. Well-designed lighting plays an important role in guiding the experiences of a new player. For example, if a newbie dies to a skulk that s/he couldn't see due to poor lighting, they're likely to become frustrated because they died by no (apparent) fault of their own.
--Scythe--
Even if cheater X turns up his monitor, the alien skin will also be "turned up" to the same degree no matter what the contrast or brightness, so it really wont help much at all, and then it also adds the possabilities of gameplay mechanics being more dynamic?
I am not saying they change from grees neon to all black, but after 3-5 seconds their skins change to a much darker version, so they sorta blend a bit more....?
Good? Idea sucks? hehe
It would not only serve the purpose of anti-cheaters, but it would actually add something to the game. Question is, would it be worth it?
Would it be possible for the game to determine a skulk is in a sufficiently dark area that he cannot be seen therefore giving him 100% cloak? Then no amount of gamma cheats
or monitor quality can affect the experience. However when the flashlight shines on him then the skulk is visible within the cone of light.
OR...
Alien have cloak just like in NS1 but the marines can buy a lamp that casts a special ultraviolet light (or something) that reveals cloaked aliens. These lamp could be used in a similar fashion as scans/sensor tower in NS1, but the dynamic light code would enable a real line of sight alien reveal. rather than just a radius.
OR...
Also maybe the commander could drop battery operated very bright lamps that would light up and area within it's line of sight. These would work outside the grid but for a limited amount of time. They would be using a special wave lengtht that hurts the dynamic infestation or at least stops it's growth within line of sight. And it would also do a small DoT to aliens in it's line of sight.
I disagree... your idea of "competitive" sounds to much like standard deathmatch. Lighting (i.e. the lack of lighting ... i.e. darkness) will play a major part in ns2 for the sake of immersiveness and slowing down the run-around-spraying-bullets-everywhere-in-a-100%-well-lit-room gameplay that plagued NS1, simply because of the engines limitations. To many people think "fast-paced" is the only design requirement for this game... personally i would enjoy a slow-paced scifi aliens-vs-marines experience. Something which amplifies the environment experience and decreases the mad rush for pointless kills while all the while building up for a final team sized firefight (attack the hive).
Maybe in 10 years when monitors are reasonably similar will lighting be a reasonable game mechanic. Until then, the goal is to make high range, high contrast lighting that adds depth to the environment without effecting gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhm you know that's why EVERY single game (even console games) have an option to correct gamma and a helpfull screen so the player can set the gamma to the optimal setting?
Yes there are differences in monitors and gpu's, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to "calibrate" gamma settings so the game looks more or less the same on most monitors. Personaly i'm using these options so i can enjoy the game the way it's meant to be enjoyed by the developers. Setting the gamma to the reight ammount which often means lower than you usually would often make a huge difference in atmosphere.
Sure it ends up as a small disadvantage because you won't be able to see things somebody with daylight-like gamma could see, but he loses out on the atmosphere. And the atmosphere is something i enjoy in games, even MP games. And i really don't want it to be thrown out of the window just because clanners think the game should be daylight bright so nobody could hide in any shadow regardless of their gamma setting.
In the end it's like i said before: You have to chose between competive gameplay or fun gameplay. These don't alllways go hand in hand, what might be fun to play for a regular player in a non-competive enviorment can be a big no-go for a competive game. That's why i don't like this "cater to the competive scene" behavior... if devs really want to do something like that they should offer different flavours of gameplay, one for the usual non-competive public gameplay and one for the competive people that demand balancing above all, even above gameplay and fun.
By similar simplification your idea of NS2 doesn't sound like NS one bit.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lighting (i.e. the lack of lighting ... i.e. darkness) will play a major part in ns2 for the sake of immersiveness and slowing down the run-around-spraying-bullets-everywhere-in-a-100%-well-lit-room gameplay that plagued NS1, simply because of the engines limitations. To many people think "fast-paced" is the only design requirement for this game... personally i would enjoy a slow-paced scifi aliens-vs-marines experience. Something which amplifies the environment experience and decreases the mad rush for pointless kills while all the while building up for a final team sized firefight (attack the hive).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're making demands based purely on your idea of a game. Your idea of slow paced gameplay wrecks it for a big part of NS players that enjoy the faster paced style. The style wasn't particularly a result of engine limitations and I can't see why they picked HL if it didn't allow them to design a game they like. See CS, DoD, Battlegrounds and Insurgency(?) for slower gameplay on same engine, those even have dark rooms!
However, this sort of thing is difficult to fool-proof, especially if the darkness gives some sort of visibility scale. The cooler it looks the more likely it would involve advanced shader settings, which could be disabled with a script or even a 3rd-party program, or may be unsupported on lower graphics settings. NS does it on a very basic level with, importantly, the extreme of pure invisibility at the far end of the spectrum. This is important because any level of 'semi'-visibility will depend on hardware settings which can be 'gamed' to give more of an advantage. This is about where my understanding of shader tech ends, but I have to say if the devs hope for NS to continue its competitive heritage, as well as its (let's be honest) wider-appealing aesthetic and design features, they would probably be best off leaving lighting as an aside.
Most people look at the problem as how to alter the game for competitive play from the more atmospheric default settings. I wonder if looking at it the other way round could lead to better results for all concerned. For example, it seems easier from a conceptual standpoint to take a more sterile and neutral template to begin with and ramp on the 'atmosphere' from that (a massive simplification, I know!). In effect this isn't dissimilar to how levels and games are traditionally created. World lighting, rendering effects, particle effects, visual and aural environmental details, GUI styling: all of these things are created in the later stages of the game (although the tech is surely implemented prior to this). If you compile an NS map without lighting and remove all the bells and whistles from the compile process you end up with the bare essentials, the sort of arena-style hunting grounds competitive players at the top end of the spectrum strive for.
What I would find interesting would be a togglable 'atmosphere' option in the game settings, perhaps even some sort of personalisation stage of the installation process. Perhaps a simple 'How do you like your NS?' question, the answer to which would define just how you would experience the NS universe.
I say this would be 'conceptually' easy but it would almost certainly be far less achievable in practise, and require far more extra hours of polish for a feature that doesn't justify the time and money spent on it for the relatively narrow audience it would make a difference to. Designing and creating a game once is enough of a challenge for an indie studio, let alone doing it all twice to keep everyone happy.
I think the closest I can see to this actually happening would be if the devs released the source versions of their maps (hey, it's not entirely out of the question, Valve has done it with some of the TF2 maps, afterall). With the source versions the community could recompile them with minor adjustments for competitive play. It would be an interesting project, I'd definitely be interested in getting stuck in to make it a reality if the devs supported it, but I don't think it gets around the issue at the root of all this: the one that splits the purists and tailor-makers right down the middle.
The biggest problem is that a lot of the changes that end up getting made in NS are done by changing the way the game functions on a fundamental level, and are done with 'insider knowledge' that is not accessibile from within the game. I think the best way to settle the problem is to acknowledge the difference within the game: let players know that competitive players will and CAN change their settings from within the game to the point where they can be confident none of them is getting a significant advantage from their modifications. Show all players that this can be done and acknowledge that it is supported by the devs. Give players the tools to make their own decisions from within the game so the <i>atmosphere versus performance</i> argument becomes instead <i>atmosphere OR performance</i>.