Cheating apology videos VIDEO GAME TOPIC BOOMZILLA KEEP OUT SECRET FORT!
-
I don't agree on luck being the prime factor, but I'm not fond of hearthstone either - it feels like the main challenge of gameplay is in the deckbuilding, rather than in the playing of the game itself.
Just like MTG then.
-
is the same (i.e. It's all about money) true of the top levels of:
- F1/Nascar
- Professional team sport X
- Cycling
?
-
It's not all about the money, but money's a pretty big part of it…
-
F1/Nascar
F1: somewhat.
Nascar: significantly less so.
While running a race team in either is super expensive, Nascar rules are so tightened-down it's difficult to imagine how more money spent can improve race performance. F1 has been tightened-down a lot since the time of the Tyrrell P34, but there's still a lot more room for invention and innovation there.
Professional team sport X
Depends on the sport. Baseball is a definite "yes". (Why do you think everybody hates the Yankees?) Football seems to be more egalitarian.
Cycling
I know nothing about cycling. How much do those blood injections cost?
-
main challenge of gameplay is in the deckbuilding
Just like MTG then.
This is a common misconception that quickly goes away when you copy a deck that won a tournament (or wins/reaches the final 8 of tournaments weekly) and don't immediately win everything with it. It's an important factor, but if you eliminate it as a variable you find it isn't the MOST important factor. Every top level player in these games will tell you they would rather face a bad player with a good deck than a good player with a bad deck.
moving back onto the flamewar:
F1: somewhat.
Your answer to this question being anything other than "100% yes no question only money matters" makes your equivalent stance on hearthstone demonstrably wrong. The fact that you and me can't compete in F1 is a lot to do with money, but that doesn't mean the sport is a lot to do with money. If they put you or me in those cars we wouldn't stand a chance. If they put you or me in those cars and trained us for 2 years we would maybe, barely be able to keep up enough not to get lapped 600 times. The choices made driving those cars are what makes the sport, not the ridiculous sums of money and research that goes into building them. That's the reason the drivers are famous far more than the teams.
The same is true of hearthstone, and you only have to look at my record, or that prick TotalBiscuit's record to see that. I have access to all the cards, and I've never broken into the top 5% of players, because I'm not good enough at the game. That's not RNG hating me, that's not me failing to spend enough money on it. That's me not being good enough.
If you don't like the game that's fine, that's allowed. Just stop trying to justify that dislike with flawed arguments and accept that it's just about personal taste
-
Having actually played in MTG tournaments, I'm well aware that it's not just deck-building related, but I suck sufficiently at deck-building that any skill I have at playing is overshadowed somewhat...
-
The fact that you and me can't compete in F1 is a lot to do with money, but that doesn't mean the sport is a lot to do with money.
Of course the sport has a lot to do with money. The question you were asking is, "does more money lead to more winning?"
The same is true of hearthstone, and you only have to look at my record, or that prick TotalBiscuit's record to see that.
THAT PRICK!!!!!
Wait what?
If you don't like the game that's fine, that's allowed.
Duh?
But then the question becomes: why are you defending it so vehemently? Why do you give a shit whether I play it or not?
-
The fact that you and me can't compete in F1 is a lot to do with money, but that doesn't mean the sport is a lot to do with money.
TV coverage in the UK went to Sky because they paid more for the rights, ticket prices for the races are stratospheric, half the drivers have to pay the teams just to drive, and classic venues like Hockenheim and Nurburgring are being ousted by cookie-cutter Middle East tracks funded by oil.In F1, money is emperor, king, queen, President, and Prime Minister, all in one.
-
It's also not very popular in the US, where Nascar is king. I think that's because there's a perception that Nascar's rules are more fair. I don't have any statistics to back anything up though.
-
I think it's more that F1 is seen as over-complicated and Euro-elitist. And they have a point, what with DRS, hybrid powertrains, mandatory use of two tyre compounds, a three-part qualifying format, etc.
-
But then the question becomes: why are you defending it so vehemently? Why do you give a shit whether I play it or not?
I give a shit only in so far as this conversation started out with you claiming it was not a game, and then continued with you perpetuating falsehoods and misconceptions that are easily countered. Your feelings about the game are irrelevant to me, the facts about it that were being misrepresented are not.
I suck sufficiently at deck-building that any skill I have at playing is overshadowed somewhat
I have this problem too in both games, which is why I very quickly stopped letting that be a factor in how I performed, and just copied the best decks with few (if any) tweaks. I figured, and was backed up by the advice of my betters, that minimizing the possible causes for your losses so you can focus on improving whilst maximizing your performance.
-
In F1, money is emperor, king, queen, President, and Prime Minister, all in one.
but none of those things you mentioned has any significant impact on who wins
-
@RaceProUK said:
In F1, money is emperor, king, queen, President, and Prime Minister, all in one.
but none of those things you mentioned has any significant impact on who wins
If money really didn't have an impact on who wins, Manor Marussia would be competing for wins instead of finishing three laps down every race.
-
If money really didn't have an impact on who wins
but that's not what I'm trying to argue, all I'm trying to argue is that more money only gets you so far - the rest of the outcome (and its a large the rest) is based on skill
-
but that's not what I'm trying to argue, all I'm trying to argue is that more money only gets you so far - the rest of the outcome (and its a large the rest) is based on skill
In team sports like MLB and F1 racing, money buys you better players. So... yes.
-
Generally speaking, in the U.S., if you declare bankruptcy, you can keep your house as long as you choose it to be exempt from bankruptcy, and as long as you can continue to make the same size mortgage payments as before. Of course, the bankruptcy process is a real bitch (as it should be), and your creditors will get as much of their money as they can, one way or another.
-
In team sports like MLB and F1 racing, money buys you better players. So... yes.
Buying better players doesn't make those players perform better.
-
Buying better players doesn't make those players perform better.
But you can afford the good steroids, like the ones Barry Bonds was taking. The good shit man!
-
Having money is not a winning move for the player, but for the team.
-
I really enjoy playing MTG as a complete casual. It's fun watching people who start getting into it buy all the rare cards they want and copy pro decks, while I just occasionally buy decks or packages of cards and build stuff with what I have, and ignore all their minmaxing efforts. Everyone works so hard to get full sets of the cards they like, and I build atrocious hybrid decks with very few duplicate cards, and do just fine because I don't put all my eggs in one basket. I like having the RNG present me with different bizarre paths to victory every game.
People sometimes get mad about this. They feel I shouldn't win if I don't put as much thought into my deck as they do. I have fun despite them.
-
Looks like I'm not the only one with a sandy vagina fetish...
-
-
For example, player housing. Returning it would mean you can't go into it any longer, for example.
I wish more people would do that with their starbases in EVE instead of leaving dead sticks behind in space...because man, are they a pain in the arse for the next inhabitant to clean up.
Filed under: zombie starbase disposal services
First, even if you make up rules beforehand, there are restrictions against unfair rules. I mean, who knows what small-print crap you're agreeing with when you click OK before installing the game. Doesn't mean these are actually enforceable by law.
Yep. You can't contract your way past the law (it's the same principle that'd get you in trouble if you contracted with a hitman for w/e reason), and contracts of adhesion are prejudiced against by the courts for very good reason (they reflect a highly asymmetric positioning by the parties).But even more than that, it feels different if you're buying a product, instead of leasing a service. When I buy a thing, I expect it to be mine. Don't care about any of their stupid rules. If there's any service attached to the product (like a multiplayer service), I expect that to be provided, so I can enjoy the product I have purchased. Otherwise, refund.
Which is why consumer-protection laws can't be contracted away...If they want to ban people at will, I'd be more comfortable if they were selling The Multiplayer Service and the "game" was just a meaningless accessory you get for free and use to access their servers. I would still expect some kind of refund (based on the lease time), but I'd feel less iffy about keeping all the money in that case.
Which is exactly how EVE (and many other MMOs) are set up...That certainly sounds to me like something is wrong with their game. ISTM that a security hole big enough to allow such rampant cheating is a) a priority 1 critical bug, and b) failure to fix said bug in a timely fashion is tantamount to tacitly condoning the exploitation of said bug.
HELL YES
Some game devs need NEVER TRUST THE CLIENT drilled into their head with a clue-by-four!
The second prong of the proper response would have been, as I said previously, for Daybreak to have made fixing the bug that made this cheating possible their top priority. I just reread the OP and was reminded this game still in beta. (Anyone spending lots of money and hundreds of hours on a potentially unstable beta game is Doing It Wrong™, IMHO, but that's a different discussion.) If anything, that should have made fixing the bug faster and easier. Players are (or should be) expecting some instability, so it's ok (IMHO) to push a fix into production more quickly than you would for a fully stable released version. "Sorry guys, this update may break something. If so, file a report and we'll fix it ASAP, but at the moment making the game fair and preventing cheating is more important than some minor gameplay feature not working."
Well, here's the thing. As someone who's been involved in the cheat wars in the past (on the anti-cheat side, TYVM), there are four kinds of people involved:- The folks who write the cheats, who are mostly doing it in a "because they can" fashion, or to prove a point, much like what our community did to Jeff and his "no bots in Discourse!" line.
- The script kiddies who download them and run with them onto random servers and piss people off
- The admins who are busily fighting a war against 2. and sometimes find themselves pitted against 1.
- The game devs, who are too dumb to pay attention to 1. IME and sometimes too dumb to pay attention to 3. but may notice of large quantities of 2. show up.
and four kinds of things that are commonly lumped into "cheating":
- Using emergent mechanical interactions of intended mechanics in a way that's unfair to those who don't know about them. (I do A and B ingame, and interesting and not-totally-expected thing X happens that can be used to gain an edge.)
- Taking advantage of bugs/unintended behaviors in the game mechanics to gain an unfair advantage (Mechanic Y is broken/buggy and can be used to gain an unfair advantage.)
- Taking advantage of flaws in the underlying engine mechanisms (netcode hacking, server hijacking, issues with lack of server authority)
- Inappropriate or excessive automation (*bots, basically)
(Technically there's a 4.5 that covers visuals used to gain an advantage such as bright skins, or more egregiously, maphacks, but in this day and age, that's less of a concern, I suppose? Also, RMT itself isn't a concern in this context -- it's a whole another can of worms to deal with.)
The thing is, whether 1. and 2. are considered cheating is very much dependent on the community and the game (some bugs/emergent behaviors become "part of the game") -- I suspect this has much to do with the length of time they last before a fix is deployed.
Number 3 is basically a function of bad/buggy coding -- these bugs lead to ruinous cheats, yet somehow creep into games time and time again, much like how XSS bugs continue to creep into terrible webapps. If you have people running around exploiting these en masse, it's your own damn fault, you're bad, and you should feel bad. Oh, and banning won't help. FIX YOUR CODE!
However, while number 4 isn't a problem on consoles, it is the really nasty stinker under the covers of the PC Master Race. Unless every game mechanic you build is really a reverse Turing test, you'll have bots on your hands. The devs do have some control over quantity, though, through incentive means (making required-to-play-the-game mechanics interesting instead of stone-boring or carpal-tunnel-inducing) and the provision of admin/anti-cheat tools that are adequate for the task at hand.
Every software product I have ever "purchased," AFAICR, and this is almost certainly true of you, too, I haven't actually purchased the software; I have purchased a license to use the software, subject to terms and conditions. I haven't read Daybreak's EULA, but I very much doubt they're an exception to the practice of licensing, rather than selling, their software.
Terms and conditions. If you violate the terms and conditions of the license, your license to use the software ends (technically, even if the licensor doesn't know of the violation). You may not care about "their stupid rules," but they are, in general, enforceable by a court. (This assumes they clearly written, not overly broad, unambiguous, reasonable, etc.) Lawyers are pedantic dickweeds on steroids; they love to pick things apart and find loopholes, but if you have a contract that says X (clearly defined, reasonable, etc.) will cause termination of your license, and you do X, the court is going to have very little sympathy for you, especially if doing X is clearly unfair to other licensees.
Let's say you walk into your local computer store and buy a retail boxed copy of, say, MS Word. The license agreement says, among other things, you're not allowed to decompile or reverse-engineer it, and that upon termination of the license, you must destroy any copies you have of the software. You take it home, fire up dotPeek, and start poking around at the guts of Word; you've just violated the terms of, and terminated, your license, without ever having enjoyed any (legitimate) use of the software for which you bought a license. If MS were to somehow learn of this, they could ask a court to force you to destroy every copy of Word in your possession, and they would almost certainly win. Do you think they should refund your money? I guarantee you the court won't think so.
Here's the thing with that mentality, though -- there is no session where you/your lawyer got to sit down with MS's lawyer and go through the contract, making sure that each term is to the satisfaction of both parties. That session, that "meeting of the minds", is just as much a part of contract law as the enforcement of the contract, and a putative contract that doesn't reflect any "meeting of the minds" can be voided by the court. Better yet, if you amend the contract and then hand it back in to MS, you have the right to do that before ever agreeing to it.Yes. Certainly, some of them are. Others, that are properly written, and where the licensee has the opportunity to, ya know, read the agreement before accepting it (whether or not they actually do so) are enforceable. Like so much of law, it depends on the specific, pedantic dickweedy details.
I'd say that EULAs are marginally enforceable, but only to the extent they're consistent with other law. Certainly, clauses that are at odds with consumer protection law, or put extralegal provisions on a transaction dressed as a fee simple sale (as opposed to a subscription/lease/licensure), are problematic to say the least...This is a common misconception that quickly goes away when you copy a deck that won a tournament (or wins/reaches the final 8 of tournaments weekly) and don't immediately win everything with it. It's an important factor, but if you eliminate it as a variable you find it isn't the MOST important factor. Every top level player in these games will tell you they would rather face a bad player with a good deck than a good player with a bad deck.
Basically, "how do I use this damn thing?!"
-
I wish more people would do that with their starbases in EVE instead of leaving dead sticks behind in space...because man, are they a pain in the arse for the next inhabitant to clean up.
Wizard101 does it nicely--housing isn't in the game world. You go to a hub, and there's a doorway that goes to your house, which is essentially in a pocket universe.
Back in the day in UO, houses decayed if nobody went into them for about 10 days.
-
Wizard101 does it nicely--housing isn't in the game world. You go to a hub, and there's a doorway that goes to your house, which is essentially in a pocket universe.
Instanced housing has its ups and its downs -- I've seen such a thing functioning, and it certainly has advantages, but it's not something I would recommend for every game.
-
WoW has seamless instanced housing with garrisons in the latest xpack. It's major downside is that it's a more effective hangout than the major cities, so you never see anybody.
-
WoW has seamless instanced housing with garrisons in the latest xpack. It's major downside is that it's a more effective hangout than the major cities, so you never see anybody.
Hah, I hadn't even thought of that, but you're right.
BTW how do you get/invite someone else into your garrison?
-
You better watch out for big pharma, they will try and turn your future kids into a cash cow when it comes time to vaccinate them.
Ok, I'll bite. Once.
Funny you should mention that, since here in the States this is happening right now:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2232/text
Excerpt:
"To amend the Public Health Service Act to condition receipt by States (and political subdivisions and public entities of States) of preventive health services grants on the establishment of a State requirement for students in public elementary and secondary schools to be vaccinated in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and for other purposes."
-
BTW how do you get/invite someone else into your garrison?
Just invite them to your party. Every member has a checkbox to toggle between visiting the party leader's garrison and their own.
All they need to do is walk into the garrison zone and they'll be phased into whichever garrison they have selected.
-
Not sure if you are opposed to the bill or in favour, I guess that's because you're not sure if I was being sarcastic with the whole big pharma conspiracy stuff (I was, vaccinate your kids).
-
-
"To amend the Public Health Service Act to condition receipt by States (and political subdivisions and public entities of States) of preventive health services grants on the establishment of a State requirement for students in public elementary and secondary schools to be vaccinated in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and for other purposes."
At least the requirement and consequence are nominally pretty related, unlike, say, the drinking age and highway funds.
-
Just invite them to your party. Every member has a checkbox to toggle between visiting the party leader's garrison and their own.
Oh, I didn't know about that. Thanks.
-
here in the States this is happening right now:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2232/text
Good. Herd immunity FTW
