You could also build a robot that uses a webcam and USB input for keyboard/mouse to play FPS better than most humans - an interesting project to be sure. Yeah, you can do that - and I suppose you'll nominally "win" - but it's really not playing the game we all agreed on so wtf is your point?
You can justify all the hacks you want with "well you shouldn't let me do that!" but to everyone else it's the same thing as playing Monopoly and you punching everyone else to take their money.
It comes down to the simple fact that just because you can do something, doesn't necessarily mean you should. I'm alright with the low security tradeoff. Expecting game devs to be able to come up with a "fully secure" networking protocol simply means far less games are made. Thus the clients are considered part of the whole "gaming system" - not to be altered - and I'm okay with that. I agree what you are railing about is poor design, but many times that poor security design is done because syncing games is a Hard(tm) problem - especially latency sensitive games. When I was younger I was more receptive to this sort of argument. But once you acknowledge this, I think you also have to give up some of the moral high-horsery that comes with casting judgment about cheating on other players. Right, and so some concessions must be made.
> I agree in theory, but it's not always possible - latency is a major limitation in keeping everything on the server-side. It's more like a card game in which I show you my cards and then ask you to forget that you saw them - this is what you are saying my client must do in order to provide a fair experience for you. This analogy is way off vis a vis the current topic. > Also, moving pieces in a boardgame when your opponent isn't looking probably isn't cheating either? And there are plenty of games at which humans will continue to trounce computers for the foreseeable future. It makes more sense for those of us who wish to continue to evolve here at this moment at the end of time to play games that humans are good at. And I will lose.Ĭomputers beat humans at some games. On the other hand, if I'm playing chess against an cloaked and anonymous adversary, it might as well be the smartest computer on the planet. This is an interpersonal affront, but it's hard for me to gauge what it means in terms of sport. If I'm playing chess against you, across the table, at a coffee shop somewhere, and you are surreptitiously glancing at your contact lens HUD, playing essentially on behalf of an AI, then I guess you are not being very nice or honest to me. > Consulting a chess engine (unbeatable AI) on your phone when playing chess with someone isn't cheating?Īt some level, there needs to be a dose of reality in this conversation. > Macros that allow you to perform actions that are physically impossible for a human to perform isn't cheating? It seems to me that the moral responsibility here is on the author(s) - they have slighted the player by instructing, via their code, their disconnection from the game at an improper time. > Exploiting a glitch that causes your opponent to disconnect from the game isn't cheating? So yes, I don't think that, in this strict sense of how knowledge translates to cheating, that wall hacks are cheating.
MAPS WARZONE 2100 CODE
I can also imagine other solutions.īut transposing an unrelated theory of mind ("the code of the version I'm playing constitute the rules for you") seems untenable, inorganic, and in arguably insufficient defined in the first place.
I can imagine knowledge coming in encrypted "chunks," with keys issued only for those chunks within a player's proper domain. It seems that the philosophy here is constrained by the (real or perceived) connectivity issues surrounding the withholding of knowledge other than that which the player is allowed to know. By your logic, wall-hacks (changing the wall texture to be transparent in FPSes) isn't cheating?
0 kommentar(er)
