Joined: 23 May 2003 Location: United States Clan: UniDoom
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: Would YOU Do This? (SR-50 and beyond)
switcher wrote:
Ok so let's take the one key SR-50 discussion to the next level.
Ok!
switcher wrote:
Let's keep all the same principals of the original stance as taken by the pro one keyers.
Sounds good. Everyone wins.
switcher wrote:
But we'll make one adjustment.
Oh? What would that be?
switcher wrote:
Let's say someone discovered an easy configuration change to your ZD file that would suddenly make all your shots 100% accurate.
This would fall within the confines of allowable game modifications and also be available to anyone who wanted it.
Indeed, 100% accuracy in your shots achievable through modification of the game itself (Which I assume you mean the target executable, in this case, zdaemon.exe) is in fact considered cheating as it is modifying the program to grant yourself an advantage which others would not have available to them from the get-go.
switcher wrote:
Would you not think that a cheat?
If you're alluding to SR-50, I already explained it here, but nevertheless, I will repeat myself for the sake of the topic at hand which is dedicated to SR-50 discussion.
Now, I don't believe it is a cheat to allow a solution to a 'bug' to be harnessed with the power of a single key. Why not? Well, all you have to do is download the game, go into the console, and type in the command, specifically, the alias command, no? Well, that can't be a cheat, as opposed to aimbotting or wallhacking, two of the most frowned upon hacks, which modifies the executable in most cases, and/or the doom2.wad file, plus any pwads associated with it at the time. Is this sort of this readily available to just about everyone? Absolutely not.
switcher wrote:
Other than the nature of the enhancement, the parametres of this example are identical to the current one key SR-50 situation.
Where did you come up with this? Identical? Not really. With SR-50 you had the ability to achieve it in-game since the .exe days. Now, you can do it in a multitude of different ways, with how advanced source ports are getting. Here's the thing, though. In order to achieve 100% aim in .exe, to fit with your example 'identically', you would have to use a modified .exe. Not so with SR-50, which is a game glitch that shipped with the game.
Later on, source ports allowed it to be simpler to achieve SR-50, much like 'promods' on various other games, used for competition, help streamline and effectively lay out techniques at a user's fingertips, evening the playing field down to a single variable: Skill. Just like they allow configurations to be used to allow multiple binds and other tricks which were considerably harder to pull off in the stock game, multiplayer source ports nowadays do the exact same thing. However, what they do NOT do, is allow you to achieve 100% aim, using just the included executable and wad files. Your analogy is flawed and does not hold water.
switcher wrote:
Would it be perfectly acceptable for everyone to have perfect shooting ability until the developers found and corrected the problem?
Considering how your previous analogy didn't even hold up under your own definition of the problem, I don't see how this should even matter. But, let's see, here. You would define aiming as a key principles of 'skill', would you not? Movement is another. What you're implying by your comparison is that with a one key SR-50 solution, everyone's movement will be improved to such a level that it would be equal to 100% aiming. This is not the case. And as such, is completely irrelevant, as SR-50 does not make you dodge every shot, SR-50 is a tool, and is to be treated like a tool, instead of a magic bullet for people who want to be 'pro'. Let me remind you that there are so many variables to being skilled apart from using a tool. One being, using that tool effectively against your opponent(s).
switcher wrote:
According the arguments I've been hearing from the pro one key people, this would be a perfectly ok situation.
So then, to what level of disruption to the game should modifying enhancements be tolerated?
Let me show you something. Would you also consider this as a cheat? I have bound this just as I have bound my two-key SR-50 binds. By loading ZDaemon 1.08.07, going into the console, and typing it in using the bind command. This is no different from binding SR-50.
Code:
bind mouse3 "centerview ; toggle freelook"
By your suggestion at the removal, and argument against one-key SR-50, let's look at what makes it up. You have to bind several actions to one key to execute the one-key solution. That is exactly what I have done so that I can enable mouselook and center my view at the same time. Therefore, that should be removed as well, as I should have to press two keys to achieve the same effect, no?
Oh, and mouselook didn't even exist in .exe. I assume that by using it, and not relying continuously on autoaim, it falls under the same judgement you're suggesting we impose upon the one-key solution to SR-50, under the grounds that because 'it didn't exist in .exe, we don't need it'.
switcher wrote:
Obviously everyone running around using SR-50 and aimbot would be a ridiculous situation.
Indeed. And yet, SR-50 does not guarantee you as much power as an aimbot does. Not even close. Aimbots aim for you. SR-50 increases your speed slightly. You still need to use it wisely, to gain any sort of benefit from it. While with aimbots, hell, you just sit back and go to town. There's a stark contrast between the two and you should never compare one to the other.
switcher wrote:
But by the accounts of the pro one keyers, this would all be acceptable and no one would be cheating.
I want to hear why you think it's cheating. All you're doing is asking the questions, and giving no answers in return. This is a two-way street.
switcher wrote:
I'd like to know what you think about this?
I'd like to know what you think about this.
And on top of that, what is your definition of cheating, in ZDaemon?
I stopped reading all your stuff half way through because the whole premise of your argument fails.
For my theoretcal example, the cheat is achieved in the EXACT same way as the SR-50 cheat is, by whatever method which since I do not use, I do not know.
I assumed it was the ZDOOM.ini file but it does not matter for the sake of this discussion.
Last edited by switcher on Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 23 May 2003 Location: United States Clan: UniDoom
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject:
switcher wrote:
I stopped reading all your bullshit half way through because the whole premise of your argument fails.
You wanted an intelligent discussion, and were telling others not to reply in the way that they did, when now you, in turn, are doing the exact same thing.
"I don't see why you have a problem with discussing this."
switcher wrote:
In my theoretcal example, the cheat is achieved in the EXACT same way as the SR-50 cheat is.
By modifying the ZDOOM.ini file.
Please, explain how you would be able to achieve 100% aim through a simple modification of the .ini file.
Joined: 23 May 2003 Location: United States Clan: UniDoom
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:58 pm Post subject:
switcher wrote:
It is a THEORETICAL example!!!
A WHAT IF.
Man you guys are dense.
I see you edited your post. You don't need to get on the defensive and start throwing insults at 'us', (although really you're just calling me dense) when all I did was answer your call for an intelligent reply. Or was that simply a bluff, not expecting a reply which in fact called out every facet of your argument?
I have not once seen a counter-argument since the last thread, and this one. You made this thread for this purpose, and now you're acting like this. That's not very mature.
Buddy, you did not answer my orignal question in this thread in any way.
The question is what if an aimbot modification was discovered that was as easy to do and as accessible to all as the one key SR-50 cheat is now.
Would you use it? Why? Why not? Why would it be any different just because it is more powerful? At what point is it too much?
That's it... now it is up for discussion... I am not going to moderate nor be a punching bag here... just look at the intent of the theoretical discussion and ponder the questions.
If anyone does not like the thread simply don't post.
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Next
Page 1 of 7
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
