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)
Ok so let's take the one key SR-50 discussion to the next level.
Let's keep all the same principals of the original stance as taken by the pro one keyers.
Sounds good. Everyone wins.
But we'll make one adjustment.
Oh? What would that be?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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?
Joined: 23 May 2003 Location: United States Clan: UniDoom
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:58 pm Post subject:
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.
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