Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Opinion on "no spec cheat" rule?

39 posts, 1106 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (39 records)
sort

3 months ago
This post has been downvoted below -5 and collapsed, click here to expand
... sigh.
Opinion on "no spec cheat" rule?
+1 / -11
3 months ago
why is this..... even asked?
like am I missing something or is there only one opinion here?
+7 / -0

3 months ago
The official opinion is: don't.
My opinion is: don't.
+10 / -0
3 months ago
Why is there a question here? Who likes spec cheat?
+6 / -0
i wrote a unit tweak giving mex full map view..

e3N0YXRpY21leD17c2lnaHREaXN0YW5jZT03Xjd9LH0=

then i realized its already a part of the game and you can just turn "global los" to true in room settings

and i also realize cliver is asking about cheating not playing without fog.. i expect there are a few who do already do this.. there are cheaters in many games.. perhaps cliver is asking if a no spec option can be added to rooms for replay only spectating?

maybe thats not such a bad idea for some high level games.

if a group of 8 players wanted to play a purple ranked game and they dont want any spectators only players.. then an option to kick and lock the the room to specs could be useful in tornaments for example

incase your still reading my board ramblings..
im going to mention just because it was funny i tried to make my commander into a singularity using a tweak and it caused my comander to instantly explode XD
+1 / -0
specmute (or mutespec?) modifier is already a thing, aside from that this is another nothingbburger thread
+2 / -0
yes perhaps your right but lets just check we are on the same page.

i dont mean to ?voice? mute spectators but rather to prevent them 'as spectators' because this can and indeed sometimes does equate to simply another screen next to a person playing using two accounts. they are able to then look using the extra account at the nature of there enemy.

unless i missunderstand what mutespec does? does it prevent spectating? perhpas the word mute is confusing me?
+1 / -0
3 months ago
I don't know of a way to prevent spectating
+0 / -0
3 months ago
What is the purpose of starting so many unnecessary threads?
+4 / -0

3 months ago
If this thread is relating to a specific incident I am unaware of it.

---

To answer the question seriously, I am going to identify some broad categories of "spectator cheating":

(1) Posting in all-chat with the explicit intent to give one team or another an advantage. Nobody likes this. (Note that you don't even have to be revealing true information to do this. Saying that one team is building Zenith, prompting the other team to scout, is still cheating even if they weren't building a Zenith.)

(2) Rage posting (typically from resigned players, looking at you <REDACTED>). Nobody likes this either.

(3) Posting "LOL" or some such when something funny happens. Some people think this is OK, particularly if all teams had vision of the event in question. I almost always would strongly prefer spectators of my games not do this. At best it is usually disrespectful to at least one team or player.

(4) Giving (typically new) players instructions. I think there are mixed opinions on this. I am sometimes prepared to tolerate this in my games but it MUST be short, useful and respectful.

(5) Incompetence. Forgetting to "a:" or similar. This is unfortunate but we cannot expect everyone to be perfect.
+5 / -0
what if somone builds 3 singu and doesnt connect them all game.. that drives me nutz.. its hard to bottle this up.. i need therapy after.. i really really want to tell them. '=D
+4 / -0

3 months ago
quote:
what if somone builds 3 singu and doesnt connect them all game.. that drives me nutz.. its hard to bottle this up.. i need therapy after.. i really really want to tell them. '=D


We call this, a skill issue.
+0 / -0
... sigh. I knew that there's no progress without shame. But -7 dislikes is excessive. Good thing that the dislikes don't mean a thing, and I got what I wanted: AUrankAdminAquanim gave me the feedback I wanted, with due respect and lack of disrespect. These kinds of responses are the reason I have to ignore any sort of rating.

Anyway, I asked this question because I wanted to run a lobby where "spec cheat" is allowed. As Aquanium stated, by "spec cheat," I don't necessarily mean "spec troll," just something that gives an unfair advantage to make the game more fun. As Aquanium stated, new players can benefit from spec cheat, even if the feedback comes from an enemy, to learn the game better. But furthermore, I don't like fair battles, since they don't push innovation. Sure, it can be fun to play a mirror match over and over again, but to me, it might be interesting to see what happens in scenarios of "last stand," which only happen in strong vs newb players, which is an inherintly unfair match.

Maybe people misunderstood my intentions as to promote spec cheat in all lobbies. I am not <REDACTED> or <REDACTED> player, I think that [CLARIFICATION]: "no spec cheating" is a fair rule for competitive games.

With that cleared up, AUrankSmokeDragon, AUrankAdminAquanim, thanks for the feedback. Another day proving that higher rank =/= better player.
+0 / -4
"I wanted to run a lobby where "spec cheat" is allowed"

you can turn on all is visible so that all players can see the map
+0 / -0
I forget what it's called, but we've had a game type for a long time where everybody has full vision of the map and you can't built antis... It's called something along the lines of mutually assured destruction, after the principle by which nations that have nukes do not use them in fear of being destroyed by retaliatory strikes. I forget the exact name if that's not it.

Calling that "spec cheating" is weird. Cheating implies a rule is broken. There's nothing being broken if the mode is changed for the lobby and everybody is equally impacted by the change. Cheating implies that a change was made to benefit a specific player/team, most likely done in a covert fashion.
+3 / -0
3 months ago
yeah he seems to be asking for cheating and not for full vision.. i think he feeds off the energies of our reactive focus.. a common attention seeking vampirism. but there is more to this story.. and i fear at its depths is always a mischievous spirit sustaining itself by drawing attention away from its own unsettled erratic natures..



the fire that spreads.. less consumes itself... the quiet that haunts this man is his tial.. i do pitty him
+0 / -0
3 months ago
:(
+0 / -0

3 months ago
quote:
But furthermore, I don't like fair battles, since they don't push innovation.


Source?

quote:
it might be interesting to see what happens in scenarios of "last stand," which only happen in strong vs newb players, which is an inherintly unfair match.


Why is that interesting? Do you assume some brilliant strategy comes out of that?
+2 / -0
 But furthermore, I don't like fair battles, since they don't push innovation. 


is it not the opposite?.. that the more fair the ballte the longer you have to ~ and the more you have need of ~ inovation
+1 / -0
3 months ago
small thing on the forgetting an "a:":
The first time i spectated i was greatly confused about it. Spectators seem to have an "allied" team and an enemy team and i originally assumed that messages starting with "a:" would only go to the allied team, so i kept removing it so at least both teams would have the same information (or noninformation) from my messages. Needless to say the other audience quickly put an end to that
+3 / -0
Page of 2 (39 records)