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

Opinion on "no spec cheat" rule?

39 posts, 1159 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (39 records)
sort


5 months ago
USrankCliver5 I would imagine the downvotes are due to your history of spamming pointless threads. The OP makes this thread look like it would be another one of those. You gave the thread no purpose, it just looked like you were fishing for general opinions about a rule that most of the community feels is pretty settled.
quote:
... 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

Now you're acting like a martyr, but this path leads nowhere good. You have to own the fact that you have a reputation for spamming pointless threads, and that the OP of this thread made it look like this thread was nothing different. If you don't, then I fear you'll eventually end up on the wrong side of reality. So please realise this early. You probably don't have to adjust that much at this point.

Here is how you could have started this thread:
quote:
I ask this question because I want to run a lobby where "spec cheat" is allowed. By "spec cheat," I don't necessarily mean "spec troll," just something that gives an unfair advantage to make the game more fun. 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.

This gives people something to respond to and it tells them what the thread is about. It represents you putting the effort in to make the thread good.

I think running a room with whatever rules you want is fine, provided everyone is aware of those rules and opts in. If your room becomes the default big teams server, then you can't just suddenly spec cheat a game and expect everyone to be fine with it. Perhaps use the Notes battle option under Options -> Experimental to write a note about the rules for your room.
+13 / -0

5 months ago
hnnngh https://zero-k.info/Forum/Post/267175#267175
I'll move the complaints to that vent. As for the question itself, I'll consider it answered.
Please don't continue the drama here. Only use this thread to answer the question itself. Next time, make a separate thread to put accusations of trolling against anyone, please, or people will fear to do so much as to mention their humblest and meek opinions.
+0 / -0
5 months ago
quote:
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.


You'd only confuse the new player in that situation, and giving any specific orders (go there, build that etc.) in all chat would just benefit the experienced player over the noob. If a spec gives direct advice in the chat, the good player can just run multiple different strats simultaneously, forcing the noob to multitask to a point where they fail to do anything.

If there's a enough of a skill gap between players, giving advice in a place both players can see will only ever benefit the more skilled player.
+0 / -0
"is it no the opposite?.. that the more fair the ballte the longer you have to ~ and the more you have need of ~ inovation"
Actually, any game that plays the same pushes against innovation. But the more steep the matchup is, the more it pushes the struggling player to make plays that truly make a difference in the game. Personally, I find games where I'm losing 100% of the time for 1 hours while still standing, is more fun than winning 99% of the time for 1 hour and... learning that I can quit, I guess.
That's my take. Sorry that I couldn't see your genuine question in the heat.

Oh, and I guess it's worth mentioning. It's the amount of time when the player is losing that matters. If he loses so hard that he loses in the 1st minute, it can make fun for different skirmishes but it doesn't necessarily push for different strategies. So, time AND variety, but variety that is interesting to observe. I personally find losing matchups to be an unexplored area of Zero-K that could be quite interesting, pushing to do the most with just the defender's advantage.
+0 / -1

5 months ago
"Why is that interesting? Do you assume some brilliant strategy comes out of that?"
Yeah, I do. It can force the players to make little traps and tell people to walk into them, motivate players to stop the battle by relaying their position and intents, maybe argue about using the flamewalkers less because it counters their entire strategy. Sure, a similar effect could be achieved by disabling the fog of war, but the added psychological element and the forcing of communication, negotiating with possible traitors and goofing around in chat is what I thought could make the lobby with "no spec cheat" to be fun for one or two or rare occasions.
+1 / -0
5 months ago

Please don't continue the drama here



im confused are you going back on your instruction to not use this post? are we allowd to repond here or do we use your other post?
+0 / -0
also you can edit posts so they dont have to stack.. in exactly the same way as i just didnt do

eg: i added this on with an edit
+0 / -0
quote:
Actually, any game that plays the same pushes against innovation

why are you blatantly equating "fair battles" to "games that play the same"

these posts are so riddled with superficiality that it is hard to argue with because there is virtually nothing to argue with
+6 / -0
deleted a story because i named the main character cliver5
+1 / -3
AUrankSmokeDragon your compulsion to make posts that look deep and meaningful in other people's threads, particularly when they are making personal comments, is not helpful and perpetuates drama that the forum does not need. Please stop.
+5 / -1
i tried in my own way to help him see his anger issues with a story.. im sorry for the harm it caused. i will leave now. thanks for all the games. please delete my account i dont want to return. . it seems feeling misunderstood when i tried to help made me quite angry. im ok now and i forgive. i have posted my password it was removed because i dont want to cause troube.. but others may now have it. thanks
+1 / -0
I have reset your password. I don't know how you are going to learn what it is. Apparently you have a steam login you could try. There are other things you could do, but spelling them out causes headaches.
+0 / -0
5 months ago
in
PvE - fair game, often helpfull/gamesaveing
PvP - it does more harm than good while keeping in mind, not every conversation is spec cheat.
+0 / -0

5 months ago
quote:
why are you blatantly equating "fair battles" to "games that play the same"

Maybe because I got used to equal forces fighting each others. I felt sad that the best way to gain an advantage in a game is to win one battle and then watch things crumble. I wished to see moments when I needed to win twice the advantage, four times the advantage, to win. TEN TIMES THE ADVANTAGE!

So, my opinion does not apply to every game and every player. It is situational. I will make no comment on whether I equate blatantly or not, I think your question was important at its core.
+0 / -0
Inherintly it is impossible to impose an even higher margin to "win". But you also don't win a zk game off the first engagement either. There are plenty of tools that can generate insane value if used correctly, though the margin for error get slimmer as you go higher in elo.
In Lobpot you could practically do anything you want if you play it right, and get a pretty high winrate until your elo adjusts.
(examples include: cloaked puppies, singurush, land scylla, revspam, oops all minotaur, oops all cyclops, cloaked lances etc.)


The only real way to achieve the need to gain a massive advantage (before the game concludes naturally) is if the teams had asymetric goals, aswell as income/ability to make units etc. Planet wars had unique objectives and a time limit for attackers to win (reading from wiki), which is akin to that.
+1 / -0
5 months ago
I hope SmokeDragon comes back soon, he is a nice guy hosting funny games and has many crazy mods...
+1 / -0
5 months ago
the story was prtty well written?
+0 / -0


5 months ago
To clarify, making a drama post that includes "delete my account" and then having your password reset is not the process for account deletion. What happened is AUrankSmokeDragon posted his password in the original version of his post, then people faster than the moderators told us about it. Anyway, his password can be seen in the edit history. Some troll was going to impersonate him with it at some point, so I reset his password.

Hopefully he finds a way to get it back.
+4 / -0
TheFlyingFortress
5 months ago
Does he have intentions on returning though? Shame he left tbh.
+1 / -0
Page of 2 (39 records)