I challenge cheaters to justify why they cheat!!!
Iguana
I issue a "formal" verbal challenge to any cheaters/hacks out there who can provide a good, valid argument as to why cheating has any value whatsoever. What point does it have? Here are some questions/comments you may attempt to answer/respond to, though I doubt you can:
(1)You can't feel good if you win when you cheat, can you? Because, by definition, that's not a win.
(2)What fun is it when your "rules" are different than your opponents?
(3) What does it say about you if your battle.net record is 151/0? Everyone knows you're either a cheater or only play in obviously lop-sided battles (i.e. 4 vs. 3 comps, etc.)
(4) Isn't it part of the game to have to gather minerals, scout the map, detect cloaked units, etc.? Also, don't those elements actually make the game fun like it is? It's lame, is it not, to know EXACTLY what your opponent is building? Etc. Etc. whatever else hacks do, isn't it lame?
(5) Hacks/Cheats CAN'T be legitimately called "trainers" because they DO NOT train. Training is learning how to play the game the way it is designed. We don't say giving the military an INVINCIBLE fighter jet is "training," the flight simulator CRASHES, just like a REAL plane should. So, can a cheat code really be called a trainer?
John Viscuso
Iguana wrote in message <365B2330...@uswest.net>...
I also typed this elsewhere, but I believe it's important enough to repost as its own thread.
I issue a "formal" verbal challenge to any cheaters/hacks out there who can provide a good, valid argument as to why cheating has any value whatsoever. What point does it have? Here are some questions/comments you may attempt to answer/respond to, though I doubt you can:
(1)You can't feel good if you win when you cheat, can you? Because, by definition, that's not a win.
A win is beating your ememy by any means neccasy it may be a cheap win but its a win.
(2)What fun is it when your "rules" are different than your opponents?
I agree with this
(3) What does it say about you if your battle.net record is 151/0? Everyone knows you're either a cheater or only play in obviously lop-sided battles (i.e. 4 vs. 3 comps, etc.)
I know people who are that good to have arecord like that.this guys record was 18-1-0 I though he sucked he must play comps he beat me 4 times in a row and he didnt cheat.The game didnt lag at all.I could tell because he expanded while I was still building up.
(4) Isn't it part of the game to have to gather minerals, scout the map, detect cloaked units, etc.? Also, don't those elements actually make the game fun like it is? It's lame, is it not, to know EXACTLY what your opponent is building? Etc. Etc. whatever else hacks do, isn't it lame?
I agree
(5) Hacks/Cheats CAN'T be legitimately called "trainers" because they DO NOT train. Training is learning how to play the game the way it is designed. We don't say giving the military an INVINCIBLE fighter jet is "training," the flight simulator CRASHES, just like a REAL plane should. So, can a cheat code really be called a trainer?
yes if you suck then play team melee with a good player and just watch
AJ Dunlop
cheater would if he had the guts to post on a public forum.
>I also typed this elsewhere, but I believe it's important enough to
>repost as its own thread.
>I issue a "formal" verbal challenge to any cheaters/hacks out there who
>can provide a good, valid argument as to why cheating has any value
>whatsoever. What point does it have? Here are some questions/comments
>you may attempt to answer/respond to, though I doubt you can:
>
>(1)You can't feel good if you win when you cheat, can you? Because, by
>definition, that's not a win.
It beats losing.
>(2)What fun is it when your "rules" are different than your opponents?
It beats losing.
>(3) What does it say about you if your battle.net record is 151/0?
>Everyone knows you're either a cheater or only play in obviously
>lop-sided battles (i.e. 4 vs. 3 comps, etc.)
It beats 0/151
>(4) Isn't it part of the game to have to gather minerals, scout the map,
>detect cloaked units, etc.? Also, don't those elements actually make
>the game fun like it is? It's lame, is it not, to know EXACTLY what
>your opponent is building? Etc. Etc. whatever else hacks do, isn't it
>lame?
No, it beats losing.
>(5) Hacks/Cheats CAN'T be legitimately called "trainers" because they DO
>NOT train. Training is learning how to play the game the way it is
>designed. We don't say giving the military an INVINCIBLE fighter jet is
>"training," the flight simulator CRASHES, just like a REAL plane
>should. So, can a cheat code really be called a trainer?
It can't but it helps me win and that beats losing.
Enjoy.
-AJ "Sasafras" Dunlop (c)1998
"Look to the cookie Elaine, look to the cookie." - Seinfeld
-----
Shawn Poulsen
AJ Dunlop wrote in message <365bdeb0...@news.labyrinth.net.au>...
>>So, can a cheat code really be called a trainer?
>
>It can't but it helps me win and that beats losing.
>
so.... you're saying... that ... they cheat.... because... um... they don't
like... to...um... uh...lose...?
and ...if they weighed that same as a duck.... they'd be made.... of...
wood?
--
"Eat much Lard"
"Do as Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
"Very small stones!!"
Harcon
>
> AJ Dunlop wrote in message <365bdeb0...@news.labyrinth.net.au>...
> >>So, can a cheat code really be called a trainer?
> >
> >It can't but it helps me win and that beats losing.
> >
>
> so.... you're saying... that ... they cheat.... because... um... they don't
> like... to...um... uh...lose...?
>
> and ...if they weighed that same as a duck.... they'd be made.... of...
> wood?
>
Ahh, but these cheaters are using their "largest scales" so I guess we
should "Burn her! Burn her! Let's make her into a ladder" Oh well. So
much for these monty python quotes.
Daniel Reckhard
>
> First off, I'm not a cheater in multi-player games, but I kind of do
> understand the motivation. I prefer to cheat in real life: lies,
> half-truths, head games, general cynical behaviour. It's all as good.
I prefer not to cheat IRL... of course I still cheat and lie, but if I
have the choice, I prefer not to cheat (which is a general formulation
and therefore cannot be true, but it is at least mostly true). And I
think that everyone should try doing so in general.
> I also occasionally cheat in single player mode for fun. It gets old
> fast, but its good for a couple of fun hours.
True ... there was a custom scm shipped with a games magazines cd with
hordes (!) of Zerg fighting marines and then invincible ones. The
splatter was really fun to observe (thrilled, diabolical grinning).
>
> Iguana wrote:
>
> I also typed this elsewhere, but I believe it's important
> enough to repost as its own thread.
> I issue a "formal" verbal challenge to any cheaters/hacks
> out there who can provide a good, valid argument as to why
> cheating has any value whatsoever. What point does it
> have? Here are some questions/comments you may attempt to
> answer/respond to, though I doubt you can:
>
> (1)You can't feel good if you win when you cheat, can you?
> Because, by definition, that's not a win.
>
> Nope, wrong. If I pull some random girl by telling her how beautiful
> she is, when she plainly is ugly, it still feels good, and by
> definition it still counts.
Pulling an ugly girl feels good? Well I haven't tried, yet. Why do you
lie to her, there are so many possibilities of saying nice things w/o
lying. e.g.: She says:"Boohoo, my legs are so fat." You say:"Hey, don't
see your leg as something bad, after all this leg is probably stronger
and more enduring than the average leg, I for example like my legs
although they are fat, too, but I run longer than many people can run."
If you think that is everything, but not romantic, give it a try, you'd
be surprised.
> Ever been up against someone much better than you? It feels real good
> to put them in their place by walking over them. Some would claim that
> the ends justifies the means.
Like wishing you could use magic to defeat your opponent, which is
comparable to a cheat.
> Not everyone has the same morals as you. Not everyone feels guilty by
> cheating when it's just a game anyway.
Well, then why do you like cheating IRL? You don't cheat in multiplayer,
but thats just a game. OTOH you cheat IRL, which is, by definition (just
to exclude philosophical comments, but I am probabely rather inviting
them), no game.
>
> (2)What fun is it when your "rules" are different than your
> opponents?
>
> As we go through life, we try to live by some set of rules, be they
> religious, moral, or whatever. We interact with other people, both
> friends and opponents, and they often have a different set of rules.
Only those rules which have been set up by us. There are rules no one
can evade, one is that a 45 Magnum going off directly into head hurts
you (I know this is no 'real' rule, like gravity, please do not try to
find loopholes in the set up of the scene). No one can chant Power
Overwhelming and be immune to punishment afterwards.
> Life is still fun. So is StarCraft.
Which does not exclude darker hours. For example if you are cheated off
something you value dearly by someone else.
>
> (3) What does it say about you if your battle.net record is
> 151/0? Everyone knows you're either a cheater or only play
> in obviously lop-sided battles (i.e. 4 vs. 3 comps, etc.)
>
> Obviously lop-sided battles includes games played by the really good
> against the merely average. Would you advise these people to
> deliberately lose, just so they're b.net record doesn't make it look
> like they're cheating? Or perhaps you think that people should only
> play with opponents of their own ability, no matter how hard it is to
> find them?
> All a battle.net record of 151/0/0 says is that you've played 151
> games, and haven't lost or disconnected in any. Any more information,
> and you'll have to ask the person concerned.
Correct.
But many people name this first number a win and associate terms
associated with the word "victory" with this number. I suppose this
association was intended... To be sure the number really represents the
number of victories a person had, you would have to define strict rules
of how to win. Probabely even then you would not represent the number of
wins, there would still be loopholes. You could only represent the
number of wins in a mathematical space ... but then you would define
more than you really want to define, but whatever...
The ladder stat is a quite good method of counting victories (which is
hinted by the fact that a victory does not count one point, after all
there is no 'the victory'), but I suppose that you can only play FFA's
is a real drawback...
>
> (4) Isn't it part of the game to have to gather minerals,
> scout the map, detect cloaked units, etc.? Also, don't
> those elements actually make the game fun like it is? It's
> lame, is it not, to know EXACTLY what your opponent is
> building? Etc. Etc. whatever else hacks do, isn't it lame?
>
> Hmmm, so, it's a part of the game, say, to be forced into expanding
> when you run out of minerals? agreed. So Big Game Hunters game are
> lame, and anyone who plays them are also lame? As someone who likes
> BGH, I feel vaguely insulted.
You twisted the meaning of his words, at least slightly. The importance
of expanding is simply reduced, but it is reduced for all players. This
is only boring if it reduces the importance so far, that a strategical
aspect is lost, but that only if the importance did not take away room
for more enjoyable game aspects. So it's again a matter of opinions.
> Elevations and cliffs are part of the game, so Hunters and Blood Bath
> are lame?
> Mining resources is part of the game, so maps where you start off with
> a fixed force and have to attack a well defended base are lame?
> Do you think that StarCraft is so good there is no way it could be
> changed that would be not lame? If so, will you be getting Brood War??
You simplify his reasoning, in the follwing showing a 'falsum' in this
simplyfied argumentation. Sadly this falsum is not related at all to his
original posting. But I suppose you only wrote this to alert his
attention on the possible benefit coming with change.
>
> (5) Hacks/Cheats CAN'T be legitimately called "trainers"
> because they DO NOT train. Training is learning how to play
> the game the way it is designed. We don't say giving the
> military an INVINCIBLE fighter jet is "training," the flight
> simulator CRASHES, just like a REAL plane should. So, can a
> cheat code really be called a trainer?
>
> Ok, Here I take big issue. I played a flight sim, (F15 Strike Eagle 2)
> It had a training mode, where you could not die, either by crashing,
> or by being shot. I used this, because this game had, like, 1 billion
> different commands, and I needed to get to grip with them without
> worrying about getting shot to pieces. I used it about 5 times, before
> I was confident enough to brave real missions. So in this case, a
> cheat was a trainer, and was documented as such in the manual.
> I can see that the infinite energy cheat could be used as a trainer to
> help people learn how to use magic better, and how to cope with large
> quantities of spells. So yes, a cheat code can really be called a
> trainer.
In most cases it is not a trainer, but who ever called the cheats
trainers? ... Oh, Martin, ... well anybody else? >)
No, to leave out the joking, who called the SC cheat trainers? Everytime
when I cheat there comes the message "cheat code activated", not "ok,
dreamer, let's train your SC abilities."
BTW, I use cheats all the time when developing a scm, thats a really
helpful option.
>
> Here's a few questions you may wish to answer.
>
> 1) Why do you feel that it is morally wrong to cheat at a game. Which
> is just a game. It's not up with "Thou shalt not murder" is it?
Sure, I don't regard a cheater with the same eyes as a murderer. Was
this your point?
I love if someone cheats someone else, just for the fun of it, as long
as both are laughing afterwards, but I suppose Iguana is talking about
lamers, who cheat when they are confronted with a better player and
somehow this happens to them and the other player regularly.
>
> 2) Why do you feel that you can lecture other people on what to do in
> single player missions. If they want to cheat in the privacy of their
> own home, let them. Consenting Adults, you know?
True. Did Iguano say so? Well, if he did, he's wrong.
>
> 3) If two people both agree to disable supply limits using a hack, and
> play each other using this hacked version, how can this possibly be
> bad?
It cannot ... although being a little inventive ... what if the supply
depots feed poor beings we cannot percieve (like god)? :)
>
> MyRedDice
Wow, you actually made it and read the whole post, congratulations.
Please take none of the remarks I made too seriously, if you could not
understand one or two formulations, well this is not my native language,
I enjoy recieving comments you may have on language or maybe even
meaning.
-Dreamer
Martin Harper
all the time, I'll just snip out those bits....
Daniel Reckhard wrote:
> Martin Harper wrote:
> >
> > First off, I'm not a cheater in multi-player games, but I kind of do
> > understand the motivation. I prefer to cheat in real life: lies,
> > half-truths, head games, general cynical behaviour. It's all as good.
>
> I prefer not to cheat IRL... of course I still cheat and lie, but if I
> have the choice, I prefer not to cheat (which is a general formulation
> and therefore cannot be true, but it is at least mostly true). And I
> think that everyone should try doing so in general.
I kind of meant that I prefer to cheat IRL than in SC. If cheating gives me
no advantage, then it wouldn't be cheating, would it? No one complains about
a hack that lets you play "Ride of the Valkyries" in the background. If
given the choice between cheating IRL and gaining an advantage, and not
cheating, and gaining a disadvantage, I will cheat. I urge other people not
to follow my example, so I can continue to cheat them.
It is a scary fact that some people, like me, have no built in morals. That
is why society has invented punishments for cheating, so that cheaters do
not gain an advantage in general. They range from the death penalty to
social exclusion.
> >
> > Iguana wrote:
> >
> > I also typed this elsewhere, but I believe it's important
> > enough to repost as its own thread.
> > I issue a "formal" verbal challenge to any cheaters/hacks
> > out there who can provide a good, valid argument as to why
> > cheating has any value whatsoever. What point does it
> > have? Here are some questions/comments you may attempt to
> > answer/respond to, though I doubt you can:
> >
> > (1)You can't feel good if you win when you cheat, can you?
> > Because, by definition, that's not a win.
> >
> > Nope, wrong. If I pull some random girl by telling her how beautiful
> > she is, when she plainly is ugly, it still feels good, and by
> > definition it still counts.
>
> Pulling an ugly girl feels good? Well I haven't tried, yet. Why do you
> lie to her, there are so many possibilities of saying nice things w/o
> lying. e.g.: She says:"Boohoo, my legs are so fat." You say:"Hey, don't
> see your leg as something bad, after all this leg is probably stronger
> and more enduring than the average leg, I for example like my legs
> although they are fat, too, but I run longer than many people can run."
> If you think that is everything, but not romantic, give it a try, you'd
> be surprised.
Sure you can be nice to people without lying: You can twist the truth, or
give half truths, or avoid subjects that will be unpleasant (don't mention
the war...)
Oh, and pulling ugly people is perfectly good: Hasn't anyone told you the
old lie about beauty only being skin deep yet? From a moral point of view,
making someone happier by lying about their looks or anything is good. (
"No, that dress looks great on you, dear" or "No, I don't find the structure
of Carbon dull at all." )
> > Not everyone has the same morals as you. Not everyone feels guilty by
> > cheating when it's just a game anyway.
>
> Well, then why do you like cheating IRL? You don't cheat in multiplayer,
> but thats just a game. OTOH you cheat IRL, which is, by definition (just
> to exclude philosophical comments, but I am probabely rather inviting
> them), no game.
I don't cheat in multi-player because other people get all worked up about
that. And post long threads on here about it. It's just not socially
acceptable, and even a cheater like myself recognizes the importance of
keeping other people content.
IRL, people are expected to cheat and lie. It's even got a name: it's called
"Tact". Lewinsky affair is a good example: Apparently most americans, in the
polls at least, just don't care.
Battle.net is a whole lot more honest than real life.
> >
> > (2)What fun is it when your "rules" are different than your
> > opponents?
> >
> > As we go through life, we try to live by some set of rules, be they
> > religious, moral, or whatever. We interact with other people, both
> > friends and opponents, and they often have a different set of rules.
>
> Only those rules which have been set up by us. There are rules no one
> can evade, one is that a 45 Magnum going off directly into head hurts
> you (I know this is no 'real' rule, like gravity, please do not try to
> find loopholes in the set up of the scene). No one can chant Power
> Overwhelming and be immune to punishment afterwards.
I dunno, some religions might take issue with this one... Ok, there are
rules you cannot evade. In Starcraft there are rules you cannot evade too:
Like there is NO way to fire on the move, with or without cheats enabled.
> > Life is still fun. So is StarCraft.
>
> Which does not exclude darker hours. For example if you are cheated off
> something you value dearly by someone else.
I agree. But the question Iguana asked was whether it is fun __ for the
person who has different rules __ to cheat. And I'm sure the guy who cheated
you is laughing all the way to the bank. Others, like people put in the
electric chair, would doubtless wish that they had kept to the same rules as
the rest of society.
> >
> > (3) What does it say about you if your battle.net record is
> > 151/0? Everyone knows you're either a cheater or only play
> > in obviously lop-sided battles (i.e. 4 vs. 3 comps, etc.)
<snip>
I think we agree here. Getting a really good record is no deterrent to a
cheater. They can always play a few games and leave after 5 minutes if hey
want to make it worse again.
> >
> > (4) Isn't it part of the game to have to gather minerals,
> > scout the map, detect cloaked units, etc.? Also, don't
> > those elements actually make the game fun like it is? It's
> > lame, is it not, to know EXACTLY what your opponent is
> > building? Etc. Etc. whatever else hacks do, isn't it lame?
> >
> > Hmmm, so, it's a part of the game, say, to be forced into expanding
> > when you run out of minerals? agreed. So Big Game Hunters game are
> > lame, and anyone who plays them are also lame? As someone who likes
> > BGH, I feel vaguely insulted.
>
> You twisted the meaning of his words, at least slightly. The importance
> of expanding is simply reduced, but it is reduced for all players. This
> is only boring if it reduces the importance so far, that a strategical
> aspect is lost, but that only if the importance did not take away room
> for more enjoyable game aspects. So it's again a matter of opinions.
Rats, you caught me.
But a game where only one side has infinite resources can be fun. Look at
the Insane AI, which I believe is unlimited by resources. In this case the
rules are different for different players. Similarly the AI has a permanent
map hack. If you switch AI for "incompetent player" then you can still have
a fun game. And the incompetent player can also have a fun game, albeit one
that reacquires much less fun on his part.
I do agree with Iguana, though: It is lame to only be able to win with a
cheat, but we all started out with zero ability at SC. We were all lame at
one point. There is no shame in being lame. And you don't have to be lame to
use cheats.
> > Elevations and cliffs are part of the game, so Hunters and Blood Bath
> > are lame?
> > Mining resources is part of the game, so maps where you start off with
> > a fixed force and have to attack a well defended base are lame?
> > Do you think that StarCraft is so good there is no way it could be
> > changed that would be not lame? If so, will you be getting Brood War??
>
> You simplify his reasoning, in the follwing showing a 'falsum' in this
> simplyfied argumentation. Sadly this falsum is not related at all to his
> original posting. But I suppose you only wrote this to alert his
> attention on the possible benefit coming with change.
It's kind of related: He claims that to use any cheats must be lame, __
because it removes elements from the game __ . I am only asserting that SC.
can lose elements and still be a fun game. If only you lose the element
reacquiring you to gather resources, then you can still have fun. Although
your opponent may feel cheated and unhappy. We've established that cheaters
don't care about the people they're playing, but the question is whether
cheating detracts from your fun.
> >
> > (5) Hacks/Cheats CAN'T be legitimately called "trainers"
> > because they DO NOT train. Training is learning how to play
> > the game the way it is designed. We don't say giving the
> > military an INVINCIBLE fighter jet is "training," the flight
> > simulator CRASHES, just like a REAL plane should. So, can a
> > cheat code really be called a trainer?
> >
> > Ok, Here I take big issue. I played a flight sim, (F15 Strike Eagle 2)
> > It had a training mode, where you could not die, either by crashing,
> > or by being shot. I used this, because this game had, like, 1 billion
> > different commands, and I needed to get to grip with them without
> > worrying about getting shot to pieces. I used it about 5 times, before
> > I was confident enough to brave real missions. So in this case, a
> > cheat was a trainer, and was documented as such in the manual.
> > I can see that the infinite energy cheat could be used as a trainer to
> > help people learn how to use magic better, and how to cope with large
> > quantities of spells. So yes, a cheat code can really be called a
> > trainer.
>
> In most cases it is not a trainer, but who ever called the cheats
> trainers? ... Oh, Martin, ... well anybody else? >)
I believe in another thread someone asked for
"I want the single-player unit trainer for versoin (sic) 1.03"
So it's not just me. :-)
> No, to leave out the joking, who called the SC cheat trainers? Everytime
> when I cheat there comes the message "cheat code activated", not "ok,
> dreamer, let's train your SC abilities."
Cheat is a more widely understood term than trainer. It is in fact more
widely understood than 'bug'. I had a similar problem in a game I wrote to
the 'invincible drone' bug. People thought this was a clever cheat I'd put
in, and actually complained when I removed it.
If you use black sheep wall to see how the computer builds up, you are using
it as a trainer.
If you use it to quickly finish the missions, you are using it as a cheat.
OK?
> >
> > Here's a few questions you may wish to answer.
> >
> > 1) Why do you feel that it is morally wrong to cheat at a game. Which
> > is just a game. It's not up with "Thou shalt not murder" is it?
>
> Sure, I don't regard a cheater with the same eyes as a murderer. Was
> this your point?
> I love if someone cheats someone else, just for the fun of it, as long
> as both are laughing afterwards, but I suppose Iguana is talking about
> lamers, who cheat when they are confronted with a better player and
> somehow this happens to them and the other player regularly.
Ok, I was exaggerating.
Iguana appears to be getting worked up about cheaters, and I don't know
whether other sins work him up as much. His tone implies that he views
cheating as one of the seven deadly sins, although I suspect this is just
for effect.
> >
> > 2) Why do you feel that you can lecture other people on what to do in
> > single player missions. If they want to cheat in the privacy of their
> > own home, let them. Consenting Adults, you know?
>
> True. Did Iguano say so? Well, if he did, he's wrong.
I thought he was. From what he said to people who right here saying "Please
can I have the single player cheats for Starcraft" and his particular snipe
at the guy who wanted a single player unit hack trainer. Perhaps he should
answer this question, himself?
> >
> > 3) If two people both agree to disable supply limits using a hack, and
> > play each other using this hacked version, how can this possibly be
> > bad?
>
> It cannot ... although being a little inventive ... what if the supply
> depots feed poor beings we cannot percieve (like god)? :)
Hurrah, more agreement. Except that God thing.
> Wow, you actually made it and read the whole post, congratulations.
> Please take none of the remarks I made too seriously, if you could not
> understand one or two formulations, well this is not my native language,
> I enjoy recieving comments you may have on language or maybe even
> meaning.
Note to pedants and people who care about spelling. Please don't reply to
his invitation to pick holes in his grammar. We get enough of that stuff as
it is.
MyRedDice
Iguana
Don't you get it? If you cheat, you STILL lose, or, at the very least,
it's not a win.
Iguana
Iguana
playing games where cheating gives you no advantages, etc. It's about
cheating in multiplayer starcraft on b.net or Kali or wherever. The
group is called alt.games.starcraft for a reason. I'm not talking about
MORALS either, morals are subjective and based on one's upbringing or
religion or something else. Games have perimeters that make them FAIR,
that has no moral implications at all really, unless you consider
fairness a moral. And don't pull that "life isn't fair" so-called
argument on me, because that's a fallacy too.
Iguana
apologize. I'm asking STRICTLY for justification of MULTIPLAYER cheat
codes (i.e. on b.net, etc.). MY bad. Anwway, why the F**K do I care if
you cheat in the privacy of your own home, so to speak, with no effect
whatsoever on any other person. Sorry for the confusion, thanks for
your responses.
Martin Harper
VICTORY!
Plus a pop up box appears that says "You are victorious". Plus if it was a
2 player game on b.net, then your number of wins is increased by one. What
more proof do you need?
If a really good player plays a total newbie and wins, it is still a win,
although an easy win, right?. If a cheater takes on an honest player or the
computer and wins, it is also still a win, although, again, still an easy
one.
"it beats losing" is the honest answer a cheater would give. I can't
imagine most of them need a better reason.
MyRedDice
Martin Harper
interpreting your words in a broader light than they actually should have
been.
I'll try to stick to the topic this time.
> (1) You can't feel good if you win when you cheat, can you?
> Because, by definition, that's not a win.
Ok, IRL, I can often feel good about cheating, but that's slightly off
topic.
I'm not convinced by this argument at all. You can feel quite good when you
win at StarCraft by cheating.
Hypothetical Example: I go on battle.net, and some racist scum challenges me
to a game. I accept, cheat, and wipe the smug white supremacist grin off his
face. And I felt GOOD.
I guess you and I disagree over the definition of a win. Not sure I can
convince you that your definition of a win is incorrect. I'll try anyway.
IRL, when we talk about a football team winning, we might say: "They won
fairly" or "They only won by cheating". This kind of statement pre-supposes
that there is such a thing as an unfair win.
Dictionary Definition: VICTORY; especially : first place at the finish (as
of a horse race)
[their capitals]
Nothing there about the victory being a fair one.
> (2) What fun is it when your "rules" are different than your
> opponents?
Again, I talked about IRL, rules are often different, and RL is fun, but
again, that is off topic.
To stay on topic, I assert that games against the computer are fun. I
further assert that the computer has different rules to us mere humans. I
conclude that games where your rules are different to your opponent's can be
fun.
> (3) What does it say about you if your battle.net record is
> 151/0? Everyone knows you're either a cheater or only play
> in obviously lop-sided battles (i.e. 4 vs. 3 comps, etc.)
I stayed well on topic here, thanks. And there's no response from you.
A cheater is not disadvantaged by having a flawless record. And even if he
was, he could soon make it a little more believable by surrendering after 5
minutes.
> (4) Isn't it part of the game to have to gather minerals,
> scout the map, detect cloaked units, etc.? Also, don't
> those elements actually make the game fun like it is? It's
> lame, is it not, to know EXACTLY what your opponent is
> building? Etc. Etc. whatever else hacks do, isn't it lame?
I think I was on topic here too.
Refer to previous posts, and try to convince me again. So far, you're not
even close.
> (5) Hacks/Cheats CAN'T be legitimately called "trainers"
> because they DO NOT train. Training is learning how to play
> the game the way it is designed. We don't say giving the
> military an INVINCIBLE fighter jet is "training," the flight
> simulator CRASHES, just like a REAL plane should. So, can a
> cheat code really be called a trainer?
Hey, you were off topic here, and so was I a bit.
But I think I did show a couple of example where the single player cheats
could be called trainers. I will now do the same for the map hack, since I
now know you were only talking about Multi Player games.
Hypothetical Example: "Lame Newbie" downloads Map Hack, and challenges
"StarCraft God" to a game. "Lame Newbie" studies "StarCraft God"'s build up,
noting the build orders and so forth. He also gets to see how strong attack
forces are built up, and the correct build orders to use. "Lame Newbie"
loses the battle, but learns a lot. The Map Hack has here been used as a
trainer. "Starcraft God" remains blissfully unaware that he has been cheated
on.
> Games have parameters that make them fair.
I'm glad you don't assert that fairness is a moral imperative. Because then
I would have to disagree.
I would add a clause to that statement, to the effect that:
"Games have parameters that make them fair, to players of equal skill."
By your argument, if two unequal players played, then that would be just as
bad as two equal players, where one cheated. Do you believe this?
And I'm sorry, I'm going to have to assert that life isn't fair, and ask why
you feel that that is a fallacy. To show that life is unfair, I need a
single example: And here it is: My second sister died after 3 days. She
never had a proper life. What life she did have was filled with pain. She's
buried in a cemetery in Germany. I visited her once, and couldn't even cry,
as I don't remember her at all, and I was only 4 at the time. Is this fair?
MyRedDice
AJ Dunlop
>Don't you get it? If you cheat, you STILL lose, or, at the very least,
>it's not a win.
Yes that's how normal people view it, but cheaters think differently
to the rest of the world. Pity them.
RavnStormX
you may encounter a particularily hard level and want to skip to the next
because otherwise you would give up. Also, some people just want to see all
the cut scenes.
Shawn Poulsen
Iguana wrote in message <365D7F82...@uswest.net>...
>I'd respond to this, but, it makes no sense, so, I won't.
>
It does make sense, of a sort.
trust me. If you watched more Python, you'd understand (and lead a happier
and more exciting life!)
PS/ Quote the message you are responding to (or at least the relevent
parts) - It make it easier for people to understand you :o)
Iguana
argument, I'd resond. I love the Holy Grail. By the way, the whole
purpose of that particular reference is TO NOT MAKE SENSE. LOL. Thanks
guys!!!!
Iguana
Fair enough. I do believe we've digressed at any rate. Thanks for the
comments. I'm tired, to be honest, of arguing all the minor points of
an issue that simply shouldn't happen on an online gaming server, but it
does and I deal with it. If only this post made a few people think
twice about cheating, then I've accomplised something. And so have all
of you by responding. Thanks. Good gaming!!
Iguana
fault for not clarifying.
AJ Dunlop
LOL I lie to women and most still don't sleep with me :-)
>or playing games where cheating gives you no advantages, etc. It's about
>cheating in multiplayer starcraft on b.net or Kali or wherever. The
>group is called alt.games.starcraft for a reason. I'm not talking about
>MORALS either, morals are subjective and based on one's upbringing or
>religion or something else. Games have perimeters that make them FAIR,
>that has no moral implications at all really, unless you consider
>fairness a moral. And don't pull that "life isn't fair" so-called
>argument on me, because that's a fallacy too.
No it's not, life itsn't fair. That fact in itself however does not
justify contributing to the problem. Life isn't fair due to
neccessity. Cheating is not a neccessity.
Kaynor news
on the same side. AND you said that cheaters view the world differently but
I do agree that if you cheat you lose.
AJ Dunlop wrote in message <365dfdea...@news.labyrinth.net.au>...
>>I'm sure "it beats losing" is an answer at all. In fact, it's not.
>>Don't you get it? If you cheat, you STILL lose, or, at the very least,
>>it's not a win.
>
>Yes that's how normal people view it, but cheaters think differently
>to the rest of the world. Pity them.
>
>
>-AJ "Sasafras" Dunlop (c)1998
>
>"Look to the cookie Elaine, look to the cookie." - Seinfeld
>-----
visit my site at www.spiritone.com/~kanyor/starmain.com ! thanks
Jared Epp
Iguana wrote:
> I agree. Fair enough. Read the post above yours, you'll see that was my
> fault for not clarifying.
You can cheat on battle.net? In Warcraft 2, you couldn't cheat in
multiplayer, but you CAN in multi-starcraft??? I didn't know... Does the
other player then know you cheated? What can they do??
skor...@my-dejanews.com
"Kaynor news" <kay...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> I am a cheater but in mutiplayer game I never would inless all players are
> on the same side. AND you said that cheaters view the world differently but
> I do agree that if you cheat you lose.
Even if all players are on the same side?
What if 1 of those players doesn't want to be a cheater?
By cheating, even though on the same side, you are making all of your team
members cheaters. Do you think everyone appreciates that?
I just had a game this weekend where some kid proudly announced that he had a
hack for that scenario and then started to tell us when things were coming.
After about 2 minutes of that I quit and took a loss as he wouldn't stop.
*That* is a much better way to finish the game rather then carry on.
Maybe you cheaters should play in games together and leave the 'honest'
players in peace...because you ain't doing them any favours...you're only
pissing them off!!!
ANYONE cheats while I'm playing and I'm outta there!
Skorp
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Martin Harper
If you can of course. If the cheaters outnumber the legitimate players, then
leave.
MyRedDice
Serial
The simplist explination I can give you is that I am childish and I like
annoying edgy people, hopefully pushing them over the edge. Other than that
for some people it is a simple "I can win without it complex".... go figure.
Alec
obliterate the opponent and humiliate it. Take WarII for example. After
beating the game, I played on of the non-water levels with only peons. That
was funny. I'm not condoning on-line cheating; that's what ruined Diablo.
But in a single-player game it can be fun.
Sdc2683
cheating ruined diablo. Cheating brought about many types of playing. Without
bnet would not be where it is today. I mean the presence of criminals(PK),
cops(PKK), bi-standards(legits), and lawbenders(cheaters), brought a kind of
earthy feel to it. More real than it really was. You actually had to work to
live, not against just the beasts but also against other players, that wanted
your ear, or just to kill.
Bad things can bring about good, although everyone complains about it.
Alec
cheater, and an even less occasional PKer that was out for an ear. I thought
bounty hunting brought a cool twist to the game; sadly, cheaters began offering
huge sums for ears (Hehe. I have an IPX network at home and, with a friend, did
virtual plastic surgery to a dummy character to make it exactly like the bounty
wanted, then killed it... those were the days...). Soon, there were only three
kinds of people on b.net: "I-can-cheat-if-I-want-to-opps-my-sword-slipped" types,
"Even-though-I-said-I-never-cheat-I-know-for-a-fact-that-cheating-makes-the-game-bad--so-no-one-will-cheat",
and then the few and far between "Who-cares-it's-just-a-game". Even sooner, I went
on b.net with my slightly modified character (I hadn't played in about 3 months, so
I beefed up my character so I wouldn't die easily while I got back in my groove. I
got myself pinged and nuked to oblivion by some group of so-called "purists" who
would not let anyone cheat because they did not believe those people should be
allowed on b.net. Sorry to say, I nabbed a few of their IP addresses and deleted a
registry key for Diablo that told Diablo where the CD was... bet they had fun with
that :-). But anyways, I could barely find a game where I wasn't virtually patted
down for any modifications or where I would get killed before the game even fully
loaded...