chris1089 wrote:momuuu wrote:chris1089 wrote:momuuu wrote:Hazza54321 wrote:How you guys think in any way that its a potential positive thing fking baffles me
Its potentially a cool skill based micro trick that makes age 1 more challenging and less luck based? How can that not potentially have a positive effect on the game?
Firstly it breaks the fundamental way the game was designed - rate of fire.
Secondly it's game breaking: losing 100hp in 2 seconds can potentially allow the other explorer to take all the treasures on the map (maybe 300+ resources) and deny at tp. Furthermore, if a macro is written it could be used to kill several military units making, for example a Russian constant pressure strat, but also other rushes, close to unviable.
So first of all, a bug is not necessarily a cheat. Just have a look at tons of other games.
I didn't say it was a bug or a cheat - I said, not only was it not designed that way, but it is not even a niche bug - every military unit in the game has been given a rate of fire. Address my specific point, don't make it irrelevant by generalizing it.
Secondly, its not actually gamebreaking because of both lag and the fact that the other player can just do the same trick to increase dps.
Tit still took loads of hp off kaiser's explorer. Just because one person can cheat it's fine for someone else to? Harry Kane can be rugby tackled so football should now become rugby?Furthermore, a macro will probably only work on treasure guardians, as it would be impossible to write a macro that includes moving the mouse from a treasure guardian to a unit. Only the iro explorer could potentially be abused with a macro.
I don't really care about "probably". Macros have been written before for many things and I would assume they can be for this - unless someone who knows lots of coding stuff informs me otherwise.
In casual games, not using these tricks is a gentlemens agreement to begin with. One could also agree to simply not use a macro.
not using these cheats is a gentlemens agreement to begin with. I don't think anything more needs to be said here.
For tournament purposes it might be hard to detect macros.
Who cares if you can detect a macro or not? If they are using one they are cheating, if they aren't they are still cheating.
If you are going to reply, could you try addressing my arguments?
1) Why is it necessarily bad that a trick/bug changes the way the game is played? ESOC Maps change the way the game is played, yet are praised by many. EP changes the way the game is played, yet is praised by many. The creeping trick changes the way the game is played, yet many people use it and I would say many people think that trick is beneficial to gameplay. The pull trick is used widely, yet changes the way the game is played significantly. I'd argue units have a defined speed and were made to run faster sometimes so that the game could use these combat formations fluidly. The fact that people abuse this can be seen as increasing speed by using a bug/trick/exploit similairly to how using the fast shooting trick can be seen as using a bug/trick/exploit to increase the ROF. The fact that it changes the way the game is played doesn't mean it is cheating or that it has a bad effect on the game. In almost all gaming communities, even aoe3's gaming community, tricks/exploits/bugs that have slightly odd behaviour are tolerated or even considered cool. I've posted a big number already: Mineral walking, scourge behaviour when changing mutalisks, medivac drop trick in sc2, creeping in aoe3, scouting with pallisade walls in aoe2, and surely if you do more research you'll realize these things are often accepted. The article on wikipedia on cheating even explicitly states that bugs/tricks/exploits are not necessarily cheats - they may be considered as an improvement to gameplay. So that means that simply stating that this trick changes the way the game is played and actually makes units function differently than might have been intended doesn't classify the usage of the trick as a cheat. The real discussion is about whether the trick is bad or good for the gameplay, and this is a discussion that at the very least has multiple sides to it and isn't nearly as black and white as most people here make it seem. It's similair to the maps discussion: You might like the effect more safe resources have on the gameplay, and you might dislike it. That is a matter of opinion, and there are many arguments for both sides, which means a reasonable discussion could be had. Similairly, we could have a reasonable discussion about this exploit without directly labeling it as bad or cheating. In such a discussion both sides could present arguments as to why this trick has a positive/negative effect on gameplay. I've been doing so, while others have only given a few refuted arguments and have done a terrible job at actually countering the arguments given that claim it's net effect is positive rather than negative. Yet even then it's completely possible to state you dislike the effect of the trick on the gameplay, but it's not founded in logic to state that this glitch is objectively a glitch (refer to all other gaming communities).
2) The Harry Kane argument is such a terrible comparison. Just because Tit can use this trick actually does mean Kaiser can use the trick too. There's nothing unfair in the nature of the trick, its available to both players. If Tit does use it and Kaiser does not know how to use it, then Tit would be better at this part of the game. Saying thats unfair is like saying its unfair that Kane can shoot well while I can't shoot well. Obviously its an extreme exaggeration that this trick has an effect on aoe3 equivalent to an effect that turns football into rugby. Yes, again, this changes the way the game is played, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. If one decides that football is more fun because of a video referee, I can't say thats a false statement because a video referee makes sneaky fouls impossible and thus changes the way the game is played; obviously something that changes the way is played can be a positive thing. So then, yes the trick changes the way early game goes. Is that a bad thing? I'd argue no. I'd like to see you argue yes. Instead this 'argument' you presented simply states that the trick changes the way the game is played. As shown in the above, that isn't actually a counterargument, it's simply a statement. I therefore can't actually respond to the argument because it's not an argument but a true statement. I fully agree that this trick can be used to increase dps, as thats the entire intention of the trick. I assumed therefore that you tried to possibly imply that it's unfair that Tit can use this against Kaiser and thus gain and advantage. Yet, as I then responded, Kaiser can obviously use this trick himself and thus the only advantage that can be gained is through having better skill - I think we'd both agree thats the entire point of videogames, to gain advantages by having superior skil to win the game. So then, I fail to see how your statement still has any relevance beyond being an obvious fact that this trick can increase dps.
3)About the macro: I fail to see how you can make a macro that crackshots a guardian, then moves the mouse to the specific location of the enemies unit/explorer, and then cancels the crackshot animation. If it was possible to write a macro for this, one could actually write a macro that selects 5 skirmishers and then focus fires a pikeman, and then we'd have to conclude that focus fire is an exploit? So then the only possible macro is a macro for usage on treasure guardians. This could be considered a negative effect (I'd have been happy if you actually explained why this is a negative effect, but I'll let this go and simply imagine how this could be a negative effect because it'll turn out to be irrelevant shortly) however diarouga has explained that a macro cannot be abused to increase the dps beyond what one manually could do: The speed of this trick is limited by the inherent lag of this game, and thus one cannot reliably use a macro that performs better than when one does this manually. This statement can easily be proven wrong - you'd only need to write a macro and record you doing this insanely fast in an online game. If that is done, we can discuss the negative effect of using a macro of this trick on treasure guardians. As for the probably, it's hard to prove that designing a macro that includes moving the mouse is impossible. That could even be a statement that can't be proven. It can be shown to be wrong though, by creating such a macro. If you wish, I will say its impossible to design a macro that includes moving the mouse and then we'll assume this statement to be true based on the provided logic unless you can come up with a way to write this macro.
4) In the following, you counter my arguments claiming that this shouldn't necessarily be considered a cheat by saying it's a cheat. It would seem there are some logical problems by stating that this is a cheat because it is a cheat, don't you think? That's effectively what you are saying here. Similairly, you're saying this trick should be considered cheating because it is cheating. Again, we are facing the same terrible 'argument'. While we're at it, The flying spaghetti monster should exists because the flying spaghetti monster is an existing creature.