232 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

I just went to Hellebore springs map now to see how accurate my desciption was and its 100% I am surprised I was that close on the range.

[Sarlic]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 May 2015 - 03:50 AM, said:

How would one do this? And if Billy pays me to win him a trinket... isn't that his problem?

Where is your steiner house?!?!

[Mycrus]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 May 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

Yes. If you are referring to the Salem Witch Trials.

Not a lot really.

I prefer my witches dunked...

[Shae Starfyre]

Real Sport Teams and News Media handle Cheaters in a different way; I wonder when the billion dollar gamming industry will be held to the same ethics?

[Joseph Mallan]

Mycrus, on 11 May 2015 - 07:16 AM, said:

I prefer my witches dunked...

I prefer mine in bed!

Sarlic, on 11 May 2015 - 07:08 AM, said:

Where is your steiner house?!?!

On Furillo!

[Lily from animove]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 May 2015 - 07:51 AM, said:

I prefer mine in bed!
On Furillo!

what if josephs balls are a misture increadient, you really want those witches in your bed?
How does your Plan B then looks like?

[Raggedyman]

Aphoticus, on 11 May 2015 - 07:45 AM, said:

Real Sport Teams and News Media handle Cheaters in a different way; I wonder when the billion dollar gamming industry will be held to the same ethics?

The "ethics" are this: a person cheating in a game reduces other players enjoyment of the game, potentially to the point of them not playing. If people aren't playing then they aren't spending, so the company can't continue as all companies run on money.

As a general rule games companies don't ban cheaters because it's immoral, they ban them because it impacts their bottom line. Most of their "oooh, we ban people because of the ethics" is PR. Some folks involved in the process will be doing it for the ethics, of that I don't doubt, but overall it's a financial decision because the act of cheating itself doesn't directly cost a games company anything (except in very specific situations). It's the fallout that causes the lose of income.

This is the same ethics as in Pro Sports leagues handle cheating: if things are fixed or people are cheating it will, in the long run, reduce income from the sport. News services have different ethics of cheating, they know that if they can go "ooooh, some one is cheating!" (even if that person isn't) then they can get more people looking at their content and thus drive up the income from it.

[Joseph Mallan]

Lily from animove, on 11 May 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:

what if josephs balls are a misture increadient, you really want those witches in your bed?
How does your Plan B then looks like?

A frog?

If you meant a Mixture Ingredient then they would be a powerful ingredient for a lust potion!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 May 2015 - 08:19 AM.

[Midax]

If you weigh as much as a duck then don't be surprised when you're called a witch.

I would like the reason for bans to be posted. Not specifics, but bad behavior, cheat and exploit, ect. Just don't like the in game name with someone's email or real name.

[Shae Starfyre]

Raggedyman, on 11 May 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

The "ethics" are this: a person cheating in a game reduces other players enjoyment of the game, potentially to the point of them not playing. If people aren't playing then they aren't spending, so the company can't continue as all companies run on money.

As a general rule games companies don't ban cheaters because it's immoral, they ban them because it impacts their bottom line. Most of their "oooh, we ban people because of the ethics" is PR. Some folks involved in the process will be doing it for the ethics, of that I don't doubt, but overall it's a financial decision because the act of cheating itself doesn't directly cost a games company anything (except in very specific situations). It's the fallout that causes the lose of income.

This is the same ethics as in Pro Sports leagues handle cheating: if things are fixed or people are cheating it will, in the long run, reduce income from the sport. News services have different ethics of cheating, they know that if they can go "ooooh, some one is cheating!" (even if that person isn't) then they can get more people looking at their content and thus drive up the income from it.

I guess what I meant was that we see from a media perspective more about professional sports and cheating from enhancement drugs to whatever than we do about the online gaming industry; it is surprising to me, maybe the term ethics was not what I meant, that there is not a more public display of who cheated and so forth as it probably does effect this huge industry financially just as much as professional sports.

I know that they are not largely comparable, but I can see it getting there in the future once people realize that like stealing affects mark-ups, so does cheating affect the integrity of companies, that more legal action, news media, and ousting will occur.

So, on topic with the OP's post; and maybe not for his reasons, I can see that as a whole, the gaming industry may get to a point where public annoucements, transparency, and naming individuals banned may not be too far fetched in the future.

Edited by Aphoticus, 11 May 2015 - 09:25 AM.

[Sir Wulfrick]

tortuousGoddess, on 09 May 2015 - 10:26 PM, said:

He clearly took about a half second to steady his shot, that must be the slowest aimbot of all time. He VERY CLEARLY moves his aim too far and has to recenter it on target.

Also nice gif of that aim jitter bug that's still going around. I get that too sometimes, had it a few times today, it's still quite annoying. That gif might have even been me.

Whilst I agree totally with the bit quoted above, that isn't the video that was uploaded by a certain person to YouTube. The YT video goes in to considerably greater depth about how the exploit works and even how the user can customise it to mask the fact that it is in fact an aimbot.

That being said, my previous comment about cheating probably being far less common than is generally assumed still stands.

[RedDragon]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 May 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

Yes. If you are referring to the Salem Witch Trials.

Not a lot really.

And they were hanged, not burned btw.

[Sir Wulfrick]

A note on the law as far as defamation is concerned. Please understand though that I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

For better or worse the forum frequently used for matters of defamation or slander has been the UK as the burden of proof is reversed with respect to, for example, criminal matters. Defamation and slander have always been complex and are based here on the Defamation Act of 1952 as amended by the Defamation Act of 2013.

Essentially prior to an action being successful it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove "serious harm", though other than meaning serious financial harm in the case of a company or financial body this has largely yet to be elaborated upon by case law.

It is also a defence to an accusation of defamation or slander to prove the truth of the written or spoken words in question, or that they are "substantially true." In the example of an accused cheater suing PGI, video evidence of the cheat being used would likely be ample proof of the truth of the matter and the suit would thus fail.

It is also a defence to an accusation of defamation or slander to prove that the words printed or spoken were, subject to certain provisions, a honestly held belief.

In the example of a cheater threatening PGI with legal action, if the company had any sort of documentary proof of the cheat being used any such action on the part of the accused cheater would likely fail. Were it to be brought as any form of revenge the plaintiff would open themselves to be declared a vexatious litigant and for the case to be thrown out.

Also bear in mind that any such civil action would operate on the preponderance of the evidence, or on the balance of probability rather than to the criminal standard, thus moving the scales further in PGI's favour.

The notion of PGI being sued for defamation or slander is vastly over-blown. Any sensible barrister would likely inform their client of the probability of success being low and thus an end to the matter. Further discussion of the notion is fairly pointless.

Edited by Sir Wulfrick, 11 May 2015 - 10:28 AM.

[Midax]

Sir Wulfrick, on 11 May 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

A note on the law as far as defamation is concerned. Please understand though that I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

For better or worse the forum frequently used for matters of defamation or slander has been the UK as the burden of proof is reversed with respect to, for example, criminal matters. Defamation and slander have always been complex and are based here on the Defamation Act of 1952 as amended by the Defamation Act of 2013.

Essentially prior to an action being successful it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove "serious harm", though other than meaning serious financial harm in the case of a company or financial body this has largely yet to be elaborated upon by case law.

It is also a defence to an accusation of defamation or slander to prove the truth of the written or spoken words in question, or that they are "substantially true." In the example of an accused cheater suing PGI, video evidence of the cheat being used would likely be ample proof of the truth of the matter and the suit would thus fail.

It is also a defence to an accusation of defamation or slander to prove that the words printed or spoken were, subject to certain provisions, a honestly held belief.

In the example of a cheater threatening PGI with legal action, if the company had any sort of documentary proof of the cheat being used any such action on the part of the accused cheater would likely fail. Were it to be brought as any form of revenge the plaintiff would open themselves to be declared a vexatious litigant and for the case to be thrown out.

Also bear in mind that any such civil action would operate on the preponderance of the evidence, or on the balance of probability rather than to the criminal standard, thus moving the scales further in PGI's favour.

The notion of PGI being sued for defamation or slander is vastly over-blown. Any sensible barrister would likely inform their client of the probability of success being low and thus an end to the matter. Further discussion of the notion is fairly pointless.

We don't need your logic or informed knowledge in the thread. We need ducks to weigh witches with!

[Mystere]

Midax, on 11 May 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

We don't need your logic or informed knowledge in the thread. We need ducks to weigh witches with!

Ducks? I thought surviving waterboarding was enough proof of someone being a witch?

[Telmasa]

Kiiyor, on 11 May 2015 - 02:43 AM, said:

Or it was me.

If i'm in my Gauss Yager, and think I have even a small chance of successfully landing a decent hit, I will ALWAYS aim for faces (and quite often hit, especially at medium range). My best is 4 headshots in 6 reloads; 2 DireWolves, an Atlas, and a freak shot to a Jenner. Only three were kills though.

All you need to do is practice, take a few extra seconds aiming, and BAM, success+enemy rage. Most people seem to think headshots are some mythical beast, but these are also likely people that aim center mass. If you aim for faces enough, you start to hit them - and even a 30% face hit rate is something stupendous.

My beloved headhunter can also throw damage out to over 2500m, and do full damage at 830 or so. Many a player has accused me of cheating on alpine when their return fire with MLAS is shrugged off.

That's only because you were in pug matches and playing against people who kindly sat still (or close to being still) for you long enough for you to pull that off.

In competitive tournaments or CW, that's much less likely to happen so long as your target continues to move.

I too have sometimes gotten surprise headshots against an enemy who thought it was safe to stand perfectly still. The key part though is they sat still. (Centurion AH is my favorite head-hunter, especially if it's a LRM boat Atlas who just moves in a straight line backwards or forwards...)

If those headshots or "perfect" components aim is still consistently happening with mechs in constant movement, it reasonably becomes questionable. Dumb luck - at least in regards to aim - just really isn't a thing here (that's why I play MW:O and not World of Tanks these days).

- I will admit trying to work around hitreg issues can feel like dumb luck sometimes, especially with lightspeed light mechs, but I digress. -

Edited by Telmasa, 11 May 2015 - 01:35 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Quote

witchcraft—the Devil's magic

I find that offensive (thats my neck) also; who got murdered because they were unfairly accused of something? Because otherwise then the witch trial label is wrong as well. The label is also wrong when you add that they didnt have video proof of the accusation (which they had in this case).

[Argann]

It's in PGI's best interest to not give a reason, as it would allow offenders of the TOS, to shift gears on their tactics in order to avoide detection and circumvent a ban.

The community does not need to know what is being done, they just need to know that something is being done.

Edited by Argann, 11 May 2015 - 01:53 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 May 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

Yes. If you are referring to the Salem Witch Trials.

Not a lot really.

That's twenty innocent women sent to their grave far too early. I don't look at that nonchalantly.

[Kiiyor]

nehebkau, on 11 May 2015 - 05:11 AM, said:

True story: What if the player hits your head 8 times in a row from between 1300 - 1500 M while you are moving and torso twisting (was barely doing damage)? Can you call them out as a cheater then or would you still be a pathetic sore loser? (BTW I was purposely walking back and forth in the open to test this individual)

I'd say that was something close to impossible. Even with HAX, aimbots just point the cursor in the right direction; they can't account for what happens in the time between you pulling the trigger and the round actually striking. They can't magically make head hitboxes move - if the aimbotting pond scum can't see your head, they can't hit it.

Or are you talking about lasers?