cheap VS Efficient

[Nigh Invulnerable]

It depends on the situation, really. For instance, in Gears of War 2, if you have something to guard, sitting around a corner waiting to one-shot anyone who comes by would be a good tactic: you have something to protect, and you're defending it. On the other hand, if it's just a slayer game and all you're doing is sitting in one corner waiting for people to come around it, that's just stupid: it's the same action, but in the context of a slayer it displays a lack of skill rather than a creative strategy.

But it also sometimes depends on the balance of the game itself. For instance, again in Gears 2, the melee stuns your opponent for a second. An awesome tactic is to stun them for a second and use your shotgun to blow them to bits, called a two-piece. However, the melee is simply too powerful. Not only does it stun them, it deals enough damage that two melees in a row can bring someone down: in other words, any noob with a B button can just mash that thing and bring you down. Even with two-piecing, it means that the aim needed is not very precise. Due to an imbalance in the game, a tactic that would be legitimate and skillful is instead cheap and stupid.

Oooohhh. You've got 2222 posts. Cool.

OT: I do think that camping can sometimes be an indicator of a lack of imagination when it comes to tactics, but if it turns out to be overwhelmingly effective, who can argue with it? If someone's camping around a corner and they killed you once, learn from it and chuck a grenade in there and flush the bastard out.

 

[Explosm]

Say in MW4,

Am i the only one that spotted that?

 

[Jandau]

I've been playing League of Legends for the past few days and I have to admit, nothing really seems cheap to me, even the things that other players call cheap. In most of my online experiences, I rarely consider things "cheap", it's usually a matter of me figuring out a counter. If there is no counter, then it'll likely get patched or I can use it myself. Granted, I stay far away from online FPS games, those are just cesspools of poor sportsmanship...

 

[milskidasith]

Anybody who complains about cheapness is a scrub. They can be good at the game, but they will never improve by putting mental limitations on certain aspects of the game. If it works, use it.

I say the same thing about "cheaters".

Since when is using stuff that is in the game cheating? The only thing that is cheating is doing something beyond the normal parameters of the game. Read the book Playing To Win, by David Sirlin, it explains the view I have better than I can, though I'll certainly be forced into an argument in this topic anyway.

Let me be clear, Hacking a sight to where you can place a turret in an area your not suppose to be in so that it can shoot people but they can't shoot it is cheating. This is my definition of cheating,

Dropping a Teleporter exit right at the enemies intelligence is smart and innovative.

Dropping a turret right outside the spawn barracks to when the enemy opens their main door they are immediately killed is cheap.

Playing a full team of one particular type is STUPID!

I get annoyed when people complain snipers of camping... their snipers! they're SUPPOSE TO! Someone with a twelve gage hiding in a corner in the blind spot of a hallway, waiting for someone to run by is being innovative and using the weapon correctly. This is not camping. Learn where they are and apply the appropriate strategy to take them down. I had a spy hiding in a dark corner, he stabbed everyone in the back who ran by and ranked up quite a score. When he did it to me, i saw in the kill cam where he was hiding. WHen i respawned, i took my rocket and shot him from across the room. BOYA *****.

Spawning into a game only to have the enemy waiting for you and shooting you IS camping and is cheap because your not giving the other person any chance what so ever.

Hope that makes things a bit clear.

I dont cheap out and cry when someone better than me whoops my ass. I learn form the experience and grow.

Even the spawn camping bit isn't cheap. It's not the player's fault the designers made the map improperly; that would be like claiming that the numerous infinites in fighting games are cheap. It won't stop players from doing it, and if it's the best way to succeed, do it.

It depends on the situation, really. For instance, in Gears of War 2, if you have something to guard, sitting around a corner waiting to one-shot anyone who comes by would be a good tactic: you have something to protect, and you're defending it. On the other hand, if it's just a slayer game and all you're doing is sitting in one corner waiting for people to come around it, that's just stupid: it's the same action, but in the context of a slayer it displays a lack of skill rather than a creative strategy.

But it also sometimes depends on the balance of the game itself. For instance, again in Gears 2, the melee stuns your opponent for a second. An awesome tactic is to stun them for a second and use your shotgun to blow them to bits, called a two-piece. However, the melee is simply too powerful. Not only does it stun them, it deals enough damage that two melees in a row can bring someone down: in other words, any noob with a B button can just mash that thing and bring you down. Even with two-piecing, it means that the aim needed is not very precise. Due to an imbalance in the game, a tactic that would be legitimate and skillful is instead cheap and stupid.

Still not cheap. So what if they melee instead of using the shotgun after meleeing? Either way, they've got you locked into your death, and either way, they are in melee range. Camping in slayer isn't cheap, although since the point is to get the most kills, it may not be smart.

Knifing in CoD is a double edged sword, because as often as a knifer kills due to lag, he gets killed due to it; every time you see somebody lunge and miss, it's lag screwing them over. That's the games poor netcode more than anything, and it's really hard to consider it an exploit or cheap, especially when every weapon in the game instakills from knife range anyway.*

*Not instakills, but you'll be able to hip fire and kill in .5 seconds unless it's a sniper rifle and you are unlucky.

 

[octafish]

I rarely play online. However I'll wade in

snip

I agree with most of what you say. Hanging around a spawn point for cheap kills is unsporting, hiding somewhere in a map and taking people out as they rush past your hidey hole is part of the game. Just don't get pissy if they spam you with grenades. I don't play online because people don't like my tactics, namely, using things like grenades to kill people I suspect are around the corner, and using autofire weapons to clear rooms. To be fair I tend to dislike people who play online, so all's well that ends well.

 

[milskidasith]

I rarely play online. However I'll wade in

snip

I agree with most of what you say. Hanging around a spawn point for cheap kills is unsporting, hiding somewhere in a map and taking people out as they rush past your hidey hole is part of the game. Just don't get pissy if they spam you with grenades. I don't play online because people don't like my tactics, namely, using things like grenades to kill people I suspect are around the corner, and using autofire weapons to clear rooms. To be fair I tend to dislike people who play online, so all's well that ends well.

Sportsmanship is a stupid concept, at least in the concept of actually playing the game. I'm not saying to act like a dick and spam chat, but don't ignore tactics that work just because they're "unfair" because, given the chance, people will use those same tactics on you.

EDIT: As for spawn camping, if it is possible, it is more likely a sign of a degenerate game or poor map design than cheapness. For instance, in CoD MW2, there are a few areas (not all, but a few) where, on Domination, if you control a certain flag, you'll only have two routes to leave from the spawn (the average is either three or four), which means if you are stuck with that flag, your team will lose (I believe Afghan has a problem with this; there is technically a third route, but it involves getting on a roof and hopping across one of the other routes and into a building, so you're still dead).

 

[Darkrain11]

The infamous marathon, lightweight, and commando perks combo from MW2 comes to mind. I am all for using everything in a game to its fullest but some things are just unsporting like putting on danger close (increases explosive damage) and using the thumper or rpg exclusively. Those people usually win but they also usually are lacking in any real skill. I have experienced numerous occasins where after getting beaten badly by a team in MW because they used the above tactics and then going to a new match where they didnt use the same loadout and tactics and they got demolished because of a complete lack of skill or ingenuity.

 

[milskidasith]

The infamous marathon, lightweight, and commando perks combo from MW2 comes to mind. I am all for using everything in a game to its fullest but some things are just unsporting like putting on danger close (increases explosive damage) and using the thumper or rpg exclusively. Those people usually win but they also usually are lacking in any real skill. I have experienced numerous occasins where after getting beaten badly by a team in MW because they used the above tactics and then going to a new match where they didnt use the same loadout and tactics and they got demolished because of a complete lack of skill or ingenuity.

Yeah, no.

They're more skilled than you. They beat you. Just because you intentionally limit yourself doesn't make you some kind of noble creature, towering above the horrible, malformed cheaters using explosive weapons. It makes you a corpse.

If uch a tactic is degenerate (which isn't necessarily true; grenade launchers have significant trouble in closed in and long range environments), then that's a problem with the game, not with people using it. It is only in very rare instances where a certain tactic is broken but the rest of the game is still viable competitively, such as Akuma in SF2.

EDIT: As for them losing if they use a different load out: Have you ever considered not everybody is good at the same thing? I'm shit using a knife class, but I've seen people get up to absurd killstreaks with them. I'm terrible at using any sniper rifle besides the rapid fire, "basically an assault rifle" one, but people using the .50 cal do great. I'm best with a stealth class, but some people manage to use that class and run up like they were playing an assault class. A lack of versatility isn't good, but it doesn't mean you're bad if you're winning with what you are good at.

 

[omega 616]

Anybody who complains about cheapness is a scrub. They can be good at the game, but they will never improve by putting mental limitations on certain aspects of the game. If it works, use it.

I say the same thing about "cheaters".

Since when is using stuff that is in the game cheating? The only thing that is cheating is doing something beyond the normal parameters of the game. Read the book Playing To Win, by David Sirlin, it explains the view I have better than I can, though I'll certainly be forced into an argument in this topic anyway.

There is a flaw to that argument, people (for the most part) are dicks online.

Prime example, MW2. You go into a game wanting to test yourself, make yourself better and the opposition is comprised of noob tubers, quick scopers, knifers, akimbo shotguners and RPGs spammers you stand no chance of winning so matches end up as either cluster fucks or everybody trying to preserve there K/D by camping, neither are fun.

If the game was balanced then that argument would be flawless but in broken games, it's not so good.

 

[milskidasith]

Anybody who complains about cheapness is a scrub. They can be good at the game, but they will never improve by putting mental limitations on certain aspects of the game. If it works, use it.

I say the same thing about "cheaters".

Since when is using stuff that is in the game cheating? The only thing that is cheating is doing something beyond the normal parameters of the game. Read the book Playing To Win, by David Sirlin, it explains the view I have better than I can, though I'll certainly be forced into an argument in this topic anyway.

There is a flaw to that argument, people (for the most part) are dicks online.

Prime example, MW2. You go into a game wanting to test yourself, make yourself better and the opposition is comprised of noob tubers, quick scopers, knifers, akimbo shotguners and RPGs spammers you stand no chance of winning so matches end up as either cluster fucks or everybody trying to preserve there K/D by camping, neither are fun.

If the game was balanced then that argument would be flawless but in broken games, it's not so good.

None of these people are dicks. None of the listed factors are game breaking, either. If a game truly is degenerate (which Call of Duty isn't, at least not to a huge degree) then it's *still* not a problem with the players, it's a problem with the game, and doing stuff that doesn't work is *still* not making you any more noble than the other players.

 

[Darkrain11]

I never said I was above the other guys. All I mean to say is that some weapon/perk combos are overpowered and make almost everything too easy. Whats the fun in that?

 

[milskidasith]

I never said I was above the other guys. All I mean to say is that some weapon/perk combos are overpowered and make almost everything too easy. Whats the fun in that?

Yeah, you did. Implying certain combos or cheap implies you are above the people using them. There's no such thing as too easy; if it works, it works.

If you don't have fun doing what makes you more likely to win the game, fine, just don't call other people cheap (or any other synonym/imply their tactics "aren't right" in any way) for doing so.

 

[omega 616]

None of these people are dicks. None of the listed factors are game breaking, either. If a game truly is degenerate (which Call of Duty isn't, at least not to a huge degree) then it's *still* not a problem with the players, it's a problem with the game, and doing stuff that doesn't work is *still* not making you any more noble than the other players.

If those tactics aren't used I do better.

It's like in body building, people work out and get huge over many years, then some kid comes in with a bottle of pills and is the same size in 6 months. (ignoring health issues) who is the winner? One is trying to improve by putting time into practice to achieve there goals or the one taking the short cut.

It's just obnoxious to piss on somebody else's parade 'cos you lack the will to improve.

"it's like taking a gun to a sword fight" as it were.

 

[milskidasith]

None of these people are dicks. None of the listed factors are game breaking, either. If a game truly is degenerate (which Call of Duty isn't, at least not to a huge degree) then it's *still* not a problem with the players, it's a problem with the game, and doing stuff that doesn't work is *still* not making you any more noble than the other players.

If those tactics aren't used I do better.

It's like in body building, people work out and get huge over many years, then some kid comes in with a bottle of pills and is the same size in 6 months. (ignoring health issues) who is the winner? One is trying to improve by putting time into practice to achieve there goals or the one taking the short cut.

It's just obnoxious to piss on somebody else's parade 'cos you lack the will to improve.

"it's like taking a gun to a sword fight" as it were.

Those examples are not in any way analogous to gameplay. At all. They are more akin to actually hacking the game. Using things that are *in* the game is what is cheating. If a body building competition has no rules on using drugs, then no, it isn't a cheap tactic to use drugs (whether or not it is healthy or worth it is another matter). If it disallows drugs, then using drugs is cheating.

snip

You've read the article. I can see that. But you've missed the point.

First you have an incorrect view of "taking advantage of lag". This is clearly not what was intended by the devs, (it is an exploit) and is more akin to a hack than to legitimate in-game tactics. It is therefore cheap.

I'm going to stop right here. Developer intention is 100% unimportant, because you can't *know* what the developers intend you to do. And it's not akin to a hack at all. It's lag for god's sake. A hack is where you add something in to the game that gives you a unique advantage. Everybody in the game is affected by lag, so playing in a way that takes advantage of it is natural. If you've got a bad connection, that's unfortunate, but no reason to cry foul; I can't ever knife well because of my connection, but that's my fault, not the knifers/the guy shooting me.

Second, as for sportsmanship, do what you will but my fave sport "Hockey" actually has sportsmanship rules. Do not follow them? You get a penalty. Just sayin'

That's the thing: It is a rule in the game. In video games, the only rules are the code. Everything else is fair game, whether you think so or not. Fuzzy rules are also bad for game design because they are hard to enforce; how do you know if it's spawn camping or if you just got stuck where you were because they kept spawning? What if you only killed one guy as he spawned while on the move? Etc, etc. Fuzzy rules are bad for game design because A: It's a sign the game is degenerate and B: enforcement is a problem, and if you try to set up exact numbers for the fuzzy rules, people just barely don't break them (Spawn camping is killing three people in a row as they spawn. Everybody caps two guys and heads out, as an example).

You may claim that people will just use cheap tactics on you, so go ahead, but... that assumes all people think like you do. Which they don't. Many people do see it as unsportsmanlike and will therefore try not to be cheap. That isn't to say that they won't play to win. They'll just find a more creative solution to the same problem. Is this wrong? Unlike that article, I say no.

Creativity doesn't score points. Not only that, but you can't be more creative by limiting options. And if people don't think like me, fine. There's a mute option in the game, and their death is a point all the same.

Imagine you spam the Mitsurugi quick up/down over and over because it "works" (as it takes advantage of lag). I see this and do the same thing. And so does the next player, and the next one, and the next one... pretty soon, you're playing the most dull and pointless game in history. SF4's onslaught of Ryu and Ken is close to that... Homogeneity is just not fun.

That's not a problem with my play, that's a problem with the game being degenerate. It's not cheap to use what works, but if it's clear that only one thing works, then the game isn't worth playing anyway.

 

[blankedboy]

Efficient > everything.

Makes sense.

 

[omega 616]

snip

Let me put it like this, if somebody knowingly builds and subsequently uses a class that has an unfair advantage then it's cheap, he is knowingly exploiting an imbalance.

It is cheap and low brow but it isn't illegal or cheating, it just makes you that guy that nobody likes or wants to play with.

 

[milskidasith]

snip

Let me put it like this, if somebody knowingly builds and subsequently uses a class that has an unfair advantage then it's cheap, he is knowingly exploiting an imbalance.

It is cheap and low brow but it isn't illegal or cheating, it just makes you that guy that nobody likes or wants to play with.

Yeah, it's not even cheap.

It can't be "unfair" when everybody has access to it. OK, not everybody, because of the perk system, but that is a design flaw.

Seriously, stop calling things cheap. The only "cheap" things are if they give an advantage that the other player cannot get (for instance, an exploit that only works if you are on the Red team in TF2), or if they involve doing things outside the bounds of the game (hitting your opponent in real life, hacking yourself to infinite HP, etc). If it's in the game, it is fair game.*

*Yes, that includes glitches. Even if a glitch is degenerate, it's still not a cheap tactic.

 

[omega 616]

snip

Let me put it like this, if somebody knowingly builds and subsequently uses a class that has an unfair advantage then it's cheap, he is knowingly exploiting an imbalance.

It is cheap and low brow but it isn't illegal or cheating, it just makes you that guy that nobody likes or wants to play with.

Yeah, it's not even cheap.

It can't be "unfair" when everybody has access to it. OK, not everybody, because of the perk system, but that is a design flaw.

Seriously, stop calling things cheap. The only "cheap" things are if they give an advantage that the other player cannot get (for instance, an exploit that only works if you are on the Red team in TF2), or if they involve doing things outside the bounds of the game (hitting your opponent in real life, hacking yourself to infinite HP, etc). If it's in the game, it is fair game.*

*Yes, that includes glitches. Even if a glitch is degenerate, it's still not a cheap tactic.

I think you don't understand cheap, it's easy and too effective, the only sound way to combat it is to just do the same.

You can argue all you like but people who knowingly exploit imbalances are cheap players, it's a fact of a gamers life.

If you apply the same argument to chess, which is a balanced game, it works. Applying this argument to imbalanced games, it doesn't work.

 

[infinity_turtles]

That's hardly a fact. It's wanting everything to be just as viable as everything else, which simply isn't realistic. Things have advantages and disadvantages, and sometimes one thing is clearly better than another. If it isn't strictly better, than the problem is your lack of skill. If it is strictly better, the problem is that you won't use it for whatever reason. Your problem, not the other person's.

 

[RaphaelsRedemption]

No Vs. threads.