October Round-up: #DayZDaily

[Katana67 2907]

Dean's not going to make an admin chat for non-admins. Not going to happen. Either we get global chat or probably 9/10 of all players are going to be extremely annoyed.

 

Did you play BF3 when the kill-all-players-with-1-button-"hack" was available and many people were using it? Basically the cheater would spam his kill button while everybody was dying and nobody could type "admin" in chat (which directly calls the admin through a server plugin) to get the admin to  ban the cheater because the BF3 developers' got shit in their brain and have no idea how to make a useful UI.

 

So, right, again... the solution as I've presented is a dedicated chat channel between the admin and the players in the server. I won't comment on the likelihood of its inclusion, because I'm not Rocket nor do I have insight into the development process (the same can be said for you).

 

The issue isn't that hacks exist, it's that as you said, a poor UI was implemented. So, implement a decent UI which not only gives the admin a concentrated feed of potential incidents (rather than having it mixed with the toxic rabble of sidechat) and the players a direct line to air grievances with (the person who can ACTUALLY resolve them) the admin. And the way I understand BF3's chat, is that it's a general chat with an "Admin" command. That is nowhere near what I'm proposing and distinct from current ARMA/DayZmod paradigm.

 

If you want to talk to others in game, who aren't the admin, then acquire a radio. Global chat shouldn't be taken for granted.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Katana67

[Shadow Man 142]

Everytime someone makes the stupid suggestion of removing global chat, it makes the people furious who've caught a cheater and need it reported to the admin--but they can't.

It's as freaking annoying as when your chat UI is deallocated (i.e., removed) when you die. So anybody camping a spawn and using aimbot will make it 100% impossible to report that aimbotter because some retarded developer thought it was a good idea to deallocate the chat UI EVERY_FREAKING_TIME you die.

 

Global chat is needed for many reasons, such as for newbies who're not familiar with controls, people who want to report exploiters/cheaters, and many other reasons.

 

 

I disagree. What really should be done is make the game cheat proof first. Then make it so that spawns are not possible to be predicted. Then the awful abortion that is side chat/global chat can be got rid of.

 

Oh and scrap everything else which gives any player any info that they should not have access to without actually experiencing it. No player name lists, no death messages, nothing.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Shadow Man

[HumanBeing25 299]

What really should be done is make the game cheat proof first.

That's impossible with the hardware we have today, because the hardware is not fast enough for some algorithms to be useful--they'll slow the game down and make it impossible to play, and other security ways too such as encrypting memory and making memory replicas.

 

Get used to it. Arma 3 DayZ has cheaters (many in fact) and DayZ Standalone will if popular have just as much or more cheaters, who use aimbots, wall"hack" and so on.

[Katana67 2907]

I disagree. What really should be done is make the game cheat proof first. Then make it so that spawns are not possible to be predicted. Then the awful abortion that is side chat/global chat can be got rid of.

 

Oh and scrap everything else which gives any player any info that they should not have access to without actually experiencing it. No player name lists, no death messages, nothing.

 

I agree with your sentiment about chat.

 

But you're muddling two very distinct issues. Hacks and a poorly implemented communication system. One cannot be dictated by the other.

[HumanBeing25 299]

So, right, again... the solution as I've presented is a dedicated chat channel between the admin and the players in the server. I won't comment on the likelihood of its inclusion, because I'm not Rocket nor do I have insight into the development process (the same can be said for you).

 

The issue isn't that hacks exist, it's that as you said, a poor UI was implemented. So, implement a decent UI which not only gives the admin a concentrated feed of potential incidents (rather than having it mixed with the toxic rabble of sidechat) and the players a direct line to air grievances with (the person who can ACTUALLY resolve them) the admin. And the way I understand BF3's chat, is that it's a general chat with an "Admin" command. That is nowhere near what I'm proposing and distinct from current ARMA/DayZmod paradigm.

 

If you want to talk to others in game, who aren't the admin, then acquire a radio. Global chat shouldn't be taken for granted.

Whatever you say it's just not going to happen. Rocket knows better than doing as you suggest.

Btw, when dedicated servers become available then admins will probably have global chat blocked if they share your opinion.

 

Don't force the 90% of players under one "feature" because you're one of the 10%.

[Katana67 2907]

Whatever you say it's just not going to happen. Rocket knows better than doing as you suggest.

Btw, when dedicated servers become available then admins will probably have global chat blocked if they share your opinion.

 

Don't force the 90% of players under one "feature" because you're one of the 10%.

 

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, nor am I speaking for anyone other than myself (opposite to you, as somehow speaking for a so-called overwhelming majority). I'm advocating for a position and making an argument based on my personal feelings on an issue. Simply because something is popular, doesn't automatically make it infallible and/or worthwhile.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Katana67

[HumanBeing25 299]

 I'm advocating for a position and making an argument based on my personal feelings on an issue.

Good, and so am I.

 

This does remind me of public school when I had to argue to the dumb kids about whether the window could be opened. The majority wanted the windows closed while the radiator was on and it was hot inside, and I had to endure through that because I wasn't a part of the majority. Likewise have I had to endure throughout my childhood and adulthood in other situations.

That's life, sometimes you get what you want and others times you have people tremble upon you whit no mercy. Suck it up and live with it, or die trying to change things (don't LOL)

[pxxl 259]

so it was a troubled childhood.. LOL

Edited October 31, 2013 by PXXL

[RedNome 443]

Can't beat a random stat pulled straight from ones arse.

[Katana67 2907]

Good, and so am I.

 

Suck it up and live with it, or die trying to change things (don't LOL)

 

But you're doing so in a profoundly fallacious way. I don't mean that to be offensive, but the thought processes in your arguments aren't logical.

 

"Suck it up and live with it", as a sentiment is by definition AGAINST any type of critical thought. So, that should be demonstrable of my above statement.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Katana67

[Shadow Man 142]

I agree with your sentiment about chat.

 

But you're muddling two very distinct issues. Hacks and a poorly implemented communication system. One cannot be dictated by the other.

 

Ok I'll accept that. But my point was that the presence of hacking is not a justification for side/global.

 

Maybe you can never eliminate hacking. But designing a game around the inevitability of hacking seems odd to me.

 

Your suggestion of an admin channel seems most promising.

[HumanBeing25 299]

But you're doing so in a profoundly fallacious way. I don't mean that to be offensive, but the thought processes in your arguments aren't logical.

 

"Suck it up and live with it", as a sentiment is by definition AGAINST any type of critical thought. So, that should be demonstrable of my above statement.

Suck it up and live with it OR die trying to change things--but I don't hope you'll go so far to change the chat system that you'll sacrifice your life and possibly other lives as well--that was my "LOL" joke part.

Where's the fallacies? Show me the fallacies and I'll tell you why they're not actually fallacies (because I've taken a class in philosophy, you see).

[Katana67 2907]

But designing a game around the inevitability of hacking seems odd to me.

 

I agree, that's what I was trying to get at. You can't have the possibility of a system being hacked dictate the system itself.

[Shadow Man 142]

philosophy

 

Dont say that word here :ph34r:

[Katana67 2907]

You're operating under the assumption, that you as an individual are speaking for a majority. Your argument would be far better served if you disassociated yourself (and your argument) with the "legitimacy" brought upon by citing a supposed majority opinion (when in reality you're merely expressing your own opinion). The assumption made here, is that a majority opinion is infallible and must supersede that which may otherwise be a more wholesome solution. Critique my argument, not the likelihood of whether it'll be achieved or the readiness by which it will be accepted. You have presented counter-arguments, but expressed them in a way that ignores any potential solutions and is solely operating in the current (flawed) paradigm.

 

You're also citing other disparate instances of hacking, as if that is a demonstration of the failings of a global chat system as a concept. When in reality, BF3 is a separate game with different back-end security than ARMA/DayZ, as well as a different chat interface. They are implemented, and can be fixed, differently.

 

The backbone of your argument, as I understand it, is that hackers cannot be adequately reported without a global chat system as it exists now. Likewise, it is that new players require in-game assistance via a global chat system. You're assuming that these things cannot be otherwise achieved than through a global chat system. I have made counter-arguments to these points, the first being a separate "Admin" channel which allows the reporting of hacks/bugs without broadcasting this to the entire server. The second being that DayZ, as a concept, is inherently unfriendly and unforgiving to new players. There are also multiple extra-game outlets available, as others have indicated, to help new people.

 

Also, you're assuming that we should then cater systems based upon the likelihood of something (hacking) occurring rather than the system itself being wholesome.

 

EDIT - To be technical, the fallacies expressed in your argument are as follows...

 

- Argumentum ad populum (arguing in appeal to a majority)

- Correlation proves causation and/or Post hoc ergo propter hoc

- False dilemma

- To an extent, the "Nirvana" fallacy whereby a solution is rejected outright because it is not (or potentially not) perfect.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Katana67

[St. Jimmy 1631]

Best way to end this thread and start the November one :D

[Rarabka 165]

Unbinding that key....

 

Edit: Damn that was embarrassing.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Rarabka233

[Katana67 2907]

Unbinding that key....

 

Edit: Damn that was embarrassing.

 

Glad to see you post though! You always seem to like what I have to say, and are from the northeast. Therefore entitling you to much respect.

[Rarabka 165]

Glad to see you post though! You always seem to like what I have to say, and are from the northeast. Therefore entitling you to much respect.

I mostly post in off-topic and you tend to say just what I am thinking, only more in-depth and better formatted.  :D

[HumanBeing25 299]

You're operating under the assumption, that you as an individual are speaking for a majority. Your argument would be far better served if you disassociated yourself (and your argument) with the "legitimacy" brought upon by citing a supposed majority opinion (when in reality you're merely expressing your own opinion). The assumption made here, is that a majority opinion is infallible and must supersede that which may otherwise be a more wholesome solution. Critique my argument, not the likelihood of whether it'll be achieved or the readiness by which it will be accepted. You have presented counter-arguments, but expressed them in a way that ignores any potential solutions and is solely operating in the current (flawed) paradigm.

 

You're also citing other disparate instances of hacking, as if that is a demonstration of the failings of a global chat system as a concept. When in reality, BF3 is a separate game with different back-end security than ARMA/DayZ, as well as a different chat interface. They are implemented, and can be fixed, differently.

 

The backbone of your argument, as I understand it, is that hackers cannot be adequately reported without a global chat system as it exists now. Likewise, it is that new players require in-game assistance via a global chat system. You're assuming that these things cannot be otherwise achieved than through a global chat system. I have made counter-arguments to these points, the first being a separate "Admin" channel which allows the reporting of hacks/bugs without broadcasting this to the entire server. The second being that DayZ, as a concept, is inherently unfriendly and unforgiving to new players. There are also multiple extra-game outlets available, as others have indicated, to help new people.

 

Also, you're assuming that we should then cater systems based upon the likelihood of something (hacking) occurring rather than the system itself being wholesome.

 

EDIT - To be technical, the fallacies expressed in your argument are as follows...

 

- Argumentum ad populum (arguing in appeal to a majority)

- Correlation proves causation and/or Post hoc ergo propter hoc

- False dilemma

- To an extent, the "Nirvana" fallacy whereby a solution is rejected outright because it is not (or potentially not) perfect.

Good lord, somebody bean'd your post out of ignorance of philosophy.

You do realize that a fallacy is ONLY committed if, and only if, the conclusion is reached by fallacious reasoning.

For example, arguing "against the man" can only be said to be true if the conclusion in an argument is reached by arguing against the man. That I may call you a prick or something like that is not the ad hominem fallacy - and many don't understand this simple thing.

 

I never made an argument, you idiot fool! I never once made even what can be broadly be called an argument. All I did was make assertions - and no assertion is ever fallacious. An assertion is a (truth statement) proposition and can either be said to be false or true, but never inbetween and never fallacious.

 

But now when you're at it, I might as well make an inductive argument for why you're a total waste of time:

P1. People are unlikely to ever change their opinion if they haven't changed their opinion when that opinion is shown to be false.

P2. I have shown your opinion to be false.

P3. It is a waste of time trying to convince a person who is more likely not to change his opinion than he is likely to change his opinion.

P4. You haven't changed your opinion yet.

P5, from P1 to P4 and P2 to P3; and P3 hence P5; I am more likely going to waste my time trying to argue with you.

[Katana67 2907]

Good lord, somebody bean'd your post out of ignorance of philosophy.

You do realize that a fallacy is ONLY committed if, and only if, the conclusion is reached by fallacious reasoning.

For example, arguing "against the man" can only be said to be true if the conclusion in an argument is reached by arguing against the man. That I may call you a prick or something like that is not the ad hominem fallacy - and many don't understand this simple thing.

 

I never made an argument, you idiot fool! I never once made even what can be broadly be called an argument. All I did was make assertions - and no assertion is ever fallacious. An assertion is a (truth statement) proposition and can either be said to be false or true, but never inbetween and never fallacious.

 

But now when you're at it, I might as well make an inductive argument for why you're a total waste of time:

P1. People are unlikely to ever change their opinion if they haven't changed their opinion when that opinion is shown to be false.

P2. I have shown your opinion to be false.

P3. It is a waste of time trying to convince a person who is more likely not to change his opinion than he is likely to change his opinion.

P4. You haven't changed your opinion yet.

P5, from P1 to P4 and P2 to P3; and P3 hence P5; I am more likely going to waste my time trying to argue with you.

 

Never did I cite ad hominem as one of the fallacies you expressed. But you certainly did just there!

[iGore 40]

See what you are doing to these people, Rocket?

 

DEVBLOG?!?!?!?!?

[djshauny1 222]

Getting a bit crazy up in here yo lol

[helloit'sme 7]

Where's da mother fooocking devblog ?  :o

[HumanBeing25 299]

This is exactly the kind of action I didn't want anyone to take!