51 réponses à ce sujet

[kamal_]

MasterChanger wrote...

Arkalezth wrote...

Just a note: you can remove the mini-map. Type "n".

This is on the user's end, rather than the module creator's. But, I was going to say that if you're interested, there are scripting ways to obscure both the minimap and main map by modifying the XML file to add a texture to cover.

not mine

[MasterChanger]

kamal_ wrote...

MasterChanger wrote...

Arkalezth wrote...

Just a note: you can remove the mini-map. Type "n".

This is on the user's end, rather than the module creator's. But, I was going to say that if you're interested, there are scripting ways to obscure both the minimap and main map by modifying the XML file to add a texture to cover.

not mine

kamal, that's exactly what I was talking about.

[dunniteowl]

Learn something new every day, I say. I had never been able to get rid of the mini-map with known keybinds. Thanks.

dno

[Lance Botelle]

MasterChanger wrote...

<SNIP> I was going to say that if you're interested, there are scripting ways to obscure both the minimap and main map by modifying the XML file to add a texture to cover. You can do this dynamically if you want, so that some areas have an obscured map and some don't. Though this kind of stuff will probably be done even more easily with Project N, which is probably the Wave of the Future .

Hi Master Changer,

I have already done this ... http://worldofalthea...navailable.html

See also my next post to dunniteowl.

Lance.

[Mad.Hatter]

For making the minimap unavailable, I just take a tileblock placeable, scale it to fit the map I want to cover (it's base 1,1,1 is 1 tile by 1 tile), change its z-height to .1 and set its location height to 100 or something suitably silly. Since its a placeable you can handle it however you like.

[Lance Botelle]

dunniteowl wrote...

  Like the mini-map showing large chunks of an interior because you have walls that are contiguous, and even though there are doors closed and not explored yet, the map shows you the rooms and dimensions depending on whether or not you separate the spaces between walls and such.  Not cool. That's a really good example of a bad meta-game bit of data that serves to remove that surprise and thrill of exploration.  dunniteowl

Hi dunniteowl,

Before I say anything else, let me just say that I have just worked out a "Fog of War" system for the main map. This type of meta-gaming interface was the reason I persevered with the Fog of War resolution. I will talk about it in my next blog. (See my signature for a link.)

Meta-gaming ... An interesting topic.

You have already posted my own understanding of the term, but I would like to clarify some of my own understanding in the hope that it may explain some of my own usage of the phrase. As has already been pointed out, it is impossible to avoid meta-game thinking, especially as one becomes more experienced with playing an RPG. In fact, it can even be argued that familiarity with a gaming system and knowing its "format" actually helps contribute towards a player's enjoyment of the game. From my own perspective, I am reasonably familar with the D&D rules, and often find myself speaking in OOC terms such as "this PC has 13 strength". Both I and my players know what I mean by this and it is a common language we use to help explain what we mean about something in the game - this, in my opinion, is not bad meta-gaming, but a familiarity with terms that help us enjoy the game. While it is not encouraged form a role-play point of view, the terms and usage are essential for actual play.

However, there is a knowledge of a game that does impinge on bad play, in my opinion. Such an example is where a player may learn the answer to a riddle puzzle after paying a wise man 1000 gp for the answer and then reloading the game to have the answer without paying for it. (This is why I raised the term in the puzzle post I made.) Another example is seeing the whole map of a dungeon having never been there before. The first example is brought into play by the player's actions and the latter is down to the design of the game interface. Both, hopefully, can be designed in such a way to minimise this kind of bad meta-gaming, if the builder is prepared to (a) take a little more time building in exploit protection into their code and ( amending the OC GUI. Checking for variables may be a solution for some puzzles, but some (depending upon how they work) will require different checks.

It can be argued that such meta gaming checks is not the responsibility of the builder, but up to the player to determine their actions. i.e. They don't reload the game, or they keep the map closed until they have finished exploring the dungeon. However, if a player discovers these "tools" or "methods" to work an advantage, then human nature says they will use them ... or at least be sorely tempted to, even if it goes against the spirt of the game, even in their own mind and understanding. Removing these temptations or making potential exploits that much harder to access allows the player to play the game at a more "serious" level and the way the builder intended.

To summarise, there is both "good" and " bad" meta-gaming. The first is a sensible and useful tool for players, while the latter a temptation to alter the way the game is designed to be played. The first is harmless, but the latter should be handled carefully, and I believe *is* something that the builder should pay some attention to, to help present the module as free from potential exploit as possible.

Lastly, I agree with the poster who said that some games are so poorly designed that they encourage meta-gaming. This (the design) is a bad thing, even if the meta-gaming is "good" in this case. After all, if the game is stifled due to lack of in-game information, then a player is once again tempted to look for the answer elsewhere. The reference was to crafting, and I agree with this poster that the crafting was very poorly designed in the OC and is why I have gone to great extents to ensure the same kind of meta-gaming will not be required for crafting in my own module. All the information will be at hand to the PC who has an interest in it.

Lance.

Mad.Hatter wrote...

For making the minimap unavailable, I just take a tileblock placeable, scale it to fit the map I want to cover (it's base 1,1,1 is 1 tile by 1 tile), change its z-height to .1 and set its location height to 100 or something suitably silly. Since its a placeable you can handle it however you like.

I believe this can be handled more easily (as simple as changing a variable) in the system I propose in the post above yours. Furthermore, I have developed a Fog of War system for maps that also makes this much easier to do.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 31 janvier 2011 - 10:44 .

[Dorateen]

I believe the Player should role-play their character as much as possible, to the best of their ability, and as much as the game will allow. However, I do not think that role-playing a character  should unneccesarily restrict the Player.

I say this in the context of the example of a low-intelligence barbarian who is suddenly presented with a riddle. If the Player is able to figure out the solution to an obstacle/riddle/challenge, then they should not be constricted by the fact that they are role-playing a usually slow-witted character. This is the world of Dungeons & Dragons, and their can be many reasons invented how the barbarian suddenly guessed an answer that has vexed the moset well-studied for ages. In fact, a little bit of imagination on the Player's part can even lead to a better role-playing opportunity. (The party's wizard looking amazed at his companion, wondering aghast "How in the Hells did you come up with that?")

It's a case of role-playing/story should not impede on gameplay. I am a firm believer that D&D was designed to challenge the Player not just the character, and this goes for both tabletop and computer role-playing games.

I also believe that the converse is true. That if you have a Player who is unable to piece together a thorny riddle, they should not be able to fall back and say, "But my character is highly intelligent... or has 19 skill ranks in Lore!". I say if a person wants to role-play a smart and savvy character, they had better be up to the task. I think it is the creativeness, resourcefulness, and ingenuity of the Player that should count most, regardless of the stats generated on a character sheet.

Harumph!

Modifié par Dorateen, 01 février 2011 - 06:12 .

[dunniteowl]

That brings up an excellent point, Dorateen. The case for abstraction is soundly made. In relation to it, I recall Conan, in Red Nails (I think it was) was in a tower, climbing up the stairs. All along the walls there was this growth of vinelike tendrils. He keeps going up and at the top level of the tower, he sees this man, encased in the vine-like growth, with just his outline and his face showing.

The man croaks out, "Help me," to Conan.

Conan looks the situation over for a while and then gently pokes the vines to the side with his sword. The tendrils turn ashy and fall to dust and the man is released. When he regains his composure, the mans asks, "How did you know not to touch the vines with your hands?"

Conan merely replies, "I touch nothing I don't understand."

And being slow to respond or of low overall intelligence doesn't necessarily imply stupid. If you don't believe that, talk to someone with a thick accent that speaks slowly to you and learn that just because someone talks slow or funny, doesn't mean they're not smart.

Also, the riddles/puzzles, being germane to how this all got started, concepts have to rely on the actual Player's Prowess at solving them, because no matter how much you want to roleplay your character, you're not going to say, "Tathnoor doesn't have the INT to do this. Oh well." And then just walk away. Not gonna happen. And no matter how much "smarter" your character is than you, you're not suddenly going to get a brain storm and solve it, because your character is there to help you out.

dunniteowl

[Lance Botelle]

Intelligence betrays obvious .... Gandolph and the door to Moria ....



Lance.

[kamal_]

dunniteowl wrote...
 In relation to it, I recall Conan, in Red Nails (I think it was) was in a tower, climbing up the stairs. All along the walls there was this growth of vinelike tendrils. He keeps going up and at the top level of the tower, he sees this man, encased in the vine-like growth, with just his outline and his face showing.
The man croaks out, "Help me," to Conan.
Conan looks the situation over for a while and then gently pokes the vines to the side with his sword. The tendrils turn ashy and fall to dust and the man is released. When he regains his composure, the mans asks, "How did you know not to touch the vines with your hands?"
Conan merely replies, "I touch nothing I don't understand."

Intelligence is knowing smoking is bad for you. Wisdom is stopping when you know it. This anecdote, and especially the quote, doesn't show him as smart, it shows him as wise (wise enough to know his limits).

[E.C.Patterson]

Lance Botelle wrote...

Before I say anything else, let me just say that I have just worked out a "Fog of War" system for the main map.

This is BIG. Can't wait to hear more.

[kamal_]

E.C.Patterson wrote...

Lance Botelle wrote...

Before I say anything else, let me just say that I have just worked out a "Fog of War" system for the main map.

This is BIG. Can't wait to hear more.

Hear more :-)
http://social.biowar...3/index/5919855

[nicethugbert]

Does the topic of meta-gaming come up in other games such as chess? How about in other art forms such as novels and plays? Why should NWN2 be different? Can it?

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

Isn't it a big deal in professional sports, like how in baseball a 1st base coach can signal to a batter, but you can't have the coach hooked up by microphone to a spotter in the stands that can read the catcher's signals to the pitcher.

And lots of games have weird rules that focus the play on one particular skill over another. I know in fencing, for foil and sabre, you have to stay within a track and take turns (right of way) trying to hit each other, making clean parrying more important than feints or even speed. It might seem a bit convoluted, but it's basically the same idea behind not emphasizing button-mashing reflexes or trivia knowledge in an RPG.

[Kaldor Silverwand]

If you are playing an FPS by yourself then you want the fastest rig you can get and that makes sense. However, if you are playing pvp then is it appropriate to destroy everyone else just because your rig is better as opposed to your being a better player? (Forgive me if my vocabulary is incorrect, I haven't actually played an FPS since Castle Wolfenstein many years ago.)



Basically the effect of advantages outside the game world should be minimized where possible. My personal skills with a mouse should not be more important in solving a puzzle than my character's dexterity.



People may not talk about meta-gaming with other games because in many games it is the individual vs. the individual using the game as a dueling medium. D&D is more of a proxy situation where the player directs a puppet. The design of the puppet and the limitations and capabilities it therefore has should matter more than the limitations and capabilities of the player. That's my view anyway.



Regards

[nicethugbert]

Good point about the weird rules, Lugaid. But, in order to play those games you have to be conscious about the rules.



Other games have puppets too, war games for instance. So, how is a D&D based game different?

[Kaldor Silverwand]

nicethugbert wrote...
Other games have puppets too, war games for instance. So, how is a D&D based game different?

War games?  You mean like Risk?

[nicethugbert]

Tobruck comes to mind.  There is also the Rainbow 6 games.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 05 février 2011 - 06:18 .

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

There's also the ban on counting cards in blackjack. If you simplify meta-gaming down to using information you're supposes to ignore, then many kinds of cheating could qualify as meta-gaming. A more sophisticated definition might be that meta-gaming is recognizing that the game itself is a limited set of arbitrary rules within the larger confines of the real world, rather than suspending your disbelief and accepting the game as a world unto itself, governed only by its own internal rules.

War games in particular, especially the ones depicting a single battle or campaign, illustrate this last definition. If you know the game is only going to span one battle, then you can easily sacrifice most of your forces to win that battle. If you played it as a historical simulation, though, you would be much more cautious, conserving your forces for future battles, and maybe out of concern for your troops' lives. The former is a metagamer, and knows exactly the limited scope of the game in the real world. The second disregards the real-world limits of the game, and plays as if the game were real, or least as if the token images and flavor text of the game actually meant something.

[nicethugbert]

Cheating is much more tangible and well defined than meta-gaming.  Cheating is not simply failure to ignore what should be ignored.  It is actively seeking to break rules, which are typically protected rules.  A game with unenforceable rules is not considered a very good game and the cheater is not strictly at fault.  But, when rules are enforceable, then cheaters are not appreciated.

If you rule against using out of bounds information that is obvious or freely available then you are essentially acting as some sort of thought police.  Few people seem to relish that sort of game.

Why is it that in D&D type games people rail against meta-gaming and in other games people don't care about meta-gaming but do about cheating instead?

Take the example of war games depicting a single battle or campaign.  A person who got upset with other players for not playing them as historical simulations would be laughable.  Other game players play games for what they are.  People who rail against this are considered absurd.

I don't see meta-gaming as tangible or an actionable concept, especially as a derogatory term for players.  It's much more useful to look for implementations of concepts. 

Perhaps the concept of meta-gaming suits the way some people think.  But, they're not going to solve any problems with it if it's just a derogatory term instead of a tag used to track concepts needing better implementation.

[MasterChanger]

nicethugbert wrote...
Why is it that in D&D type games people rail against meta-gaming and in other games people don't care about meta-gaming but do about cheating instead?

To me, the question whether meta-gaming is objectionable depends on whether the player is trying to take on the role of a character within a world and immerse themselves into that character and setting. Meta-gaming is going outside of that role; therefore it runs counter to role-playing (which isn't the same as running counter to RPGs as a genre).

Meta-gaming isn't objectively a problem in a vacuum. It's a problem when it takes away from immersion that someone is trying to achieve. If someone doesn't care about immersion (or doesn't care about it in a particular context) then meta-gaming isn't a problem.

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

Counting cards is information that is freely available but nevertheless verboten, which you might call a flaw in the game of blackjack.

War games have their rails too, think about the anger thrown at turtling as a game tactic. It's often a very good strategy, namely because it allows a player to win by running out the game clock, which is a very arbitrary rule. People hate it because it goes against the 'spirit' of the game, it makes the game more about exploiting the rules than playing out the simulation.

It just gets more play in RPG's because the 'role-play' thing requires the players to look past the rules and towards the game world they represent.

[Kaldor Silverwand]

MasterChanger wrote...
It's a problem when it takes away from immersion that someone is trying to achieve. If someone doesn't care about immersion (or doesn't care about it in a particular context) then meta-gaming isn't a problem.

It may not be a problem that prevents them from succeeding, but it essentially is like doing the high jump when standing on stilts. The meta-gaming gives the person an inappropriate edge that (1) unbalances the game, (2) inflates their ego, (3) may lead to the person complaining about how easy the game is which can turn other people off who would have played it without meta-gaming.

Here is an example. In SoZ you can use a weakness in the experience point calculations to significantly increase the amount of experience you get from a battle by doing something that is the opposite of what you would normally do. Using that weakness is meta-gaming in a way that allows people to level up inappropriately and then complain that the ending is too easy.

If they kept their mouths shut then maybe it would be no harm to anyone else, but too often they don't.  Witness the many many threads from people claiming to trounce the OC with a single player.

Regards

[dunniteowl]

Those are some very good questions and responses overall.  I, of course, would like to toss in my base of experience (in games as a gamer and in games as a designer, and as a wanna be gamer/spectator in many a board and table top wargame extravaganza.)

Chess is never metagamed.  It can't be, because it's all about each player fully knowing the rules, the moves and abilities of each piece on the board and then thinking as many steps ahead as possible, using logic, ingenuity and a base of "Standard Opening, Mid-Game and End Game moves, gambits, feints and approaches to winning.  In it's most basic form, Chess is probably one of the most highly abstracted war games there is.

You can't metagame it, but you can cheat.  In open matches, that cheating is heavily minimized, but such things as "kibbutzing" or being coached is not only frowned upon in friendly matches, it's cause for expulsion (either of the player or the coach/kibbutzer or both) and even being banned from sanctioned matches.  It's serious stuff.

Board wargames, from which D&D owes it's roots, as well as table top miniatures war games, vary in the meta-gaming aspects, but again, it's really hard to simply just zip in there and do things with the units that they couldn't do on the board or tabletop.  In sanctioned table top wargaming, they even use little periscopes that they set down on top of units, and use it to determine if you can fire at specific units -- or even spot them.  It's really hard to cheat and metagaming in them is pretty much a lesson in futility.

Now in the case of a single scenario, you do and can find a fair number of folks who, by all rights in their gaming community(ies) are considered by all as "bloody minded" in that they treat the game as a game and nothing more and will, indeed, sacrifice units in a pell mell and hell bent for leather attempt to break the other side's forces and achieve their victory objectives.  In that case, some might call it gaming the game, which we might call metagaming (especially if it's a historical scenario) with the caveat that, as long as they aren't violating the rules, they can be as ruthless a commander as they see fit.

Personally, my experience with such "bloody minded" commanders is that they do not often win against a more experienced player.  They may gain a victory here and there, but when you come across a player such as that, you learn very quickly how to exploit their penchant for reckless casualties at the cost of the objectives.  Being bold is one thing, being reckless is another.  Wargaming, due to it's depth and roots, as well as use as true military battlefield simulations for cadets (at one time) learning to be commanders, has a series of rules that, while somewhat abstract, do a pretty good job at simulating things like morale effects, suppression, indirect fire, LOS/LOF of equipment, hiding, ambushes, close assaults, combined arms, etc. that, without knowing much of the rules and a good deal of the unit historical details, you'll probably lose to someone else who can recall all of that.

Those are the types of games that got me started into game design.  I played with a college buddy for a long time and he was a really good number cruncher and statistician.  If we played with unlimited time, he could run circles around me.  If we played with a max of half an hour to determine our turns (or less with smaller engagments) he hardly ever won.  If we played double blind (with a referee who has a board with both sides represented that only he can see, then he places the units on each player's separate boards consistent with LOS/LOF rules, he lost miserably every time.

The gamers in these communities know all this intimately.  They have sanctioned matches and the folks who still play by mail/email are die hard "grognards."  As such, they will each study their boards and take notes, as if they were battlefield commanders attempting to outsmart their opponent -- which is exactly what they are at that point in time.  For many in this genre of gaming, it's about mental flexibility, imaginative use of tactics and strategy and to get or seek advice from outside is anathema.

Then we have RPGs.

RPGs are different for many reasons.  Primary among these is that it's not you pitting your personal wits against another opponent and may the best commander win.  You are creating a character, hopefully not like yourself at all, and the skills, abilities and stats the character has is what determines your overall success or failure in the game, barring any series of really bad or really good rolls.  Another aspect is that, when it comes to roleplaying, there are things you *could* do in the game world if you knew how to do them.  And that means a sufficiently imaginative nerdy type with tons of information at their disposal, may find it very easy to explain how their rogue can sneak up on this seeming unsurprisable enemy and take him out with a single silent stroke.  And they may come up with very clever -- ingenious even -- acts for their Barbarian or Cleric to perform that are clearly above and beyond the ken and knowledge of not just their characters but of the game world itself.

And this happens more often than not; and I can offer what I feel is a good reason why this occurs.  The rules are hard to enforce.  In many cases rules are bent, broken or discarded at will and, due to the semi-wild and untamed Wild West mentality of many players, they only don't get enforced, they are impossible to enforce without causing trouble in the groups.  And this is the endemic fault of a gaming system that allows you to add modify, change or discard the guidelines and rules at will in the name of having a good time.

That isn't to say that there aren't shining examples, both in table top gaming and PWs here in NWN or NWN2, of folks that "get it right," but by and large, there is no real tutelage and training, or honorable enforcement of a set of standards by which players and DMs comport themselves.  It's a nearly Calvin and Hobbes "Anything Goes" sort of game mindset, mostly on the part of players, though sometimes the DMs fall prey to it as well.

In chess, board wargaming, table top wargaming and many other forms of competition (noted the fencing example and others) the adherence to a strict standard of behavior and ettiquette is a serious point of honor and integrity for the contestants.  To be caught violating these standards is cause for shame and humiliation on a degree you cannot easily achieve in RPGs.

One possible approach is better and more depth to the role of communication and tutelage from experienced players and DMs to new comers into groups and PWs.  This is troublesome, because until NWN, the role of Multiplayer was an MMO and the SP experience, combined with "standard" MMO play and players, really does promote a sort of Wild West RPG mentality where you do whatever you feel you can get away with and will stretch it to the limit.  And that simply means, when you take the reins of a PW or a gaming group, you really do have to strap on your "shooting" irons, polish the badge and inform the crew that there's a "New Sharif in Town." (That's not a mis-spelling, but the original use of the word, Sharif, which is where the word Sheriff, hails.)

In the meantime, though, there are, again, some forms of metagaming in cRPGs that are crucial to the enhancement of the player experience on the whole due to what's "lost in translation" from PnP with a live DM at all times, to computer format where, in many cases, there is no Live DM ever (SP games) and on many PWs only partial DM interaction throughout the time a player may be online with others.

Again, even with new enhancements (like Lance's New Fog of War System or the Scriptable Gray Orc Scent Feat) there is a lot we don't have.  It is said that approximately only 20% of all our communication with each other is verbal.  The other 80% is non-verbal in the form of facial expressions, body language and body/hand signals.  That's like asking you to take part in a system of communication that comes closer to replicating being someone too slow to speak in time of crisis to be effective.  So it's replaced with greater visual ability to see what's going on.  Having a compass heading at all times (which I guess now can be hidden as well?) and some more ability to do things with your character that people wouldn't normally have as advantages -- to make up for what we're losing.

And even so, there's still no good way to determine which direction smells are coming from, what sounds are close and which are far, which mean possible danger and which are just background, etc.  There's no way you can script all that in and present a module in someone's time frame of interest in the game itself.  There's just too much to account for.  And we effectively don't have that.

For these reasons, we must have some metagaming aspects.  They are essential, as I said earlier, to the successful navigation and accomplishments in the game that any player would have a normal expectation of being able to do.  And, again, my point is that, the more aware we are as designers and builders, of the potential pitfalls that the metagaming-as-exploits present to the players, the better able we are to mitigate that -- or even manage somehow to turn those potential exploits into assets -- for the game with creative insights into utilizing them in different ways.

dunniteowl

[nicethugbert]

"I always thought the term meant to gain an advantage with the game through knowledge beyond that of the PC."

I find this definition to be so broad that it becomes a chore to play a game with it.  So, meta-gaming is necessary otherwise the game is unplayable.

Dorateen wrote...
I also believe that the converse is true. That if you have a Player
who is unable to piece together a thorny riddle, they should not be
able to fall back and say, "But my character is highly intelligent... or
has 19 skill ranks in Lore!". I say if a person wants to role-play a
smart and savvy character, they had better be up to the task. I think it
is the creativeness, resourcefulness, and ingenuity of the Player that should count most, regardless of the stats generated on a character sheet.

Harumph!

That throws out the entire D&D character mechanism.

Lugaid of the Red Stripes wrote...

Counting cards is
information that is freely available but nevertheless verboten, which
you might call a flaw in the game of blackjack.
War games have their
rails too, think about the anger thrown at turtling as a game tactic.
It's often a very good strategy, namely because it allows a player to
win by running out the game clock, which is a very arbitrary rule.
People hate it because it goes against the 'spirit' of the game, it
makes the game more about exploiting the rules than playing out the
simulation.
It just gets more play in RPG's because the 'role-play'
thing requires the players to look past the rules and towards the game
world they represent.

I consider looking past the rules to be a problem because it is denial of the actual game.  The rules of the game are the actual game, not the spirit.  The spirit of the game is mearly wishful thinking.

I don't think role-play is synonomous with looking past the rules.  I take a narrower view of role-play that does not compare very well to acting.  War games are role playing games by my view.  D&D is a role playing game because the classes are comprable to military units.

I do not divorce role from rules.

MasterChanger wrote...
To me, the question whether meta-gaming is
objectionable depends on whether the player is trying to take on the
role of a character within a world and immerse themselves into that
character and setting. Meta-gaming is going outside of that role;
therefore it runs counter to role-playing (which isn't the same as
running counter to RPGs as a genre).

Meta-gaming isn't
objectively a problem in a vacuum. It's a problem when it takes away
from immersion that someone is trying to achieve. If someone doesn't
care about immersion (or doesn't care about it in a particular context)
then meta-gaming isn't a problem.

Typically, meta-gaming is used in a context involving more than one player, directly such as pvp or indirectly such as SP'ers talking about the game.  But, what if the game does not support the player's notion of role?  I would not say that a game supports a role if the role depends entirely on the players imagination.  You can imagine your OC pc is a fat human midget with a fear of cherry juice.  But, the game doesn't respond to that.  In such a case, couldn't we say that it is the player that is meta-gaming being that tha game has no notion of fat, human midget, or cherry juice?

Kaldor Silverwand wrote...
Here is an example. In SoZ you can
use a weakness in the experience point calculations to significantly
increase the amount of experience you get from a battle by doing
something that is the opposite of what you would normally do. Using that
weakness is meta-gaming in a way that allows people to level up
inappropriately and then complain that the ending is too easy.

If
they kept their mouths shut then maybe it would be no harm to anyone
else, but too often they don't.  Witness the many many threads from
people claiming to trounce the OC with a single player.

Regards

I find all of that very much a matter of opinion and I don't see how I am harmed because somebody figured out how to solo the OC especially as The Devs built it.  I'm not envious of this.  I prefer to play it with a party anyway.

What does ****** me off are aimbots and wall hacks.  Modern Warfare 2 is rife with such cheats and it totally skews the game.  It's one thing for people to have better PCs or skills or reflexes.  That is what the game is about.  But aimbots and wall hacks render all that irrelevent and ineffective and makes the scoring meaningless.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 08 février 2011 - 02:12 .