244 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Lowlander wrote...

You are a bit confused here.  I have been consistent on the definition of single player cheating, but I have also discussed the potential consequences of  single player cheating. These are separate things. Mentioning potential consequences doesn't make them required for the definition.

I will  be explicit, hopefully you can understand the difference between the definition of cheating and the potential consequences of cheating in this context:

Cheating Definition:

I have always indicated I was speaking of the term as used in computer games, as it has been used in single player computer games for decades, where no secondary party need be taken advantage of for cheating to occur. One that simply involves subverting rules, using exploits to gain advantage/take short cuts.  That is cheating in single player computer games.  No one else need be involved whatsoever.  There really is noting to argue about here. This is the definition of cheating in this context for decades.

 As Shia pointed out, one may use the Cheat console to remove gold, XP, etc as well. I have also used Cheat codes to grant myself rewards that were in the games, but were restricted for some reason (eg;  Designer Intentions, NPC got the kill XP, glitch, etc). So for you, it seems to be only cheating when I gain an advantage.

So, I am unable to understand when the only 'advantage I gain' is the loss of tedium, for when I use cheats I mainly only aquire items used in the game to maintain balance.

Or is tedium the designed intent?

Potential Consequences of Cheating:

Privately:
If you do the above privately, tell no one a give no indication it was ever done, it is still cheating in the context of computer games, but it is inconsequential to the rest of the world. It absolutely doesn't matter to anyone but the cheater. It may deprive the cheater of a sense of satisfaction because they know they cheated. It does for me, but I can't speak for everyone on this, the function of the brains reward center is not universal.

I agree that it does not matter to anyone but the Player; thus it may be cheating when they ruin or spoil the experience for themselves. But I disgree with the speculations as to why; could have added an extra zero on a gold cheat in error, then 'not cheated' by removing it.

Socially:
Once you bring your private cheating, into a public space there are more potential consequences.  The one that I object to, is experienced players suggesting cheating and serving as an example of cheating to new players, The threads (other than this one) where I made comments on this, were threads for people new to the game. Indoctrinating them into cheating before they even have a chance to play clean.  This is my main objection to taking private cheating public.  But there are also other issues, as having a common context for discussing anything to do with the game (which is what we do here). When I am talking to a cheater, what is the weight of their opinion on anything if they just take shortcuts routinely....

Anf ths is when the trouble starts; when one holds their opinion over another (ie; I say tomato; you call it cheating), and treat the matter as fact. It ain't.

Modifié par Elhanan, 08 mai 2011 - 04:18 .

[Elhanan]

Lowlander wrote...

While you can do those things, they are pretty much irrelevant as they are exceptions several order of maginitude smaller in usage(bordering on non-existent). They don't merit much discussion, they are used more to muddy the discussion, than further it.

Just so you are aware you are ignoring the exceptions.

Aside from fixing glitches, everything you mention is cheating. You are just rationalizing around it. If the designer didn't intend for your class to have something and you give it to your character anyway that is an advantage your character wasn't meant to have, you aren't supposed to have XP for allied NPCs killing enemies, so giving yourself them is again an advantage you were not supposed to have.

Not rationalizing anything, as I do not believe it is cheating; simply trying to use the quoted defintions given me. I get it; you think it is cheating, but that is not fact, and I for one resent seing it portrayed as such repeatedly.

And designers ain't perfect (ie; 3E Rangers); helped fix them, too.

You are clearly rationalizing if you can't seen the advantages of giving yourself restricted items, XP for things you didn't kill, gold etc ...

It is almost like any cheating quickly becomes a gateway drug to more cheating. So not just gold cheat, but XP cheats and giving yourself anything restricted in the campaign.

It is interesting though, you seem to be in the "whatever I can rationalize is not cheating" group of cheaters, rather than the anything goes group...

And once again, you appear to miss or ignore the content and context. YOU define cheating as' gaining advantage'. I gave examples where I was not, yet I am still 'cheating' My examples may not be perfect, nor meet your standards. But they do illuatrate your sliding use of the definitions to suit your tastes.

As for my slippery slope, if no advantage is gained, I must not be cheating. I purchased goods 'intended' to be sold, aquired XP already served and avoided reloading, bypassed caravan hauls by adding Bags of Holding = eliminating tedium.

This is indeed where the trouble starts. In the "cheating" vs "playing clean" argument, I definitely think "playing clean" is better. Just because there is two sides to an argument, doesn't mean they have equal merit.

At best cheating is harmless, but that still doesn't make is as good as playing clean.

Even if you never discussed the game with another person, playing clean has potentially greater rewards. Reward for a task in the human brain is normally correlated to effort expended, shortcuts in effort lead to shortcuts in reward. Cheating may be harmless, but it still isn't as good as playing clean even in the pure single player case.

Beyond that, are social aspects when you bring your private cheating public. If just for the benefit of speaking of the game in the same context, playing clean is better. If you actually want to experience what the designer created as intended, playing clean is better. When communicating with designers playing clean is better.

Playing clean is better. I will never pretend cheating is of equal merit to playing clean.

No; that again is not fact; tis opinion. Using DA2, I much preferred my secind playthrough with a gold cheat over my first; thus it was better. Maye not for you, but seeing as you were not here to watch, the Player holds the opinion that merits worth.

Modifié par Elhanan, 08 mai 2011 - 06:50 .

[Gregor Wyrmbane]

 Interesting discussion so far. Reminds me, as one other person pointed out earlier, of discussions I've been involved with about the U.S. Constitution and how it's been changed and misinterpreted over the years. I'll expound on that perspective.

I see a pattern here where the majority of folks who believe using console commands or the tool set to alter a module in any way from what the module builder intended is cheating. Regardless of whether or not anyone other than the SP individual is affected by those alterations. The moral stigma attached to being labeled a cheater (same as being called a thief) when the labeled individual knows they've harmed no one is a tough pill to swallow for some, and feathers get ruffled. I also believe, no matter how much they may protest otherwise, that those who see altering a module/SP session by using console commands or the tool set as cheating, are thinking in purely self centered terms. Builders of modules and non builders from slightly different points of view, but still for personal reasons alone. And that's where the root of the difference of opinion between the two sides of this discussion lies. The builder wants the player to experience the module from their (the builders) perspective, exclusively. "This is my module, and I want you to play it my way". The non-builders from the "you're cheating" camp play the game exactly as the builder tells them to, and they believe everyone else should too. Again, for purely personal reasons. Probably control issues. ;^)

From my perspective, and I believe most of the others in the cheaters/thieves camp whether they know it or not, the other camp has lost sight of how this game was intended to be played in the first place. NWN is based on the old board game, Dungeons & Dragons. I've been playing it since it first came out in the 70's. I remember what it was all about. I also remember that the original rules were intended as "guidelines" by the gentlemen who created the game, and they explained that "house rules" as agreed upon by the indivuduals playing, including the DM, were not only acceptable, but encouraged. They (the creators of the game) wanted everyone to enjoy the game in whatever manner they pleased. Not just in the exact way they saw the world they created. A very selfless point of view. So, whenever a group of folks sat down to start a campaign, the players and DM agreed upon the "house rules". The DM implemented the rules, and the players were voluntarily bound by them. If during the course of the campaign it was determined that the rules needed to be tweaked, and everyone agreed upon that, the rules got changed accordingly. Everyone was happy, and everyone had a good time. No cheating was allowed, and the DM would smite anyone who tried.

I believe the people at Bioware who created NWN still believed in the original D&D concept, and that's the reason they included a tool set, and never claimed that using the console commands constituted cheating in their eyes. Where the difference of opinion lies in the two sides of this discussion is in a misperception by the "you're cheating" camp about the dynamics of the SP experience in NWN. In a SP session, no matter who created the module, the player is also the entire party and the DM. The computer is not the DM, and only handles the mechanics of dice rolls and the GUI. All the "house rules" and other functions that would involve the agreement of all players and a DM in MP are exclusive to the single player. He is the party, and the DM. He makes, and/or changes the "house rules" as he sees fit. His word is law. I think the original creators of D&D would agree with that.

So, from the selfless point of view of the original creators, no matter which definition of the word "cheat" you apply, it has no true meaning in a D&D based SP game. Maybe in some other SP video games, but not D&D. In D&D, the DM's decision is final.

Of course, opinions vary.  ;^)

[TSMDude]

That is totaly in jest as I have been dying to use that pic somewhere....

Modifié par TSMDude, 09 mai 2011 - 01:40 .

[Gregor Wyrmbane]

Lowlander wrote...
How about you just man up and admit you are cheating.

I already did, in my last post......

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

From my perspective, and I believe most of the others in the cheaters/thieves camp whether they know it or not, the other camp has lost sight of how this game was intended to be played in the first place.

Now...... how 'bout you just man up and admit you're an arrogant, self-righteous control freak?  

[Shadooow]

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

So, from the selfless point of view of the original creators, no matter which definition of the word "cheat" you apply, it has no true meaning in a D&D based SP game. Maybe in some other SP video games, but not D&D. In D&D, the DM's decision is final.

But the difference is that while you get only rules with D&D and you had to create "The Game" and then you could set your own rules,  in NWN and any other RPG game based on D&D rules you already start with "The Game" which has its rules already set.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 09 mai 2011 - 04:25 .

[Elhanan]

Lowlander wrote...

Elhanan wrote...
  Just so you are aware you are ignoring the exceptions.

You can use command line commands for non cheating activities. So?

*sigh* I gave you more credit than deserved, I suspect. I meant you were ignoring the exceptions you noted in thr previous post. But it does not matter, as you have failed to read almost anything in your blind march to judgemnt on this matter.

Your rationalization is around what you call an advantage.  You give yourself gold, EXP, Bags Holding, any restricted items in the module that you wan't but couldn't have, and yet you don't consider it giving you an advantage, that is pretty much exactly what a rationalization is. I think in the eyes of most people who weren't fooling themself would see all those things as offerring an advantage.

Of course I gain an advantage for myself by eliminating the tedium of hauling, shopping, and other time consuming tasks; would not do it if it was not beneficial. You may like self-inflicted pain; not I. But I gain no advantage over what the designer included in the mod be it gold, XP, etc. I simply do not have to waste time getting them thru repeated trks and reloads. All yours.

Really? If extra gold gives you no advantage, how did it make your playthrough better? I suppose there are people that get more reward from cheating than playing clean. But I hope that isn't the case for most.

I saved over 40+hrs in play. Between knowing the quests, and elinating the shopping tours, I was able to enjoy the story rather than wallow in the terdious tasks already experienced earlier.

Modifié par Elhanan, 09 mai 2011 - 04:33 .

[Elhanan]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

But the difference is that while you get only rules with D&D and you had to create "The Game" and then you could set your own rules,  in NWN and any other RPG game based on D&D rules you already start with "The Game" which has its rules already set.

Kinda, except for changes made by the indv player in the nwn.ini file for max HP, etc, Difficulty Slider, and other tools placed in the Players care such as... *ta-Dah!* Cheat codes, Toolset, DM Client, etc.

[Elhanan]

Lowlander wrote...

It isn't just eliminating selling treks, you are also avoid tougher combat at the beginning when those not cheating have to use leather armor and short swords... You can just buy better gear right away without having to fight with starting gear and earn the money.

Also how do you decide when it is appropriate to have powerful magic items in shops? There are often unaffordable items in shops if you are playing without gold cheats...

You do assume a lot....

It depends on the mods. If the game has shops at the intro with good gear, I  buy them. If the shops or powerful items are placed later in the mod, I buy them then. Thus I then meet the challenges set by the items that were se when they were set. Decent mod descriptions aid in this as well.

And if you are seeing unaffordable items in shops, I would say the the mod design may be flawed; not the Player getting them.

*fixed*

Modifié par Elhanan, 10 mai 2011 - 04:47 .

[jmlzemaggo]

Lowlander wrote...
It isn't just eliminating selling treks, you are also avoid tougher combat at the beginning when those not cheating have to use leather armor and short swords... You can just buy better gear right away without having to fight with starting gear and earn the money.

Also how do you decide when it is appropriate to have powerful magic items in shops? There are often unaffordable items in shops if you are playing without gold cheats...

That is very true, and my main concern when gold cheating: keeping the game balanced and myself only legitimately rewarded for my actions. 
I never found any satisfying solution to handle this. Especially since I don't even pick-up the gold from a free chest. I used to keep some notes about the money to keep some "vague" idea about how much I was making. Even more complicated...
Then, after a while, you get used to your level and how much money you're supposed to have if you're level 15 say. It's not perfect, probably not legit, but I won't change who I am for a game which works differently. 
Beside? I'm personnally highly against anything, game including, that promotes money in such a fanatic and religious way. 
Cheating to not obey some stupid law isn't cheating, but a duty. 
See, even cheating has to be redefined here, as it depends on which law we're talking about. 

About writers making modules with no money for a change, and a good change? I never saw any, even in a supposed to be fantasy world. Almost unbelievable, isn't it? Like if there was no hope. 
Then I gold cheat. No matter what. I even find myself being quite lawful, going against a game which is cheating on one of its very duties: imagination & hope. 
Don't you find humongously cheating... finding another chest full of free gold at every step you make, just like if no one ever walked the area before? And kindly left it "unattended", just for you...
That's quite some ugly cheat here already... almost an insult to the brain. 
And people do find this... legit??? 
When I see another one of those chests, one out of soooOOOooo many, I deeply find myself cheated, in the worse way ever when it comes to gaming: let's call it desimmersion.
Does that money make any sense? No. And you're talking about obeying rules... that don't make any sense? Is that being lawful? 
But, strangely, no one ever talks about that kind of cheat. NWN is wrong when it comes to one of the main sources of its power! No less! Remember the OC: you can barely move in there between the chests. No wonder why I hated it.
And as the first official campaign, is that supposed to define how the creators of the game intended NWN to be? Really? I'm pleased we took control then.
The first duty of any creation is to escape its creator. Pronto. To quickly serve its very purpose: Us.

Now, being rewarded for a job or a quest, that's more of my liking...
And maybe the only solution... 'sounds like... life, actually, doesn't it. 
But those chests are nothing but jokes. Bad ones. Cheap dreams.
One chest is a dream. Too many only nightmares.
And nothing but cheats. 
I haven't seen a chest for ages... in my streets. 

But, what is that thread truly about:
People who can't we just admit being a cheater? I am a cheater. 
Or is it more about cheating is "bad"?
Then, I don't care. The only one I don't wanna cheat with is myself. And real life. 
So let me have fun, meaning experiencing something else in game. 
Or don't.
Who knows, I might even use it for practicing the religious way in five years from now... even if I highly doubt that...  

What about when cheating gets creative? This how I began my module maker activity. There was that game that had something in it, but was poorely exploited. I learned the whole d... toolset just to be able to play it without feeling spoiled and missing its true potential at every step. 
Some time later, I contacted the true author of it, to show him my piece of his. You know what he said? He had a baby, and simply forgot about the idea of gaming itself...
Won-der-ful.
Cheating is okay for yourself... as long as you know you are cheating.
The only one rule about cheating. 

Modifié par jmlzemaggo, 09 mai 2011 - 09:00 .

[AmstradHero]

I've come around to Andarian's way of thinking that use console commands or mods to modify the game, even if it's to give yourself a disadvantage is still "cheating". It's cheating of a very unorthodox sort, but I see how it is still be viewed as cheating in the context of a game.

Lowlander wrote...
How about you just man up and admit you are cheating.

This part of Lowlander's argument I agree with. If you're using console commands or mods to change the play experience that someone created for you, you're cheating. You might be cheating to make it more enjoyable to you. Say, like the house rule in Monopoly that tax money goes into the middle and can be collected when you land on free parking. Sure, it's a house rule, but by the rules of the game, it's cheating.

For all those declaring that they aren't cheating while utilising game-altering mods/console commands:

If you're using console commands to give yourself new items/gold/experience, "auto-sell" items, modify power progressions, whatever, effectively, you're cheating. However, by trying to rationalize your actions as not cheating, you're implicitly but definitively declaring that "cheating is bad" and saying "I don't want to be called a cheater". You're attaching your own personal stigma to the label of a "cheater".

I'm AmstradHero, and I am a cheater. I don't cheat all the time, and I don't cheat in multiplayer, but in certain single player experiences, I am a cheater.

And you know what? I don't care. Why do you?

[jmlzemaggo]

Multiplayer is the only true NWN. Face to face, brain to brain, laugh to laugh. 
No cheat, José... 
Even many of the greatest "written" modules are well enjoyed in MP... I've heard. 

[AndarianTD]

AmstradHero wrote...

If you're using console commands to give yourself new items/gold/experience, "auto-sell" items, modify power progressions, whatever, effectively, you're cheating. However, by trying to rationalize your actions as not cheating, you're implicitly but definitively declaring that "cheating is bad" and saying "I don't want to be called a cheater". You're attaching your own personal stigma to the label of a "cheater".

This.

[AndarianTD]

Elhanan wrote...

And if you are seeing unaffordable items in shops, I would say the the mod design is flawed; not the Player getting them.

With all due respect, that is nonsense.

Shopping, and store design and inventory, happen to be a particular focus of interest for me as a mod developer. They're things that I take so seriously that I even went so far as to re-write NWN's store appraisal system from scratch to eliminate the bugs in the game's implementation (such as the "buy low sell high" exploit for high appraise characters) and to make shopping even more effective as an RP tool. Every item that I put in a shop, I put there for a reason -- including items that I know full well that the player cannot afford when he encounters the store, given the carefully balanced set of resources I've made available up to that point. Those reasons can include, for example:

• Planning and Role-Playing. By showing the player a (currently) unaffordable item in a shop earlier in the game, I give him the opportunity to make saving up for it a planning goal for his playthrough. If he really likes the item and thinks it'll complement his RP persona well, he can make tradeoffs in terms of foregoing other purchases and selling other items in order to buy it. That is not possible, though, if you don't show the item early enough in the game, so that the player has time to do such planning. If he uses a gold cheat, then that aspect of the module's (very deliberately crafted) RP experience is completely short-circuited.
• Skill Development. Whether an expensive item is actually affordable or not can depend on a number of factors. In addition to making saving and resource tradeoffs as above, it also depends on character design and role-playing options. A smart character who maxes out his appraise skill, boosts his Int even more with items and potions, and so on, can see such items in a significantly different light than a "dumb fighter" with no shopping skills.
• Ambience and Realism. Why wouldn't stores have items for sale that are beyond what the player can afford? Even if they're effectively just there for show, they can add a touch of realism and authenticity to the player's experience -- just like books, placeables and items with descriptions, and so on.

I grant that many (probably most) modders do not make the effort to carefully balance their modules in terms of available resources (including store design and inventory), so that these factors come into play. But the fact that many do it badly is all the more reason, I think, to be careful about making assumptions that are inappropriate to cases where it actually is done well.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 09 mai 2011 - 01:05 .

[Tybae]

Shia Luck wrote...
Agreed. Cheating while playtesting seems very counter productive to me.

There are several instances where cheating while playtesting is quite useful.  Area design, dialogue edtiting/spellcheck/etc, script testing, story continuity, etc.  I've used it several times to test scripting where your level designates the level of the NPC's.  I've also used it to teleport my character to another spot on the map due to a bug.  It's not always counter productive. 

However, I always go through a playtest without cheating first, unless I'm specifically asked to test something that has nothing to do with the fighting, like the situations I listed above. 

Edit:

AndarianTD wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

And if
you are seeing unaffordable items in shops, I would say the the mod
design is flawed; not the Player getting them.

With all due respect, that is nonsense.
...................(snip)
(including
store design and inventory), so that these factors come into play. But
the fact that many do it badly is all the more reason, I think, to be
careful about making assumptions that are inappropriate to cases where
it actually is done well

Also, with all due respect to Elhanan, I could not agree with Andarian more.  (with the entire post.  Didn't want to quote the entire thing to save space.) 

Modifié par Tybae, 09 mai 2011 - 01:24 .

[Elhanan]

AndarianTD wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

And if you are seeing unaffordable items in shops, I would say the the mod design is flawed; not the Player getting them.

With all due respect, that is nonsense.

Shopping, and store design and inventory, happen to be a particular focus of interest for me as a mod developer. They're things that I take so seriously that I even went so far as to re-write NWN's store appraisal system from scratch to eliminate the bugs in the game's implementation (such as the "buy low sell high" exploit for high appraise characters) and to make shopping even more effective as an RP tool. Every item that I put in a shop, I put there for a reason -- including items that I know full well that the player cannot afford when he encounters the store, given the carefully balanced set of resources I've made available up to that point. Those reasons can include, for example:

• Planning and Role-Playing. By showing the player a (currently) unaffordable item in a shop earlier in the game, I give him the opportunity to make saving up for it a planning goal for his playthrough. If he really likes the item and thinks it'll complement his RP persona well, he can make tradeoffs in terms of foregoing other purchases and selling other items in order to buy it. That is not possible, though, if you don't show the item early enough in the game, so that the player has time to do such planning. If he uses a gold cheat, then that aspect of the module's (very deliberately crafted) RP experience is completely short-circuited.
  
• Skill Development. Whether an expensive item is actually affordable or not can depend on a number of factors. In addition to making saving and resource tradeoffs as above, it also depends on character design and role-playing options. A smart character who maxes out his appraise skill, boosts his Int even more with items and potions, and so on, can see such items in a significantly different light than a "dumb fighter" with no shopping skills.
  
• Ambience and Realism. Why wouldn't stores have items for sale that are beyond what the player can afford? Even if they're effectively just there for show, they can add a touch of realism and authenticity to the player's experience -- just like books, placeables and items with descriptions, and so on.

I grant that many (probably most) modders do not make the effort to carefully balance their modules in terms of available resources (including store design and inventory), so that these factors come into play. But the fact that many do it badly is all the more reason, I think, to be careful about making assumptions that are inappropriate to cases where it actually is done well.

[*]Good for you. But what may be nonsensical is the notion that all the Players wish to spend our time at the mall. As a designer, you may wish to lead the Players by their noses to see your stories, and I often comply. But if you place a weapon that I am able to ID and use, and your only purpose is for decor, then I can introduce the realism of shoddy security, and will aquire the item, and leave the gold on the counter.

[Elhanan]

AndarianTD wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

If you're using console commands to give yourself new items/gold/experience, "auto-sell" items, modify power progressions, whatever, effectively, you're cheating. However, by trying to rationalize your actions as not cheating, you're implicitly but definitively declaring that "cheating is bad" and saying "I don't want to be called a cheater". You're attaching your own personal stigma to the label of a "cheater".

This.

Well, perhaps it is because we are not rationalizing, and not cheating; just using the same tools that were used as the designers to re-design and improve the game as we see best, as it is our mod now.

*not available for re-sale; some prices may vary*

Modifié par Elhanan, 09 mai 2011 - 05:04 .

[AmstradHero]

Wow. Simply, wow. Okay, I'm out of this thread from now on, as it's obviously pointless to try and engage in reasoned discussion here.

[Gregor Wyrmbane]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Gregor Wyrmbane wrote...

So, from the selfless point of view of the original creators, no matter which definition of the word "cheat" you apply, it has no true meaning in a D&D based SP game. Maybe in some other SP video games, but not D&D. In D&D, the DM's decision is final.

But the difference is that while you get only rules with D&D and you had to create "The Game" and then you could set your own rules,  in NWN and any other RPG game based on D&D rules you already start with "The Game" which has its rules already set.

This is a prime example of what I meant when I said some of you don't understand the dynamics of a SP session. The module isn't "the game". It's merely a setting. Just like back in the old days when we used to go to the game store and buy a "campaign" to use with our "game". The players and the DM decide how the game will be played. They decide the "house rules". The module/campaign only dictates where it will take place. Bioware and WotC gave the "guidelines" with NWN and it's game engine, but they also gave the tool set and console commands for the players and DM's to make "house rules" and their own settings/campaigns.

Again, for those whose control issues won't allow them to let go of their misperceptions, in SP the player is the party AND the DM. The SP player decides how the "game" will be played. The module is merely the place where the game happens.

So, by your (meaning the "you're all cheaters" camp) definition, anyone who ever played PnP, and made "house rules" along with the other people involved, are all cheaters. Man up and get over it. 

[Elhanan]

AmstradHero wrote...

Wow. Simply, wow. Okay, I'm out of this thread from now on, as it's obviously pointless to try and engage in reasoned discussion here.

Why? Because while I admire your efforts, I do not feel the need to require it for my games? For myself in gaming, it is NOT the economy sir.

Or is because that I contend that once the dinner leaves the restaurant or kitchen, ir is now mine to season, add catsup, and eat as much or little as I find palatable? I do not fault the chef for giving me over-salted cuisine if a re-salted it, but will enjoy the meal a whole lot better when it is consumed my way.

Sorry if I offend, but I not only believe my stance to be true, but encourage other players that may be posting frustration in a sim way. In m/p, the only time I even hit the Tilde key is due to operator error while attempting to push the Tab search funtions.