Article View: alt.games.quake
Article #74888Re: Is there a new QW cheat out?
From: Matthew Vaughan
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 05:05
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 05:05
104 lines
7572 bytes
7572 bytes
"Joe Momma" <joe@mommadillo.com> wrote in message news:0pdj00p299vqchjuoe1utsh18idmgr0f3m@4ax.com... > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:24:59 GMT, "Matthew Vaughan" > <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >It's called getting good at the game. > > Not where I come from. Looking for holes to exploit may not be > exactly cheating, but it's certainly not honorable and there's ZERO > "skill" involved, unless you consider downloading a file to be a > skill. Whatever. If you mean adding aimbots and seeing through walls, I totally agree with you. But if you mean learning things like bunnyhopping and rocketjumping (let alone perfecting your aim and reflexes, learning tricky jumps, and knowing the maps - and how other players tend to behave on them - like the back of your hand), I can't imagine what you're whining about. > >The lack of challenge has to do with too few good players getting online and > >playing. > > Good players don't bother playing when some software-assisted newbie > can run rings around them. Why do you think there are so few Quake/QW > servers left, anyway? Answer: who wants to waste a server on a bunch > of cheating lowlifes? The few dozen times I've played in the last six months, I have run into only one player that was even accused of cheating, and even he I wasn't sure was actually cheating, though I have entertained the notion that he might be (I played against him in person a years ago during a LAN tournament, and he was good then; at the time we were about even, depending on how in practice I was. He seems to have been playing steadily every since, which I certainly have not, so I'd only expect him to be better now.) He is not the first player I've encountered that was dramatically better than me without needing to cheat, so I'm not assuming that he does, even though everyone else seems to think so. I haven't perceived cheating in QW now as being a significantly bigger problem than it was 4-5 years ago. People have ALWAYS whined about the players that are better than them "cheating". I was regularly accused of cheating (which I have NEVER done, not even just to "try it out") because some people couldn't imagine that a player with a 28.8 modem and 350 ping could move faster than them, aim better than them, react quickly, anticipate their movements, and generally kick their asses. They would say things like "you are on cable modem and disguising your ping, I know it". I really didn't konw what to say to them. (I WISHED I had a cable modem then!) The fragmentation of the Quake community started as soon as Quake 2 came out (which was a totally different game than Quake, guaranteeing that about 1/2 of Quake players would NOT simply move on to the next game), and got worse after Tribes, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, and Half-Life/Couterstrike came out (and, more recently, BF1942, Halo, and numerous other games - or just going back to real life because online gaming was losing its appeal). Go look around at the various Quake webistes from Quake's heyday (the perhaps 1/4 of them that still exist, that is) - almost none of them have been modified since about 1999, and even then they'd only update it to say things like "wow, I haven't updated this site in 2 years. I'm still alive. Bye!"; virtually all those that are still active are now general gaming or technology sites, not even remotely Quake specific (Shacknews or Bluesnews, for instance). The disapperance of the Quake games from retail stores has made things even worse. (Try to buy a copy of Quake for the PC; if you don't already own it, you'll have to pirate it since it's no longer for sale; even Quake 2 is getting difficult to find.) Ironically, I think making Quake open source made the problem worse, since both id and GT Interactive (or whoever had responsibility for selling it) became completely uninterested in having anything to do with the game. And it became difficult to figure out what the "latest and greatest" Quake version was - the official versions stagnated years ago, and now there is a plethora of versions from different people, all with different features and bugs (disappointingly, they still have a suprising number of the bugs from the old id versions of the games, and few truly useful new features). Which to choose? Where to even start looking? Then there's the lack of a clear choice in which game to move onto. As I said above, Quake 2 should logically have been that choice, but wasn't. Neither was Quake 3, which also wasn't a clear choice for Quake 2 players to move to (splintering the "Quake" community into *3* parts - great move, id!). Counterstrike is great for a certain type of gaming that is very different from Quakel UT has tried to be for more Quake-type gaming, but just ends up being an aim/reflex fest highly dependent on framerate and ping time, due to nearly all the weapons being so overpowered if aimed precisely for headshots, and CTF is wholly dependent on the translocator. Some people love this, thus the overpopularity of the incredibly dull "instaGib" mod, but it's uninteresting to me after a few minutes, showing that even in trying to ape Quake's "high-speed, action-packed" netplay, Epic missed the point entirely. OK, this is becoming rambling, but the reduction of QW players and servers has nothing whatsoever to do with a supposed cheating epidemic, in my opinion. Even if it did, these cheats aren't exactly new. Quake was made open source years ago, and virtually all the cheats already existed long before that even happened (some from deciphering demo formats, which are related to networking formats, some from an even earlier version of Quake for a particular 3D chip that was leaked very early on, and some just from sheer cleverness on the part of hackers in deciphering the network stream etc.). My only question is why the SUDDEN drop in QW servers in just a few weeks time? I have never seen such a sudden drop in servers. Or is it just that GameSpy is suddenly reporting a much lower proportion of the total servers our there? (Could it have stopped polling a popular master server list?) What alternatives to GameSpy are there on the PC for finding game servers? (I always like Scott Kevill's Macintosh game browser a lot better than GameSpy, but I don't use a Mac any more.)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1uoOb.9330$XF6.193785@typhoon.sonic.net>Path:
mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!internal1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nf3.bellglobal.com!sjc70.webusenet.com!sjc72.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!feed.news.sonic.net!typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mailReferences:
<el4e00h6qe3npc192cmmjarn3vd4ibmt5f@4ax.com> <vj6Ob.9179$XF6.191854@typhoon.sonic.net> <0pdj00p299vqchjuoe1utsh18idmgr0f3m@4ax.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!internal1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nf3.bellglobal.com!sjc70.webusenet.com!sjc72.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!feed.news.sonic.net!typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Matthew Vaughan" <matt109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> From: "Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> Newsgroups: alt.games.quake References: <el4e00h6qe3npc192cmmjarn3vd4ibmt5f@4ax.com> <vj6Ob.9179$XF6.191854@typhoon.sonic.net> <0pdj00p299vqchjuoe1utsh18idmgr0f3m@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Is there a new QW cheat out? Lines: 106 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: <1uoOb.9330$XF6.193785@typhoon.sonic.net> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 05:05:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.142.14.83 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1074402301 64.142.14.83 (Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:05:01 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:05:01 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit