We're starting to see hardware and config software become more and more troublesome in the world of gaming when it comes to balance. It really begs the question how much over engineering...
We're starting to see hardware and config software become more and more troublesome in the world of gaming when it comes to balance. It really begs the question how much over engineering developers are going to have to do to maintain parity between player experiences. Or how far is too far before you're ruining people's custom hardware? Dead by Daylight, for example, is actually worse to play on my ultrawide because the game goes off vertical FOV and doesn't allow users to choose a proper 16:9 aspect ratio. But also someone that can fork over extra money shouldn't be able to pay to win over someone who can only afford basic peripherals... right? Should the speed runners of Doom Eternal have to go buy mice with unlockable scroll wheels to be able to bounce around with the best? Or is it fair to allow software to even that playing field?
I'm glad I don't really play shooters anymore because this would drive me insane.
Here's my stance as a long time PC gamer: One man's accessibility tool is another man's cheat. At the end of the day, it's just a game. Does it suck getting rolled by cheaters? Yea. But if there's...
Here's my stance as a long time PC gamer:
One man's accessibility tool is another man's cheat.
At the end of the day, it's just a game. Does it suck getting rolled by cheaters? Yea. But if there's one thing I learned that if the bottom 80% of the playerbase interacted with the top 5% of the playerbase with any regularity, they'd accuse the top 5% of being cheaters 10/10 times no question.
Everyone dreams of a perfectly level playing field. But the reality is that for every time you get killed by a cheater, you got killed by messing up 5 or more other times.
The real problem is that there isn't a right answer. The closest is really just only banning cheaters that are obviously cheating via a report system and sorting out the rest via shadow matchmaking.
It's worth remembering that the original PC 'cheating' peripheral for multiplayer online shooters was, the mouse. It was a big deal in Quake 1 whether you played with arrow keys or were one of...
It's worth remembering that the original PC 'cheating' peripheral for multiplayer online shooters was, the mouse. It was a big deal in Quake 1 whether you played with arrow keys or were one of those OP mouse + keyboard players wrecking the leaderboards.
Sure if it's a tournament or whatever the runners should even the playing field with standardized equipment, but if e-sports don't already have that, that's really silly of them.
Razor making this a simple toggle will make this more accessible but something like this has been trivial with QMK and other mechanical keyboard firmware for ages. Like you said, these are games. If someone is ruining your experience by using a lag switch or a keyboard macro or just griefing the lower leaderboards with a burner character, leave.
Watching this video made me think it's just new technology and the players need to adapt to a changing landscape. As a non-hardware kinda guy, I thought keyboards were already doing this.
It's worth remembering that the original PC 'cheating' peripheral for multiplayer online shooters was, the mouse.
Watching this video made me think it's just new technology and the players need to adapt to a changing landscape.
As a non-hardware kinda guy, I thought keyboards were already doing this.
This is off-topic, but I really miss the times before matchmaking when you could actually meet brilliant players on public servers and interact, learn from them etc. Team Fortress 2...
But if there's one thing I learned that if the bottom 80% of the playerbase interacted with the top 5% of the playerbase with any regularity, they'd accuse the top 5% of being cheaters 10/10 times no question.
This is off-topic, but I really miss the times before matchmaking when you could actually meet brilliant players on public servers and interact, learn from them etc. Team Fortress 2 pre-matchmaking was the peak of my PvP online experience, auto balancing teams was enough to negate problems with different skill levels. Since matchmaking became the standard I pretty much stopped playing online games with random people altogether.
Its not exactly off-topic, it's what I was referencing :) UT2004 was the first time I sunk a lot of time in multiplayer FPS lobbies. And it was both glorious and terrible. If there's one thing...
Its not exactly off-topic, it's what I was referencing :)
UT2004 was the first time I sunk a lot of time in multiplayer FPS lobbies. And it was both glorious and terrible.
If there's one thing I've learned, matchmaking makes cheaters more prevalent, because you have to out them platform-wide.
The difference between moderating one subreddit and moderating all of reddit.
Ranking systems, too, bring out the worst in people. The game should set the tone of a friendly pastime rather than legitimizing competitive behavior and the incentives it brings. Deathmatching in...
Ranking systems, too, bring out the worst in people. The game should set the tone of a friendly pastime rather than legitimizing competitive behavior and the incentives it brings.
Deathmatching in Quake, pushing the payload in TF2, casual inking in Splatoon...it's all transient. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, because you don't get anything and you don't have metrics to obsess over or status to chase.
I really, really hate anti-cheat measures precisely because of this. I'd rather have a game that has a bunch of cheaters than a game that refuses to run if it doesn't like a modification I did to...
I really, really hate anti-cheat measures precisely because of this. I'd rather have a game that has a bunch of cheaters than a game that refuses to run if it doesn't like a modification I did to my computer. If I want to mod my game to make all the opponents into meme characters, that's my prerogative.
What I think game companies should really do is smarter matchmaking. I swear the only game where I think they do matchmaking right is PUBG mobile, where people who are bad at the game or just starting out are going to be matched together, and matches are generally selected by how good the players are, which does a lot to make the game engaging instead of frustrating. The people who are cheating will naturally be put together over time.
But then again, I've kind of given up on multiplayer games entirely in recent years because I've been burned by them so frequently, so maybe smart matchmaking is more common than before.
One of the big criticisms of smarter matchmaking is that you never get better. I don’t mean that in the sense that you don't get more skilled at the game. You never get better compared to your...
One of the big criticisms of smarter matchmaking is that you never get better.
I don’t mean that in the sense that you don't get more skilled at the game. You never get better compared to your peers.
In an older call of duty, they had a nuke killstreak reward for getting 25 kills in a single life (while also being hamstrung by having one of your killstreaks be assigned to that nuke). This was always really cool to have happen because it was rare to hit the circumstances to allow 25 kills in a row, but sometimes you would get just the right group. In an ideal matchmaking world, this should never happen because 25 kills in a life means that someone is much more skilled than their peers and should be in a different bracket.
Sometimes it is fun to stomp people.
That being said, I am 10 years out of any kind of competitive play on any game so I would be one of the fodder that get stomped and I have no inclination to go back to any kind of competitive multiplayer game.
My counterpoint to that is that if you need to stomp people to enjoy the game, it's a sign that the gameplay isn't actually very fun. In any case, smart matchmaking doesn't necessarily mean always...
My counterpoint to that is that if you need to stomp people to enjoy the game, it's a sign that the gameplay isn't actually very fun.
In any case, smart matchmaking doesn't necessarily mean always keeping people playing in the same bracket.
That's possibly true, though I think there are some people like my younger self especially, that just derived more reward from 'stomping' than the gameplay and the gameplay could have actually...
That's possibly true, though I think there are some people like my younger self especially, that just derived more reward from 'stomping' than the gameplay and the gameplay could have actually been fun to most people but it's just not what their brain is seeking out or finds rewarding in the experience. I was also the type that got angry over losing, so I wasn't having fun if I was losing but I'd keep playing anyhow. The gameplay was more auxiliary to the experience compared to winning the game. Yes, I was the annoying/dreaded POS teenager in most lobbies I was in. So there are cases where the gameplay can be good but still you'll have people who just won't have fun if they aren't stomping, but I can at least say for myself that it's not like I was playing with a healthy mindset, and perhaps it's for the better games don't cater to that kind of unhealthy mindset.
I read 'older' and was not prepared for you to be referencing MW2 (2009) but I guess that is old at this point. I'd say that COD was always the 'Casual, pickup game' compared to other serious...
In an older call of duty
I read 'older' and was not prepared for you to be referencing MW2 (2009) but I guess that is old at this point.
I'd say that COD was always the 'Casual, pickup game' compared to other serious 'Ranked competitive' games. Me and the boys would get a fifth of... Whatever and pass the sticks around while drinking and chilling with COD. I could never manage that with something people were taking seriously. Even just to see a nuke go off in a lobby was a "oh shit!" moment and also the match was over and you didn't have to play with that guy anymore.
I wasn't sure which one it was, and I haven't played any since MW2. I suspect that MW2 was closer to the beginning of the Call of Duty franchise than the end though.
I wasn't sure which one it was, and I haven't played any since MW2. I suspect that MW2 was closer to the beginning of the Call of Duty franchise than the end though.
I think one of the biggest examples of this anecdotally is Apex Legends. Personally, I found their matchmaking and anti-cheat to be too good, and every match felt the exact same. Pair that up with...
I think one of the biggest examples of this anecdotally is Apex Legends. Personally, I found their matchmaking and anti-cheat to be too good, and every match felt the exact same. Pair that up with the unique quality of the game such as the power of third-partying and the same maps being rotated throughout. In time, everything felt identical game to game, so I eventually stopped playing
CS2 had no anti-cheat for the first year of its release. The experience for players was miserable, and it got worse the higher you ranked up, with some encountering cheaters nearly every match....
CS2 had no anti-cheat for the first year of its release. The experience for players was miserable, and it got worse the higher you ranked up, with some encountering cheaters nearly every match. They were either forced to sit through the whole match, leave and accept the temporary bans, or, as most serious players did, use a paid third-party platform with kernel-level anti-cheat.
I'm OK with optional anti-cheat. If you can choose from open and anti-cheat only lobbies, that's great; that way I can still play the game without it, and if my experience is that bad I can...
I'm OK with optional anti-cheat. If you can choose from open and anti-cheat only lobbies, that's great; that way I can still play the game without it, and if my experience is that bad I can install the anti-cheat software and enjoy the game that way. But it's rare for a popular game to give that kind of option.
Edit: I should also mention, one of my big peeves with multiplayer games is that they have a tendency to occasionally be balanced against new players, so frankly I don't personally care if the experience is bad for high ranking players. If I play a game, it's because I want to have fun, and it's not fun playing against people who have a gulf of advantage in skill over you.
They have it balanced towards high-ranking players because those are the people who've proven they'll pay for and keep playing the game. If they balance it towards new accounts and the old whales...
They have it balanced towards high-ranking players because those are the people who've proven they'll pay for and keep playing the game. If they balance it towards new accounts and the old whales leave, they have to hope that the changes bring in new whales, and there's no guarantee.
The block on modifications isn't just for anticheat. Most competitive games rely substantially on money for skins, so if you can add any sort of mod that changes your skin to one you "don't have",...
The block on modifications isn't just for anticheat. Most competitive games rely substantially on money for skins, so if you can add any sort of mod that changes your skin to one you "don't have", they lose money. So they want centralised servers that they control.
Unlike DRM, anti-cheat is at least there because a good deal of players want it more than they don't want to install anti-cheat software. Perhaps in a more ideal world they'd offer the option to...
I really, really hate anti-cheat measures precisely because of this. I'd rather have a game that has a bunch of cheaters than a game that refuses to run if it doesn't like a modification I did to my computer. If I want to mod my game to make all the opponents into meme characters, that's my prerogative.
Unlike DRM, anti-cheat is at least there because a good deal of players want it more than they don't want to install anti-cheat software. Perhaps in a more ideal world they'd offer the option to split matchmaking by people who want anti-cheat and people who don't, that way people aren't forced to install invasive software just to attempt to play the game, but that's sort of like that xkcd comic where you make a standard on top of the other 20 standards, it just fragments the player base and splitting matchmaking by various preferences is often a proposed solution to a problem except not feasible for every situation since there's often not enough players to support all the options.
Though I suspect at some point these anti-cheat measures will lose out because it's much too difficult to stop all the possible ways someone can cheat or 'cheat' like with this keyboard perhaps, and we'll go back to dedicated hardware in a more controlled operating environment like consoles but perhaps even more locked down if that's even possible. Even then with consoles people found ways to cheat, so maybe there's no amount of controlled hardware that is going to stop it.
I like this take. I don't really care what peripherals someone is using in online multiplayer, most complaints are going to be skill issues. People who use "pro" peripherals might have an edge but...
I like this take. I don't really care what peripherals someone is using in online multiplayer, most complaints are going to be skill issues. People who use "pro" peripherals might have an edge but it's just a handicap and they'll rank into a MMR that offsets the edge. If they get good enough to be invited to in person competitions.. well good luck with using standardized peripherals.
Anecdote for bottom 80% interaction with top 5%. I got very good at Halo: CE back in the day on PC. In public lobbies I'd regularly have triple digit kill/death ratios. I started running a server that was me versus everyone else using whatever weapon I was asked to. I was also accused of cheating constantly but I was a 14 year old kid playing without anything special, my family's Dell and the same M+K my sisters used for neopets.
Generally yes I agree with this but I have trouble seeing the accessibility angle with this keyboard that couldn't be solved just by trusting the same sbmm you mentioned.
Generally yes I agree with this but I have trouble seeing the accessibility angle with this keyboard that couldn't be solved just by trusting the same sbmm you mentioned.
It's a treadmill where with one device or another may not individually be one....but discerning which is which is impossible at a macro level. Neuralink may eventually be good enough to play...
It's a treadmill where with one device or another may not individually be one....but discerning which is which is impossible at a macro level.
Neuralink may eventually be good enough to play twitch FPS. The user will be a functional aimbot.
Is it a cheat or an accessibility tool? What if said person is quadrapalegic?
Is it a cheat for me to rebind WASD and Shift to a analog stick? What if I use a third party program to do so?
I've always held real cheating is manipulating the game in some way, like changing the models to be magenta. Or using literal aimbots.
This is merely hardware making a move that is difficult on inferior hardware easy. Thats' nowhere near the same.
Well you just gave a clear justified example for its use. I fail to understand how being able to strafe just a few milliseconds faster and more consistently helps with accessibility in a way that...
Well you just gave a clear justified example for its use. I fail to understand how being able to strafe just a few milliseconds faster and more consistently helps with accessibility in a way that sbmm wouldn't be the more "fair" solution.
Someone with less dexterity than they had previously (such as some stroke victims) might not be as quick to release while typing, yet their brain will behave as if they had the same dexterity that...
Someone with less dexterity than they had previously (such as some stroke victims) might not be as quick to release while typing, yet their brain will behave as if they had the same dexterity that they had for years. This might be at least a minimal help for people who aren't as nimble fingered as they once were, particularly if their fingers "loiter."
I would certainly benefit from this just in regular typing....mostly out of bad habits. My keyboard on android behaves like this. Ultimately, future games will just need to account for this in...
I would certainly benefit from this just in regular typing....mostly out of bad habits.
My keyboard on android behaves like this. Ultimately, future games will just need to account for this in design if they're trying to be competitive.
These are linear-travel switches, so there's no tactility or clickiness. They are relatively light (roughly MX Red) and also incredibly smooth. Saying something is better/worse for typing is just...
These are linear-travel switches, so there's no tactility or clickiness. They are relatively light (roughly MX Red) and also incredibly smooth.
Saying something is better/worse for typing is just preference, but I prefer strong click switches like BOX Jade so I'm not interested in these.
I got one of the Razer Orbweavers with the Analog/Optical keys. For reference, I hate click and light keys, I'm a Cherry Black dude. And, I don't really like them for gaming. I enjoy the precision...
I got one of the Razer Orbweavers with the Analog/Optical keys.
For reference, I hate click and light keys, I'm a Cherry Black dude.
And, I don't really like them for gaming. I enjoy the precision of an analog stick for 3rd person games but I just couldn't get the 'feel' right. On a stick, my main problem is diagonals but always smooth on degrees of movement on the stick. On the Orbweaver, my main problem was degrees of movement. It felt like "I pressed on it this hard but I'm moving too slow/fast" and my fingers just don't have as much of the strength to hold a key at 57% press or something.
For reference, I played a game of Dirt:Rally with my GMMK and my Orbweaver and I crashed a lot more with the supposed more control.
Razor wants to install a ton of apps which is really annoying. But the biggest problem is really the weird non-responsive reaction to key presses for example, a lot of the times when I press the...
Razor wants to install a ton of apps which is really annoying. But the biggest problem is really the weird non-responsive reaction to key presses for example, a lot of the times when I press the spacebar nothing would happen. I found it so annoying that I actually returned the keyboard.
Whole thing kinda reminds me of leverless for fighting games. There were some 100% legit issues with using them when they first came out. Namely that it could allow you to perfectly block as the...
Whole thing kinda reminds me of leverless for fighting games.
There were some 100% legit issues with using them when they first came out. Namely that it could allow you to perfectly block as the code had been written assuming you couldn't push back and forward at the same time.
These days it's just assumed you handle those cases because leverless is a thing (as were keyboards but that's another topic).
In this case it sounds like it'd be pretty trivial to add a small inertia to player movement if it detects a switch in vector in an extremely short time, thus eliminating the edge. Or you can just let players use it and that's the new entry level. While I have no doubt this is an advantage, 90% of the playerbase needs to work on fundamentals more than they need tech to up their game.
I'm curious to see what the developers and community settle on. FPS games have always had a really weird scene because of things like this.
We're starting to see hardware and config software become more and more troublesome in the world of gaming when it comes to balance. It really begs the question how much over engineering developers are going to have to do to maintain parity between player experiences. Or how far is too far before you're ruining people's custom hardware? Dead by Daylight, for example, is actually worse to play on my ultrawide because the game goes off vertical FOV and doesn't allow users to choose a proper 16:9 aspect ratio. But also someone that can fork over extra money shouldn't be able to pay to win over someone who can only afford basic peripherals... right? Should the speed runners of Doom Eternal have to go buy mice with unlockable scroll wheels to be able to bounce around with the best? Or is it fair to allow software to even that playing field?
I'm glad I don't really play shooters anymore because this would drive me insane.
Here's my stance as a long time PC gamer:
One man's accessibility tool is another man's cheat.
At the end of the day, it's just a game. Does it suck getting rolled by cheaters? Yea. But if there's one thing I learned that if the bottom 80% of the playerbase interacted with the top 5% of the playerbase with any regularity, they'd accuse the top 5% of being cheaters 10/10 times no question.
Everyone dreams of a perfectly level playing field. But the reality is that for every time you get killed by a cheater, you got killed by messing up 5 or more other times.
The real problem is that there isn't a right answer. The closest is really just only banning cheaters that are obviously cheating via a report system and sorting out the rest via shadow matchmaking.
It's worth remembering that the original PC 'cheating' peripheral for multiplayer online shooters was, the mouse. It was a big deal in Quake 1 whether you played with arrow keys or were one of those OP mouse + keyboard players wrecking the leaderboards.
Sure if it's a tournament or whatever the runners should even the playing field with standardized equipment, but if e-sports don't already have that, that's really silly of them.
Razor making this a simple toggle will make this more accessible but something like this has been trivial with QMK and other mechanical keyboard firmware for ages. Like you said, these are games. If someone is ruining your experience by using a lag switch or a keyboard macro or just griefing the lower leaderboards with a burner character, leave.
Watching this video made me think it's just new technology and the players need to adapt to a changing landscape.
As a non-hardware kinda guy, I thought keyboards were already doing this.
When I first met my best friend in 1997, he was indomitable with a trackball and keyboard. I never figured that one out.
This is off-topic, but I really miss the times before matchmaking when you could actually meet brilliant players on public servers and interact, learn from them etc. Team Fortress 2 pre-matchmaking was the peak of my PvP online experience, auto balancing teams was enough to negate problems with different skill levels. Since matchmaking became the standard I pretty much stopped playing online games with random people altogether.
Its not exactly off-topic, it's what I was referencing :)
UT2004 was the first time I sunk a lot of time in multiplayer FPS lobbies. And it was both glorious and terrible.
If there's one thing I've learned, matchmaking makes cheaters more prevalent, because you have to out them platform-wide.
The difference between moderating one subreddit and moderating all of reddit.
Ranking systems, too, bring out the worst in people. The game should set the tone of a friendly pastime rather than legitimizing competitive behavior and the incentives it brings.
Deathmatching in Quake, pushing the payload in TF2, casual inking in Splatoon...it's all transient. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, because you don't get anything and you don't have metrics to obsess over or status to chase.
I really, really hate anti-cheat measures precisely because of this. I'd rather have a game that has a bunch of cheaters than a game that refuses to run if it doesn't like a modification I did to my computer. If I want to mod my game to make all the opponents into meme characters, that's my prerogative.
What I think game companies should really do is smarter matchmaking. I swear the only game where I think they do matchmaking right is PUBG mobile, where people who are bad at the game or just starting out are going to be matched together, and matches are generally selected by how good the players are, which does a lot to make the game engaging instead of frustrating. The people who are cheating will naturally be put together over time.
But then again, I've kind of given up on multiplayer games entirely in recent years because I've been burned by them so frequently, so maybe smart matchmaking is more common than before.
One of the big criticisms of smarter matchmaking is that you never get better.
I don’t mean that in the sense that you don't get more skilled at the game. You never get better compared to your peers.
In an older call of duty, they had a nuke killstreak reward for getting 25 kills in a single life (while also being hamstrung by having one of your killstreaks be assigned to that nuke). This was always really cool to have happen because it was rare to hit the circumstances to allow 25 kills in a row, but sometimes you would get just the right group. In an ideal matchmaking world, this should never happen because 25 kills in a life means that someone is much more skilled than their peers and should be in a different bracket.
Sometimes it is fun to stomp people.
That being said, I am 10 years out of any kind of competitive play on any game so I would be one of the fodder that get stomped and I have no inclination to go back to any kind of competitive multiplayer game.
My counterpoint to that is that if you need to stomp people to enjoy the game, it's a sign that the gameplay isn't actually very fun.
In any case, smart matchmaking doesn't necessarily mean always keeping people playing in the same bracket.
That's possibly true, though I think there are some people like my younger self especially, that just derived more reward from 'stomping' than the gameplay and the gameplay could have actually been fun to most people but it's just not what their brain is seeking out or finds rewarding in the experience. I was also the type that got angry over losing, so I wasn't having fun if I was losing but I'd keep playing anyhow. The gameplay was more auxiliary to the experience compared to winning the game. Yes, I was the annoying/dreaded POS teenager in most lobbies I was in. So there are cases where the gameplay can be good but still you'll have people who just won't have fun if they aren't stomping, but I can at least say for myself that it's not like I was playing with a healthy mindset, and perhaps it's for the better games don't cater to that kind of unhealthy mindset.
I read 'older' and was not prepared for you to be referencing MW2 (2009) but I guess that is old at this point.
I'd say that COD was always the 'Casual, pickup game' compared to other serious 'Ranked competitive' games. Me and the boys would get a fifth of... Whatever and pass the sticks around while drinking and chilling with COD. I could never manage that with something people were taking seriously. Even just to see a nuke go off in a lobby was a "oh shit!" moment and also the match was over and you didn't have to play with that guy anymore.
I wasn't sure which one it was, and I haven't played any since MW2. I suspect that MW2 was closer to the beginning of the Call of Duty franchise than the end though.
I think one of the biggest examples of this anecdotally is Apex Legends. Personally, I found their matchmaking and anti-cheat to be too good, and every match felt the exact same. Pair that up with the unique quality of the game such as the power of third-partying and the same maps being rotated throughout. In time, everything felt identical game to game, so I eventually stopped playing
CS2 had no anti-cheat for the first year of its release. The experience for players was miserable, and it got worse the higher you ranked up, with some encountering cheaters nearly every match. They were either forced to sit through the whole match, leave and accept the temporary bans, or, as most serious players did, use a paid third-party platform with kernel-level anti-cheat.
I'm OK with optional anti-cheat. If you can choose from open and anti-cheat only lobbies, that's great; that way I can still play the game without it, and if my experience is that bad I can install the anti-cheat software and enjoy the game that way. But it's rare for a popular game to give that kind of option.
Edit: I should also mention, one of my big peeves with multiplayer games is that they have a tendency to occasionally be balanced against new players, so frankly I don't personally care if the experience is bad for high ranking players. If I play a game, it's because I want to have fun, and it's not fun playing against people who have a gulf of advantage in skill over you.
They have it balanced towards high-ranking players because those are the people who've proven they'll pay for and keep playing the game. If they balance it towards new accounts and the old whales leave, they have to hope that the changes bring in new whales, and there's no guarantee.
Oh, I figure as much. Another reason to hate video games with infinite monetization schemes.
The block on modifications isn't just for anticheat. Most competitive games rely substantially on money for skins, so if you can add any sort of mod that changes your skin to one you "don't have", they lose money. So they want centralised servers that they control.
Unlike DRM, anti-cheat is at least there because a good deal of players want it more than they don't want to install anti-cheat software. Perhaps in a more ideal world they'd offer the option to split matchmaking by people who want anti-cheat and people who don't, that way people aren't forced to install invasive software just to attempt to play the game, but that's sort of like that xkcd comic where you make a standard on top of the other 20 standards, it just fragments the player base and splitting matchmaking by various preferences is often a proposed solution to a problem except not feasible for every situation since there's often not enough players to support all the options.
Though I suspect at some point these anti-cheat measures will lose out because it's much too difficult to stop all the possible ways someone can cheat or 'cheat' like with this keyboard perhaps, and we'll go back to dedicated hardware in a more controlled operating environment like consoles but perhaps even more locked down if that's even possible. Even then with consoles people found ways to cheat, so maybe there's no amount of controlled hardware that is going to stop it.
I like this take. I don't really care what peripherals someone is using in online multiplayer, most complaints are going to be skill issues. People who use "pro" peripherals might have an edge but it's just a handicap and they'll rank into a MMR that offsets the edge. If they get good enough to be invited to in person competitions.. well good luck with using standardized peripherals.
Anecdote for bottom 80% interaction with top 5%. I got very good at Halo: CE back in the day on PC. In public lobbies I'd regularly have triple digit kill/death ratios. I started running a server that was me versus everyone else using whatever weapon I was asked to. I was also accused of cheating constantly but I was a 14 year old kid playing without anything special, my family's Dell and the same M+K my sisters used for neopets.
Generally yes I agree with this but I have trouble seeing the accessibility angle with this keyboard that couldn't be solved just by trusting the same sbmm you mentioned.
It's a treadmill where with one device or another may not individually be one....but discerning which is which is impossible at a macro level.
Neuralink may eventually be good enough to play twitch FPS. The user will be a functional aimbot.
Is it a cheat or an accessibility tool? What if said person is quadrapalegic?
Is it a cheat for me to rebind WASD and Shift to a analog stick? What if I use a third party program to do so?
I've always held real cheating is manipulating the game in some way, like changing the models to be magenta. Or using literal aimbots.
This is merely hardware making a move that is difficult on inferior hardware easy. Thats' nowhere near the same.
Well you just gave a clear justified example for its use. I fail to understand how being able to strafe just a few milliseconds faster and more consistently helps with accessibility in a way that sbmm wouldn't be the more "fair" solution.
Wooting responds to Razer's cheating keyboard.
Would this type of keyboard have any other applications besides games? I’m guessing not, but curious if anyone can think of any.
Someone with less dexterity than they had previously (such as some stroke victims) might not be as quick to release while typing, yet their brain will behave as if they had the same dexterity that they had for years. This might be at least a minimal help for people who aren't as nimble fingered as they once were, particularly if their fingers "loiter."
I would certainly benefit from this just in regular typing....mostly out of bad habits.
My keyboard on android behaves like this. Ultimately, future games will just need to account for this in design if they're trying to be competitive.
Just bought one of these keyboards and they suck for anything other than FPS games. So keep your old keyboard.
That's what I wanted to ask. Thanks!
But do elaborate if you can, please. What about typing? Programming, emails, shell...
These are linear-travel switches, so there's no tactility or clickiness. They are relatively light (roughly MX Red) and also incredibly smooth.
Saying something is better/worse for typing is just preference, but I prefer strong click switches like BOX Jade so I'm not interested in these.
So all the keys feel like the first half of a gamepad trigger? Hmm, I guess I've never used anything even remotely like that.
I got one of the Razer Orbweavers with the Analog/Optical keys.
For reference, I hate click and light keys, I'm a Cherry Black dude.
And, I don't really like them for gaming. I enjoy the precision of an analog stick for 3rd person games but I just couldn't get the 'feel' right. On a stick, my main problem is diagonals but always smooth on degrees of movement on the stick. On the Orbweaver, my main problem was degrees of movement. It felt like "I pressed on it this hard but I'm moving too slow/fast" and my fingers just don't have as much of the strength to hold a key at 57% press or something.
For reference, I played a game of Dirt:Rally with my GMMK and my Orbweaver and I crashed a lot more with the supposed more control.
Razor wants to install a ton of apps which is really annoying. But the biggest problem is really the weird non-responsive reaction to key presses for example, a lot of the times when I press the spacebar nothing would happen. I found it so annoying that I actually returned the keyboard.
Whole thing kinda reminds me of leverless for fighting games.
There were some 100% legit issues with using them when they first came out. Namely that it could allow you to perfectly block as the code had been written assuming you couldn't push back and forward at the same time.
These days it's just assumed you handle those cases because leverless is a thing (as were keyboards but that's another topic).
In this case it sounds like it'd be pretty trivial to add a small inertia to player movement if it detects a switch in vector in an extremely short time, thus eliminating the edge. Or you can just let players use it and that's the new entry level. While I have no doubt this is an advantage, 90% of the playerbase needs to work on fundamentals more than they need tech to up their game.
I'm curious to see what the developers and community settle on. FPS games have always had a really weird scene because of things like this.
Very interesting. Looks like QMK has a pull request open for adding this functionality, looking forward to giving it a go.