Are game filters cheating/unfair advantage?
Comments
-
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
I say not cheating, but absolutely unfair.
0 -
No, they are fine
First of all: I don't think there's a black and white answer to this since "Filter" isn't one thing but can be all kinds of things. I for one like a Luma Sharpen because I can't stand the blurriness of the regular settings and neitehr can I stand the pixelated half-tone effect of anti aliasing off; with Luma I get the sharpness of AA off but keep the transparency for vfx and haircards.
When we get into map specific presets and all that it gets kinda ridiculous and personally I think it's unncecessarily sweaty and tryhard and people taking a game just waaay too seriously.
- But there are two important questions: how does using a filter to change how your screen displays colours differ from using the hardware settings to calibrate your screen in a certain way? - Time spent to achieve the result aside. There isn't really one. You get more knobs to turn with filters but the principle is the same. Different displays, by default, display colors differently.
The other question is, do you actually see information with a filter that isn't there otherwise. Yes, it is easier to see e.g. the red stain or to see scratch marks - but were they invisible before? No. Something different would be, e.g. stretched res where you could see things that were actually not visible without stretched res.
If anything, I would prefer if similar to AA being in the game settings, color filters also became part of the default game settings.
While the community is at it and optimises the fun out of the game, why not at least give everyone the same tools and access to them?
2 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
Goodmorning friend!
The definition of cheating is actually an "unfair advantage". This would generally make them synonymous unless it was giving you an unfair "disadvantage".
People tend to use the word cheating in relation to whether or not the devs of a game allow it, however them allowing it or not has actually nothing to do with cheating by definition.
1 -
No, they are fine
If the developers of a game allow something then it really isn't cheating. That's taking the definition too literally and not allowing any room for pragmatism.
1 -
No, they are fine
No. Filters aren't cheating, and even if the developers deemed them so, it would be completely unenforceable. So the whole debate around whether they are or aren't cheating is pretty moot IMO.
0 -
This.
CCause If we only look at the definition then using ts is cheating to
0 -
No, they are fine
The game is too dark and it’s hard to see. Filters also help those who are colorblind. I want to see the people who think using filters are cheating try them. It’s still a normal game of DBD.
2 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
Good morning Onryoberry old chap 🕵️♂️
I'm calculating your response. Please be patient.
2 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
Your logic here is basically: The devs cannot prevent you from using filters so they cannot forbid it, therefore it is allowed and not an unfair advantage.
This doesn not make much sense to me. You also could argue using macros which always rotate you towards a survivor, or perfomrs the blight S swing for you would not be cheating. Personally I think everything that you do manually outside the game to gain an ingame advantage is essentially cheating.
If you are having trouble seeing something because you are playin on tv or have a lot of sunlight thats a different story. But every change activly done outside ingame settings are not in the sense of sportmanship to me1 -
No, they are fine
You're misunderstanding what I've said.
I'm making two separate points:
- I don't believe filters to be cheating.
- Even if they were cheating, nothing can be done about it — so I don't understand why this discussion gets brought up every couple of weeks on the forums/X/Reddit/Steam/etc.
I'm not saying I think filters are permissible because the developers can't forbid them.
0 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
Because "by definition" it is. We can all "feel" a certain way about the word "cheating" but by definition that is technically cheating. We can argue whether it's an issue or not, that's subjective, but the definition of the word is objective.
0 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
As said in my post, whether devs of a game allow something or not is utterly irrelevant to the definition of cheating. Many people misuse the word cheating in the terms you are referencing but it is technically cheating. Just because lots of people use a word incorrectly in majority doesn't mean that all the sudden that's the new definition, it just means the majority are using it incorrectly.
0 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
Gotcha.
Thanks for the clarification.
I think people still bring it up because they hope the devs would say something about it even though there is nothing they can do (besides doing some crazy kernel based stuff to bypass nvidia).
In the end people just want to be heard so they let of some steam by talking about why they think it is problematic and the reassurance from other players help them mend the negative mental effect i think.
Tbh I think this game will not survive the next 15 months at the state it is right now.1 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
Not to mention the filters make the game look ugly af. Playing like that to have a 1 up over my opponent in a game with no reward for victory except sweatier matches and a few extra blood points.
I dont see the hype.
0 -
No, they are fine
This is not how language works. If the majority of a population understand a word to mean a certain thing, then the dictionary definition is what is irrelevant. It's called semantic change. Words change meanings all the time due to misunderstandings, appropriation, reappropriation, translations, etc.
0 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
And the definition has not been changed yet so until it is, that's the definition.
Most people don't know the correct forms of "there" or "to". That's "most" people. Do we now just get rid of all the other forms since most people use it incorrectly?
I could see an argument for saying it "should" be changed to include these further instances, but to argue the objective definition is wrong because most people are using it wrong and the definition just hasn't been changed yet would be a logical fallacy.
0 -
And that from a automatron that most definitely has his own subroutines running in the back to gain advantage
2 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
They will use any means if in situation that it is more advantageous than others
1 -
No, they are fine
これが不正行為ならVCも不正行為になります
1 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
there’s color blind options in game what they do is make the game completely unfair for players not using it
0 -
No, they are fine
Just another two cents on the definition of cheating.
Or, well, definitions in general. Most terms have more than one definition and it depends on which definition is used/appropriate in a context. In expert circles quite a few of the controversies surrounding a topic are solely about which definition should be "standard". Now that being said, back to the cheating thing.
No I'm not an expert in the field but lo and behold, googling "definitions of cheating game development" has a university research paper as the first search result: Doherty et al. 2014. "An Analysis of Expressed Cheating Behaviors in Video Games". Google it and read the introduction for a somewhat more detailed break down but the bottom line is:
— Which I think is also why this discussion crops up again and again. There seems to be a general difference between how a somewhat large group of players defines "cheating" and how the devs define "cheating". While players can indulge the moral arguments, the devs do have to take the technical/pragmatic aspect, namely enforceability and how feasible enforcing certain things is, into account. Maybe you could blacklist ReShade - but what about those that adjust stuff hardware wise? How would you enforce that? The devs define cheating, iirc, as making something accessible that would otherwise not be accessible in order to gain an unfair advantage. And here I keep with what I said before: just because you can see e.g. scratchmarks/the red stain better, doesn't mean you didn't have access to them before. (Correct me if I'm wrong on the dev's definition of cheating, idk where I found that but I'm pretty sure that's the bhvr definition of cheating.)
a) many definitions on cheating (some would count guides or making use of tutorial-style content and wikis etc. as cheating - which would then beg the question: is watching one of e.g. Otz's videos on how to improve as X and making use of the tips cheating too?)
b) generally there are things that are deemed "unacceptable forms of cheating". Single and multiplayer games have different standards here. Indeed, for multiplayer games it seems to be a general consensus that a "tactic that gives an advantage in play
over the others or alters the intended format of play" falls into the unacceptable category.
But, in comes c) at the end of the day the devs decide what, in the context of their game, is considered cheating.0 -
No, they are fine
Usually cheating involves breaking the rules, if the devs white-list something how can it be cheating? How would you even define cheating if not as doing something that is not allowed within the rules of the game?
2 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
I don't define cheating myself at all. I'm just reading the textbook definition. It's an "unfair advantage". Cheating has nothing to do with breaking rules. People tend to use it that way yes, but it actually has nothing to do with that.
0 -
No, they are fine
That does not really apply in video games though, that is more the definition when it comes to fraud or when you are trying to decepr someone... But when it comes to games, be it board games or video games there has to be some form of violation of the rules. Because if something is allowed and available for both sides it cannot be unfair, as both sides can use it, allowing for an equalibrium again.
1 -
No, they are fine
It has been clearly stated by the management that the use of external tools that do not rewrite the game program does not constitute abuse. Yes, just like Discord. It even exists in official BhVR support.
2 -
No, they are fine
I think if they were problematic, BHVR would at least try to enforce some restrictions on them.
Also filters do have accessibility usage, I.e. helping with color blindness. For me personally, the colorblind filters that DBD uses are not the best with helping, and can often lead to situations where they are detrimental (Coldwind is a prime example). I’ve been using them for years now and while they help a bit, they just don’t really help enough, so I use filters to help a bit.
1 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
Your last statement falls apart in an asymmetrical game .
0 -
No, they are fine
Not really... It increases better vision for both... And it does not really change the definition because of the specifics of the game, it just does not mean that the advantage is the same for both sides. However when it comes to filters, as we for example know from the colorblind filters it is still basically the same.
And even if it was you would still need to reason why the advantage for both sides is not the same or similar...
0 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
I can see your rational here for the color filters not being cheating since both sides can use it equally, even though I would say it’s slightly different in value for each side. But at least close enough I can see your argument for that. That’s a reasonable point. However I don’t think that argument works for swf not being technically cheating per the definition since it is only for one side.
0 -
No, they are fine
What has swf to do with anything here?
0 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
Sorry I couldn’t remember if it was our conversation or someone else’s talking to me here about this topic. I was saying by definition it would make swf cheating.
0 -
No, they are fine
Was not with me...
Technically it wouldn't... Because you don't gain an advantage over your opponent... Nobody keeps your opponent from being in a voice chat... That it gives you an advantage compared to a different group of survivors does not really matter because you don't compare them, but the two groups actually playing against each other.
And going back to the requirement of a rule violation to have an unfair advantage I would say you don't have that here either.
0 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
"Because you don't gain an advantage over your opponent... Nobody keeps your opponent from being in a voice chat..."
It is in fact an "unfair advantage" since the game is not balanced around survivors having that extra information through voice coms or the guarantee of high quality teammates and skirting around matchmaking RNG. The game is balanced around a solo queue group of randoms not on coms. That would in fact make it cheating by the definition of cheating.
0 -
No, they are fine
Fully depends on how you define unfair... And I would more often than not only assume an unfair advantage when you have a rule violation, everything else is blurry.
Because otherwise with that wide definition you would also need to call it cheating to be on a phone call, in the same room or what not and that is ridiculous... Aside from that give that the game has the feature to play together with friends it is ridiculous to assume that the devs don't take into account that people are in voice when playing together... And given their data on the amount of players in swf it would be even more questionable.
If you only go by unfair and not by rule violation everything is cheating... Got a better monitor with more fps cheating, got a mouse that can change the sensitivity via a button cheating, you have a monitor that allows for higher brightness or what not cheating, you play on PC and not console where you have more ways to customize settings cheating, you play on keyboard and mouse and not controller and therefore don't have healing and dropping pallet on the same button cheating... Everything is cheating then, but who cares. Trying to shame players for doing things that are obviously and explicitly not breaking any rules by calling their Behaviour cheating is ridiculous... Because that is basically what this whole thing is, calling something or someone cheating always has a negative connotation, and that is fair for when the person actually uses cheats or breaks game rules in other forms... But for this stuff mentioned before it would be ridiculous.
0 -
Yes, they are cheating/unfair
Messing with the game’s lighting obviously grants an unfair advantage when you can see things easier than they were intended to be seen.
0 -
No, they are fine
maybe im biased since I use reshade (not for an advantage, just to make my game prettier) but I dont think that their cheating. Sure you could make scratches or red stain pop more but thats not really new information or changing it to an unfair degree. If filters could make a trapper trap bright pink (as far as I know, they cant but im pretty uneducated) then I'd consider that usage cheating. but I want my pretty colors so pls dont ban filters bhvr :)
0