Does Adjusting Graphics Settings Lower Than the Game Allows Constitute Cheating?

lollerwaffle said:
I don't think that's necessarily true. A competition mode should just lock down all visual settings. Too bad if you have a wide screen, deal with it.
Click to expand...

Think past graphics, Competition has reduced games to feeling by and large the same. You cannot innovate because balance must be maintained.
 
NWRMidnight said:
You missed 1:

4:3 gives higher frame rate which reduces input lag, which is the number 1 reason they do it.
Click to expand...
yup the main reason they do it is for the highest possible FPS and the lowest possible input lag. Any other reasons are just secondary to this.
 
Absalom said:
More recently, PUBG players (even popular and respectable streamers) tend to play on low settings because it clearly gives them a tactical advantage. To hell with it making the game look like ass.

In a competitive scenario, players are going to bend anything (rules or otherwise) to their advantage. It's just the nature of the beast.

Not nearly as much an issue on console where everything is locked down.
Click to expand...

Add reshade or digital vibrance. I see a lot of pubg and blackout players using them.
 
Absalom said:
More recently, PUBG players (even popular and respectable streamers) tend to play on low settings because it clearly gives them a tactical advantage. To hell with it making the game look like ass.
.
Click to expand...

PUBG players (I play PUBG a lot) run all very low because the game runs like complete dog shit on even higher end systems. It's common to see FPS drop down well below 100 even on all very low settings on a higher end system, not to mention the frametimes being all over place and random microstutters. Only tactical advantage I can really think of when being on very low is AA makes the game all blurry on high and everything is very crisp on very low. Other than that, not sure. Grass is not rendered at long distances for both low and high settings, so its not that.
 
Koizumi said:
Add reshade or digital vibrance. I see a lot of pubg and blackout players using them.
Click to expand...
Reshade is banned by the anticheat in PUBG, so no, they are not using it. Not sure about blackout. Not sure how digital vibrance is an unfair advantage either.
 
For play from home games, the companies will be limited in what they can do. Put too many limits on UI changes and start fielding ADA type lawsuits for failure to accommodate disabilities.
For true competitions where players travel to fixed locations, provide all systems and maintain strict control over changes allowed. Similar to a PGA golf tournament. Every player uses the same course and all gear used has to conform to USGA rules and specifications.
 
NWRMidnight said:
You missed 1:

4:3 gives higher frame rate which reduces input lag, which is the number 1 reason they do it.
Click to expand...

How does it reduce input lag ? (lost me there...) I'm going from what I understand and know.... yeah you get better fps, (still depends on many other settings), yeah on CRT you might be right with the input lag, but the SAME panel at 4:3 vs 1080p having less input lag, is that real ?

EDIT: The gain must be negligible vs a CRT vs LCD... anyway, anything that can be set in the game menu should be OK unless specified in tournament rules. Anything outside of that like CFG edit, shouldn't. You need to draw a line somewhere and let the dev decide where it is (or tournament ref).
 
This has been a thing along time in every type of game. Personally i don't see the appeal, reduce my 2k$ gaming rig to look like n64 mud smeared on my 4k screen so I can score extra points in repetitive internet matchup #563,825?

But, then I feel that way in most areas of life, competition with strangers is rarely of value. All of lifes real competitions are you against yourself.
 
that's something that would be banned with PB screenshot evidence, back when battlefield used evenbalance's punkbuster, you'd find screenshots to the same effect. Fairfight takes screenshots, but with no custom servers or exposure of their anti cheat to the community, no idea if they would consider that cheating. It's really a question of does fairfight consider that cheating? From JackFrags video he's saying yes, and I would agree. fairfight should ban for what is depicted in that video, every battlefield I've played before would ban for that via Punkbuster.

I mean DICE in the last patch added back in grass and extended the draw distance of fields on the lowest setting. That was badly needed. PUBG did the same thing early on because everyone was setting everything low, not because they needed to but because it wouldn't render the grass at distance. People truly on low end PC's get screwed but it's but that's what happens in competitive online shooters.
 
I'm sorry, but "duh", "duh" and more "duh".

Are people really that stupid? I'll admit, when I share these "secrets" (you know like "air", "water", etc.) with some, I'll admit, they just look at me bewildered.

Gaming was/is fun when it's about fun. Trying to make it into a galactic battle for the survival of the human species... sort of makes it not fun anymore.

Up your graphics and have fun. Play against humans, expect them to do whatever they can to kill any fun you're having... just the way it is.
 
elite.mafia said:
yup the main reason they do it is for the highest possible FPS and the lowest possible input lag. Any other reasons are just secondary to this.
Click to expand...

My son does this in Fortnite and it pissed me off when I saw it. They do it to make the hitbox larger = easier to hit. I agree that if its in the game settings, its fair game and if it gives an unfair advantage, it should be removed up to the game devs discretion. If you have to edit a config for it and its online competitive, it shouldn't be allowed. I commend EA for the bans. Would support Epic if they did the same.
 
MrRuckus said:
My son does this in Fortnite and it pissed me off when I saw it. They do it to make the hitbox larger = easier to hit. I agree that if its in the game settings, its fair game and if it gives an unfair advantage, it should be removed up to the game devs discretion. If you have to edit a config for it and its online competitive, it shouldn't be allowed. I commend EA for the bans. Would support Epic if they did the same.
Click to expand...
Wait, you mean he is running low resolution and then stretching the image? If so, that's quite weird
 
farcry had the same issue

there was a graphics paremter to se the treshodl how big foilage had to be to be drawn.
but setinh it high enough bushes and grass would not be rendered, making it a lot harder for ppl tohide form you.

setting it even higher even trees would disapper but that was not a benefits as they would still stop bullets and just act as invisible shields.
all the way in quake i repalced the model for the eyes ( invisible) to a full figures so ppl was never invisible to me.
 
They should code for it. One of the maps relies heavily on grass to be competitive. Have servers that do a check for those settings (I'm sure Nvidia could provide a driver API) if you limit your settings, you get servers that allow for it. Players that want an even playing field can go to servers that are setup to allow for it.


I sometimes poke into the BFV Reddit and last week read a long post by someone claiming to be incorrectly banned for cheating. People were calling out EA, yet if you viewed his Twitch channel there were a lot of weird mouse movements (like an aimbot set to low so it masks it on a stream).

Got to a point where the EA guy in charge of cheating popped in and said "we can't discuss why you were banned, but you know exactly why as I was watching live when you did it. You even removed the video." Wrecked.
 
NWRMidnight said:
You missed 1:

4:3 gives higher frame rate which reduces input lag, which is the number 1 reason they do it.
Click to expand...

Would only give a higher framerate if you ran at a total number of pixels that was less. If less is more then they should run 640x480.,


As to this BF5 driver cheat, thats what it is, a cheat.
 
I run most any competitive game with low/custom settings. As for Battlefield V yeah I got really tired of chewed up on maps like Armas so I killed all the brush graphics and setting everything to low. Game still looks good. If DICE didn't want people doing that should have properly developed the game. I still have shit like players just popping in randomly and killing me from a few feet away. I would defend Battlefield V as still being "fun" but its a mess, I wont defend that.

CSGO I run 800x600 everything on low. The answer as to why, and why surround isn't an advantage is complicated, but essentially you want as much of the screen directly in front of you at all time and be able to have a squared, balanced mouse drag. Up/down should be even with left/right. You have to play CSGO somewhat competitively to understand it. I would chime in - no it doesn't have anything to do with FPS.

I don't do that for Battlefield because I don't play it competitively. I might change my mind if I was. I like a nice big Ultrawide resolution for a big scale game like BFV.
 
piscian18 said:
I run most any competitive game with low/custom settings. As for Battlefield V yeah I got really tired of chewed up on maps like Armas so I killed all the brush graphics and setting everything to low. Game still looks good. If DICE didn't want people doing that should have properly developed the game. I still have shit like players just popping in randomly and killing me from a few feet away. I would defend Battlefield V as still being "fun" but its a mess, I wont defend that.

CSGO I run 800x600 everything on low. The answer as to why, and why surround isn't an advantage is complicated, but essentially you want as much of the screen directly in front of you at all time and be able to have a squared, balanced mouse drag. Up/down should be even with left/right. You have to play CSGO somewhat competitively to understand it. I would chime in - no it doesn't have anything to do with FPS.

I don't do that for Battlefield because I don't play it competitively. I might change my mind if I was. I like a nice big Ultrawide resolution for a big scale game like BFV.
Click to expand...


The reason you want it in front of you is the middle of your focal point has the highest response time. The further your outside the middle of the vision, the slower it is. It makes me wonder if too big of a display is actually a handicap. I would think gsync/free synch would bordering cheating if not everyone has it.
 
viscountalpha said:
The reason you want it in front of you is the middle of your focal point has the highest response time. The further your outside the middle of the vision, the slower it is. It makes me wonder if too big of a display is actually a handicap. I would think gsync/free synch would bordering cheating if not everyone has it.
Click to expand...

*edit* I dont know about input lag. Ive never had any issue like that regardless of resolution.
 
SvenBent said:
all the way in quake i repalced the model for the eyes ( invisible) to a full figures so ppl was never invisible to me.
Click to expand...

Not remotely approving it but this does give me a good laugh. It's like a reverse predator cloak mod. Next time I re-watch Predator I'll thing of that in the one of the early scenes when they spot his eyes up in the trees.

I admit I use trainers in single player games so I can walk around and take in the eye candy. Plus it's hard to enjoy a beer without launching it across the floor when something jumps out unexpectedly. Already sucks enough when the wife comes to ask a question in a section I can't pause or save. For online/competitive there needs to be a locked in type of settings. I openly say that I'm usually horrible at these type of games, except for those days when I'm really pissed off and still awake, but to me using any kind of setting outside of the games UI is cheating. If it's done inside from a normally accessible menu and the company is complaining then it's their fault not the players.
 
Of course it's a cheat. And good on them for banning for it.

I've been saying for a while now that as graphics continue to improve one of the great debates of our time in gaming will be should environments be realistically dense to the point where you can't see enemies without looking through all the clutter out there (just like in real life you'd never see someone peeking on you today from across the room let alone across the street) or have we reached a point for the sake of GAMEPLAY that we need less visual clutter to make a better GAME?

We have arrived.
 
What if you just have a crappy video card that doesn't support all the render extensions (which sounds like what this does)
 
Shaten said:
What if you just have a crappy video card that doesn't support all the render extensions (which sounds like what this does)
Click to expand...

watch the video, its not what it does at all.

There are some small tweaks in bfv settings that make the game more competitive. One of them does reduces render distance for grass, so you might think your hiding, but your really not. But that's an in game setting.

Heres a guy that does a lot of work comparing settings.


and heres the video of the 'hack'

 
I modify the INI in battlefield titles to adjust FOV. I don't think that makes me a cheater, in fact I thought it was standard practice. It doesn't make me an amazing player at the end of the day, I was just born this way. (not really though)
 
like I've said, the two groups most responsible fore cheating are 1) Microsoft providing hijackable video hooks and 2) Video card makers. Video card makers are afraid to lose sales if their stuff isn't exploitable and Microsoft knows cheaters on PC's is a big selling point to consoles (at least it was).
 
I've definitely turned graphics settings down in a game to see where things were "hiding" in tall grasses. I don't think it's cheating if it's an option in the game. To that effect if I can change it in a GUI menu, I don't think it's cheating per se.
 
Carbon_Le said:
Thats the one thing console has over PC honestly. Everyone on console has the same advantage as the other player.
Click to expand...

Not for long I feel. Gears of War 5 on Xbox One will natively support mouse and keyboard. I also expect 120hz vs 60hz players.
 
[21CW]killerofall said:
This is not something new, even to Battlefield. I know people (including myself) who have done this all the way back in BF2. You are able to drastically decrease the draw distance of cover like grass and bushes and even make night maps much brighter and shadows disappear (in night maps).
Click to expand...
To clarify my post, I didn't modify any settings in the game that couldn't be changed via the in game settings. Although there was a setting or 2 that you could modify outside of the game that would turn up the graphics, which was no advantage. If you are making changes that the game itself would normally allow you to make via in game menus, I don't consider it cheating. Anything else would be considered cheating if it gives you an unfair advantage.
 
wait till they also start dropping the res. and skewing the aspect ratio to make the hit boxes easier to hit ( ala counterstrike)
 
opfreak said:
watch the video, its not what it does at all.

There are some small tweaks in bfv settings that make the game more competitive. One of them does reduces render distance for grass, so you might think your hiding, but your really not. But that's an in game setting.

Heres a guy that does a lot of work comparing settings.


and heres the video of the 'hack'

Click to expand...


This legitimately makes me feel like there is too much visual noise in BF5, to the point where it may be detrimental to gameplay.
 
Kalabalana said:
CS players used bright blue and red player models to increase visual distinction by contrast.
But that would get you banned from competition if caught.
Click to expand...

The crazy cheat in CS was player skins that had huge poles sticking out on vertical and horizontal axis. That really sucked.
 
lostin3d said:
Not remotely approving it but this does give me a good laugh. It's like a reverse predator cloak mod. Next time I re-watch Predator I'll thing of that in the one of the early scenes when they spot his eyes up in the trees.

I admit I use trainers in single player games so I can walk around and take in the eye candy. Plus it's hard to enjoy a beer without launching it across the floor when something jumps out unexpectedly. Already sucks enough when the wife comes to ask a question in a section I can't pause or save. For online/competitive there needs to be a locked in type of settings. I openly say that I'm usually horrible at these type of games, except for those days when I'm really pissed off and still awake, but to me using any kind of setting outside of the games UI is cheating. If it's done inside from a normally accessible menu and the company is complaining then it's their fault not the players.
Click to expand...


quake was a very open im very curios of nature and love to tinker with things just to tinker and understand them.
liek ia boguht a ryzne system solely so icould paly around with how ccx affect performance.

anyway In quake you could do a lot of tricks in the game like alias/scriptign
so whenever you shoot you will change back to axe

i would have 3 shoot button
leftmouse rocket lunacher
right mouse - bedst weapon of shutgosn nailgun or shaft
space = grenaed launcher

it made iteasier to selct you shooting stil and get people down.
no need to change weapon if you felt into water just take anothe shooting button
it was quick to shot a grenade around a corner you ran by when you didnt have to change weapon first.

and once it shoot the weapon it would change back to axe. so if you got shoot while running around you did not drop an ammo back to your killer

you could replace the model for rockets iwth a rocket with a huge and colored spike in front of it so you could se it around corners and help you avoid running traight into a rocket volley
but this was no doubt cheating as you changed the models in the game.

back to "legal" graphicsl seeting
in quake2 it was GL_modulate it capped how dark shadows would be
So by boosting it dark ares would remain lit
 
Last edited:
Carbon_Le said:
Thats the one thing console has over PC honestly. Everyone on console has the same advantage as the other player.
Click to expand...

The fact that consoles (correct me if I'm wrong) uses one console to host the "server side" doesn't give everyone the same chances. Been the host gives huge advantage. I saw it in COD (when I played) and currently NHL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top