The problem with ignoring "unintentional" laggers.

[Door]

Then they are forced to stop being wretched spoiled brats, and perhaps they also finally accept that sometimes they must sacrifice their own ill-begotten fortune for the sake of 97% of the population.

[cbk1994]

stfu chakrah, you're not helping your cause

Originally Posted by Door

Then they are forced to stop being wretched spoiled brats, and perhaps they also finally accept that sometimes they must sacrifice their own ill-begotten fortune for the sake of 97% of the population.

They paid for the game just as much as that 97% did.

[Door]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

They paid for the game just as much as you did.

3% paid as much as 97%?! I think you need to invest in a new calculator, dude. But really, that's not even the point.

Individual rights only extend as far as the next individual. This pertains to the Internet and in real life. You are generally allowed to do what you want so long as it does not negatively affect someone else. Once a single player begins interfering with other players' experiences, that person must be handled. It's as simple as that. Whether this person can 'help' their abuse of the system should not even come into question--it's 100% irrelevant.

A player is negatively affecting many other players. That is all you need to know.

[salesman]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

They paid for the game just as much as that 97% did.

lern2math

If you buy an online game knowing that you have a ****ty connection, then that's just a bad investment on your part. Lagging on most online games usually makes it unbearable for you to play, not everyone else. Why should UN make the majority of its players suffer for the stupidity of a few?

Sure, laggers bought the game and have a right to play, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be certain requirements for events and tournaments (i.e. low ping).

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by Door

3% paid as much as 97%?! I think you need to invest in a new calculator, dude. But really, that's not even the point.

Not in volume. They paid the same as any of those 97% individually for the game. I think you know what I meant.

A player is negatively affecting many other players. That is all you need to know.

The solution is not to deny service to the paying customer.

Originally Posted by salesman

If you buy an online game knowing that you have a ****ty connection, then that's just a bad investment on your part. Lagging on most online games usually makes it unbearable for you to play, not everyone else. Why should UN make the majority of its players suffer for the stupidity of a few?

Good question. Why do they? I've suggested solutions such as serverside hit detection, which would make it completely fair based on connection speed, but they've been shot down by people who said, gasp, that this would be unfair to laggers.

[Door]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

Not in volume. They paid the same as any of those 97% individually for the game. I think you know what I meant.

The solution is not to deny service to the paying customer.

But I don't think you know what I mean. If 97% of paying customers are being denied good service in a game, why should the 3% of players denying them good service be favored?

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by Door

why should the 3% of players denying them good service be favored?

Because they also paid.

[Door]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

Because they also paid.

So did hackers.