Matagi Gunner - Vol. 2 Ch. 15 - Too Fast for the Eyes to Follow

[MangaDex]

 

[Artemis0Fowl]

So she WAS actually cheating!!!

Even if she won, what would she do next?!?

 

[havelmom]

BANNED

 

[yoshiyosan]

Sis banned for cheating and still losing even cheating, average ******** player

 

[Utamaru1707]

How the HELL this kind of thing even possible, and using a DS4/controller to the boot?!

I would understand if this is using VR, but a normal controller?! Nah, this manga is getting out of hand, and the author literally gave him god-mode abilities in the game.

Also, nope, this isn't the "180° no scope" kind of thing, because his avatar is still facing forward, and only his weapon that somehow shoots on the back, which is a complete BS.

 

[Oeconomist]

No, the baby would inherit the evil of the mother.

 

[Oeconomist]

So she WAS actually cheating!!!

A problem here is in interpretting the word “cheat”. Because of asshats, it has acquired a more general meaning than violation of the rules. It could simply refer to making use of a glitch in the program.

 

[throwawaygod]

This game is too absurd, I need more actual matagi hunting in this manga. The matagi hunting feels like an underused backdrop because currently the battle royale plot is getting out of hand

 

[Extreme-Tactician]

A problem here is in interpretting the word “cheat”. Because of asshats, it has acquired a more general meaning than violation of the rules. It could simply refer to making use of a glitch in the program.

I doubt that was a glitch, she injected something to herself.

Anyway, it seems even with Killcat's heightened gamer senses, she couldn't hold a candle to Yamano's quick thinking and experience. She was high on tilt, but Yamano easily beat her because of that.

Yamano and Electronics Store-san having a sake party seems really funny. Electronics San is gonna go to work hungover with how strong that Sake seems to be.

On the other hand, Killcat's team has now disbanded. Churreria and Bunuelo, despite loving the fun they had with Killcat, seemed to not be the ones she really cared about. I feel sorry for them.

 

[Oeconomist]

she injected something to herself.

If the unhacked code allows for injections, then a glitch in that code could allow an injection to have an effect unintended by the programmers.

The server might be hacked to allow injections to be more effective, or to allow injections in the first place. But no mention in the dialogue or in the narrative was made of hacking; and, had hacking been necessary to effect an injection of the sort that she used, then she would be disqualified by the administrators, unless the story-telling here is quite broken.

So she probably exploited a glitch, which exploitation was seen as cheap but within the rules.

 

[Extreme-Tactician]

If the unhacked code allows for injections, then a glitch in that code could allow an injection to have an effect unintended by the programmers.

I don't think it was a metaphor for coding. It's not that deep.

 

[Oeconomist]

I don't think it was a metaphor for coding. It's not that deep.

I wasn't writing of metaphors; I was writing literally of how computer games work, and they were playing a computer game. If she violated the rules of the game with that injection, then she hacked the server code or had it hacked, and the administrators would disqualify her.

 

[Extreme-Tactician]

I wasn't writing of metaphors; I was writing literally of how computer games work, and they were playing a computer game. If she violated the rules of the game with that injection, then she hacked the server code or had it hacked, and the administrators would disqualify her.

If they said it was a cheat, then it's a cheat. I'm not sure why you're still talking like it could have been a glitch.

A gamebreaking glitch like this would have been patched out pretty quickly.

 

[Oeconomist]

A problem here is in interpretting the word “cheat”. Because of asshats, it has acquired a more general meaning than violation of the rules. It could simply refer to making use of a glitch in the program.

If they said it was a cheat, then it's a cheat. I'm not sure why you're still talking like it could have been a glitch.

As I explained in my first comment, the meaning of “cheat” has been unfortunately extended.

A gamebreaking glitch like this would have been patched out pretty quickly.

In calling it game-breaking, you are begging a question. Lots of games have for years allowed behaviors upon which many players frown; some of those allowances originated in glitches. From the perspective of the publisher, not exploiting the glitch might simply be viewed as a challenge.

The plausibility of a glitch being tolerated is simply greater than the plausibility of a hack being tolerated. Hack, and you've lost.

Unless we judge the story to be full-on crap, we're stuck with the weaker interpretation of “cheat”.

 

[Extreme-Tactician]

As I explained in my first comment, the meaning of “cheat” has been unfortunately extended.

In calling it game-breaking, you are begging a question. Lots of games have for years allowed behaviors upon which many players frown; some of those allowances originated in glitches. From the perspective of the publisher, not exploiting the glitch might simply be viewed as a challenge.

The plausibility of a glitch being tolerated is simply greater than the plausibility of a hack being tolerated.

Unless we judge the story the be full-on crap, we're stuck with the weaker interpretation of “cheat”.

You're thinking of this from the perspective of a game developer, rather than one of an author.

The way that the story describes it plainly says it's not some sort of unintended behavior that the community reluctantly allows to exist. This isn't bunny hopping, or wavedashing. It's a flat out cheat.

 

[Oeconomist]

You're thinking of this from the perspective of a game developer, rather than one of an author.

I allowed for the possibility that the story is

full-on crap

but, until it must be interpretted thus, it should not be.

The way that the story describes it plainly says it's not some sort of unintended behavior that the community reluctantly allows to exist. This isn't bunny hopping, or wavedashing. It's a flat out cheat.

First, I didn't refer to what the community tolerates, but to what the publisher tolerates. And the community does not set the relevant rules; the publisher does (possibly conditioned by choices of the hosts). Publishers sometimes conform to the wishes of the community of players; sometimes they do not.

The players depicted should be presumed to be representative of the wider community of players, but their disgruntlement and use of the word “cheat” does not show that Killcat violated the actual rules.

Again: She would have lost had she violated the rules.

Unless we judge the story to be full-on crap, we're stuck with the weaker interpretation of “cheat”.

 

[Extreme-Tactician]

First, I didn't refer to what the community tolerates, but to what the publisher tolerates.

And like I said, it's not like wavedashing or bunnyhopping, because no one in the story treats it that way.

If this was just glitch, then why wasn't Killcat always using it? There'd be literally no consequences to doing it.

And no, there are lots of games where cheats always end up happening. Literally look at Apex, the game this is probably emulating. There's all sorts of cheats there.

 

[Oeconomist]

If this was just glitch, then why wasn't Killcat always using it?

Perhaps just because it was seen as cheap, but quite possibly because it was an exploit that Killcat had discovered and that no one else had revealed which was to be an ace-in-the-hole.

There'd be literally no consequences to doing it.

Nonsense. Normalizing or indeed revealing it would be major consequences. (Nazi Germany had nerve gas, but did not use it, because they feared the consequences of normalizing its use.)

And no, there are lots of games where cheats always end up happening. Literally look at Apex, the game this is probably emulating. There's all sorts of cheats there.

The problem for Apex Legends has been observation. No instance of a rule violation, when widely observed, allows a player to advance in a major tournament, in that game or in any other.

 

[Extreme-Tactician]

Perhaps just because it was seen as cheap, but quite possibly because it was an exploit that Killcat had discovered and that no one else had revealed which was to be an ace-in-the-hole.

Nonsense. Normalizing or indeed revealing it would be major consequences. (Nazi Germany had nerve gas, but did not use it, because they feared the consequences of normalizing its use.)

The problem for Apex Legends has been observation. No instance of a rule violation, when widely observed, allows a player to advance in a major tournament, in that game or in any other.

At this point, I think we simply have different opinions on this. I'm willing to give the story the benefit of the doubt that actual cheats exist in it, you think it could simply be an exploit because no way a cheat could be used at a high level.

Though I would like to see your interpretation of the spectator cheat in CS, then.

 

[Oeconomist]

I'm willing to give the story the benefit of the doubt that actual cheats exist in it

That's not giving the story the benefit of the doubt; that's holding it in contempt.

you think it could simply be an exploit because no way a cheat could be used at a high level.

Not to advance in a tournament with the violation widely observed.

Though I would like to see your interpretation of the spectator cheat in CS, then.

No team team was allowed to advance when their use of the bug was observed. It is as if you are working not to get the point.