Mods in ranked games.

Just to add to @tHeTrOpHySyStEm , it's not an unknown advantage. Client mods are limited in what they can do by the game itself, and they can't do any action a player can't do - therefore, the possibilities of mods are 100% known, even if the specific mods in play aren't. If they are able to do anything above that, then it's a bug, not a fundamental problem with mods being used. Show me a game where someone has "lost" because of a mod, and I'll show you how they were instead outplayed or lost due to some other reason.

What do you mean to say? Though it's good that you quote it, as I can say some more about that quote:
EDIT: This was targetted at TrophySystem's post which consists of a single quote of raevn.

For me personally, it ís not the case: Like I said, sometimes I mess something up and lose the game. Furthermore, mods might become more effective, but we will have to wait and see.

This is not a true statement, this is an opinion.

(And any game with as much units as this one will be "micro-oriented"...)

It doesn't matter whether one gives a big advantage or a small advantage. An advantage is an advantage.

It does matter! That's the whole point.

The question is whether the degree in which it matters is significant with respect to other aspect of the game, like strategic insight and luck (looking at your commander when the boombot snipe arrives).

To answer the first part: A player messing up is a player messing up, regardless of whether mods are involved.
The second part: as per my post, they can't become more effective than the limits of what they are allowed to do by the game engine itself.

A micro-oriented game is one in which how well a player can micro determines the winner.
A macro-oriented game is one in which how well a player can utilise strategies determines the winner.
(there are always mitigating factors of course - player mistakes, luck etc., but these are the "in the absence of mitigating factors..." explanations).

Every documented goal of the game points towards PA being aimed at the latter.

Being able to determine the probability of getting a certain hand in poker is an action any human could "technically" do, but this doesn't mean we would allow computers at poker tables so that this task could be automated.

That has a far greater impact on the game of Poker than the micro that mods are capable of has in PA.

Could someone create a mod that rallies all dox (or any other units, or unit group) to support their commander when under attack?

How long is a piece of string?

This argument I don't understand. In my example, the auto-build or auto-loop-queue mod would have saved me the game.

Well, in an FPS game, the player is allowed to aim for the opponents head by the game. Still, an aimbot would be considered cheating. So the principle of the argument doesn't hold.

But I will give you that currently the effect is not that bad.

I see. Does that mean that it is mostly (or always, or sometimes) not (EDIT: significantly!) useful to have 10 groups of Dox running around the map? I would say it is, but I am open to debate.

This is a simple rephrasing of the same point made before: Is the effect significant? And that is the heart of the matter, the analogy to poker doesn't really help.

P.S. The three of us should get a room... ;D

1. Knowledge of game
2. Strategic insight
3. Skill
4. Spawns
5. Hardware / Connection
6. UI mod

Losing because of the lack of the mod is not equivalent to winning because of one (because the addition of the mod in the former scenario doesn't mean you win). In this scenario, the mod is merely correcting a mistake you made - the Win, if you had done so, would have been almost certainly because your strategic play was better, not because you used the mod.

That's very different. FPS relies on precision, which computers can obviously do perfectly in that scenario. Strategy games rely on, well, strategy, which computers suck at . Basically, we know that computers can win you the game in an FPS. But that is not the case in PA.

That's not micro, that's macro (if I understand correctly? There's a lot of negation going on in that sentence )

Alright a serious question because i'm at a total loss here.. What do you guys see as micro and what as macro. Is micro sending fabber to get mex? or is it macro.. Is setting your rally points to a strategic point micro or macro. (not in regard that every newly build factory has to be done over cause it would be good to automize that but not though a mod but through uber) Is sending dox in 3 directions micro or marco because of it's larger strategic interest. Or is micro only the ability to wiggle wobble dox, retreat your forces when nessesary and give attack commands for your bombers.

Because in all fairness. If this game right now is so heavely micro focused. and thus APM plays a large part of it.. or so you guys seem to think, then how the hell did I manage to get rank 2 when everyone in the top 20 has a higher apm than me with some of them even double my apm.

I'm confused right now so plz, help me out. No sarcasm intended.

That's just not true. To a certain extend, micro as in cycling front and back rows is inherit to such games, but PA has also some very specific micro elements which are exploitable such as manual dodging and alike which result from an abuse of the simulated projectile characteristics and out-of-scale responsiveness of certain units.

And there are not few games in where units behave a lot smarter on their own, so even though you have a large number of units, the game either restricts you from interacting from them at all (you are limited to high order commands by force), or you just have no large gains to expect from micromanaging them.

And just to clarify stuff:
Commands issued on a platoon / group (in the broader meaning, that includes virtual groups like being able to give a build order to the "factory" or "fabber" group and have it auto-distributed) level are no longer micro. Even though that is where PA is severely lacking as issuing higher level commands usually results in very, very dumb behavior.

Well, the win would in part be due to the mod. Without the mod, I lost!

Precision is a part of mechanics. And how much mechanics should be part of the game is open to debate I would say.

It is unit control that takes APM. So in the hypothetical case of performance-enhancing drugs, ahum, UI mods, the player can gain an advantage in this way that I would consider significant.
(And the more the skill levels of the players are equal, the more significant.)

EDIT: Fixed my mess of quotes.

I disagree. Extreme examples are the only way to show the extent of the problem. Of course mods aren't going to give that level of advantage, but they still have the potential to. What amount of advantage, who knows, how long is a piece of string?

Yes. I won't be satisfied until I can stand on a battle bridge like ender wiggin, shouting things and waving my hands and watching units explode Minority Report style

I agree with the extremes showing the potential, but the problem is that this extreme example doesn't apply to PA, because the particulars of Poker and PA are not comparable.

At the end of the day it's not about automating tasks or not. It's the fact that some players could automate tasks (through mods) while the other might not know how to mod. That's why the automation or lack there of needs to be built into the standard game or left out, when it comes to competitive play.