Crosshair

[Ithaqua]

Putting the crosshair behind an achievement is a bit annoying. I really disagree with that design choice. Otherwise this is a fun game.

[parabolee]

The bigger issue IMO is that once you unlock it (it's pretty easy), it's locked in a cheat menu that disables progress!

Just use Hudsight or anther crosshair app. I did that and disabled auto aim, now the game now plays just like the Perfect Dark homage I wanted.

[MechBFP]

You don't need the permanent crosshair. Either use aim mode or just shoot and adjust based on the bullet tracers.

[coolDisguise]

Originally posted by parabolee:

The bigger issue IMO is that once you unlock it (it's pretty easy), it's locked in a cheat menu that disables progress!

Just use Hudsight or anther crosshair app. I did that and disabled auto aim, now the game now plays just like the Perfect Dark homage I wanted.

Using cheats usually disables progress. Just because you use external cheating tools, doesn't make it not cheating. It's like playing a soulslike and saying "I really love the game, it's just annoying that if you run out of life you die and respawn at some spawn point" - and proceed to set your life to unlimited or run a tool for resetting your location to your death location when you die to compensate for skill íssues. My opinion on this is: for single player games you do you. When it's multiplayer, that's the point where friction will occur.

The OP was correct in stating an opinion that I believe I don't share. I.e. if I read it correctly, the OP would have preferred it if a crosshair was always present.

But I agree with the conclusion it probably shouldn't be a cheat, as in "there should only be a crosshair in aim mode and a permanent crosshair shouldn't be accessible as a (unlockable) cheat code at all". Although I come to this conclusion, because I believe it's against the core design concept.

[Ikagura]

Originally posted by coolDisguise:

Originally posted by parabolee:

The bigger issue IMO is that once you unlock it (it's pretty easy), it's locked in a cheat menu that disables progress!

Just use Hudsight or anther crosshair app. I did that and disabled auto aim, now the game now plays just like the Perfect Dark homage I wanted.

Using cheats usually disables progress. Just because you use external cheating tools, doesn't make it not cheating. It's like playing a soulslike and saying "I really love the game, it's just annoying that if you run out of life you die and respawn at some spawn point" - and proceed to set your life to unlimited or run a tool for resetting your location to your death location when you die to compensate for skill íssues. My opinion on this is: for single player games you do you. When it's multiplayer, that's the point where friction will occur.

The OP was correct in stating an opinion that I believe I don't share. I.e. if I read it correctly, the OP would have preferred it if a crosshair was always present.

But I agree with the conclusion it probably shouldn't be a cheat, as in "there should only be a crosshair in aim mode and a permanent crosshair shouldn't be accessible as a (unlockable) cheat code at all". Although I come to this conclusion, because I believe it's against the core design concept.

That has nothing to do with Dark Souls....

Perfect Dark had a crosshair though.

[<Blank />]

Originally posted by coolDisguise:

My opinion on this is: for single player games you do you. When it's multiplayer, that's the point where friction will occur.

Look man, for some games, yeah. There's situations where cheating is deplorable. But if your hill to die on is "omg bro has a third party crosshair in a 90s fps homage" vs wallhax or autoaim that's kind of a you problem at that point. If your elitism goes so hard that someone putting a circle or pixel on the center of their screen constitutes horrendous cheating, that's a bit out there.

There shouldn't be friction over that. It's a deadass ridiculous thing to complain about. I don't even use the crosshair, and I'm like "What? I. Do. Not. Care."

The vast majority of players will probably be in their 40s or 50s anyway and have bigger problems than a crosshair.

[coolDisguise]

Opinions may differ, you got yours, I got mine. No beef here.
Only one point to think about: "if it doesn't make much of a difference - why insist on using it?".

[<Blank />]

Originally posted by coolDisguise:

Opinions may differ, you got yours, I got mine. No beef here.
Only one point to think about: "if it doesn't make much of a difference - why insist on using it?".

That's not a great point, I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy of some sort. The difference is probably negligible. I've put my TV crosshair on just to try it - and it didn't make me any better. But confidence may be its own reward.

"If it doesn't make a difference, I want to take it your choices away from you" isn't ever a great argument against something. I'm sure it DOES make a difference, the difference it makes, however, is debateable and probably not as great as either they, or the detractors, think it is.

Plus, the easy counter is "If it makes so much of a difference, why aren't you happier to kill them?"

[coolDisguise]

I was giving that point in order to illustrate that "if it didn't matter and there was no difference, what would be the difference in not doing it?" - that is, if there is some weighing on the side of usage of external tools, there is of course a difference. So you were right in pointing out I was trying to uncover the fallacy in the argument for the usage of external tools.

So this is not elitism, but rather the polar opposite of that - argueing for fairness for everyone instead of saying "if I get to do everything my way, everything's fine - I don't care about what that means for everyone else".

But I wasn't making the remark to target you as an individual - for me it's about the concept, so please bear with me here.

Let's take a step back and see if we can agree on a definition on cheating at all.

So I'd define cheating as

"Everyone agreeing to play a game with a set of rules and one person deciding to break those rules in order to get an advantage."

I hope, that we can agree on that - else you might disregard everything after this.

Some scenarios, maybe that helps to understand where I come from with my opinion:

1) So let's assume there's a really good chess player - they can calculate just the best, beyond everyone else. Only caveat: they can't remember the moves of the pieces. So they need a sheet to reference all the pieces but when they have that they're unbeatable. Would you say this is a good chess player? Sidenote: in official tournaments, any additional material and even taking notes beside the moves that occured is strictly forbidden.

2) So you cannot lean over to look at the cards of players at poker - but there's no exact rule that says you cannot use a drone to fly up behind them, look at their cards and send you the pictures to your phone. Would you agree with someone stating they're allowed to do this, because the rules do not cover that exact scenario to a T? Clearly, this is against the spirit of the rule dealing with looking at the hand of another player.

3) An individual argues "The worth of what I stole from you doesn't make much of a difference to you anyway, why should I pay at all? It's my choice and you could make the same choice. Why shouldn't everyone steal things of minor value from everyone else all the time?" The value of something in this case depends on what both people own. For the person robbed it depends on what is still left behind, for the person gaining something it's relative to what they already have and/or how urgently they needed that one thing.

If this was scores in a board game and it was 1001 to 999 the result would b 999 to 1001 - flipping the overall result, while not making much of a difference compared to what was already there. The closer people are in skill, the more a small advantage makes a difference. That's why when there's cheating in E-Sports, cheaters use such small innoccuous things you would barely notice in order to not get caught - until they eventually are.

Putting that together: if a player needs extra help (in this case: information) (1) they're not as good as they think they are, because they're lacking something. Saying the anticheat doesn't detect it, so it's fair use still conflicts with the spririt of the agreed upon ruleset, what the game itself provides (2). "The effect is minimal and everyone could do the same and it's my choice to do this" (3) precludes everyone agreeing to include this in the agreed upon ruleset.

And if this was an E-Sports league that said "yeah, everyone use that if you want to" and everyone signed up for the ruleset of the league you'd be right. And in many FPS, modifiers are server rules. So maybe you conviced me of the following: maybe it'd be best to make this a serverwide modifier whether people can use the built-in permanent crosshair on that server or not. On a server that has it on "on", the client can still turn it off for themselves. On servers that have it on "off", you just won't get the permanent crosshair. So no one needs to think about whether someone operates a drone to look at their poker hand when they shouldn't be able to, because you either sit at the drone table or the non-drone table. Cheers.

[<Blank />]

Originally posted by coolDisguise:

"Everyone agreeing to play a game with a set of rules and one person deciding to break those rules in order to get an advantage."

Fair. But there is one thing I caution - There is actually no rule *against* this. There are rules to the game, but the game doesn't define, outside of its EAC rules, what's 'cheating' otherwise. So the problem does become entirely subjective from that point. Nobody will be punished for using an external crosshair.

1) So let's assume there's a really good chess player - they can calculate just the best, beyond everyone else. Only caveat: they can't remember the moves of the pieces. So they need a sheet to reference all the pieces but when they have that they're unbeatable. Would you say this is a good chess player? Sidenote: in official tournaments, any additional material and even taking notes beside the moves that occured is strictly forbidden.

Like my previous point, this relies on there being a rule in place distinctly *against* the action being taken. *I* do not care if someone has a reference sheet for chess that they believe makes them better at chess because of their memory issue. If the rules of the tournement they are entering, explicitly forbids it. That's the rules of the game. And they abide by those rules or face a consequence.

There is no consequence for using a crosshair.

2) So you cannot lean over to look at the cards of players at poker - but there's no exact rule that says you cannot use a drone to fly up behind them, look at their cards and send you the pictures to your phone. Would you agree with someone stating they're allowed to do this, because the rules do not cover that exact scenario to a T? Clearly, this is against the spirit of the rule dealing with looking at the hand of another player.

Yes. They are allowed to do that. Because the game did not explicitly forbid it. Is it against the spirit of the game? Sure. And man will the opponents probably take some 'vigilante justice'.

But the reality is - that most poker tables explicitly forbid ANY AND ALL methods to do this. And furthermore, using a crosshair, does not make someone automatically 'better' in the same way that seeing a poker hand puts them at a distinct advantage. Factors such as reaction time, mouse hardware, latency, framerate - all play here besides that.

3) An individual argues "The worth of what I stole from you doesn't make much of a difference to you anyway, why should I pay at all? It's my choice and you could make the same choice. Why shouldn't everyone steal things of minor value from everyone else all the time?" The value of something in this case depends on what both people own. For the person robbed it depends on what is still left behind, for the person gaining something it's relative to what they already have and/or how urgently they needed that one thing.

This is just a straight fallacy. There is no world in which rote thievery is supported by *any* ruleset. Regardless of perceived value. Those using a crosshair, are not 'robbing' you of any material possession. They can not. They have not come through your screen and taken your mouse and keyboard away. They have not taken your skill away like it's psychological kryptonite. This is boogeyman talk and exactly what I mean by elitism. This is a perceived emotional wound - not a real one.

If this was scores in a board game and it was 1001 to 999 the result would b 999 to 1001 - flipping the overall result, while not making much of a difference compared to what was already there. The closer people are in skill, the more a small advantage makes a difference. That's why when there's cheating in E-Sports, cheaters use such small innoccuous things you would barely notice in order to not get caught - until they eventually are.

There's 'cheating' in every sport on earth because circumventing the rules for an advantage is something that people frankly will always do. The question here is, does a crosshair meaningfully impact the game on the same level as what's already banned by EAC - Wallhax, autoaim, intentional lag shields, hex editing. Stuff like this. Is a pixel, on a screen, worth the same level to you, as these things? If so. There's no answer to that subjective opinion that's adequate for you except what we discuss below.

Putting that together: if a player needs extra help (in this case: information) (1) they're not as good as they think they are, because they're lacking something. Saying the anticheat doesn't detect it, so it's fair use still conflicts with the spririt of the agreed upon ruleset, what the game itself provides (2). "The effect is minimal and everyone could do the same and it's my choice to do this" (3) precludes everyone agreeing to include this in the agreed upon ruleset.

A crosshair, isn't ''information' The center of the screen that the gun shoots at, physically exists regardless of whether it's there or not. The entire, I mean, the ENTIRE, advantage of the physical aid is that it gives focus and confidence. That's all. Lawyering legalese against that, will not change the reality that if you literally use a marker pen and put a dot on your monitor - it will not make you a better player. I know this for a fact, because I knew several other kids in the 90s who did this to their room TV's and computer monitors while playing goldeneye and other early shooters. With erasable markers. Sometimes, not so erasable.

They'd get absolutely trounced by someone without it with surprising frequency. Because the aid is *not* the advantage. The skill ceiling is the advantage. And in this game, that's limitless.

And in games with a limitless skill ceiling, where you're matched against a guy who's so sweaty he takes focus drugs and has 1700 hours in MP, you're getting absolutely destroyed, no matter what screen you are using or what is on it.

And if this was an E-Sports league that said "yeah, everyone use that if you want to" and everyone signed up for the ruleset of the league you'd be right. And in many FPS, modifiers are server rules. So maybe you conviced me of the following: maybe it'd be best to make this a serverwide modifier whether people can use the built-in permanent crosshair on that server or not. On a server that has it on "on", the client can still turn it off for themselves. On servers that have it on "off", you just won't get the permanent crosshair. So no one needs to think about whether someone operates a drone to look at their poker hand when they shouldn't be able to, because you either sit at the drone table or the non-drone table. Cheers.

Again, There are no rules against this. There is no matchmaking here. I absolutely, totally, agree with this being a gameside decision on a server. The problem is, it's still unenforceable even if you made it a rule and there'd be no live moderation against it -outside of- live tournements, and far be it from me to say - this game is not going to be a major esport with live reffing. So the facts that remain are two -

1) You can't tell anyway and you run the risk of accusing players of using something they're not, because they're simply better than you. Making you a problem in the community.

2) They gloat about their abilities and how they're exploiting things - making them a problem in the community.

Maybe the crosshair wasn't the destination. Maybe the crosshair was the friends we made along the way.

[Ikagura]

This is just a straight fallacy. There is no world in which rote thievery is supported by *any* ruleset. Regardless of perceived value. Those using a crosshair, are not 'robbing' you of any material possession. They can not. They have not come through your screen and taken your mouse and keyboard away. They have not taken your skill away like it's psychological kryptonite. This is boogeyman talk and exactly what I mean by elitism. This is a perceived emotional wound - not a real one.

Some people are unironically thinking that beating a game in easy mode remove their legitimacy as a gamer or that they don't want to play a game that anyone could beat.

[<Blank />]

Originally posted by Ikagura:

This is just a straight fallacy. There is no world in which rote thievery is supported by *any* ruleset. Regardless of perceived value. Those using a crosshair, are not 'robbing' you of any material possession. They can not. They have not come through your screen and taken your mouse and keyboard away. They have not taken your skill away like it's psychological kryptonite. This is boogeyman talk and exactly what I mean by elitism. This is a perceived emotional wound - not a real one.

Some people are unironically thinking that beating a game in easy mode remove their legitimacy as a gamer or that they don't want to play a game that anyone could beat.

I know quite a few people who won't play easy mode on principle and just frustrate themselves into uninstalling (or worse things) and scream at others for using it. So yeah, that is absolutely true.

But that is a people issue, it's not really a 'skill' issue as such. Which is kind of the point I'm trying to make here. It doesn't make you AUTOMATICALLY better. It's entirely a crutch in peoples' heads, either for or against.

There's a reason games evolved with crosshairs to begin with, and it wasn't because they made things 'easier'. They were simply an easy convinience that didn't meaningfully affect peoples' abilities.

Outside of proper, full immersion, milsims and tactical shooters - crosshairs are pretty much standard issue in 2026 in every MOBA or similar derivative FPS. Nobody raises a fuss about that.

But I've seen the same arguments over every single option in a game imaginable - people used to claim that using grass meshes made them gamers and people who put grass on off, weren't 'true gamers' and were cheaters.

The moment something becomes an OPTION, someone else rushes in to say that their use of the option is somehow more vetted than the other.

My issue on this subject in particular is, you got merked by a dude with a crosshair app and a dude with a hex editor. You can only report and ban one. Who do you choose?

The crosshair is literally the least egregious way anyone can have a perceived 'advantage' over you.

The coolguy did have a great point about lobby-enabling the in game one, though. That absolutely should be an option.