I think it all depends how the data is gathered. If it’s pulling audio/visual cues from your screen alone then returning estimates of enemy activity based off of that; it’s cheating but it’s really close to the line. If it’s pulling data from other sources (stat tracking APIs, other visor.gg users, etc.) it’s absolutely cheating without any question.
Personally if I find out exactly how it gathers data I can make a final opinion.
If it is a Quick Play game then yes. You can see the coached players screen.
If Visor.gg becomes as efficient as a human coach then it would be Blizzards duty to either
Right now it fails as a coach unless the coached player has a human being extrapolating the information being provided by Visor.gg to give a reason as to why they need to act on the help tips.
They changed Horizon Map based on User Feedback.
Here is a long post on the forums about changing Horizon.
Confirmation on a feedback post
Just sayin
oh hey thats my post!
Not even close to the same thing as a third party program.
Not even in the same ballpark.
We were specifically talking about user feedback and how they listen, but okay.
We were talking specifically about the visor program.
I am not going to start playing the semantics game with you, that’s for children.
Visor is a AI that reports back realtime on what is happening in your overwatch match the same way twitch works.
Visor would have 1 Viewer (The AI or others) that could report back in real time to improve your gameplay the same way twitch has 1000 or so viewers reporting back to the streamer.
Remember it requires around 4mb upload because it is a live streaming service.
In no shape or form is it a cheat or hack.
No where in this documentation
does it expressly say eyes are needed to play Blizzard games.
With the bulk of your documented statements it is clear that you are a proponent of any and every advantage a player could have, eyes are absolutely an advantage over the sightless.
Just like all the information you have sited, if it not expresssly stated by Blizzard it is therefore deemed cheating,
reference:
I am only using what you have previously stated as reasoning behind you thinking having eyes is in fact, and indisputably, cheating.
If you ban people using visor you would have to ban live streamers using twitch or youtube or other streaming sites.
There’s your keyword(s).
If you have someone famous streaming and a pro watches the stream and since he is well known, you read the comment and the comment said “Enemy are about to Ult” you would then be cheating thus you would have to ban the streamer based on how visor works.
But its not cheating or a hack.
I didn’t resort to name calling and skirting the conversation about if they read the forums. We can move on.
Back to the semantics of the eula, I guess, which you also do not want to participate in.
Yeah, that’s what I thought too. Took me a bit to realize it’s a different thing being talked about.
No, it is common sense you would need eyes to play a videogame.
Your eyes are a first party between you and Blizzard and therefore does not constitute cheating as interaction between first party (the player and Blizzard) is exempt from following agreements as stated in the preface definitions.
Maybe you should have read that before making a smart Alec response.
And I am saying that I am asking you to not do so as it would be false representation.
Can you prove the people streaming on twitch have no robots talking to the streamer? That would be third party, You just assume its first party. Because you know visor is a AI. Thus ban all the streamers too.
It’s cheating and everyone using it knows they are cheating. Everything else is simply a justification.
No. It does not change the fact that if they did it would be cheating.
Correct, and therefore cheating.
Correct, and falls upon the definition of cheating set by Blizzard.
There isnt clear and logical sequelae to your argument. Your conclusion does not stem from the premise and is thus invalid. Essentially, following the rules of logic, your argument is flawed.
Unless the streamers are accessing a third party to facilitate gameplay, they are not cheating.
As there can be no rational discussion between you and I, or really any other human I was being facetious about the whole eyes thing.
To this
False representation would be claiming you factually said something you did not factually say. My citation of
was something you factually wrote. Therefore fair game for me to use as evidence of your belief. If I have an inclination you believe something and I state it as such then it is my belief that you believe something. I cannot specifically speak for you and by doing so in jest by no means harms your character.
These are unrealistic examples. User ACUA3 knew this. How did it escape you?
You can use it to yourself to justify what you believe that I believe. Like you said, you cannot speak for me which is what you do by saying that “X is what Link would say”. You are ascribing a certain belief to which I have not stated myself.
Doing so in jest is making fun of others.
No one likes being made fun of which is why I asked that you refrain from doing so because I am not comfortable with it.
Oh you thought I missed that?
Well, I didnt. I just don’t like my name being passed around in conversation regarding what I would say or believe, whether it be in jest or not.
Like many agree, no one likes being made fun of and I consider the latter post of yours to be exactly that which is why I asked that you refrain from doing it again.