Newbie's Guide to Online Gaming

The Adequacy.org 10 Step Guide to Online Gaming.

Connection speed is crucial.
The winners in online games are always those with the fastest connections to the Internet. To ensure victory, it is essential to invest in a high speed connection. Satellite Internet connnections are widely regarded as the best way to play online.
You can take advantage of your fast connection by victimising those players with dial-up access. You can spot these economy-class gamers by their low "ping times", which measure the speed of their virtual bullets. With luck, you can frag them before they even know you're there!
Always use the best equipment.
The speed of your computer can mean the difference between winning and losing a game. It is imperative that you buy the best equipment you can afford. Owning a machine with a top of the range Pentium 4 processor, a Matrox graphics card and an LCD screen can turn an average gamer into a champion. It is also worth investing in a wireless mouse and keyboard, since these transmit data at the speed of light and are significantly faster than their wired counterparts.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Online games are infested with cheating, so it is vital that you cheat too. All successful gamers use "aimbots" which automate the tedious task of taking aim at the enemy. To prevent these dishonest players taking an unfair advantage, you should download an aimbot for Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament or Quake 3 Arena
Go camping.
"Camping", or staying in one location for a prolonged period of time while sniping at your opponents, is an important skill to master. Due to its effectiveness, camping is generally frowned upon by most gamers. However, ignore these players if they complain about you camping - they are only jealous that they didn't spot your excellent sniping position.
Think of it this way: was John F. Kennedy assassinated by a screaming lunatic who charged wildly at a heavily armed convoy with guns blazing? Or was he calmly shot by a skilled marksman from a hidden vantage point? Clearly, camping is the most skillful and effective way to play.
Sing when you're winning.
The art of gloating when you win a match is an important skill in the world of online gaming. Stressing your superiority over the other players helps to put them at a psychological disadvantage and can get you started on a winning streak. It is particularly impressive if your taunts have correct spelling and grammar, so it may be helpful to write down a list of pre-prepared insults that your parents or teacher may check for accuracy.
Here are some examples, but feel free to make your own:
"Verily, I am the best gamer and you are nothing but a bunch of rotten scoundrels."
"Who is your father?"
"HAHAHAHA, y00 sux0rz!!! 3y3 kick a$$!!! lAM3rZ!!!"
Always look your best.
A "skin" is the technical term for the visual appearance of your online alter-ego. In most games, you can choose different skins to get different in-game abilities. For example, female skins are always smaller and harder to hit, while male skins can run faster. Select a skin that suits your playing style.
For this reason, do not embarrass yourself by propositioning "female" players. Video gaming is completely dominated by adolescent males and the chances are slim that "Killr-Grrrl" is really of the fairer sex. Unless bespectacled 14 year-old males with acne are your thing, you should find a different outlet for your carnal desires.
Choose a fearsome name.
Your choice of nickname allows you to express your personality while playing online. You can try to intimidate other players by selecting a name such as "Rambo", "Nails" or "Psycho". Why not strike fear into the hearts of your opponents by replacing letters in your nickname with numbers and punctuation? For example, if your nickname is "Charles Manson", you might change it to "|CH4rL3Z M4n$0N|". Alternatively, why not try making some new friends by using your email address as a nickname?
Take no prisoners.
Occasionally, newbies wander into games and start chatting to each other. You can easily identify these players, as they stand still for long periods of time and their virtual character may appear to be talking into a radio. Remember: online games are for gaming, IRC is for chatting. Punish these lamers by blowing them away with extreme prejudice.
Join a clan.
A "clan" is a group of gamers who join together in a secret club to play games and swap warez, MP3s and pornography. You should seek to join a clan as soon as possible. This will give you a good opportunity to make some friends and your fellow clan members may give you advice to help you improve your game.
Better still, why not start your own clan? You can charge other members a modest membership fee of $10 per month, which can help you to buy new computer equipment.
Go to a LAN party
LAN parties are a misnomer. Since all the partygoers are below legal age, the drunken sexual debauchery that characterises most parties is sadly absent from these gatherings. However, LAN (standing for "Lamers And Newbies") parties are a great place to pick up new hardware. It is remarkably easy to steal computer equipment from these scrawny geeks - don't forget to use violence if the subtle approach fails. You can then make a nice profit by selling the stolen equipment back to its owners on any Internet auction site.

Now that you've read this guide to online gaming, you are ready to start playing. By following this advice, you're already well on the way to becoming a great gamer. Good luck!

	Satellite Connections (none / 0) (#3)
	by Husaria on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 07:09:39 PM PST

	But don't satellites have a 2 sec lag, which is an important thing in games, lag, that is. Cheating, I don't condone it, I never used autoaim bots, but its not a bad idea, considering I haven't really considered it before. Sig sigger

	Were you the guy... (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 06:50:37 AM PST

	that wrote Adequacy's DIY computer guide? Nevermind. Let's get to the rest of it: 1) Latency is very high on satellite internet. Bouncing a signal off a satellite 22,000 miles takes a bit of time. 2) Pentium 4 is fine. Matrox cards are great for business and desktop use (especially multi-monitor setups) but lousy for games. LCDs are OK for games if your video card has a DVI connector and not the ubiquitous 15 pin analog. I've tried wireless mice (both infrared and radio) and there is a distinct lag in movement especially in hyperactive games like UT and Quake. Stick to the wired version. 3) Cheating is bad, mmmkay 4) Camping is also bad, mmmkay 5) Rubbing in your victories is bad as well. 8) I'd ask them first to quit the chatting before opening up on them. 10) Uhh, whatever. I have a feeling that you won't get invited back if you start attacking the partygoers and try to steal their stuff. I suggest some revisions to this story. Because if you don't I'll have to sick the horde of 12-year-old HardOCP'ers on you! :P

	Point by Point Rebuttal (none / 0) (#6)
	by iat on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 07:10:22 AM PST

	Were you the guy that wrote Adequacy's DIY computer guide? No. I'm iat, he's dmg. Latency is very high on satellite internet. Bouncing a signal off a satellite 22,000 miles takes a bit of time. Nonsense. Satellites use electromagnetic radiation to transmit data at the speed of light, 300,000,000 metres/second. Modems/ISDN/DSL/Cable send data using electrons along copper wires, and these electrons on move at around 0.03 metres/second, 10,000,000,000 times slower! Satellite is clearly faster. 2) Pentium 4 is fine. Matrox cards are great for business and desktop use (especially multi-monitor setups) but lousy for games. That's just an elitist attitude. If a Matrox graphics card is suitable for use by the CEO of a multinational corporation, it is more than adequate for a teenager wanting to play Doom. 3) Cheating is bad, mmmkay 4) Camping is also bad, mmmkay You provide no justification for either of these reasons, just a value judgement that they are "bad". These methods are both guaranteed to win games and are therefore intrinsically "good". 8) I'd ask them first to quit the chatting before opening up on them. Why? It is a game, not IRC. If they don't want to get shot at (virtually) they shouldn't be playing violent video games. 10) Uhh, whatever. I have a feeling that you won't get invited back if you start attacking the partygoers and try to steal their stuff. You misunderstand. I never suggested attacking partygoers. I only suggested that aggravated robbery may be a suitable alternative to sneakily trying to steal computers when their owners weren't looking. I do not condone pointless violence. I suggest some revisions to this story. Because if you don't I'll have to sick the horde of 12-year-old HardOCP'ers on you! :P Bring it on, the site's a bit quiet today. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Point by point rebuttal rebuttal (none / 0) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 07:50:46 AM PST

	Satellite is clearly faster. Let's do some math. 22000 miles / the speed of light (186,000 miles/second) * 2 trips (up and back) = .237 seconds. Then you have to add in the time to reach the game server. Given that second time is equal for satellite and any other form of net access, a cable is faster. I don't know where you got your figure for transmission speed via a cable, but my ping to my ISP is under 10ms. .010 <.237, ergo satellite has poor latency. <p>That's just an elitist attitude. If a Matrox graphics card is suitable for use by the CEO of a multinational corporation, it is more than adequate for a teenager wanting to play Doom. Matrox cards are designed for desktop use. They have a very fast RAMDAC which makes for a nicer looking desktop. What a gamer needs is triangle draw speed and texture fillrate. Matrox cards are slow in those categories because the card isn't designed for that. Even Matrox will tell you that. You provide no justification for either of these reasons, just a value judgement that they are "bad". These methods are both guaranteed to win games and are therefore intrinsically "good". The idea is to have fun. Now winning is always fun, but cheating and bad sportsmanship are not. There are rules to any game. What is the point of playing if you know you will win because of an aimbot? Sounds pretty boring. Even the worst player will be able to occasionally score a frag against a very good player. Believe me, the crappy feeling you get from him fragging you twenty times is completely obliterated when you finally get him. Why? It is a game, not IRC. If they don't want to get shot at (virtually) they shouldn't be playing violent video games. Would it be so bad to just ask once? For the sake of good manners? You misunderstand. I never suggested attacking partygoers. I only suggested that aggravated robbery may be a suitable alternative to sneakily trying to steal computers when their owners weren't looking. I do not condone pointless violence. I won't even touch that one :)

	Mathematics is the tool of Satan (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by iat on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 08:10:13 AM PST

	Let's do some math. 22000 miles / the speed of light (186,000 miles/second) * 2 trips (up and back) = .237 seconds. Then you have to add in the time to reach the game server. Given that second time is equal for satellite and any other form of net access, a cable is faster. I don't know where you got your figure for transmission speed via a cable, but my ping to my ISP is under 10ms. .010 <.237, ergo satellite has poor latency. You can prove anything, no matter how incorrect, with a bit of mathematics. Mathematics is deceptive, illogical and unscientific. Economics is the only truly scientific tool Mankind has to analyse things and find the truth. If satellite Internet is as slow as you claim it is, then why are companies spending billions of dollars placing satellites into orbit to provide Internet services? And how are these companies able to charge more than for a 56k dial-up connection when they're selling a product that you claim is greatly inferior? Clearly, satellite connections are the fastest way to game online - any other conclusion would imply that the proven scientific laws of supply and demand were untrue. Would it be so bad to just ask once? For the sake of good manners? This guide was designed, in conjunction with the world's top gamers, to help newbies become ruthless and successful gamers. The "Adequacy.org Guide to Being a Courteous Gentleman" is still in the works. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Oh boy (1.00 / 1) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 08:33:52 AM PST

	If satellite Internet is as slow as you claim it is, then why are companies spending billions of dollars placing satellites into orbit to provide Internet services? And how are these companies able to charge more than for a 56k dial-up connection when they're selling a product that you claim is greatly inferior? Clearly, satellite connections are the fastest way to game online - any other conclusion would imply that the proven scientific laws of supply and demand were untrue. Let's get something straight here. Satellite internet isn't slow. DirectPC gives you 400kbps. What I'm saying is that it has poor latency. Latency is the time difference between when your computer sends a bit of information and receives an answer. Yes, the data moves at 400kbps after the initial lag caused by the distance the signal has to travel. That is why it isn't very good for fast action gaming. Why do they spend so much? Because broadband tech like DSL and cable modems isn't everywhere yet. Having a satellite net connection lets anyone get broadband download speed. This way, they can beat the cable/DSL companies to new markets and they don't get tangled up in expenses/politics trying to rent data lines. They charge more than 56k because a) it's really expensive to build and launch a satellite (satellite costs tens of millions of $'s and launching costs something like $10,000 per pound and a satellite can weigh more than a ton) and b) the market has shown it will pay more for broadband so they can happily charge more. You so vociferously defend satellite internet access that one must wonder whether or not you own stock in Echostar or Hughes or Starband.

	I have to ask... (1.00 / 1) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 08:38:36 AM PST

	I just gotta ask you, iat, are you the one feeding this fire, or is there actually somebody out there who is so incredibly stupid that they wanted to point out all the "mistakes" that you made in your article? I mean, jesus CHRIST, taking the time to go point-by-point on such obvious sarcasm? Christ, I hate to think that there are people who are THAT stupid...

	If people didn't point this out (1.00 / 1) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 08:46:37 AM PST

	Then why would anyone post at all? BTW, congratulations for figuring out the entire site. Step forward so I may give you a gold star and attach it to your forehead with a staple gun.

	And one other thing (1.00 / 1) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 08:42:03 AM PST

	The formula distance=velocity*time has existed for a long, long time. Dismissing it as a "tool of Satan" doesn't help your case much. Oddly enough, understanding economics ("the only truly scientific tool Mankind has to analyse things and find the truth") depends upon understanding mathematics. Go fig.

	Speeds (none / 0) (#13)
	by westgeof on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 08:43:21 AM PST

	Where in the world did you get '0.03 m/s' for the speed of light through copper wire? Electrons travel at the speed of light, and while I'll agree that the speed of light is slower through a medium than through the vaccum of space, I really don't think we'd be using copper wires if they restricted that speed by a factor of 10,000,000,000. The same goes with your 'justification' for wireless mice and keyboards, btw. The difference in speeds gained by not traveling through a wire would be so miniscule that I doubt the computer would be running fast enough to even notice. As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	signal? (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 09:52:11 AM PST

	A signal conveys information. A form of energy known as electric current flows through wire, at approximately 3 inches per hour.

	energy schmenergy (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 04:53:56 PM PST

	>A signal conveys information. A form of energy >known as electric current flows through wire, at >approximately 3 inches per hour. Ahem...electric <i>current</i> is NOT "a form of energy". It is a current. It is measured in coulombs per second ( for example ). Why does everybody allways talk of "energy" ? Is this a new wave thing ? Voltage is energy, like gravitical potential energy is energy. Current is more analogous to a measure of the speed of a fluid times the cross-section of the tube it flows through, lets say...

	not good enough (none / 0) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 25th, 2001 at 12:36:14 PM PST

	re-read the article you pointed to. It does not state anywhere that the signal in fact moves at lightspeed. It says it moves "allmost instantaneously", and faster than the speed of the electrons. Nowhere does it say "at lightspeed". In fact it only mentions lightspeed to say that in some books (?) it is wrongly stated that the electrons move at lightspeed ( maybe its sesame street books :)).Moreover that "faster than the electrons" signal arises probably only in the steady state, so it only transmits that fast when it's trasmiting nothing new in fact. But this last part is just my guess. My head hurts.

	what a larf (none / 0) (#29)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 30th, 2001 at 07:01:08 PM PST

	There is no justification to cheating... Its a stated fact that cheating is for lame, unskilled, make up for small dick, llamas that try to keep up with those that can legitmately play without a hand out. Simple. But you guys obviously recommend it since you must relate to the above?

	I never mentioned the speed of light (none / 0) (#15)
	by iat on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 08:59:05 AM PST

	Re-read my comment, I never mentioned the speed of light in copper. I did however mention the speed of electrons (or "drift velocity" to use the correct term), which is only a few centimetres per second (I arbitrarily chose 3 cm/s just to simplify my calculation - it's of the correct order of magnitude, anyway). Electrons certainly never travel at the speed of light - they are a particle and despite their low mass, cannot travel at anything close to the speed of propagation of an electromagnetic wave. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	re (none / 0) (#16)
	by westgeof on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 09:14:42 AM PST

	That's not the point though. I could care less how fast the electrons are moving, it's the signal that they are transmitting that's important, and that does move at the speed of light. The only thing you gain from wireless devices is the lack of the wire. It's more convenient, but not faster. As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	wtf? (none / 0) (#19)
	by em on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 11:51:09 AM PST

	it's the signal that they are transmitting that's important, and that does move at the speed of light. I'm sorry, but I don't know of a theory of movement where among the objects that move are "signals". If you're going to make empirical claims, please stick to established empirical science. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	*sigh* (none / 0) (#20)
	by westgeof on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 12:38:14 PM PST

	Ok, scratch out the word "move" and replace it with "propogate." When I push a key on my keyboard, the kepboard sends a signal, which "propogates" through the wire at near the speed of light, even though the electrons are "moving" at a slow rate. For a more detailed explanation, look here. As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	propogate ? (none / 0) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 04:46:49 PM PST

	Scratch out "propogate". Stick to "move", at least you spelled it right :). More to the point, particles with mass ( like electrons ) DO NOT move at vacuum lightspeed ( per relativity ), but sometimes they can move above the lightspeed of the medium ( take cherenkov radiation in the water of a nuclear reactor for instance, leaves a trail just like a planes supersonic cone because the neutrons are moving faster than the speed of light in the water ). But all of this is irrelevant, information DOES NOT travel at lightspeed in copper wires. It "propagates" at the speed of the electrons.

	Ignore the spelling typo (none / 0) (#23)
	by westgeof on Fri Aug 24th, 2001 at 09:22:45 AM PST

	Ok, I'll try to explain this one more time, for those too lazy to look things up. (I even looked up and posted a link of my own, but I guess even that is too much work) Electrons DO NOT move at the speed of light. I've already said that, so please stop trying to use that as and counter-argument. It's like saying the Earth must be flat because grass is green. When you run a current through a wire, electrons do move, (pretty slowly in fact,) but it is the signal we're taking about. And, believe it or not, this signal DOES move/propagate/shimmy/whatever at near the speed of light. If the information being transmitted moved at the speed of the electrons rather than the speed of the signal, then your computer would be running at a beautiful 1 or 2Hz, and when you turned on a light switch, the room would stay dark for several minutes before the current could reach the light bulb. I've never seen this happen, in my experiences everything works just like the theory says it should. Electrons flow slowly, but they do not carry the information. Try reading the link I posted, or look up your own if you don't believe mine. It's a well documented fact, so it shouldn't be that hard to find. As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	Thanks for the tips... (none / 0) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 07:55:57 AM PST

	I was hoping to break into online gaming, perhaps honing my "mad skillz" to a point where one day I might turn "Pro." These suggestions will help me gain universal acceptance from my collegues.

	I probably shouldn't be wasting my time here but.. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
	by spacejack on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 10:10:05 AM PST

	I thought I might suggest an online game for which: 1 Connection speed is irrelevant 2 The best equipment is not required; any old equipment will do 3 If you can't beat 'em, you can't join 'em either 4 Camping is ineffectual (you need an internet connection, silly!) 5 No singing when you win, no chatting either 6 You can come as you are, there are no skins 7 Any old name will do 8 Nobody goes to prison 9 There are no clans 10 No need for LANs or parties; be as anti-social as you please With equipment and connection speed rendered irrelevant, you will instead compete with skill alone for the much coveted high-score, as faceless identities, known to one another only by strange and unusual nicknames. Gaming as God intended -- as when it first emerged as the best reason to rediscover the smokey pool-halls of wasted youth. When push comes to shovin, I'd rather make some lovin.

	obvious you are no expert (none / 0) (#24)
	by alprazolam on Fri Aug 24th, 2001 at 11:21:08 AM PST

	necessities loud music with enough bass to annoy your roommates lock your door. distractions don't help, and everybody else will be getting better turn off lights. maximize your eye sensitivity connection speed. play all night, sleep all day, to maximize bandwidth cocaine. if unavailable, speed may be substituted now you are truly on your way.

	Best. Article. Ever. (none / 0) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 30th, 2001 at 12:29:24 PM PST

	N/T

	high speed Satellite? (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 10th, 2001 at 08:14:36 PM PST

	<<To ensure victory, it is essential to invest in a high speed connection. Satellite Internet connnections are widely regarded as the best way to play online.>> Satelitte is great for downloads. However for good quality online gaming you also need good a good uplink. Satellites recieve but you still need to use a standard dialup. Yes that dish is SO great for gaming. It just means that you can see your opponent kick your ass even quicker with no lag. Also not all "geeks" are scrwany. I'm 6'4'' and weigh 276lbs. I enjoy online gaming with my friends from in college. I also play college football.

	iat - i like this article but ur linux one blows (none / 0) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 2nd, 2001 at 11:46:20 PM PST

	ur linux article on mandrake which got so many hits is totally incorrect. If u cant install the software cause u havent put enuff effort into downloading the 486 version AVAILABLE on the site, then thats ur problem but dont give it a bad review due to ur anger. Micro$oft products have FAR more bugs, crashes, and viruses and Hacking attempts than Linux, for example, any unpatched version of microsoft IIS web servers can be made to do whatever a hacker wants.

	An observation (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 12:29:02 PM PST

	Jesus Christ! Doesn't anyone know how to spell or use punctuation on this friggin' board?

	Response to the article (none / 0) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 05:19:15 PM PST

	I'm not sure what was more fantasically hilarious: the article or these ridiculous responses to it.