29 replies to this topic

[Tankno]

I don't understand why players who have died should be able to talk to players who are alive. I've played many matches where my fellow dead team mates who are itching to die quickly in there next game give out coordinate of their fellow team mates along with tactical information.

While I understand that this is against the rules, a better fix rather than reporting these depraved people would be to remove there ability to chat with the living. I mean if you are dead how could you possibly be able to give tactical information to the living.

Maybe I'm the only one who sees the flaw with allowing the dead to chat with the living, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

What do all of you think?

[TercieI]

Until you can regulate voice comms, any regulation of chat only furthers the disparity between those on voice and those not.

Report the griefers and get on with your next drop.

[Tankno]

Thus, inaction is the best response?

There will always be third body communication methods. So the point that regulations will increase the disparity between those on voice and those not is moot.

And in this case, of griefers. The only way they could communicate third party is if they were both connected to the same chat program. But since they are in a random match maker the possibility of them being in the same match is unlikely. So the dead in that situation couldn't even chat with the other team.

So as a result the fellow dead team mates would be unable to grief you.

So by these players jumping on a third party chat they will be unable to achieve there goal.

Thus, your point is moot.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

I agree that having dead players able to give information to surviving ones is open to abuse - but what about someone spectating a newbie and (shock horror gasp omgwtf) wants to help/advise?

[Tankno]

Then this someone would be encouraged to send the newbie a message out of the game a message advising him on what he is doing wrong. As a result this could stimulate some community building. Here, a quote from Miyamoto Musashi "You can not learn techniques just by reading, only by laying your life on the line by facing death will you attain these principles." Even then, and this may seem cold but the act of making the mistake will teach them more than someone advising them from the dead. You made a good point and I can't refute it well enough.

[jper4]

if the dead folk really want to go onto their next match so badly there's nothing forcing them to stay in the game once they're dead.

i've been in many matches also where people are spectating newer players and offering them help if they see they're having issues with something (LRM ranges, point blank PPCs, etc), new player tutorials are a bit skimpy so a new player is probably going to figure it out faster by someone telling them in game where they can see it in action for themselves. without chat that can't happen.

edit- just noticed you posted just before i did. as far as sending a msg out of game, that would be keeping the other player from being able to drop again while if they do it in game, once the match ends they have not only helped the new player (who may not remember them if they get an out of game message out of the blue) they're not keeping themselves from the next drop.

Edited by Tanar, 01 January 2014 - 06:29 AM.

[Tankno]

There is chat capabilities outside of a match, thought I will admit that is convaluded.

As for the part that there's nothing forcing them to stay I have this to say. A player once told me the reason he was giving out his teammates coordinates was for the express reason of being able to use the 'mech he just played with faster. The was the thing forcing him to stay in the game once he had died.

So again, I can't really refute the point that it offers experienced players to help newer players, other than it could be done once outside the match. But, there seems does to be something forcing the dead folk to stay in game and to wish the game ended sooner. This is that they are unable to use the 'mech the died with.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Tankno, on 01 January 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

Then this someone would be encouraged to send the newbie a message out of the game a message advising him on what he is doing wrong. As a result this could stimulate some community building. Here, a quote from Miyamoto Musashi "You can not learn techniques just by reading, only by laying your life on the line by facing death will you attain these principles." Even then, and this may seem cold but the act of making the mistake will teach them more than someone advising them from the dead. You made a good point and I can't refute it well enough.

Well, fancy that. Reasoned discussion on a MWO thread?

Anyway, your counterpoint re: messaging them OOG is equally good. The only thing I could bring up against it would be quickness/relevance of response. That person might continue to play several more matches by the time they log out, and might not check emails/forum accounts at all. With an in-game chat between dead/live players, you can tell them straight away what's up. Equally, their mail client might immediately go 'Hey! Listen!'...

And your community-building comment leaves me spreading my hands and shrugging. I agree completely. Nothing more to add ha.

Swings and roundabouts, ultimately. I do agree that abuse of the chat system is bad, and it needs looking at (AFTER UI2 and CW, though. Wouldn't want to stress PGI's live-ops development team). An 'ignore/mute' button at the very least for in-match players. But I also think that if the system can be used to anyone's benefit, it should be kept open.

[TercieI]

Tankno, on 01 January 2014 - 06:14 AM, said:

Thus, inaction is the best response?

There will always be third body communication methods. So the point that regulations will increase the disparity between those on voice and those not is moot.

And in this case, of griefers. The only way they could communicate third party is if they were both connected to the same chat program. But since they are in a random match maker the possibility of them being in the same match is unlikely. So the dead in that situation couldn't even chat with the other team.

So as a result the fellow dead team mates would be unable to grief you.

So by these players jumping on a third party chat they will be unable to achieve there goal.

Thus, your point is moot.

My point isn't moot. You just missed it.

The instance you are concerned with is the abuse of a feature with many positive (and intended) uses. Deleting it because a few people misuse it is a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Also, there is a solution in place: report the griefers.

[Strum Wealh]

One solution that would fit Tankno's premise is to simply have the all-chat option (press 't') deactivate once a player has been downed, while leaving the company-chat (press 'y') and the lance-chat (press 'u') active - this would allow fallen teammates to communicate with those that they are spectating through (as with Arnold's "advising newer players" example), but would remove the ability to engage in "birddogging" (which "is a form of greifing and is in violation of the Community Guidelines") without the use of an out-of-game means of communication (which, unfortunately, is beyond PGI's control).

[Tankno]

Arnold J Rimmer, on 01 January 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

The only thing I could bring up against it would be quickness/relevance of response. That person might continue to play several more matches by the time they log out, and might not check emails/forum accounts at all. With an in-game chat between dead/live players, you can tell them straight away what's up. Equally, their mail client might immediately go 'Hey! Listen!'...

While the rest of your point is of course secure. It seems you are under the impression that I suggest a player go about messaging the newer player via mwomercs message system on there site. While my intention was to use the in-game social friends list. Which I would characterize as quirky at the moment.

I don't know about you, but many of the friends I have on this list have come as a result of me out reaching to players seeming to struggle at the game. This was what I was referring to when I mentioned other means of helping newer players.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Tankno, on 01 January 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

my intention was to use the in-game social friends list.

Ah. Of course.

Actually better in the long run, because then you can team up and voice comms and winning OH MY.

/salute to you, sir. Until the battlefield!

[Tankno]

Terciel1976, on 01 January 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

My point isn't moot. You just missed it.

The instance you are concerned with is the abuse of a feature with many positive (and intended) uses. Deleting it because a few people misuse it is a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Also, there is a solution in place: report the griefers.

Forgive me, I may have not seen the point you made in,

Terciel1976, on 01 January 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

Until you can regulate voice comms, any regulation of chat only furthers the disparity between those on voice and those not.

Report the griefers and get on with your next drop.

But, since you fail to support or even restate the first point of increasing disparity, I must presume you are mentioning the report of the griefers.

In response to this I must say, we could save newer players and players who become irate at waiting for the next drop. We could save these players from themselves. When there is a bug in a system that is exploited those who exploit it are punished. yes? Well then this bug is patched in order to protect the players from being able to exploit it. Now let my pressure you into looking at this issue like that. Yes, I will report the griefer. But, why should I stop there, shouldn't I look to protect those who would fall into the same trap? This will also help the support staff, instead of sifting through reports over griefers, they could be sifting through reports of problems in the game. Now, you suggest that this happen only a few times, while I must say it happens more often then I would like to admit.

This is not a major problem in the game, I realize and agree with that. But, I do see it as a problem. I also think it is unrealistic for the dead to be able to chat with the living. Come on! How often do you chat with the dead?

[jper4]

i can understand people wanting to play the mech they just used that match but it would seem to me that in the end it might just be a wash as far as time spent would go. someone dies in at say the 11 minute mark and the match goes on to the 6 or 7 minute mark before that last enemy is finally cut down, they'd have time to hop into another mech or trial if they only have 1 active mech. if they only make it to the 11 minute mark in that next match it'll end with them getting an extra match in and by that point the mech they want to use would be free from the previous match.

granted i'm sure it wouldn;t perfectly synch up like that but getting another match in i would think is more productive than complaining about that last guy in the match you're already dead in.

its happened to me a few times where i'd get knocked out of a match on a mech i'm grinding and by the time i log back, in the match is still going on. so i'd just hop into another one, get a match in and then go back to the one i crashed out in instead of waiting around for it to end just so i could use that specific mech again. unless someone REALLY loves that mech they were in and can;t bear to be parted from it ever, i always found it odd that people stuck around complaining for so long after they are dead because i'm not really that attached to any one mech to that degree that i just had to play it and it alone.

personally unless it's conquest and we have a chance to win on points or too far behind for 1 mech to make up i'd usually just try to charge the nearest enemy i could find just to finish the match off. my kdr isn;t important enough to go powering down in some remote location on the map so i don;t die.

as for the friends list i admit there's many times where i wouldn't notice the social button flickering until many matches later by which time i had no idea who this person was who was trying to friend me. if i actually chatted to them during the match itself though i'd remember them much more easily.

[TercieI]

Fair enough, I was very short the first time (phone) because this comes up regularly on these forums and has been discussed to death. I'm not honestly sure why I responded. In other news, ballistics and beams aren't terribly well balanced.

Tankno, on 01 January 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

This is not a major problem in the game, I realize and agree with that. But, I do see it as a problem. I also think it is unrealistic for the dead to be able to chat with the living. Come on! How often do you chat with the dead?

I do not participate in reality arguments because we're playing a game with giant stompy robots that all happen to have an engineering flaw so huge, they would have gotten their designers failed out of Engineering 101 at a community college in the USSR. I can't suspend my disbelief far enough. It's just a game.

As for the in-game aspect, I have chatted with the dead far more often than I've had anyone give away my position. I've met as many friends who were opponents as who were allies. I also value the ability to salute/discuss someone I had a great duel with, which, given the lousy Social features, is best done in-match.

And I have actually never had my position given away by a teammate when I was the last left alive, despite it happening fairly frequently since I drive light mechs quite a bit. The only times I've seen it happen are when somebody overly concerned with KDR is hiding rather than fighting an unwinnable fight (I'm all for hiding if the Conquest math says you have a chance, otherwise, take somebody with you and get to the next drop, nobody cares about your KDR).

It's not a major issue, on that we can agree. Beyond that, you're not changing my mind, I'm not changing yours, and I suspect neither of us is changing the minds of anyone else who's viewing this argument for the tenth time, so that's the last I have to say on it.

[Tankno]

Tanar, on 01 January 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

i can understand people wanting to play the mech they just used that match but it would seem to me that in the end it might just be a wash as far as time spent would go. someone dies in at say the 11 minute mark and the match goes on to the 6 or 7 minute mark before that last enemy is finally cut down, they'd have time to hop into another mech or trial if they only have 1 active mech. if they only make it to the 11 minute mark in that next match it'll end with them getting an extra match in and by that point the mech they want to use would be free from the previous match.

granted i'm sure it wouldn;t perfectly synch up like that but getting another match in i would think is more productive than complaining about that last guy in the match you're already dead in.

its happened to me a few times where i'd get knocked out of a match on a mech i'm grinding and by the time i log back, in the match is still going on. so i'd just hop into another one, get a match in and then go back to the one i crashed out in instead of waiting around for it to end just so i could use that specific mech again. unless someone REALLY loves that mech they were in and can;t bear to be parted from it ever, i always found it odd that people stuck around complaining for so long after they are dead because i'm not really that attached to any one mech to that degree that i just had to play it and it alone.

personally unless it's conquest and we have a chance to win on points or too far behind for 1 mech to make up i'd usually just try to charge the nearest enemy i could find just to finish the match off. my kdr isn;t important enough to go powering down in some remote location on the map so i don;t die.

as for the friends list i admit there's many times where i wouldn't notice the social button flickering until many matches later by which time i had no idea who this person was who was trying to friend me. if i actually chatted to them during the match itself though i'd remember them much more easily.

Well this brings up one of the reasons why I started this poll. What I wanted was to learn what a sample of the population thought. There are people who don't find it annoying to jump out of a match after they died, and there are other who do. There are people who use the quirky in game social, and those who do.

So I'll leave it to everyone to decide, while I'll defend my point if brought to question.

Terciel1976, on 01 January 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

I do not participate in reality arguments because we're playing a game with giant stompy robots that all happen to have an engineering flaw so huge, they would have gotten their designers failed out of Engineering 101 at a community college in the USSR. I can't suspend my disbelief far enough. It's just a game.

As for the in-game aspect, I have chatted with the dead far more often than I've had anyone give away my position. I've met as many friends who were opponents as who were allies. I also value the ability to salute/discuss someone I had a great duel with, which, given the lousy Social features, is best done in-match.

And I have actually never had my position given away by a teammate when I was the last left alive, despite it happening fairly frequently since I drive light mechs quite a bit. The only times I've seen it happen are when somebody overly concerned with KDR is hiding rather than fighting an unwinnable fight (I'm all for hiding if the Conquest math says you have a chance, otherwise, take somebody with you and get to the next drop, nobody cares about your KDR).

It's not a major issue, on that we can agree. Beyond that, you're not changing my mind, I'm not changing yours, and I suspect neither of us is changing the minds of anyone else who's viewing this argument for the tenth time, so that's the last I have to say on it.

Well this game is based on battle tech which is based in science fiction. This science fiction while not reality draws idea from reality. If that made any sense. As a result yes there are engineering flaws, but I am referring to the ability of the dead communicating with the living.

This is just a game.

A game with rules.

As for changing my mind, it is possible. But, it must be done with logic. I admit I am looking at the matter with a different light when mentoring newer players was brought up. For this I have no clear rebuttal because new players should get mentored and what better way than from veteran players? It is just the means I offer decent.

Edited by Tankno, 01 January 2014 - 07:34 AM.

[Xeven]

You cant. TeamSpeak...

[Strum Wealh]

Xeven, on 01 January 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

You cant. TeamSpeak...

Yes, but how often are members of one team in a "PUG match" going to be on the same TeamSpeak room as members of the opposing team?

Because that is the problem - defeated players from one team "ratting out" their comrades to members of the opposing team.
Without the ability to communicate with the other team once defeated, birddogging becomes impossible.
And defeated players who shout obscenities over TeamSpeak can be muted.

All that would be left is the ability to abuse the text box by typing obscenities at one's own teammates (which is subject to being screen-shotted and sent to MWO Support )... where the ability for a fallen teammate to communicate with still active players has legitimate use - such as, as pointed out previously, with a fallen teammate being able to mentor/advise a green-but-still-active player.

[Tankno]

Strum Wealh, on 01 January 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

Yes, but how often are members of one team in a "PUG match" going to be on the same TeamSpeak room as members of the opposing team?

Because that is the problem - defeated players from one team "ratting out" their comrades to members of the opposing team.
Without the ability to communicate with the other team once defeated, birddogging becomes impossible.
And defeated players who shout obscenities over TeamSpeak can be muted.

All that would be left is the ability to abuse the text box by typing obscenities at one's own teammates (which is subject to being screen-shotted and sent to MWO Support )... where the ability for a fallen teammate to communicate with still active players has legitimate use - such as, as pointed out previously, with a fallen teammate being able to mentor/advise a green-but-still-active player.

I can't help but agree with Strum on what I would call a compromise.

Forcing the dead to be only able to chat with there own team would prevent the "birddogging". Since fellow dead teammates can only spectate there own team it allows for fair mentoring to green players.

[Exarch Levin]

It makes sense to me for "dead" mechs to talk to the living. For all the reasons already, with the addition of the "fact" that mechwarriors eject when their mechs die, so they're not really dead.

I don't like the idea of disabling global chat for the "deceased" as many of the matches I've had, to second what was said already, have a sort of camaraderie going amongst the "dead" from both sides as we talk about loadouts and grouping up and the like. I'd rather the game not devolve into some anti-social experience where I'd be best off dropping the game at death each and every time.