Kjudoon, on 21 December 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:
Sigh... Okay... I was willing to let it slide, but apparently I have to let more go since it is obviously not okay by you.
I go back to the statement I made before, 24 people agreed to play 15 minutes or 30 minutes in a match. You owe them all that time and however much even one person decides to take of it. People should honor that agreement even when that last enemy player is playing his own way and that doesn't involve letting you gauss him in the face because you're bored. If you are not willing to hold to that agreement, disconnect and take the consequences that come with it.
Your monopoly analogy isn't even close to accurate. MWO ends regardless in 15 to 30 minutes. This is more like a hockey game. The clock runs regardless if you are trying to get a goal or just flicking the puck back and forth between players. for the whole 20 minute period. No matter what, barring penalties 20 minutes later that period is over, then two more follow and the game is over. nobody is holding you hostage or preventing the game from playing. It may be a crappy game from your POV, but guess what! That's not a valid reason for anything to change!
In the past, I have made arguments for an eject function or retreat ability to be put in game, people who hate hiders or those who won't suicide scream that down. Scream in the figurative sense of the internet, but just as hysterically. You owe that last person your time the same way that last player owed you the same time. There is no agreement to be 'so l337 to ride this ride'. There is no guarantee real life might not interfere and the person might be trying to get back to the game after they put the fire out on the baby who was eating the cat.
What I find childish is this attitude that people are entitled to have the game over when THEY are ready, not the last guy they are too lazy to find or too arrogant to think that someone has the right not fight stupid or hopeless battles. When they are left no option to say 'good game here's the battlefield' without penalizing themselves, you take moral victories, and sometimes, when people are being jerks... it's making them work for it. Spiteful, yes, but let's face it, those complaining are far from innocent in the matter either with their fits in chat. That's just plain wrong.
This is also a long standing issue. Well before the "public release event". So many players wanted skirmish mode and were warned this would happen. It was already obvious on Assault and Conquest, but those you could force early victory on... and even then, some whined about being forced to cap win instead of shooting someone who didn't feel like being shot. They felt that person owed them their dignity and owed them a moment of humiliation for their own egotism. Now we have BIGGER skirmish mode called Community Warfare! And you have the same problem.
This attitude is why mode voting didn't work. "I won't play conquest!" "I won't play skirmish!" Whatever. Neither side enjoyed the gameplay of the other and they were NOT NOT NOT going to budge. Not everyone feels this obligation to die for the strident laziness of others. Yes, lazy is the right word. For too long people mocked cap wins. So they got skirmish. problem solved. The two groups stayed away from each other and there was peace mostly. Now in CW, you cannot keep the two groups away. One side skirmishes (Defense) the other side assaults (kill OR cap). I don't expect PGI to change their stance on hiding one bit. You have the powerdown mode in the game for a REASON. You have BAP able to find shut down mechs for a reason! You still have Mk1 Eyeballs in your head to go find them.
But now CW is here, AND there is a tactical advantage for keeping teams locked up in match as long as possible. It allows the chance for good players to not be able to stop bad teams from getting Ghost Drop victories on them and snipe planets. And so the screaming and hysterics start up again. Same problem, same complainers, but now with even less validity because this is no longer one meaningless battle after another, and they're catching on. There is a campaign meta going on, and every second you can't get into queue again, is a chance someone snakes a win on the planet you're defending, or attacking thwarting your goal.
If PGI does something to try and stop this tactic, they will be making a MASSIVE mistake for the sake of a small group of crybabies who need to be told 'no, go man up and kill the enemy'.
I might be wrong, but I doubt it... PGI ain't gonna penalize hiders AS LONG AS THEY PARTICIPATED IN SOME FORM TO BEGIN WITH for making you work for a living , come out from behind your cozy turrets and go kill people... and take on the risk you could get snookered and your base capped while you were out raging about looking for that last hider because it was too boring to wait.
Time to deal with the reality that has been both demanded and thrust upon us all.
Your hockey analogy is false...here is why:
The clock in hockey does not end if the objective is achieved. There is not a primary goal that does not revolve around spending the entire time to create X score for X team versus Y score for Y team.
Now, if hockey had the primary goal of killing the other team, or winning by X goals scored first...then the match could end when the other team is dead, or X goals were scored by one side. Since that is not the case...then what you are talking about is apples versus the oranges everyone else is discussing.
When you enter into a match, your way to end the match is to complete your primary objective as quickly as you can.
It is a disservice to all in your drop if you are trying to one man hero a match and the score is sitting at 11-2 or 47-20. In fact, I find the one or two times people have tried this in CW matches against a defender, they are only stringing the match out, because disciplined defenders will not abandon a position that would allow an enemy to slip through undetected.
So, for all your twisted ranting about morals/ethics, the reality is, if so many share a perspective separate from your own...are you sure that you are the one on the right side of the ethical fence on this one? Because ethics are subjective you have to answer this question on your own. However, I am of the opinion that you are squarely on the wrong side of the argument here.
Additionally, next time you drop, look at the primary objective, then realize, that the only way to win early is to achieve either of those. If you and/or your team cannot achieve those objectives in a routine manner under normal circumstances, you may want to consider evaluating your and/or your group's style of play.
Edited by Gyrok, 21 December 2014 - 11:55 AM.
2
