31 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

The issue Egomane, is that this isn't really equivalent to rules against teamkilling. You've seen this thread a million times, and you always tell us the same thing. What was it now...

Egomane, on 21 December 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

Report to support, not the enemy team!

Ah, yeah. That. Here's the deal. Support doesn't give a single billy-bum blue Shatner frog about this crap, and even if they did, having Support get to the claim four months after it's made because they've got a backlog of actual Support requests to work on every day does no one any good. It doesn't deter negative behavior in the slightest, thus removing the purpose of the report-to-Support in the first place. You're essentially telling us that this:

Serial Peacemaker, on 21 December 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

• Persistent non-participation in core game mechanics.

is no longer against the rules or a bannable offense in and of itself, and that players are free to non-participate as much as they like because if anyone tries to 'team-treason' them they're going to get MEGAULTRAPERMABANNED FOREVERZ, whereas anyone reporting them for non-participation (which is a much more serious offense than this particular form of team treason currently on debate in the eyes of what is clearly a significant percentage of your player base) is basically getting laughed off the stage.

You can't report someone for non-participation and have it taken seriously and/or yield any effect whatsoever, whereas the staff threatens megaultrapermabans every time someone so much as thinks about reporting a non-participant to the enemy team. Yes yes, I understand. The rules are the rules and they're there to be followed.

My question, Egomane, is this: why isn't this rule, which is clearly both highly unpopular and rather ineffective, not up for review? Reviewing it isn't your department, I know, but this issue's come up often enough that you'd figure someone at Piranha would've spared twenty minutes to give it a look, hm? I mean for Bob's sake, I'm agreeing with Vassago here! VASSAGO!

Any time VASSAGO FREAKING RAIN has a positive point to be made that reasonable, rational people agree with, someone needs to pay attention really, really hard.

Edited by 1453 R, 21 December 2014 - 01:19 PM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

Seconded. I have never reported anyone's position. Never mind the rules its just wrong on so many levels.

[Mudhutwarrior]

So there are no rules. Free for all now. Only the self appointed elite decide.

I will wait for PGI, yet I haven't much faith they will decide ethics over dollars.

[Egomane]

1453 R, on 21 December 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

My question, Egomane, is this: why isn't this rule, which is clearly both highly unpopular and rather ineffective, not up for review? Reviewing it isn't your department, I know, but this issue's come up often enough that you'd figure someone at Piranha would've spared twenty minutes to give it a look, hm?

Maybe because no one made it a real suggestion yet, to change the rule?

All I have ever seen, are threads where people want to defend their right to be judge and jury over other players. They demand that they should be able to punish others for percieved wrongdoings. They do not want to bother to go through the steps of proper authority. They want to be the law.

That is what's wrong with all those threads. That is probably the reason why there was never a change to the rule. Make a suggestion about it, with arguments besides "I don't want to have to deal with support, but be the law myself" and maybe you might be able to make a change. But as long as that change doesn't happen, you have to deal with the rules as they are.

[Mercules]

Quote

Team Treason
Treasonous provision of information to enemy combatants, also known as "bird-doging" is forbidden. This involves a player using the in-game chat to provide the enemy team with the locations of their own team mates. While we appreciate that some players may wish to have a round end early by calling out the location of an AFK team-mate, the risk that this could be used against an active participant of the match to deny them the use of cover and movement makes this a form of a griefing. You may declare a teammate AFK but not their coordinates or position.

I still don't get what part of "Doing this is forbidden." is unclear. It's not "Doing this is forbidden unless X=Y." Why are you arguing with me about this?Don't do it, and you haven't broken any terms and you don't get reported and your account locked. Simple concept.

[Raggedyman]

RiggsIron, on 21 December 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

So powering down and hiding say when you are the last one alive vs an enemy team is against the code of conduct..

If it's against the CoC then hardcode it into the game (iF yourteam=1/12 THEN Poweroff =NO) . If not just get better at sweep and clear rather than going 'oh noes, we didn't get our justified victory cause the other guy played it better than we did'. Which is not to say that it's not annoying, just that it isn't especially unfair or abusive to make the other team work for their win.

[Vassago Rain]

Egomane, on 21 December 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

Maybe because no one made it a real suggestion yet, to change the rule?

All I have ever seen, are threads where people want to defend their right to be judge and jury over other players. They demand that they should be able to punish others for percieved wrongdoings. They do not want to bother to go through the steps of proper authority. They want to be the law.

That is what's wrong with all those threads. That is probably the reason why there was never a change to the rule. Make a suggestion about it, with arguments besides "I don't want to have to deal with support, but be the law myself" and maybe you might be able to make a change. But as long as that change doesn't happen, you have to deal with the rules as they are.

No, we frankly do not have to deal with the rules 'as they are,' because as adult human beings, we can reject your nonsense rules, and see through the obvious lawyering at the core of said rules, and until Phil gets banned for telling on probably hundreds of players over the years, on live stream, I see no reason to take it seriously.

Absolutely zero sane people agree with Niko's gestapo rules, and that's why there has never been any noise about it. When no one takes your rules - or the person making the rules - seriously, they cease to hold any kind of power. They become just another case of the emperor's new clothes in the players' eyes.

I know you hate the THOUGHT that players have free will, but they do, and they don't care about Niko's huge, ranting laws. They also didn't care when you threatened lots of people with bans for abusing...whatever. Remember that time when PGI made it so we could only use one strike consumable per robot, and you claimed that everybody who didn't willingly take off the second one was IN VIOLATION OF THE LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!? We'd all get banned for doing such awful things, because 'the game has changed!'

And yet no one was banned, and PGI hotfixed the patch so all legacy twin consumables were unequipped. That's what I'm talking about here. You and Niko were both made of nonsense rules, lawyering, threats, and actively hostile community interaction.

I'll be the first to voice how absolutely relieved I am that neither of you hold any kind of power anymore.

[1453 R]

Egomane, on 21 December 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

Maybe because no one made it a real suggestion yet, to change the rule?

All I have ever seen, are threads where people want to defend their right to be judge and jury over other players. They demand that they should be able to punish others for percieved wrongdoings. They do not want to bother to go through the steps of proper authority. They want to be the law.

That is what's wrong with all those threads. That is probably the reason why there was never a change to the rule. Make a suggestion about it, with arguments besides "I don't want to have to deal with support, but be the law myself" and maybe you might be able to make a change. But as long as that change doesn't happen, you have to deal with the rules as they are.

The suggestion's been made countless times, and the solution's been in place, informally, for pretty much as long as I've been playing. Redefine 'Team Treason' to disclude reporting a non-participating player's position to the enemy team in order to end the match in a more timely and acceptable manner, and redefine 'participation' to mean actually participating, not "I fired a small laser once at extreme range at an enemy Atlas, then ran in a corner and shut down."

It's not something you can readily put into words in a legal document, which is why the words in our legal documentation suck so hard, but c'mon, Egomane. You know when you see someone who's not participating, as opposed to someone who's legitimately trying to go out in style. You know perfectly well when someone's being a griefing douchetroll rather than a last-man-standing hero trying to keep fighting the fight. I've seen plenty of people report griefing douchetrolls' positions to the reds, but I don't think I've ever seen someone report a legitimate, participating player to the reds more'n once or twice, and in any such instance the rest of the blue team told the real team treacher to shut their g'damned face and let the guy take his shot.

Blind adherence to The Rules just because they're The Rules means we'd still be paying crippling taxes to Britain and drinking tea at three in the afternoon in our colonial sweatshops. C'mon, Egomane. You can't honestly think this isn't an issue, what with how often it comes up?

[Egomane]

I told you the right way to act. I can't do much more and will now withdraw from this discussion, so you can bath in your own selfrightous light.

[Vassago Rain]

Egomane, on 21 December 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

I told you the right way to act. I can't do much more and will now withdraw from this discussion, so you can bath in your own selfrightous light.

There's none.
I'm merely arguing with another forumite about popular opinion.

[Deathlike]

Vassago Rain, on 21 December 2014 - 01:43 PM, said:

There's none.
I'm merely arguing with another forumite about popular opinion.

I remember Egomane warning about "exploiting" while having both arty+airstrikes preequipped on the mechs (the new rule was just one arty or airstrike, but not both), when it was solely PGI's job to make sure the game would remove both consumables from the mechs (they had not done that at the time) or enforced it through the game (drop prevention with the mechlab warning you of "invalid build").

Yes, that was great rules lawyering of the worst order.

Edited by Deathlike, 21 December 2014 - 01:56 PM.

[Peter2k]

Raggedyman, on 21 December 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

oh noes, we didn't get our justified victory cause the other guy played it better than we did'. Which is not to say that it's not annoying, just that it isn't especially unfair or abusive to make the other team work for their win.

funny thing though
you would win by default if u don't bother looking for the last mech anyway

no one is complaining over a light hiding on conquest when his team is about to win
we're talking about a lone player that hides in the smallest hole he can find when all is lost anyway
I still wonder whats going through they're heads

people just complain about wasted time, not victories that got taken away because someone actually played better
P.S. I have yet to see any player hiding that way to do anything meaningful for the team, be it capture, damage or kills
and I've played quite some matches

but hey I got a staple of mechs
haven't activated any of my 6000+ hours of premium time for quite some time
and the group que doesn't have so much problems with this

I can wait for PGI to revise those rules, probably in about 2 years if ever
I mean CW, more on UI, improving fps, more mechs, more maps, more bug fixes, collision, new DirectX with mantle improvements (boon for AMD users), ...

its unrealistic something minor like this gets revisited soon, and then even put into code
i mean even if you change the rules and report them, the backlog seems to be so big

I wished PGI would implement a voting link in the game client for minor and major stuff like that to see if its a problem with the user base



sigh
nothing new on the council thingy?


to OP
if its such a problem:
post a suggestion in the appropriate part of the forums
http://mwomercs.com/...re-suggestions/
, n reddit Russ

and for Egomane

since you're not a moderator anymore people post suggestions in new player help n the like
these days, no one from PGI would notice if they don't look actively around every day because people cant be relied upon to post in the right forums it seems

Edited by Peter2k, 21 December 2014 - 02:07 PM.