717 replies to this topic

[Kristov Kerensky]

Fenrisulvyn, on 12 February 2015 - 09:20 AM, said:

"If the player B is still actively playing it is not considered non-participation."

Shutting down to get the drop on someone = actively playing

"powering down your mech for the purpose of letting the clock run out and maintaining your K/D ratio does not fall within the intended spirit of the shutdown mechanic, and is considered an act of non-participation."

Which makes perfect sense, if you can show he's shutting down to maintain a K/D ratio. How are you guys doing that again? Telepathy?

Joseph is correct - your "evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Fenrisulvyn, on 12 February 2015 - 09:37 AM, said:

"there is no tactical reason to shut down as the last man standing and totally avoid engagement with the enemy."

But that's not what I said. I said "shut down to get the drop on someone". As in going off his radar so you can attack his rear armor after he walks by your position.

Ya know, I would have more sympathy for your position if it weren't for these kinds of distortions.

You should look at your own posts before you tell me what I responded to. I responded to the 'shut down to run out the timer' statement you made, I've been clear all throughout this thread, Skirmish is where this action is not allowed, the CoC states it, Support has stated it, Primus of Comstar(that's an official PGI account btw) has stated it, it's PGI's official stance on the action, it's not allowed.

Some of you are purposely tossing in things we've already covered, multiple times and indepth, in this very thread. Skirmish, last man standing, you are NOT allowed to refuse to engage the enemy and hide until the timer runs out. Pretty simple, pretty basic, and I don't know why some of you are so against this rule. Well, ok, I do know why some are against it, they've flat out stated their reasons, to save their KDR or to grief the remaining enemy team. That's the only reasons I've seen given for this, nothing else, so unless someone has a real valid tactical reason, which so far has NOT been presented...

[MechWarrior3671771]

"You should look at your own posts before you tell me what I responded to. I responded to the 'shut down to run out the timer' statement you made"

Uh no. I never said anything about a timer. You have me confused with another. And should take your own advice

"you are NOT allowed to refuse to engage the enemy and hide until the timer runs out."

[sigh] No one is arguing that. Everyone agrees that's a douche move and should be reported.

What we are talking about is griefing an active pilot in game because he won't give up fighting. Others here have said that because the match is "over" at that point, he is griefing them by prolonging his "inevitable" defeat.

How can you be cool with that?

Edited by Fenrisulvyn, 12 February 2015 - 10:50 AM.

[Dock Steward]

Kristov Kerensky, on 12 February 2015 - 10:37 AM, said:

You should look at your own posts before you tell me what I responded to. I responded to the 'shut down to run out the timer' statement you made, I've been clear all throughout this thread, Skirmish is where this action is not allowed, the CoC states it, Support has stated it, Primus of Comstar(that's an official PGI account btw) has stated it, it's PGI's official stance on the action, it's not allowed.

Some of you are purposely tossing in things we've already covered, multiple times and indepth, in this very thread. Skirmish, last man standing, you are NOT allowed to refuse to engage the enemy and hide until the timer runs out. Pretty simple, pretty basic, and I don't know why some of you are so against this rule. Well, ok, I do know why some are against it, they've flat out stated their reasons, to save their KDR or to grief the remaining enemy team. That's the only reasons I've seen given for this, nothing else, so unless someone has a real valid tactical reason, which so far has NOT been presented...

I'm going to get myself in trouble for this, I'm sure, but...I think his point was, as an outsider, it's very difficult to tell whether someone is shutting down for tactical reasons (to get the drop on someone) or to completely avoid the fight. Which I agree with. It is hard to tell someone's motivations for doing something like that. Are they running down the timer, or are they employing a tactic that isn't obvious from the outside?

[Ghogiel]

Dock Steward, on 12 February 2015 - 10:46 AM, said:

I'm going to get myself in trouble for this, I'm sure, but...I think his point was, as an outsider, it's very difficult to tell whether someone is shutting down for tactical reasons (to get the drop on someone) or to completely avoid the fight. Which I agree with. It is hard to tell someone's motivations for doing something like that. Are they running down the timer, or are they employing a tactic that isn't obvious from the outside?

That's a question that is irrelevent for us to answer. If that player keeps thinking they are tacticool by shutting down and gets reported enough, the powers that be will be the judge of that.

Edited by Ghogiel, 12 February 2015 - 10:52 AM.

[Dock Steward]

Ghogiel, on 12 February 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

That's a question that is irrelevent for us to answer. If that player keeps thinking they are tacticool by shutting down and gets reported enough, the powers that be will be the judge of that.

And the powers that be weren't there any of the times that it happened. All they have to go off of is reports and if enough reports come in, yeah, they'll probably act, but only because of the volume of reports, not because any of the reports are valid. That is the cause of concern: SHOULD THESE REPORTS EVEN BE MADE?

[MechWarrior3671771]

I'm still astonished at the cowardice of pushing this all to Support. You are going to report an active player for drawing the game out and making you wait, and then pretend you're not responsible for any action taken against that player? He has to go through the process of interacting with Support, explain that he was NOT refusing to play, that he had disengaged to get a better position.

You would make go through all that, just because Precious Snowflake can't wait 3-5 mins to let him play it out.

Wow. Just wow.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Fenrisulvyn, on 12 February 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

I'm still astonished at the cowardice of pushing this all to Support. You are going to report an active player for drawing the game out and making you wait, and then pretend you're not responsible for any action taken against that player? He has to go through the process of interacting with Support, explain that he was NOT refusing to play, that he had disengaged to get a better position.

You would make go through all that, just because Precious Snowflake can't wait 3-5 mins to let him play it out.

Wow. Just wow.

Guess what, delaying the game for 5 minutes in hopes that your opponents disconnect is not "letting it play out" it is non-participation, and reportable. Sorry your feelers got bent when you discovered that you aren't the center of the MWO universe.

But that is just my opinion, your opinion is obviously different, hence the need for an impartial arbitrator, the support staff. t I think it is pretty funny that your new tactic is to try and shame people into not report you for TOS & COC violations.

[Dock Steward]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 12 February 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

Guess what, delaying the game for 5 minutes in hopes that your opponents disconnect is not "letting it play out" it is non-participation, and reportable. Sorry your feelers got bent when you discovered that you aren't the center of the MWO universe.

But that is just my opinion, your opinion is obviously different, hence the need for an impartial arbitrator, the support staff. t I think it is pretty funny that your new tactic is to try and shame people into not report you for TOS & COC violations.

Yeah, his original tactic of "try to make valid points and reason with people" wasn't going so well...

[Raggedyman]

Kristov Kerensky, on 12 February 2015 - 10:13 AM, said:

You really need to get that concept down, we, the players, do not set the rules or punish those who violate them, PGI does that. We don't even get to decide if you did or did not violate the rules, PGI does that.

This is where I disagree, as players may not have the 'hard' power of PGI to set the T&C directly or to ban someone outright they do have the 'soft' power of social coercion to both set rules and punish people. If you are being told in game that behavior X will get you reported and banned or people are berating your style of game play in a forum then, for a large number of people, they will consider that they have transgressed a social rule and that the admonishment of their peers is the punishment. Not everyone, and less than would act in that manner in a meat-space situation, but a large number (I would be willing to bet majority) because that is how people act. And that's why people yell out decrees and threats to report for actions they disapprove of, because they want that person to feel guilty and follow the rule-set that they wish to see enforced. Quite possibly because they don't think their preferred version of the rules will actually be enforced by PGI, and also because they want to condition the rules-breacher into following their version of the social norm and so that others will see the rules enforcement and spread it further.

If they thought PGi were going to do anything then they would just report the person breaking the rules and leave it at that.
They wouldn't be ordering people to engage in a manner that they demand, and they wouldn't be claiming some psychic ability to determine both where another player is on the map when they can't see their toon and what that player is planning or thinking.

[RG Notch]

Raggedyman, on 12 February 2015 - 12:33 PM, said:

This is where I disagree, as players may not have the 'hard' power of PGI to set the T&C directly or to ban someone outright they do have the 'soft' power of social coercion to both set rules and punish people. If you are being told in game that behavior X will get you reported and banned or people are berating your style of game play in a forum then, for a large number of people, they will consider that they have transgressed a social rule and that the admonishment of their peers is the punishment. Not everyone, and less than would act in that manner in a meat-space situation, but a large number (I would be willing to bet majority) because that is how people act. And that's why people yell out decrees and threats to report for actions they disapprove of, because they want that person to feel guilty and follow the rule-set that they wish to see enforced. Quite possibly because they don't think their preferred version of the rules will actually be enforced by PGI, and also because they want to condition the rules-breacher into following their version of the social norm and so that others will see the rules enforcement and spread it further.

If they thought PGi were going to do anything then they would just report the person breaking the rules and leave it at that.
They wouldn't be ordering people to engage in a manner that they demand, and they wouldn't be claiming some psychic ability to determine both where another player is on the map when they can't see their toon and what that player is planning or thinking.

So you're saying social pressure would make more people not power down and hide in addition to the possibility of these people being sanctioned when reported? Woot, bonus. The less people who think the can legally power down and hide in skirmish mode the better.

[PurpleNinja]

I still don't get it. Why people get so mad just because someone is playing a game?

[Zoid]

This is the answer to the other thread "does the community even matter?" 26 pages of debating why you shouldn't be a jerk and shutdown when the game is obviously lost in order to preserve your KDR. Keep it classy.

[Dock Steward]

PurpleNinja, on 12 February 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

I still don't get it. Why people get so mad just because someone is playing a game?

I think they're mad at people who launch into a game and then seemingly refuse to play it. Which is valid, IMO, but there is a difference between people who are actively not playing and people who are playing "differently," as far as I'm concerned.

[PurpleNinja]

Dock Steward, on 12 February 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

I think they're mad at people who launch into a game and then seemingly refuse to play it. Which is valid, IMO, but there is a difference between people who are actively not playing and people who are playing "differently," as far as I'm concerned.

How do people tell then apart? Did someone really type "I refuse to play this game" in the global chat?

[Dock Steward]

PurpleNinja, on 12 February 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

How do people tell then apart? Did someone really type "I refuse to play this game" in the global chat?

That's kinda my question, so...

[Kristov Kerensky]

Fenrisulvyn, on 12 February 2015 - 10:45 AM, said:

"You should look at your own posts before you tell me what I responded to. I responded to the 'shut down to run out the timer' statement you made"

Uh no. I never said anything about a timer. You have me confused with another. And should take your own advice

"you are NOT allowed to refuse to engage the enemy and hide until the timer runs out."

[sigh] No one is arguing that. Everyone agrees that's a douche move and should be reported.

What we are talking about is griefing an active pilot in game because he won't give up fighting. Others here have said that because the match is "over" at that point, he is griefing them by prolonging his "inevitable" defeat.

How can you be cool with that?

Hey, stop, take a minute, READ what I quoted that you wrote...I'll wait...

Ok, do you see that bit,

"powering down your mech for the purpose of letting the clock run out and maintaining your K/D ratio does not fall within the intended spirit of the shutdown mechanic, and is considered an act of non-participation."

Which makes perfect sense, if you can show he's shutting down to maintain a K/D ratio. How are you guys doing that again? Telepathy?

THAT was you trying to make it seem that powering down to avoid engaging the enemy is acceptable because you don't KNOW that's what the person was thinking when they did that.

You are correct, I do NOT know that is what they were thinking. I DO know they violated the CoC by shutting down and refusing the engage the enemy and letting the timer run out, and THAT is what I report them for.

And how exactly are WE cowards for using the ONLY approved method of reporting offenders in MWO? We are NOT allowed to name and shame, we are NOT allowed to name people on these forums for blatant violations of the CoC, we aren't even allowed to name players who do things on the FORUMS that violate the forum rules. We are to REPORT THEM TO PGI EACH AND EVERY TIME, PER PGI. So, pray tell, why are WE the cowards when we are following the rules and others are not? Let me guess, you subscribe to that 'don't snitch' gangster mentality? You toss out threats when someone says they'll report you for your violations ingame? I personally don't give a rat's furry rear end, you break the rules in MWO when I'm around, I'll report your sorry rear end and be done with it, it's the ONLY avenue PGI has given me to deal with the likes of you.

Dock, he didn't try to use valid points or reason, he says that we can't KNOW why someone is breaking the CoC, so we can't report them for doing it. Sorry, that's not a valid point OR reasonable. We don't report you for saving your KDR, we report you for shutting down to avoid the enemy and running the clock out in Skirmish. That's against the rules, whether you like it or not. It's not a 'different' way of playing either, it's quite simply not playing the game.

Raggedy, the reason some of us will tell someone who's doing this action that we'll report them is so that they get a chance to NOT break the rules. Maybe the person isn't aware it's not allowed, now they know, now they have a chance to avoid breaking the rules. I've had most of the people I've seen pull this respond with 'oh, didn't know it was against the rules, sorry' and the powered up and engaged, some of them even pulled off a win. It's a chance to do the right thing, even if it takes a little peer pressure, I believe it's better than letting them break rules and report them for it.

PurpleNinja, if you go somewhere obscure or hard to see, face the wall or edge of the map and shut down, and STAY shutdown for the rest of the timer in Skirmish, I'm gonna guess you did that on purpose, may be going on a limb there, but that's my take on it and I'll report for it. If you go somewhere, shutdown, toss out a quick teamchat 'setting ambush', I'll let you do your thing. Intent is obvious with this move, anyone pretending otherwise is full of it and they know it, odds are it's a move they make and they don't want to start getting in trouble for it.

How does PGI determine who did what? Little hint for you folks who don't know this, EVERYTHING is logged in MWO, every single thing. We report you, PGI asks for your side of the story, THEN they look at the logs and see what really happened. You shut down in a hideyhole and run out 8 minutes as the last man standing in Skirmish. I report you. PGI asks your side, you say 'I was setting an ambush'. PGI looks at the logs, sees that you were shutdown in a hideyhole facing away from any enemy movement, guess what is gonna happen. You will get a warning to not repeat that behaviour. There's a reason they want it reported and they handle it, they can see exactly what took place. There's no guessing involved, they don't take our reports as fact, just as an indication that something may or may not have happened and they need to look into it. Your state of mind or reasoning behind it doesn't matter, you broke the rules, and to be blunt, there's no valid tactic that involves hiding until the timer runs out in Skirmish if you are the last man standing, you are either preserving your KDR or you are griefing, pick one.

[PurpleNinja]

Kristov Kerensky, on 12 February 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

PurpleNinja, if you go somewhere obscure or hard to see, face the wall or edge of the map and shut down, and STAY shutdown for the rest of the timer in Skirmish, I'm gonna guess you did that on purpose, may be going on a limb there, but that's my take on it and I'll report for it. If you go somewhere, shutdown, toss out a quick teamchat 'setting ambush', I'll let you do your thing. Intent is obvious with this move, anyone pretending otherwise is full of it and they know it, odds are it's a move they make and they don't want to start getting in trouble for it.

What if I have seismic sensor, go to a corner, don't shutdown, say nothing in team chat because I disable as kinds of chat (people just talk s*** anyway), and wait for someone to pop on my radar?

[Dock Steward]

Kristov Kerensky, on 12 February 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

Dock, he didn't try to use valid points or reason, he says that we can't KNOW why someone is breaking the CoC, so we can't report them for doing it. Sorry, that's not a valid point OR reasonable. We don't report you for saving your KDR, we report you for shutting down to avoid the enemy and running the clock out in Skirmish. That's against the rules, whether you like it or not. It's not a 'different' way of playing either, it's quite simply not playing the game.

The valid points (at least in my book) were regarding the belief that someone is breaking the CoC. Shutdown in and of itself is not violating the CoC. Context is everything, and in certain contexts it's nearly impossible to tell if someone is tactically creative or avoiding the fight altogether. Just because they shut down does NOT mean they are violating the CoC.

Once again, though, I am not at all surprised by this argument because the wording on these matters (from PGI) is left intentionally vague.

Edited by Dock Steward, 12 February 2015 - 01:22 PM.

[Bloodweaver]

Kiiyor, on 01 February 2015 - 02:13 PM, said:

If the last player has shut down though... it boils my blood - though I try not to say anything, as everyone is entitled to play the game any way they want, just as ******* old people are entitled to walk right down the middle of the aisle in the supermarket, completely oblivious to me standing behind then fantasizing about crash tackling them into the giant stack of tinned corn and then throwing their ******* walking frame into orbit.

I'm liking this not because I feel the same - it does not make my blood boil - but because you are one of the few people who've posted that dislike it when the LMS hides, and yet is mature enough to comprehend that it's not up to you how they play. Regardless of how it makes you feel. Bravo, with no sarcasm whatsoever. Wish there was more of that around here.

Also, at what point do you distinguish between "hiding because he's a *****" and "hiding so he gets the drop on the reds?" You can't. It's something you assume. Just like everyone assuming people do this to pad their KDRs - show me some evidence that this makes up for more than a miniscule minority of the occurences of a LMS hiding, and I'll listen. I've literally ONLY ever heard of players "hiding to protect their meaningless KDRs!" from... the people complaining that other players hide. Not once have I ever actually seen anyone state that they want to protect their KDRs. This is a strawman.

[Kristov Kerensky]

PurpleNinja, on 12 February 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

What if I have seismic sensor, go to a corner, don't shutdown, say nothing in team chat because I disable as kinds of chat (people just talk s*** anyway), and wait for someone to pop on my radar?

Key phrase 'don't shutdown'...nothing to report, you didn't break the CoC and are obviously looking to ambush someone.

As Dock said, context, that's what it boils down to, and someone who's just avoiding the enemy and running down the clock is obvious, the context can't be missed there.

Dock, the rules are vague and they aren't at the same time, it's a catchall phrase that PGI used, 'playing in the spirit of the game' that allows for latitude on who's breaking the rules and who's actually trying to be tactically creative. It also allows them to decide that someone who's constantly PUSHING the rules but not outright breaking them needs a break, as that person is not playing 'in the spirit of the game' and is instead griefing creatively. It gives PGI the leeway to make whatever call they deem best in any situation and not have to deal with 'but it's not in the rules' that so many griefers like to defend themselves with. Goonies were great at that, and that 'spirit of the game' got many of them busted because while they didn't actually BREAK the rules, they sure as hell bent them all over the place purely to grief players, which is not 'playing in the spirit of the game'.