143 replies to this topic

[InspectorG]

Mystere, on 17 June 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

A better analogy is dropping your king in Chess as a sign of accepting defeat.

Chess is a very low randomness game.

MWO has high randomness.

Chess is usually played in a series.

MWO matches are one-offs where the teams composition of players and mechs changes every match(unless private perhaps)

Chess, people concede because they can calculate the outcome.

MWO you cant calculate the outcome unless you are the last man standing, not in Conquest, and you are a one legged stick with no weapons and you know the condition of the enemy.

I wouldnt equate the two all that much.

[bad arcade kitty]

InspectorG, on 17 June 2015 - 02:59 PM, said:

In a game where the stomping and penalty of the stomp are purely cosmetic and symbolic(no one actually gets hurt)?

Its a zero-sum game. Its a battle/fighting game. Ties are rare. There will be a winner who will often snowball and roll the losing side in a solo drop.
Thats the math.


So its only acceptable for the first 6 to die on your team to get stomped? The rest get to go home with a ribbon because the first 6 that died helped create an unfair situation?

so what? any moba is such a game and they almost always have a way to surrender
nobody likes to play a punching bag

imo one should be very insecure to complain that enemy avoid being stomped, it sounds like 'baaaah, i want to stomp, i want to rule, i want to kill and they flee instead! simple win isn't enough for me!'

[Mystere]

bad arcade kitty, on 17 June 2015 - 02:59 PM, said:

you suggest feeding enemy c-bills, kill ratio and satisfaction 'by powering down before your foes' because 'you concede that you are beaten' (what kind of reason it is, why running out-of-bounds isn't conceding, conceding doesn't mean 'feeding enemy kills'), so you consider it acceptable

That sounds just like the Islamic State executing enemies who have surrendered.

<You might say that's a ridiculous statement. But, it's no less ridiculous than some here demanding that weaponless players present themselves to the enemy for the kill.>

Edited by Mystere, 17 June 2015 - 03:09 PM.

[Mystere]

InspectorG, on 17 June 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

Chess is a very low randomness game.

MWO has high randomness.

Chess is usually played in a series.

MWO matches are one-offs where the teams composition of players and mechs changes every match(unless private perhaps)

Chess, people concede because they can calculate the outcome.

MWO you cant calculate the outcome unless you are the last man standing, not in Conquest, and you are a one legged stick with no weapons and you know the condition of the enemy.

I wouldnt equate the two all that much.

I disagree. The "resign" analogy works just fine.

[Alex Morgaine]

RavenKnight86, on 16 June 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

I think it's poor sport. Not only are you denying yourself additional XP and Cbills but you are denying the enemy team these as well. Personally I wish they would implement a penalty for those who suicide by going out of bounds.

I'd like them to add a white flag option that disables all your non mobility systems [including targeting but not your base map] and sets your player IFF taco to a yellow/neutral, with no rewards for additional damage to your mech after flagging and penalties if someone pops you aka team kill. Ramming on both sides would be a minor issue but you could be flagged hostile to the rammee, but still give no salvage bonus on death. The mech should also be directed to the nearest [non JJ] border to offline the mech automatically on the other side and leave the match. If one side's remaining mechs have all surrendered, the match ends right then and there, no wandering around needed. if you surrender early on, you don't get any additional rewards as you're now not actively fighting [like quitting a match in progress], but if you hit someone via ramming/bounce you might open yourself up to non suicide death.surrender within the first 2-3 minutes could be a 0 cbill 0 xp rewards effect, with standard afk penalties talked about above after, oh say, the 3rd time in an hour. This would remove farming, as by the 3rd minute there's usually some sort of contact short of stealth nascar vs stealth nascar.

Once or twice I've started a match and had my wife ask for something in the kitchen, had to literally in the middle of the match [like 5 minutes in and right as I am charging into a furball] I had to find a way to go out in a blaze of glory, but at the start? that is always le-suck. but once an hour or so shouldn't be a penalty, but more? yeah. 0 anything should be enough to discourage afk surrender anyway.

[Mystere]

Nightmare1, on 17 June 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

I can't consider any video game a sport ...

What do you think of eSports then?

I think you already know what my view on the topic is with regard to MWO.

Edited by Mystere, 17 June 2015 - 03:14 PM.

[InspectorG]

bad arcade kitty, on 17 June 2015 - 03:05 PM, said:

so what? any moba is such a game and they almost always have a way to surrender
nobody likes to play a punching bag

imo one should be very insecure to complain that enemy avoid being stomped, it sounds like 'baaaah, i want to stomp, i want to rule, i want to kill and they flee instead! simple win isn't enough for me!'

TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES!!!

or

Lets have a BATTLE...but lets make it fair so no ones feelings get hurt.

Which one REALLY encompasses the feel of the Battletech/Mech Warrior World??? All that Lore? All that weaponry?

So no one has to be a loser...

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Mystere, on 17 June 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

A better analogy is dropping your king in Chess as a sign of accepting defeat.

I would accept this if the position was 'going out of bounds when close to the edge anyways'. That is not how this was presented, though. It was presented as the primary method.

Assuming going out of bounds is the fastest method of ending your presence on the battlefield it is, as I said, no different than any other method. Defaulting to that regardless of situation, though, constitutes a deliberate choice to spend extra effort to deny the OPFOR something that costs you nothing in game terms.

Keep in mind of course, that it would be pretty accurate to say I personally simply don't forfeit games, and with how unwilling I am to break with my standards for myself, it's possible I just don't understand something that might become clear to me if I ever did start forfeiting.



Part of the problem here is that we're having two arguments at once.

One argument is forfeit by zone out versus other methods. Here we have people of the stance:

• That zoneout is preferable for roleplaying reasons. It's a sim, darnit!
  
• That zoneout (or overheat death) is preferable because it denies your enemies benefits, and anything that hurts your enemies is good. (I don't really understand this one, I see other players as other players, not enemies.)
  
• That zoneout constitutes a slap in the face to the opposing players regardless of the situation and you should never ever do it no matter what.
  
• That if you treat it as an equal option it's no better nor worse, but if you select it at expense to yourself in time and effort, it must be a deliberate choice and the reasoning behind such a choice is highly suspect and typically indicates that you are at best apathetic to the existence of other players in the game (where I sit).

I'm not going to compromise either way on my position for this argument, partly because it already is something of a middle point.

Whether or not someone agrees with forfeiting is irrelevant to this question, actually, although it's getting tangled up in it.

The other argument is whether or not suicide/forfeit is acceptable. Here we have people of the stance:

• That it's only sensible and believing that it shouldn't be done means you're an evil vicious person who enjoys crushing the helpless beneath your unforgiving heel.
  
• That it's reasonable because sportsmanship should be reserved for sports only.
  
• That if you're losing and want to just move on it's perfectly fine.
  
• That it's unsportsmanlike and to be avoided, because good sportsmanship is part of respecting other players (Hi, I'm over here.)
  
• That it's unsportsmanlike and childish and you're eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil if you do it.

Where I sit, I sit because I want to respect other players. Am I successful all the time? Gosh no, I'm just as much a person (and therefore fallible) as anyone else. I do think you really ought to reexamine your reasons for playing an online multiplayer game and methodology of doing so if you're going to engage in regular forfeit, as it hurts the entertainment of all the other players. If I come off as heavyhanded when I say this sort of thing, it's probably partly because I'm more than a little crazy, but that is what it is.

Remember, whether or not you know the people you're playing with, you've chosen to play with them, thus involving your and their spheres of influence, it behooves you to consider them as people, not disposable NPC AIs.

[bad arcade kitty]

Mystere, on 17 June 2015 - 03:07 PM, said:

That sounds just like the Islamic State executing enemies who have surrendered.

and they suggest to power down to let enemy kill them. it's like to kneel waiting to be beheaded

also is isis the new {Godwin's Law}?

upd: sorry, missed the name whom i quoted

InspectorG, on 17 June 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

Which one REALLY encompasses the feel of the Battletech/Mech Warrior World??? All that Lore? All that weaponry?

pretty sure that in the real battles soldiers retreat when they lose

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 17 June 2015 - 03:28 PM.

[InspectorG]

Mystere, on 17 June 2015 - 03:12 PM, said:

I disagree.

How so?

[InspectorG]

bad arcade kitty, on 17 June 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

pretty sure that in the real battles soldiers retreat when they lose

MWO is real battle??? I thought it was a video game?

[R Razor]

Average Pilot, on 16 June 2015 - 02:23 PM, said:

I would like to know what is the official PGI position on tactical retreats from a battle that has gone sour, which so far as I can tell, uses the out-of-bounds function.

I have heard and read many conflicting positions by players while in a match and in forum posts. Some say it's legitimate, others that PGI will levy a penalty (I guess avoiding combat is the crime), others that it should have some sort of game-based penalty like a C-bill fine or something.

To me, it makes no sense, when the match score is 1-8 or greater in favor of the enemy, to engage in combat thinking you will stand any chance at all to make a useful difference (I find myself here with some frequency piloting a sniper mech as my job is to pick apart enemy mechs from cover and call for indirect fire rather than engage them directly). In the end, the outnumbered player will only give opposing players more salvage money and a kill. Also remembering the BT addage that "life is cheap; battlemechs aren't", it makes sense for a character in the game to want to retreat from a hopelessly outnumbered engagement and save his mech for another day rather than become dispossessed.

I've read a few posts about "suicide farming" for c-bills, but that isn't what I'm talking about here. Those that just run from a battle arbitrarily should rightly be scorned and perhaps penalized. I'm referring to what in real life would be a tactical retreat to save war materiel and live to fight another day.

Thank you.

The only thing worse than someone running out of bounds (unless they're the last one alive and have no weapons) to prevent a kill is someone that spends the game sniping at range and then complaining about what his team does when he made no real effort to get close and help them with the game.

[bad arcade kitty]

InspectorG, on 17 June 2015 - 03:31 PM, said:

MWO is real battle??? I thought it was a video game?

i specifically quoted the following line of yours 'Which one REALLY encompasses the feel of the Battletech/Mech Warrior World??? All that Lore?'

avoiding being killed by enemy does encompasses it, lore mechwarriors weren't ritualized so hard to let enemy wipe their whole forces if they could flee, even clanners weren't (clanners had a ritual of allowed honorable retreating btw, it's called hegira)

[InspectorG]

bad arcade kitty, on 17 June 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

i specifically quoted the following line of yours 'Which one REALLY encompasses the feel of the Battletech/Mech Warrior World??? All that Lore?'

avoiding being killed by enemy does encompasses it, lore mechwarriors weren't ritualized so hard to let enemy wipe their whole forces if they could flee, even clanners weren't (clanners had a ritual of allowed honorable retreating btw, it's called hegira)

And perhaps those were parts of campaign warfare i stated earlier?

MWO has no such worries.

Only thing dying is pixels.

The tragedies of war...
Pixels not allowed to surrender/retreat.

Someone call the U.N.

[Mystere]

InspectorG, on 17 June 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

How so?

I've seen chess matches end after only a dozen or so moves because one player has decided he cannot win and resigns.

In MWO, and depending on the situation, you too can more or less determine whether or not you still have a chance of winning.

[Nightmare1]

bad arcade kitty, on 17 June 2015 - 02:59 PM, said:

your logic is flawed

you suggest feeding enemy c-bills, kill ratio and satisfaction 'by powering down before your foes' because 'you concede that you are beaten' (what kind of reason it is, why running out-of-bounds isn't conceding, conceding doesn't mean 'feeding enemy kills'), so you consider it acceptable

at the same time you say that 'Running out of bounds will likely not change the outcome of the match ... However, it hurts your team.' why don't you use this reason to your suggested powering down? it will likely not change the outcome of the match too and it hurts your team too.

the whole post is ridiculous, in two cases which both supposedly may hurt your team, you suggest that one which feeds enemy kills and conceal that it may hurt your team, meanwhile you blame that one which doesn't feed kills and colorfully describe how it may hurt your team

double standards much?

It's common sense. As kids, we're taught to be good sports and not to be quitters. You want a good game as much as the next person, so see it through. In real life, I would be able to pick and choose with whom I play a regular game. If you had a reputation for being a poor sport, pitching a fit, and leaving the table, I would never invite you to play with me. Running out of bounds is the same thing; if I could, I would block every person I ever saw running out of bounds intentionally to commit suicide from my friends list, because I would know that I couldn't rely on them for a good match.

Powering down is a statement, a tip of the hat if you will. It's good sportsmanship. Consider it a bowing out of the defeated party. If you still have weapon systems left, I do not recommend it because you will be hurting your team, but it remains preferable to running away.

Dying without trying to fight does hurt your team regardless of the reasons or methods. It hurts your score and possibly your teammates. If I see someone on Red Team run out of bounds, it's little more than a mild annoyance to me; I still win the match. If I see someone on Blue Team run out of bounds, it aggravates me because that player, rather than even try, chose the easy way out.

In essence, running out of bounds is nothing more than a lazy and spiteful way to end a match that demeans the perpetrator and just irritates everyone. Why do it?

[InspectorG]

Mystere, on 17 June 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

In MWO, and depending on the situation, you too can more or less determine whether or not you still have a chance of winning.

Chance of winning?
Or chance of performing well?

What should be the criteria and when can it be determined?

How will an average newb perceive this and use the criteria?

[Nightmare1]

Mystere, on 17 June 2015 - 03:14 PM, said:

What do you think of eSports then?

Like I said, I can't consider any video game a sport. To me, sports require actual sweat and blood; not thumb blisters and love handles.

[Nightmare1]

InspectorG, on 17 June 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

Chance of winning?
Or chance of performing well?

What should be the criteria and when can it be determined?

How will an average newb perceive this and use the criteria?

I've seen very impressive comebacks! Take this one for example:




According to some of the posters here, my team should have given up and run out of bounds. We didn't and we won.

I once spectated as two Jenners, rather than suicide, took on six enemy Mechs and win a match from behind. The breakdown for those Mechs were:

1 crippled Jenner
1 fresh Jenner

Vs.

1 damaged Stalker
1 fresh Centurion
1 fresh Dragon
1 damaged Jager
1 heavily damaged Centurion
1 moderately damaged BattleMaster

Yeah, some matches really are hopeless, but not all of them are. If you give up and quit, then you'll never know how it might turn out. As for me, I will never take demean myself by suicide. To me, that is one of the most ungracious, spiteful, and disgraceful ways to end a match.

Edited by Nightmare1, 17 June 2015 - 04:03 PM.

[Mystere]

InspectorG, on 17 June 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

Chance of winning?
Or chance of performing well?

What should be the criteria and when can it be determined?

Who will win in a 1 vs. 12, you or 12 LORDs?
You vs. 8 LORDs?
You vs, 6 LORDs?
You vs. 4 LORDs?
You vs. 1 LORDs?

Where do you think you will perform well with regard to the above?

InspectorG, on 17 June 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

How will an average newb perceive this and use the criteria?

How will an average newb chess player perceive this and use the criteria?