57 replies to this topic

[RustyBolts]

@Fenrisulvyn, Got it. Thanks for the advice, but if I see a guy hiding and shut down for an extended period of time, he is failing to engage the enemy.

[Cyborne Elemental]

I was seeing this alot last night as well.

Last guy is a light, not even trying, just trolling and taking a scenic drive or completely shutdown in Skirmish hidden in some far off corner or inaccessible spot on the map with like 8 minutes left and no hope of actually winning.

Against the rules to call him out.. yeah, but I happen to agree that if somebody is just trolling, they need to be called out if they're trolling and dragging out a match intentionally..

I never call out position unless somebody is legitimately afk or disco.
And even if they're LMS, as long as they're actually fighting back, never call them out ever.

Only reason you should ever intentionally shutdown is if you're going to try for an ambush, or know the enemy has no CAP/BAP and you play dead to let the enemy walk right by and then go for a back shot or w/e.
Rarely does it actually work, but when it does.. oh man is it worth it.

[iceicule]

I have not had a problem with anyone intentionally dragging out a match yet. They always try fighting back as best as they can. If someone is intentionally dragging it out and trolling...they deserve a call out if you ask me. Same goes for AFK.

[Mudhutwarrior]

"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free." ~ Clarence Darrow

It's easy to decide for someone else. Just as its easy for a liberal to give you the shirt off someone else back.

All the same thing.

If you want to be able to fight your way you must be willing to let others fight theirs. That means every so often you will come across a deliberate troll in a match but you can still have an effect and report them for it. PGI will do something if its a habit.

As soon a you decide you have the right to intercede you take away someone else's right to play. It's vigilantism which always leads to lynch mob behavior like we see out there now. Now every knuckle dragger can tell you how to play. What fun.

[Alex Morgaine]

Personal thoughts and questions:
If the last player ping is 0, should check on the map after about 30 sec of no activity, or just end the match right there and then. If they're not back, they won't get any additional cbills and xp in rewards from when they dc/quit anyway. Would that be a reasonable time for calling out a 0 ping player? Longer time? I don't think shorter is fair myself.
Second, If the last player is active(actual ping), we should have some method of at least giving living players a chance if they think they can pull off a win, or just plain out leaving the battle so they can keep their stupid kdr in check.
We should have a majority vote surrender option. Make it activate when the team count is less then 6, live characters count as two votes (max vote tickets of 18 essentially, min 13).
TL;DR:Leave reporting rules unchanged, give us options to either let the outnumbered fight on, or leave the field intact.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"Thanks for the advice, but if I see a guy hiding and shut down for an extended period of time, he is failing to engage the enemy."

Understood, I'm also often tempted. But to protect yourself, the most you should do is report him.

See, what's happening is that other people are playing fast and loose with the definition of "failure to engage" simply because they don't want to wait for the match to finish. You don't want to get caught up with them when the ban hammer falls.

[badaa]

90% of the time its some ******* who refuses to play just runs around wasting time.

[Nauht]

Correct me if I'm wrong but no-one been's banned, ever, for calling out the last guy.... reported or not.

They may have gotten a warning probably but an outright ban? Temporary or otherwise? Um, don't think so.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"we should have some method of at least giving living players a chance if they think they can pull off a win"

The problem with this approach is that it assumes everyone's goal is to win. Some people just want to play.

I've played hide n seek before (but never on skirmish) just to practice my endgame strategies for a hypothetical conquest match where my team needs me to stay alive to secure their win.

I've also drawn out a 1 vs 6 just to see what I can get away with. I know I won't flip the match, but it helps me learn what to do next time, when maybe the odds are better.

[FireDog]

MW4 had a "Vote Player Off Server" function to discourage the selfish "Me, Myself and only I" players wanted to save their K/D ratios to the expense of everyone's time. It worked for the most part since it discouraged the selfish players and second, since it was a hassle and took time to vote, it was usually was only imposed when a jerk was going to waste a considerable amount of everyone time. It was never invoked if the last player was still in the fight. MW4's reactor core breach function on eject gave even a weaponless mech a chance to take a mech or two with him.

A few times I saw a vote off used to eject the really rotten jerks who were team killing for fun or cursing everyone over text comms. It kept the player base (somewhat) free of the immature trolls who ruin online games.

Edited by FireDog, 18 September 2015 - 05:00 PM.

[Mystere]

Mister D, on 18 September 2015 - 04:29 PM, said:

Against the rules to call him out.. yeah, but I happen to agree that if somebody is just trolling, they need to be called out if they're trolling and dragging out a match intentionally..

It could be argued that the world is sh1t right now precisely because people bend the rules to their liking.

[Mystere]

Frosty Brand, on 18 September 2015 - 04:42 PM, said:

Personal thoughts and questions:
If the last player ping is 0, should check on the map after about 30 sec of no activity, or just end the match right there and then. If they're not back, they won't get any additional cbills and xp in rewards from when they dc/quit anyway. Would that be a reasonable time for calling out a 0 ping player? Longer time? I don't think shorter is fair myself.
Second, If the last player is active(actual ping), we should have some method of at least giving living players a chance if they think they can pull off a win, or just plain out leaving the battle so they can keep their stupid kdr in check.
We should have a majority vote surrender option. Make it activate when the team count is less then 6, live characters count as two votes (max vote tickets of 18 essentially, min 13).
TL;DR:Leave reporting rules unchanged, give us options to either let the outnumbered fight on, or leave the field intact.

It takes more that 30 seconds to reconnect on a crashed game, and much longer if the problem was worse.

Frosty Brand, on 18 September 2015 - 04:42 PM, said:

Personal thoughts and questions:
If the last player ping is 0, should check on the map after about 30 sec of no activity, or just end the match right there and then. If they're not back, they won't get any additional cbills and xp in rewards from when they dc/quit anyway. Would that be a reasonable time for calling out a 0 ping player? Longer time? I don't think shorter is fair myself.
Second, If the last player is active(actual ping), we should have some method of at least giving living players a chance if they think they can pull off a win, or just plain out leaving the battle so they can keep their stupid kdr in check.
We should have a majority vote surrender option. Make it activate when the team count is less then 6, live characters count as two votes (max vote tickets of 18 essentially, min 13).
TL;DR:Leave reporting rules unchanged, give us options to either let the outnumbered fight on, or leave the field intact.

Surrender? Nope.

Edited by Mystere, 18 September 2015 - 05:06 PM.

[Alex Morgaine]

Eh, ok. How long would you say is reasonable to wait on a 0 ping? The idea being if they don't get back in a reasonable time frame, they probably aren't. The question is, what's reasonable? A minute? 3?

Eh, ok. How long would you say is reasonable to wait on a 0 ping? The idea being if they don't get back in a reasonable time frame, they probably aren't. The question is, what's reasonable? A minute? 3?

[Mystere]

Frosty Brand, on 18 September 2015 - 05:17 PM, said:

Eh, ok. How long would you say is reasonable to wait on a 0 ping? The idea being if they don't get back in a reasonable time frame, they probably aren't. The question is, what's reasonable? A minute? 3?

I am perfectly fine with waiting till the end, precisely because determining a time duration is easier said that done.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

If PGI had an iota of concern they would d disable cross-team chat, or lock mechs for 15 minutes. But s it stands, the team treason offense is lesser to non-participation, and is rightly unenforced in those circumstances.
Griefers and abusers will try to bullying and threatening, but the fact is calling out locations is a lesser offense than non-participation and griefing.
The rules only work if everyone follows them, otherwise the unscrupulous will ignore them to their advantage.

[Xmith]

FireDog, on 18 September 2015 - 05:00 PM, said:

MW4 had a "Vote Player Off Server" function to discourage the selfish "Me, Myself and only I" players wanted to save their K/D ratios to the expense of everyone's time. It worked for the most part since it discouraged the selfish players and second, since it was a hassle and took time to vote, it was usually was only imposed when a jerk was going to waste a considerable amount of everyone time. It was never invoked if the last player was still in the fight. MW4's reactor core breach function on eject gave even a weaponless mech a chance to take a mech or two with him.

A few times I saw a vote off used to eject the really rotten jerks who were team killing for fun or cursing everyone over text comms. It kept the player base (somewhat) free of the immature trolls who ruin online games.

MW4 games were for the most part 30 minute respawn matches. Not sure how anyone's time was wasted.

Most were kicked from server if they were known to be team killers.

[Mystere]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 18 September 2015 - 06:10 PM, said:

If PGI had an iota of concern they would d disable cross-team chat, or lock mechs for 15 minutes. But s it stands, the team treason offense is lesser to non-participation, and is rightly unenforced in those circumstances.
Griefers and abusers will try to bullying and threatening, but the fact is calling out locations is a lesser offense than non-participation and griefing.
The rules only work if everyone follows them, otherwise the unscrupulous will ignore them to their advantage.

It's you opinion, not a fact.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Mystere, on 18 September 2015 - 03:02 PM, said:

If only PGI imposed progressively increasing bans (i.e. 1/2/4/8/16 weeks) when provided evidence of team treason, people would stop doing it in no time at all.

I came up with an idea to instill this, based on a points system that added up, later handing out timed suspensions... The original Idea was for something else, so some parts might not make 100% sense. The basic Idea is that certain things, such as team kills, disco's, and suicides add up in points. When you exceed the threshold, you incur penalties. The points decay over time.

Spoiler

http://mwomercs.com/...please-comment/

SECTION 2: THE PENALTY SYSTEM - WHAT IT IS, HOW IT WORKS

PREAMBLE:

This is a points system that goes up to 21 points. Penalties are handed out after 10 points. For each premature leave, you are awarded 3 penalty points. You can leave a game of up to 3 times within 2 hours without sustaining a harsh penalty. This puts you at 9 points. Let's assume your penalty points are at 9, and you leave the game a fourth time. You get 3 more points added on, putting you at 12 points. This is over the 10 point limit and now the penalties are handed out, and they aren't pretty either:

PENALTIES:

• You are deducted 7,500 CB for each point once you exceed 10 points. This is a 90,000CB deduction at 12 points, and you are given a nice notification of the automated transaction, along with a warning message. Another example: Leaving a game a fifth time puts you at 15 points. You are deducted AN ADDITIONAL 112,500CB. And are given the same message warning message.
  
• When you reach 21 points, you are automatically banned from the 1v1 queue for 3 days, and your account is flagged for moderation.

POINTS:

• Points decay at a rate of 1 point per 2 hours. Points decay at this rate even if you are banned from the 21 point cap (42 hours to be reduced to 0). You will come back (72 hours later) with a clean slate, but still have the flag for moderation.
  
• You will know how many points you have obtained, but only for up to 10 points.
  
• Once you exceed the 10 point limit, you are not told what your current points are. The counter is instead replaced with a message: "YOU EXCEED 10 POINTS". This is to prevent players from riding the edge of the hard cap if they choose to ignore the CB penalty. Normal players should not want to exceed 10 points, going beyond that would mean there's something wrong with you.
  
• The soft cap (10 points) is supposed to be 10. This forces players who make a 4th mistake understand the risks involved if they continue down the road. They have to wait 10 hours before they can leave another game.

WHY THE POINTS SYSTEM?

Simply put, honest disconnects are taken into consideration here. Should the game freeze or crash or produce a bug that renders the game unplayable, you can get out of the match trouble free. This can happen 3 times over the course of 2 hours before you are penalized for the 4th time. If you are reach 9 points, it's recommended that you refrain from playing 1v1 matches.

I always kind of thought this would be something that could be scaled to a much broader degree, something that customer support could use to track and automate the penalty for certain offenses (give certain offends a points value, set an over all decay rate for points, reaching higher point thresholds yields harsher penalties). But in my mind, there's also an in-game report system for this. I think if there were a report system, more people would be reported.
And as mentioned, only up to the soft cap of points are visible. When you exceed the cap, you are no longer knowing of where your points stand so you cannot cheat the system and get away with anything.

Two years later and I still think it's pretty ingenious.

And as mentioned in my follow up post in my own thread (lol)

Quote

I think [the points penalty system] should be implemented for ALL game modes Numbers adjusted, of course. . . . It makes me even angry when people leave because they don't like certain maps, or leave because they try to get out of being killed. I think the points system can keep those trouble maker numbers down lower... But PGI needs to be more confident in the stability of their game.

As highlighted, when PGI removes the choice for the game modes, this could prove to be very effective at keeping players honest.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 21 September 2015 - 03:49 PM.

[Clint Steel]

As long as you are moving, with with one of the objectives in mind, I won't call you out. If you just power down in a corner, that's a different story.

[Kodyn]

Mystere, on 18 September 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

It could be argued that the world is sh1t right now precisely because people bend the rules to their liking.

It could also just as easily be argued that the case is things are how they are because people follow all the wrong rules, and are afraid to break the status quo and go against unjust or silly rules.

Just because something's a rule does not mean it's a good idea, that's where the saying "Rules are meant to be broken" comes from...

Pretty sure most epic or major breakthroughs in history were due to someone breaking some rules somewhere.

(EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking real life here, you break rules in games, well, if they're enforced, you face the consequences. If not, ah well, it's a game.)

Edited by Kodyn, 18 September 2015 - 07:41 PM.