Jump to content

Assault Mode Maps Cause Tos Violation ?


8 replies to this topic

#1 Bonger Bob

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 373 posts
  • LocationPerth, WA

Posted 27 October 2015 - 05:29 PM

wow ppl.......was on an assault mode today, I typed out to the team " watch for base rush " as we all moved off, to have a player say " defending base is against TOS ".....

Now surely this is not the case, i can understand the issue of non-participation / afk, which i would view as an entirely different issue.

As it stands assault mode is a pig anyways, with the team that pulls off the organized rush winning, provided one side actually does rush rather than the usual " poor mans deathmatch " that seems to be played out most rounds.

Point being that, if some players are under the impression that defending a base from capture is a violation of TOS, on a round that is supposed to be about capturing the base, what is the point of assault mode or is this as intended by the devs, and we should all await the banhammer for playing the game.

Either that or ive found the explanation to why so many pug teams seem to suck at assault, a clueless section of players who think every round is a deathmatch.

If defending the base is a violation of TOS, PLEASE BAN ME NOW, as this is the end of tactics in MWO, otherwise can we please have some clarity and education brought to players that are screwing rounds over repeatedly.

sorry bout the double post ppl, i have no idea how that happened...

#2 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 27 October 2015 - 05:30 PM

Whoever typed that was just a discontented Skirmish player who doesn't know how to toggle a check box.

#3 Captain Stiffy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,234 posts

Posted 27 October 2015 - 05:33 PM

Game designers with flawed concepts (such as base vs base with 10 minute travel times) often resort to some sort of 'abuse' system to deal with the inherent design flaws. These systems often take the cover of TOS or are even totally unwritten and usually have to do with choices that the player can make but is not forced to such as leaving the starting position.

This has been the case a few times in the past with MWO. I do not know if it is still the case. In the past it was so vague it was sickening.

#4 Bonger Bob

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 373 posts
  • LocationPerth, WA

Posted 27 October 2015 - 05:42 PM

View PostLevi Porphyrogenitus, on 27 October 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

Whoever typed that was just a discontented Skirmish player who doesn't know how to toggle a check box.


im well aware of the checkbox options for match making, why should i have to cut 1/3 of the gameplay out because of major flaws in people.

#5 Kilo 40

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,879 posts
  • Locationin my moms basement, covered in cheeto dust

Posted 27 October 2015 - 05:44 PM

View PostCaptain Stiffy, on 27 October 2015 - 05:33 PM, said:

Game designers with flawed concepts (such as base vs base with 10 minute travel times) often resort to some sort of 'abuse' system to deal with the inherent design flaws. These systems often take the cover of TOS or are even totally unwritten and usually have to do with choices that the player can make but is not forced to such as leaving the starting position.

This has been the case a few times in the past with MWO. I do not know if it is still the case. In the past it was so vague it was sickening.


That, or the random pug player was talking out of their ass.

#6 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 27 October 2015 - 05:46 PM

View PostBonger Bob, on 27 October 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:


im well aware of the checkbox options for match making, why should i have to cut 1/3 of the gameplay out because of major flaws in people.


Why would you think my statement was directed toward you? It was aimed at the idiot who said base defense was against the ToS. Clearly, you actually know what the word "objective" means, so by all means, leave Assault checked. The idiot in question, however, needs to learn how to click on the little box so that you (and I) won't have to suffer his presence in our Assault drops.

#7 Bonger Bob

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 373 posts
  • LocationPerth, WA

Posted 27 October 2015 - 05:48 PM

View PostLevi Porphyrogenitus, on 27 October 2015 - 05:46 PM, said:


Why would you think my statement was directed toward you? It was aimed at the idiot who said base defense was against the ToS. Clearly, you actually know what the word "objective" means, so by all means, leave Assault checked. The idiot in question, however, needs to learn how to click on the little box so that you (and I) won't have to suffer his presence in our Assault drops.


lol, sorry dude, i miss-read your post, damn straight and i apoligise. obviously i can't name the "idiot" in question, as i know that is certainly a breach of the TOS.

Edited by Bonger Bob, 27 October 2015 - 05:49 PM.


#8 Captain Stiffy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,234 posts

Posted 27 October 2015 - 05:57 PM

<3

#9 Whatzituyah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 1,236 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationIn a dark corner waiting to alpha strike his victim.

Posted 27 October 2015 - 09:09 PM

I think the real issue is that the report system is to broad. There are not any limits to what someone could report for because of "feels" its just wrong in my opinion.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users