238 replies to this topic

[Silhouette Shadows]

If you flip this on its head, the answer is entirely logical.

Assuming 2 pilots of equal skill are left and the game is a tie but 1 is in a 100 ton mech and the other is in a damaged 20 ton mech, then engaging the 100 ton mech is tantamount to handing the victory to an opponent.

I.e such a player is deliberately throwing the match. Aiding the opposing team to victory is against any kind of sporting conduct and all sense of fair play.

Since you are not allowed to sabotage matches, such scenarios (staying alive), can not violate the TOC, the alternative is that you can throw matches which is contrary to any other kind of game of this genre (or any sport for that matter).

Edited by Silhouette Shadows, 08 January 2016 - 07:59 AM.

[Knaven86]

It's not as cut and dry as you think. Put yourself in the shoes of a light pilot with 1 medium laser against an enemy king crab sitting in his base. You have a couple options, you can suicide yourself on the enemy's guns and get to the next match... Not really that great an option for your team, but it would end sooner. OR... you can hang out of range, observe the enemy while staying hidden, and hope the other guy makes a mistake that would allow you to win. Maybe he'll move off into terrain that gives him a disadvantage and you can kill him. Maybe he'll move far enough away that you can cap the base before he returns.

If the king crab does the smart thing and just camps himself there, it really makes a bad situation. That king crab isn't doing anything to secure victory, he's just running out the time clock until a tie happens. He's effectively doing the same thing, not participating in the match because if he moves he has a chance for a loss. Just like the firestarter.

It's amazing what you can see when you apply logic to the situation.

Edited by Knaven86, 08 January 2016 - 07:58 AM.

[MrMadguy]

The fact, that it's 1vs1 situation doesn't mean, that both players should be in equal conditions. He can't kill me 1vs1? Is it my fault, that he got into this situation? No. It's his team, that lost this match for him. There is simple rule here: if you want to win a match - start winning it right from it's beginning. When your entire team is already dead and you are in unequal conditions against enemies - then it's way too late for starting to "win" a match. I killed 3 of his teammates - 2 Assaults and 1 Medium. I deserved this win, sorry. The non-participation rules, stated in this thread, were implemented specially for such a situations, where some selfish special snowflake pilot decides, that he is way too good to be killed or to lose this match, so he have a right to run out clock.

[mania3c]

MrMadguy, on 08 January 2016 - 04:55 AM, said:

Lol. I lost my chance to win only because he gone hiding - that's what is called non-participation. Also, we don't care, what you think is acceptable. You have rules - you have to follow them. He had lasers in CT - he had a chance to win. He refused to do it. Have it contributed to his win? No. He was non-participating - he was reported.

I am not sure if you are trolling or just dumb as rock.

Use common sense please and don't talk about what was stated somewhere else.

You lost your chance to win because he was hiding in exactly same way how he lost his chance to win when you decided to stay at your base. You refused to play cap game, he refused to play fight game because he had no chance.

Honestly, I blame noone here..it was basically stupid situation for both of you. In moment, he would try to win on cap (it would be fight because you camped your base) he would lost. Also, in moment when you would go for base cap, you would lost.

Before you will report someone, use your brain.

MrMadguy, on 08 January 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

Is it my fault, that he got into this situation? No. It's his team, that lost this match for him. . I killed 3 of his teammates - 2 Assaults and 1 Medium. I deserved this win, sorry.

Only "special snowflake" here is you. And such a hypocrite one.

Edited by mania3c, 08 January 2016 - 08:37 AM.

[Zibmo]

adamts01, on 08 January 2016 - 02:31 AM, said:

You are exactly the type of person who needs to hear this.
https://mwomercs.com/conduct
[color=#EEEEEE]Disliking a map or game mode or attempting to preserve a player statistic such as Kill/Death Ratio are not acceptable excuses for non-participation.[/color]

So let me understand this. He had both arms blown off, by you. He knew he couldn't kill you so he ran off. And that's non-participation? Why? Because you chose to play a slow mech with more firepower and he wouldn't stand there to die when you thought he should?

It is to laugh...

MrMadguy, on 08 January 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

The fact, that it's 1vs1 situation doesn't mean, that both players should be in equal conditions. He can't kill me 1vs1? Is it my fault, that he got into this situation? No. It's his team, that lost this match for him. There is simple rule here: if you want to win a match - start winning it right from it's beginning. When your entire team is already dead and you are in unequal conditions against enemies - then it's way too late for starting to "win" a match. I killed 3 of his teammates - 2 Assaults and 1 Medium. I deserved this win, sorry. The non-participation rules, stated in this thread, were implemented specially for such a situations, where some selfish special snowflake pilot decides, that he is way too good to be killed or to lose this match, so he have a right to run out clock.

Wow. It's hard to come up with a response to something that is so...pre-kindergarten.

By virtue of your own statment, you deserve to lose because of your team. He should have thrown himself on your sword?

Wow. Talk about entitled.

[Mercules]

A light with one torso weapon is not going to secure a victory against a camping assault who is not heavily damaged and low on weapons itself.

Forcing him too engage instead of waiting for the assault to make a mistake is akin to forcing the assault to start walking to the other base. They are both guilty of not trying to WIN. The assault can't force an engagement so his only option to try and cap the opposing base. By standing on his own he is only preventing a loss... just like the light avoiding him.

[Catra Lanis]

Well they can ban me then. I'm not running the clock (the few times I do) to piss people off but there is no way I'm reporting in for execution so people can play their precious snowflake mech 3 minutes earlier.

[Dino Might]

MrMadguy, on 08 January 2016 - 04:55 AM, said:

Lol. I lost my chance to win only because he gone hiding - that's what is called non-participation. Also, we don't care, what you think is acceptable. You have rules - you have to follow them. He had lasers in CT - he had a chance to win. He refused to do it. Have it contributed to his win? No. He was non-participating - he was reported.

I could as easily say that you not pursuing was equal non-participation by your reasoning. You could still have won by pursuing and killing if you played it right.

Fact is, you have nothing to complain about here. Someone else didn't give you a win. So what?

By the way, when did we ever start whining about the things we "deserve" in a video game?

I remember when one of my own unit mates ran and hid from me after I got 7 kills against his team, denying a win and ace of spades and securing his team a tie. It was the right move. He played smart and he did a darn good job getting away from me.

Edited by Dino Might, 08 January 2016 - 08:49 AM.

[Ghogiel]

MrMadguy, on 08 January 2016 - 12:56 AM, said:

So he simply caused running out time. He lost, but has chosen to preserve his K/D. We told him about new COC, but he ignored it.

Ok. It can be treated as tie. 1vs1 - both refuse to lose. But I think, that the fact, that faster 'Mechs has so big advantage - is unfair. He can avoid combat to preserve his K/D and run out time and I can't. And as this advantage is unfair - it should not be abused. He still had lasers left in CT. He knew, that I was unable to cap their base. But he has hidden anyway. He deserved his report for non-participation.

Nope. you are just as guilty as you tried to preserve you're W/l by not actively engaging to kill the FS9. You sat in your base lmao. If the game ended as you say, it was a tie not a loss.

[MrMadguy]

I want to remind you, that this tread was debatable only when this situation wasn't described in rules. But now you have a clean rules: hiding, not engaging with enemies and running out clock, if you still have useful equipment and it doesn't lead to winning a match (i.e. Conquest case) = non-participation. Deal with it. Stop inventing your own "rules".

P. S. Defensive tactic is legitimate in Assault and hiding - is not, sorry. Imagine team A decided to defend their base. Team B attacked them, but failed. Team A can't go capping, cuz team B is camping somewhere near their base. Is it the valid reason for rests of team B to go hiding? No. They lost and they should accept this lose.

Edited by MrMadguy, 08 January 2016 - 08:54 AM.

[Dino Might]

You hid in base. You have been reported. Now everyone loses.

[mania3c]

MrMadguy, on 08 January 2016 - 08:48 AM, said:

I want to remind you, that this tread was debatable only when this situation wasn't described in rules. But now you have a clean rules: hiding, not engaging with enemies and running out clock, if you still have useful equipment and it doesn't lead to winning a match (i.e. Conquest case) = non-participation. Deal with it. Stop inventing your own "rules".

P. S. Defensive tactic is legitimate in Assault and hiding - is not, sorry.

You are just not understanding the rules buddy.

He wasn't hiding. He was actively participating and waiting, when you will make a mistake, so he could win by capping. Sadly for him, it never happened but if this is not valid tactics, yours is not too.

Get common sense.

Edited by mania3c, 08 January 2016 - 08:55 AM.

[Ghogiel]

MrMadguy, on 08 January 2016 - 08:48 AM, said:

P. S. Defensive tactic is legitimate in Assault and hiding - is not, sorry.

Tell me how in this instance as you are actively seeking the win by camping base? Just like the FS9, you are simply waiting out the clock perserving you stats like W/L just like him.

[Kensaisama]

Another fine rules lawyering thread.

[MrMadguy]

This new rules actually aren't about hiding or non-participation (not liking map/afking/DCing/suiciding cases are obvious - those was covered by old version of rules) - they are purely about admitting the loss. Some players lose, but refuse to admit this loss. This rules say: "If you have lost - you have to admit this loss, not to pointlessly drag out the match".

P. S. He was hiding from me - not I from him. Don't try to manipulate the facts.

Edited by MrMadguy, 08 January 2016 - 09:13 AM.

[Hellcat420]

MrMadguy, on 08 January 2016 - 04:55 AM, said:

Lol. I lost my chance to win only because he gone hiding - that's what is called non-participation. Also, we don't care, what you think is acceptable. You have rules - you have to follow them. He had lasers in CT - he had a chance to win. He refused to do it. Have it contributed to his win? No. He was non-participating - he was reported.

You lost your chance to win because you stood at your base with your assault mech and expected a beatup light to sacrifice himself to you, which is clear cut nonparticipation. How do you know the light mech was just hiding and not setting an ambush, which is the only chance he would have had to kill you? If he attacked you head on he would have been in direct violation of toc for throwing the match. There is also the possibility he was trying to draw you away from the base so he could cap it. Either way the only clear cut violator of nonparticipation is you.

Edited by Hellcat420, 08 January 2016 - 09:32 AM.

[Knaven86]

If you had said that you went out to try to find him or that you went to the other guys base, either way would be an attempt to win, you'd be okay. But you stayed in the environment where you felt you had the advantage... the same thing he was doing. You are just as much at fault. You easily could have come out of your base and provoked an engagement, but you just camped and cried and chose not to engage him.

[Knaven86]

MrMadguy, on 08 January 2016 - 09:12 AM, said:

This new rules actually aren't about hiding or non-participation (not liking map/afking/DCing/suiciding cases are obvious - those was covered by old version of rules) - they are purely about admitting the loss. Some players lose, but refuse to admit this loss. This rules say: "If you have lost - you have to admit this loss, not to pointlessly drag out the match".

P. S. He was hiding from me - not I from him. Don't try to manipulate the facts.

Once again, "Some players lose, but refuse to admit this loss. This rules say: "If you have lost - you have to admit this loss, not to pointlessly drag out the match"." You have negated your own case here. He didn't lose the match. It was a tie. You lost just as much as he did. He could have *given* you the win. It's your own fault for not *taking* it.

[1Grimbane]

TOC..... helping you play the game the way Pgi wants you to play it. really I understand 90% of the TOC and COC but there is a very controlling aspect to ten % of it... very heavy handed and over reaching

[Hellcat420]

MrMadguy, on 08 January 2016 - 09:12 AM, said:

This new rules actually aren't about hiding or non-participation (not liking map/afking/DCing/suiciding cases are obvious - those was covered by old version of rules) - they are purely about admitting the loss. Some players lose, but refuse to admit this loss. This rules say: "If you have lost - you have to admit this loss, not to pointlessly drag out the match".

P. S. He was hiding from me - not I from him. Don't try to manipulate the facts.

You don't know that he was hiding from you, since you made no attempt to go kill him. And since he didn't lose this admitting you lose crap is just a bunch of bs. You are just butthurt over the fact that you were not good enough to finish him off and he didn't give you an easy kill.

Edited by Hellcat420, 08 January 2016 - 09:44 AM.