58 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

Mystere, on 18 June 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

Sigh! Why do people keep insisting on this? Are people that clueless?

If it was not to protect his K/DR, then, pray tell, what would be the reason? If there is no way to win, how is he not wasting everyone else's time?

Mystere, on 18 June 2016 - 02:44 PM, said:

The CoC absolutely says otherwise. <smh>

Actually, it doesn't.

[MauttyKoray]

From what I'd say the result would be a finger wag at both of you and a "Don't do it again." He shut down in non-participation at the end of the match which violates the CoC, specifically because its a skirmish and there was no way to win through point gain. However, you also gave away a teammates position to the enemy, which is also a violation of CoC. I believe the only 'community accepted' version of this is giving the position of a d/c as the last man standing if they've been gone for a long period of time, but that's technically against the CoC too if I remember correctly.

[Mystere]

Hotthedd, on 18 June 2016 - 07:04 PM, said:

If it was not to protect his K/DR, then, pray tell, what would be the reason? If there is no way to win, how is he not wasting everyone else's time?

Why, you'd rather a weaponless/ammoless player just show up before you and willingly submit to execution?

I'd rather you actually earned that last kill by successfully hunting it down.

But that's just me. <shrugs>

Hotthedd, on 18 June 2016 - 07:04 PM, said:

Actually, it doesn't.

Sigh!

Quote

Team Treason

Treasonous provision of information to enemy combatants, also known as "bird-doging" is forbidden. This involves a player using the in-game chat to provide the enemy team with the locations of their own team mates. While we appreciate that some players may wish to have a round end early by calling out the location of an AFK team-mate, the risk that this could be used against an active participant of the match to deny them the use of cover and movement makes this a form of a griefing. You may declare a teammate AFK but not their coordinates or position.

Now let me see you twist that into "No, it is allowed".

Edited by Mystere, 18 June 2016 - 07:59 PM.

[Mystere]

wanderer, on 18 June 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

If it's Skirmish? Yes. To whit, just keep ramming enemies until you die. Who knows? You might even kill something, even if collision damage is incredibly low. I've accidentally DFA'd a light that way by charging off the platform on Crimson, then landing on a what was apparently a cherry-red Jenner.

If DFA and ramming were actually viable, we would not even be having this discussion.

wanderer, on 18 June 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

Splut. Or take a flying leap off a large enough object if you're damaged enough and snap your legs off.

If you're the last player in Skirmish on your team and have no guns, die already.

Mystere, on 18 June 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

I'd rather you actually earned that last kill by successfully hunting it down.

But that's just me. <shrugs>

Edited by Mystere, 18 June 2016 - 08:04 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Mystere, on 18 June 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

Why, you'd rather a weaponless/ammoless player just show up before you and willingly submit to execution?

I'd rather you actually earned that last kill by successfully hunting it down.

But that's just me. <shrugs>

This is not about me earning any kill, and any one of those players would eventually get the kill, so why drag it out?

Mystere, on 18 June 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

Sigh!



Now let me see you twist that into "No, it is allowed".

Disruptive or abusive behavior that negatively affects other player's experiences or the service itself is strictly forbidden under the Terms of Use.

It is in the first paragraph.

[Mystere]

Hotthedd, on 18 June 2016 - 08:13 PM, said:

Disruptive or abusive behavior that negatively affects other player's experiences or the service itself is strictly forbidden under the Terms of Use.

It is in the first paragraph.

I was referring to the OP bird-dogging on his teammate, silly.

[Dirus Nigh]

People are condemning a player for "protecting his KDR" by demanding that same player willingly walk up to an opposing player so they can kill it so their KDR can go up. In addition to the C-Bill rewards earned by damaging and killing that last player.

Total hypocritical ********.

You want that kill you hunt him down and kill it. If a team loses a match because of kills or objectives the only other way to find some kind of victory is surviving the match.

In case any of you didnt read the patch notes for the new patch PGI is implementing a leader board for quick play (solo/group) que. Those stats are live for any one to see. People like to get higher placement on the leader boards. This will effect how people play the game, even some deriding others for "protecting his KDR" will not practice what they preach.

[Mystere]

Dirus Nigh, on 18 June 2016 - 08:38 PM, said:

Total hypocritical ********.

I'm glad I am not the only one noticing this.

Dirus Nigh, on 18 June 2016 - 08:38 PM, said:

This will effect how people play the game, even some deriding others for "protecting his KDR" will not practice what they preach.

That's why they're called hypocrites.

Edited by Mystere, 18 June 2016 - 08:45 PM.

[Aresye]

Mystere, on 18 June 2016 - 07:51 PM, said:

Now let me see you twist that into "No, it is allowed".

If you're wanting to get this specific into it, I must remind you that there is a dedicated page that governs all conduct both in-game, and on the forums. At http://www.mwomercs.com/conduct

This is an updated CoC that encompasses many previous rules from multiple threads in the policies sub-forum, however the rules governing team treason did not make the final cut into the official conduct page. One would think that if team treason was to be an official part of the overall conduct PGI expects of its player base, it would be listed on the newer, official conduct page, and not left as a forum post where it can be easily overlooked and/or forgotten.

This could simply have been an oversight, and it'd probably be best for players to play it on the safe side, but there is absolute no rule against team treason anywhere on the official conduct page.

*Edit*
Once again, remember PGI is a game company, and not a law firm. Every situation will not be written into the CoC, so the bottom line falls under common sense logic based around facilitating an enjoyable experience for players.

In the end, common sense says that a player who has been stripped of all weapons, or is 100% out of ammo, has absolutely 0% chance of winning the game by running out the clock in skirmish mode when their team is behind on kills. Requiring 23 of 24 players to wait an additional 7.5 minutes with their mechs locked is not conductive to the overall enjoyment of the game.

Would it be fair for a player to face disciplinary action for running out of bounds because the other team has a completely obvious hacker on the other team, like a spinbot from CS:GO? Common sense says it wouldn't, despite the fact they would be violating the CoC.

PGI cannot write a rule for every possible situation, otherwise the CoC would be a 1000 page legal document. They already have clauses written into the user agreement that gives them full control, so even if a situation like OP's was hilariously brought into an actual court of law by a supremely butthurt Oxide player, PGI would win, because that Oxide player agreed that PGI gets to make the final call, and they're (PGI) likely going to side with whatever they feel is right, regardless of whatever they say in the CoC.

If PGI thinks, "Yeah that Oxide player was not being a good sport, we don't think OP did anything wrong," that's it. It doesn't matter if it goes 100% against the rules they have written. In the end it's their call.

Edited by Aresye, 18 June 2016 - 10:33 PM.

[Mystere]

Aresye, on 18 June 2016 - 10:03 PM, said:

If you're wanting to get this specific into it, I must remind you that there is a dedicated page that governs all conduct both in-game, and on the forums. At http://www.mwomercs.com/conduct

This is an updated CoC that encompasses many previous rules from multiple threads in the policies sub-forum, however the rules governing team treason did not make the final cut into the official conduct page. One would think that if team treason was to be an official part of the overall conduct PGI expects of its player base, it would be listed on the newer, official conduct page, and not left as a forum post where it can be easily overlooked and/or forgotten.

This could simply have been an oversight, and it'd probably be best for players to play it on the safe side, but there is absolute no rule against team treason anywhere on the official conduct page.

There was no oversight with regard to team treason:

Quote

Willfully or repeatedly assisting the enemy.

It is then explicitly described here.

Frankly, I'm surprised even old-timers miss it, which is why I think many insist no such rule exists.

Edited by Mystere, 18 June 2016 - 10:55 PM.

[wanderer]

Mystere, on 18 June 2016 - 08:03 PM, said:

If DFA and ramming were actually viable, we would not even be having this discussion.

Considering I actually killed someone by landing on them, I'd call it viable.

Pathetic, but viable. Observe, video proof of concept.

[Mystere]

wanderer, on 18 June 2016 - 11:15 PM, said:

Considering I actually killed someone by landing on them, I'd call it viable.

Pathetic, but viable. Observe, video proof of concept.

I've also done a DFB (i.e. Death From Below -- ramming the damaged leg of a JJing light), twice in a single day even. But I don't exactly call that viable either.

Heck, I've jumped on top of a lot of heads and I don't recall any of them dying, and I've been really practicing while hoping for the day DFAs actually become viable.

[Nerdboard]

Mystere, on 18 June 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

That's why they're called hypocrites.

That depends on the intention. I'm not for giving away anyones position, but I'm definitely in for reporting someone dragging out the match.
And I would want him to stop that and go out to fight. The reason for this is not my K/D nor his K/D nor anyone elses. It is just so damn boring and utterly useless for someone to stay alive when he does not intent to fight. The game is nowhere near immersive enough to justify trying to survive imo.
In many of these matches the last survivor also has about half the matchtime left... if it is only 2 minutes I definitely dont mind.

My verdict is to never give away anyones position but also for people not to be d***s and drag out a game when they clearly have no intent on trying to win it or at least getting some more fighting done. I do not think that makes me a hypocrite.

[Aresye]

Mystere, on 18 June 2016 - 10:41 PM, said:

There was no oversight with regard to team treason:

It is then explicitly described here.

Frankly, I'm surprised even old-timers miss it, which is why I think many insist no such rule exists.

Once again, it doesn't matter in the end, even if it would fall under the rules of willfully assisting the enemy. All that matters is what PGI thinks.

Griefing is also against the rules, and (IMO) that's exactly what you're doing if you intentionally drag out a match when you literally have ZERO chance of changing the outcome, at least when it comes to a substantial time remaining in the match.

If we're talking the same situation with only 30s left in the game, sure, that would be a pretty **** move to give up your teammate's position, but we're not talking 30s. We're talking EIGHT minutes in an already decided match. Eight minutes that X out of 24 players have to wait to level their specific variant, or (considering we have an event going on) potentially 2 extra grab bags (assuming a fast search and 3-4min games) those players won't get.

In the past you argued that players are within their own right to run out of bounds, shutdown, or hide when they feel the game is lost. PGI put these new AFK and non-participation rules in because they understood that the most basic element of gaming is that it's supposed to be "fun," and how most players likely wouldn't consider having to search for a hidden enemy for half the entire game's duration to be "fun."

There's a reason PGI added these rules, and it's to prevent the exact situation that happened for the OP.

The reason team treason became a rule was to prevent impatient players from reporting the location of player/s who could still fight and/or otherwise have a chance of winning the game, not to protect players trying to preserve their stats.

Sure, you could argue the specifics in meticulous detail, but the fact of the matter is we're all here to "shoot" mechs. The game is designed for the purpose of "shooting" mechs. If PGI wanted players to experience a search and destroy game mode, they would have designed one.

[Mystere]

Nerdboard, on 18 June 2016 - 11:49 PM, said:

That depends on the intention. I'm not for giving away anyones position, but I'm definitely in for reporting someone dragging out the match.
And I would want him to stop that and go out to fight. The reason for this is not my K/D nor his K/D nor anyone elses. It is just so damn boring and utterly useless for someone to stay alive when he does not intent to fight. The game is nowhere near immersive enough to justify trying to survive imo.
In many of these matches the last survivor also has about half the matchtime left... if it is only 2 minutes I definitely dont mind.

My verdict is to never give away anyones position but also for people not to be d***s and drag out a game when they clearly have no intent on trying to win it or at least getting some more fighting done. I do not think that makes me a hypocrite.

In that case, I ask you the same questions:

• What is the last player supposed to do if out of weapons and/or ammo?
  
• Is the player supposed to just report for execution?

If ramming were a viable tactic, we would not be having this discussion.

Aresye, on 19 June 2016 - 12:45 AM, said:

In the past you argued that players are within their own right to run out of bounds, shutdown, or hide when they feel the game is lost. PGI put these new AFK and non-participation rules in because they understood that the most basic element of gaming is that it's supposed to be "fun," and how most players likely wouldn't consider having to search for a hidden enemy for half the entire game's duration to be "fun."

Take note of the following:

• Everyone signed up for a potentially 15-minute fight.
  
• A player who was in the fight, no matter how bad the performance, did participate in the match.
  
• When the last player is out of weapons and/or ammo, there are no viable alternatives other than suicide, delay, or submission for execution.

Having said that, let us just be accurate here, I have never advocated for anyone to just hide or run out of bounds if losing. What I have been advocating is for people to force the enemy to hunt the player down and earn that last kill instead of just willfully surrendering. There many not be a difference to you, but there is definitely a difference to me. And so, if you feel so strongly about it, go ahead and report the player to PGI if you must, but do not under any circumstance reveal your teammate's location to the enemy. And then let PGI decide. I can assure you though that I have not yet heard of anyone being given a warning, much less getting banned, for doing it. I highly doubt anyone will be penalized for doing it once in a blue moon.





As for someone who habitually does it, that is obviously a pattern, and as such I do not give a damn what happens to that player.





Note that the above only apply to Skirmish. It is a non-issue for the other QP game modes.

Finally, everyone was warned about what would happen when a TDM mode was added ... loudly and on multiple occasions. But because this warning was ignored, everyone should reap what was sown.

And just to be perfectly crystal clear, team treason is a violation of the CoC, which is what the OP was asking about.

Now, everyone, enjoy the rest of your day ...

Edited by Mystere, 19 June 2016 - 06:11 AM.

[Variant1]

Woah so many people defending the right to not let the guy play the way he wanted. Look if hes the last one alive he can do whatever he pleases, everyone signed up for a 15 minute match. Its up to the enemy team to find him. If your dead simply move on to another mech, u had your chance u died go play another mech, theres no excuse, if you don't own another mech play the many trials available. As for the last guy in skirmish i love trying to find them, its more fun because now the team has to split up and communicate in order to find him, its moments like these i enjoy because they break up the large battles into a more intense hunt match. And it must be fun for the last person too to either try and take down the enemy using guerrilla tactics or play hide an seek .

[wanderer]

Mystere, on 19 June 2016 - 06:03 AM, said:

And just to be perfectly crystal clear, team treason is a violation of the CoC, which is what the OP was asking about.

Now, everyone, enjoy the rest of your day ...

You can keep calling it that, but stalling a match (Skirmish, no weapons, clearly not engaging) is considered against the CoC as well.

It's like shooting the guy TKing his own team deliberately. You're removing someone breaking the rules of the game, even if it takes drastic measures to do so. Self-defense doesn't violate the CoC, nor does assisting to remove someone preventing match progress. Seriously, I've been reported for doing this in matches when someone pulls the exact same garbage as the OP had to deal with. It doesn't get warnings, punishments, or bans.

No guns, last guy, Skirmish? Choose how you die, you've already lost the game unless it's 11-11. Honestly, I'd be happy if one side loses all weapons in Skirmish and isn't damaged for a full minute, the game treats them as "killed" regardless of actual status and ends it as a win for the other side.

(And incidentally from another time: If you're the last guy and you brought one of those facepalm designs with nothing but a NARC or TAG, running around "sniping" people with your TAG laser while everyone else died is only funny once. Get it over with. You're still stalling.)

[Aresye]

Mystere, on 19 June 2016 - 06:03 AM, said:

And just to be perfectly crystal clear, team treason is a violation of the CoC, which is what the OP was asking about.

Which is why I said in my very first reply that both of them were technically wrong.

The question that's being debated is, "Is it likely that OP will face disciplinary actions for calling out a player who's deliberately breaking the CoC in terms of non-participation?"

I say no, just like how a player is unlikely to face disciplinary actions for stripping a teamkiller of their weapons. Is it against CoC? Yes. Can you be reported for it? Yes. Is it a, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't," type situation where stripping the teamkiller of their weapons could be considered the right course of action for the overall betterment of all the players in that game? That's up to PGI to decide.

There is no argument for the Oxide pilot. The CoC specifically says that you are not allowed to shutdown and/or hide if you have no weapons, no ammo, and cannot in any way, shape, or form win the match through evasion.

Here is the exact situation that the CoC says is okay to shutdown for:


This was for the the 2014 Chassis Leaderboard challenge in October, 2014. I chose to evade and shutdown because my last teammate was disconnected, and if I died trying to secure the last kill, the game would be a draw or loss, resulting in everybody on my team (including myself) getting 0 points for the leaderboard, as this was one of the few tournaments in which only "victorious" matches counted for your score.

Edited by Aresye, 19 June 2016 - 11:00 AM.

[Nerdboard]

Mystere, on 19 June 2016 - 06:03 AM, said:

In that case, I ask you the same questions:

• What is the last player supposed to do if out of weapons and/or ammo?
  
• Is the player supposed to just report for execution?

Yup exactly that. Just as calling out the position is forbidden, so is hiding. Don't play the game if you can not follow the rules.