171 replies to this topic

[Sjorpha]

Tesunie, on 21 March 2017 - 08:43 PM, said:

This debate is far more of a philosophical consideration. How would you consider it if you could read that person's intent completely, and/or you were the one that their actions where trying to hinder. (Rather they succeeded or not.)

The way I see it, while intent is a relevant ethical arbiter, as in making the difference between griefing and just playing bad, it can't be the arbiter of an actual rule in a game. Rules have to look at the action itself and only that.

Strictly speaking, it makes no real sense for a game to have moves that are both possible and illegal.

This is more clear if you look at organized play, if a team in MRBC would start shooting each other that would not be a violation of a rule, it would simply be a bad idea. Likewise, in football it's not an illegal move to shoot in your own goal, it's just stupid.

Now obviously things get trickier when teams are randomly assembled. Game theory wants to treat the team as a single entity, in which case self destructive play doesn't have to be a rules violation because losing is a sufficient penalty, but the players in these cases may have singular interests that conflict with that principle.

I'm not a fan of CoC type rules, it should be possible to design computer games so that almost no move is both possible and illegal.

I can see where exceptions are necessary with random team construction, but IMO it's way overdone in most games. MWO could do without most of the CoC, penalties for Team killing/damage and excessive disconnects should just be automatic for example, but IMO it really doesn't make much sense to have team damage in the game if it's illegal to damage teammates. It can also become very annoying to have these systems, for example when a unit is roflstomping pugs and can't do friendly duels as a side event without triggering the penalty system.

Rules against suicides and non-participation and the like are just arbitrary, mostly not enforced or even enforceable and does nothing much but generate useless drama threads. Chat and VOIP can fall under the normal restrictions of free speech. The basic principle should be that possible=legal.

As far as the ethics of a certain action. (Is it wrong to do X?) It may be interesting to ask these questions, but does it really belong in games though?

The whole point of a game is to be a closed universe in which the internal logic of the game limits your choices, and from there you explore how to win if it's a PvP game. Ethics may be part of a game's story, as in exploring "good" and "evil" moves in the context of the game world, but that is mainly for single player games and by definition requires the "evil" moves to be legal.

Finally, as a thought provoking excercise:
Why can't we simply view team killing etc. as exploring the theme of treason? Are there no traitors in Battletech? What would happen is this possibility was explored and enabled in the game mechanics rather than being the subject of hopeless attempts at moderation?

Edited by Sjorpha, 22 March 2017 - 11:25 AM.

[Jackal Noble]

*Redacted* <- That is griefing to me.

Edited by JackalBeast, 22 March 2017 - 11:21 AM.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 22 March 2017 - 01:51 AM, said:

I have been known to run a KTO - GB 5x LRM5s TAG BAP and 2 Med pulse. I am a complete maniac LRM support pilot in this mech.

Alley brawling at 200m is a thing I do. I will also scan the battlefield for places where I need to suppress the enemy. My intent is not to kill them it's to make them not shoot my team. I will also when possible tip the scales on unfair (or fair) fights (only suckers take on a fair fight). In order to do this I may not see the target that is killing my team mate but THEY do. If they have the forethought to lock their target I can help if not they die.

If a friendly is actively engaged with a target there is NO reason not to lock the target! I'm not talking about peek and shoot or snap fire I'm talking about brutal brawling and exchanging shots.

I guess I use more of my mech's HUD display than most. I use my lance window to see where my team mates are and at what percentage their mechs are at.

If I'm using my KTO and my lancemate's health percentages is plumetting I'm looking for where they are and IF they are in range and IF they locked the target killing them they get help...but only IF they use the lock.

The real trick to LRMs isn't about dealing accurate fast damage it's about the envelope of influence a good LRM support pilot can project. I can supliment damage across the entire battlefront IF my team supplies the means to do so with LOCKS!

I can suppress multiple enemy mechs and outright deny the enemy superior ground IF my team mates provide the Info to take advantage of. Without the team's eyes I am left with just my own eyes and point of view and that does not take full advantage of a weapon system that can lend support across a huge area.

Not every LRM support pilot is a potato in a stalker parked 900m away from the fight. Some of us are manics in medium mechs literally in the fray on the front lines.

And I don't need your locks as much as you want me to have them.

I am not sure where you are playing. I do run a couple of lrm mechs. Catapult C1, and Mad Dog. Both with lrm 15's with artemis and backup lasers that often are better described as finishers. I follow a few very simple tactics and have racked up a lot of kills and damage in tier 1. This doesn't mean that much as tier 1 is full of really horrible players. Not that I consider myself anything other than average mind you.

As far as lrm 5 builds, at best they are an annoyance. Lots of people like them but it is the least efficient way to lurm and is more trolling than serious. So while I believe you when you say you can suppress multiple enemies, you lose me at suggesting that players will really be lucky to have you. Even really great lurmers are outshined by an average player with good laser vomit or someone decent running ppc/guass. It is just the way it is.

Your other claim that someone telling a player to get their own locks is griefing is also shakey on the logic. Simply saying to another player to be involved and get their own locks is no worse than saying don't stay behind by yourself. It certainly isn't griefing to voice an opinion.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 22 March 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:

That is some really flawed logic you got going on there. Someone could argue quite easily that it is in fact the first person who is griefing. Not saying that, that attitude is correct as that is what the debate is over. What I can say is it is not appropriate to expect others to play the game for you.

Also my arguement is that not helping someone is not the same as intentionally getting in their way or harassing them.

"Playing the game for you?" Interesting thought process and very flawed. I can see in no way that a player using a weapons system that when used to effect is VERY potent can be griefing. You would have a point if the LRM user intentionally lobbed shots out of range or into friendlies or refused to fire their weapons but,actually using a weapon system as intended is difinativley NOT griefing.

You have very clearly illistrated one of my points."someone" has an assumption that the player with LRMs MUST have "someone" to do ALL of the locks for their attacks. "Someone" has assumed a set of behavior that is not neccisarrily present and now "someone" feels justified in applying corrective behavior to them by withholding basic team play by pressing the "R" key.

There is prevailing culture of superiority in MWo and at certain levels of play if "someone" isn't doing what is deemed acceptable they will be disiplined!

So is it griefing to intentionally prevent a function of a weapon system from performing by direct decisive action (inaction)?

YES.

LRMs can fire indirectly from another target source.This is a basic function of the weapon. By intentionally hampering the functionality of a team mate you are willfully sabotaging them and your team.

I see no ambiguity here I see no flaws in my logic. If the intent is to prevent the other player from participating within the parameters of their weapon systems used then this is griefing. And furthermore it is griefing your team by depriving them of that players potential participation.

I mean if those Lurm leaches are such a waste why don't you ("someone") just TK them? if the intent is to prevent their participation by limiting the effectivness of their weapon system's features why not just kill them and be done with it? That would be the most effective means of solving the problem wouldn't it? Eventually people will stop using LRMs if it gets them TKed all the time.

If the intent is to punish for using LRMs then why sorta passive aggressivley withhold team work? Just waste em!

Or would that be obvious griefing and not just passive aggressive griefing?

[DivineTomatoes]

If they can't be arsed to move up, share armor and get their own locks then I will do everything possible not to help them.

Enough is enough, it doesn't take much to equip a tag or a narc beacon, but no, that would involve putting themselves in danger.

[Sjorpha]

The problem with construing failing/refusal to engage in specific aspects of teamwork is that there are several such cases.

Is it griefing to not fire your LRMs at a NARCED target for example, that seems like it should follow the same logic as not targeting for LRMs?

If you follow that logic it is essentially griefing to intentionally not do anything that might have amplified someone elses actions within the game. That doesn't seem very useful, what exactly is the point?

Edited by Sjorpha, 22 March 2017 - 02:47 PM.

[Lykaon]

Reaver2145, on 22 March 2017 - 02:43 PM, said:

If they can't be arsed to move up, share armor and get their own locks then I will do everything possible not to help them.

Enough is enough, it doesn't take much to equip a tag or a narc beacon, but no, that would involve putting themselves in danger.

And there is the assumption of behavior again.

How does LRM use mean that this pilot will be behaving as you assume?

When I use my LRM support mech I don't sit way in the back. But I would venture a guess that if you and I were in a drop together and I say "LRM 25 KTO here" you would then assume I will be in the far rear leaching locks.

And if mounting a TAG or a NARC isn't such a big deal why don't you do it? You wouldn't because it doesn't fit the typical selfish directives of the average MWo player.

I mean why should anyone do anything that isn't a direct benefit to them? Am I right?

Sjorpha, on 22 March 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

The problem with construing failing/refusal to engage in specific aspects of teamwork is that there are several such cases.

Is it griefing to not fire your LRMs at a NARCED target for example, that seems like it should follow the same logic as not targeting for LRMs?

If you follow that logic it is essentially griefing to intentionally not do anything that might have amplified someone elses actions within the game. That doesn't seem very useful, what exactly is the point?

It would without a doubt be griefing if the NARCed target was a priority direct threat that teammate(s) are directly requesting assistance with and is within effective range but the LRM users motive for not doing it was because he doesn't want that NARCer to get any credit for NARCing targets or they "don't like being told how to play" so willfully ignore providing effective team work or by their direct refusal to aply team work they support their argument that NARCs suck and that guys shouldn't have brought one to begin with.

Intent is the definative trait of griefing. Incompitence isn't intentional griefing.

And that brings me back to the assumption of potato behavior from LRM carriers.

LRMs are a unique weapon system that they have a very low entry skill cap so they can appeal to new inexperienced players.If an inexperienced player is still learning the ropes would it benefit the team more or less to assist the new player in being successful?

Then as LRM proficency grows you learn it's not actually about dealing damage with LRMs it's all about control and area influance. No other weapon grants the ability to effect such a large zone of control.

This is the real skill in LRM use.As you grasp the real purpose is not entirely based on dishing damage but the threat of damage and the ability to enhance others damage over a wide area you choices change.

You no longer want a big assault mech with 2000 reloads and LRM 60. You now want something fast and agile that fires quickly and can get in and out fast. You now understand it's about supporting fire and knowing where it needs to be applied and not about spamming rockets at targets 800m away.

And when someone reaches this level of understanding it is a direct benefit to you to press "R" .

Edited by Lykaon, 22 March 2017 - 03:32 PM.

[Revis Volek]

Its not griefing anymore then running LRMs is.

[FireStoat]

Reaver2145, on 22 March 2017 - 02:43 PM, said:

If they can't be arsed to move up, share armor and get their own locks then I will do everything possible not to help them.

Enough is enough, it doesn't take much to equip a tag or a narc beacon, but no, that would involve putting themselves in danger.

This is spot on. I provide a UAV per match that all of the team can take advantage of with their decision making. That's pretty much all I'll provide in assisting a Lurmboat. The special snowflakes that claim to be team oriented missile boats might actually be absolutely correct with what they assert, but they have to understand that they are in the VAST, VAST minority of how random PuG's play with LRM's.

I've been burned too hard by lazy button clickers. I'm not going to encourage the much larger majority that outright suck at the game for their teams - if anything they'll get discouraged and move on to using a real weapon.

[Scout Derek]

FireStoat, on 22 March 2017 - 03:26 PM, said:

This is spot on. I provide a UAV per match that all of the team can take advantage of with their decision making. That's pretty much all I'll provide in assisting a Lurmboat. The special snowflakes that claim to be team oriented missile boats might actually be absolutely correct with what they assert, but they have to understand that they are in the VAST, VAST minority of how random PuG's play with LRM's.

I've been burned too hard by lazy button clickers. I'm not going to encourage the much larger majority that outright suck at the game for their teams - if anything they'll get discouraged and move on to using a real weapon.

If anything the only mech that I own that Runs LRMs in quick play is my highlander IIC- and that's because SRMs would be useless since I already have a few heavy long range weapons, then there's my exclusive use of the LRM battlemaster for Faction play groups only, otherwise I don't take it as the lack of actualy teamwork yields no locks at all.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 22 March 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

"Playing the game for you?" Interesting thought process and very flawed. I can see in no way that a player using a weapons system that when used to effect is VERY potent can be griefing. You would have a point if the LRM user intentionally lobbed shots out of range or into friendlies or refused to fire their weapons but,actually using a weapon system as intended is difinativley NOT griefing.

You have very clearly illistrated one of my points."someone" has an assumption that the player with LRMs MUST have "someone" to do ALL of the locks for their attacks. "Someone" has assumed a set of behavior that is not neccisarrily present and now "someone" feels justified in applying corrective behavior to them by withholding basic team play by pressing the "R" key.

There is prevailing culture of superiority in MWo and at certain levels of play if "someone" isn't doing what is deemed acceptable they will be disiplined!

So is it griefing to intentionally prevent a function of a weapon system from performing by direct decisive action (inaction)?

YES.

LRMs can fire indirectly from another target source.This is a basic function of the weapon. By intentionally hampering the functionality of a team mate you are willfully sabotaging them and your team.

I see no ambiguity here I see no flaws in my logic. If the intent is to prevent the other player from participating within the parameters of their weapon systems used then this is griefing. And furthermore it is griefing your team by depriving them of that players potential participation.

I mean if those Lurm leaches are such a waste why don't you ("someone") just TK them? if the intent is to prevent their participation by limiting the effectivness of their weapon system's features why not just kill them and be done with it? That would be the most effective means of solving the problem wouldn't it? Eventually people will stop using LRMs if it gets them TKed all the time.

If the intent is to punish for using LRMs then why sorta passive aggressivley withhold team work? Just waste em!

Or would that be obvious griefing and not just passive aggressive griefing?

This response seems to be as close to 'I know you are but what am I' as it gets.

To be clear you brought up someone asking people to hold locks which is what I refered to as possibly being considered as much as griefing as you say responding 'get your own locks'. So we are not talking about weapons choices we are discussing the actions or the inaction as well as the interaction between players.

Where you are patently wrong is before we get anywhere close to your assumption scenerio, we have someone asking for locks. A person can ask all they like, it is not something that they are owed. So denial of said locks is not griefing or harassment. For the most part, an lrm user would not be able to tell if a player is choosing not to press r nor more importantly why. So saying that it is griefing, is again simply wrong.

As far as players disiplining other players, it is not uncommon in any society for members to shun or avoid outcasts of that society. As far as actual disipline, there is not much a player can really do in this case, and I don't see it happening or being a problem in games I play, so your point is pretty much moot.

Again back to your failed logic when you said;

'So is it griefing to intentionally prevent a function of a weapon system from performing by direct decisive action (inaction)?

YES'

Not holding locks for someone is not preventing the function of a weapon as it goes back to the player using the weapon is not owed locks, nor has a right to them or expect them. On top of that not getting them locks for whatever reason doesn't prevent the player from getting them, themselves or firing without a lock. So absolutely no, it isn't griefing.

From what you have said and your attitude and inability to see any ambiguity (there is and that is why Tesunie and I worked together starting and discussing this issue), I don't imagine you will be subjective or add anything of value to this debate. Especially when you seem to think along the lines of team killing being in the same playing field as not holding or withholding locks. Also telling someone up front no, get your own locks is assertive and not passive aggressive. Like it, or not, no one is owed anything in this game.

[Tesunie]

Taking responses one page at a time.

Mole, on 22 March 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

I tend to lock tagets whenever possible. Not so much to help LRM boats but I want information on my target's loadout and status. If an LRM boat wants to capitalize on that lock then fine. One thing I am NOT going to do however is oblige some idiot who goes "hold lockz plz" at the begining of the match, expecting me to expose myself to enemy fire just to hold his lock so he can sit in the back and fire from safety. Get up front and center, share your armor. I'm not putting myself in uneccesary danger so that you can fire from safety.

I completely agree. This is fine by my account. You aren't intentionally taking any actions to help, nor hurt, a specific player. You are playing the game as you normally would, and at least provide the opportunities that other players (in this case LRM users) can utilize.

I've always basically said that I don't expect other people to get locks at the cost to themselves. Just that, if they can to get a lock and hold it if possible without undo risk. Someone is shooting back at you? I fully expect you to get behind cover and break that lock.

Christophe Ivanov, on 22 March 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

This is how I fight. It's about the TEAM, not how many kills I can get I the match. Too many lately I see go off and look for a joy kill and dam the objectives of the match. This is very glaring when we play Escort and Cap matches. Instead of achieving the objective which I know is not high on points and all that, it still is the objective and if ignored, I feel like I am wasting my time in the match.

Balancing the objective vs killing the entire enemy team can be a struggle sometimes. Ignore the objectives, and you can lose by them.

And completely correct on the team aspect. You win or lose as a team. As a team, it is often best to utilize everything you've got as best you can.

[Mister Blastman]

Griefing is loading a cicada with an AC/2, doing 15 points of damage and scoring less than a 100 for a match score. And doing this... all... night... long.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 22 March 2017 - 05:26 PM.

[Tesunie]

Sjorpha, on 22 March 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

The way I see it, while intent is a relevant ethical arbiter, as in making the difference between griefing and just playing bad, it can't be the arbiter of an actual rule in a game. Rules have to look at the action itself and only that.

Well, my side of the debate is more along ethical lines than practical rule enforcing. So, I think talking on the ethics of it is more appropriate in this case.

As far as team damage in the game, it's an action that is able to be done for the occasional "oops" and a nod to realism and lore. Purposefully and willfully damaging with the intent to hinder another player's performance is against the spirit of the game mechanic.

Basically, it's there to be part of the simulator aspect of the game, rather than the gamer aspect of it.

Lykaon, on 22 March 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

I mean if those Lurm leaches are such a waste why don't you ("someone") just TK them? if the intent is to prevent their participation by limiting the effectivness of their weapon system's features why not just kill them and be done with it? That would be the most effective means of solving the problem wouldn't it? Eventually people will stop using LRMs if it gets them TKed all the time.

If the intent is to punish for using LRMs then why sorta passive aggressivley withhold team work? Just waste em!

Or would that be obvious griefing and not just passive aggressive griefing?

I have to fight the LRM assumption all the time. I say I have some LRMs on my mech, people keep thinking I'm a boat of them and going to hit. My Huntsmen A with an LRM10, LRM15 and 5 ERMLs doesn't sit back and hide... But everyone seems to think I'm going to. (I have 5 ERMLs that say I'm not going to sit back and hide...)

As for your proposed action (that I left in quotes), I think it's a good "over dramatization" of what I'm trying to relay. May be a little too far, but it delivers the point.

Reaver2145, on 22 March 2017 - 02:43 PM, said:

If they can't be arsed to move up, share armor and get their own locks then I will do everything possible not to help them.

Enough is enough, it doesn't take much to equip a tag or a narc beacon, but no, that would involve putting themselves in danger.

I just have to mention, if you see me in your matches, just forget the assumed "going to hide out back and LRM form cover" action. I wont do that. That is actually the worst way to play LRMs, and I hate how it's the most common way, and the way most everyone tries to counter LRM use with.

Remember, you are a team, rather you like it or not. I'm sure you'd rather have other players help you and support you, so why not help and support other players too?

Sjorpha, on 22 March 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

The problem with construing failing/refusal to engage in specific aspects of teamwork is that there are several such cases.

Is it griefing to not fire your LRMs at a NARCED target for example, that seems like it should follow the same logic as not targeting for LRMs?

If you follow that logic it is essentially griefing to intentionally not do anything that might have amplified someone elses actions within the game. That doesn't seem very useful, what exactly is the point?

I would have to say, depends upon the reason to not shoot at the NARCed target. If they are able to lob LRMs on that target, and they aren't because their intention is to "not help a NARC user get a match score", than the intention is there to specifically harm the NARC user's potential. If, on the other hand, the LRM user is engaged elsewise and can't deliver support there, or is already shooting at another target actively), than no. There was no ill intent, so I wouldn't call it griefing. (Of course, I don't know what LRM user would willingly deny a NARCed target...)

FireStoat, on 22 March 2017 - 03:26 PM, said:

This is spot on. I provide a UAV per match that all of the team can take advantage of with their decision making. That's pretty much all I'll provide in assisting a Lurmboat. The special snowflakes that claim to be team oriented missile boats might actually be absolutely correct with what they assert, but they have to understand that they are in the VAST, VAST minority of how random PuG's play with LRM's.

I've been burned too hard by lazy button clickers. I'm not going to encourage the much larger majority that outright suck at the game for their teams - if anything they'll get discouraged and move on to using a real weapon.

So, you'll hurt all LRM users to "get them to take real weapons"? Perfect example of what I was mentioning a while ago...

Spoiler

Tesunie, on 22 March 2017 - 08:30 AM, said:

Lykaon, on 22 March 2017 - 01:28 AM, said:

This IS definativley griefing behavior. There is no ambiguity to motive the intent is clear player two doesn't like LRM use so is going to activley do something to hamper player one.

So willfully altering your play style with the specific intent of hampering a team mate is griefing them and your other team mates and ironicly yourself. You could be getting LRM fire support but...nope they would rather not play correctly to express their all important displeasure with assumed behavior of a team mate.

I think people purposefully do that though to make LRMs look as bad as possible and to discourage their use whenever possible. Very much like going into any LRM thread they find on the forums to "inform people how bad they are" instead of answering the user's questions about LRMs.

If they can make playing LRMs frustrating and/or make them appear worse than they are, than they are probably justifying their actions as a service to the community by forcing those players to "take real weapon". (And no. I'm not saying LRMs are the greatest weapon, but they certainly are not the worst weapon either...)

[Athom83]

Its definitely griefing when you stand behind an Assault when they're NARC'd on Polar Highland so they can't back up and try to avoid the black out the sky levels of LRMs coming his way.

When I asked why they did that, they responded because I had LRMs on my assault. I was playing around with a near stock loadout of the Mauler-2P so I had 2 LRM10s, 2 AC/10s, and some lasers. But those AC/10s and lasers don't matter because I fire some missiles out of my shoulders, of course.

[Pwnographic Kerensky]

Safe Space Mechwarriors for everyone!

[Revis Volek]

Mister Blastman, on 22 March 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:

Griefing is loading a cicada with an AC/2, doing 15 points of damage and scoring less than a 100 for a match score. And doing this... all... night... long.

But what if my CDA's name is Ruby Rhod?

[Trev Firestorm]

@OP yes, intentionally not getting locks to spite LRM users is griefing, but completely unenforceable/verifiable. It is greifing because of the intent.

[Mister Blastman]

Revis Volek, on 22 March 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

But what if my CDA's name is Ruby Rhod?

Then it's a badass. Because Ruby Rhod was awesome. I don't care what the critics say.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 22 March 2017 - 07:24 PM.

[MacClearly]

Trev Firestorm, on 22 March 2017 - 06:53 PM, said:

@OP yes, intentionally not getting locks to spite LRM users is griefing, but completely unenforceable/verifiable. It is greifing because of the intent.

Yes but that is the thing. Not helping is not the same as harassing or impeding.