Hum... This thread got created, and I already have so much catching up to do.
Seeing some of the responses here so far has been... interesting to say the least. But I don't think my reasoning/stance was understood.
Before I get to responding, here was my stance:
Griefing is an intentional action(s) with an intent to hinder another player (teammate to be specific, but can sometimes apply to the enemy), rather that player/target actually knows or understands that s/he is being griefed or not.
My examples would be:
- A player that normally gets locks intentionally doesn't only because LRMs are on their team, and they don't wish to support a "potato". (thanks for the quote from the first page. Lets just call people names now?)
- Purposefully breaking a lock as soon as the incoming LRM indicator appears, rather line of sight was lost or not, with the sole intention to hinder their LRM teammate's performance/game play.
This is not saying someone whom normally doesn't get locks not getting locks, or someone who doesn't change the way they they play. I'm talking about people who are intentionally going out of their way to purposefully "sabotage" another player's abilities, to some extent or another.
To be clear, no matter what we say here, I am by no means saying those people are breaking the CoC for the game, as we can't prove their intentions (for the most part) when they break or not get a lock. I'm also not talking about people who don't "hold locks till they die". (I have not and will never ask anyone to hold a lock so I can deal some extra damage. I and my team are each better off with more living teammates, who may be able to get locks later on, if not even help scrape an enemy off my back later. A dead spotter is useless to me.)
PS: Sorry for the late response. Work happened. I'll make responses per page of responses for the moment till I catch up. (If these were already covered, ignore.
Willard Phule, on 19 January 2017 - 03:26 PM, said:
Huh. Not helping the potatoes is griefing. I think not.
First of all, nobody held a gun to your head and made you bring a build that requires the cooperation of others. If that's all you can use, then accept that you're a potato and just deal with it until you learn how to aim.
Griefing is retaliating when some goober that can't unzoom rips an alpha into your back because he "didn't see you." Griefing is dropping an arty strike at your own feet when you discover you can't move because the same potato has shoved you into a corner. Griefing is getting sick of being crowded so you decide to get behind the goober and give back a little of what he's dishing out.
OMG. We need maps with coloring books and diaper pins for these potatoes.
I'm not talking about "holding their hands and guiding them through", I'm talking about intentionally taking actions (or inactions in this case) that directly hinders their performance. I'm referring to the intent behind the (in)actions.
And, insulting a player who plays the game differently than you... Not overly cool. At all. Shall I refer to you as a try hard elitist scum now?
PS: You may actually wish to read the definition of "griefing". Unintentional actions is not griefing. Griefing is an intentional action to cause harm or otherwise disturb someone else's game play. Your first example (zoomed in too much and can't see you) is not an act of griefing. It's an act of negligence maybe, but no ill intent was intended (most likely) from the shooter.
Bombast, on 19 January 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:
Griefing is player behavior that's sole purpose is to aggravate other players. That's it.
I find it strange we need a thread for that.
Well, so far the debate seems to be swinging each direction, just from the first page. So then, what is your opinion?
And recall, the best way to use LRMs isn't necessarily the way most people use them. (AKA: Stick with the team, and do try to get your own locks and share armor. And... bring backup weapons...) This doesn't mean you should necessarily exclude them and sabotage them.
Bud Crue, on 19 January 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:
Griefing is an intent plus action crime.
actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
Rough translation: Being a {Richard Cameron} with the intention of being a {Richard Cameron} is griefing.
As to the OP:
Not holding locks cuz you forget or even because you just don't feel like it is fine. Not holding locks with the intention of harming someone's performance because you are a {Richard Cameron} may very well be griefing...but only in Canadian jurisdications. In most US jurisdictions you'd actually have to shoot the LRMer too...and even then with malice aforethought.
It's (in my opinion) griefing, but that doesn't mean it's the form that will actually get you in trouble. It also depends upon the intention behind the action (or inaction).
I guess you could relate this to a debate on if someone is hanging off a cliff, and you don't help them when you easily and normally could... Is it murder? That person died do to your intentional inaction. (Example is probably a poor example...)
Amsro, on 19 January 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:
IMO Griefing comes from focusing too much energy on being the victim. Lower the ego down a couple notches and remember that it usually isn't personal.
Sometimes though, it is personal. I had a match once where, I'm not joking, most of my team refused to hold locks because I said I had LRMs. At first I thought they were joking about not holding locks, so I joked back and said "Don't make me get my own locks. You wont like me if I have to get my own locks." I was saying it in jest, but by the end of the match, I had to do exactly that. Funny part is, I actually did best on the team that match (a rare thing). So the joke ended up being on them.
(Mostly because I don't boat, I don't hang back, I get my own locks, and I always bring plenty of back up weapons, if not primary weapons with LRMs being my backup weapons.)
Jay Leon Hart, on 19 January 2017 - 04:31 PM, said:
Bringing LRMs is griefing. Not holding locks is justice.
I do hope you are joking... Hence the goofy face?
All depends upon how the LRMs are being used.
Clownwarlord, on 19 January 2017 - 04:40 PM, said:
So from what I can read of this and understand the question is, "Is it griefing to not get locks for lrm boats?"
In short no. The reason why is because getting locks should come natural and if forced put your own mech at risk to ruin your game play. In other words the two sides will meet and you will get locks naturally and there will even be times when you have some one on your team purposely getting you locks (narc and tag for cbills). Then lastly you have a responsibility to gather your own locks and not just feed off your own team mates.
So ultimately no. Also if you are having issues getting locks in a lrm mech then you are probably playing it wrong. This usually happens because you as the lrm mech would choose to sit to far back to where you get picked out by lights or nascar. Or your lrm travel time is to long allowing the enemy to get to safety. Just because lrms have long range in their name doesn't actually mean they are to always be used at long ranges. They best work at 300 to 400 m. The reason is what I eluded to earlier because your missiles only travel so fast and so you are required to be closer to cut down on the time to travel to target. This also helps your team because some enemy fire might go into you which will save on your brawlers and traders armor allowing them to stay alive through shared armor.
The question (I have at least as my portion) is more so:
"Is it griefing to intentionally drop locks or not get locks, counter to what is your normal behavior in game, just to prevent LRM users from using said locks?" (With the presumption that you would, under the same situation without any LRM users on your team, get and hold the locks as a normal part of fighting.)
I'm not referring to the dropping of locks as a natural course of fighting and staying alive. I'm not even referring to not getting a lock you normally wouldn't get because of some reason (it's a snap shot, ECM, you have another target locks you want to track, etc). This is a "playing differently than you normally would, simply because LRMs are there and you go out of your way to not support them at all."
As for how to use LRMs, you wont find me disagreeing with you. I use LRMs normally (okay, almost exclusively) as a support weapon to a larger build. I also agree that LRM users should try to get their own locks. But, if the team helps as they move into direct line of sight, it helps not only the LRM users but also the whole team.
NighthawK1337, on 19 January 2017 - 04:45 PM, said:
I'd define Griefing as something you do as opposed to something you neglect to do.
There is no downside to acquiring locks but deliberately not getting one is Negligence.
Alpha the backside of your team mate, that's Griefing.
What if... you didn't get locks not out of negligence, but intentionally? That is my question (for the most part).
The6thMessenger, on 19 January 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:
I'm pretty sure that if it were to be against the CoC, it's the non-participation with a lot of mental gymnastics.
LRMers are able to get their own locks, just as every other pilots in the game, you are simply denying the advantage that they don't have to get locks on their own at your expense. As opposed of attacking the teammate intentionally in which you are putting your own team mate at a disadvantage.
Basically, the difference is that griefing actively disadvantages by affirmative action, while the scenario that you described is denying advantage by inaction.
I know a lot of people are thinking that LRMs are ******* ****, and they are at a bad spot i agree, but they are legitimate weapons that are able to carry their weight with proper use, so i doubt that PGI will consider bringing LRMs as Griefing due to the disadvantage it brings to the team.
My argument in this debate at the start was not if it was against the CoC, but if it would be considered a form of griefing. You can provide someone grief, without breaking the CoC.
LRMs are a utility weapon, and that utilty feature can be an advantage if a team/user will let it be. Sometimes, you've got to work with what your team has, not against it. (And no, to repeat, I'm not saying people should die for a lock for an LRM ally. But, it doesn't hurt to get and hold a single lock while you are fighting them, right? Should be a win win situation for the team then.)
As for the situation (which I know happens a lot, as it's happened to me more than I'd like to recall), it's the intentional not getting locks solely to hinder the LRM users on the team. It's an intentional inaction. (Does that make it an action of not doing it then?)
Okay, onto page two of responses!
7
