Pretty much only griefing you see in this game is idiots standing behind poking mechs and even most of those are just potatoes being stupid, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". MWO playerbase is pretty old when compared to other multiplayer games so we don't practically get any griefers.
These forums always surprise me because people can communicate with coherent english, there's no flamewars and mods don't ban all threads criticizing the game.
7
What Is Griefing To You?
Started by MacClearly, Jan 19 2017 03:11 PM
171 replies to this topic
#42
-
-
- Nova Captain
- 8,045 posts
Member
- LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.
Posted 20 January 2017 - 03:14 AM
El Bandito, on 20 January 2017 - 01:44 AM, said:
One should not intentionally put oneself into dangerous situation just to get locks, but if one sees a lockable enemy and does not hit "R", that person is either a noob, or just griefing.
I'd say he's being an ****** if it were done just to spite the LRM-boats.
Tesunie, on 19 January 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:
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.
Do you even have to call it "griefing", what the ****'s the point of it being tied to such word anyways if it weren't supposed to be tied with CoC? You could have easily called it something else, like being an god-*******-damn-uncooperative-bas-*******-****.
But PGI defined their "Griefing", and you can literally just read it off their CoC page just at the bottom. If the action or inaction does not line up with the criteria they gave, then it's legal.
Quote
Engaging in any of the following actions while using PGI services is forbidden:
Willfully or repeatedly destroying teammates.
Willfully or repeatedly damaging your teammates.
Willfully or repeatedly self-destructing one’s ‘Mech, either by overheating, going out-of-bounds, or committing some other form of suicide or intending to cause abnormally early death.
Willfully or repeatedly disconnecting from a match.
Willfully or repeatedly blocking teammate ‘Mechs or weapon trajectories.
Willfully or repeatedly assisting the enemy.
Taunting, baiting, or otherwise encouraging players to violate the Code of Conduct.
Willfully or repeatedly destroying teammates.
Willfully or repeatedly damaging your teammates.
Willfully or repeatedly self-destructing one’s ‘Mech, either by overheating, going out-of-bounds, or committing some other form of suicide or intending to cause abnormally early death.
Willfully or repeatedly disconnecting from a match.
Willfully or repeatedly blocking teammate ‘Mechs or weapon trajectories.
Willfully or repeatedly assisting the enemy.
Taunting, baiting, or otherwise encouraging players to violate the Code of Conduct.
Tesunie, on 19 January 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:
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.)
Define "utility", and why would LRMs be utility weapons?
I wouldn't say that it's a win-win situation, after all the other guy holding the locks is maintaining face-time that will make him more likely to get nuked in the face, so while you are winning, the spotter isn't. And that's the entire time during the flight of the missiles.
Even if it's a win-win situation, that's not really the reason why they should, as team-mates they should cooperate, and part of it is giving information, likewise giving locks.
Although even if they get locks, they may not maintain them due to going back to cover to evade fire, because it's far healthier than revealing yourself since it's likely that you'll get shot, and even killed.
Tesunie, on 19 January 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:
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?)
Curious, is not saving a drowning person inaction? It's called abandonment, leaving him for dead, so yes inaction is also action.
Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 January 2017 - 03:55 AM.
#43
-
-
- Bad Company
- 22,783 posts
Member
- LocationClassified
Posted 20 January 2017 - 03:25 AM
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.
I find it strange we need a thread for that.
Considering one of the reasons I play PvP games is to **** with people's minds, I vehemently disagree with you. You're all my "content" (i.e. psychology lab rats). <maniacal
>
Edited by Mystere, 20 January 2017 - 03:26 AM.
#44
-
-
- The Butcher
- 908 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 20 January 2017 - 07:54 AM
Amsro, on 19 January 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:
How one person gets on this type of list should also be considered, to a degree. 
It's funny you said that. The guy who recorded being team killed posted a video on Reddit. Apparently he had done some harassing of a player in this unit and all they wanted was for the guy to come over to TeamSpeak and apologize. I said to the guy if it would end the conflict why not? I told him I would even if I felt I hadn't done anything wrong just to end the conflict. Most people thought I was nuts and it was better to not say sorry and report to PGI.
To me it takes less energy to go over and say sorry than it does to record a video. Post it to the YouTube. Contact PGI with a link to the video and give them the date it occurred and whatever other information they wanted. So we do have some similarities in the way we think....I think.
#45
-
-
- The Butcher
- 908 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:10 AM
Tesunie, on 19 January 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:
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.
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.
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.
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...)
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.)
I do hope you are joking... Hence the goofy face?
All depends upon how the LRMs are being used.
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.
What if... you didn't get locks not out of negligence, but intentionally? That is my question (for the most part).
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...)
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.)
I do hope you are joking... Hence the goofy face?
All depends upon how the LRMs are being used.
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.
What if... you didn't get locks not out of negligence, but intentionally? That is my question (for the most part).
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!
Thank you for coming over! It would have been a bunch of work for me to quote you from our last discussions and provide context so I appreciate it.
I guess I am not surprised that people have focused on entirely on the lurm scenario despite it being an example and had hoped that there would be more of a discussion encompassing various behaviours.
While you haven't swayed my opinion about if intentionally not getting locks is griefing, you have through the points you have made convinced me no matter how pissy I may be feeling, it is something that I shouldn't do anymore...except maybe when I am trying to headshot an afk (I can have that one right?).
#46
-
-
- Bad Company
- 22,783 posts
Member
- LocationClassified
Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:15 AM
MacClearly, on 20 January 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:
It's funny you said that. The guy who recorded being team killed posted a video on Reddit. Apparently he had done some harassing of a player in this unit and all they wanted was for the guy to come over to TeamSpeak and apologize. I said to the guy if it would end the conflict why not? I told him I would even if I felt I hadn't done anything wrong just to end the conflict. Most people thought I was nuts and it was better to not say sorry and report to PGI.
To me it takes less energy to go over and say sorry than it does to record a video. Post it to the YouTube. Contact PGI with a link to the video and give them the date it occurred and whatever other information they wanted. So we do have some similarities in the way we think....I think.
Have you not heard of the saying:
Hell hath no fury like a scorned video gamer.
Have you not heard of the term "swatting"?
Edited by Mystere, 20 January 2017 - 08:17 AM.
#47
-
-
- The Hungry
- 424 posts
Member
Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:15 AM
I play with LRM equipped mechs often enough. I have experienced my team not locking and unlocking once a mech has been sandblasted enough for them to kill it and get the "kill" (I am assuming to pad stats). While I suppose it COULD be considered griefing, I do not personally view it as such. I chose to take the LRM's, I will deliver said LRMs either remotely off someone elses locks if available, or directly as often as possible. If someone does not lock, I do not feel as if I have been "griefed". I just find my own or use someone else that is locking. If someone on the team is not locking then they are bad players. Period. I do not care what tier or what tourneys or what unit they are from, if you do not lock then you are a bad player. ESPECIALLY if you do not lock out of spite.
To me not getting locks on purpose to "spite" my loadout, just makes the people not locking bad players, not griefers. The ironic part being while they stamp their feet crying about my potato lrm boat, they are the ones in fact really helping make the TEAM lose.
To me not getting locks on purpose to "spite" my loadout, just makes the people not locking bad players, not griefers. The ironic part being while they stamp their feet crying about my potato lrm boat, they are the ones in fact really helping make the TEAM lose.
#48
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 3,314 posts
Member
- LocationAt work, cutting up brains for a living.
Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:21 AM
I think if you're intentionally not pressing R for the express purpose of denying your LRM teammates a target then I'd say that's a little bit of griefing because you're kinda being a jerk just for the sake of being a jerk. However, that being said, I am not going to begrudge anyone for not holding a lock for an LRM boat that says "hold lockz plz" and sits in the back at 900m and fires at targets locked by other people who are putting their lives in jeopardy and either have to pull back and lose the lock to stay alive or expose themselves to enemy fire for the entire flight time of LRMs from 900m away, which is awful. Whenever I see someone doing that I tell them "I press R but I'm not going to put myself at greater risk than I need to so you can sit back at 900m and launch missiles at targets you won't hit." When I play LRMs I generally get my own locks if I can and I'm up front stuck in with the team sharing my armor. That is how you play LRMs.
#49
-
-
- The Butcher
- 908 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:35 AM
Tesunie, on 19 January 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:
You do know you can easily and quickly report players right in game, right? Just find their name on the team list (press and hold Tab), right click on their name, and then select the option needed.
Odd thing is, if you protect yourself, someone can report you for TKing... and you can get the penalty. Though, you probably could argue self defense in this case.
The in game reporting works if they get a lot of them and then usually over time. So if a unit is targeting you and you are killed five times from five different members of that unit, the in game report is not going to be very helpful to you.
PGI will also make it clear to any player that breaking the CoC in response to someone else breaking it is not an acceptable excuse. They do look at things case by case though and if self defense you will likely just get a warning.
#50
-
-
- The Butcher
- 908 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:51 AM
Mystere, on 20 January 2017 - 03:25 AM, said:
Considering one of the reasons I play PvP games is to **** with people's minds, I vehemently disagree with you. You're all my "content" (i.e. psychology lab rats). <maniacal
>You know even in jest I think there is a touch of social engineering going on in many cases in this game in regards to lurmers.
Oh and I have actually not heard of the term 'swatting'.
#51
-
-
- The Tip of the Spear
- 708 posts
Member
Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:54 AM
Aggravated support mechs should remember that sometimes it is necessary for frontliners to switch targets a lot to keep track of the range of multiple nearby enemies and their movement. Aggravated frontliners should remember that LRMers are going to fire on the first target lock they have any chance of hitting, but if they lose their lock, the missiles will probably not hit. They will spend the next several seconds rinsing and repeating. I have had my butt saved more than once by a timely missile volley on my target and I like it when it happens.
#52
-
-
- Overlord
- 3,383 posts
Member
- LocationCharging my Gauss Rifle
Posted 20 January 2017 - 09:44 AM
MacClearly, on 20 January 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:
It's funny you said that. The guy who recorded being team killed posted a video on Reddit. Apparently he had done some harassing of a player in this unit and all they wanted was for the guy to come over to TeamSpeak and apologize. I said to the guy if it would end the conflict why not? I told him I would even if I felt I hadn't done anything wrong just to end the conflict. Most people thought I was nuts and it was better to not say sorry and report to PGI.
To me it takes less energy to go over and say sorry than it does to record a video. Post it to the YouTube. Contact PGI with a link to the video and give them the date it occurred and whatever other information they wanted. So we do have some similarities in the way we think....I think.
Yeah, Karma will come full circle. Simple to just let it go, or let it be as a wise man once sang.
I was in a match recently where we lost, and I happened to be in my LRM atlas, instantly someone chimed in about my newb lrmer mech and how useless I was. Couldn't help but laugh as the enemy team destroyed our team with LRMS.
I pulled of a 500+ damage match, fair enough for any assault in a loss.
TLDR; people now have preset ideas about what LRM mechs and players represent, regardless of performance or team play.
TLDR2; LRM's are for newb **** players only.
#53
-
-
- Bad Company
- 22,783 posts
Member
- LocationClassified
Posted 20 January 2017 - 10:16 AM
MacClearly, on 20 January 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:
Oh and I have actually not heard of the term 'swatting'.
Well, hopefully now you know.
Magnus Santini, on 20 January 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:
Aggravated support mechs should remember that sometimes it is necessary for frontliners to switch targets a lot to keep track of the range of multiple nearby enemies and their movement. Aggravated frontliners should remember that LRMers are going to fire on the first target lock they have any chance of hitting, but if they lose their lock, the missiles will probably not hit. They will spend the next several seconds rinsing and repeating. I have had my butt saved more than once by a timely missile volley on my target and I like it when it happens.
Switching locks is quite understandable. Intentionally not locking is usually a sign of either ignorance (i.e. don't know players need to lock) or selfishness (i.e. don't want someone else to "steal" their kill).
#54
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 4,070 posts
Member
- LocationLost in my C1
Posted 20 January 2017 - 10:22 AM
The ultimate form of greifing I can name was a certain founder atlas pilot who would not move from spawn all match in skirmish and assault modes just waiting for the match to end. He would either just wait for the enemy team to walk up to farm him as the last mech or just stroll along the map following the team if the team was wining.
I sent many reports and video to pgi about it and assumed others did as well. I've not seen that pilot in 2-3 years so he was band and left the game or started fresh and trolls down in t5.
Not locking targets in not greifing a lrm-er. It only deprives you of info that could lead to killing a mech faster. I'm a heavy advocate of tag,bap and uavs. The only missile mech that should beg for locks are the A1 lrm5x6 users as anyone who even looks at the hard points of that mech knows it has no energy hard points for a tag. Even though they could mount a narc many don't.
I sent many reports and video to pgi about it and assumed others did as well. I've not seen that pilot in 2-3 years so he was band and left the game or started fresh and trolls down in t5.
Not locking targets in not greifing a lrm-er. It only deprives you of info that could lead to killing a mech faster. I'm a heavy advocate of tag,bap and uavs. The only missile mech that should beg for locks are the A1 lrm5x6 users as anyone who even looks at the hard points of that mech knows it has no energy hard points for a tag. Even though they could mount a narc many don't.
#55
-
-
- The Seeker
- 8,578 posts
Member
- LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion
Posted 20 January 2017 - 11:13 AM
The6thMessenger, on 20 January 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:
I'd say he's being an ****** if it were done just to spite the LRM-boats.
I've seen and heard it happen. And, for the record before I go on, I'm talking about a willful and intentional not getting of locks or breaking locks (that you otherwise would normally not break) because you see the incoming LRM notification or because you know there is an LRM users on your team.
I'm talking about the willful "sabotage" of an ally though intentional inaction. Rather it is pretending to be a lower skilled player than you really are (durrr... How do I get locks?), or otherwise.
I am not referring to dropping locks to duck and hide. Or changing locks because you have a better target or whatever. I'm talking about not getting or dropping locks simply because there is an LRM user you wish not to support, no matter if they are boating, not boating, or whatever.
And recall, the LRMs here are just an example. So, from here, I'll respond to the rest of your post...
The6thMessenger, on 20 January 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:
Do you even have to call it "griefing", what the ****'s the point of it being tied to such word anyways if it weren't supposed to be tied with CoC? You could have easily called it something else, like being an god-*******-damn-uncooperative-bas-*******-****.
But PGI defined their "Griefing", and you can literally just read it off their CoC page just at the bottom. If the action or inaction does not line up with the criteria they gave, then it's legal.
But PGI defined their "Griefing", and you can literally just read it off their CoC page just at the bottom. If the action or inaction does not line up with the criteria they gave, then it's legal.
What else would I call it? It's someone intentionally going out of there way (in my example) with the willful intent to hinder another player's performance. (Rather that player knows it or not.) As for what else you are talking in that first paragraph, I can't understand it past the word sensor. Maybe you should choose better words to use?
I have never once said nor implied that said exampled form of possible griefing would be against the CoC. I'm simply asking, would you consider it as a possible form of griefing? I did not ask "could this action be against the CoC and be a bannable offense?"
Spoiler
Contained inside the spoiler are several different site's across the internet's definition's of "Greifing", as related to video games for the most part.
The key phrasing I'd like to point out is "Purposeful sabotaging your teammates", or "deliberately performing actions detrimental to other team members' game performance", Etc.
The6thMessenger, on 20 January 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:
Define "utility", and why would LRMs be utility weapons?
I wouldn't say that it's a win-win situation, after all the other guy holding the locks is maintaining face-time that will make him more likely to get nuked in the face, so while you are winning, the spotter isn't. And that's the entire time during the flight of the missiles.
Even if it's a win-win situation, that's not really the reason why they should, as team-mates they should cooperate, and part of it is giving information, likewise giving locks.
Although even if they get locks, they may not maintain them due to going back to cover to evade fire, because it's far healthier than revealing yourself since it's likely that you'll get shot, and even killed.
I wouldn't say that it's a win-win situation, after all the other guy holding the locks is maintaining face-time that will make him more likely to get nuked in the face, so while you are winning, the spotter isn't. And that's the entire time during the flight of the missiles.
Even if it's a win-win situation, that's not really the reason why they should, as team-mates they should cooperate, and part of it is giving information, likewise giving locks.
Although even if they get locks, they may not maintain them due to going back to cover to evade fire, because it's far healthier than revealing yourself since it's likely that you'll get shot, and even killed.
Utility: The ability to be used in more than a single way. Having multiple purposes. Being flexible in the manner in which something can be used. (Just from my head. Do you wish for me to back this up with internet definitions? I can if you wish.)
In relation to LRMs, this would be in the many different ways you can use them. They can be fired directly or indirectly. They can be used to produce alarms and "terror" into the enemy, forcing them to break Line of Sight. They can be used for damage, or to force the enemy to move. They can be used even to lure unsuspecting victims into closer ranges... They have utility in the manner in which they can be used.
As I addressed in the posts above, but I'll happily repeat it for you, I'm not talking about dropping locks due to the natural course of battle. I'm talking about doing so in a deliberate, willful and intentional manner to hinder the LRM user's performance.
The6thMessenger, on 20 January 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:
Curious, is not saving a drowning person inaction? It's called abandonment, leaving him for dead, so yes inaction is also action.
Q. Was the video intended to progress the conversation? Or was it more or less because I have the Seraphim tags on me?
As for this debate/conversation, it actually has evidence to support it, in either direction. Some believe if is not griefing, because no one else would really know if it is griefing (for the most part, in this example). Some believe it is a form of griefing, because one is intentionally playing different with the sole purpose to hinder another player's gameplay.
I still feel there is more evidence suggesting that it is a form of griefing, rather than "well, don't depend on teammates locks then". (Recall, we are not talking about people who never get locks anyway, those who break locks because it is the "natural course of battle", etc. We are specifically talking about those who would normally get locks not getting them intentionally, those would drop locks intentionally, etc when they know LRMs are on their team. Those who change their entire playing behavior simply because they "don't wish to support a potato" (which is really rather insulting to your fellow players to refer to them as such).
#56
-
-
- The Defiant
- 2,912 posts
Member
- LocationRUNNING FAST AND TURNING LEFT
Posted 20 January 2017 - 11:14 AM
I've seen people harass others for taking mechs that aren't competitive
"LOL YOU BROUGHT A VINDICATOR AND YOU ARE THE REASON WE LOST" level of harassment
That said usually the person in the "bad" mech usually outscores several meta mechs within the match
"LOL YOU BROUGHT A VINDICATOR AND YOU ARE THE REASON WE LOST" level of harassment
That said usually the person in the "bad" mech usually outscores several meta mechs within the match
#57
-
-
- The Seeker
- 8,578 posts
Member
- LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion
Posted 20 January 2017 - 11:26 AM
Edit: Something went wrong. I somehow forgot to make some replies! One moment...
Have you not heard of the saying:
Have you not heard of the term "swatting"?
This seems fairly true, considering how many people still go around bashing MW:O on review sits, spouting off problems "that have never been fixed" but was fixed years ago... (oh, and they typically don't even play anymore.) Same said people have been "professionally disgruntled" and post bad reviews about PGI every chance they can in every place they can...
My question is, rather you feel you've been griefed or not, could you consider it a form of griefing?
Ah, and the double edge sword shows again. You are right, by them not getting locks, they are normally the ones helping the team lose. But, of course, it's the LRM boat's fault, never theirs. Or it's the team's fault. Just wait, most of them will announce "team sucks" and then immediately DC after they say that. It's a classic move...
What you are presenting is more so "yeah, we have an LRMer on our team, but I'm just going to play as I normally do". This is how it should be.
You actually do exactly what I would expect from anyone who is trying to "be my spotter". If you can spot and get a lock, great. If you have to break the lock or be destroyed, by all means. A dead teammate is no use to me compared to a live one. I would rather lose volleys of LRMs from a broken lock, than lose another teammate for me to "do that little more damage to them". At that point, we'd be trading lots of damage potential for a small amount of damage applied.
The in game reporting works if they get a lot of them and then usually over time. So if a unit is targeting you and you are killed five times from five different members of that unit, the in game report is not going to be very helpful to you.
PGI will also make it clear to any player that breaking the CoC in response to someone else breaking it is not an acceptable excuse. They do look at things case by case though and if self defense you will likely just get a warning.
I would like to mention that we actually had one unit (literally, almost the entire unit), get banned before due to the verbal in game behavior. I haven't seen from them in some time...
As for self defense, if I have an ally shooting at me after I've warned them and I can't get away from them, I will try my best to protect myself. My concept there is, even if it's against the CoC moderately, I can possibly prevent him from damaging other teammates, making that player have as little impact as possible on the match. This is more or less a grey area, and I can only recall having to do this twice so far in my entire MW:O career. Once when an Awesome decided to use my Stalker as a weapon test target (after warning him, I alphaed once into him and he stopped, then was escorted to the front lines in front of my mech), and then some light mech that decided to attack a teammate. After several warnings from several teammates to stop, we all liquefied the offender as a team.
I shall admit, this was many years ago, back when things where still 8v8...
Tell me about it. I say "I've got some LRMs... (add in rest)" and they always seem to think I'm boating nothing but LRMs and that I'm going to hide 900m+ in the background. I'm sure I surprise them when I'm shoulder to shoulder with them, if not being the point mech... (Okay. I never said I was very smart when I lead the front charge with LRMs on my mech... Thankfully I bring plenty of direct fire weapons too.)
Mystere, on 20 January 2017 - 08:15 AM, said:
Have you not heard of the saying:
Hell hath no fury like a scorned video gamer.
Have you not heard of the term "swatting"?
This seems fairly true, considering how many people still go around bashing MW:O on review sits, spouting off problems "that have never been fixed" but was fixed years ago... (oh, and they typically don't even play anymore.) Same said people have been "professionally disgruntled" and post bad reviews about PGI every chance they can in every place they can...
Siegegun, on 20 January 2017 - 08:15 AM, said:
I play with LRM equipped mechs often enough. I have experienced my team not locking and unlocking once a mech has been sandblasted enough for them to kill it and get the "kill" (I am assuming to pad stats). While I suppose it COULD be considered griefing, I do not personally view it as such. I chose to take the LRM's, I will deliver said LRMs either remotely off someone elses locks if available, or directly as often as possible. If someone does not lock, I do not feel as if I have been "griefed". I just find my own or use someone else that is locking. If someone on the team is not locking then they are bad players. Period. I do not care what tier or what tourneys or what unit they are from, if you do not lock then you are a bad player. ESPECIALLY if you do not lock out of spite.
To me not getting locks on purpose to "spite" my loadout, just makes the people not locking bad players, not griefers. The ironic part being while they stamp their feet crying about my potato lrm boat, they are the ones in fact really helping make the TEAM lose.
To me not getting locks on purpose to "spite" my loadout, just makes the people not locking bad players, not griefers. The ironic part being while they stamp their feet crying about my potato lrm boat, they are the ones in fact really helping make the TEAM lose.
My question is, rather you feel you've been griefed or not, could you consider it a form of griefing?
Ah, and the double edge sword shows again. You are right, by them not getting locks, they are normally the ones helping the team lose. But, of course, it's the LRM boat's fault, never theirs. Or it's the team's fault. Just wait, most of them will announce "team sucks" and then immediately DC after they say that. It's a classic move...
Mole, on 20 January 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:
I think if you're intentionally not pressing R for the express purpose of denying your LRM teammates a target then I'd say that's a little bit of griefing because you're kinda being a jerk just for the sake of being a jerk. However, that being said, I am not going to begrudge anyone for not holding a lock for an LRM boat that says "hold lockz plz" and sits in the back at 900m and fires at targets locked by other people who are putting their lives in jeopardy and either have to pull back and lose the lock to stay alive or expose themselves to enemy fire for the entire flight time of LRMs from 900m away, which is awful. Whenever I see someone doing that I tell them "I press R but I'm not going to put myself at greater risk than I need to so you can sit back at 900m and launch missiles at targets you won't hit." When I play LRMs I generally get my own locks if I can and I'm up front stuck in with the team sharing my armor. That is how you play LRMs.
What you are presenting is more so "yeah, we have an LRMer on our team, but I'm just going to play as I normally do". This is how it should be.
You actually do exactly what I would expect from anyone who is trying to "be my spotter". If you can spot and get a lock, great. If you have to break the lock or be destroyed, by all means. A dead teammate is no use to me compared to a live one. I would rather lose volleys of LRMs from a broken lock, than lose another teammate for me to "do that little more damage to them". At that point, we'd be trading lots of damage potential for a small amount of damage applied.
MacClearly, on 20 January 2017 - 08:35 AM, said:
The in game reporting works if they get a lot of them and then usually over time. So if a unit is targeting you and you are killed five times from five different members of that unit, the in game report is not going to be very helpful to you.
PGI will also make it clear to any player that breaking the CoC in response to someone else breaking it is not an acceptable excuse. They do look at things case by case though and if self defense you will likely just get a warning.
I would like to mention that we actually had one unit (literally, almost the entire unit), get banned before due to the verbal in game behavior. I haven't seen from them in some time...
As for self defense, if I have an ally shooting at me after I've warned them and I can't get away from them, I will try my best to protect myself. My concept there is, even if it's against the CoC moderately, I can possibly prevent him from damaging other teammates, making that player have as little impact as possible on the match. This is more or less a grey area, and I can only recall having to do this twice so far in my entire MW:O career. Once when an Awesome decided to use my Stalker as a weapon test target (after warning him, I alphaed once into him and he stopped, then was escorted to the front lines in front of my mech), and then some light mech that decided to attack a teammate. After several warnings from several teammates to stop, we all liquefied the offender as a team.
I shall admit, this was many years ago, back when things where still 8v8...
Amsro, on 20 January 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:
TLDR; people now have preset ideas about what LRM mechs and players represent, regardless of performance or team play.
TLDR2; LRM's are for newb **** players only.
TLDR2; LRM's are for newb **** players only.
Tell me about it. I say "I've got some LRMs... (add in rest)" and they always seem to think I'm boating nothing but LRMs and that I'm going to hide 900m+ in the background. I'm sure I surprise them when I'm shoulder to shoulder with them, if not being the point mech... (Okay. I never said I was very smart when I lead the front charge with LRMs on my mech... Thankfully I bring plenty of direct fire weapons too.)
Edited by Tesunie, 20 January 2017 - 11:31 AM.
#58
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 13,522 posts
Professor of Memetics
- LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM
Posted 20 January 2017 - 11:34 AM
Intentionally not getting locks...
Let's see. Locks show the location of the enemy on all teammates' radar screens, and makes the red Doritos apprea on their HUD. It allows teammates outside of Los to know the enemy's position and gives the whole team the ability to lock onto them to view their health/weapons stats. Also, friendlies with LRMs can piggyback on your lock for guided munitions.
So many uses for locks... And blocking that is not just griefing, it's aiding the enemy.
Let's see. Locks show the location of the enemy on all teammates' radar screens, and makes the red Doritos apprea on their HUD. It allows teammates outside of Los to know the enemy's position and gives the whole team the ability to lock onto them to view their health/weapons stats. Also, friendlies with LRMs can piggyback on your lock for guided munitions.
So many uses for locks... And blocking that is not just griefing, it's aiding the enemy.
#59
-
-
- The Seeker
- 8,578 posts
Member
- LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion
Posted 20 January 2017 - 11:39 AM
Mystere, on 20 January 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:
Well, hopefully now you know.
Switching locks is quite understandable. Intentionally not locking is usually a sign of either ignorance (i.e. don't know players need to lock) or selfishness (i.e. don't want someone else to "steal" their kill).
I still don't know what it is, but I'll research it soon I guess...
I never liked the phrase "kill steal". I see it more as "kill secured", as it is a team game. (Though I will pick on my unit mates when they keep denying me kills game after game. But I do it in fun, as I don't actually care and they know it.)
JediPanther, on 20 January 2017 - 10:22 AM, said:
Not locking targets in not greifing a lrm-er. It only deprives you of info that could lead to killing a mech faster. I'm a heavy advocate of tag,bap and uavs. The only missile mech that should beg for locks are the A1 lrm5x6 users as anyone who even looks at the hard points of that mech knows it has no energy hard points for a tag. Even though they could mount a narc many don't.
Atlas sounded like it was more so "non-participation", which is a form of griefing, and conveniently against the CoC. If he did that too much, than yeah, he probably felt the Ban hammer.
Though you wont hear me argue against LRM users getting their own locks (it's the smart thing to do when you can), what if someone intentionally wasn't getting locks simply because someone else on the team had LRMs? Or, as another alternative situation, what if they did get locks, then drop the lock as soon as they saw the missile icon next to their target, then reacquire the lock after the symbol vanish, only to purposefully drop the lock again when allied LRMs are inbound again? (Same concept/argument/situation, just taken up that extra notch for an example.)
Would that not be considered greifing but instead just "being a bad player"? And yes, I know, that one is a bit out there, but I sadly wouldn't be surprised if someone has done it at some point...
#60
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 3,519 posts
Member
Posted 20 January 2017 - 10:19 PM
Sorry, but I don't buy "intentional inaction" framed in such minor ways. I don't buy into it many other ways either.
Reasoning like that is the reason kids get "participation ribbons" these days. Can't have some troll of a kid griefing my kids by intentionally winning the race and lowering their self esteem, so everybody gets a prize!
Many times "doing nothing" to help someone is actually in the best interest of the team as a whole. Rather than trying to rescue someone who meandered off only to get gang banged by 4 other mechs, you save yourself and the team from walking individually into a meatgrinder.
By your argument, not assisting that person because it's not a smart play to lose other mechs in a fruitless attempt at rescue, is griefing for "intentionally not helping through inaction". It's obviously not.
Reasoning like that is the reason kids get "participation ribbons" these days. Can't have some troll of a kid griefing my kids by intentionally winning the race and lowering their self esteem, so everybody gets a prize!
Many times "doing nothing" to help someone is actually in the best interest of the team as a whole. Rather than trying to rescue someone who meandered off only to get gang banged by 4 other mechs, you save yourself and the team from walking individually into a meatgrinder.
By your argument, not assisting that person because it's not a smart play to lose other mechs in a fruitless attempt at rescue, is griefing for "intentionally not helping through inaction". It's obviously not.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
