171 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Athom83, on 22 March 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

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.

That is the typical behavior I seem to find for LRMs. Even if you have other weapons, they will peg you as an LRM boat. Thankfully, this has sometimes come to be rather handy... As the enemy believes I'm an easy and harmless LRM boat. That is until...

IT'S A TRAP!

They find out I'm packing way more direct fire than I am LRMs, and very capable of killing in direct engagements if needed.


But yeah. Even without LRMs being mentioned, intentionally blocking someone (backwards movement and/or shots) is griefing, and clearly defined by the rules as a punishable offense. Blocking someone from backing into cover intentionally is not only blocking (hence the term) as well as aiding the enemy.

MacClearly, on 22 March 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

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

I think it's borderline impeding, but as mentioned, hard to tell if it's intentional or not. Thus why I agree with you. Technically, it isn't griefing (or not provable as such). Ethically, it is not proper and if it isn't griefing by everyone's standards (looking at this thread, it obviously isn't), I think we can all probably agree it's at least poor sportsmenship.

[MacClearly]

Tesunie, on 22 March 2017 - 08:48 PM, said:

I think it's borderline impeding, but as mentioned, hard to tell if it's intentional or not. Thus why I agree with you. Technically, it isn't griefing (or not provable as such). Ethically, it is not proper and if it isn't griefing by everyone's standards (looking at this thread, it obviously isn't), I think we can all probably agree it's at least poor sportsmenship.

I think it can definitely be unsportsmanlike....

I also think there is a place for saying to a guy who is whining and complaining about not getting locks while refusing to be up with his team, no, no I will not be getting locks for you.

Been running a lot of lights lately (mostly under Evil Goof) and I won't go defend an lrm Atlas or King Crab hiding from the back. They are not worth me getting torn up over and the hope against all hope is after being easy prey over and over, some players will stop doing this. I also spend a great deal of time eliminating lrm boats. Do you know how many Hunchie J's I am sneaking up on and coring from behind? One I can think of in the last few weeks.

Not just lurmers mind you. I leave a lot of snipers getting themselves into bad positions all alone. Team work is a two way street.

Now while I don't say a lot over comms in quick play, I press r an awful lot and when I am stalking it is very beneficial to keep an enemy in sight, hold the lock and wait for missiles before I move in as it causes the enemy to not realise I am behind them shooting with the lurms. I also, always have a uav. So while some lurmers may hate me when I leave them alone, there are a ton of others that I am sure love to play with a guy whose lock they can rely on.

[Tesunie]

MacClearly, on 22 March 2017 - 09:10 PM, said:

Been running a lot of lights lately (mostly under Evil Goof) and I won't go defend an lrm Atlas or King Crab hiding from the back. They are not worth me getting torn up over and the hope against all hope is after being easy prey over and over, some players will stop doing this. I also spend a great deal of time eliminating lrm boats. Do you know how many Hunchie J's I am sneaking up on and coring from behind? One I can think of in the last few weeks.

Not just lurmers mind you. I leave a lot of snipers getting themselves into bad positions all alone. Team work is a two way street.

You see, I would have no problems with what you say here. You aren't adjusting your playstyle nor actions within the game just to spite anyone, you are doing what you normally would do. You get locks as you can, when you can, as much to benefit yourself as well as your team.

You don't have to go back and defend everyone on your team unless you want to. Just, don't play differently than you normally would is all I would ask. (Although, going back to save me would be appreciated of course. )

(Yes. That last part was meant to be funny. Just... go with it. )

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 22 March 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

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.

LRM5s...least efficient?

Let us compare LRM15 vs 3 x LRM 5

Both have the same volume of projectiles and potential damage

The LRM 5s weigh less at 6 tons vs 7 tons and use the same crit slots. (LRM5 is more efficient)

The LRM 5s have a cooldown cycle time of 3.25 seconds the LRM 15 has a 4.00 (LRM5 is more efficient)

The LRM 5s will have a combined DPS of 4.62 vs the LRM15's 3.75 DPS 0LRM5 is more efficient)

then we add the gravy...

LRM5s have a tighter grouping so 3x LRM5s will land more projectiles into a smaller area (even now post nerf)

If you want to put a little suppression fire down range the minimal ammo expendature is 5 missiles for the LRM5 vs the 15 missiles spent for the LRM15 (meaning that suppression fire is more efficient with LRM5s for ammo consumption) the LRm5 is also more efficient for heat expendature for probing fire but this is rarely that big of an issue but still another point where the LRM5 is more efficient.


Then we have obstructive fire.That is using the missiles to literally block the enemy mech's field of view by raining missiles into them. My KTO with it's 5x LRM5 maintains a constant stream of incoming LRM fire onto a hard locked target. A pair of LRM15s group fired together would have a rest period of 4 seconds between volley strikes. 4 seconds of unobstructed view is on average two sight clear alpha strikes.

"outshined by average players with laser vomit builds" well this has not been my experience since I will when using the KTO GB place top three for damage dealt.At 55 tons the KTO can lay out damage numbers equal or greater than an assault mech and I do this frequently. On exceptionally advantageous maps like polar highlands it's no contest I will be top damage.

And you miss the point.The LRM support mech does things the laser vom or PPC + Gauss meta mech can't. It can project a huge area of potential influance. And that area is only improved with active info warfare feedback provided by friendly locks.

Standing in a choke point and pushing on the enemy...room for two mechs to fire through...Put a close support LRM mech in there and now you get three mechs firing.


Also read carefully and think. did I say that saying to a player to get their own locks is griefing? Or did I say that intentionally not providing locks when you could for the express purpose of reducing the effect of your team is griefing?

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 22 March 2017 - 05:00 PM, said:

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.

SIGH....

Asking for locks...how is this griefing? is asking for cooperation in a team game griefing? Are they "owed" locks? are we at all owed cooperation in a team oriented game?

Guess not. I actually don't expect anything from the average window licker in pug matches.I'm greatfull when I still have rear armor after we have left the drop zone.

Let's change gears shall we.

Let's say that someone hates long range gauss snipers because they don't share their armor and contribute to target deflection in brawling.

So as a choice they intentionally block the sniper mech's line of fire to prevent them from reaching the full potential of their mech's loadout.They are in a way denying targeting to the gauss sniper because they disagree with the gauss sniper's use of a sniper mech. Now that lazy back fielder needs to get in front of this guy to shoot anything.

Would this be griefing?

How is initiating an action with express purpose of decreasing performance of a team mate not griefing?

remember my entire argument is based upon INTENT does the guy not locking targets do it for the express purpose of denying targets to team mates? Have they altered their routine to negativley impact their team mate?

It's the intention of the action not simply being to incompetent to press "R" that makes it griefing.

I mentioned team killing as the extreme escalation of a player taking it upon themselves to penalize other players for what they feel is unacceptable. The point of that illistration was to place a context on intent and purpose.

As it's clearly against the rules to attack a team mate there is no question about if it's griefing. But why? Why would this be griefing?

Well to continue with my purpose of mentioning it ( I failed to realize that it needed to be spelled out and assumed a level of comprehension that is not there)

It is griefing to attack team mates because it negativley impacts that player and ALL players on your team by removing assets that could be used to win the match.

Can we agree that this is the reason why TKing is griefing?

So let's place the lock denial issue into this context shall we. Intentionally depriving your team of assets that can be used to win a match is griefing your team.

You have for whatever reason been assigned a LURM potato who will for whatever reason sit in his LRM60 stalker with way to much ammo no secondary weapons and no TAG at max range and leach locks.

I agree this guy is not your last best hope for victory but... If you play to their (limited) strengths and provide locks (when safe and possible) that potato will contribute to YOUR victory.

You got the team you got not the team you wanted. Do you work with it to win or do you bust out your social justice pants and willfully sabotage your team to prove the obvious potato is a potato?

[I_AM_ZUUL]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 23 March 2017 - 02:20 PM.
insults

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 22 March 2017 - 11:54 PM, said:

LRM5s...least efficient?

Let us compare LRM15 vs 3 x LRM 5

Both have the same volume of projectiles and potential damage

The LRM 5s weigh less at 6 tons vs 7 tons and use the same crit slots. (LRM5 is more efficient)

The LRM 5s have a cooldown cycle time of 3.25 seconds the LRM 15 has a 4.00 (LRM5 is more efficient)

The LRM 5s will have a combined DPS of 4.62 vs the LRM15's 3.75 DPS 0LRM5 is more efficient)

then we add the gravy...

LRM5s have a tighter grouping so 3x LRM5s will land more projectiles into a smaller area (even now post nerf)

If you want to put a little suppression fire down range the minimal ammo expendature is 5 missiles for the LRM5 vs the 15 missiles spent for the LRM15 (meaning that suppression fire is more efficient with LRM5s for ammo consumption) the LRm5 is also more efficient for heat expendature for probing fire but this is rarely that big of an issue but still another point where the LRM5 is more efficient.


Then we have obstructive fire.That is using the missiles to literally block the enemy mech's field of view by raining missiles into them. My KTO with it's 5x LRM5 maintains a constant stream of incoming LRM fire onto a hard locked target. A pair of LRM15s group fired together would have a rest period of 4 seconds between volley strikes. 4 seconds of unobstructed view is on average two sight clear alpha strikes.

"outshined by average players with laser vomit builds" well this has not been my experience since I will when using the KTO GB place top three for damage dealt.At 55 tons the KTO can lay out damage numbers equal or greater than an assault mech and I do this frequently. On exceptionally advantageous maps like polar highlands it's no contest I will be top damage.

And you miss the point.The LRM support mech does things the laser vom or PPC + Gauss meta mech can't. It can project a huge area of potential influance. And that area is only improved with active info warfare feedback provided by friendly locks.

Standing in a choke point and pushing on the enemy...room for two mechs to fire through...Put a close support LRM mech in there and now you get three mechs firing.


Also read carefully and think. did I say that saying to a player to get their own locks is griefing? Or did I say that intentionally not providing locks when you could for the express purpose of reducing the effect of your team is griefing?

Are lrm 5's more efficient at firing and weight? Yes.

Are they efficient at killing things or causing damage? No, no they are not.

I prefer to do damage over being a pest, and I find that while the plinking of 5's is annoying, being killed quickly is even more annoying.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 23 March 2017 - 12:24 AM, said:

SIGH....

Asking for locks...how is this griefing? is asking for cooperation in a team game griefing? Are they "owed" locks? are we at all owed cooperation in a team oriented game?

Guess not. I actually don't expect anything from the average window licker in pug matches.I'm greatfull when I still have rear armor after we have left the drop zone.

Let's change gears shall we.

Let's say that someone hates long range gauss snipers because they don't share their armor and contribute to target deflection in brawling.

So as a choice they intentionally block the sniper mech's line of fire to prevent them from reaching the full potential of their mech's loadout.They are in a way denying targeting to the gauss sniper because they disagree with the gauss sniper's use of a sniper mech. Now that lazy back fielder needs to get in front of this guy to shoot anything.

Would this be griefing?

How is initiating an action with express purpose of decreasing performance of a team mate not griefing?

remember my entire argument is based upon INTENT does the guy not locking targets do it for the express purpose of denying targets to team mates? Have they altered their routine to negativley impact their team mate?

It's the intention of the action not simply being to incompetent to press "R" that makes it griefing.

I mentioned team killing as the extreme escalation of a player taking it upon themselves to penalize other players for what they feel is unacceptable. The point of that illistration was to place a context on intent and purpose.

As it's clearly against the rules to attack a team mate there is no question about if it's griefing. But why? Why would this be griefing?

Well to continue with my purpose of mentioning it ( I failed to realize that it needed to be spelled out and assumed a level of comprehension that is not there)

It is griefing to attack team mates because it negativley impacts that player and ALL players on your team by removing assets that could be used to win the match.

Can we agree that this is the reason why TKing is griefing?

So let's place the lock denial issue into this context shall we. Intentionally depriving your team of assets that can be used to win a match is griefing your team.

You have for whatever reason been assigned a LURM potato who will for whatever reason sit in his LRM60 stalker with way to much ammo no secondary weapons and no TAG at max range and leach locks.

I agree this guy is not your last best hope for victory but... If you play to their (limited) strengths and provide locks (when safe and possible) that potato will contribute to YOUR victory.

You got the team you got not the team you wanted. Do you work with it to win or do you bust out your social justice pants and willfully sabotage your team to prove the obvious potato is a potato?

As defined by PGI's CoC "Willfully or repeatedly blocking teammate ‘Mechs or weapon trajectories." is griefing.

What you are not seeming to be able to accept is that not getting locks intentionally is not the same. It could be selfish or many other things, but it is not preventing a player from using his weapon.

As far as your attack on my intelligence, it does not make your point any more valid nor does it fill the hole in your logic. It also doesn't mean much as you have not shown anything to indicate even reasaonably competent thinking on your part.

Players can help or not help players for any one of many completely valid reasons. A light not going back to help an lrm Atlas getting cored out by other lights, is an example. It is not griefing to make the decision as a player that the Atlas is not valuable or worth the risk to go bail out. This decision is not griefing. It may turn out to not be the right call, but that is another argument.

Back to the not holding locks scenerio. Whether the reason is to discourage players from hiding in the back and not getting their own locks and participating with the team, or even if it is just because the player wants to hog the damage or get the kill himself, withholding locks is not griefing.

What you seem to not accept as an aswer is what I am going to continue to stick to here, so we are likely at an impasse and likely you are going to get into insults instead of actually making a valid point, which is unfortunate. The sticking point is always going to be not holding locks doesn't prevent a player from using his weapon. Your point about not sharing the locks being griefing could then be turned around by saying not sharing armour and lurming from the back is then also griefing. It is a silly circle and not accurate. You can call not sharing armour selfish, and you can call not sharing locks selfish, neither are griefing however.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 23 March 2017 - 06:44 AM, said:

Are lrm 5's more efficient at firing and weight? Yes.

Are they efficient at killing things or causing damage? No, no they are not.

I prefer to do damage over being a pest, and I find that while the plinking of 5's is annoying, being killed quickly is even more annoying.

Did you miss the DPS compareson? LRM5s apply a higher DPS so yes they do more damage in a shorter period of time. It's math

LRM5s also have tighter groupings and this directly translates into more ordnance on the same target body segment as well as fewer missed projectiles. It's also more math.

You are wrong I have listed my reasons and supplied the data to support my argument your counter argument boils down to ... "nuh uhh!"

The only real disadvantage to LRM5s is that when chain fired they are much more vulnerable to AMS. But thankfully I have a group fire key that turns those 5 LRM5s into a LRM25.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 23 March 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

As defined by PGI's CoC "Willfully or repeatedly blocking teammate ‘Mechs or weapon trajectories." is griefing.

What you are not seeming to be able to accept is that not getting locks intentionally is not the same. It could be selfish or many other things, but it is not preventing a player from using his weapon.

As far as your attack on my intelligence, it does not make your point any more valid nor does it fill the hole in your logic. It also doesn't mean much as you have not shown anything to indicate even reasaonably competent thinking on your part.

Players can help or not help players for any one of many completely valid reasons. A light not going back to help an lrm Atlas getting cored out by other lights, is an example. It is not griefing to make the decision as a player that the Atlas is not valuable or worth the risk to go bail out. This decision is not griefing. It may turn out to not be the right call, but that is another argument.

Back to the not holding locks scenerio. Whether the reason is to discourage players from hiding in the back and not getting their own locks and participating with the team, or even if it is just because the player wants to hog the damage or get the kill himself, withholding locks is not griefing.

What you seem to not accept as an aswer is what I am going to continue to stick to here, so we are likely at an impasse and likely you are going to get into insults instead of actually making a valid point, which is unfortunate. The sticking point is always going to be not holding locks doesn't prevent a player from using his weapon. Your point about not sharing the locks being griefing could then be turned around by saying not sharing armour and lurming from the back is then also griefing. It is a silly circle and not accurate. You can call not sharing armour selfish, and you can call not sharing locks selfish, neither are griefing however.

I thought you wanted to explore ambiguity? Since a clearly defined CoC is by nature not ambiguity I thought I would explore the realm of ambiguity with INTENT and MOTIVE and how it stems from a similar place that TKing,blocking and general harassment does.

If you assumed an attack on your intelligence then I apologize. I simply meant that my implied intent of making the compareson of TKing and refusal to provide cooperation is stemmed from the same motive. I thought people would get this but I guess I needed to be more direct.

I feel that refusal to provide cooperation to team mates when the motivation is to penalize them for not meeting standards precieved by the aggressor is simply a passive aggressive form displining the other players. Within the context I mentioned TKing the motive was the same,seeking a means of disiplining a team mate for not meeting precieved standards.

One is a clear violation of CoC (no ambiguity) the other while rooted in the same motive is rife with ambiguity.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 23 March 2017 - 02:42 PM, said:

Did you miss the DPS compareson? LRM5s apply a higher DPS so yes they do more damage in a shorter period of time. It's math

LRM5s also have tighter groupings and this directly translates into more ordnance on the same target body segment as well as fewer missed projectiles. It's also more math.

You are wrong I have listed my reasons and supplied the data to support my argument your counter argument boils down to ... "nuh uhh!"

The only real disadvantage to LRM5s is that when chain fired they are much more vulnerable to AMS. But thankfully I have a group fire key that turns those 5 LRM5s into a LRM25.

Common sense would point out to you that dumping your dps into a mech all at once as opposed to plinking away while the enemy dashes to cover or twists and spreads the damage is more effective, but at this point it seems you are immune. Go on thinking that lrm 5 spam is good.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 23 March 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

I thought you wanted to explore ambiguity? Since a clearly defined CoC is by nature not ambiguity I thought I would explore the realm of ambiguity with INTENT and MOTIVE and how it stems from a similar place that TKing,blocking and general harassment does.

If you assumed an attack on your intelligence then I apologize. I simply meant that my implied intent of making the compareson of TKing and refusal to provide cooperation is stemmed from the same motive. I thought people would get this but I guess I needed to be more direct.

I feel that refusal to provide cooperation to team mates when the motivation is to penalize them for not meeting standards precieved by the aggressor is simply a passive aggressive form displining the other players. Within the context I mentioned TKing the motive was the same,seeking a means of disiplining a team mate for not meeting precieved standards.

One is a clear violation of CoC (no ambiguity) the other while rooted in the same motive is rife with ambiguity.

We can certainly discuss ambiguity. I started this thread with Tesunie as in another thread he made some excellent points, but we never quite got to a place where we were in 100% agreement. He did however make me reconsider my behaviour if not my definition or reasoning.

The ambiguity is inaction vs. action. Directly interfering or harassing vs. not helping or ignoring. Also as far as passive aggressiveness goes, telling someone that you will not get locks for them is assertive not passive.

So it is clear that in some situations you are saying that not helping a player get locks is not only griefing that player but the team. To reiterate I don't agree that not helping is the same thing as griefing. Even if it is to take a stand against a playstyle. Just as I don't consider telling the snipers they are on their own let's all push now team, would be griefing snipers. There are many different people, playstyles, skill levels or lack therefor of in this game. I can't tell you how annoying I get to see someone jump up onto the wall in HPG and stay there for the match (as opposed to some decent players I have seen go up, do some work and then rejoin and support the team). Crimson running out and trying to snipe from the island is the same thing, not helpful and a detriment to the team. I don't block these players shots, but I don't help them and will say something a lot of the time.

Unfortunately we have a large number of people who are adament that they are going to do what they are going to do, no matter how stupid, no matter how many times they are asked not to. At times this game is extremely frustrating because you are forced to rely on unreliable people. So if someone is going to insist that they sit in an lrm Atlas and expect me to go out and get locks for them, well no.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 22 March 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

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

This right here is actually our "sticking point".

What is the motive for not helping? That is what makes all the difference.

if the motive or rather cause is gross incompitence then no it's not by intent griefing or willful damage to team performance.

If the motive is that player does not see the helping to be a priority that needs adressing to achieve victory then no that is a judgment call it may turn outto be wrong but being wrong is not willful damage to team performance.

However if the motive is based on a sense of justified punishment towards the potential recipient of the help then this player has made a choice to withhold cooperation to administer a punishment. It's not their purpose or right to do so. They are allowing their personal adjenda to hamper the performance of their team and as such as just as much of an impedement as a sub optimal pilot to the team.

So with no further ambiguity from me my actual opinion.

Any player with any degree of expertise should reflexively target the enemy. This to me is a basic skill and is a core ability of skilled pilots.

Info warfare is a tool and friendly locks are assets to EVEYONE. failure to provide locks is a lack of advanced skill and a failure to recognize the value of information provided by locks.

I also believe that I as a team member do owe my team my full participation and cooperation to the best of my ability. they are my team I am one of them we are together I do owe them something. There is an expectation of participation it is unspoken and not formulated in some document or CoC but I think most players can agree that they expect their team mates to try to win.

You have stated that you do not feel this way. So we disagree.

Projecting onward to the specific topic of withholding locks.

Since I feel locking targets is a basic responsibility of any pilot and I also feel that any member of a team should participate to their fullest Intentionally withholding locks is intentional sabotage toward the team.

A player could be applying their best effort but they won't due to whatever motivation is present.

You do not see intentional withholding of full particapation as sabotage and I do so we disagree.


I am willing to accept that there are players who for whatever reason do not share the same level of proficiency as I have. I will on occation get a pilot that is best described in the MWo parlance as a LURM potato. This is just going to happen from time to time.

Now here is where we differ yet again.

I have the potato on the team. They ask for locks because they,for whatever reason are not inclined to move into the fray.

I will (since I do this anyhow) hold locks for the LURM potato to the best of my ability while maintaining the overall best intrests of my team. One of those best intrests is making use of ALL available assets and that includes a potato LURMer on occation.

I feel my team is owed my participation so I hold locks for our weakest link to get some semblance of function out of them.

While on the flip side if I have infered your point of contention correctly.

You feel your team is not owed your full participation and nobody is owed anything by anyone. The LURM potoato is a detriment to your success so deserves punishment in the form of withheld cooperation. Since the level of ambiguity is high enough to not be a clear violation of CoC it's totally justified.

So that leads me to the purpose of this thread. Since you don't seem to tolerate any decenting opinons like mine you clearly did not want a discussion with counter arguments.

Did you want approval? Did you want justifaction? Validation?

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 23 March 2017 - 03:11 PM, said:

Common sense would point out to you that dumping your dps into a mech all at once as opposed to plinking away while the enemy dashes to cover or twists and spreads the damage is more effective, but at this point it seems you are immune. Go on thinking that lrm 5 spam is good.

Ok so there is this core function of weapon grouping.

It's called "GROUP FIRE"

Since you do not seem to be aware of how this works when group fire is engaged ALL weapons on the weapon group currently selected fire simultaniously.

So if LRM5s fire faster than ANY OTHER LRM launcher and LRM5s can be group fired what is the difference between 3 LRM5s group fired and 1 LRM15?

it's tighter groupings and higher DPS on the LRM5s.

Edited by Lykaon, 23 March 2017 - 03:36 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

You know, there's a big problem being had here every time someone comes into the thread anew, and I think it relates directly to the ambiguity that Lycaon is trying to point out.


Namely, a lot of people seem to be of the belief that griefing (action or inaction taken with the deliberate intent to frustrate, hinder, or anger another person in the environment- in this case, the match/game) is defined not by the experience (what actually happens) but by the rules/judgement of whoever sits in power.


For a comparable situation, consider someone stealing a loaf of bread from a grocery store.

If the person in question could have purchased the bread with funds that they did not need for any other reason and did not require the bread as sustenance to continue living, this does not change that they have illegally obtained the bread, and would be a thief by legal definition.

If the person in question had no available funds with which to purchase the bread and required the bread so that they would have something to eat, this also does not change that they have illegally obtained the bread, and would be a thief by legal definition.


Whether or not an action is against the rules is unrelated to its justification, reasoning, or situation unless the rule in question specifically takes that into account.


Why this point is relevant is that there are people who, in any given situation, will define morality via legality, when these are not the same thing. Hence the batch of arguments that something not being against the Code of Conduct means that it is 'not griefing' or 'okay'.

It is not illegal for me to change lanes into the lane you are in, directly in front of you, and slow down. That does not mean it is a good thing for me to do.


The question of griefing, despite the terminology being used in the CoC (PGI should be by this point, I believe, well known to have some issues with terminology and use of words that mean things, much as anyone who's only seen a word in use and never had it actually defined specifically for them,) is not a question of legality.


It is a question of intent or, depending on your perspective, morality. Morality is, of course, ambiguous because everyone's morality, even an inherited or copied one, is to some degree different. Some are vastly so, even.


My personal take on the subject- what constitutes griefing- is in parenthesis at the beginning of this post, actually.


Griefing, as far as I am able to define and discern it, is behavior- whether active, inactive, assertive, passive, or otherwise- that is engaged for the purpose of frustrating, hindering, or angering another person.

To grief is a choice, because action or inaction without purpose is not chosen.


I see many events and occurrences engaged in during the course of play in this game that could be griefing if they were chosen. Players interposing their 'mechs into friendly lines of fire, not acquiring target locks, shooting through allies to reach enemies, dropping artillery or air strikes where they will harm allies, shooting allies in an absence of enemy targets, and so on.


When I am maintaining an even emotional keel- a 'level head'- I attempt to not make negative assumptions and treat such instances as inadvertent and thus not griefing unless evidence presents itself that suggests otherwise.



That said, deliberately choosing not to retain reasonable target locks (i.e. cycled locks with no other reason to do so or did not lock a target while shooting at them) with the intent of of my teammate has LRMs and I do not want them to use these weapons is griefing by the definition I am aware of. It is an action or inaction taken or not taken because of the decision to frustrate, hinder or anger a non-adversarial player of the game.

Until some other definition of griefing is provided to me and I have cause to believe this definition to be accurate, I cannot see this choice as anything but a form of griefing.


By the morality that I possess, griefing is wrong (albeit a lesser wrong than many others) and thus, making the choice in question is wrong, but whether or not it is wrong is (or should be) just as irrelevant to the initial question (namely, is this griefing or not) as whether or not it is legal.

-QKD-CR0

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 23 March 2017 - 04:05 PM.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 23 March 2017 - 03:33 PM, said:

This right here is actually our "sticking point".

What is the motive for not helping? That is what makes all the difference.

if the motive or rather cause is gross incompitence then no it's not by intent griefing or willful damage to team performance.

If the motive is that player does not see the helping to be a priority that needs adressing to achieve victory then no that is a judgment call it may turn outto be wrong but being wrong is not willful damage to team performance.

However if the motive is based on a sense of justified punishment towards the potential recipient of the help then this player has made a choice to withhold cooperation to administer a punishment. It's not their purpose or right to do so. They are allowing their personal adjenda to hamper the performance of their team and as such as just as much of an impedement as a sub optimal pilot to the team.

So with no further ambiguity from me my actual opinion.

Any player with any degree of expertise should reflexively target the enemy. This to me is a basic skill and is a core ability of skilled pilots.

Info warfare is a tool and friendly locks are assets to EVEYONE. failure to provide locks is a lack of advanced skill and a failure to recognize the value of information provided by locks.

I also believe that I as a team member do owe my team my full participation and cooperation to the best of my ability. they are my team I am one of them we are together I do owe them something. There is an expectation of participation it is unspoken and not formulated in some document or CoC but I think most players can agree that they expect their team mates to try to win.

You have stated that you do not feel this way. So we disagree.

Projecting onward to the specific topic of withholding locks.

Since I feel locking targets is a basic responsibility of any pilot and I also feel that any member of a team should participate to their fullest Intentionally withholding locks is intentional sabotage toward the team.

A player could be applying their best effort but they won't due to whatever motivation is present.

You do not see intentional withholding of full particapation as sabotage and I do so we disagree.


I am willing to accept that there are players who for whatever reason do not share the same level of proficiency as I have. I will on occation get a pilot that is best described in the MWo parlance as a LURM potato. This is just going to happen from time to time.

Now here is where we differ yet again.

I have the potato on the team. They ask for locks because they,for whatever reason are not inclined to move into the fray.

I will (since I do this anyhow) hold locks for the LURM potato to the best of my ability while maintaining the overall best intrests of my team. One of those best intrests is making use of ALL available assets and that includes a potato LURMer on occation.

I feel my team is owed my participation so I hold locks for our weakest link to get some semblance of function out of them.

While on the flip side if I have infered your point of contention correctly.

You feel your team is not owed your full participation and nobody is owed anything by anyone. The LURM potoato is a detriment to your success so deserves punishment in the form of withheld cooperation. Since the level of ambiguity is high enough to not be a clear violation of CoC it's totally justified.

So that leads me to the purpose of this thread. Since you don't seem to tolerate any decenting opinons like mine you clearly did not want a discussion with counter arguments.

Did you want approval? Did you want justifaction? Validation?

I guess you think you are making your point. I do not.

As far as why I started the thread it is directly due to a debate between Tesunie and myself. He made excellent points and is in disagreement with my opinion but it made me think. It also got me curious to griefing as a whole but unfortunately the topic did not stray too far from lrms. So that is my motivation. I did not owe you an explanation about my motives, and I don't really appreciate your assumptions because I disagree with you, but maybe someone will read this besides you and get something from it.

You keep going back to these expectations you have for other people. Yet it is contradictory considered that a player could very well expect a lurmer to get his own locks and not demand them from others or make due with what locks do come his way.

You also seem to be going in circles. My definition of griefing is direct interference. Not helping does not fall under that. Your arguments have not been persuasive enough for me to back off from this view. You have not countered that lurming from the back and not sharing armour is griefing if not sharing locks is griefing in your books. The two are similar in that some players expect everyone to share armour and trade with the enemy, while you are saying there is a similar expectation on locks. If this is the crux of your arguement, or you are unable to show why one behaviour is ok and not griefing while the other is ok, then I can't see any reason to change my mind.

It boils down to expectations. The only expectation you can have is the overt and obvious ones such as the CoC related definintions. The rest of the expectations evolve from the community. This will also vary from person to person but certainly there are a lot of people who don't like back yard lurmers and lock demanders. Again it is not dissimilar to not being thrilled about those solo snipers not helping there team either.

Communities such as this, will also self govern. This is natural. Social engineering and such. So the few that are adament about staying in the back and firing their lurms while others get locks for them, can have all the expectations in the world. They will undoubtably also have a great deal of disappointment to go along with it as people don't behave how they want them to behave, and since they are in the minority, I would say that they are not in the right. So they can continue to swim against the tide and complain or not. Their choice. So as far as that is concerned, I would say that following the flow of the majority in this case, and being an active and effective part of the team, is another strong point against not helping someone continue negative or detrimental behaviour as griefing.

[MacClearly]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 23 March 2017 - 04:02 PM, said:

You know, there's a big problem being had here every time someone comes into the thread anew, and I think it relates directly to the ambiguity that Lycaon is trying to point out.


Namely, a lot of people seem to be of the belief that griefing (action or inaction taken with the deliberate intent to frustrate, hinder, or anger another person in the environment- in this case, the match/game) is defined not by the experience (what actually happens) but by the rules/judgement of whoever sits in power.


For a comparable situation, consider someone stealing a loaf of bread from a grocery store.

If the person in question could have purchased the bread with funds that they did not need for any other reason and did not require the bread as sustenance to continue living, this does not change that they have illegally obtained the bread, and would be a thief by legal definition.

If the person in question had no available funds with which to purchase the bread and required the bread so that they would have something to eat, this also does not change that they have illegally obtained the bread, and would be a thief by legal definition.


Whether or not an action is against the rules is unrelated to its justification, reasoning, or situation unless the rule in question specifically takes that into account.


Why this point is relevant is that there are people who, in any given situation, will define morality via legality, when these are not the same thing. Hence the batch of arguments that something not being against the Code of Conduct means that it is 'not griefing' or 'okay'.

It is not illegal for me to change lanes into the lane you are in, directly in front of you, and slow down. That does not mean it is a good thing for me to do.


The question of griefing, despite the terminology being used in the CoC (PGI should be by this point, I believe, well known to have some issues with terminology and use of words that mean things, much as anyone who's only seen a word in use and never had it actually defined specifically for them,) is not a question of legality.


It is a question of intent or, depending on your perspective, morality. Morality is, of course, ambiguous because everyone's morality, even an inherited or copied one, is to some degree different. Some are vastly so, even.


My personal take on the subject- what constitutes griefing- is in parenthesis at the beginning of this post, actually.


Griefing, as far as I am able to define and discern it, is behavior- whether active, inactive, assertive, passive, or otherwise- that is engaged for the purpose of frustrating, hindering, or angering another person.

To grief is a choice, because action or inaction without purpose is not chosen.


I see many events and occurrences engaged in during the course of play in this game that could be griefing if they were chosen. Players interposing their 'mechs into friendly lines of fire, not acquiring target locks, shooting through allies to reach enemies, dropping artillery or air strikes where they will harm allies, shooting allies in an absence of enemy targets, and so on.


When I am maintaining an even emotional keel- a 'level head'- I attempt to not make negative assumptions and treat such instances as inadvertent and thus not griefing unless evidence presents itself that suggests otherwise.



That said, deliberately choosing not to retain reasonable target locks (i.e. cycled locks with no other reason to do so or did not lock a target while shooting at them) with the intent of of my teammate has LRMs and I do not want them to use these weapons is griefing by the definition I am aware of. It is an action or inaction taken or not taken because of the decision to frustrate, hinder or anger a non-adversarial player of the game.

Until some other definition of griefing is provided to me and I have cause to believe this definition to be accurate, I cannot see this choice as anything but a form of griefing.


By the morality that I possess, griefing is wrong (albeit a lesser wrong than many others) and thus, making the choice in question is wrong, but whether or not it is wrong is (or should be) just as irrelevant to the initial question (namely, is this griefing or not) as whether or not it is legal.

-QKD-CR0

I appreciate your perspective.

Where I struggle is that line of expectations for or of, others. This is a game, and in this game, people have many, many choices. I keep going back to one of the other irritants commonly complained about, the lone sniper guy. It isn't exclusive to lurmers, to hide in the back. There are players who choose to be the lone wolf and go off and hide, looking for opportunities to snipe. In both cases, these players are not sharing armour. To me this is similar to not sharing locks. Both behaviours are not widely accepted practises that the community appreciates. Obviously there are also high level players who use PPFLD that usually do so with the team and are an effective members of the team.

Also, there is the guy who has fought all match, but seeing his team obliterated goes off to hide and protect his precious KMD. This behaviour really aggrevates players despite it actually not being against the CoC. Many players will actually report the players position which is directly against the CoC, because it annoys them so much. So is protecting your KMD griefing? I don't neccessarily like when people do it, but I have also ran around myself or chose not die stupidly (providing it is conquest or domination mind you) but it is not something I regularly would do. Yet it really bothers people. Despite being able to exit, choose another mech and launch, they don't like the behaviour and will do something a lot of the time to try and correct something that actually isn't really immoral, nor illegal in the sense of being against the rules of the game. While some will argue, it is non participation, in the CoC it does not outline a player must be shooting at other every minute to have participated in the match. It does clearly say assisting the enemy is a direct violation. Admittedly there is a lot of grey there which is likely why PGI doesn't penalise hiders nor postion reporters to the best of my knowledge.

Anyway, just more to consider I hope. Again I like your morality approach though and think unwritten community standards may be at play.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 23 March 2017 - 03:36 PM, said:

Ok so there is this core function of weapon grouping.

It's called "GROUP FIRE"

Since you do not seem to be aware of how this works when group fire is engaged ALL weapons on the weapon group currently selected fire simultaniously.

So if LRM5s fire faster than ANY OTHER LRM launcher and LRM5s can be group fired what is the difference between 3 LRM5s group fired and 1 LRM15?

it's tighter groupings and higher DPS on the LRM5s.

Ok if you say so. Wonder why I see so many not doing this and instead just sending steady streams of vollies of five about? Thank you however about teaching me about group fire. I am going to have to look into this group fire more thoroughly.

[Trev Firestorm]

MacClearly, on 22 March 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

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

Like I said, it is entirely in the intent. Not getting/holding locks is not greifing until it is intentionally to deny someone the ability to fire on that target to "punish" them for playing lrms. The only time this can be verified or called out is when the greifer brazenly declares that he is doing so.

[MacClearly]

Trev Firestorm, on 23 March 2017 - 06:38 PM, said:

Like I said, it is entirely in the intent. Not getting/holding locks is not greifing until it is intentionally to deny someone the ability to fire on that target to "punish" them for playing lrms. The only time this can be verified or called out is when the greifer brazenly declares that he is doing so.

I think there is a difference between intentionally not helping and intentionally interferring.