171 replies to this topic

[Tiamat of the Sea]

MacClearly, on 23 March 2017 - 04:51 PM, said:

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.

While I do not agree with your perspective as a whole and several points in particular, I would like to thank you for engaging in an actual argument rather than some kind of internet shouting match. Also for explaining your perspective.

MacClearly, on 23 March 2017 - 07:17 PM, said:

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

There is, but that difference is not the difference between 'griefing' and 'not griefing.' And that's where there's a point here- related to what I said in my prior post.


While Tesunie and I are both defining a choice as 'griefing' or 'not griefing' depending on whether or not it fits the definition of the word, you are defining the choice as 'griefing' or 'not griefing' based on an at least partially moral judgement on your part as to whether or not the choice is wrong.

That's the real sticking point.

You perceive that 'intentionally not helping' is somehow* not wrong and 'intentionally interfering' is somehow* wrong, and choosing to define which of these is griefing by which one you feel is the wrong choice, whether for direct moral reasons (it is wrong, therefore it is griefing, because an action must be wrong in order to be griefing) or indirect ones (I am not sure how exactly this would work but I am fairly certain it is possible.)

Therefore, to you, in order to be griefing, a choice must be wrong- if it is wrong it can be defined as griefing and if it is not wrong it cannot be defined as griefing.


I (and I believe Tesunie, though I will wait on him to verify this,) however, am approaching it from a different direction entirely.

When defining something as 'griefing' or 'not griefing', I do not initially take its morality into consideration at all. Instead, I consider "does this fit the definition of the term 'griefing' as far as I am able to ascertain?" If the answer is yes, then the choice is 'griefing.' I then proceed to the next step- not making that choice, because making a choice expressly and primarily/entirely on the basis of causing distress or harm to another being is, in my morality, wrong.


Therefore this is less an argument of actual morality, and more an argument of how one arrives at definitions of things off of which one can base one's moral choices. It's the difference between something being griefing because it is wrong, and something being wrong because it is griefing.

-QKD-CR0



*Please note that I use 'somehow' here not to belittle your morality, but to indicate that I do not know how you arrive at this conclusion. I also feel that the actual method is irrelevant for the sake of the specific explanation and discussion at hand, unless you- as the originator of the discussion for purposes of this topic- choose to make it so.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 23 March 2017 - 08:42 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

MacClearly, on 23 March 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:

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.

Oh, oh, I've got this.

There are several reasons to use constant streams of 5, and they are not always applicable. Like most pilots who prefer masse 5-launchers, I try to switch methods depending on situation.

Reasons to stream-5:

• An enemy is crossing an extended open area and you aren't able to call the target to your allies effectively. Your rainbow of missiles provides allies with a clue that an enemy is staying in the open and free to shoot at as long as you continue launching them, so they will continue providing fire on that enemy as well. This is less applicable in play with large groups who are voice chatting together.
  
• There is little to no enemy AMS cover. This happens a lot more than you would think, it's amazing how few people can spare a tonne and a half for an AMS with one tonne of ammo. While the damage up-front is nice, it's very easy to violate ghost heat with 5-racks, and in continuous-fire situations, streaming them keeps heat down considerably.
  
• You are trying to rattle an enemy to keep them from aiming at allies. Even with maximal cockpit shake reduction (and almost nobody uses that module), the steady stream of missiles coming down from above still obscures the view from almost every cockpit in the game, making it difficult for the enemy pilot to retain orientation, and exceptionally difficult for them to return fire to an enemy they weren't already pointing at.
  
• You are trying to prompt an enemy to stay in cover. The Incoming Missile warning doesn't discern between small and large missile clusters, and if you can retain the lock, you can easily keep a gunboat like the Dire Wolf under cover, because even not batch-fired, those LRMs pump out damage fast enough to quickly core most 'mechs that expose themselves with the missiles locked on to them.
  
• You want to be ready to switch targets immediately. Batch-firing means you may have as much as a three-second delay before you can start raining missiles on a new target, and that three seconds can be fatal to the ally that your target draws a bead on during the time you could be coaxing them back into shelter or making it hard for them to aim.
  
• You aren't sure your missiles will land, and don't want to waste ammo, because you didn't make like an utter fool and bring 10+ tonnes of missiles when you could have had other/alternate weapons, more heat sinks, and/or a bigger engine.

Reasons to batch-5:

• You don't know how long an enemy is going to be in the open and/or outside minimum range, but you know your missiles WILL arrive before then if you fire them RIGHT NOW.
  
• There is more than one enemy AMS in the vicinity of your target, and you doubt you'll run them out of AMS ammo fast enough to matter. Streaming 5s is a good way to pick off enemies who packed a half-tonne of AMS ammo per system, because it chews through ammo fast, but most people who can actually be bothered to bring one or more AMSes bring a full tonne or slightly more (I prefer 2.5-3 tonnes with two systems, myself, just to be sure) so you're just not going to eat up that shield in time.
  
• You're not sure the target is going to stay alive long enough for more than one-two LRM-5s to land in stream-fire, but if you launch the whole batch immediately you may save yourself or your allies some fire from that particular foe.
  
• Your launcher-carrying components are in danger of falling off and you'd like to use them before then, thanks.
  
• You have launcher doors and would like to keep those areas shielded (components with launcher doors take extra damage with the doors open, but reduced damage with the doors closed- it's something smallish, like 5%, but every little bit counts.)
  
• Ghost heat doesn't concern you, either because you only have three LRM-5s, or because you run so cool and/or have ballistic alternate weapons, so screw heat let's go.

A good LRM-user will use both these firing methods, depending on the situation. Personally, I always have my LRMs in chain-fire on weapons group 3 and batch fire on group 4 unless I only have one or two launchers (and sometimes even then, if the two launchers are large.)


Addendum: I also rarely use more than 4 LRM-5s and never more than 5, because 4 is all you need to keep up a passable distracting/shaking/coverprompting stream, even without quirks/modules. People who run 6 or more should be mounting SRM secondaries (or possibly a NARC,) as far as I can tell.

Beware my Areadbhar ARC-5W with its two SRM-8 fists.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 23 March 2017 - 08:27 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 23 March 2017 - 08:23 PM, said:

Oh, oh, I've got this...(snip)

While I personally am not a big fan of LRMs in general, this is definitely how they should be used and why I always spare the 1.5 tons to run an AMS if a slot is available (I even have an AMS overload module for my multi AMS mechs), if only everyone did that... Those streams would dry up fast lol.

[Tesunie]

MacClearly, on 23 March 2017 - 04:51 PM, said:

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.

Not sharing armor is a tactical choice. It's a selfish one, but it does not inherently have any interference with another player's abilities in the game. It's smarter as a team to share armor and be another target, but holding back is typically not with any intention to harm other players capabilities or the team's abilities. Not saying it's a smart choice or a good tactic mind, but it is one.

That is, of course, unless someone specifically is hiding with the intention of hindering other people(s) game play. I find this probably unlikely, especially if they are trying to still assist the team (such as in the case of a sniper or LRM mech, shooting from cover and trying not to present a target to the enemy team). Typically, those who are hiding, are doing so because they believe that is how they can be most helpful to the team/benefit themselves the most. In that case, there is no ill intent.

Honestly speaking though, any action could fall under griefing, depending upon the intent behind the action (in my opinion). If the action is done with a purpose to hinder, annoy or anger another player (friendly I might mention), than it very well could be griefing. However, as intent is not something we can know... It makes it hard to know when it is happening.


LRMs are one of the crutch points of this argument, and that is simply because they are the only weapon in the game that depends upon locks, and the only weapon in the game that can work off an allies abilities (AKA: getting a lock). As such, they are the only weapon that, honestly, can be griefed without anyone being the wiser (my opinion). All you have to do is shoot blind and never get a lock and/or break a lock as soon as you see the incoming missile icon on your target. No one would be the wiser, unless you are the person and/or they announced their actions and intentions behind the actions.


I see this more as not the action itself, but the intent and reasons behind said actions. Most times, such as cases with friendly fire, the person shooting the ally most likely did not intend to hit them. Thus, it isn't actually griefing directly. But, when it is used for griefing purposes, it's typically an obvious example. Such as an ally shooting another ally with no enemy targets in sight, possibly more than once... It's obvious what the intent was behind such an action.


Some of this will fall into a category of "who's at fault for FF incidents". Is it the person who crossed a known firing lane, or the person pulling the trigger? Sometimes it's one, other times the other and again it could even be a little of each. There often isn't a clear answer.

[Shifty McSwift]

To me there's a distinction between griefing and people just being d-bags;

Legging a friendly mech that got dcd during connection and is very likely to reconnect? = Griefing.

Always being the last one (or at least never being the first) into an open assault? = d-bag.

Powering down in some obscure corner in a massive map on a skirmish mode game? = Griefing.

Using team mates as literal bullet shields by getting right up their rear end? = d-bag.

The d-bag is just a bad teammate (in my eyes, to some he is likely a champion), while the griefer needs to be reported and/or deterred from doing such things.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 23 March 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

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

I honestly believe you that you don't get it. thus far much of your postings in this thread lend to this fact that I have to accept.

McCleary doesn't get it.

You consistently misinterpret latch onto semantics or get overly focused on a portion of a statement without grasping the totality of a statement.

I believe you. I get that you don't get it. I will accept that limitation.

And in closing I would like to point out that being assertive is not mutually exclusive with passive aggression. Someone can be both assertive AND passive aggressive.

Edited by Lykaon, 23 March 2017 - 11:21 PM.

[SQW]

I run Narc almost every game just to grief those who think LRMs are bad.

Edit: Like someone above said, getting right up the backside of the guy before you so he can't retreat is a d*ck move. If it is done repeatedly, I will gladly pass on the damage I just coped back to the moron tailgating me.

Edited by SQW, 24 March 2017 - 12:46 AM.

[Lykaon]

Shifty McSwift, on 23 March 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

To me there's a distinction between griefing and people just being d-bags;

Legging a friendly mech that got dcd during connection and is very likely to reconnect? = Griefing.

Always being the last one (or at least never being the first) into an open assault? = d-bag.

Powering down in some obscure corner in a massive map on a skirmish mode game? = Griefing.

Using team mates as literal bullet shields by getting right up their rear end? = d-bag.

The d-bag is just a bad teammate (in my eyes, to some he is likely a champion), while the griefer needs to be reported and/or deterred from doing such things.

What we have here in this thread is a request as to what is thought of being "griefing"

I would define griefing as any course of action taken with deliberate purpose to limit obstruct or hamper a friendly player or players.

This is how I would define griefing. I feel this definition lacks ambiguity and is fairly clear to grasp.

So taking an LRM boat into a match and maintaining cover and distance from the fight is not griefing if the intent is to contribute to the team by engaging the enemy within the set parameters of the tactics in use ie. remaining in cover and at a "safe" distance.

However if the intent is instead to be as ineffectual as possible and not contribute then the LRM boat is engaged in willful non cooperative behavior. And this is griefing.

Willful non cooperative behavior that results in a lessening of performance by team members is sabotage and sabotage is Griefing.

[MacClearly]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 23 March 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:

While I do not agree with your perspective as a whole and several points in particular, I would like to thank you for engaging in an actual argument rather than some kind of internet shouting match. Also for explaining your perspective.




There is, but that difference is not the difference between 'griefing' and 'not griefing.' And that's where there's a point here- related to what I said in my prior post.


While Tesunie and I are both defining a choice as 'griefing' or 'not griefing' depending on whether or not it fits the definition of the word, you are defining the choice as 'griefing' or 'not griefing' based on an at least partially moral judgement on your part as to whether or not the choice is wrong.

That's the real sticking point.

You perceive that 'intentionally not helping' is somehow* not wrong and 'intentionally interfering' is somehow* wrong, and choosing to define which of these is griefing by which one you feel is the wrong choice, whether for direct moral reasons (it is wrong, therefore it is griefing, because an action must be wrong in order to be griefing) or indirect ones (I am not sure how exactly this would work but I am fairly certain it is possible.)

Therefore, to you, in order to be griefing, a choice must be wrong- if it is wrong it can be defined as griefing and if it is not wrong it cannot be defined as griefing.


I (and I believe Tesunie, though I will wait on him to verify this,) however, am approaching it from a different direction entirely.

When defining something as 'griefing' or 'not griefing', I do not initially take its morality into consideration at all. Instead, I consider "does this fit the definition of the term 'griefing' as far as I am able to ascertain?" If the answer is yes, then the choice is 'griefing.' I then proceed to the next step- not making that choice, because making a choice expressly and primarily/entirely on the basis of causing distress or harm to another being is, in my morality, wrong.


Therefore this is less an argument of actual morality, and more an argument of how one arrives at definitions of things off of which one can base one's moral choices. It's the difference between something being griefing because it is wrong, and something being wrong because it is griefing.

-QKD-CR0



*Please note that I use 'somehow' here not to belittle your morality, but to indicate that I do not know how you arrive at this conclusion. I also feel that the actual method is irrelevant for the sake of the specific explanation and discussion at hand, unless you- as the originator of the discussion for purposes of this topic- choose to make it so.

There are a bunch of issues with griefing. I think you hit the nail on the head when you relate it to morality. Also this is a term that is relatively new and it doesn't have a clearly defined and accepted definition.

Like morality however, it is muddy and grey when considering how this concept varies to much between individuals, cultures and so on and so on.

The issue is further muddied in my opinion by the concept of social engineering. So if a majority or large group of people find a behaviour unacceptable enough, they tend to do something about that behaviour. Some call this the moral majority, however the majority are not always moral or correct.

I keep getting stuck on making a statment or taking a stand against behaviour you feel is wrong can be construed as griefing, if it is held within the confines of withholding help and not active sabotage. Feel it is similar to letting that lone wolf sniper die on the island in Crimson or even choosing not to warn him that a couple of lights are on their way to get him. I don't feel that inaction is griefing. Shuning or not helping to me is a way of saying to someone 'you are free to make that choice but I will not help you or support that choice'.

[MacClearly]

Tesunie, on 23 March 2017 - 08:34 PM, said:

Not sharing armor is a tactical choice. It's a selfish one, but it does not inherently have any interference with another player's abilities in the game. It's smarter as a team to share armor and be another target, but holding back is typically not with any intention to harm other players capabilities or the team's abilities. Not saying it's a smart choice or a good tactic mind, but it is one.

That is, of course, unless someone specifically is hiding with the intention of hindering other people(s) game play. I find this probably unlikely, especially if they are trying to still assist the team (such as in the case of a sniper or LRM mech, shooting from cover and trying not to present a target to the enemy team). Typically, those who are hiding, are doing so because they believe that is how they can be most helpful to the team/benefit themselves the most. In that case, there is no ill intent.

Honestly speaking though, any action could fall under griefing, depending upon the intent behind the action (in my opinion). If the action is done with a purpose to hinder, annoy or anger another player (friendly I might mention), than it very well could be griefing. However, as intent is not something we can know... It makes it hard to know when it is happening.


LRMs are one of the crutch points of this argument, and that is simply because they are the only weapon in the game that depends upon locks, and the only weapon in the game that can work off an allies abilities (AKA: getting a lock). As such, they are the only weapon that, honestly, can be griefed without anyone being the wiser (my opinion). All you have to do is shoot blind and never get a lock and/or break a lock as soon as you see the incoming missile icon on your target. No one would be the wiser, unless you are the person and/or they announced their actions and intentions behind the actions.


I see this more as not the action itself, but the intent and reasons behind said actions. Most times, such as cases with friendly fire, the person shooting the ally most likely did not intend to hit them. Thus, it isn't actually griefing directly. But, when it is used for griefing purposes, it's typically an obvious example. Such as an ally shooting another ally with no enemy targets in sight, possibly more than once... It's obvious what the intent was behind such an action.


Some of this will fall into a category of "who's at fault for FF incidents". Is it the person who crossed a known firing lane, or the person pulling the trigger? Sometimes it's one, other times the other and again it could even be a little of each. There often isn't a clear answer.

I don't know here. Again you make excellent points.

Not sharing armour...not sharing locks. As far as hindrance, one prevents a player from getting locks by other people while not preventing them from getting them, themselves. One puts the front line down and can prevent a tactical choice or hamper it...when to push in.

Considering our interaction and my experience dropping with your unit, I would concede that if you were playing as you described how you play, and how I have experienced people in your unit play, and I withheld locks intentionally hampering you, it is bordering griefing. If my entire unit did it to despite you actively participating, that would be a form of harassment for sure which would be griefing.

Those lone wolves, who make unsound 'tactical' decisions for whatever reason? Struggling getting there, to consider not supporting bad behaviour as griefing.

Also I think a lot of this would go away if players simply stopped asking people at the begining of matches to hold locks. I do run the lurms and never find it necessary and avoid doing it because I know people don't appreciate it.

Oh and btw yes my Purifier would be hauling but to cover your posterior if needed .

[MacClearly]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 23 March 2017 - 08:23 PM, said:

Oh, oh, I've got this.

There are several reasons to use constant streams of 5, and they are not always applicable. Like most pilots who prefer masse 5-launchers, I try to switch methods depending on situation.

Reasons to stream-5:

• An enemy is crossing an extended open area and you aren't able to call the target to your allies effectively. Your rainbow of missiles provides allies with a clue that an enemy is staying in the open and free to shoot at as long as you continue launching them, so they will continue providing fire on that enemy as well. This is less applicable in play with large groups who are voice chatting together.
  
• There is little to no enemy AMS cover. This happens a lot more than you would think, it's amazing how few people can spare a tonne and a half for an AMS with one tonne of ammo. While the damage up-front is nice, it's very easy to violate ghost heat with 5-racks, and in continuous-fire situations, streaming them keeps heat down considerably.
  
• You are trying to rattle an enemy to keep them from aiming at allies. Even with maximal cockpit shake reduction (and almost nobody uses that module), the steady stream of missiles coming down from above still obscures the view from almost every cockpit in the game, making it difficult for the enemy pilot to retain orientation, and exceptionally difficult for them to return fire to an enemy they weren't already pointing at.
  
• You are trying to prompt an enemy to stay in cover. The Incoming Missile warning doesn't discern between small and large missile clusters, and if you can retain the lock, you can easily keep a gunboat like the Dire Wolf under cover, because even not batch-fired, those LRMs pump out damage fast enough to quickly core most 'mechs that expose themselves with the missiles locked on to them.
  
• You want to be ready to switch targets immediately. Batch-firing means you may have as much as a three-second delay before you can start raining missiles on a new target, and that three seconds can be fatal to the ally that your target draws a bead on during the time you could be coaxing them back into shelter or making it hard for them to aim.
  
• You aren't sure your missiles will land, and don't want to waste ammo, because you didn't make like an utter fool and bring 10+ tonnes of missiles when you could have had other/alternate weapons, more heat sinks, and/or a bigger engine.

Reasons to batch-5:

• You don't know how long an enemy is going to be in the open and/or outside minimum range, but you know your missiles WILL arrive before then if you fire them RIGHT NOW.
  
• There is more than one enemy AMS in the vicinity of your target, and you doubt you'll run them out of AMS ammo fast enough to matter. Streaming 5s is a good way to pick off enemies who packed a half-tonne of AMS ammo per system, because it chews through ammo fast, but most people who can actually be bothered to bring one or more AMSes bring a full tonne or slightly more (I prefer 2.5-3 tonnes with two systems, myself, just to be sure) so you're just not going to eat up that shield in time.
  
• You're not sure the target is going to stay alive long enough for more than one-two LRM-5s to land in stream-fire, but if you launch the whole batch immediately you may save yourself or your allies some fire from that particular foe.
  
• Your launcher-carrying components are in danger of falling off and you'd like to use them before then, thanks.
  
• You have launcher doors and would like to keep those areas shielded (components with launcher doors take extra damage with the doors open, but reduced damage with the doors closed- it's something smallish, like 5%, but every little bit counts.)
  
• Ghost heat doesn't concern you, either because you only have three LRM-5s, or because you run so cool and/or have ballistic alternate weapons, so screw heat let's go.

A good LRM-user will use both these firing methods, depending on the situation. Personally, I always have my LRMs in chain-fire on weapons group 3 and batch fire on group 4 unless I only have one or two launchers (and sometimes even then, if the two launchers are large.)



Addendum: I also rarely use more than 4 LRM-5s and never more than 5, because 4 is all you need to keep up a passable distracting/shaking/coverprompting stream, even without quirks/modules. People who run 6 or more should be mounting SRM secondaries (or possibly a NARC,) as far as I can tell.

Beware my Areadbhar ARC-5W with its two SRM-8 fists.

I am glad you enjoy them. Great that you have found reasons you like for running them. We are not going to agree, and I think it is pretty accepted that this may be an option, but it is far from the best option especially on a weapon system that is not considered very good.

While I know people like doing it for reasons....there are some issues that the defence of this strategy fail to overcome. One is that one ams is effective against them, while multiple can completely negate the weapon even more than radar derp or ecm can. So they can be easily rendered useless. Another is that while they have a good on paper dps and decent spread, missile velocity is still slow. Lrm 5 spam is the easiest to spread over a mech while getting to cover. Those scary Awesome's (the lrm 15 ones R? I don't own them so not sure) can immediately dump 60 missiles on you quickly giving you much less time to react.

I have Catapults (actually own two A1's) and Mad Dog's. I have and will occasionally goof around and run the lrm spam. Hey it can be fun. It is however the worst way to lurm. Conditions have to be perfect for them to work and it is way easier to get consistent performance out of 10's and 15's. They are much better at killing the enemy than 5's which are better at suppression. This is not much different than AC/2's compared to AC/5's and 10's. Much different uses and roles between the sizes.

[MacClearly]

Lykaon, on 23 March 2017 - 11:16 PM, said:

I honestly believe you that you don't get it. thus far much of your postings in this thread lend to this fact that I have to accept.

McCleary doesn't get it.

You consistently misinterpret latch onto semantics or get overly focused on a portion of a statement without grasping the totality of a statement.

I believe you. I get that you don't get it. I will accept that limitation.

And in closing I would like to point out that being assertive is not mutually exclusive with passive aggression. Someone can be both assertive AND passive aggressive.

Lol. Wow. Just like I accept that you are not good at making a point and believe the fault is not your own.

That you think it is possible to be both assertive and passive aggressive which is completely contradictory is a prime example of this.

I also accept that you do not grasp the meaning of symantics and instead of addressing points you have made the choice to be both insulting and condescending.

So I am done interacting with you as you are not keeping it civil and you are getting personal.

[Kaethir]

IMO, as has been stated here previously, a lot of whether or not any action can be considered 'griefing' comes down to intent - which can often be difficult to discern.

If the intent is to cause annoyances and problems for someone else on your own team, then it is (probably) griefing. Even if it's the other team, if the intent is not to win the match but to piss someone off, then it is (probably) griefing.

[Tesunie]

Spoiler

I wish to note before people get "the wrong idea", I like well written posts that I can understand the logic behind said posts. It has nothing to do with if I completely agree or not. As those who look will notice I have liked posts from either side of the debate. (I don't know if this needed to be said, but there are points on each side that I can agree with and see the logic behind it, even if I "disagree" with it.)

I also wish to note, being on the side that "this is griefing" and being one of the co-authors of this thread (I guess), I want to remind that it is my job to try and convince people of my point and "convert" them to my concept. (But, at the same time, it is not my place to force you to change your ways, as MacClearly can contest to.)

Now that that is out of the way... (and probably was completely irrelevant and unneeded to be said...)

SQW, on 24 March 2017 - 12:44 AM, said:

Edit: Like someone above said, getting right up the backside of the guy before you so he can't retreat is a d*ck move. If it is done repeatedly, I will gladly pass on the damage I just coped back to the moron tailgating me.

Run NARC if you wish. It's a tactical choice that has it's rewards and can very much pay off. If you can NARC successfully, you can even keep an enemy lodged behind cover for 30 seconds! Fearful that the LRMs will blot out their view port if they so much as poke a nose out of cover.

...

Or nothing will happen that match as you may have no LRM users on your team. (Which is why I sometimes like to let people know I have some LRMs.)


As far as the part of your quote that I left, that is actually considered griefing and is reportable. It is part blocking, and is part "assisting the enemy team". It is honestly no worse than someone shouting out your hiding place to the enemy team when you are still successfully "run and gun"ing the enemy, ambushing and/or sniping without them being all the wiser. (The only time I approve of reporting a teammates position to the enemy is in Skirmish mode (and even then, be careful about it), if they are the last man standing, facing a wall, shut down. If it looks like they are trying to set up an ambush, I will remain silent (or even ask them such). In Skirmish, it honestly is pure griefing and not preserving your K/D to hide and shut down. Other game modes though, there are alternative conditions to victory, the enemy can win on them instead, and I will tell them such. Even then, it's still questionable to do so.)

MacClearly, on 24 March 2017 - 07:46 AM, said:

I don't know here. Again you make excellent points.

Not sharing armour...not sharing locks. As far as hindrance, one prevents a player from getting locks by other people while not preventing them from getting them, themselves. One puts the front line down and can prevent a tactical choice or hamper it...when to push in.

Considering our interaction and my experience dropping with your unit, I would concede that if you were playing as you described how you play, and how I have experienced people in your unit play, and I withheld locks intentionally hampering you, it is bordering griefing. If my entire unit did it to despite you actively participating, that would be a form of harassment for sure which would be griefing.

Those lone wolves, who make unsound 'tactical' decisions for whatever reason? Struggling getting there, to consider not supporting bad behaviour as griefing.

Also I think a lot of this would go away if players simply stopped asking people at the begining of matches to hold locks. I do run the lurms and never find it necessary and avoid doing it because I know people don't appreciate it.

Oh and btw yes my Purifier would be hauling but to cover your posterior if needed .

Not sharing armor is normally not done with any intent to harm the team's performance, but it can. It is often done by players who feel that is their best way to play the game, either for personal rewards and/or what they think is their best way to help the team. That is why we have LRM boats sitting far behind the lines spamming at every lock they can get. Those players often feel that is the best way they can contribute to the match, and normally are not doing so with the intent to harm anyone else's performance. However, if it was done intentionally to hinder someone else's performance, than I would classify that as griefing personally, if I knew the intent of course. (Not that anyone could be punished for that form of griefing mind.)

Not getting locks I feel typically isn't intended to harm anyone's performance as well, but it does far more than not sharing armor even if done unintentionally. The whole team does benefit from locks, not just the LRM users. I would also comment that, there are enough people who will purposefully not get locks and/or break them if they see LRMs incoming, just because there are LRMs.

In this case, LRMs are the one weapon that can be excluded so easily and be "griefed" (as defined as intentionally trying to hinder another players performance) without anyone else being the wiser. In my opinion, it's the "perfect" way to get away with griefing. No one will know, unless you say it...


There is a difference between willfully not doing anything to help or hinder someone, and then there is "going out of your way" to help or hinder someone. If you normally would get a lock, but you suddenly choose not to simply because you don't want to help the LRM person, that's the intent that makes it griefing (by my terminology). If, however, you normally would not have gotten a lock, there was no intent to harm their performance, even if it did. Thus, it isn't griefing. On the other hand though, if you normally wouldn't get a lock, but decide to because there is a known LRM user on your team (a hiding boat or not), that's just good teamwork and sportsmanship.


There is also a difference with your "supporting the sniper" situation. If it wasn't a sniper, would you have gone back and supported them? On that Island, probably not as there is no tactical viability for most builds there. However, would you have warned anyone else about those incoming lights? If your answer is yes, than you intentionally withheld information just because "he's a sniper and needs to learn his lesson". That may not be griefing specifically, but I feel it's rather borderline on it or could very well be. The reason I say that is, anyone else you would have told them about those incoming lights. Why not tell them too?

Players can't be judge, jury and executioner to other player's tactical choices and play styles. As much as we may wish to. We can, however, provide helpful tips and try to advise them otherwise out of their less effective choices. (Like I'm always telling LRM users to get to the front line. Stay within 200m of the nearest ally as the farthest back you should be, closer is better. Use the LRMs on targets 600-180m, closer is better. Bring backup weapons to protect yourself if possible. Etc.)


On the remark of letting teammates know you have LRMs on your mech, I see it as letting them know that tactical option is available, so if they need it let me know. The team can't utilize it fully if they don't know it's there, such as the NARC user mentioned in the quote above. It would be nice for him to know he has LRM support for his NARC. It isn't suppose to be a cry of "carry me on the backs of your locks, SLAVES*!" (some dramatization added for flavor). However, with how the average user seems to utilize and play LRMs... The sad truth is that is how people have come to interpret any reference to LRMs on a mech. Then people drop with me, I might say "I have some LRMs, so let me know if you have a solid lock" and I have to tell them "My mech ain't no boat!" (No seriously, none of my mechs likes being called a boat.) I seriously am shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the team, if not in front being the point man (I never seem to learn that LRMs don't work so well there)...
* All I can envision here is a Stalker standing on the shoulders of a group of light mechs crying "Carry me to VICTORY!"


It is apprecated that you'd leave anyone else behind, but will drag me out of the pan. Hopefully not into the fire though.
(Yes. I jest here a little.)

MacClearly, on 24 March 2017 - 08:01 AM, said:

While I know people like doing it for reasons....there are some issues that the defence of this strategy fail to overcome. One is that one ams is effective against them, while multiple can completely negate the weapon even more than radar derp or ecm can. So they can be easily rendered useless. Another is that while they have a good on paper dps and decent spread, missile velocity is still slow. Lrm 5 spam is the easiest to spread over a mech while getting to cover. Those scary Awesome's (the lrm 15 ones R? I don't own them so not sure) can immediately dump 60 missiles on you quickly giving you much less time to react.

I have Catapults (actually own two A1's) and Mad Dog's. I have and will occasionally goof around and run the lrm spam. Hey it can be fun. It is however the worst way to lurm. Conditions have to be perfect for them to work and it is way easier to get consistent performance out of 10's and 15's. They are much better at killing the enemy than 5's which are better at suppression. This is not much different than AC/2's compared to AC/5's and 10's. Much different uses and roles between the sizes.

AMS can be a bit of a sore spot. Just like ECM and Radar Deprivation. All are gear designed to basically negate LRMs. In some cases (with AMS), they can either run not good enough (can't stop all ze missiles!) or too good (I'm invicibile!). Don't ask me what could use to be adjusted, because I got nothing...

As far as LRM5 spam, most mechs don't take AMS at all. A lot of users feel it is unneeded. LRM5 spam was (until last patch, still being determined in the new one) very good at concentrated damage. It would apply almost all of it's damage to the CT, and it is believe that a stream of 5 missiles have a tighter spread than if more LRMs where in flight. (As in, some people believe that one LRM5 has tight spread, but shoot two LRM5s together, and the spread gets worse.) I can say I have not noticed this behavior, but it is possible.

Anyway, in defense of the LRM5 spam (as much as I don't use it myself), it's intended to deal all it's damage to the mechs CT. With the fast reloads and all shots hitting basically CT, it's like a rapid fire AC5 hitting your CT, often from above, and it's harder to twist the damage around (and sometimes not even cover can spare you). Targets tend to melt very quickly under that rain.

Another thing people like about the LRM5 rain is... well... *Whoosh whoosh whoosh!* Very similar to the feeling of boated AC2s, which also can be affective but also can sometimes not do enough. *Dakka Dakka Dakka!*


I know my Mad Dog (I only have the Prime) has two LRM20s and four ERMLs. I feel it works well, seen as I've scored some really good matches with it, and it wasn't even basiced at that time. Still tends to be a level performer. Where as my brother has a Mad Dog with 6 LRM5s and I believe an UAC5 and LPL? He tends to do the rain as he's shooting his other weapons at you, reasonably close to his target. The LRM5s deal damage and blind, letting him deal his direct damage a little easier when needed. (You would think with me being the LRM nut I am that I'd own at least a single Catapult, but I don't... )


Often (and I'm sure you've heard me say this already) it isn't about what you have on your mech, it's how you use it. For this discussion, it can also depend upon how your team utilizes you as well.

[Tesunie]

Kaethir, on 24 March 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:

IMO, as has been stated here previously, a lot of whether or not any action can be considered 'griefing' comes down to intent - which can often be difficult to discern. If the intent is to cause annoyances and problems for someone else on your own team, then it is (probably) griefing. Even if it's the other team, if the intent is not to win the match but to piss someone off, then it is (probably) griefing.

Makes me think back to a few Scouting missions I played...

The one team would kill everyone on the other side, and then leg the last mech. Then run off and leave that mech to flounder around as they get the remaining intel points.

Now, I get their reasons, as it's tactically sound. But it is really annoying to that last person standing to just sit there and wait. (I try to kill myself at that point to deny them that extra time.) The most annoying part of that strategy, they could still kill that last mech AND get almost all the intel points with the time remaining...

I can't blame them for the strategy, but I do feel it was griefing and could easily be avoided anyway. (If it isn't griefing (which it may not be), it certainly wasn't very sportsman like...)


I know once, my group wanted to do that tactic... I killed the last enemy anyway. I did run away still and gave my team some time. When asked why I did that, I told them why. I don't feel it is fair to that last person to hobble around and have nothing to do. I didn't find it fun, and I'm sure they didn't either. It's a game after all.

[Trev Firestorm]

SQW, on 24 March 2017 - 12:44 AM, said:

I run Narc almost every game just to grief those who think LRMs are bad.

Edit: Like someone above said, getting right up the backside of the guy before you so he can't retreat is a d*ck move. If it is done repeatedly, I will gladly pass on the damage I just coped back to the moron tailgating me.

Lol, never considered a case where something entirely beneficial to the team can also be griefing, well done.

[Lykaon]

MacClearly, on 24 March 2017 - 08:10 AM, said:

Lol. Wow. Just like I accept that you are not good at making a point and believe the fault is not your own.

That you think it is possible to be both assertive and passive aggressive which is completely contradictory is a prime example of this.

I also accept that you do not grasp the meaning of symantics and instead of addressing points you have made the choice to be both insulting and condescending.

So I am done interacting with you as you are not keeping it civil and you are getting personal.

Just because you can type something doesn't make it truth.

I have more than adiquately supported my point while to be 100% honest you have not.

Your focus has been on attacking decenting opinion (primarily mine) rather than adiquately support your own argument.

While I have been focused on supporting my point rather than attacking yours directly I will now begin to return fire...

Here is why McCleary's argument is total B.S. and ultimatley invalid.

It is entirely based upon hypocrisy.


In his own words he has stated several times that he does not feel anyone on his team is entitled to his cooperation or applied team work. He has stated that he feels totally justified in withholding cooperation from team mates.

Yet, He does expect his team mates to aid him and provide him with support and assistance. This is 100% clear when he makes mention of LRM boats "not sharing armor" .

He has an expectation that his team mate will provide a target to run interfearance for him by sharing armor and yet he has stated he has no intention of resiprocity by providing aid or assitance by locking targets.

He has an expectation from his team mates but does not have an obligation to assist them in return.

This makes players with this perspective poor choices as team mates.

I have concluded that either McCleary is deliberately obtuse or honestly incapable of seeing his own hypocrisy within the context of his own words in this thread.

I mean seriously the LRM5 thing was a dead give away. Two people have provided him with excellent information yet he is willfully ignoring well present facts that counter his opinion. This is pretty much the definition of obtuse.

Also...

Passive aggressive: adj. of or denoting a behavior characterized by indirect resistance to the demands of others and avoidance of direct confrontation.

Assertive: adj. Having or showing a confident and forceful personality.

Clearly not opposite or mutually exclusive traits. Please try to get your facts in order. Failing to do so makes you look ill prepared and frankly a bit dim. Debate is largely about preperation.

I will now declare victory since I can't think of any further need to discredit a flimsy argument rooted in hypocrisy.

Edited by Lykaon, 24 March 2017 - 03:34 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Lykaon, on 24 March 2017 - 03:09 AM, said:

What we have here in this thread is a request as to what is thought of being "griefing"

I would define griefing as any course of action taken with deliberate purpose to limit obstruct or hamper a friendly player or players.

This is how I would define griefing. I feel this definition lacks ambiguity and is fairly clear to grasp.

So taking an LRM boat into a match and maintaining cover and distance from the fight is not griefing if the intent is to contribute to the team by engaging the enemy within the set parameters of the tactics in use ie. remaining in cover and at a "safe" distance.

However if the intent is instead to be as ineffectual as possible and not contribute then the LRM boat is engaged in willful non cooperative behavior. And this is griefing.

Willful non cooperative behavior that results in a lessening of performance by team members is sabotage and sabotage is Griefing.

I agree in the general sense but am maybe not so harsh as you are in my definitions, turning the wrong corner at the wrong time could be considered sabotage if it results in assault dying to a firing squad of 8 mechs, it may not have been on purpose, but the result is much the same. I would never call that guy a griefer, but I may call him silly if it was obvious or whatnot (unless it was obvious suicide in which case, report).

But yeah exactly, a guy boating LRMs (even an assault) isn't griefing, if he chooses to hide behind a hill and let other people get his locks he isn't even griefing (just like someone choosing not to maintain locks isn't really griefing), he is just being a **** to the maximum degree. If he starts shooting LRMs into the floor or gives up and afks/dcs when hiding behind that hill after 3 teammates die or complains about how bad his teammates are when he was out of enemy sight 95% of the game then he is a griefer/troll and needs to be dealt with in whatever capacity.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 24 March 2017 - 09:33 PM.

[Lykaon]

Shifty McSwift, on 24 March 2017 - 09:32 PM, said:

I agree in the general sense but am maybe not so harsh as you are in my definitions, turning the wrong corner at the wrong time could be considered sabotage if it results in assault dying to a firing squad of 8 mechs, it may not have been on purpose, but the result is much the same. I would never call that guy a griefer, but I may call him silly if it was obvious or whatnot (unless it was obvious suicide in which case, report).

But yeah exactly, a guy boating LRMs (even an assault) isn't griefing, if he chooses to hide behind a hill and let other people get his locks he isn't even griefing (just like someone choosing not to maintain locks isn't really griefing), he is just being a **** to the maximum degree. If he starts shooting LRMs into the floor or gives up and afks/dcs when hiding behind that hill after 3 teammates die or complains about how bad his teammates are when he was out of enemy sight 95% of the game then he is a griefer/troll and needs to be dealt with in whatever capacity.

The all important distinction in my definition is " with deliberate purpose".

So if that guy rounded that corner with deliberate purpose and intent to destroy their mech without contributing to the team's efforts they are griefing.

The case you stated would be an error in judgment or a simple mistake. There was no deliberate intent of purpose to damage their team's efforts or chances of success. It was just a mistake.

I would say that if a team member is withholding cooperation by locking targets as deliberate action to prevent the LRM player from being able to fire at targets that would be viable targets otherwise then the player withholding cooperation is taking a deliberate action that is harmful to their team.

If they did not withhold target locks then the LRMs would be doing damage to the enemy. Damaging the enemy is aiding the team. But because a deliberate choice was made to not hold locks when the option was present then by this deliberate action the potential damage of the LRMs is absent and not of benefit to the team. How is this not intentional deliberate sabotage?

Am I arguing that a LURMtater sitting 850m back behind a hill in their spiffy LRM Atlas is the best use of the mech slot on the team?

I am not. I am arguing that if the player's intent was to participate to the best of their abilities for the purpose of aiding their team then they are not by my definition griefing. They are only making a mistake.

Conversely the player who makes a choice to alter their routine and not provide target locks for the express purpose of hindering the performance of the LURMtatter they are willfully participating in sabotage of their team and are griefing.

It really comes down to this.

Your team is randomly assigned to you via the matchmaker. By random happenstance you get a player who is a textbook LURMtatter and will sit in the rear and lob missiles at friendly locks.

The LURMtatter is not by their intent sabotaging their team they just don't know they are performing in a suboptimal manner. They are performing with the full intention of supporting team goals (ie. shooting LRMs at enemy mechs)

Another player then makes the willful choice to not lock targets with the express purpose of preventing the LURMtatter from landing volleys they would have otherwise had hit with had assistance (locks) been provided.

This compounds an already suboptimal situation.

Now we have a team with low skill low participation player (LURMtatter guy) who has every intent to the do the best job possible within their selected tactical envelope (sit way in the back and lob missiles from friendly locks)

AND...

We have a player who has made a willful choice to reduce the effectivness of an already suboptimal team member by altering their normal actions to prevent the LURMtatter guy from performing to their potential.

We have two players making bad choices now instead of one low skill player and several more skilled players working to get the most out of a suboptimal situation.

I think it's clear that working to make the most of the LURMtatter (providing locks) is of assistance to the team while willfully denying locks is a detriment to the team's goals.

And since the act of withholding locks was a willful one performed with deliberate purpose of hindering it is sabotage and thus griefing the whole team.

Edited by Lykaon, 25 March 2017 - 12:53 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Lykaon, on 25 March 2017 - 12:13 AM, said:

The all important distinction in my definition is " with deliberate purpose".

So if that guy rounded that corner with deliberate purpose and intent to destroy their mech without contributing to the team's efforts they are griefing.

The case you stated would be an error in judgment or a simple mistake. There was no deliberate intent of purpose to damage their team's efforts or chances of success. It was just a mistake.

Yeah fair enough, but identifying intent is quite difficult at times.