Popcat, on 02 June 2018 - 08:41 PM, said:
"The absence of even one player in a match can directly impact the playing experience and level of enjoyment for all other players in that match. Initiating the search for a match should be seen as an unspoken commitment to all other players who will be placed into the same match."
Your just arguing for the sake of arguing and digging through dirt hoping to throw mud. For that reason I will reply one last time. but this is a mike drop.
You are the one who came in here and started arguing with me, unprovoked. I said it was pedantic when I brought it up. There are literally requirements for participation. Those requirements are little more than having a pulse, but they exist. Before you go and get up in arms about me saying that, look up what pedantic means and understand that I was acknowledging that the point I made is trivial, I agree with his point overall, but technically he's incorrect.
Since you don't seem to understand what pedantic means let me give you the definition:
"overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching."
Wow, kind of like the original point I made.
Quote
The part your referring to is under the AFK section referring to the actual player. Not their mech. It is not there to promote player/mech quality just activity.
None of what I previously said contradicts this. You are making a straw-man to argue against. Again, if you want to be technical/pedantic there are restrictions on what mechs you can build, they just happen to be enforced in the mechlab. You're required to have at least one weapon on your mech and the CoC says you have to at least make an attempt to contribute to your team. You don't have to be good, but you do have to try to contribute to winning.
Quote
The Terms of service specifically states kids under 13 can play with their parents permission. Gives no minimum age. That guy *pointing to the lurker in he red shirt with he kid behind him*. Could let his 6 year old play according to the terms of service Though it is possible for a six year old to do more damage than this offending player with his mech. (What can I say I have faith in that guy * pointing to the same lurker* and his kid, not being disrespectful to the tread starter or his mech.) tought It's probably not likely. That kid can be in every game you have that night and it's not breaking the rules.
I agree with you and I never said it was.
Quote
You are guaranteed only the absolute minimal quality of play by the ToS an CoC. That was also referring to repeated offenses.
Yes, but it's still an agreement/contract that governs how you are allowed it play, even if only in the most minimal way.
Quote
Actually the only abuse of actual game function I recall discussed is AFK, Chat, Shutdown, Decals The mech build is never covered an experimenting with mech builds is the core of mech warrior online. A mech does not have to be heavy damage dealing to be fun to a player. I have a locust with nothing but a ERPPC. Very fun mech lots of spotting not much damage but the damage it does leads to a lot of humorous moments and turning of heads.
Again, this is a complete straw-man argument. I never said anything about the ToS requiring you to build mechs a certain way. You feel the need to make up a point to argue against because I never said that and the point I did make is correct (even if it is a petty technicality).
I don't understand why you keep bringing mech builds up, because I never mentioned them being restricted in the ToS and I already said that I agree the ToS doesn't cover them.
Quote
On the harassment note I gave specific examples of harassment as defined by the rules of this game. Although I should add according to the CoC if I tell you I like my mech an you keep repeatedly telling me it stinks. Even if you don't think so, you are harassing a player.
"Excessively communicating the same phrase, similar phrases"
Just tought that was interesting side note.
I didn't disagree with your examples, or say that they were appropriate, however what the OP was talking about was players calling the behavior bad. That in and of itself isn't necessarily harassment, the way the Cicada was played sounds pretty bad from the description. Did some of those players cross the line between calling bad game-play out and harassment? Probably, but I wasn't their so I can only speculate.
As to your second point, again, I agree that if I went into a match and repeated called your mech bad (even if it was) for no reason that could easily be considered harassment.
That said if you said your mech was "good" (not that you like it) it's perfectly fine for me to explain why it isn't good and to say as much. If you continue to insist that your build is "good" I'm not harassing you if I continue to argue and tell you that it's not. You don't have a right to be factually wrong and then to just tell someone they have to shut up because you don't agree with their point of view. I'll even go so far as to agree that calling someone out repeated can get to the point where it becomes harassing, but having, for example, random people tell you that LRMs are bad or that your build is bad isn't really harassment and if you're going to run bad builds in a team game you should have a thick enough skin to take getting called out on it.
To be clear, I don't really go around calling people out on their builds, it's not really worth my time. I might occasionally make a comment here or there, but for the most part I'm more than happy to let people play the way they want to play if they aren't being actively detrimental to the team. If you go around claiming to be a great player and you aren't or that your build is the best thing since sliced bread, then yes, I might call you out on it, but it's pretty rare.
Also, there is a quote button that makes it a lot more clear who/what you're quoting. I'd recommend using it.