94 replies to this topic

[VixNix]

Who do you have to know to get something like this implemented?

[VixNix]

And another game where someone decides since the other 11 "team mates" are dead I have no right to play the game the way I want to and gave away my position... conquest map there are 9 alive on red and 1 alive on blue.

DISABLE "T" for dead players.

[VixNix]

Interesting how angry the "red" team gets when they have a way to win the game but they only want to finish off the last player...

Disable "T" for dead players will not change that, and that's okay.
Disable "T" for dead players so your supposed team mates can't fuel the fire and/or give away your position.

[VixNix]

Happened again
Dead people giving away team mates position, even though the other team is already capping the base...

11 v 1 and a very sad game

[Necroconvict]

Stop turning your mech off, and hiding. Take screenshots, and send them in. Post them in here?

[Ekson Valdez]

Necroconvict, on 29 November 2022 - 07:35 PM, said:

Stop turning your mech off, and hiding. Take screenshots, and send them in. Post them in here?

No.

Code of Conduct said:

Engaging in any of the following actions while using any PGI services is forbidden:
[...]

• Naming and shaming the alleged misconduct of another individual, including but not limited to accusations of cheating or exploiting.

[...]

Use the report system instead.

[D V Devnull]

VixNix, on 19 October 2022 - 01:42 PM, said:

I'd rather be in tier 4, I think there is more cooperation in the lower tiers...

As of when I am typing this, it happens that I'm down in 'Tier 4' rather much against my will. I can personally tell you that Communication & Cooperation are in hellishly short supply down here unless the MatchMaker is kind enough to put you with a Team that is actually reasonable. You know, the kind of Team that actually wants to work together for a Victory which does not leave a bad taste in your mouth.

VixNix, on 01 November 2022 - 02:54 PM, said:

I'm not looking to block any chatter, as you say seeing/hearing it is a personal choice.

Unfortunately for both of us, there are times when it happens the "All Chat" functionality on "T" is quite useful in a legal & valid way after a player is dead. I understand your feelings on the matter and where you are coming from, as I have unfortunately been a victim of such Non-Constructive Behavior as well. But it happens that I also understand the phrase "The Ends Do Not Justify The Means" all too well, and your idea steps way over the line here. Your idea to take this function away is effectively destructively toxic in that it would remove all valid traffic because of a minority who wrongfully abuses it. Take for example the following situations...

• Imagine you've possibly just landed a Headshot on an opponent... How does one ask their opponent if they really scored that Headshot during the battle? Oh yeah, the "T" key! There is no way to do that particular query if the function is missing, as the loss of such functionality prevents the player who was hit by your Headshot from being able to report that you succeeded. It also means you can not thank them either, or even wish them better luck in a future battle... particularly seeing as one can understand how the other person must feel after having such happen to them.
  
• Imagine that you and an opponent have both just downed each other in battle. Perhaps there is a moment where the both of you can chuckle over the situation. How do the two of you speak to each other? Oh yeah, the "T" key! Well, without that key being usable, there is no way to enjoy that moment of "Mutually Assured Destruction" camaraderie and the hilarity which sometimes ensues with it.
  
• While less likely... Imagine that you have just downed an opponent, and you say something at them which triggers their wish to apologize back about something. How would they apologize? Oh yeah, the "T" key! Well, without that key being usable, there is no way for them to respond back with an apology for whatever set you off in the first place. At that point, it means your words simply stomp all over them without allowing their responding as they should in return.
  
• Another less likely situation... Imagine for a moment that you and several other people have been downed in battle, and you all for some random reason feel like sharing a few jokes and quips among yourselves. How do the group of you in that random moment speak to each other? Oh yeah, the "T" key! Well, without that key being usable, there is no way to enjoy that moment of random hilarity and communication which can spontaneously occur. In essence, the atmospheric environment of MWO is then left sharply colder and more harsh, as your remaining options are very limited at that point.
  
• A not-so-unlikely situation... Imagine that you have been downed in battle, and wish to trade thoughts and feedback with your killer in order to enable improvement for future battles. How do the two of you speak to each other? Oh yeah, the "T" key! Well, without that key being usable, there is no way to gather such feedback, which then prevents your ability to gain more knowledge.

...and that's merely five out of many perfectly valid situations which are wrongfully removed from MWO entirely if the "All Chat" on the "T" key is taken away from downed players. This shows perfectly why your idea simply does not work out in the end, and would as equally trigger an Idea Thread of someone wanting the "All Chat" available on "T" to downed players. If anything, a distinctly different solution is needed in order to handle this issue. For example, the folks who comprise PGI's Moderation Staff could perhaps be asked to lower the minimum threshold before they check reports of a "Griefing > Assisting The Enemy" type of nature from concluded battles. That would mean these rule-breakers happen to get caught a lot more often, but without hurting the kind of valid chat traffic which people can find very attractive & welcoming in a "Last Man Standing"-styled game such as what MWO provides for people to play. Perhaps it's time to start over with a different proposition as to how this issue should be handled?


~D. V. "sees the whole 'throwing the good stuff out with the bad' issue which your chat-altering idea incurs" Devnull




[One Edit by the Posting Author to add a few words which better clarified a thought...]

Edited by D V Devnull, 30 November 2022 - 03:02 AM.

[VixNix]

D V Devnull, on 30 November 2022 - 03:00 AM, said:

...and that's merely five out of many perfectly valid situations which are wrongfully removed from MWO entirely if the "All Chat" on the "T" key is taken away from downed players. This shows perfectly why your idea simply does not work out in the end, and would as equally trigger an Idea Thread of someone wanting the "All Chat" available on "T" to downed players. If anything, a distinctly different solution is needed in order to handle this issue. For example, the folks who comprise PGI's Moderation Staff could perhaps be asked to lower the minimum threshold before they check reports of a "Griefing > Assisting The Enemy" type of nature from concluded battles. That would mean these rule-breakers happen to get caught a lot more often, but without hurting the kind of valid chat traffic which people can find very attractive & welcoming in a "Last Man Standing"-styled game such as what MWO provides for people to play. Perhaps it's time to start over with a different proposition as to how this issue should be handled?

I read your examples, doesn't usually happen in games I've been in.

As for your suggestion, if they lowered it to one report = action, and by action I mean take the ability to play away for a week per infraction.

That MIGHT actually cause people to NOT want to assist the enemy...

[D V Devnull]

VixNix, on 30 November 2022 - 06:16 AM, said:

I read your examples, doesn't usually happen in games I've been in.

I'll admit those have been rare for me too. Like what I said before, there is no good reason to eliminate & destroy all valid traffic, and those are merely examples of what could happen.


That aside, we come to this...

VixNix, on 30 November 2022 - 06:16 AM, said:

As for your suggestion, if they lowered it to one report = action, and by action I mean take the ability to play away for a week per infraction.

That MIGHT actually cause people to NOT want to assist the enemy...

...where I should note that before they could execute such an action, even because of one single report being sent in, they would still have to go through the process of verifying things. After all, if they ban somebody even for a short time, it has to occur because of solid proof, and not simply because they received a report of that type. Unfortunately, if the report was done at the End-Of-Match Screen with the current underlying state (warped due to incomplete Localization Changes that are still in the works) of that module's design, it is possible to misreport someone unintentionally, and then PGI's Moderation Staff have to deal with filtering those mistakes out.

I most definitely agree with you however that lowering the threshold for checking – and therefore taking action if necessary – should certainly be on the first report, and not after making half the players from that Match have to each put in a report... Otherwise it quite definitively leaves room for violating MWO's CoC through wrongfully bullying people into a certain mindset about how to play.


~D. V. "Agrees about the mindset on nailing Enemy-assisting violators, provided proper safeguards are applied" Devnull

[VixNix]

D V Devnull, on 30 November 2022 - 04:01 PM, said:

<snip>
I most definitely agree with you however that lowering the threshold for checking – and therefore taking action if necessary – should certainly be on the first report, and not after making half the players from that Match have to each put in a report... Otherwise it quite definitively leaves room for violating MWO's CoC through wrongfully bullying people into a certain mindset about how to play.


~D. V. "Agrees about the mindset on nailing Enemy-assisting violators, provided proper safeguards are applied" Devnull

Sure, sounds great.

I think there is a better chance of PGI spending time to remove "T" for dead players than changing the number of reports required prior to moderation, IMO.

[D V Devnull]

VixNix, on 01 December 2022 - 11:21 AM, said:

I think there is a better chance of PGI spending time to remove "T" for dead players than changing the number of reports required prior to moderation, IMO.

It's more likely the inverse. It would be too easy for a Staff Programmer to unknowingly make that unwanted mistake when adding Code of introducing a Bug which could flatly cut off 'All Chat' functionality permanently for everyone. I can already hear the uproar now, because that would need a HotFix in rather short order... Ouch!

On the other hand, those who handle Moderation should be more easily able to simply pass a Memo around about changes regarding handling without need for changing Program Code in any way. Far less chance of any Bug being introduced with this alternate method, albeit that I would be very surprised if any Program Code alterations were actually needed for Moderation Staff to properly change handling about such an offense type.

~D. V. "Sensing reversed probability regarding Code Change Difficulty versus altering Moderation Handling" Devnull

[VixNix]

D V Devnull, on 01 December 2022 - 04:04 PM, said:

It's more likely the inverse. It would be too easy for a Staff Programmer to unknowingly make that unwanted mistake when adding Code of introducing a Bug which could flatly cut off 'All Chat' functionality permanently for everyone. I can already hear the uproar now, because that would need a HotFix in rather short order... Ouch!

On the other hand, those who handle Moderation should be more easily able to simply pass a Memo around about changes regarding handling without need for changing Program Code in any way. Far less chance of any Bug being introduced with this alternate method, albeit that I would be very surprised if any Program Code alterations were actually needed for Moderation Staff to properly change handling about such an offense type.

~D. V. "Sensing reversed probability regarding Code Change Difficulty versus altering Moderation Handling" Devnull

I doubt they will do anything, they do not care.

[hbgpanther]

I usually find "T" is used in good sport. The same for voice chat and team chats. I've found they all have near-equal propensity for abuse and it tends to be worse from the team when it happens, while from 'all' it is simply amusing. I have no issue with calling out the location of a player who had been disconnected the entire match or is otherwise violating conduct by hiding, and I haven't seen it used for more murky callout abuse in a long time.

The need is not justified.

[VixNix]

hbgpanther, on 07 December 2022 - 06:10 AM, said:

I usually find "T" is used in good sport. The same for voice chat and team chats. I've found they all have near-equal propensity for abuse and it tends to be worse from the team when it happens, while from 'all' it is simply amusing. I have no issue with calling out the location of a player who had been disconnected the entire match or is otherwise violating conduct by hiding, and I haven't seen it used for more murky callout abuse in a long time.

The need is not justified.

You are advocating for violation of ToS, even those who are disconnected/never connected position is not to be given away.

Shutting off "T" ONLY
And ONLY when the player is "dead"

Prevents violation of ToS by people just like you!

Edited by VixNix, 07 December 2022 - 06:53 AM.

[hbgpanther]

VixNix, on 07 December 2022 - 06:52 AM, said:

You are advocating for violation of ToS, even those who are disconnected/never connected position is not to be given away.

Shutting off "T" ONLY
And ONLY when the player is "dead"

Prevents violation of ToS by people just like you!

Didn't say I personally did it but if you want to use an isolated example to justify neutering an otherwise benign feature, enjoy it never happening.

[VixNix]

hbgpanther, on 07 December 2022 - 06:10 AM, said:

<snip>
I have no issue with calling out the location of a player
<snip>

That is a VIOLATION of ToS NO matter the reason it's being done.

[Noobistheway]

usually location is given when you are shut down and hiding for the timer to run out. stop wasting time and go die.

[VixNix]

Noobistheway, on 09 December 2022 - 01:38 PM, said:

usually location is given when you are shut down and hiding for the timer to run out. stop wasting time and go die.

Usually it is given away by people breaking ToS.

Shut off "T" for dead players.

Personally if it's a skirmish I fight to the end with override on or similar actions.
If there is another way for RED to win, what does it matter what the last player does?

[VixNix]

Shut off "T" for dead players.

[VixNix]

Once again someone felt the need to give away a team members location, just so they can get to the next match with their current mech.

There were only 2 kills by the BLUE team, made by the last one standing and the RED is in the base ending the game when the VIOLATION of ToS is committed.

Ended up being a 12-2 game with one item left standing in the BLUE base.


SHUT OFF "T" FOR DEAD PLAYERS!!!

Edited by VixNix, 21 December 2022 - 04:10 AM.