SPAA J'ing out before you can kill them

[Necronomica]

@MotorolaCRO

That “do anything I ask law” couldn’t even be passed in the first place if it broke any other law, which in this case is a law about incitement so by definition you can’t ask for anything illegal. This is pretty much a no-brainer and yet another example of how explicitly stating something is better. It doesn’t take a genius to come up with this and say “Anything that you ask must be legal, otherwise the person you’re asking must say no and you’ll also be charged with incitement.”.

Repeating, again, that i have not stated any stance on either system.
Just trying to convince you that they do exist and it does happen.

@MotorolaCRO

People going to court over this is laughable.

Subjective opinion.

@MotorolaCRO

We’re seeing a trend with vague laws now.

Again, similar issues would arise out of an explicitly stated system where they need to patch loopholes.

@MotorolaCRO

The officials that made those laws should be held accountable for them, as some of those examples are so easy to fix that even a random forumer like me came up with a solution in like five seconds after reading it. Imagine people that are being paid to do just that miss such a trivial thing.

That is borderline incompetence and ignorance.

Same could be argued for leaving loopholes in explicit systems.

@MotorolaCRO

Something making more noise than it should is a clear sign of malfunctioning in relation to it’s stock specifications. I don’t know if it’s already implemented, but vehicle’s noise level should be related to everything related to that specific vehicle to include stuff like “bangs” and “squeaks” as well.

That’s a different subject. My point is that dB level of noise doesn’t exclusively determine the disturbance a noise can potentially cause.

@MotorolaCRO

Why would you weave in your lane if it’s not necessary ?

Define necessary.

@MotorolaCRO

Why would you rev your engine and do burnouts at a traffic light ?
Why would you race someone on a public road ?

All those things aren’t needed for you to go from point A to B and thus unnecessary and pretty much erratic/reckless.

There could be specific situations where those things would be considered “normal”. Icy road; a burnout happens naturally and could be considered normal in those conditions.
A “race” i can’t think of any direct example where that would be “normal” but for example if you have an injured person in your car and you’re driving to the hospital erratic driving could be considered “normal”.

There are going to be situations where your “normal” is another persons “not normal”.

@MotorolaCRO

Crew lock doesn’t apply to the already used vehicle when you get killed in it, so the player is now able to queue up for a game with only that vehicle available, further amplifying the issue, which is quite ironic from a system that’s supposed to combat this behavior.

If you have one crew locked in your lineup for ground you can’t queue with that lineup even if the other vehicles are not crew locked (or has that changed? i practically never get crew locked so haven’t had the opportunity to see it for many months, it at least used to be like that). Assuming here you are talking about ground or arcade air as you originally stated that you hade multiple vehicles to spawn in the same match.

@MotorolaCRO

This is pretty much speculative and shouldn’t be handled in such a way.

Subjective.

@MotorolaCRO

which is griefing by definition.

No, i wouldn’t say so.

( griefing, n. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary )

( Oxford English Dictionary )

I highly doubt that anyone would be angry at any player that leaves a match after having played for long enough to not get crew locked. At that point you’ve already played enough of the match for other players to not intuitively (without purposefully trying to calculate it by looking at score) know if you have SP left or not.

@MotorolaCRO

You must be joking, right ?
Removing an achievement that incentivizes griefing should be the way to go, not the other way around as otherwise any tries for a competitive and fair play fall flat on it’s face.
It’s actually shocking that you’re trying to excuse this behavior just because a simply removable achievement exists. This is an amazing in-game example of how something shouldn’t exist if it breaks another law.

God Mode probably breaks more than just a single rule in the game, so should’ve been null and void years ago.

So based on your statement, I’m not being griefed if most of my team spawns in a Reserve tier vehicle in a 12.0 match just because they want to achieve personal gain, with total and intentional disregard to their random team and teammates, intentionally ruining their experience and gains.

This is totally ludicrous in a PvP game that tries to be competitive.

Subjective.

[MotorolaCRO]

@Necronomica

Repeating, again, that i have not stated any stance on either system.
Just trying to convince you that they do exist and it does happen.

I don’t need convincing it does exist, I’m just trying to show how it can easily cause plethora of issues.
Anyways, I think we had enough of our talk about real life, I think there are more important things to discuss that are actually in game.

@Necronomica

If you have one crew locked in your lineup for ground you can’t queue with that lineup even if the other vehicles are not crew locked (or has that changed?

Can’t say for certain but I know I was able to queue up again with portion of my crews still being red, so I just wasn’t able to use those crews.

@Necronomica

Subjective.

How is that subjective when you can check if someone could continue playing the match and do even more, but intentionally didn’t ?
Doesn’t really matter if you did “enough” if you had options to try and do even more.

@Necronomica

I highly doubt that anyone would be angry at any player that leaves a match after having played for long enough to not get crew locked. At that point you’ve already played enough of the match for other players to not intuitively (without purposefully trying to calculate it by looking at score) know if you have SP left or not.

Your first sentence is nothing but speculation.
You’re always able to spawn three ground vehicles back to back (2 normal + anti air) without doing any useful action that’d boost your SP. Someone that spends the majority of the game sitting somewhere gathering kills and then leaves after his first death after getting multiple kills should very well be classified as griefing.

Could he do more to help his team and teammates ? Yes.
Did he try to do that ? No.

It’s literally like you’ve made 10 kills in 5 rounds in CS2 and then just bail out of the competitive game saying “I’ve done enough, see you” and not getting penalized for that.

@Necronomica

Subjective.

How is that subjective when the whole idea behind BRs is to protect players from ridiculously unfair/unbalanced matchups that would interfere with their experience ?
God Mode literally incentivizes players to be dead weight for their own personal gain.

Images you’ve posted above fit very well into this, as this behavior is pretty much intentionally disruptive and aggravating towards your teammates which is spoiling their enjoyment.

So based on your statement, I’m not being griefed if most of my team spawns in a Reserve tier vehicle in a 12.0 match just because they want to achieve personal gain, with total and intentional disregard to their random team and teammates, intentionally ruining their experience and gains.

Can you tell me if I’m being griefed here or not ?
You as a GM should be able to give me a definitive answer as it’s your duty to make calls on similar scenarios.

[Necronomica]

@MotorolaCRO

I don’t need convincing it does exist, I’m just trying to show how it can easily cause plethora of issues.

from my point of view you do, since you have repeatedly said “can’t” and “doesn’t” happen you have not given me a indication of understanding that it does exist and does happen.

@MotorolaCRO

Can’t say for certain but I know I was able to queue up again with portion of my crews still being red, so I just wasn’t able to use those crews.

Sounds odd and not something i’ve ever seen, but i’m not 100% on that one so i could be wrong.

@MotorolaCRO

How is that subjective when you can check if someone could continue playing the match and do even more, but intentionally didn’t ?
Doesn’t really matter if you did “enough” if you had options to try and do even more.

How is it not subjective? “shouldn’t be handled in such a way” is very subjective.

@MotorolaCRO

Someone that spends the majority of the game sitting somewhere gathering kills and then leaves after his first death after getting multiple kills should very well be classified as griefing.

Subjective, and i would argue isn’t in the definition of griefing as that requires malicious intent of disrupting others gameplay.

@MotorolaCRO

How is that subjective when the whole idea behind BRs is to protect players from ridiculously unfair/unbalanced matchups that would interfere with their experience ?

How is " should be the way to go" not subjective? all you listed towards the end is 100% opinions. I’m not saying any of them are wrong or right, but they are definitively subjective as it is possible to not agree.

@MotorolaCRO

Can you tell me if I’m being griefed here or not ?

Personal opinion:
If their intention is to cause other players discomfort, yes. if their intention is something else then no.

@MotorolaCRO

You as a GM should be able to give me a definitive answer as it’s your duty to make calls on similar scenarios.

Is it? where have i stated as such?

[MotorolaCRO]

@Necronomica

How is it not subjective? “shouldn’t be handled in such a way” is very subjective.

No, the only thing subjective here is your opinion if someone has done “enough”.
“You either do everything you can or otherwise it isn’t enough.” should be a very clear and concise statement about that.

Everyone should be giving their best so they and their team can succeed more often, am I right ?

@Necronomica

Subjective, and i would argue isn’t in the definition of griefing as that requires malicious intent of disrupting others gameplay.

You didn’t just left the game by accident.
You leaving the game while still having ways to help me or someone else is pretty much disruptive to my and other’s gameplay.

@Necronomica

How is " should be the way to go" not subjective? all you listed towards the end is 100% opinions. I’m not saying any of them are wrong or right, but they are definitively subjective as it is possible to not agree.

This isn’t subjective as the BR system itself tells you everything you need to know.
Reserve tier vehicles can’t see 12.0 ones by default, as it’s obvious that’d be extremely unfair to one side of the engagement. You don’t want unfair games, right ?

@Necronomica

Personal opinion:
If their intention is to cause other players discomfort, yes. if their intention is something else then no.

You simply cannot know their intention in this case, it’s not like that’s spelled out of their foreheads. So how are you going to act up on it ?

@Necronomica

Is it? where have i stated as such?

So who’s responsible to act up on cases like these ?

[Necronomica]

@MotorolaCRO

No, the only thing subjective here is your opinion if someone has done “enough”.
“You either do everything you can or otherwise it isn’t enough.” should be a very clear and concise statement about that.

Everyone should be giving their best so they and their team can succeed more often, am I right ?

You’re using very subjective describing words for something you claim is objective.
You attributing “everything you can” to “enough” is a subjective opinion.

@MotorolaCRO

You didn’t just left the game by accident.
You leaving the game while still having ways to help me or someone else is pretty much disruptive to my and other’s gameplay.

“requires malicious intent of disrupting others gameplay.” Did they leave with the purpose of being disruptive? or did they leave because their house was on fire?
Intent.

@MotorolaCRO

This isn’t subjective as the BR system itself tells you everything you need to know.
Reserve tier vehicles can’t see 12.0 ones by default, as it’s obvious that’d be extremely unfair to one side of the engagement. You don’t want unfair games, right ?

If it was considered an issue you wouldn’t be able to bring that low BR vehicle in the first place and there wouldn’t be an achievement for getting a kill with it.
It IS subjective.

@MotorolaCRO

You simply cannot know their intention in this case, it’s not like that’s spelled out of their foreheads. So how are you going to act up on it ?
So who’s responsible to act up on cases like these ?

Previously posted:

@Necronomica

Game Masters handle in-game chat and name bans, as a Senior (together with the other Seniors) i also handle appeals for those types of punishments. I don’t think i can go into more details than that.

What i personally also do (that is outside of the responsibilities as a Game Master) is raise concerns seen on the forums, if i see what i believe to be an increase in complaints about an issue i bring that up to possibly be looked into. It’s ultimately up to them if they look into it and want to or can do anything about it.

Can’t go into more detail than that.

[warrior412]

Jeez, there’s more legalese and litigation here than in most courtrooms.

People think I put out a lot of text walls–lmao!

[XxJax0NeinxX-live]

No kidding, but the thing is, they’re not even playing lawyer. They are playing semantics. “Actually you didn’t say this, therefore you’re wrong, I’m right, hardee-har-har.”

And I thought you were annoying when you tried claiming air on air eliminations counted as SPAA eliminations. Then again, it could have been some other weirdo, but I’m 90% sure it was you.

[MotorolaCRO]

@Necronomica

You’re using very subjective describing words for something you claim is objective.
You attributing “everything you can” to “enough” is a subjective opinion.

Not doing everything you can basically collides with griefing/unfair rules.
I thought that was pretty much set in stones because those rules exist, I guess not.

@Necronomica

requires malicious intent of disrupting others gameplay. Did they leave with the purpose of being disruptive? or did they leave because their house was on fire?
Intent.

And you gonna prove that intent how, by using your crystal ball that tells you things ?
Other PvP games would just apply a cooldown after you’ve left the game, which is perfectly fine even for those that have their house on fire as they wouldn’t even be playing in the next 10-20 minutes anyways.

You’re basically protecting malicious acting which takes up like 99.99% of such cases just because of those other 0.01% where the leaving might actually be reasonable. Bottom line is, them leaving the game is disruptive to the game, be it malicious, intentional or not.
Not everything has to be intentional or malicious to be punished.

@Necronomica

If it was considered an issue you wouldn’t be able to bring that low BR vehicle in the first place and there wouldn’t be an achievement for getting a kill with it.

If it wasn’t considered to be an issue then BR system wouldn’t exist at all as it only hurts the queue times with no added benefits.

I mean, why bother segregating and maintaining all of the vehicle’s BRs if it’s deemed to be perfectly fine to see L3 fight a bunch of modern day MBTs ?
This is just an added workload without any real reason.

@Necronomica

Can’t go into more detail than that.

So if I don’t know how (and who) to contact, how would I raise my concerns about issues like these ?

[warrior412]

I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

[Necronomica]

@MotorolaCRO

You’re basically protecting malicious acting

No.

@MotorolaCRO

If it wasn’t considered to be an issue then BR system wouldn’t exist at all as it only hurts the queue times with no added benefits.

I mean, why bother segregating and maintaining all of the vehicle’s BRs if it’s deemed to be perfectly fine to see L3 fight a bunch of modern day MBTs ?
This is just an added workload without any real reason

Because it hinders higher BR to be brought into lower BR match, not the other way around.

@MotorolaCRO

So if I don’t know how (and who) to contact, how would I raise my concerns about issues like these ?

Reports if it’s isolated instances ( How to properly report players and contact Game Masters! ). The forum to voice an opinion on regular occurrences and larger scale issues not yet addressed. Then Community managers (and others) forward concerns where noticed and deemed appropriate to do so.

[MotorolaCRO]

@Necronomica

No.

You literally do as proving the malicious intent behind someone just leaving the game after his death can’t be done.

As I also already said, not all actions need to be malicious or intentional to issue punishments. What you’ve caused with your action definitely should and can be used to dish out punishments.

@Necronomica

Because it hinders higher BR to be brought into lower BR match, not the other way around.

Can you tell me why do you want to stop higher BR vehicles to be brought into lower BR games, is it maybe because those engagements would be unfair to players ? It’s actually funny how the story basically writes itself.

That said, if you don’t want higher BR vehicles to be brought into lower BR games, then it’s logical to stop people from bringing lower BR vehicles into higher tier games as the end result will be literally the same.
The end result: Reserve tier vehicle fighting 12.0 one.

By intentionally putting yourself on a back foot you’re doing the same to your random teammates as well, which goes against the spirit of fair play, am I right ?

@Necronomica

Reports if it’s isolated instances

Thanks.

[XxJax0NeinxX-live]

Must have been the other CAS apologetic, my apologies.

[Necronomica]

@MotorolaCRO

then it’s logical to stop people from bringing lower BR vehicles into higher tier games as the end result will be literally the same.

There is no logical connection here. One is the choice of the unbeatable vehicle, the other is the choice of the underdog. It’s VERY different.

[MotorolaCRO]

There’s a clear logical connection there if your goal is stopping unfair engagements from happening.

You choosing to be the underdog would be fine if happening in a PvE mode, but we are talking about a PvP mode where you have 15 other people to think about, so you doing the “underdog” will mess up with their experience as well and all of that is been done with intent to top it off.
I don’t know how you still can’t see that purposely trying to be the underdog in a game like this basically goes against the spirit of fair play.

This is like you’d play games in CS2 with nothing but a knife and for your excuse you’d use “Sorry bruv, I’m just trying to be an underdog” argument. I guess that it doesn’t matter you ruined their experience, griefed them and broke the spirit of fair play.

Everything is allowable if you want it, who cares about other random strangers that haven’t signed up to your shenanigans, right ?

[AK_Awful_Waffle-psn]

lol k

How much experience do you have with those units?

[XxJax0NeinxX-live]

Clearly none. I apologise I had to photograph it, my Xbox is not allowing me to screenshot at the moment. Classic Microsoft, “we cannot save at this time” bollocks.

[PercussionCap]

@MotorolaCRO

You literally do as proving the malicious intent behind someone just leaving the game after his death can’t be done.

It can. If you go to the replay, see someone spot a missile coming for them, and Js out before getting hit… pretty clear what their goal was.

[MotorolaCRO]

Your reasonable doubt doesn’t count as a concrete proof of malicious intent behind someone leaving the game. A player might just learnt about his house being on fire or that someone is burglarizing his home so he left the game right there on the spot.

[XxJax0NeinxX-live]

Cool, so two things that almost never happens versus ending themselves on purpose. What could it possibly be?

[MotorolaCRO]

@XxJax0NeinxX-live

What could it possibly be?

Who knows, there is more than just one possibility and it’s up to you to prove it and tell me what exactly happened.