Planetside 2: Removing the ability to crouch over corspes to prevent "sexually assaulting a corpse".

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
Well the claim of sexual assault is absolutely retarded and would have any judge fall off his chair laughing, but this is the internet where all interaction with strangers is deemed harassment by default.

As a rude gesture that it is however I can see the need to mitigate it, same as you do with chat filters. But you do that on the side that doesn't compromise gameplay, i.e. remove corpses not movement capabilities.
 

ThePuzzldPirate

New member
Oct 4, 2009
495
0
0
Great, the moment I die cause I can't hide behind cover in a fight cause a corpse is in the way, I'm gonna be pissed.

How about you just give someone a ball sac tag and bonus points for killing him if he crouches on corpse more than say 5 times on top of a corpse or something. Why don't you let the community police itself?
 

Riotguards

New member
Feb 1, 2013
219
0
0
to call it sexual assault just insults real victims and reduces the word to nothing more than "i got offended"

personally i'd rather see words like this not reduced down to "my jimmies were rustled" instead of stuff like, oh i don't know, being raped?

where does it stop anyway? once you start censoring one thing on sexual assault you might as well remove shooting (because murder is infinitely worse than sexual assault)
 

Random Gamer

New member
Sep 8, 2014
165
0
0
It's a despicable and shitty move, obviously. That said, it never happened to me in PS2, though it happened to me in bloody WOW, in a PVE server to boot - because I wanted to defend Crossroads from yet another Alliance raid that was butchering the quest-givers. And obviously Blizzard never did anything about it - too bad, modifying collision rules would've had hilarious and "interesting" results, specially in raids.
 

Gray-Philosophy

New member
Sep 19, 2014
137
0
0
silver wolf009 said:
Or, or, or, or...

Or

OR!

OAR!



Remove collision for dead bodies. Have them pass through the ground, leaving their killers furious grinding their balls against the dirt. Problem solved, no bullshit about sexual assault, no backlash, nothing more than a few odd looks at a patch note or two.

As genious as this idea is, bodies really should remain behind so medics can revive them, otherwise it sort of ruins to purpose of having medics in the first place.

Instead (if anything) I'd lean more towards this guy's idea

ThePuzzldPirate said:
Great, the moment I die cause I can't hide behind cover in a fight cause a corpse is in the way, I'm gonna be pissed.

How about you just give someone a ball sac tag and bonus points for killing him if he crouches on corpse more than say 5 times on top of a corpse or something. Why don't you let the community police itself?
If the game mechanics are able to detect you crouching near a dead body in the first place, it should be able to flag the player for an extra exp reward if they crouch multiple times in succession. Teabag at own risk.


Alternatively, stop getting upset about a problem that doesn't have much of a solution besides restricting mechanics, considering the majority of harm done is towards people's feelings. I get that it can be offensive but come on... really...really?
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
Just please tell me that no one seriously believes this is the work of SJWs.

Tea-bagging is probably the second most divisive thing in Gaming Culture after camping.
 

giles

New member
Feb 1, 2009
222
0
0
That's great. Call me when they remove the ability to have an advantage by paying money, then we can talk about Planetside 2.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
beastro said:
Why does it need to be stopped?
Shadow-Phoenix said:
Why does it need to exist?.
You both make excellent points. I'm having difficulty figuring out why this is a big deal either way. In such cases, I defer to the developers.
 

clippen05

New member
Jul 10, 2012
529
0
0
So should we get rid of killing to prevent people from murdering? Because I was almost murdered one time and dieing in a game triggers me. All Planetside 2 will now encompass is having players go to UN summits to fairly delegate the territories amongst the three empires. No more killing. No more sexual assault. No more fun for the patriarchy.
 

Starbird

New member
Sep 30, 2012
710
0
0
Westaway said:
Shadow-Phoenix said:
Westaway said:
Shadow-Phoenix said:
beastro said:
Shadow-Phoenix said:
Honestly people aren't going to stop doing it though so this is the only logical way to stop it, i
Why does it need to be stopped?
Why does it need to exist?.
Because teabagging is an integral part of online shooters.
Only to the uncivil/unsporting.
Exactly, the entire online community. The uncivil come with the territory, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Can't handle the banter?
Yeah, and this is where I sigh when gamers complain about having a negative image.

The only reason 'uncivil' comes with the territory is that it has been allowed to come with the territory for so long. And while the whole 'Violence in games makes people violent IRL' is nonsense, I do think that the 'standard' interaction in certain games has gone a long way towards the current 'if you don't like someone online it's okay to send death threats to their family' mindset.

This mindset is incredibly outdated and devs are starting to catch onto this. Riot for example took one of the most toxic communities in the world and hit them with the tribunal - leading to an impossible animal (a Moba where the community is mostly at least civil) coming into existence.
 

Starbird

New member
Sep 30, 2012
710
0
0
LetalisK said:
beastro said:
Why does it need to be stopped?
Shadow-Phoenix said:
Why does it need to exist?.
You both make excellent points. I'm having difficulty figuring out why this is a big deal either way. In such cases, I defer to the developers.
It's not. Not at all.

I still have a problem with people acting like being an a-hole in online gaming is something noble and essential to the community.
 

johnnybleu

New member
Oct 2, 2014
47
0
0
Riotguards said:
where does it stop anyway? once you start censoring one thing on sexual assault you might as well remove shooting (because murder is infinitely worse than sexual assault)
This is what I find terrifying about these draconian changes in the name of so-called "social progress". It basically boils down to censoring and bullying because someone might get offended.

I'll admit that I don't play Planetside 2, or any online shooter for that matter, but I never thought I'd live to see the day where someone seriously considers teabagging to be "sexual abuse", and that the feature should be removed (not that it's even a feature in the first place). It beggars belief.

And for all those who get offended by teabagging, in my opinion you should deal with it or go away. There's lots of things that offend me in life-- I just learn to avoid them, or deal with them. I have a right to get offended, but I simply DO NOT have the right to silence or stop anything that offends me. If no one's breaking any laws, violating your liberties, or taking away your rights, then too bad. You don't get permission to deny someone else their rights because they made you sad.
 

Starbird

New member
Sep 30, 2012
710
0
0
johnnybleu said:
Riotguards said:
where does it stop anyway? once you start censoring one thing on sexual assault you might as well remove shooting (because murder is infinitely worse than sexual assault)
This is what I find terrifying about these draconian changes in the name of so-called "social progress". It basically boils down to censoring and bullying because someone might get offended.

I'll admit that I don't play Planetside 2, or any online shooter for that matter, but I never thought I'd live to see the day where someone seriously considers teabagging to be "sexual abuse", and that the feature should be removed (not that it's even a feature in the first place). It beggars belief.

And for all those who get offended by teabagging, in my opinion you should deal with it or go away. There's lots of things that offend me in life-- I just learn to avoid them, or deal with them. I have a right to get offended, but I simply DO NOT have the right to silence or stop anything that offends me. If no one's breaking any laws, violating your liberties, or taking away your rights, then too bad. You don't get permission to deny someone else their rights because they made you sad.
Yes and no.

Removing 'teabagging' because someone might be offended is silly.

Taking steps to curb toxicity and obnoxiousness between people in your game is fantastic.

What about my 'right' to enjoy the game (alongside the majority of non-toxic people) without someone flaming, spouting hatespeech etc?
 

Dragonlayer

Aka Corporal Yakob
Dec 5, 2013
971
0
0
While I do find "tea-bagging" itself to be a incredibly dated, incredibly childish and incredibly moronic act, I don't think it's such a severe issue that it needs to be utterly eliminated through loss of game mechanics, and I certainly don't think it counts as "sexually assaulting a corpse."
 

johnnybleu

New member
Oct 2, 2014
47
0
0
Starbird said:
johnnybleu said:
Riotguards said:
where does it stop anyway? once you start censoring one thing on sexual assault you might as well remove shooting (because murder is infinitely worse than sexual assault)
This is what I find terrifying about these draconian changes in the name of so-called "social progress". It basically boils down to censoring and bullying because someone might get offended.

I'll admit that I don't play Planetside 2, or any online shooter for that matter, but I never thought I'd live to see the day where someone seriously considers teabagging to be "sexual abuse", and that the feature should be removed (not that it's even a feature in the first place). It beggars belief.

And for all those who get offended by teabagging, in my opinion you should deal with it or go away. There's lots of things that offend me in life-- I just learn to avoid them, or deal with them. I have a right to get offended, but I simply DO NOT have the right to silence or stop anything that offends me. If no one's breaking any laws, violating your liberties, or taking away your rights, then too bad. You don't get permission to deny someone else their rights because they made you sad.
Yes and no.

Removing 'teabagging' because someone might be offended is silly.

Taking steps to curb toxicity and obnoxiousness between people in your game is fantastic.

What about my 'right' to enjoy the game (alongside the majority of non-toxic people) without someone flaming, spouting hatespeech etc?
Yes, trying to cull the (perhaps) excessive behavior of online players might be a good idea. But generally, the toxic players are a minority, and the fact is that there are jerks everywhere. You just can't go around silencing and banning jerks (unless they clearly violate some agreed-upon terms of use, for example). That's totalitarianism.

And as for your right to enjoy the game, I'm afraid that's not a right. I have the right to go to a movie theater and watch whatever movie I'm legally allowed to watch, but if there's a douchebag in the audience who wont shut up, that's where my rights end (unless, again, he does something illegal, etc.). Moreover, if there's something in the movie I find offensive, I don't have any right to make anyone change the movie, or stop it from being played. Not being offended or annoyed simply isn't a right.
 

Westaway

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,084
0
0
Starbird said:
Yeah, and this is where I sigh when gamers complain about having a negative image.

The only reason 'uncivil' comes with the territory is that it has been allowed to come with the territory for so long. And while the whole 'Violence in games makes people violent IRL' is nonsense, I do think that the 'standard' interaction in certain games has gone a long way towards the current 'if you don't like someone online it's okay to send death threats to their family' mindset.

This mindset is incredibly outdated and devs are starting to catch onto this. Riot for example took one of the most toxic communities in the world and hit them with the tribunal - leading to an impossible animal (a Moba where the community is mostly at least civil) coming into existence.
I haven't had direct experience with the tribunal but from the stories I've heard it's exceedingly unfair and generally run by people who hate fun.
 

Starbird

New member
Sep 30, 2012
710
0
0
Westaway said:
Starbird said:
Yeah, and this is where I sigh when gamers complain about having a negative image.

The only reason 'uncivil' comes with the territory is that it has been allowed to come with the territory for so long. And while the whole 'Violence in games makes people violent IRL' is nonsense, I do think that the 'standard' interaction in certain games has gone a long way towards the current 'if you don't like someone online it's okay to send death threats to their family' mindset.

This mindset is incredibly outdated and devs are starting to catch onto this. Riot for example took one of the most toxic communities in the world and hit them with the tribunal - leading to an impossible animal (a Moba where the community is mostly at least civil) coming into existence.
I haven't had direct experience with the tribunal but from the stories I've heard it's exceedingly unfair and generally run by people who hate fun.
A common misconception. I've been on it for years, and have seen maybe 3 questionable false positives (none of which resulted in serious action and all borderline) which got banned.

It depends on your definition of fun.

If your definition of fun is spoiling the gaming experience of others, whether it be by slinging abuse at a struggling ally or gloating over a frustrated opponent - then yeah, it's anti-fun.

Even as strict as it is, only a tiny percentage of players ever make it in. And more than half of those reform after a warning.
 

NoX 9

I Want A Hug!
Jul 2, 2014
82
0
0
That is incredibly silly, and considering how clustered people are in much of the fighting in this game, very inconvenient. No doubt this will cause plenty of deaths that could have been prevented if there was no stupid system like this. You hear? Their blood is on YOUR HANDS! Their slightly worse K/D your responsibility! DAAAMN YOUUUU!
 

Starbird

New member
Sep 30, 2012
710
0
0
Yes, trying to cull the (perhaps) excessive behavior of online players might be a good idea. But generally, the toxic players are a minority, and the fact is that there are jerks everywhere. You just can't go around silencing and banning jerks (unless they clearly violate some agreed-upon terms of use, for example). That's totalitarianism.

And as for your right to enjoy the game, I'm afraid that's not a right. I have the right to go to a movie theater and watch whatever movie I'm legally allowed to watch, but if there's a douchebag in the audience who wont shut up, that's where my rights end (unless, again, he does something illegal, etc.). Moreover, if there's something in the movie I find offensive, I don't have any right to make anyone change the movie, or stop it from being played. Not being offended or annoyed simply isn't a right.
The movie being offensive isn't anything close to associated with this argument so not going to touch that.

Actually, at least where I live, you are mistaken. If I am in a movie theater or a restaurant and someone is yelling slurs and acting like an idiot, they will be warned once by an usher or a manager and then removed from the premises.

Most games have some sort of 'don't be a gigantic a-hole' clause in their CoC or TOU. The problem is that until now these were seldom if ever enforced.

And yes, you can go around banning jerks from games, so long as you the company want to. How is it totalitarianism?
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
Westaway said:
Starbird said:
Yeah, and this is where I sigh when gamers complain about having a negative image.

The only reason 'uncivil' comes with the territory is that it has been allowed to come with the territory for so long. And while the whole 'Violence in games makes people violent IRL' is nonsense, I do think that the 'standard' interaction in certain games has gone a long way towards the current 'if you don't like someone online it's okay to send death threats to their family' mindset.

This mindset is incredibly outdated and devs are starting to catch onto this. Riot for example took one of the most toxic communities in the world and hit them with the tribunal - leading to an impossible animal (a Moba where the community is mostly at least civil) coming into existence.
I haven't had direct experience with the tribunal but from the stories I've heard it's exceedingly unfair and generally run by people who hate fun.
I think that is because the stories you hear are from the ass hats that end up receiving the wrath of the tribunal. Every once in a while you get a thread on the LoL forums in which people complain that they were banned unfairly, and inevitably when the chat logs are presented it turns out they were banned for graphic descriptions of exactly how they were going to rape their support's sister or something along those lines. If anything, the LoL punishment process falls well into benefit of the doubt territory.