- Apr 22, 2011
Removing the ability for people to be massive asses in online games is a good thing. But that change should never come at the possible expense of gameplay.
There have been false positives. All of the 'real' ones I've seen (maybe...2?) have been dealt with quickly and compensation given. The system is still very, very, very good.DrOswald said: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.Westaway said: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 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This mindset is incredibly outdated and devs are starting to catch onto this.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.
Yup. Which is why the Teabagging thing here is silly, if it's negatively affecting people's ability to play the game.DrOswald said:Removing the ability for people to be massive asses in online games is a good thing. But that change should never come at the possible expense of gameplay.
Eh, 'offensive' is always a grey area. Teabagging - meh. Not bothered personally. 'GG EASY' postgame from a winning team? Yup, that's obnoxious. Which is why I think that the community of a game should have some input on the rules (including the largely silent good natured majority). LoL was an excellent example of this.Qizx said:If people are getting so upset with someone online crouching over their dead avatar they must have a PHENOMENAL real life if that's what can cause outrage. Seriously people, it's not causing anyone any real problems.
Captcha: Last Straw well I guess that does raise a point, what if it's the straw that breaks the camel's back and makes a person go crazy and start slapping people silly?
They last until you get revived/respawn I think so they can last a while.EternallyBored said:With all this talk about interfering with gameplay, can someone actually tell me how long bodies stay on the ground after death? From Youtube videos I'm watching, corpses only seem to last a couple seconds and despawn way too quickly to create the scenario that OP is proposing. I will fully admit that I played maybe two hours of the game a long time ago and can't remember much about the body mechanics, but I do remember that crouching is rarely used outside of snipping or cresting hills, so I doubt this mechanic is going to hurt gameplay much.. Still seems like a silly thing to do, but I'm unsure what the actual effects on the game itself will be.
While the edit was easily missed, the OP corrected himself in the final line after my post pointing out that this isn't an actual mechanic, it was apparently a collision detection bug that prevented players from crouching near corpses. Thus causing the internet to react in its usual hysterical manner and read into something that wasn't there, and overreacted by blaming people for things that aren't true.Kukakkau said:They last until you get revived/respawn I think so they can last a while.EternallyBored said:With all this talk about interfering with gameplay, can someone actually tell me how long bodies stay on the ground after death? From Youtube videos I'm watching, corpses only seem to last a couple seconds and despawn way too quickly to create the scenario that OP is proposing. I will fully admit that I played maybe two hours of the game a long time ago and can't remember much about the body mechanics, but I do remember that crouching is rarely used outside of snipping or cresting hills, so I doubt this mechanic is going to hurt gameplay much.. Still seems like a silly thing to do, but I'm unsure what the actual effects on the game itself will be.
With battles of hundreds vs hundreds taking place there's going to be a lot of areas in a firefight you can't crouch. Whoever thought this mechanic was a good idea is taking the piss, especially if it counts teammates bodies.
I agree. I also think people who think this is a good idea have, perhaps, not actually played a huge several hundred person battle in PlanetSide 2. There are corpses everywhere and they all linger for 10 seconds because of the ability to revive players in that grace period. So if you take out 7 guys behind some crates with a grenade you just have to stand there watching as a medic revives them because you can't run behind cover they were just behind and claim ground until the corpses despawn.Dirty Hipsters said:It needs to exist because the ability to crouch tends to be important. Like the OP pointed out, if you try to go into cover where someone previously died you can't crouch there, making you screwed. I think gameplay necessity overrides childishness.Shadow-Phoenix said:
Whilst, being insulting won't get you anywhere, I will address your point.MarsAtlas said:Anybody else think its
sadcynically hilarious how people are now using the "donotlink" method for anything regarding anything they slightly disapprove of, even if its from a relatively objective article? Seriously, whenever I see somebody do that, not only do I go find a version that they can make revenue off of, I click all over the place to give them extra revenue off myself. Can't help myself when I see somebody doing something so brainless.
Additionally, its a bug, apparently. Not that I'd mind them removing tea-bagging, the same way many games remove slurs and profanity in chat through filters. The OP should be updated as such:
Camping I can understand...but teabagging is a divisive thing? I just thought it was a stupid feature.Netrigan said: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.
Maybe divisive is too strong of a word, but it is one of the most complained about (or mocked) practices of multi-player since at least the first Halo.Dragonbums said:Camping I can understand...but teabagging is a divisive thing? I just thought it was a stupid feature.Netrigan said: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.
CAPTCHA: Holy crap myspace is still alive?
I do believe my post reflected that I don't see being an a-hole as noble or essential, so I'm not sure why this is directed at me. In fact, I implied the exact opposite by claiming "Why does it need to exist?" as a good point nor does recognizing the other comment as a good point imply that it is noble or essential.Starbird said:It's not. Not at all.LetalisK said:
I still have a problem with people acting like being an a-hole in online gaming is something noble and essential to the community.
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.
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?
I can't conceive of any reality where my virtual character touching your virtual character in any way could be considered sexual abuse. Even if there was a "grope" animation. If teabagging was enough to get someone convicted of sexual assault in real life, then we'd all serve multiple life sentences for the countless murders committed online. I mean, the act was clearly unwanted and there was a violent tone to the act.Windcaler said:I was talking to a couple of friends last night and I brought this change up since we all play BF4 on occassion. My friend Shawn made the observation that teabagging could be seen as a form of sexual harrassment. I was quick to look up the actual definition because sexual harrassment is something that gets diluted in its actual meaning. Here's what I found
harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.
Gaming being a social setting/situation unwanted sexual advances seems to apply to something like teabagging. For many players its clearly unwanted and like it or not there is a sexual tone to the act. Now Im not a lawer, nor a judge, nor anyone that works within our broken legal system but I am curious about a point here. If a kid can be tried and convicted for making a bomb threat on wow can a person teabagging then be put on trial for sexual harrasment? Its a thought that scares the hell out of me but with the state of our current legal system I think the idea may have merit