Whenever a large group of people converges into a single area, problems are going to arise. This is common in MMORPGs and for the most part, we rely on player social norms to guide etiquette. We don't kill steal, we don't jump camps, and we don't ninja loot. What happens when a player does these things?
What solutions, both the player side and the game side would you suggest? Join the conversation and let us know your thoughts!
Kill stealing implies that I owned the kill in the first place, which I obviously didn't if someone else got the credit for it (unless it's due to some bug that exists in the code). If I'm about to pull a mob and someone else pulls it before me then they haven't stolen it, they were just more prepared than I was. If I'm actively fighting a mob but the game is written in a way that gives credit to the person or group that does the most damage, then I either do the most damage or I don't, but by definition it wasn't stolen from me because it's only mine if I do the most damage. Kill stealing is a "me centered" mentality that I try to avoid because this world is not me centered.
But, in general, what hapens when players aren't nice to each other? Depending on the severity I will remember people based on our interactions. There will be people that I enjoy being around and there will be people that I will avoid if possible. It doesn't have to get complicated, especially in a HUGE world. There should be plenty of room for all kinds of people :)
Savanja said:Whenever a large group of people converges into a single area, problems are going to arise. This is common in MMORPGs and for the most part, we rely on player social norms to guide etiquette. We don't kill steal, we don't jump camps, and we don't ninja loot. What happens when a player does these things?
What solutions, both the player side and the game side would you suggest? Join the conversation and let us know your thoughts!
Kill stealing implies ownership and, as VR has pointed out over the years, you only 'own' the NPC you're currently engaging or have under active crowd control...but then there is the conflicting notion of MDD (Most Damage Done). It will come down to which is the true idea of ownership?
Jumping camps first requires camp be defined. What constitutes a given camp and by who's metric? One one group might consider belonging to a camp can be wholly different than what another group considers belonging to that camp. Without defined parameters camps dont exist.
Ninja looting, and by this I'm guessing you mean looting by someone who did not kill the NPC, there is an easy work-around: Keep the corpse locked to the player(s) who earned the credit for the kill for a significant amount of time. Ninja-looting by people in the group is a wholly different matter which too can be resolved through group leader selectable loot rules (round-robin, FFA, assigned, master looter).
In historical documents the use of public shaming was common and effective. The use of ostracizing an individual was variable from being left off invite lists to being sent permanently out of the camp or settlement. Although even some that were banished were allowed to leave when it was safe (not in the dead of winter) so as to avoid outward death sentencing.
The social control would be best used if it was variable. The larger population could "tag" those that break the social norms. Enough "tags" and the individual starts to have a public marker or highlight of some kind, seen by all and impossible to hide. Something like an icon next to a name, or as the "tags" increase in number the player could glow or have some other outward indicator both in person and in text chat. This would be a known sign that the player has generated enough reports of poor behavior that others may refuse or be reluctant to group with them. For continuing to receive "tags" you could penalize the XP rate of those that group with them, making the player even more of a pariah.
Overall the punishment perceived to be from the general population is going to be far more effective than the punishment from the game mods or VR. The group is difficult to compartmentalize as an "enemy" or "authority". It's very easy for people to think of themselves as a victim of some faceless overlord but difficult to dismiss the judgement of a whole group of peers.
Public shaming with levels of ostracizing would be best to control general group behaviors.
A good read below
Listen to Behave by Robert Sapolsky on Audible. https://www.audible.com/pd/B06XW3MVNF?source_code=ASSORAP0511160007
Game side - VR needs to decide several things about each of the issues you brought up. Firstly - and perhaps least important - what conduct will violate the code of conduct. Secondly - what efforts you will make through game design to reduce the opportulities for hostile interactions between players.
Camp stealing. I suggest that "camps" be purely a player construct with no game design features to protect them and nothing in the code of conduct. You leave yourself open to endless petitions and troubles for customer service otherwise. What is a camp in the first place? A small area or anything within sight range or anything within pulling range or ..... What gives "possession" of a camp. Having a full group and actually pulling regularly or having one person there to claim it or having three people there and only pulling sporadically to maintain a claim? What if a group wipes or the one healer dies and the rest of the group cannot pull until he or she returns? When is the camp lost? Is there a difference between a group settling in an area to pull trash mobs and a group at a spawn point trying to get a named mob? I have doubtlessly overlooked more issues than I mentioned. Not to mention the need for *proof* of who was there first and whether or not someone engaged in camp stealing even if all the rules are pellucidly clear - which they will not be.
Ninja looting. I have no idea what this even means in this context. Mob bodies usually cannot be looted other than by the killer (perhaps after a few minutes anyone can loot) so ninja looting bodies is rarely an issue outside of groups. When I see the term I think of someone in the group being very selfish and looting a lot more than they should or rolling "need" on items they do not need but others in the group do. The game should have reasonable group looting rules (discussed so often and in so many places I won't discuss them here) but beyond that not get involved.
Ninja looting in the context of harvesting - though many would call this node stealing and discuss in together with kill stealing. If I am at a node fighting a mob I would normally consider it wrong for someone else to come over and harvest while I was fighting the mob for the node. But, like camps. much is amorphous. Just one example - suppose the other person was closer but I ran though a mob to get to the node and they went around it. There, I think, their claim is better. And endless issues of proof. So, like camps, call this a matter of player etiquette not customer service.
Kill stealing. If you do not want endless unnecessary hostility - have a clear simple rule that everyone can understand. In the game mechanics so there *is* no outright kill stealing other than claims that someone pulled *my* mob which is more analagous to camp stealing and can be ignored. I can argue the benefits of rules giving credit for a mob endlessly. Tagging where credit is shared among all that participate. First-to-engage where the puller always gets credit. Most-damage-done where the puller can have a mob "stolen" by someone coming in and doing more damage. Each of these has advantages but it is self-evident that most-damage-done leads to killstealing claims and disputes and the other two do not. So for the issues raised in this thread - simply do not use most-damage-done or anthing similar.
Player side. The first step should be explaining to the offending player why others are upset. Never assume that the person has any idea that what they did offends player norms since there may well be other games where it would not. Or the person may be new to MMOs. If someone keeps doing it there really isnt too much anyone can do other than complain to his or her guild if any and ask them to help, or note this histroy in chat or group channels if the person tries to join a group or does join. The only time I see customer service being successfully invoked is if there is a clear rules violation or it is clearly a case of harassment (someone follows one player around, keeps interfering, and is stupid enough to say ha ha I got you again.
Ranarius said:Kill stealing implies that I owned the kill in the first place, which I obviously didn't if someone else got the credit for it... If I'm actively fighting a mob but the game is written in a way that gives credit to the person or group that does the most damage, then I either do the most damage or I don't, but by definition it wasn't stolen from me because it's only mine if I do the most damage. Kill stealing is a "me centered" mentality that I try to avoid because this world is not me centered.
I'm sorry but to me, you are mostly arguing semantics here and from the title of the post - particularly as it includes the word 'etiquette' - I believe this thread is asking us about ethics, not semantics.
Humans have had an innate sense of of "what is fair" for waaaay longer than we have had written laws that define 'illegal' actions. To address the point I think most illustrates this, you could spend minutes fighting and slowly winning against a mob that you can barely beat and then have a high level player walk up and with one hit kill it. While different rules might or might not define that as 'stealing' - and thus award XP and Loot to either of you - I'm quite sure that a majority of ordinary people would say that they 'stole' your kill.
In most MMOs I simply add the problem players to the ignore list. It is the simplest thing I can do to keep most interactions with them from happening in the future.
Ignore the players who say horrible things, ignore the players who spam, ignore the players who intentionally train, ignore the players who ninjaloot, ignore the people who rage and blame others. Its one size fits all and usually has no real impact on the world except it helps me to keep from grouping with them in the future.
When it comes to group conflicts like people trying to strong arm my group out of a camp. I go full stubborn. Moving on just empowers them. I hope most players can agree to not reward bullies, but tons simply roll over and let them take it. I never ignore these people, I simply help them waste their time.
I am a big fan of a fleshed out faction system to help people to blacklist problem players. Devs can empower the players or leave us to pure drama and no community policing.
In Eve, every player (and guild) can set a faction for every other player (and guild) in the game. Every player can leave a personal (or officers can leave a guild) note on every other player. It is often like an advanced friends list. You elevate the people you owe a favor to or had a positive interaction with also are easy to flag. Not someone who is a close friend but someone who you hope to play with in the future after having a good experience. Perhaps someone who came through in a crunch and you flag them as oweing them a big favor. People can use player and guild factions in a ton of positive ways.
A player faction system holds the greatest promise for community policing I have seen. You immediatly know at a glance all those who made an impression on you worth 10 seconds of your time to flag them, seek out groups with players you hope to see again or avoid the players after horrible interaction. Pantheon could expand upon the idea with two major points.
Allow factions to block AH trades.
Make it account wide, an easy bypass with an alt means the impact is meaningless.
VR can help bad reputations actually impact the game world.
I'm sorry but to me, you are mostly arguing semantics here...
The point I actually attempted to make was that our definiton of "what is fair" is often defined by what our expectations are in a given situation. If I'm walking down the street and someone decides to punch me I would be pretty upset. If I agree to a fight and my opponent punches me I would not be upset one bit.
Trying to apply that same logic to "killing mobs in a fantasy world" is difficult but I tried anyway. We have been conditioned to believe certain things are "fair" or "right" in an online world. What I'm suggesting is that we might consider changing our expectations. Maybe, just maybe, it would be better? I don't know if it would be, I'm just attempting to think outside the box we've put ourselves in.
So, I guess what I'm saying is: If I join an online world where I know that no one "owns" a mob then I can not be upset if someone else gets the one I want. It's part of the world, it's the norm.
The normalcy is dependent upon the community. A community of cannibals will have different normalcy than Janet and Joe Schmoe. The idea of being conditioned to understand what is "right" and "fair" is a myth to a high degree. The idea of fair is hard wired into our primate brains to X degree. The violation of the "fair" is dependent upon the 3 fraud conditions (According to Albrecht, the fraud triangle states that “individuals are motivated to commit fraud when three elements come together: (1) some kind of perceived pressure, (2) some perceived opportunity, and (3) some way to rationalize the fraud as not being inconsistent with one’s values.”)
The primitive example of someone not getting the "loot" they were working for. https://youtu.be/-KSryJXDpZo
The behavior we desire can't be just a rule set, it has to be baked into the system, and to leases the tax on the system we need to get the players to do the reporting and enforcement to (x) degree. You see this type of social management being used in other software. Twitter, reddit and other platforms allow user reports, this was seen as effecting to a degree ( "The Hype Machine" by Sinan Aral as well as other books mention this) .... I'd continue but I have to start my day, I love this type of question and conversation. Have fun you crazy gaggle of miscreants.
jothany - you give the example of a high level one-shotting a mob that a player already engaged and said that most of us would view that as kill-stealing. I am less sure of that than you are and am more inclined to view this as depending on the mechanics for assigning credit for a kill. Stealing does, after all, imply that something is being taken away from the victim.
Suppose the game gives shared credit - everyone that engages a mob gets credit. Ignoring for now whether any minimum damage requirement is imposed, whether healing the puller or buffing the puller leads to credit and the like. If I come over and one-shot a mob Mary is slowly killing and Mary gets the same credit and loot she would have had I not done so - I may have saved her much tedium or I may have destroyed a fun fight - this is purely subjective and I have often heard this argument elsewhere. But I haven't *stolen* any xp or loot or kill credit. Games with shared credit have arguments like that but the term kill-stealing is rarely applied seriously. In fact that is the main reason to have a shared credit system in the first place.
Suppose the game gave sole and exclusive credit to the puller regardless of the cause of death. Pretty much the same result.
Suppose the game gave sole and exclusive credit to the person that did most of the damage or, worse yet, to the person landing the killing blow. Now I agree with you without hesitation.
Is most-damage-done the worst system? Not necessarily. Shared credit either results in too much loot and xp going into the economy or each mob being worth a lot less than under other systems. First-to-engage can reward someone who jumps in to someones camp and tags the boss they have just spawned before they do. But in terms of "kill-stealing" I deem it important to note that the very concept may not even apply *unless* VR chooses to apply a most-damage-done type of system.
This is my favorite thread this month. All good points here above. On the kill sharing/stealing thing : what constitutes a steal or ninja looting infraction? I see some discussion already on this. But...
Savanja was asking...
Savanja said:Whenever a large group of people converges into a single area, problems are going to arise. This is common in MMORPGs and for the most part, we rely on player social norms to guide etiquette. We don't kill steal, we don't jump camps, and we don't ninja loot. What happens when a player does these things?
What solutions, both the player side and the game side would you suggest? Join the conversation and let us know your thoughts!
"What happens when a player does these things?" (Kill steal;jump camps; ninja loot). Answer: the player that perceived the social infraction against themselves is left feeling wronged against, frustrated, and victimized. This is a normal, true and consistent result(s) of the action when the reasonable social norms have been violated. It's the experience of the player(s) Savanja is first asking about.
Next is the request for possible solutions to mitigate the resulting "feeling" and "frustration". Please try and ignore if the "feeling" is valid or not valid. That is determined by the game and the designers of the game. This game isn't a XP simulation or a virtual coin simulation, it is an experience simulation. What is the experience of the players the VR team is trying to cultivate? Ignore that tangent for a moment and let's get back to how we want to suggest we best avoid the feeling of being wronged and having a socal norm in this environment being violated. What is the possible solutions?
So, to discourage an undesirable behavior of acquiring a kill/loot/coin, you tax the behavior. Let's use an example about with 2 players. One lower level and currently engaged in a conflict with a MOB and showing signs that the engagement will be lengthy and challenging. Second player is higher level and can swiftly defeat the MOB. If player 2 defeats the MOB before player 1 does and both receive a reward, the variable is the reward type/value. The value could be itself variable by the challenge present. If the reward to both players is 1 widget, it is reasonable to assume that player 1 would feel cheated (to an x degree) because the challenge to obtain the widget was greater and player 1 put more effort and time into the engagement. Also reasonable is the experience being of the challenge being interrupted. This is again variable upon the motivation of player 1(did they like the long engagement or are they happy it was completed quickly so they could get the widget?. So we have many variables to balance. {Should player 1 be given a prompt to allow player 2 to receive a widget, thus making the interrupted player the control for behavior? Imagine player 2 learning that to jump into an engagement already in progress means they receive no reward UNLESS player 1 feel they deserve the reward) [note: player one doesn't get the reward that would go to player 2 , the reward for player 2 would just be gone]
This sets the behavior of any player insertion into ongoing engagements as risky and DEPENDENT UPON the perceived experience of the player being infringed upon. If player 2 is given the reward it can then be assumed by player 2 that player 1 is grateful for the assist. If the reward is denied it should be reasonably assumed that player 1 is not pleased with the interrupt of the experience.
Some of you may be feeling that this removes too much of the "sharp elbows"of competition in a game setting. A valid feeling itself. Consider a game against someone far less skillful, say a younger sibling. You and the sibling have played many games and you win every time, it's easy for you but not without some challenge. One day your sibling is allowed by you to win and you see the happy result of their joy, then you tell them that you let them win. The joy would not just die, it would be reasonable to assume that your sibling would feel a great injury or injustice. They would feel like they had been robbed of their victory and effort. You can't just explain to the sibling that they should not feel this way because it is the very same result of all the previous games. That's the unreasonable. The "sharp elbows" of competition has value in a game if the players all have a ruleset ENFORCED by social pressure.
It's not exactly "what constitutes kill stealing" it's more "what tools/mechanics can be offered to discourage kill stealing? (Or any unwanted behavior"
How best to make the experience of playing an MMO enjoyable, challenging and addictive when surrounded by irrational, emotional humans? Savanja was asking a super easy question huh? ;)
Now I have to go find a dead something in the walls that is beginning to stink, if anyone wants to "kill steal" from me at this time I would definitely reward you.
Savanja said:Whenever a large group of people converges into a single area, problems are going to arise. This is common in MMORPGs and for the most part, we rely on player social norms to guide etiquette. We don't kill steal, we don't jump camps, and we don't ninja loot. What happens when a player does these things?
What solutions, both the player side and the game side would you suggest? Join the conversation and let us know your thoughts!
IMO:
What happens when a player does those things? Nothing, in the end, because the game permits it. If the game permits it, it will be done by some/many/all the players until the game no longer permits it. Happened in EQ1, happens in EQ1. Happened and is happening in every multiplayer game ever.
I mean, that's ultimately what has happened in EQ1. When players do that (ignore 'camps', ninja loot, kill steal), nothing happens, because the game permits it. 23+ years later, there are no in-game GMs, that's too expensive. Support tickets take many hours or days to acknowledge, never mind resolve, so escalation is pointless. Your option are exactly: Play or Don't Play. If you continue playing, then your options are: Ignore or Retaliate.
It's just another way to phrase PvP as PvPvE, that is, Player versus Player versus/via Enviroment; or, Maliciously training other paying customers :) Which Pantheon WILL support, by design, as of the last Visionary Realms discussion, demonstration, posts or videos on the subject. WILL support malicious training other paying customers. You (Visionary Realms) can make make Pantheon so it WON'T support malicious training other paying customers. Will you?
Real-Life social norms don't exist in any MMOs any more. At least none that have triple digit+ concurrency numbers. People know that reputation means nothing, and they act accordingly. The TOS/EULA/AUP either aren't enforced, and/or as long as the game permits it, the GMs generally say: The game permits it. They're not breaking the TOS/EULA/AUP. The notion that etiquette of any kind would guide the actions of anonymous entities has been historically proven to be willfully naive.
But.. you wanted solutions, so, here's three.
1) Kill Stealing? Use FTE, not MDD.
2) Camps? Have more content. Instance quest/gated/pivotal/story/milestone content.
3) Ninja Looting? Use personal loot. Any supposed economic issues are a solved problem.
Regarding 1) Yes, they're both abuseable. That's the nature of competition. A holistic/effective solution requires adjustments to the combat/adventure loop beyond the scope of this question, which I'm happy to dive into in another thread. But objectively, if someone can't "take" the kill via MDD, they give up after FTE. Less social toxicity, but still social toxicity. If you want a compromise where everyone is unhappy, FTE is the compromise that is the lesser of the two evils. It also favors those with lower-latency Internet connections, faster reaction time, and more play-time in general.
Regarding 2) In broad terms, this means at least 3 locations in the game world, plus crafting, per tier, where the same item-stats, can be obtained. Beyond that, the differences per BIS item per tier should be cosmetic. Obviously, given 23+ years of historical MMOs, instancing solves the majority of social toxicity issues in this design space.
Regarding 3) It solves all the problem regarding loot, and also handles all the DKP & raid loot issues, too. Shift the focus, change the narrative, etc. Make it about the adventure, not about bringing 30 friends to get one item and guaranteeing social toxicity. The largest portion of your target demographic doesn't want to stab their friends in the face to get an upgrade they need. They just want to spend time with their friends having fun in a fantasy world. Make it about that, not about arguing over loot. But only if you (Visionary Realms) actually want it to be about fun, rather than arguing about loot. ;)
StoneFish said:In historical documents the use of public shaming was common and effective. The use of ostracizing an individual was variable from being left off invite lists to being sent permanently out of the camp or settlement. Although even some that were banished were allowed to leave when it was safe (not in the dead of winter) so as to avoid outward death sentencing.
The social control would be best used if it was variable. The larger population could "tag" those that break the social norms. Enough "tags" and the individual starts to have a public marker or highlight of some kind, seen by all and impossible to hide. Something like an icon next to a name, or as the "tags" increase in number the player could glow or have some other outward indicator both in person and in text chat. This would be a known sign that the player has generated enough reports of poor behavior that others may refuse or be reluctant to group with them. For continuing to receive "tags" you could penalize the XP rate of those that group with them, making the player even more of a pariah.
Overall the punishment perceived to be from the general population is going to be far more effective than the punishment from the game mods or VR. The group is difficult to compartmentalize as an "enemy" or "authority". It's very easy for people to think of themselves as a victim of some faceless overlord but difficult to dismiss the judgement of a whole group of peers.
Public shaming with levels of ostracizing would be best to control general group behaviors.
A good read below
Listen to Behave by Robert Sapolsky on Audible. https://www.audible.com/pd/B06XW3MVNF?source_code=ASSORAP0511160007
Using the unwashed masses to police and punish themselves is a recipe for disaster. 'Tagging' as you suggest can be manipulated, exploited and abused. Games that have tried it learned that lesson all too quickly. In addition, you're talking about an individual as if the individual is alone with no support structure. With a guild large enough such that nobody in the guild need ever group with anyone outside the guild and it is wholly self sufficient in all things while sharing the same mindset of 'guild first' then why should anybody in that guild give a toss what some random whiny plebe thinks about their actions? The whiner is irrelevant, immaterial and can be wholly ignored...as can the rest of the server for that matter when the guild is large enough and talented enough. Personal reputation only matters when the individual requires it to matter.
I have a fundamental problem with a lot of the ideas and suggestions to "fix the problem." Life is not fair, and to ME, that isn't a problem to be fixed. That is a problem to be navigated on a personal level, to use for growth, relationships, problem solving skills, creativity, engagement, etc. Can it be frustrating? Of coruse. But it's worth it by far.
Vandraad said:Using the unwashed masses to police and punish themselves is a recipe for disaster. 'Tagging' as you suggest can be manipulated, exploited and abused. Games that have tried it learned that lesson all too quickly. In addition, you're talking about an individual as if the individual is alone with no support structure. With a guild large enough such that nobody in the guild need ever group with anyone outside the guild and it is wholly self sufficient in all things while sharing the same mindset of 'guild first' then why should anybody in that guild give a toss what some random whiny plebe thinks about their actions? The whiner is irrelevant, immaterial and can be wholly ignored...as can the rest of the server for that matter when the guild is large enough and talented enough. Personal reputation only matters when the individual requires it to matter.
This is exactly why the Eve standing system works so well. The tags are private or tied to your guild, not some public mass report idea to screw over players that simply don't know what is going on. Streamers would truly run servers at that point if it was public tags.
You depend entirely on your own opinion and optionally use the opinion of your guild officers. You give your future self a small note for "stole xx item" or trained our group to steal a camp or whatever the case is.
Tie it to accounts so they can't just alt past their reputation.
If we were to tie it to the AH system in some way it would be great. VR can give players mechanics to use on an individual level in addition to actually going after people like very MMO has to with paid GMs.
If the guild were full of horrible people who had to rely purely on the guild itself that would be as effective as community policing could go. At that point you would have only GMs getting involved remaining instead of being the sole option with nothing else you can do yourself. I would rather make sure the problem guild can't buy my potions or can't buy the ore I mined. Make them truly be insulated.
First: there are no absolutes inherently being discussed. This isn't a survival of the fittest guild game. The unwashed masses are being asked how to diminish unwanted behavior in a game environment developed for profit. We police ourselves all the time, constantly. There are books and books and study after study about the way talking apes have grouped in cooperation and harmony. Corporations, government, guilds and religions, we are always policing ourselves. VR is not making this game because they have nothing better to do, they are performing a lot of work to make a profitable product they are proud of so they can sleep at night and shove pizza in their faces, the good pizza if things go well. To get enough coin for the good pizza they need a lot of people willing to play in their creation for a long time. That requires entertainment and challenge to be balanced, B.A.L.A.N.C.E.D! VR wants the greatest return on investment and they want to do something they enjoy and find rewarding on many levels.
3. The guilds are made up of individual players. If enough players in said guild are handicap by a game mechanism based on X number of negative reports (tagging) then the guild will indeed suffer.
2. "Tagging" or reporting can be abused, correct, but that's not even close to a good point. Just because something can be abused doesn't mean it should be used at all. The value of the thing needs to be understood before any argument can be made about it's value and that can't happen without testing. Other games failed at trying something so VR shouldn't even try? That stinks of cowardice and should be ignored.
4. "Personal reputation only matters when the individual requires it to matter. " This is either gibberish or just and example of amphibology. It makes no sense. I think you mean to say that "if I don't care about my reputation then I am unconcerned with how my behavior effects others." If that's a correct interpretation then I'm still confused about what social group you would consider to be welcomed in.
5. "Life is not fair" is a defeatist motto. Just because life seems unfair doesn't justify abandoning the search for justice and order. The world is chaos, yes, but the organization and communication skills of humanity is the order to counter the chaos. It's not hopeless it's just challenging.
So, how do we design for a better game environment? We don't throw out hands in the air and proclaim it's impossible, we discuss ideas and test things out.
Design a tool to score players and interactions. Triggers are needed, the triggering can be proximity, or shared resources (MOBs-nodes- NPCs) . There can be time limits on reporting (tagging). There can be filters for those that attempt to abuse such systems,( is your account spamming reports far in excess of other peers? They you reports (tags) get lower value in the equation.
Shame and ostracizing is historically effective. How one designs a tool to allow those pressures to be applied in a way that doesn't damage the challenge and risk in a shared game environment is difficult, but not impossible. The real failure is to not even try.
IMO:
I don't want any automated-tracking or manual-tracking system that rates my social interactions with others. Not in game, not in this shared hallucination we call reality.
I would prefer that the game simply didn't permit the negative social interactions in the first place. That is within the skill set, design and implementation scope of this team.
Yet, I understand that some people want the negative social interactions guaranteed by design and implementation. :)
Personally, I don't know anyone that would play any game like Pantheon (and yes, that same audiene has all tried Eve) that had such a system in place. If such a system became the de-facto standard for the MMO genre? I would exit the MMO genre and move back to multiplayer online games instead of massively muliplayer online games where I can and do run private servers that do exactly the same thing as games like Pantheon, without being forced to participate in anything remotely like SCS.
dorotea said:Experience teaches that nice people are more likely to be hurt by not-nice people abusing any kind of reporting system than they are to be helped.
Which is why it should be on the individual level and not some mass report system. We have seen people banned in New World from mass false reports. People will do horrible things with the power.
The options shouldn't go beyond what you can do IRL. If the horrible person in town abusing others sells cars dont use their dealership. Don't welcome them into your store. Don't group with them. Its simple but effective.
If the problem guild is banning you from buying their potentially stolen goods is that really a problem? Oh no, I can't buy their blood diamonds poor me?
vjek said:I would prefer that the game simply didn't permit the negative social interactions in the first place. That is within the skill set, design and implementation scope of this team.
Yet, I understand that some people want the negative social interactions guaranteed by design and implementation. :)
So instances then where players can't interact with eachother for the most part? Even then you still have to deal with ninja looters and the like.
Please show me a social game that didn't permit negative social interactions.
Jobeson said:...
So instances then where players can't interact with eachother for the most part? Even then you still have to deal with ninja looters and the like.
Please show me a social game that didn't permit negative social interactions.
IMO:
In the context of the three topics of this thread, which social games? Most of them. Most MMOs since 2004.
All the games that have implemented personal loot, instances, and shared tagging for everything (loot, xp, quests, all of it) have eliminated those negative social interactions.
That's why they implemented those systems, because within each of those specific cases, they create social toxicity and increase customer service burden, and permit one customer to negatively affect the gameplay experience of another paying customer. Those are some solutions that have worked.
vjek said:In the context of the three topics of this thread, which social games? Most of them. Most MMOs since 2004.
All the games that have implemented personal loot, instances, and shared tagging for everything (loot, xp, quests, all of it) have eliminated those negative social interactions.
That's why they implemented those systems, because within each of those specific cases, they create social toxicity and increase customer service burden, and permit one customer to negatively affect the gameplay experience of another paying customer. Those are some solutions that have worked.
Every single MMO I have played uses the common need before greed system. The personal loot idea never seems to apply to everything. Every single one of those games has players who need every single item for reasons like "I need money"
Shared tagging still greys out mobs after 5 players engage. Should your cleric not count because a new player showed up to contest the mob?
All of these systems still have social toxicity. Except instances, they just remove being social.
Examples of past failures are to be learned from and improved upon. If New World had an open reporting system that caused bans then that system was flawed. Where was the flaw? How do we avoid that failure?
Personally I keep a list of peeps I want to avoid in games. But it's not perfect and that list can not include the account. I want to know the account so I can avoid any alts but I have no way of knowing. Reputation is valuable and if that reputation was damaged it could be a pressure to act in a socially "good" way, but if the reputation is of no value than the "good" social environment is nearly impossible to achieve.
Of course no social game is in existence that completely negates negative behavior. That's silly to ask. "Perfection is the enemy of progress.” Winston Churchill. Using the fact that others have failed is not an excuse to give up trying.
Also, the reporting feature does not have to be one sided. Those that issue lots of reports should themselves be placed on a list. One of the stronger known factors in predicting who will be engaging in anti social behavior in the future is the person who was receiving the anti social negative experience in the past. Now, that is a fine example of "life's not fair" ;)
StoneFish said:5. "Life is not fair" is a defeatist motto. Just because life seems unfair doesn't justify abandoning the search for justice and order. The world is chaos, yes, but the organization and communication skills of humanity is the order to counter the chaos. It's not hopeless it's just challenging.
I would never use it as a reason to abandon the search for justice and order. Just to be clear, that is not what I'm doing at all. I'm using it as a reason for people to learn, grow, and deal with the injustice that DOES exist (and always will exist) in positive ways while we search for justice and order.
My point is, and will continue to be, teach people to live with the challenge at hand. Don't teach people to simply avoid the challenge or pretend it doesn't exist. Don't just work on eliminating the challenge alone, you can and should do both simultaneously.
Ranarius said:I would never use it as a reason to abandon the search for justice and order. Just to be clear, that is not what I'm doing at all. I'm using it as a reason for people to learn, grow, and deal with the injustice that DOES exist (and always will exist) in positive ways while we search for justice and order.
My point is, and will continue to be, teach people to live with the challenge at hand. Don't teach people to simply avoid the challenge or pretend it doesn't exist. Don't just work on eliminating the challenge alone, you can and should do both simultaneously.
Well said Ranarius
So this thread sent me down a rabbit hole today. I was supposed to be unpacking after a move but that's boring.
I have another idea. According to a study on cyberbullying and anonymity the corollary of behavior considered disruptive or unwanted and the perceived attitude towards cyberbullying is close. The attitude towards cyberbullying (seeing the action as favorable while anonymous) is a factor to be used in treatment to curb the behavior. Although they hadn't tested that and it's only a hypothesis.
Should VR have a loading screen message about the value of cooperation and group harmony that changes from session to session?. You could use famous quotes about the virtue of being good citizens or fair play? This would cost almost nothing and be a way of setting the mood. Some way to make clear that VR and the community is wanting you to have fun and have a good attitude. Focus is more towards the trouble groups all 12-15 year olds and males between the age of 18 and 25
Example
Games give you a chance to excel, and if you're playing in good company you don't even mind if you lose because you had the enjoyment of the company during the course of the game.
Gary Gygax
Edit: another good one
It has always seemed that a fear of judgment is the mark of guilt and the burden of insecurity.
Criss Jami,