Goblin Squad Member
|
As a few of our number have more than adequately pointed out we believe there will be times, probably many, when players have cause to request GM intervention, such as cases of in-game harrassment.
While it is probable that GM interface mechanisms and procedures are common knowledge among development teams it is the case that these mechanisms could be improved, since griefing is still an alarmingly prevalent concern for so many players.
What can we suggest for GW's consideration? How do we imagine a few customer relations reprepresentatives can handle what might be pandemic problems?
For one thing it may help some of us gain insight in how difficult it may be for GMs to effectively adjudicate cases to consider how it could be done, but it is also possible we will think of something original.
So the way I am seeing it is that the player should have a simple way to call a GM's attention to a location where the harassment is underway and to initiate the recording of a log of what is being said in chat. It should be simple for the player to report without distracting or contributing to game disruption.
Recommend for the case where the GM cannot arrive timely to observe the incident in-progress a player-uneditable log file should being recording local chat at the site.
The GM should then have a way to locate invisibly to the cited location for observation. If the GM directly observes harassment and the unedited local chat log indicates no inciting behavior precidence then because learning is promoted by immediate consequence the harassing player character may be isolated until such a time that the GM can interface with the perpetrator for adjudication.
All report and GM events should be time-stamped in the logs and GM-Perpetrator interactions should be recorded.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe Ryan's intention is to create an environment in which the player community itself plays a significant role in enforcing behavior norms. We are one of the "layers" in the layered approach.
I say this because I think it's important to keep this in mind when people start saying things like "flag it and move on" or "/ignore and /report and forget about it" within the game itself. While those are entirely appropriate responses to bad behavior on the forums, I don't believe they're appropriate with respect to behavior in-game.
We need to be able to deal with problem behavior without always calling for a GM authority.
Please note that I am not saying we should never call for a GM authority, nor am I suggesting that we don't need tools to help us provide evidence to the GMs when that's necessary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The one thing I think we will need to be able to /flag and or /ignore is the jackass who feels the need to troll the general chat and/or follow a specific user around and level a endless barrage of verbal abuse to get someone to attack first to shut them up and therfore bypass attacker penalties to meaningless PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Imbicatus, I'd be very interested to hear Ryan expound on that. Personally, I think that is exactly the kind of behavior that needs to be confronted to avoid having the entire chat system devolve into Barrens Chat.
The reason I spoke out in the first place was because I believe PFO is and will be different than most MMOs with respect to how the players are expected to deal with griefers and trolls. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think so.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Nihimon You are correct, Ryan specifically noted that the community will play a role in the whole anti-griefing aspects.
1: Game Mechanics - the game itself can establish limits on what can and cannot be done. It can also establish punishments for doing things that are considered poor behavior even if it does not outright restrict them.
2: Community Management - the humans who watch over the game can act to force certain kinds of behavior to cease when they are petitioned for help. Those same humans can escalate the matter to the point where a repeat or particularly egregious offender's accounts are closed.
3: Social Engineering - the humans who play within the game can act to enforce certain norms of behavior by providing and withholding access to shared community resources in response to character behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The community can enforce chat channels and create a pretty good experience for everyone when there is a chat moderator to back them up who has the ability to remove someone from a channel and occasionally remind everyone of rules when chat goes astray.
I've seen this work in other games. It only takes a little bit of effort for a great reward. Trolls, gold spammers and other harassers get shut down right away. The chat mods don't even have to be GM's, they can be volunteers.
As for actual GM's, having them present in the game for events or even just popping in to roam around a bit, not just for enforcement actions, can have a great impact on a game's community. It shows a desire to get involved with the players as opposed to distancing themselves.
I support having the players being a part of the system that deals with troublesome players behavior. There are ways for players to assist the GMs in identifying issues needing their attention.
One way this could be handled is by having the ability for players to right click another players name in the chat box and select from a list what behavior the player is exhibiting. That way a GM will know that say player XX had 10 players report him for spamming within a 10 minute period, or that 5 people reported player XX for abusive comments.
This would aid the GM coming into a situation.
That's one thing I would love to see happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know I was thinking along similar lines about reputation, Nihimon. It could become something like PvP, but where we are benefiting one another.
There would be some problems involved if we could easily vote for favorites, but if every time we introduced our selves to one another our reputation increased, if every time we fulfilled a contract, etc., reputations increased it might be an effective tool.
Maybe if each charater could also /declaim <target PC> once for ill behavior perhaps this could also serve as a useful tool.
One game I beta'd, Warhammer I believe, had a feature where when you reported someone, it would take a screenshot of your screen and include it with your report. It was automated where you didn't do anything. I believe it also took some amount of your chat log.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In Guild Wars 2 you can click on a name in chat and report them which pops up some options to select from on what they are doing wrong, whether it's spamming, gold selling, etc. Depending on the setup the devs will be using on their end, this could be a really player-friendly option to help deal with troublesome people.
NSFW-LINK (Curse words): http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Hi guys! This is my first post, so forgive me if I'm not super read up on conversations yet.
Most of the reporting mechanisms you describe seem reasonable, and I'm sure my boss will pick some options and make me code them.
I like ideas that allow you to take matters into your own hands though. If that guy is a jerk, get revenge. :D
I hope we can come up with good ways for you guys to self-regulate griefers and non-desirables. I've heard some good ideas about this, and I'm sure they'll get better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What can we suggest for GW's consideration? How do we imagine a few customer relations reprepresentatives can handle what might be pandemic problems?
They shouldn't and we don't want them to.
There is the white of "legitimate conflict" the black of "unacceptable behavior" and a whole lot of grey area in-between.
In a game where the main source of content in the game is legitimate conflict between players you don't want admins dealing with anything but the solid black areas that are clearly defined. What that would lead to is a game where the community is afraid that if the legitimate conflicts they involve themselves in start crossing into grey they will get hit hard with admin powers used on the whim of whatever individual is handling their case. There may even be cases where someone does something to them, gets away with it, and they do the same thing back and get punished by admins.
What you want dealing with those grey areas is players. Players don't just read a ticket and then ban your account. They have to spend time hunting you down. Their punishments don't hurt nearly as much as a banhammer.
The community needs to police everything short of outright abuse, and leave THAT to the admins and GMs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that some things needs to be clear. For example blue blocking, it would be very difficult to mechanically prevent people from doing this. In a case like this this would be where the GMs would step in and banhammer the people doing it, no if ands or buts.
The problem that arises is not things like blue blocking, or kiting monsters to kill other players....those are easy to identify and respond too.
The problem is something like say bandits who are doing what they do legitimetly. Some merchant reports that everytime he takes road X he gets help up and has to give up half his goods or be killed and the rest of his caravan destroyed. To the merchant that could seem like griefing. However if the bandits are targeting everyone who takes their "toll road" then the question is "is that a legitimate conflict?"
I think in a case like that it is, however like I said legitimate conflict can also be a matter of prespective.
As Andius says i think that for the most part things should be player controlled, the merchant can hire a body guard or a company to take out those bandits. GMs should only get involved after looking at both sides and determines that either there is griefing or mechanical abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hi guys! This is my first post, so forgive me if I'm not super read up on conversations yet.
Thanks for dropping in! It's always good to hear what you guys think on whatever topic we're involving ourselves in.
The problem is something like say bandits who are doing what they do legitimetly. Some merchant reports that everytime he takes road X he gets help up and has to give up half his goods or be killed and the rest of his caravan destroyed. To the merchant that could seem like griefing. However if the bandits are targeting everyone who takes their "toll road" then the question is "is that a legitimate conflict?"
The merchant knows that the bandits are working that road before he takes it. They aren't chasing him down everywhere he goes, so I'd say no, it's not griefing. If the merchant didn't want to face those bandits he may want to look for a way to travel around them instead. Face uncertain PvE mobs that may destroy him or face the known bandits who will demand half his stuff? All about choices and that's what will make it good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What can we suggest for GW's consideration? How do we imagine a few customer relations reprepresentatives can handle what might be pandemic problems?They shouldn't and we don't want them to.
There is the white of "legitimate conflict" the black of "unacceptable behavior" and a whole lot of grey area in-between.
...
The community needs to police everything short of outright abuse, and leave THAT to the admins and GMs.
The question was about those black areas, Andius. Nothing to contribute?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-snip- I like ideas that allow you to take matters into your own hands though. If that guy is a jerk, get revenge. :D
I hope we can come up with good ways for you guys to self-regulate griefers and non-desirables. I've heard some good ideas about this, and I'm sure they'll get better.
Quick thought:
Some sort of player-judicial system and player reporting to said institution and "summoners" for trial / community service etc? IE building a name of said player by color category of reported offence and player complying with summons etc. And then measures against players/settlements caught dealing with said player(s)/group if they are judged to have been serious offenders? IE grape-vine stuff with some formal/selection process for players to deliberate and with final hearings off to GMs?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Being
Andius and I see eye-to-eye on a good number of issues, this being one of them. I hope he'll forgive me for speaking in his place.
The ONLY thing GW employees should be policing are things like non-sanctioned RMT, out-of-game harassment, intentional exploiting in the game mechanics, and the occasional case of really, really nasty griefing. Having GW do anything more takes away from any sort of meaningful player-made content in the game. Essentially (and I know I'm going to get crucified for saying this), if you can justify what your doing as a legitimate play-style (bandits will steal, assassins will murder, good people will be boring) there shouldn't be a need for Dev involvement. I foresee GW's in-game support spending most of its time, especially in the early days, explaining to be people, "yes that bandit killed you, yes he took your stuff, no we're not going to do anything about it. Remember to travel in groups and be prepared for that sort of thing".
EDIT: Anduis probably wouldn't say that good people are boring, but like I said, we see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues... but that one we differ on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@BeingThe ONLY thing GW employees should be policing are things like non-sanctioned RMT, out-of-game harassment, intentional exploiting in the game mechanics, and the occasional case of really, really nasty griefing. Having GW do anything more takes away from any sort of meaningful player-made content in the game. Essentially (and I know I'm going to get crucified for saying this), if you can justify what your doing as a legitimate play-style (bandits will steal, assassins will murder, good people will be boring) there shouldn't be a need for Dev involvement. I foresee GW's in-game support spending most of its time, especially in the early days, explaining to be people, "yes that bandit killed you, yes he took your stuff, no we're not going to do anything about it. Remember to travel in groups and be prepared for that sort of thing".
This is how Eve does it, and why eve is a game written by griefers, for griefers.
The problem with this system is that ANY act of griefing can and will be justified as a legitimate "profit" making attemt and therefore not griefing by definition when in fact the only real purpose the perpetrator had was to grief other players.
If thats the direction pfo wants to go in then thats fine, I'd just prefer they make it clear that outside of the in game systems (Bounty Hunting, faction hits, rep hits, death curses, etc) the players are on there own and they will get griefed so suck it up cupcake cause thast the game we want instead of trying to give this illusion that there won't be griefing and that it isn't going to completely suck when it happens.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Summersnow
I think you and I have a serious difference in opinion on what constitutes griefing, but I'm not going to get into that already beaten to death conversation.
If thats the direction pfo wants to go in then thats fine, I'd just prefer they make it clear that outside of the in game systems (Bounty Hunting, faction hits, rep hits, death curses, etc) the players are on there own
Ryan has explained that the way he wants to run this game is by handing the players a series of systems and letting the players make the content. He's mentioned (though I can't recalle exactly which blog) that GW will handle cases of serious griefing. However, it does seem to be implied that the average, not so serious, matters of griefing are going to be left up to the in-game system to handle and the players to police. So, in essence, what you've said there is true.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Ryan Dancey's Anti-Griefing post:
PFOFan.com Wiki - Anti-griefing
Specifically see
Most open world games with unrestricted PvP tend to have very, very hands-off policies when it comes to griefing. Pathfinder Online will be an exception to that trend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
Andius and I see eye-to-eye on a good number of issues, this being one of them. I hope he'll forgive me for speaking in his place.
The ONLY thing GW employees should be policing are things like non-sanctioned RMT, out-of-game harassment, intentional exploiting in the game mechanics, and the occasional case of really, really nasty griefing. Having GW do anything more takes away from any sort of meaningful player-made content in the game. Essentially (and I know I'm going to get crucified for saying this), if you can justify what your doing as a legitimate play-style (bandits will steal, assassins will murder, good people will be boring) there shouldn't be a need for Dev involvement. I foresee GW's in-game support spending most of its time, especially in the early days, explaining to be people, "yes that bandit killed you, yes he took your stuff, no we're not going to do anything about it. Remember to travel in groups and be prepared for that sort of thing".
EDIT: Anduis probably wouldn't say that good people are boring, but like I said, we see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues... but that one we differ on.
I'm not sure where you derive the idea that what Andius thinks has more weight with me or anyone else than what Alku Leon thinks.
Authoritarian rhetorical tools have limited utility where that authority is unrecognized.
My point was, and which both you and Andius are focused on ignoring, there will be instances where it is correct to refer a matter to a GM.
How do you think that should happen, when it actually is appropriate?
Yet another thought occurs to me. You are weighing in on the discussion as if speaking for a large player organization gives your thoughts a greater validity. Does Andius think that large player organizations should have lines of communication with the GMs that less important, less valuable organizations do not get?
I'd add, with reference to your off-topic need to discuss boredom and who you find boring: Boredom is a symptom of a lazy mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
You had asked a question of Andius,
The question was about those black areas, Andius. Nothing to contribute?
I attempted to clarify to the best of my ability what I believed Andius was saying.
Authoritarian rhetorical tools have limited utility where that authority is unrecognized.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here.
My point was, and which both you and Andius are focused on ignoring, there will be instances where it is correct to refer a matter to a GM.
How do you think that should happen, when it actually is appropriate?
I answered that in my post:
The ONLY thing GW employees should be policing are things like non-sanctioned RMT, out-of-game harassment, intentional exploiting in the game mechanics, and the occasional case of really, really nasty griefing.
Right or wrong, thats my opinion. Now, if your asking about the actual in-game mechanics for submitting a petition... I'd have to imagine it would be like most every other MMO ever. Hit 'ESC' click 'Help' click 'File Petition' or something to that effect.
And finally,
Yet another thought occurs to me. You are weighing in on the discussion as if speaking for a large player organization gives your thoughts a greater validity.
I in no way said I was speaking on behalf of either my CC or Andius'. How you got that impression is beyond me.
EDIT: I'm also personally done with this line of conversation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was trying to understand why you were so careful to point out that you were speaking on behalf of Andius. Why not speak for yourself?
And yes, for the third time, I was asking how an appropriately significant issue should be brought to the GM's attention, which you have suggested is adequately handled with the help functions as used in other games.
My consideration is that those systems are inadequate on several fronts, to include players spamming pleas for help for every little thing they should really work out for themselves, and burying the CSR staff in minutea while pressing issues wait in queue for hours. By the time a CSR can get to your issue you are long gone.
If that is good for you, great, thanks, that is what the question was.
~~edit~~ no, wait... I'm not being totally honest. On review I see I couched my question around the issue of harrassment and that is where you focused your replies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In EvE Online CCP had a group of players who functioned as Reporters. They could not be attacked, could not attack and could not trade or otherwise participate in any activity. All they could do was warp anywhere and record what was said and done.
Perhaps GW could have a similar cadre of player recorders, "Sentinels", that could act as independent observers of events (both good and bad).