Goblin Squad Member
|
That online interactions can be meaningful, or that they can range from more social to anti-social, is pretty clear. Ryan is fond of pointing out that for some people, online social interactions and relationships are their most meaningful kinds of interactions.
In trying to think through how we might best promote/discourage certain kinds of social interactions online, unsupportable analogical thinking and introspective/cherry-picked data isn't going to help. Material social interactions are qualitatively unlike online ones, and aren't a good source domain for thinking about this problem. And arbitrary data selection won't help either--anonymous online interactions are marked by anti-social behavior--except when they aren't. Or are sometimes. Or are to a degree.
This feels a lot like a public policy problem to me, with a constitutive cultural aspect--we are trying to think through the right kind of structure for this online experience, and at the same time we are constituting the culture that will exist in that structure. I'd like to see us do this in a deliberate, thoughtful way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But taking a higher perspective, I think in both the behavior described by Zimbado (I'm going on memory before actually watching that link atm) and the curious phenomenon of "online fkwd" behavior in multiplayer games, there's a similarity: [b]The primitive aspects of our brains[b] demonstrated and what we might call malicious intentions and lack of performing our moral duty in our actions.
Avena, what exactly do you mean by "the primitive aspects of our brain?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But taking a higher perspective, I think in both the behavior described by Zimbado (I'm going on memory before actually watching that link atm) and the curious phenomenon of "online fkwd" behavior in multiplayer games, there's a similarity: [b]The primitive aspects of our brains[b] demonstrated and what we might call malicious intentions and lack of performing our moral duty in our actions.Avena, what exactly do you mean by "the primitive aspects of our brain?"
I was using neutral language if I am honest, just swap with: "worse aspects of ourselves". I mean personally, it's a struggle everyday to see this eg some of my former bosses ;) /jk
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My take here is simple. In playing football as a kid, we'd try to hit the other guy as hard as we could as long as the play was live and the hit was legal...because that's what helped your team win the game. We'd also go over and shake the other teams hands after the game was over.
The internet has too many folks who weren't taught that basic and very simple paradigm. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The removed post was not a personal attack, but I believe it was a repost if the link that is still on the tread, which contains pretty vulgar language.I'm not sure exactly how to parse that.
As for your response, I'll accept your word that you were not trivializing what happened at Abu Ghraib. I did not see it as trivializing it, I saw it as an attempt to equate online behavior to real world behavior, which leads to an overblown perception of what should be he impact of an online MMO.An "attempt to equate" something serious to something relatively trivial is what 'trivialization' means. I let people know the Abu Ghraib element was in the video because it was serious. I can't edit it now to make it more clear, but I didn't expect anyone to interpret a list of contents as a one-for-one equivalence claim.
The question still remains, what was the intent of posting this thread to begin with? What behavior or game system are you looking to change?
I did say what I intended the point to be, and the quote at the bottom was intended to illustrate it further. Online games are all psychology, and anonymity tends to have certain psychological effects. I wanted to open a discussion specifically about that, and if a game system change comes out of it, that's fine but a lot more than I would expect. As to a behavioural change, maybe the ability to interact with our masks off would be helpful so we better understand one another as people?
'Pathfinder Online Fans' FB group
There's a 'like' page already, but 'group' pages have some better features, including the ability to see a member list. There are a couple other "Pathfinder Online" groups, but one has been defunct since Dec 11, and the other seems to be a church group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The last line of your original post was:The question still remains, what was the intent of posting this thread to begin with? What behavior or game system are you looking to change?I did say what I intended the point to be, and the quote at the bottom was intended to illustrate it further. Online games are all psychology, and anonymity tends to have certain psychological effects. I wanted to open a discussion specifically about that, and if a game system change comes out of it, that's fine but a lot more than I would expect. As to a behavioural change, maybe the ability to interact with our masks off would be helpful so we better understand one another as people?
In PFO, I think the reputation system is meant to do this, but with ways to avoid rep loss and even gain rep by abusing other players, I wonder if it will have much of its intended effect.
So the behavioral change you are looking for is to end meaningful PVP, as well as griefing. You clearly see PvP as abusive and therefore a psychologically evil extension of the player, hiding behind the anonymous nature of an Internet based game. So rather than you making the choice of not participating in a game that will cause you grief, you would rather GW create a different game then they have set out to do.
Got it.... And it is what I originally thought from the start. It does not surprise me either, because as others have pointed out, there seems to be a very vocal minority who are opposed to PFO being an Open World PvP MMO. The same voices keep on popping up in every thread that is even remotely related to PVP.
I'm sure you realize you have a very uphill battle, since the Devs have supported the idea of encouraging multiple forms of PVP. They have also changed to allow for the SAD and Flagging systems to remove the penalties for what they declared was "meaningful PvP".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That online interactions can be meaningful, or that they can range from more social to anti-social, is pretty clear. Ryan is fond of pointing out that for some people, online social interactions and relationships are their most meaningful kinds of interactions.
...
This feels a lot like a public policy problem to me, with a constitutive cultural aspect--we are trying to think through the right kind of structure for this online experience, and at the same time we are constituting the culture that will exist in that structure. I'd like to see us do this in a deliberate, thoughtful way.
I take it that such a discussion is exactly what Keovar was looking to prompt with his post. Similarly to the fact that online interactions can have meaningful consequences, it is pretty clear that without care, online communities can become extremely toxic. It's less clear to me whether this is a risk, a tendency, or a near certainty.
In general we are in the early stages of understanding how to build effective online communities. It's not my area and I'm not aware of much academic research, though it probably exists. However there are a few people who have written articulately about creating healthy online communities. It is possible, as a casual comparison between, say, the comment threads of Whatever, Making Light, or Ta-Nehisi Coates on the one hand, and the unmoderated comment threads of most newspapers.
In particular, this thread on Making Light has resonance with the current conversation.
Some things I know about moderating conversations in virtual space:1. There can be no ongoing discourse without some degree of moderation, if only to kill off the hardcore trolls. It takes rather more moderation than that to create a complex, nuanced, civil discourse. If you want that to happen, you have to give of yourself. Providing the space but not tending the conversation is like expecting your front yard to automatically turn itself into a garden.
...
5. Over-specific rules are an invitation to people who get off on gaming the system.
...
7. Things to cherish: Your regulars. A sense of community. Real expertise. Genuine engagement with the subject under discussion. Outstanding performances. Helping others. Cooperation in maintenance of a good conversation. Taking the time to teach newbies the ropes.
...
11. You can’t automate intelligence. In theory, systems like Slashdot’s ought to work better than they do. Maintaining a conversation is a task for human beings. (Which doesn’t mean automated moderator tools are a bad thing. They’re swell. I want more.)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the behavioral change you are looking for is to end meaningful PVP, as well as griefing. You clearly see PvP as abusive and therefore a psychologically evil extension of the player, hiding behind the anonymous nature of an Internet based game. So rather than you making the choice of not participating in a game that will cause you grief, you would rather GW create a different game then they have set out to do.Got it.... And it is what I originally thought from the start. It does not surprise me either, because as others have pointed out, there seems to be a very vocal minority who are opposed to PFO being an Open World PvP MMO. The same voices keep on popping up in every thread that is even remotely related to PVP.
I'll just note that my reading of Keovar's intent is very different from yours, Bluddwolf. I am gaining the impression that you see every discussion of what the PFO community will be like as the thin end of some anti-PVP wedge.
I think we can have a useful discussion about how, given that PVP will provide most of the game content, we build a great community. One that enables cool stories, banditry, risk taking, 'in-game evil' characters. One that does not tolerate abuse, bullying and other toxic behaviour that is ultimately destructive of the game we all hope to play.
I think that one of the reasons the paizo boards, and this sub-board are useful, is because of the strong moderation; as already seen in this thread. Similar moderation will be needed in PFO, and Ryan has indicated that GM interventions will be swift and forceful where needed.
So if Ryan agrees that a range of tools and techniques are required to maintain a fun and engaged community, I think there are valuable conversations to be had about the means, method, and madness of those tools.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll just note that my reading of Keovar's intent is very different from yours, Bluddwolf. I am gaining the impression that you see every discussion of what the PFO community will be like as the thin end of some anti-PVP wedge.
With all due respect, I will only restate Keovar's own words, and I ask you how you would interpret them:
In PFO, I think the reputation system is meant to do this, but with ways to avoid rep loss and even gain rep by abusing other players, I wonder if it will have much of its intended effect.
The Devs had crafted the current, proposed flag system and Reputaion system to clearly define what would be categorized as "Meaninful PVP" and that those instances would not only not be punished but encouraged.
When Keovar still describes them as "abusing other players", how is that not to be taken as an anti-PVP stance?
I don't know how long you have been following this discussion, not just in this thread, but in many threads since Jamuary. Initially, the concern was over Griefing, then it shifted to any "anti-social" behavior; then to not being able to freely attack unflagged "evil" or "known criminal" characters without becoming evil criminals themselves; then it was about thieves not being able to pick pocket; assassins not having a back stab for burst critical damage; and now even with the Rep and Flagging system, PVP is still abusing players.
[I'm sure I missed a few other issues directed at making chaotic or evil characters virtually unplayable]
But in the aggregate I come away with one conclusion, PFO is not PVE enough for their taste or if there is any PVP it must be consensual in all cases.
Even if PVP were restricted to just one area of the game, if there were rare resources in that area, these same individuals would cry to high Heaven to have equal, safe access to those resources.
In EVE Online this is / was called "Tyranny of the Care Bear" (I'm not name calling here, I'm pointing out a trend and a belief system found in Open World PVP MMOs).
It is my belief that this mentaility is equally detrimental as unchecked griefing is. Fortunately it appears that GW is mindful of that and is sticking to its design decisions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the first step to reducing unwanted behavior is to be willing to approach those who act poorly - attempt to talk to them OOC, and by example, show them that positive (not necessarily good aligned) interaction is far more valuable, productive, and entertaining than negative interaction.
Another powerful deterrent is a strong community of players. This can go a very long way. If we, as a whole, decide not to put up with certain behaviors, I believe there will be far less of those behaviors occurring.
Certainly, there will always be that hopefully small minority who get their kicks out of making others miserable, and no amount of talking will change their mind. These are the ones that need to be repeatedly reported and removed. A zero tolerance policy, backed up by consistent reinforcement of that policy, will make the yahoos think twice about wasting their time and money in a game where such behavior equates to banned accounts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the first step to reducing unwanted behavior is to be willing to approach those who act poorly - attempt to talk to them OOC, and by example, show them that positive (not necessarily good aligned) interaction is far more valuable, productive, and entertaining than negative interaction.
Another powerful deterrent is a strong community of players. This can go a very long way. If we, as a whole, decide not to put up with certain behaviors, I believe there will be far less of those behaviors occurring.
Certainly, there will always be that hopefully small minority who get their kicks out of making others miserable, and no amount of talking will change their mind. These are the ones that need to be repeatedly reported and removed. A zero tolerance policy, backed up by consistent reinforcement of that policy, will make the yahoos think twice about wasting their time and money in a game where such behavior equates to banned accounts.
I agree 100% with this Hobs. I can also assure this community that The UnNamed Company will pave the way as a bandit company that "does it right."
* We will target the most likely targets who have a reasonable amount of wealth
* We will offer SAD opportunity to opponents that would otherwise not stand a chance against us.
* We will not hit the same target multiple times in one day, unless they are the only ones and running multiple convoys or operations
* We will always grant safe passage to those that accept SAD or who we have defeated, but had surrendered or run off.
* We will never degrade any who we defeat
* We will praise those who defeated us, provided they are honorable
* We will only deliver vengeance upon those who have behaved dishorably against us.
But never underestimate the amount of force we will always plan to use, if need be. Ganking is our method,and greed is our motivation and we will show the River Kingdoms that both can be done honorably and as a benefit to the PFO community as a whole.
* Note: My definition of ganking is a stricktly military one: Ganking is the use of superior numbers and or fire power to create a more favorable risk vs. reward ratio and to ensure victory. No military leader ever plans to have a fair fight, unless he is an idiot or inexperienced, I am neither.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
* We will praise those who defeated us, provided they are honorable
Interesting...Could you define this? What does it mean to be honorable in "Open World PvP"? If I win and have not broken game rules, would that not be sufficient? Would not my/our battle prowess alone demand your praise?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KitNyx
I dont think you are actually being serious but just in case:
Name calling. Defiling our corpses. Tea-bagging. Etc.
If someone does any of these things to me, then all praise and possibly reputation tips are off the table. Regardless if they were awesome warriors or not. At the same time Im not gonna cry about it, and I doubt id make a griefing report. Done enough times though and youd make my KoS list :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With all due respect, I will only restate Keovar's own words, and I ask you how you would interpret them:In PFO, I think the reputation system is meant to do this, but with ways to avoid rep loss and even gain rep by abusing other players, I wonder if it will have much of its intended effect.The Devs had crafted the current, proposed flag system and Reputaion system to clearly define what would be categorized as "Meaninful PVP" and that those instances would not only not be punished but encouraged.
When Keovar still describes them as "abusing other players", how is that not to be taken as an anti-PVP stance?
Thanks Bluddwolf. Now we can see where the communication breaks down.
Keovar: it is possible to game the system and gain rep while abusing others
Bluddwolf: Rep system defines "meaningful pvp", Keovar is saying "meaningful pvp" = abuse.
Your list of "doing evil right" is exactly that, and I would not consider that abuse. When meeting your company in-game I will know the only outcomes are escape, surrender or death, which is ok.
But others can still "do evil wrong" or "do good wrong" or "do bounty hunting wrong": pick on certain players, degrade and insult them etc. If the conditions are right (champion vs heinous, enforcer vs criminal, asassin with contract), there is no reputation loss (and possible gain) from the system. Ie acting like a jerk and be rewarded.
Note that conditions apply (if the victim doesnt have a flag it is hard)
In the case of many bullies vs one target, the target cannot afford to bring everyones rep down (as lowering his own rep would make him even more vulnerable).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Randomwalker,
In your summary of the outcomes of running into Bluddwolf's group, I think you left one out...can't the target of his banditry actually just pay? Perhaps that's what you meant by surrender (the word made me think of being taken hostage for slavery and such rather than emptying your pockets).
In UO, my community center was relatively close to the Shadowclan Orc fort and the quickest way from Yew to Britain was the road that they often waylaid. They would demand tribute from those who passed by (when they were staking out the road, which actually wasn't that often). As a pacifistic healer, I would carry such tribute. I expect the same happen here as a result of SAD. why would true bandits risk injury or death if the target is already paying?
Chances are, I'm only going to carry anything of value when I'm out doing what I've called Newbie Patrols (wandering around starter towns with basic goods to give new players while also offering advice, pointing them towards networked friends with certain skill sets, towards CC's and settlements that match their play-style, etc.) or when individually harvesting (I don't ever plan to set up harvesting camps - I won't be skilled enough in combat to defend them). So if I'm on the road traveling from one settlement to another, I won't be worth the effort of killing, but they can certainly do it if they feel so inclined. I'd be more likely to bring some tribute for Bludd or anyone's bandit group. It seems an easier way for an "almost " pacifist (Hobs will kill "little" monsters while helping new players and possibly animals for resources) to avoid a fight. To some, that may seem like a cowardly way to deal with bandits, but hey, we aren't all role-playing heroic warriors (at least not with Hobs...my other toons will likely be a different story).
Some other game mechanics I don't plan to use - I can't see Hobs ever leveling a bounty or a death curse. In a world where everyone can not only resurrect but where it will seem commonplace and where, in time, all wounds (even rep and alignment hits) can be "healed", neither seems a permanent way to change the behavior of the people who have done me wrong. Instead, in the spirit of passive resistance, Hobs is liable to react to true murderers (PKers) the following way:
1. When attacked, I'll likely just stand and wait for it to be over. I've done it in the past and it makes me a pretty boring kill - I don't run and provide a chase, and I don't fight back and provide a challenge.
2. I resurrect. Again, if the lore of the game is making resurrection a regular occurrence, seeing me back in action a few minutes later will be nothing out of the ordinary or out-of-character.
3. I return to the scene and ask the killer why they're behaving this way. They may kill me again, but I'll be back. At some point, I've found that the annoying PKer either grows curious and actually talks or gets bored and moves away, thus making that stretch of road safer. Either way, I win. :)
None of the behaviors outlined above attempt to squelch role-played PvP, since, as I've alluded to elsewhere, I might even don the black hat now again with an alt for the entertainment that it provides the good aligned players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
* We will praise those who defeated us, provided they are honorableInteresting...Could you define this? What does it mean to be honorable in "Open World PvP"? If I win and have not broken game rules, would that not be sufficient? Would not my/our battle prowess alone demand your praise?
Battle prowess alone does not merit praise if it is coupled with asshattery. There is also a mechanic proposed in the game where you can grant Rep or remove it from your killer.
The most important thing to determine "honorable" behavior is what the winner does after the combat is over. Dies he taunt or mock his defeated opponent? Did he honor a SAD?
Yeah, yeah... humanity is irredeemably evil and rotten to the core. Just look at what happened to Kitty Genovese!!!
Except that she got assaulted on a dark street, not many could actually see what had happened due to bad lighting... and people did call the cops about it.
The truth is, as has been stated, that most research about Evil is pretty questionable. Yes, anonymity gives people leeway in how to act, and some use that to act in ways they otherwise would not. Some get hurt by this.
So what is the solution? Have nameplates on every avatar where you include real name, photo, and address? Banish every sort of anonymity, to make sure everyone who ever says anything online can be targeted by the government if what they say is not appreciated?
It is easy to complain about anonymity. It is far more risky to complain about an absence of anonymity. Please, can we all grow up enough not to keep complaining about anonymity? An anonymous person can say bad things about you, but no matter what they say, you can shut down your computer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is easy to complain about anonymity. It is far more risky to complain about an absence of anonymity. Please, can we all grow up enough not to keep complaining about anonymity? An anonymous person can say bad things about you, but no matter what they say, you can shut down your computer.
What is truly perplexing is that PFO is not even close to release (maybe 14 - 18 months until EE)and the hysterical fear of griefing is in long before:
1. It will even exist
2. GW's counter measures have been given a chance
3. The PFO communities have been given a chance
But instead of waiting to see, some want to so limit non consensual PVP that PFO would no longer be an Open World PVP MMO.
I can only imagine what the cries will be when the War mechanics are released. But I can tell you all one thing, if it requires consent by all parties, I will be up for a fight against that as well. Consensual Warfare just makes no sense at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Randomwalker,
In your summary of the outcomes of running into Bluddwolf's group, I think you left one out...can't the target of his banditry actually just pay? Perhaps that's what you meant by surrender
That's exactly what I mean by surrender.
If I turn down the SAD and make a run for it (expect me to be specced for that), I expect them to kill me if they can. I think I will get along well with Bluddwolf if he behaves as stated. I happen to agree with Keovar that anonymity brings out the worse side of us, but have hopes that the Early Enrollers (who are not quite as anonymous after 1-2 years on the forum) and the gradual opening up can set a good standard.
I'd love seeing the UnNamed Company chasing down other bandit guilds for not having high enough standards ;-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd love seeing the UnNamed Company chasing down other bandit guilds for not having high enough standards ;-)
I'm of a few minds on this (I am Chaotic that way, Hehe)...
1. Why would any other bandits not join The UnNamed Company to begin with?
2. If they are operating in our territory, we might wipe them out regardless of how they are performing banditry.
3. If they are raising the ire of the community, We would leave them alone, because they will attract all of the negative attention.
4. They will create a good contrast for all to see our way is better, so we leave them alone.
These are just a few options I can think of. In summary: Have them Join us; 2 x leave them alone; 1 x kill them = Chaotic Neutral approach.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... there seems to be a very vocal minority who are opposed to PFO being an Open World PvP MMO. The same voices keep on popping up in every thread that is even remotely related to PVP...
It is a good thing to bear in mind when observing a polarized conversation that each person's relative perspective varies with the extremity of their opinion. That is to say, if I am moderately conservative on the position and you are moderately liberal on that same issue you just seem a little leftist to me. But if I am extremely conservative I will still tend to think of myself as reasonably moderate but consider you extremely liberal, even communist. So too with the pro/anti open world PvP stances. Our positions are relative and there are no absolute landmarks on this otherwise featureless plane.
The takeaway for me is that the developers will have to determine the desired outcome based on less subjective reasoning. One way this might be done is by quantifying and weighting desired outcomes and evaluating the conditions that lead to them. If I'm designing the game and feel that the most important aspects of the game are to be the sense of community and individual interest, then everything should be evaluated with those ideals as objectives.
The result may not seem most desirable to any one of us players, but we should recognize that not one of our perspectives is objective. To each of us our point of view seems the center of the universe when it is not so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I take it that such a discussion is exactly what Keovar was looking to prompt with his post. Similarly to the fact that online interactions can have meaningful consequences, it is pretty clear that without care, online communities can become extremely toxic. It's less clear to me whether this is a risk, a tendency, or a near certainty.
In general we are in the early stages of understanding how to build effective online communities. It's not my area and I'm not aware of much academic research, though it probably exists. However there are a few people who have written articulately about creating healthy online communities. It is possible, as a casual comparison between, say, the comment threads of Whatever, Making Light, or Ta-Nehisi Coates on the one hand, and the unmoderated comment threads of most newspapers.
Will, having a discussion about constituting a socially healthy on-line community is entirely legitimate--my concern is solely with pursuing that end thoughtfully and skillfully.
As for the research literature on developing such communities, I don't think it's very well developed (at least not from a gaming perspective). There's robust literature on pedagogy, development and characteristics of effective on-line learning communities, and more general stuff about moderated boards, chat-rooms etc., but to the best of my understanding, not so much about social structuring and culture building in games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the behavioral change you are looking for is to end meaningful PVP...
No, that's a strawman.
Look at the post where you asked what the 'point' was, and read my most recent post just above it. I was going to say "I did JUST say what I intended the point to be IN MY LAST POST," but I edited it down because I realized that would have a subtext I didn't want to imply. I do often find it frustrating to communicate with you, but I'm not trying to attack you personally. We both want the game to be the best it can be. I'm concerned about it devolving into Lord of the Flies, and you're concerned about restrictions turning it into Candyland. I'm sure there's a middle ground.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the behavioral change you are looking for is to end meaningful PVP...No, that's a strawman.
Look at the post where you asked what the 'point' was, and read my most recent post just above it. I was going to say "I did JUST say what I intended the point to be IN MY LAST POST," but I edited it down because I realized that would have a subtext I didn't want to imply. I do often find it frustrating to communicate with you, but I'm not trying to attack you personally. We both want the game to be the best it can be. I'm concerned about it devolving into Lord of the Flies, and you're concerned about restrictions turning it into Candyland. I'm sure there's a middle ground.
I'd be happy to meet at the middle ground, but that seems to keep on changing.
This is your words, please clarify if I am misreading them:
"In PFO, I think the reputation system is meant to do this, but with ways to avoid rep loss and even gain rep by abusing other players, I wonder if it will have much of its intended effect."
GW specifically added in the SAD system and the flagging system to allow players to play within their professions and not be punished for it. GW had done this because they have always said that players playing within their profession and or alignment was "Meaningful PVP", and that is the kind of PVP that they want to encourage.
So when I read your comment that this is still "abusing other players", I have to wonder where your middle ground is?
Can using your own words be a straw man arguement for me, I don't think so? So clarification on your position is needed.
On another topic of yours: The Masks Off
This is the only mask I wear. I don't post under a different name. My full character name is Ezreq "Bluddwolf" Bluddworth, altough on the Pathfinder Society I amy have used a different last name "Blodvaerd". On my company forums you will find it is "Bluddworth". If you google it you will find me under either Bluddwolf, Bluddworth or Blodvaerd in a number of MMOs and forums.... all me, dating back to 2002.
But here on these forums, it is always "Bluddwolf". I don't pitter patter around bushes, with where I stand on things.
I fight for causes that are not entirely my own. I have little inetntion of playing an Assassin. Only slight intentions of playing a Monk. No intentions of playing a Paladin, and yet I fought for their right to not lose rep or shift to evil for playing their profession the way it should be.
Just a heads up... When the War Blog comes out, if it remains that both or all parties must give consent, I will argue against that as well. Not because I want the Lord of the Flies, but because it just doesn't make sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It occurred to me pondering the anti-war movement during Bush's presidency that it's probably necessary for there to be two extremes, each tugging away on a different end of the ideological rope, in order to find some kind of reasonable balance.
There needs to be a voice harping about the risks of having an online community degenerate into an anti-social hell, just as there needs to be a voice harping about hysterical fear of griefing. The real trick is to have an honest self-assessment of where you are on the spectrum, rather than always assuming you're in the popular middle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord of the Candyland... Just doesn't quite work.
People are amusing, interesting creatures. In stark contrast to 'animals' their brains don't fully develop until long after they have been subjected to their environment. Whether or not this causes irreparable damage is a matter for further investigation, but what is astounding is how selfish, egocentric, and short-sighted homosapien individuals can be. Cultural norms are established by groups of these creatures, which define and curtail anti-social behaviors through various means, but the introduction of anonymity can cause a fair number of individuals to utilize these anti-social behaviors to raise their personal situation by tearing others down.
In online terms, griefing is no different than bullying. The griefer's reward is the suffering and/or humiliation of their target, and the cloak of anonymity granted by their online presence counters their normal inhibitions around the practice. People competing against each other, through the market or through PVP, is not necessarily bullying or griefing, be it consensual or not. It's how and why they are doing what they are doing that defines whether or not they are bullying or griefing, and it usually comes down to an issue of respect. A competitor will have at least some respect for their opponent. A bully will not.
Some of the recommended methods of prevention for bullying are directly applicable to griefing. StopBullying.gov has some good advice that can be applied to PFO in this respect, and not surprisingly many of the key points therein deal with respect, in teaching, giving, and expecting. The onus for dealing with this particular issue lies with GW, but they can give the community tools to report incidents and they already have a mechanism through reputation that will allow the worst offenders to be tracked. It's up to the community to do their part too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think anonymity is a red herring.
Whether you watch American football or other football or any sport, in real matches there are officials. I'll probably offend someone by suggesting that football is just a game. In football, like any other sport or contest, people will sometimes/usually/almost always push the limits right up to the edge and beyond. As the saying goes, "If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying. And if you get caught cheating, you aren't trying hard enough."
If a game doesn't have refs or if the refs aren't effective, the limits can get pushed further and further as players on either side escalate.
It's not about anonymity. It's about someone in authority making sure the game (or other situation) is played by the rules. And sometimes the league has to look at things ("Hey, are these end-zone dances are getting out of hand?" "Hey, maybe we should have players wear helmets, five guys died this month." "Hey, what's with Schmedlap driving his helmet into the quarterback's spine?" ) and adjust the rules or tighten up enforcement. The change might be something the players don't want (or aren't willing to say they want), but the league might decide it needs to be changed for the good of the game, or public image, or whatever.
In the end, any game has rules, and the rules have to be enforced. If the persons in authority indicate that there are no rules or that the normal rules won't be enforced, then players/people will keep pushing limits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think anonymity is a red herring.
Whether you watch American football or other football or any sport, in real matches there are officials. I'll probably offend someone by suggesting that football is just a game. In football, like any other sport or contest, people will sometimes/usually/almost always push the limits right up to the edge and beyond. As the saying goes, "If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying. And if you get caught cheating, you aren't trying hard enough."
If a game doesn't have refs or if the refs aren't effective, the limits can get pushed further and further as players on either side escalate.
It's not about anonymity. It's about someone in authority making sure the game (or other situation) is played by the rules. And sometimes the league has to look at things ("Hey, are these end-zone dances are getting out of hand?" "Hey, maybe we should have players wear helmets, five guys died this month." "Hey, what's with Schmedlap driving his helmet into the quarterback's spine?" ) and adjust the rules or tighten up enforcement. The change might be something the players don't want (or aren't willing to say they want), but the league might decide it needs to be changed for the good of the game, or public image, or whatever.
In the end, any game has rules, and the rules have to be enforced. If the persons in authority indicate that there are no rules or that the normal rules won't be enforced, then players/people will keep pushing limits.
Yes, Riot seem to be saying the same thing: Anonymity -> Consequences:
Riot Games believes in the goodness of League of Legends players
Toxic behavior's been a big focus of the player behavior team," said game engineer George Skleres. He brought up the famous "Green Blackboards" Penny Arcade strip, but pointed out that anonymity isn't what turns people into jerks — it's a lack of consequences. And once someone starts behaving badly in a game, others are likely to pile on; by the end of the match, everyone's either angry or sad. However, Riot doesn't assume the worst of its user base.
"Five pillars of Riot's approach to combating toxic behavior":
1. Shield players from the "ripple effect".
2. Reform toxic players.
3. Remove toxic players (final step).
4. Create a culture of sportsmanship.
5. Create better match chemistry ("find ways that every match can feel like a match with friends").
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's very true that a lack of consequences does breed jerks like rabbits in spring. Ergo there must be consequences to people's actions, some hard and fast that can be used by GW to curtail chronic offenders, and others set forth by the community in general to encourage appropriate/acceptable behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One key to negative behavior, that has rarely been mentioned here (once by me at least) is not anonymity but recognition for meaningless PVP.
In the absense of Kill Boards, you will see griefing (when it does exist) decline.
Kill Boards is a reward system for those looking for the cheap and easy kill. If GW has the foresight not to involve itself in keeping track of PVP kills, or allowing a 3rd party provider of doing the same, they will have removed a primary motivator for griefing.
I don't buy into the idea that griefers want to be anonymous. They certainly did not behave that way in Age of Conan. In AOC they used to camp the respawn for hours. Players would call for GMs and warn other players across zone / local chat. They used to give out their names in chat. But, this behavior was limited to the PVP servers, and I would imagine the server pops died off.
In EVE the griefing that it is reputed to have is quiet honestly, over stated. Even the Goons advertise, days in advance before Hulkageddon begins. If you are foolish enough to go to Jita, and there is no reason to do so, then you got what you had coming to you. I have lived in EVE for nearly 9 years. I have never been suicide ganked or drawn into PVP that I did not anticipate could happen.
In games where there is virtually no death penalty, griefing is even less of a consideration.
The greatest issue PFO will face is gold farming. If they stick to the "no quest line magic / rare loot drops" stance, they won't have to worry too much about price gouging either.
I'm anxiously waiting to see this much fervor waged against the phantom menace fo griefing directed at economic griefing. Hyper inflated prices on the AH, or settlements charging huge fees for training to outsiders, who is going to police that?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...But in the aggregate I come away with one conclusion, PFO is not PVE enough for their taste or if there is any PVP it must be consensual in all cases...
I've been following the discussion since at least the tech demo kickstarter. And while I've seen many of the same points of view that you have, it seems less like a coherent voice for 'no-PVP', and more like a combination of new people coming in and slowly learning about the PVP focus and how it will work, and well-founded discussion of things that make PVP-heavy games fun. But we're starting to get very meta- about a thread that's already meta- to the gameplay, so I'll leave it there :-)
I agree 100% with this Hobs. I can also assure this community that The UnNamed Company will pave the way as a bandit company that "does it right."
[snip excellent list]
I love these principles. If I didn't suck quite so hard at PVP I'd be tempted to sign up. My main concern in this thread is to talk about mechanisms that encourage exactly this sort of thing - constructive engaged evil-in-the-game-world but not abusive-of-the-player behaviour. And part of that is acknowledging and that many online communities turn into raging piles of asshattery.
For me, this isn't a conversation about in-game functions at all. It's a conversation about what we do around and outside the game to create a community that I want to be part of for years. Very meta.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Will, having a discussion about constituting a socially healthy on-line community is entirely legitimate--my concern is solely with pursuing that end thoughtfully and skillfully.As for the research literature on developing such communities, I don't think it's very well developed (at least not from a gaming perspective). There's robust literature on pedagogy, development and characteristics of effective on-line learning communities, and more general stuff about moderated boards, chat-rooms etc., but to the best of my understanding, not so much about social structuring and culture building in games.
I agree - most of the discussion will necessarily be either from an experiential standpoint, or by drawing analogies from other sorts of online communities.
I actually think that GW's current plan is pretty sound:
- game elements that reward constructive engagement (flags / bounties)
- a managed population increase that allows formation of community norms
- an emphasis on human moderation and intervention providing consequences for serial jerkery
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm probably going to risk venturing into "Grumpy Old Man" (and I'm really not that old) but I honestly feel (and this is entirely anecdotal)that there has been a bit of a cultural shift in society as well and it's approach to games, sports and many other forms of freindly competition.
- I think many younger folks have been so shielded and "protected" and steered away from competition that they don't know how to handle it well, either in winning or loosing.
- I also think as kids we get exposed much more to the dystopean aspects of human nature and alot less to the grounding in positive ethics than we did in the past and at much earlier ages.
For example. In growing up, at sports or play or games.... though we would try as hard as we could to win....cheating or playing dirty to win wasn't all that common, even when nobody was watching and you might get away with it without consequence. Simply because you were cheating yourself as much as the other guy and cheapening the value of what you might really achieve. That was a value generaly reinforced by our coaches, our parents and our role models in thier behavior and teaching. The behavior I see being espoused today by all those elements, in sports for example, even at the youngest level is pretty horrifying.
Finaly, I think precisely because we had so much unsupervised time with our peers at a young age, we learned how to develop our own unwritten social contracts with each other without constantly needing oversight by some outside authority. I look at kids today with thier play-dates and thier constant supervision and being constantly guided in how to interact with thier peers.....and I think to myself how the heck are these kids going to function when they are older and there is nobody constantly looking over thier shoulder and telling them how to interact with thier peers, they are going to be completely lost if it's something they haven't had exposure to when young.
Anyway, enough of the 2-bit amature psycho-babble. Ultimately a large part of how the culture of the environment we play in is going to be upto us, the players and especialy those of us who are here now and help set the tone of what is expected. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In PFO, I think the reputation system is meant to do this, but with ways to avoid rep loss and even gain rep by abusing other players, I wonder if it will have much of its intended effect.So the behavioral change you are looking for is to end meaningful PVP...
No, that's a strawman.Can using your own words be a straw man arguement for me, I don't think so? So clarification on your position is needed.
When you jump from me saying "I'm concerned about X" to "I want to do away with a whole category of play (of which X is a small part)", then yes, that's a classic strawman.
On another topic of yours: The Masks Off
This is the only mask I wear. I don't post under a different name. My full character name is Ezreq "Bluddwolf" Bluddworth...
No, that wasn't about character names, that was about real human faces behind names. That's why I made the FB group, so those that wanted to could join it.
PFO group on FBOf course, if it doesn't end up being used, I'll eventually take it down.
Here's my Facebook profile. Currently my main picture is a political statement, but other photos are there.
Gah, Zimbardo. What a grotesque hack--he's literally the opposite of science. "Oh Hai guys I am going to ask privileged children at Standord to pretend they are prison guards/prisoners to find out about prison guards/prisoners. Oh wait wut this isn't naturalistic empirical work and is worthless (plus unethical)? Oh then really wut I was doing was exposing evil."
I mean seriously, this guy has been flogging this nonsense for decades, making money out of telling people anecdotes they want to hear ("Who know what eveil lurks in the hearts of men? Zimbardo knows!").
You don't get to pick your data arbitrarily in science. You do pick your data, collection method, analytical methods, etc., but it can't be just random, arbitrary cherry-picking: "Humans are fundamentally evil...umm...let me see...right there, Abu Ghraib!" What is the scientifically plausible reason for taking detention facility A, which used EIT and had amateur custodians who violated civil rights of detainees as data, but NOT taking detention facility B, which used coffee and skittles (literally) for interrogations? There could be a reason, but absent a well articulated data selection rationale, I'm left with "cherry-picking to get confirmatory evidence."
Ultimately Zimbardo's work is worthless in a scientific sense because he makes unsupported generalizable claims. If he wanted to pick out Abu Ghraib and do qualitative analysis, to understand with precision what happened there so as to gain portable insights, ok great. But don't cherry pick one example, ignore all the counter-examples, generalize broadly, and then pretend that's science.
I could just kiss you. Damn but that so needed to be said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Keovar,
You keep on avoiding this:
"In PFO, I think the reputation system is meant to do this, but with ways to avoid rep loss and even gain rep by abusing other players, I wonder if it will have much of its intended effect."
GW specifically added in the SAD system and the flagging system to allow players to play within their professions and not be punished for it. GW had done this because they have always said that players playing within their profession and or alignment was "Meaningful PVP", and that is the kind of PVP that they want to encourage.
So when I read your comment that this is still "abusing other players", I have to wonder where your middle ground is?
So am I supposed to assume that your reluctance to answer the central question is because you have no middle ground? That all non consensual PvP is abusive, even if GW states otherwise?
As for your face book idea, I use face book perhaps once every six months or even less. I don't even visit my Wife's page. I will look into it, not sure what is involved in joining a group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel: Imo, it's a lack of shared values and a lack of clarity in the teaching of ethics etc. It'd be a whole other discussion to go on, but in my refereeing experience of team sports:
A) It's very positive letting off steam & being a part of a team (social)
B) Players need a lot of coaching on the rules to turn them into more honest players
C) Removing the stigma some teams have of being exposed via a mistake, ruling really helps individual players keep relaxed about a loss of advantage in the game - a loss is a chance to learn and improve and note what went wrong so it can be avoided next play etc - not some catastrophe that has taken all the fun out of the game.
You'll always get some players who niggle about everything that's "against them" or don't consider to include everyone on the team equitably, but all the above eventually are conducive to the majority being more honourable/sporting. So I think people will bias towards minor cheating naturally but with the above start to appreciate if everyone is following the rules consistently, it's all about positive social fun, even if losing, appreciating the other team's quality.
But refereeing sure makes me more jaded and cynical of people's natural tendencies!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You keep on avoiding...
I don't read these boards very often, but you seem to be carrying on both sides of the conversation.
I can see how armed robbery would make you less hated than murder, but I don't see how it makes people like you, no. Present an example scenario and your rationale for how you think the mechanics of it should operate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You keep on avoiding...I don't read these boards very often, but you seem to be carrying on both sides of the conversation.
I can see how armed robbery would make you less hated than murder, but I don't see how it makes people like you, no. Present an example scenario and your rationale for how you think the mechanics of it should operate.
I believe the current mechanics of the SAD are a reasonable middle ground. Bandits will know by virtue of their hideout the relative make up and strength of the merchant approaching. We can tell that they would be easy to kill, especially with surprise. We decide to give up surprise and offer the merchant a SAD. The merchant accepts and gives up some of his loot. We let him pass on.
We took less than what we could have and did not kill him, in exchange for a positive reputation boost. Both of us gained. The merchant was likely traveling with a traveler flag, which GW created just to offset any bandit losses the merchant might have. The merchant really loses nothing if you consider that. This is what GW considers to be meaningful pvp.
Even if the merchant declines the SAD offer and we kill him. We still have list the element if surprise, giving him a slightly better chance, and he loses nothing more than he would have if we attacked with surprise. We do t gain the extra Rep boost and we do t get the murder flag, because he declined the SAD.
GW still considers this meaningful pvp because they view banditry as an impkrtant part of the economic system. Read the Deadliest Game portion of the Blog.
Your position is to not want a reputation boost for bandits giving up an advantage in exchange for that benefit. It in effect would prevent a player from participating in pvp that is encouraged by the game designers. Therefore your position is to the extreme fringe of being anti pvp.
I might consider meeting you part of the way by saying I might avoid attacking merchants that are not traveling with a travelers flag. This would mean that they have less loot to begin with anyway. But I think that would be a rare case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You think the merchant would give you a positive reputation boost after you just took some of his hard earned money/goods? I would not care if you took 1% or 99%..,you would be getting a negative reputation and a bounty were it me.
Don't like a negative reputation? Don't destroy what others are building...if you insist on that style of play, take your penalties.
I guess I have not understood what the debate is about. I 100% support Bluddwolf's right to play within the mechanics of the game to steal the efforts of others (which I would consider abuse, "an evil, unjust, or corrupt practice") and I 100% support everyone else's right to dislike him for it (and act upon that dislike, again within the bounds of mechanics).
And yes, for the record I am a proponent of Open World PvP, if fact, I would go even further than GW is going.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As much as I defend players who want to play bandits, I have to agree with KitNyx. I doubt highly if a person robbed cares if it's by a killer or a gentleman thief if that person is still losing wealth.
As the bandit, because you took less than you could or gave your target better odds to get away might result in your penalty being less, but I don't see any way you should receive a boost to reputation for it. Doing less of a crime should result in less of a consequence, not more of a reward.
Any "reward" you get from using SAD instead of murder should result from more of a role-played reward in that other players may not see you as being as much of a threat, may not level a bounty on you, etc. I don't think it should be a game mechanic provided "reward".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As much as I defend players who want to play bandits, I have to agree with KitNyx. I doubt highly if a person robbed cares if it's by a killer or a gentleman thief if that person is still losing wealth.
As the bandit, because you took less than you could or gave your target better odds to get away might result in your penalty being less, but I don't see any way you should receive a boost to reputation for it. Doing less of a crime should result in less of a consequence, not more of a reward.
Any "reward" you get from using SAD instead of murder should result from more of a role-played reward in that other players may not see you as being as much of a threat, may not level a bounty on you, etc. I don't think it should be a game mechanic provided "reward".
If GW removed their idea of punishing Chaotic Evil, for being Chaotic Evil or if GW made the system where negative reputation is a rewarded trait in an Evil settlement, then I would agree.
But, GW has said up to this point:
Combat is Chaotic
Theft is Neutral
Choosing not to kill when you could have earns you positive reputaion
It is about encouraging banditry, not making it so fringe that no one does it. The Traveler Flag is designed to compensate the Merchant for the potential risk of banditry. Under this flag they can haul more than without it.
If banditry is removed, so should the Traveler Flag. If banditry should be made CE, then the negative impacts of CE and low reputation should be removed from settlement structure.
High Risk + Low Reward + Punishment does not equal balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, flags that make you able to steal more, move faster, carry more, or gain reputation for actions that shouldn't be reputable just seem like mechanics designed to promote a particular action/behavior. I would rather that our actions in-game are based on our desire or need to...well...do those actions/behavior, regardless of whether the game is providing us with an incentive beyond the natural rewards of that action/behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, flags that make you able to steal more, move faster, carry more, or gain reputation for actions that shouldn't be reputable just seem like mechanics designed to promote a particular action/behavior. I would rather that our actions in-game are based on our desire or need to...well...do those actions/behavior, regardless of whether the game is providing us with an incentive beyond the natural rewards of that action/behavior.
I agree completely. Meta-game incentives to attack someone don't make sense in an alignment based world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree completely. Meta-game incentives to attack someone don't make sense in an alignment based world.
Alignment has always been a limitation on role playing and it was and still an unnecessary element in any form of RPG (PnP or Video Game), a design flaw from the very beginning in my opinion.
In an MMO it translates terribly and is even more restrictive than in a PnP RPG. Reputation is the only system needed.
For those that ask, "What about the Dieties and Clerics / Paladins".
Deities have spheres of devotion and follower classes. The alignment I not necessary. If you follow a Deity that supports love and peace, then its Clerics and Paladins promote love and peace. If a Deity is the God of Greed and Lust, then Thieves will flock to worship this Deity.
Let the players play and their reputation will tell you if they are naughty or nice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That might be betting the farm on an untested social experiment. RL civilization over millenia developed systems for evaluating human behavior in terms of beneficial, malevolent, and harmless. Lawful, illegal, and normal.
To throw out the conclusions of all those years of trial and error, just because you don't know why humanity went to all that trouble (to set them up, a not inconsiderable investment where most folks wouldn't bother fixing what isn't broken) would be questionable at best.