Goblin Squad Member
|
I would disagree that EvE has a toxic community, and I think 500k subs backs that up. Fact of the matter is, you only get griefed maybe once or twice in EvE, and then you have learned what not to do. That is not toxic, that is a learning curve.
For the brief time I was in Darkfall, and I may decide to return to it some day, I did not notice any severely toxic behavior. I spent some time in the PvP zones and did not get griefed by anyone, and yes I did see some groups out there, from Imperium I believe.
Just saying something is toxic, doesn't make it so. In a game as sparsely populated as Darkfall, any target is a target of opportunity, there is nothing random about it. If you can't see what someone is carrying, without killing them, then it is not really your fault for killing them. While they are n the ground in that near death state, we should be able to loot them.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I would disagree that EvE has a toxic community, and I think 500k subs backs that up. Fact of the matter is, you only get griefed maybe once or twice in EvE, and then you have learned what not to do. That is not toxic, that is a learning curve.
For the brief time I was in Darkfall, and I may decide to return to it some day, I did not notice any severely toxic behavior.
Did you watch global chat for any significant period of time? The global chat of DFUW provided me with a new index of comparison for "toxic community".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh.
Ryan warned the community back when I first joined the Kickstarter words to the effect that there would be a great firestorm of angst and anger when those who love to torment others realized they had issues with the planned alignment/reputation (and now influence) mechanics.
And he advised that such a firestorm would be to no avail for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Meh.
Ryan warned the community back when I first joined the Kickstarter words to the effect that there would be a great firestorm of angst and anger when those who love to torment others realized they had issues with the planned alignment/reputation (and now influence) mechanics.
And he advised that such a firestorm would be to no avail for them.
Hmmm. Yes. When the people who wanted the game to not allow non-consensual PvP, or to split the community into a PvP and PvE server I remember getting very angry and spending a lot of time debating with them
Then Ryan came in and pretty much said.
"They will never get what they want. Stop worrying about it."
And I realised I was wasting my breath, and what I wanted was already guaranteed. Our current situation is probably not that much different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because when someone joins the game and asks.
"How do I cast a spell?"
And the responce is:
Theyril Selstiene: "Equip a staff, select the spell you want to cast, and then click. Feel free to PM me any more questions."
Instead of:
Sleepswith Urmom: "You stop being a newb and learn to Google."
It leaves a lasting impression on someone stepping into the community. Ideally people shouldn't have to turn off global to avoid toxic chat. It should provide a positive social atmosphere everyone can enjoy.
I think global is small beans when compared with the fact I automatically assume any non-allied player I encounter in outside safezones/high-sec is going to try to kill me, and am usually right. That to me, is the tell-tale sign of a toxic community. EVE is a great title for players who want that. Why compete with EVE rather than seeking a new audience for PFO? Based on the number of people who favorited Being's comment, there is a demand for change.
Most importantly, the devs have consistently promised this game will not be like in terms of what you can get away with doing to other players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I think 500k subs backs that up.
The 500K subs, while indeed impressive, leave the question in my mind: how many people have tried EVE and left? Many people leave many games for many reasons, but I left because of the toxic atmosphere, and I'd love to know how many others had the same reason.
I know EVE's supposedly a "better" place than it was when I left (2007 or 2008), but I'd like toxicity to be among the last reasons people leave PFO. I'd like GW to have a constant waiting-list for entry, and have their first 500K subscribers arrive more quickly and more predictably than EVE's.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Complaining that the Global Chat of Eve and Darkfall is toxic isn't a silly thing to complain about because of how true it happens to be. It is a silly thing to complain about because every single online game ever, barring some very notable exceptions, have a toxic global chat. You cannot have a welcoming global chat without extremely strict moderation rules. All it takes is one or two people to ruin the entire thing for everyone.
It isn't a reflection of the community. Like every single community ever the community is made up of toxic a%% h!*!s and welcoming, friendly people. The reason that global chats tend towards the a$* h~+$s is because everyone else is busy talking in guild chat, or on teamspeak, or vent, or IRC. Because they aren't such a*@ h*~$s that they have been relegated to global channels.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot have a welcoming global chat without extremely strict moderation rules. All it takes is one or two people to ruin the entire thing for everyone.
I've admitted before that these are the first forums I've ever been really active on. I've also admitted I've made my share of mistakes, and succumbed to many of the same human failings that generally cause problems on forums. I try to keep getting better by honestly analyzing my own behavior and being willing to admit my mistakes.
In that context, I have recently had much the same realization. It is a losing battle to attempt to engage the posters who enjoy pointing and laughing and ridiculing others. I believe the best thing I can do is to just be quick to Flag "toxic" posts. I expect I'll generally do the same thing in-game, too.
Perhaps that's what Ryan meant, after all.
The Community will be its own best defense.
Perhaps Sheepdogs (in this context) aren't meant to attack the Wolves, but rather to simply alert the Shepherds to their presence.
I apologize again to any readers who were put off by my behavior. I can only hope you see that I was sincerely looking for the correct answer when I asked "what will it look like?" And I hope my new answer to that question is closer to correct.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...It is a losing battle to attempt to engage the posters who enjoy pointing and laughing and ridiculing others. I believe the best thing I can do is to just be quick to Flag "toxic" posts. I expect I'll generally do the same thing in-game, too.
Indeed such behavior is not merely in chat.
In MechWarrior Online there are a few pilots (in over 8000 matches I have identified two) who could really care less if your back is to them and a teammate if you are unfortunate enough to be in their way when they want to fire on an opponent... they will fire an alpha into your back knowing it might destroy you, completely without an identifiable shred of remorse.
In MechWarrior when your mech is down you have no way to rejoin the match in an active role. There is no rez. You can cycle through the PoV of each of your teammates to watch how the rest of the match plays out or you can quit the match even though your mech will be tied up until it is over.
In the past when TK'd in the manner described above I have ridden the ghost seat of the pilot who killed me, and I have seen them firing on anyone else who gets in the way of their shot, even when the perp is the one moving and the teammate was standing still.
The dead can still type in team chat, and I will advise that pilot somewhat sarcastically that they aren't supposed to fire on their own teammates.
So far each one of them has responded that 1)what matters is scoring their kills, and 2) that we should armor our backs better.
I confess it inspires rage in me. I want to harm them when they have such an attitude, but those people are somewhere among those we walk around with in the world.
Perhaps Sheepdogs (in this context) aren't meant to attack the Wolves, but rather to simply alert the Shepherds to their presence.
In one of the two instances I referenced above I told the TK pilot I would report him. He LoL'd and wished me luck with that.
The shepherds historically have been somewhat less than effective. As far as the community policing itself: where the population is great predators cannot be easily found again. I should count my blessings. Other hand, and despite my passion for the freedom of my privacy, I almost wish such individuals were tagged by the police for watching.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps Sheepdogs (in this context) aren't meant to attack the Wolves, but rather to simply alert the Shepherds to their presence.The shepherds historically have been somewhat less than effective.
I am exceedingly open to suggestions for better answers to "what will it look like?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is sadly the best suggestion to refer cases to the moderators as a last resort, but I have to ask myself what it will look like if we the players are to be our own best defense. I find it challenging to come up with adequately dire descriptions that aren't hackneyed.
Suffice to say there are no winners. By the time we have exerted our 'best defense' strategy we are indistinguishable for all the blood from the perpetrators. The moderators cannot sort us out, so we may all be banned, or the moderators turn away having done naught but magically vaporize our hope.
Cost/Benefit analysis will deny an adequately robust audit trail to find causes. That makes it your word against his. For the company there is no appreciable loss, no cautioning expense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am exceedingly open to suggestions for better answers to "what will it look like?"
It is sadly the best suggestion to refer cases to the moderators as a last resort, but I have to ask myself what it will look like if we the players are to be our own best defense.
Urman-the-optimist: Well, that depends on the tools that GW gives us, doesn't it?
Imagine, if you will, that there is a local channel for each hex. Now imagine, what if the 'owner' of the hex (which could be a settlement or a company) has moderation authority/responsibility for the local channel. So they can mute people for being potty mouths, or they can let their local be a free-for-all. And they have a method for flagging repeat offenders to the GW moderators.
The NPC settlement locals and the global channel (if there is one) are the responsibility of GW, of course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If that 1 in 4000 ratio held true, then in 6 billion people then roughly 1.5 million are at least mildly sociopathic.
I'm sure that ratio is much higher on the Internet where many people are able to see their opponent as an avatar made of pixels and forget there is a real human controlling them somewhere.
In sure all of us have displayed tendencies that are sociopathic vs. NPCs. Just look at the popularity of titles like the Grand Theft Auto series, and I'm sure in not the only person who wiped out their city with disasters in Sim City once they got bored with it, or slaughtered an entire village in Fable simply because I could.
When we can apply that same mentality to an MMO, and we make a guy enjoying his hobby on his time off work waste 15 minutes recovering his gear so he can resume what he was doing, simply because killing him felt satisfying... at that point we've crossed lines best left uncrossed without even knowing it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am exceedingly open to suggestions for better answers to "what will it look like?"It is sadly the best suggestion to refer cases to the moderators as a last resort, but I have to ask myself what it will look like if we the players are to be our own best defense.Urman-the-optimist: Well, that depends on the tools that GW gives us, doesn't it?
True enough. I wonder how much thought is being given this? Does Ryan mean that we should expect to be on our own to eviscerate baddies and take whatever hit we must to do so, or if he really intends to give us tools to work with?
Or do we already have word of those tools and I am simply too dull to have considered them? Curses?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am exceedingly open to suggestions for better answers to "what will it look like?"It is sadly the best suggestion to refer cases to the moderators as a last resort, but I have to ask myself what it will look like if we the players are to be our own best defense.Urman-the-optimist: Well, that depends on the tools that GW gives us, doesn't it?True enough. I wonder how much thought is being given this? Does Ryan mean that we should expect to be on our own to eviscerate baddies and take whatever hit we must to do so, or if he really intends to give us tools to work with?
Or do we already have word of those tools and I am simply too dull to have considered them? Curses?
I would much rather have player generated solutions than game mechanic presuppositions.
Currently Players have at their disposal:
PVP Combat
Banning from their controlled settlement
Bounties
Assassinations
Death Curses
Feuds
Wars
Do we really need more? I think these are plenty of tools for us to throw at each other, to convince that player to play within the rules. But if none of those work, then there is:
Report actions to GM / file a petition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Speaking of tools for regulating player behavior one is left out. It's somewhat "controversial" because where killing someone in the real world is a pretty extreme form of punishment it's a more mild form of in game punishment when compared to incarceration.
I'm honestly not sure where I stand on it as being forced into a stockade or jail would be awfully boring and I'm not sure removing the player's ability to play the game is wise for a game's long term viability. Not to mention the all too likely option of abuse.
I bring this up only as a point of interest in that the severity of the punishments are rather flip-flopped between in game and the real world.
Also it might get people thinking about ways to simulate incarceration as a game mechanic without removing a player's ability to play the game.
Also: city fines? Hit player's pocket books, but only if they want to maintain city access. Obviously you don't have to pay a fine.
As mentioned previously, I'm not sure about the viability of the options I brought up just though I'd put them up for discussion.
Also: in the realm of incarceration I used to play on a Mud based on the Forgotten Realms where the DM/GMs would put players in a form of limbo timeout; yet most put there kept coming back to play the MUD afterward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dragon Realms (Simutronics) also had a jail player characters could find themselves in and it sorta worked, but not very well and certainly didn't solve for player killing, which was very active there back in the day. It is still going today but I haven't played in years.
That game had, I felt, the best crafting system I've seen in a game first hand.
Regarding the pocketbook solution... I'm not sure but it may end up that if you have a low reputation things you need will be more expensive but it wouldn't be an immediate response sort of thing a player is likely to recognize as directly related to how they played last month.
We have had some significant debates about capturing and incarceration in relation to bounty hunters, but the idea in those threads was not favored.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As opposed to incarceration in-game, I think we've seen Ryan's aim:
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.
It is not our intention to create an "anything goes" world where players are subjected to endless scams, ganks, and immersion breaking behavior.
It is our intention to apply some of the real world lessons learned in our major cities by focusing on "broken windows" - that is, stopping minor transgressions of our social behavior policies before they escalate out of hand. It is my opinion that doing so will reduce antisocial behavior substantially. People who want to be anonymous jerks will not get much pleasure out of being quickly and unceremoniously silenced, booted, or banned. Without the ability to encite "rage & tears", those folks will have no good reason to haunt Pathfinder Online.
All three kinds of tools will be used to help enforce our social behavior policies. But the meta-rule will be: "If you're acting like a jerk, we'll feel free to give you a time-out lasting from minutes to forever without appeal and without warning."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the context of public chat, I think the idea situation would be one in which it is very easy (a simple right-click option) to flag a comment as insulting/abusive, with a moderator able to quickly and publicly give the offender a timeout, something like 5 minutes for a minor offense, during which they would not be allowed to use that (or possibly any public) chat channel.
I may be missing something, but it seems important to me that the community be able not only to see what caused the moderation, but also to see that the moderation occurred.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe too many game-company lawyers quickly throw up the "privacy is the only concern" flag for us to ever see moderation in action. I've never figured out what privacy has to do with that particular event, though; it's always felt more in the realm of not wanting us to watch the sausage being made, and wanting to avoid us clamouring for obviously consistent standards.
I believe the only way to stop a toxic community is to have a major report/penalty system in place,as some of you have mentioned This might be too much for GW to handle resource wise, but there could be benefits from such in the long run, as a toxic community really scares off new players.
Likewise, i believe best way to deal with griefers/flamers is to, if possible, separate them from the community, without separating them from the game. Flamers could be muted for a period of time. Griefers could be unable to attack, unless attacked first, for a period of time. Getting banned rarely makes someone appriciate the game or paying money for it.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
People who want to be anonymous jerks will not get much pleasure out of being quickly and unceremoniously silenced, booted, or banned.
I hope Ryan agrees that the "quickly" part is important, and I hope he has some specific ideas on how to make it a reality.
I believe this is a tricky part, at least when the numbers of reports start adding up. It might also not be that important, as i find people who grief/flame to do so regularly, and if they get penalized for it in the same regulatory, they find themselves not wanting to continue such behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hycoo, perhaps it would be appropriate to have certain trusted players able to use the lowest-level moderation tools - such as the 5-minute timeout. Obviously, Goblinworks would want to review their actions, and there would need to be a way to report the moderation itself as potentially abusive. It occurs to me that it would also be necessary to make that player-moderation anonymous, or at least pseudonymous.
If it's important that the moderation occur swiftly, then it's almost a requirement that there be "citizen moderators" empowered to handle the easy cases.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hycoo, perhaps it would be appropriate to have certain trusted players able to use the lowest-level moderation tools - such as the 5-minute timeout. Obviously, Goblinworks would want to review their actions, and there would need to be a way to report the moderation itself as potentially abusive. It occurs to me that it would also be necessary to make that player-moderation anonymous, or at least pseudonymous.
If it's important that the moderation occur swiftly, then it's almost a requirement that there be "citizen moderators" empowered to handle the easy cases.
It almost never works. People fed the smallest amount of power will abuse that power. They will not apply the rules fairly. They never do. Unless they enforce real oversight, and professional type punishments for those who do abuse any power they are given, corruption will run rife.
There is a reason that customer support is a paid position. You are giving them power over a service that others pay for. That has certain responsibilities attached.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hycoo, perhaps it would be appropriate to have certain trusted players able to use the lowest-level moderation tools - such as the 5-minute timeout. Obviously, Goblinworks would want to review their actions, and there would need to be a way to report the moderation itself as potentially abusive. It occurs to me that it would also be necessary to make that player-moderation anonymous, or at least pseudonymous.
If it's important that the moderation occur swiftly, then it's almost a requirement that there be "citizen moderators" empowered to handle the easy cases.
Never going to happen. There are all kinds of legal issues involved with it as well and in-game abusive behavior, that will happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think groups could have to take more responsibility/consequences for their members? There could be possibility with that approach.
Which would lead to organisations being insular as all hell. If I am responsible for the actions of one of my company members then I will only ever recruit people I either know in real life, or have known for a long time. There are maybe ten people I trust with that kind of thing. From the looks of it the developers are looking for companies to be competing for new players, not hiding away from them on the off chance they turn out toxic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Group self regulation is certainly something I'd hope all community and self-image minded groups would take upon themselves. Unfortunately, despite what I feel is the right attitude toward the game by GW this being a pretty open pvp game is going to draw in people and groups that care little about such a thing. I'm very interested in seeing which mechanical systems are put in place to try and solve this issue; and moreover, how it evolves over time as players find loopholes and exploits.
I don't know if you could factor moderation handed out into some form of feedback into companies and settlements to make groups care more about such regulation. That can be a slippery slope into too heavy handed methodology however.
With the influence system perhaps some negative hit to influence could be used to discourage behaviors GW deems unwanted and encourage group peer pressure to enforce certain standards - set by GW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think groups could have to take more responsibility/consequences for their members? There could be possibility with that approach.Which would lead to organisations being insular as all hell. If I am responsible for the actions of one of my company members then I will only ever recruit people I either know in real life, or have known for a long time. There are maybe ten people I trust with that kind of thing. From the looks of it the developers are looking for companies to be competing for new players, not hiding away from them on the off chance they turn out toxic.
I think you're shooting down a broad suggestion open to inquiry. It depends on what specifics and what consequences you introduce.
Let's take a wee eg. Let's say one of your members is found to be bad-mouthing too often and the evidence is clear. Then you could have it open for the company to be docked some "Influence".
So it would have to be a notable eg. A clear eg and a small docking that has a social impact if that is a long-standing member.
What do you think of that quick eg?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One simple way to avoid having a "toxic" global channel is not to have a global channel. If there are only local and company channels* then you avoid most of the problems: most vets will not be hanging around in NPC starter towns to give the cynical answers and the ones who are there will probably be of the helpful kind for the most part (Hobs and his Guide programme springs to mind here). New players will be able to ask their questions in relative peace, and once they get out into the wider world it won't be such an issue. If a place becomes known for its "Barrens chat", then people who are bothered by that will tend to avoid it, I would guess. And you should always be able to turn the channels off, should you wish.
*One thing EvE does well is have a special "global" channel only for new characters, with a few CCP reps hanging out there too. That might help. There is the problem of experience players with new characters, but it's a far smaller problem than having the entire population in one channel.
Besides that... What does local chat have to do with PVP ans Settlement Politics Pre OE/EE?
Nothing - sorry :).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, sorry back on OP, hopefully. Bad form! ;)
I stick to what Ryan said, that we just learn who each other is and how to communicate and ideally get some game-time ready for OE and then work with the emerging systems and that'll refine the finer points eg Alignment, Preferences, Suitability to Roles etc which perhaps a lot of people will blur through various many different forms of these anyway testing things out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now...back to the topic of the OP. Considering the latest blog, what role will we, should we, or may we see being played by the Feud system?
I have always felt that company level skirmishes (feuds) needed to be in the game. This allows groups of players, not attached to a settlement, to participate more fully in the game.
I'm hoping that the limited nature of the system (based on Tork's more recent posts) that consent might not be required. Perhaps if by granting consent your company / settlement can gain an influence / reputation bonus, more would be inclined to accept the challenge.