198 replies to this topic

[FleurDeMur]

That's a good compromise between space and utility. Good idea!

[PyroMancer]

WeReWalRuS, on 18 April 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

What if....and it would take some testing/tweaking....Ironclad adopted a model similar to the one found in Tribes?

Tribes has the system because it was implemented all the way back in the original Tribes before bandwidth allowed for good Voice Chat. It's also a fast paced action game and you need to issue commands quickly.

I forget the commands for the original games but I've been playing the Free Online one lately and it's basically like so. Hit V to active menu, Hit D for Defend Menu, then there are a few options like G for Generator, F for Flag. So you hit VDG real fast and you yell "Defend our Generator" or VRG for "Repair our Generator". They are straight forward and common commands.

I also forget the oringal games but I just like the current F2P Tribes you can still do normal chat. Just bring up the console and type in anything you want to say. Which also means you can't move so people only tend to do it during respawn or between matches. But you can talk normally just fine. People don't use it much because it's a FPS and stopping to type usually means death.

As for the Hostility in the similar games I was under the impression it had to do with people being completely intolerant of new players. Because it's so carefully balanced for a 5v5 match if one player doesn't do exactly what he's suppose to it effectively becomes a 5v4 match and thus the 5 easily win. Which pisses off the other 4 players. And because people's rankings depend in large part on their team they get mad because of the negative impact those members are having on their score. In LoL as I understand it this can cause a player to get stuck in a crappy ranking area constantly being paired with bad players and thus stuck in the terrible rankings area.

[IanD967]

PyroMancer, on 19 April 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Because it's so carefully balanced for a 5v5 match if one player doesn't do exactly what he's suppose to it effectively becomes a 5v4 match and thus the 5 easily win. Which pisses off the other 4 players. And because people's rankings depend in large part on their team they get mad because of the negative impact those members are having on their score. In LoL as I understand it this can cause a player to get stuck in a crappy ranking area constantly being paired with bad players and thus stuck in the terrible rankings area.

You are right, it is because people can be intolerant of new players especially since they are learning the game and others just think about winning.

I have seen that happen in LoL but it wasn't even a ranked game and they either played bad or they were really bad winners. This happens in HoN far far more often than it does in LoL.
In LoL it isn't because people are paired with terrible players they just always get paired with a single troll unfortunatly.
Had a game the other day where Soraka locked in as support and had called it in the chat soon as she got into the lobby and everyone else had picked champs they wanted/needed (since they were happy a support had already been picked) and the 5th guy then decided to pick Taric and also called support after everyone else had locked in.
During the game Taric was all "oh s***, I called support!!" you can imagine how that game turned out.

That was a normal game btw, now ranked.

[CWheezy]

The main problem with this games is the dunning kreuger effect, which I feel is the main cause of all the vitriol.

You see it a lot at low elos of league of legends, people there are much more mean and vicious, than at high elo play

Edited by CWheezy, 20 April 2012 - 01:31 AM.

[Astorax]

I'd much rather see some form of +1 system, rather than a negative system. Give rewards to people that get to certain levels even maybe. The problem with negative systems, is they can be abused. Someone new joins a game and makes mistakes, the rest of the players happen to be jerks. Now that poor new person gets slammed with tons of negative marks for no other reason than they were new to the game. Which isn't to say positive marks can't be abused either, but I'd hazard a guess that it would be less common than negative bashing.

I always wished that matchmaking also took things like that into account, but it requires a very large player base to start taking a factor like that into account, but still. I'd much rather have a system where you give points for people that are nice or helpful, rather than negative points for jerks.

[Jeru_Sorrin]

Well it would be a good Idea to implement a helpful system where good players are reconized. However it will backfire and cause problems of it's own. The problems are twofold. A) Not every has the same measurement of "Good" some will think that some characters must play a certain role beacuase it's the role suggested, hence will think that they're stupid to use the hero or commander in any other way, a prejudice way of looking at things. It can encourage those that are good at playing but are abusive, and discourage those who are good or bad at playing. Why you ask? Because not everyone's idea of "good" is being a good person, but rather a good player. So those players that think thusly will judge accordingly. This will cause confusion of the good system making it seem that the company seeks to reward those that play good rather than be good.

Also a "good guy" system doesn't help in the situation of a person that is acting like a jerk. A jerk will do as he pleases as long as he gets a kick out of it and he can get away with. Also it's hard for a company to go and find these people and it takes time to find them. SO if they can get help from the community they will be able to consentrate on making more character's and patching things rather than using time, effort, and money to find the jerks. The tribunal system also allows the community to have a say and get involved and be aware of the problem rather than oblivious and unaware that such problems exist.

However I can see why you're wary of such a "bad guy" system. Because, unfortunately, it will be abused. That's why the company should reserve the power of judgement to themselves so that the community doesn't deolve into a demagogue. Also it could be used to isolate those people who are acting like jerks. That is a bad thing, it encourages anti-social behavior and doesn't solve the issue. However we can find a way. We just need to try. After doesn't society work this way at large? Where criminals are punished and good persons praised? If humanity can from a union that strives after can't a company find a way to justly deal with jerks and other such persons?

So yes it means I don't have a complete answer to the solving of the isolating punishments for undesirables on the web but have a hope that we can find a good compromise.

Edited by Jeru_Sorrin, 20 April 2012 - 12:21 PM.

[WeReWalRuS]

I hope that Ironclad utilizes a decent leveling system, and allows players to match up accordingly. I always wondered why LoL stopped at 30.

[FleurDeMur]

They stopped at 30 because having more runes and masteries would be too much of an advantage.

[WeReWalRuS]

Really? Sounds like an easy fix. That means it will never happen

[FleurDeMur]

You mean runes/masteries having too major of an effect? Yeah, I don't see them implementing much of a rune/mastery system either, but I would think they have some VERY minor bonuses for leveling up, say a 3-4% increase in stats total at level 1 for getting to the max "summoner" level.

[Rekka777]

I think something similar to the Tribunal system would work well, I also find just the ability to mute (or maybe even vote to kick) people in games is also very helpful. The only problem with that is that people may kick you just for sucking, or just a premade group of people trolling the 5th person =/

[Astorax]

Jeru_Sorrin, on 20 April 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

Well it would be a good Idea to implement a helpful system where good players are reconized. However it will backfire and cause problems of it's own. The problems are twofold. A) Not every has the same measurement of "Good" some will think that some characters must play a certain role beacuase it's the role suggested, hence will think that they're stupid to use the hero or commander in any other way, a prejudice way of looking at things. It can encourage those that are good at playing but are abusive, and discourage those who are good or bad at playing. Why you ask? Because not everyone's idea of "good" is being a good person, but rather a good player. So those players that think thusly will judge accordingly. This will cause confusion of the good system making it seem that the company seeks to reward those that play good rather than be good.

The concept of a "bad guy" system applies equally. People will equate someone playing a character badly to being a bad person. Happens all the time in the current games (LoL, DotA, HoN). If you don't play your character well, you get reamed by the other players in the game and often "reported". The difference is, that the prevalence of people likely to report for bad behavior is much easier to foster amongst others. So it's easier to get "griefed" by a group of people pissed off at you because you lost them the game, as opposed to actually being a bad person.

Quote

Also a "good guy" system doesn't help in the situation of a person that is acting like a jerk. A jerk will do as he pleases as long as he gets a kick out of it and he can get away with. Also it's hard for a company to go and find these people and it takes time to find them. SO if they can get help from the community they will be able to consentrate on making more character's and patching things rather than using time, effort, and money to find the jerks. The tribunal system also allows the community to have a say and get involved and be aware of the problem rather than oblivious and unaware that such problems exist.

No, it doesn't...but nothing does. There is no system out there that prevents a person from being a jerk in any way. The griefers make new accounts. The jerks will continue to be jerks and ride the line between just being that jerk, and getting themselves banned. Having a negative system also provides no incentive to actually playing nice. TF2 implemented a coaching system and their community did in fact get better for it. Offering hats/achievements as a reward for good behavior worked for them. I don't see why doing a similar system to promote good behavior wouldn't work here too.

Quote

However I can see why you're wary of such a "bad guy" system. Because, unfortunately, it will be abused. That's why the company should reserve the power of judgement to themselves so that the community doesn't deolve into a demagogue. Also it could be used to isolate those people who are acting like jerks. That is a bad thing, it encourages anti-social behavior and doesn't solve the issue. However we can find a way. We just need to try. After doesn't society work this way at large? Where criminals are punished and good persons praised? If humanity can from a union that strives after can't a company find a way to justly deal with jerks and other such persons?

Unfortunately society works that way because there is no anonymity. The minute anonymity (read the internet) is involved the rules which govern a body of people change completely.

Quote

So yes it means I don't have a complete answer to the solving of the isolating punishments for undesirables on the web but have a hope that we can find a good compromise.

People much smarter than us have been working on the problem for a long time. Riot's system of the tribunal supposedly worked to trim the fat down a bunch, but they also have said their numbers haven't changed significantly numbers-wise as a result...which means those being banned just create new accounts and keep going. I too, don't have all the answers.

At the end of the day, as long as they have a very good mute/ignore system in place (please for the love of god make ignore do-able from in-game please) the jerks will have less of an impact on day-to-day playing, generally speaking.

[Jeru_Sorrin]

Very well thought out Astorax. Also I admit I was being very pesstimistic with your idea in my head and I would like to apoligize. Because all in all we're both right. Allowing a system for players to judge other players is bound to have problems even if it is to highlight the good or the bad. Both can be abused and many of the problems we've mentioned will probably occur. However I also believe that having a tribunal system will not only help the company to locate the trouble players but it will help the community define itself and it's commitment to doing good.

I also agree it would be nice to have a good system of ignoring players however there is a big problem looming on the horizon. What happens if the commander is the one being the jerk? The hero's really can't afford to not listen to the commander and hope to effectivly win the game but still the possibly of a commander to be stupid is not only a problem but automatic gamechanger. Because listening to the commander is part of the gameplay plan. So instead of being a helper and provide surport to turning into a time of misery till Game Over. I don't know what we can do about but we all definatly need to think about it.

[FleurDeMur]

What if, and I know this wouldn't completely solve the problem, they put in a system where commanders play with lower "elo" heroes? There would still be jerk commanders, but the stupid commander problem might be at least partly solved.

[Astorax]

Jeru_Sorrin, on 21 April 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

Very well thought out Astorax. Also I admit I was being very pesstimistic with your idea in my head and I would like to apoligize. Because all in all we're both right. Allowing a system for players to judge other players is bound to have problems even if it is to highlight the good or the bad. Both can be abused and many of the problems we've mentioned will probably occur. However I also believe that having a tribunal system will not only help the company to locate the trouble players but it will help the community define itself and it's commitment to doing good.

I also agree it would be nice to have a good system of ignoring players however there is a big problem looming on the horizon. What happens if the commander is the one being the jerk? The hero's really can't afford to not listen to the commander and hope to effectivly win the game but still the possibly of a commander to be stupid is not only a problem but automatic gamechanger. Because listening to the commander is part of the gameplay plan. So instead of being a helper and provide surport to turning into a time of misery till Game Over. I don't know what we can do about but we all definatly need to think about it.

Oh, I didn't take it badly at all. I enjoy discussing both sides. As long as it doesn't de-evolve into personal attacks I don't mind being disagreed with at all. That's how things get solved!

This problem in particular is a sticky one for game designers because it's one that can turn people off your game faster than almost any other aspect of the game. It's the reason LoL implemented "noob island" where for your first 13 summoner levels regardless of elo you get matched against other under level 13 players. It doesn't totally mitigate being harassed, but it definitely helps.

There are lots of ways that Ironclad can "solve" this problem, I just hope that they do devote a good amount of time thinking this stuff through, trying different things, etc etc. It could also be that the game ends up being niche enough that they have enough manpower to really focus on weeding out the asshats. I hope that's not the case, cause it'll mean that they're successful enough that they have too many players in their community, but we'll have to wait and see.

Edited by Astorax, 22 April 2012 - 09:15 AM.

[OwnageDaPwnage]

yeah is there going to be replays with this?

[murdeoc]

i'm loving this discussion and here's what i got out of it so far:
noone has all the answers, period! but the debate about a positive/ negative system seems to go both ways. i say, let's have both options. i think because we are mainly trying to accomplish a positive community we could do with the 'reward the good guy' system, but i personally know i'm not looking for the good-guys per se, i wanna have a fun game on and i can have that with anyone.... except the bad-guys, trollers, grievers, the lot of them. so a 'report the bad guy' system seems at least as valid to me.
now we have been using the tribunal from LoL as an example and one idea was to add replays to it. that would be really helpfull to decide on a case, but i know i dont have the patience to review a replay on every tribunal case i would find (still on the few i'm undecided it would help). also i think ic devs want to add the replay options into the game anyway so it might be possible, but im no dev and i dont know how much of a strain it would be.
simply adding more info to the case than the tribunal does would be really helpfull, things like player lvl (if we will have those), times of death with death recaps, their item build at various points ingame ( i once played a LoL game w a lee sin that didnt buy anything until just before the end when he finished his build, just to look less of an ass on the tribunal i think), anyway as much info as possible. any info can help.
also making it obvious on ppl who vote on these tribunal cases that we are not looking for bad/good players, but bad/good ppl should help.

ignoring players should be an option anyway though.

* also, who talked about the dunning kruger effect? i went through the wikipedia page about it and i cant believe i either never saw it or forgot about it after quite a lot of years of studying psychology. it makes sense, nice to be able to give it a name!

[Sayan]

Astorax, on 22 April 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

This problem in particular is a sticky one for game designers because it's one that can turn people off your game faster than almost any other aspect of the game. It's the reason LoL implemented "noob island" where for your first 13 summoner levels regardless of elo you get matched against other under level 13 players. It doesn't totally mitigate being harassed, but it definitely helps.

I agree with this point but at the same time I disagree, noobie island doesn't work because of the smurfing problem in LOL, where in some one who has played the game extensively creates a smurf account for sole purpose of bashing on newbies, yes eventually the match making system does kick you out of noobie island but usually the damage has been done that most legitimate new players tend to never come back.

How do you fix a problem such as that, simple: don't use ELO based ratings systems for your match making cause we all know ELO was based off of chess and what is chess known for, 1v1. Is SOADA gonna be 1v1 as well? NO, so use something akin to SC2 league ratings system...

LOL's match making is flawed heavilly, most of us know this. So is HON's MMR and PSR...Use SC2's system please...

[CWheezy]

So you want a system based on elo?

SC2 system Shows you your "Ranking", which is not what they use for matchmaking. Ranking is only used to determine your place within a division.

They have a 2nd number, your elo or MMR, which is hidden, and that what you actually use for matchmaking.

Their MMR is not the exact same as elo, but it is pretty close

Edited by CWheezy, 23 April 2012 - 08:09 PM.

[Jeru_Sorrin]

murdeoc, on 23 April 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

i'm loving this discussion and here's what i got out of it so far:
noone has all the answers, period! but the debate about a positive/ negative system seems to go both ways. i say, let's have both options. i think because we are mainly trying to accomplish a positive community we could do with the 'reward the good guy' system, but i personally know i'm not looking for the good-guys per se, i wanna have a fun game on and i can have that with anyone.... except the bad-guys, trollers, grievers, the lot of them. so a 'report the bad guy' system seems at least as valid to me.
now we have been using the tribunal from LoL as an example and one idea was to add replays to it. that would be really helpfull to decide on a case, but i know i dont have the patience to review a replay on every tribunal case i would find (still on the few i'm undecided it would help). also i think ic devs want to add the replay options into the game anyway so it might be possible, but im no dev and i dont know how much of a strain it would be.
simply adding more info to the case than the tribunal does would be really helpfull, things like player lvl (if we will have those), times of death with death recaps, their item build at various points ingame ( i once played a LoL game w a lee sin that didnt buy anything until just before the end when he finished his build, just to look less of an ass on the tribunal i think), anyway as much info as possible. any info can help.
also making it obvious on ppl who vote on these tribunal cases that we are not looking for bad/good players, but bad/good ppl should help.

ignoring players should be an option anyway though.

* also, who talked about the dunning kruger effect? i went through the wikipedia page about it and i cant believe i either never saw it or forgot about it after quite a lot of years of studying psychology. it makes sense, nice to be able to give it a name!

BTW noone isn't a word sorry it can only be said as no one, but nice try .

Other than that I think that it would be nice to implement both a good guy system and a bad guy system. Maybe like an nomination for a good fellow based on his record of helping people that are lower ranked and so forth and a report for a bad person for crude language.

BTW the lee sin example makes my graph idea all the more important because one can see the events versus just seeing the chat log's and the end result.

As for the match making I would like to see a system where it's like SC2 and it allows the player a couple games to average out their play and their place on the PvP system.

Edited by Jeru_Sorrin, 24 April 2012 - 08:37 AM.