Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TullyAckland

Player Experience & Self-Policing Suggestion Thread

Recommended Posts

Alright, next subject: How important is a full player data exposed API? I love stats, but what are your thoughts on how much data is presented? 

 

If full data, does it matter that it effectively results in all guild recruitment requiring a full audit of the players history before they are considered to join? 

 

I am absolutely against public stats APIs. As a case study, look at Planetside 2. PS2 was originally designed as a game around territorial conquest and teamplay to achieve persistent-world goals. Among its many abject failures is a robust and persistently expanded stats system that shifts focus away from teamwork to individual grinding and fight-hopping to grind out K/D.

 

How do you know your system is flawed? Looking again at Planetside 2, the game allows users to keep track of their KPH (kills per hour) on certain weapons. Because this is a revered stat in the game, players often run around with medkits equipped rather than their main weapon (to keep time from ticking away on their main weapon when not fighting). Who does this? Well, here's some more stats on who does. In short, nearly every top-tier player does. It's completely immersion breaking to see players running around a battlefield holding an accessory item instead of their main weapon. Imagine if in Crowfall everyone ran around with, say, a fishing rod equipped until the fight started and they all switched to their main equipment slot (for no reason other than their stats). This, of course, to say nothing of the prevailing strategy in the game to hop around between fights for maximum advantage in order to get the best K/D rather than capturing territory, or players trading kills between two different accounts to pad their ratings (when they could otherwise be having fun). Why does this happen? Stats and stat padding, period. No equivocation here as to the cause of this degenerative gameplay.

 

The point is that stat recording (especially, but not solely, individual stats) skews player behavior in myopic and antisocial ways that almost invariably conflict with the macroscopic goal of the gameplay design. They have negligible and debatable benefit, and a whole host of negative consequences. This includes stats systems that allow players to opt-in voluntarily (as players will just be pressured by major guilds and communities to opt-in whether or not they really want to anyway). Guild-level stats would similarly just result in degenerative gameplay patterns on the guild level as opposed to the individual. Players will find optimal strategies, and when you pick simple (and almost always poorly expressive) numbers like K/D or bases captured for them to optimize, this is what happens.

 

Want to know how a guild is doing? Look at their EK, and look at how much territory they own on their current campaign(s).

Want to know how a player is doing? Look at how their guild is doing.

 

That's really the only thing that tells the whole story -- not K/D, not KPH, not siege W/L statistics, not accuracy statistics. Just territory, allegiance, and reputation.

Edited by recatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just gotten off work, so forgive me if I'm going over some items that have already been discussed.

 

First, a LOT of the things being discussed could, and in some cases should, be determined by what sort of Campaign we're talking about.

 

If we're talking about griefing in a Dregs world, for example, things that are expressly against the Terms of Service are griefing - whether that's racist/sexist chat, spamming chat repeatedly, and so on. Anything that isn't against the Terms of Service is fair play. Break open someone else's Chests to steal their goodies. Kill them to get their loot. Kill them repeatedly over the course of an evening. All of this is fair game.

 

But if we were talking about a different rule-set - say, God's Reach - people who are in your own faction should be near-untouchable. Can't take their stuff without permission. Can't attack and kill them. You're already going to have some cooperation and collusion, as well as betrayals and backstabbing, from different factions. At some point, though, people are going to want to have some people that they can trust without being part of their guild before-hand. As such, finding some way to get around those restrictions should be considered griefing or violation of TOS. Note, however, that gaining someone's trust, getting them to allow you into their belongings, and then betraying them would not be griefing.

 

This is pretty much how I see different Campaigns - each Campaign is its own world, and things that happened in a campaign a month ago should not necessarily be tied to the campaign I'm in today. I think of it in the same way that board gaming works - while you can keep a player's style in mind, you don't hold grudges from one game to the next. If I sided with the guild, War Nerds, back then, that shouldn't mean that I'm required, or even expected, to be on their side now. Similarly, if I found a deal to betray my team last month, that doesn't mean that I'm going to betray whoever I join this time, especially if it's a completely different rule-set. Players should have some opportunity to spread their wings, push the limits, without having it stain them forever.

 

Which leads into my thoughts about API access. While I don't really have any strong opinion on whether player stats should be publicly visible, I do think that out-of-campaign data - that is, someone's account name, other characters, Eternal Kingdoms information, and so on - should be off-limits. If you want people to know that information, you can share it personally, rather than having it spammed out to the masses.

 

That said, I think that to what degree API data is available can alter a game significantly, so with that in mind, I think that API data should be something that can vary from Campaign to Campaign. In some Campaigns, everyone can see everything - if they Inspect you, they can see exactly what armor and weapon you've got, who your guild is, and so on. In other campaigns, they can only see limited data - what class of armor and weapon, but no specific details; what faction, but not what guild; that sort of thing. And in another type of campaign, you can't get any extra data besides what your eyes see - Inspecting someone has no function. On the whole, I think I agree with Doc Gonzo's point, in that information is power, and shouldn't just be freely given to everyone who looks at you.

 

On to another important matter: Player Tribunals and other "Justice" systems. I agree that letting the inmates run the asylum is generally a bad idea - it results in "might makes right" power struggles. And I think that having paid GMs is the far opposite end of the spectrum - because of the employment costs of having too many people, that can result in a distorted situation, as well. So the best solution is probably something that combines both. League of Legends had a good idea with their system, but I think they got it backwards - rather than having a GM pre-screen the events before passing it over to the Tribunal, the Tribunal should be the first step, with a GM overseeing the final result - if the Tribunal votes for "Not Guilty," the GMs don't even need to see the charge, other than having it as a permanent mark on the person's internal history. If it results in a "Guilty" verdict, then the GM steps in to make a determination on appropriate punishment.

 

In order to prevent too much gaming of the system, you put in the following restrictions: Any fellow guild-members of the accused are disqualified from being called for the Tribunal. People who have characters in the same current Campaign as the accused character are also disqualified. This drastically reduces the number of people who would have a direct conflict of interest in voting one way or the other. It's also a good idea that people who consistently vote the same way regardless of details or circumstances gradually lose their Tribunal eligibility - people who ONLY vote for Guilty (and those who only vote for Not Guilty) aren't actually taking the matter seriously, and shouldn't be judging in a Tribunal. Alternately, people who regularly vote the opposite of the final vote can be pushed out of the Tribunal pool.

 

There are other ways to do it, of course - rather than having the entire player base be possible Tribunal judges, make there some condition - being nominated by a GM, having a high Likes-per-Post balance in the Forums, or anything else that is considered to be a good community member. But I believe that having the player base be the first look at any reported abuses or griefing would be a very effective and reliable way to keep the actual GMs from being overburdened, without having the GM employee budget be excessively spendy. And, if so inclined, you could use "Not Guilty" verdicts as a control on the people who are trolling by making bad reports - if someone has submitted a significant number of reports that result in Not Guilty, they start getting progressively larger punishments. 5 NGs (or five more NGs than Gs) = blocked from the game for a day, for example.

 

There are so many different ways that the game's rules can be altered by making it part of the Campaign Rules, I think the fact that it's been mostly ignored in this discussion is an important, and tragic, omission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't fans. However, there's really not a whole lot we can do about it. The thing we can try is: ensure that there's so much to do with an active character that playing multiple would likely mean you aren't performing at 100% effectiveness on either. 

Kinda hard to do when most alt accounts will be for a dedicated craft just sitting there passively gaining skill and being fed resources from the main account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]Want to know how a guild is doing? Look at their EK, and look at how much territory they own on their current campaign(s).

Want to know how a player is doing? Look at how their guild is doing.

 

That's really the only thing that tells the whole story -- not K/D, not KPH, not siege W/L statistics, not accuracy statistics. Just territory, allegiance, and reputation.

 

Totally agree with this, I also think any kind of UI or API K/D, W/L or any other statistics is just breaking immersion. Stats are good for MOBA by me.

Edited by courant101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you want to call up, or text my guild for info on their characters, you can do it. Good luck with that.

 

But if you want an API that would allow code to parse my troops, and plug in those numbers to a spreadsheet to find specific strenghts and weeknesses of those chatacters- just no.

API would make that too easy. An API that people could choose to opt in/out of would be ok though.

 

Not really something I'd expect an API include.  Whether opt out or in, there is lots of data that could be excluded to prevent this.

 

It doesn't have to include your guild history, or any historically incriminating data. It is summary data, not the line items. Furthermore, it could be setup so that it starts "fresh" upon joining a guild.

 

This is another awesome thing we could do with an API.

 

I am absolutely against public stats APIs. As a case study, look at Planetside 2. PS2 was originally designed as a game around territorial conquest and teamplay to achieve persistent-world goals. Among its many abject failures is a robust and persistently expanded stats system that shifts focus away from teamwork to individual grinding and fight-hopping to grind out K/D.

 

That's really the only thing that tells the whole story -- not K/D, not KPH, not siege W/L statistics, not accuracy statistics. Just territory, allegiance, and reputation.

 

For the 1000th time, this is not an argument against APIs.  This is an argument for what data should be available to the player.  Planetside 2 custarded up by making K/D or KPH a stat that was easy to show.  Make this not available and this problem is solved.

 

APIs can be fine tuned to show whatever data we think is fair.  Playing a game where the data available ruined the game is not an argument against APIs.

 

To put it another way - many of these things are poorly made socks we wouldn't want even if it was in the game.  The PS2 example is a problem even if there isn't an API.

 

All I'm asking for, is for data that would normally be available on an in-game menu to also be available out of game through an API.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the 1000th time, this is not an argument against APIs.  This is an argument for what data should be available to the player.  Planetside 2 custarded up by making K/D or KPH a stat that was easy to show.  Make this not available and this problem is solved.

 

APIs can be fine tuned to show whatever data we think is fair.  Playing a game where the data available ruined the game is not an argument against APIs.

 

To put it another way - many of these things are poorly made socks we wouldn't want even if it was in the game.  The PS2 example is a problem even if there isn't an API.

 

All I'm asking for, is for data that would normally be available on an in-game menu to also be available out of game through an API.

 

A bit late to the conversation, but I'll comment on the API system.

 

Pretty much this, basically. Having access to a public API for some basic stats is all good and well for basic info (class, not sure if stats and equip, but it's an option), the problem is giving access to way too much info. First, what recatek said: ranking stats means people will lose focus from the Campaign and give too much attention to the K/D/A (or even worse, DPS charts). Second, public info in a FFA set must be managed carefully; a killboard might make easy for other players to trace a group movement, for example.

 

I'd say, let's start with access to basic character info and go from there.


LW_sig_concept5.jpg


Through the Hunger and Darkness, might our Light shine through...


- (Future) Character name: Ydriel -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A short story about a bounty...

 

 

This is one of my favorite memories from a certain game.  From it, I've learned a few things:

  1. Offering a bounty is more satisfying when it's personal.  Face-to-face interaction trumps a bounty board system.
  2. Even without a formal interface, bounty systems happen organically.
  3. Systems must allow for effective PvP tracking for any bounty system to work.  Stealth must have a counter.

 

 

If I can have my ''hated'' enemys head on a platter brought to me to put on a pike, I don't really care if it is a coded or not game feature as long as it can be done, even if I did say that I would like one like that to exist in a previous thread, what I want is the satisfaction of either him dead(and ''mildly'' humiliated) or captured alive and in my hands for a short while(say an hour) BUT in campaign only! I really liked the above story Nazdar hope it is possible to be done.

 

As for API no I wouldn't like that it could strip me the element of suprise, and that may rob the chance of winnig a fight. This is not a PVE game where there is permament high end gear, holy trinity and premade groups for specific encounters.

Edited by Wotaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] Pretty much this, basically. Having access to a public API for some basic stats is all good and well for basic info (class, not sure if stats and equip, but it's an option), the problem is giving access to way too much info.

 

What would be the point of knowing the basic info on someone, and if the API info collection was optional, who would want to turn it on?

 

For me it's basically giving sensitive information freely to anyone, allies as much as enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On to another important matter: Player Tribunals and other "Justice" systems. I agree that letting the inmates run the asylum is generally a bad idea - it results in "might makes right" power struggles. And I think that having paid GMs is the far opposite end of the spectrum - because of the employment costs of having too many people, that can result in a distorted situation, as well. So the best solution is probably something that combines both. League of Legends had a good idea with their system, but I think they got it backwards - rather than having a GM pre-screen the events before passing it over to the Tribunal, the Tribunal should be the first step, with a GM overseeing the final result - if the Tribunal votes for "Not Guilty," the GMs don't even need to see the charge, other than having it as a permanent mark on the person's internal history. If it results in a "Guilty" verdict, then the GM steps in to make a determination on appropriate punishment.

 

In order to prevent too much gaming of the system, you put in the following restrictions: Any fellow guild-members of the accused are disqualified from being called for the Tribunal. People who have characters in the same current Campaign as the accused character are also disqualified. This drastically reduces the number of people who would have a direct conflict of interest in voting one way or the other. It's also a good idea that people who consistently vote the same way regardless of details or circumstances gradually lose their Tribunal eligibility - people who ONLY vote for Guilty (and those who only vote for Not Guilty) aren't actually taking the matter seriously, and shouldn't be judging in a Tribunal. Alternately, people who regularly vote the opposite of the final vote can be pushed out of the Tribunal pool.

 

There are other ways to do it, of course - rather than having the entire player base be possible Tribunal judges, make there some condition - being nominated by a GM, having a high Likes-per-Post balance in the Forums, or anything else that is considered to be a good community member. But I believe that having the player base be the first look at any reported abuses or griefing would be a very effective and reliable way to keep the actual GMs from being overburdened, without having the GM employee budget be excessively spendy. And, if so inclined, you could use "Not Guilty" verdicts as a control on the people who are posting by making bad reports - if someone has submitted a significant number of reports that result in Not Guilty, they start getting progressively larger punishments. 5 NGs (or five more NGs than Gs) = blocked from the game for a day, for example.

 

So pretty much CS:GO's overwatch system. Players can overwatch ban, which gets confirmed in to a VAC ban by a GM. Have to be of a certain skill rank, character(haven't been reported a lot), and games won. Could see something similiar being ported over. Plus, one of my favorite archeage 'features' is reading jury chat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit late to the conversation, but I'll comment on the API system.

 

Pretty much this, basically. Having access to a public API for some basic stats is all good and well for basic info (class, not sure if stats and equip, but it's an option), the problem is giving access to way too much info. First, what recatek said: ranking stats means people will lose focus from the Campaign and give too much attention to the K/D/A (or even worse, DPS charts). Second, public info in a FFA set must be managed carefully; a killboard might make easy for other players to trace a group movement, for example.

 

I'd say, let's start with access to basic character info and go from there.

Agree but with the ability to turn API's toggle on/off.

K/D stats and ranking stats and gear should not be available to anyone < this information should remain personal. 

Make the spies work harder is my motto. :)

Edited by ozzie mozzie

288mqgz.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree but with the ability to turn API's toggle on/off.

K/D stats and ranking stats and gear should not be available to anyone < this information should remain personal. 

Make the spies work harder is my motto. :)

 

K/D stats existing in the first place would just cause guilds to force you to send a screenshot in order to join. There's no reason for their existence, as it doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. It simply hamstrings certain playstyles, and breaks immersion, which is exactly what we shouldn't want in the sort of game Crowfall seems like its going to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K/D stats existing in the first place would just cause guilds to force you to send a screenshot in order to join. There's no reason for their existence, as it doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. It simply hamstrings certain playstyles, and breaks immersion, which is exactly what we shouldn't want in the sort of game Crowfall seems like its going to be.

 

If a guild is using information incorrectly or unable to tell the difference between builds and roles, do you really want to be in that guild? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of betrayal, one aspect that is really important to me is fluidity in guild structures. Sure, I want to be able to sign in to a Guild versus Guilds world with my friends, but if I decide that 100% of resources gathering is better than 10% of resources gathered, I want to be able to kill them, too.

 

The other thing is free for all. I think this ought to be less of a guild versus guild where you can kill your guild mates, and more of an every-man-for-himself game. I think this sort of dumping ground will be essential for new players who don't really fit in. Otherwise, you end up getting these huge guilds going into 1v1 against a bunch of 1v1 players and inevitably winning almost every time. Not only that, but the emergent game play with small alliances and developing groups in an otherwise guild-free and free-for-all environment.

 

On the subject of the player discipline versus support: I like the player tribunals for minor offences. They could be fun. But for serious harassment, I think it should be all back-end moderators. I've noticed the language policies on the forums are rather loosely enforced, so if some younger players invite themselves over to Crowfall, you'll want the game locked down tight. It's alright if someone leaves a game because they don't like it, but it'd be a real shame if they left because of other players, which seems to be a serious goal of many of the players here already. 

 

On Griefing... Depending on how you define this, if killing the same player repeatedly is interfering with good game play for both sides, one possible solution may be an alternate kill requirement. That is, once you kill the same player twice, you must then kill someone else before you kill that player again. Then, after the third time, you would have to kill two more players before killing that player again. Note that "killing" would be determined as the final blow. So someone can definitely still do damage. This just separates the "I'm just picking on this person" from the "we're all trying to keep this person who keeps coming back away." In the former, you have the alternate kill rule. In the latter, it would not apply, because enough people would be attacking that someone different deals the finishing blow every time. Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you'll start with Doc Gonzo's moderation removal as his post was roughly saying that if I don't like being called a gimp "this game isn't for you."

This guy is entertaining.

 

And never remove olde Doc from mods because one sensitive self-entitled person took his sentence incorrectly, twisting it from helpful advice to an insult. If somebody wants to get insulted by everything, that isn't our problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't fans. However, there's really not a whole lot we can do about it. The thing we can try is: ensure that there's so much to do with an active character that playing multiple would likely mean you aren't performing at 100% effectiveness on either. 

 

Well in that case why punish people with a single account by only allowing one of their characters per campaign?

 

 

 

Tribunal vs CS

CS is far better. In a competitive MMO with alliances/intrigue etc how can you ensure the tribunal jury is impartial? The ToS belongs to ACE, ACE should be the ones enforcing it.

 

Stats API

I'm against it. Combat stats aren't actually relevant in Crowfall because the data will be extremely noisy.  World of Tanks is a far smaller scoped game and it still hasn't been possible to turn kills/damage style stats into a truely accurate predictor of player skill. Every metric we have seen has ended up with people padding it to the detriment of gameplay. The moment you put meaningless stats out there people will game them. Then someone like me will try to make a synthetic metric that is tough to game. Then people will game that instead.

 

If you really want, Tully, the WoT metric developement stuff is public. You can actually go and see people using hardcore statistics programs to try and make something workable.


David Sirlin's Balancing Multiplayer Games should be mandatory reading for all gamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...