next »

[FARTRON]

So again, why do I care? Because the online behavior of our customers is dramatically reducing our sales, and continues to stunt the growth of our industry. Non-gamers simply don’t love games enough to put up with the crap they get online. The reason they would consider playing online is to have fun with other people -- and right now, playing games online with strangers rarely delivers that for anyone outside the hardcore demographic.

EDIT: Failed to link to the article

[Chris Whitman]

I'm glad this is getting legitimately recognized, although I'm surprised more emphasis isn't put on the children playing, considering they often seem to be a considerable portion of the behavior problem.

Considering the number of children playing these games, I think implementing a reasonable social structure is a must. Without that, online games provide an outlet for otherwise socially unacceptable behavior for children who are still developing, psychologically.

I'm obviously not saying online games should parent children, but I think at the moment, by creating a game where inappropriate behavior does not carry the same risk values as in day to day life, they can actively undo responsible parenting. I don't think it's valid, as game designers, to say that such a thing just "isn't our responsibility."

[team_q]

I never really understood the whole its fun to be dicks mentality. I mean, even 2 nights ago when we were playing isketch, a crew of idiots played along with us until one of them had the chance to sketch, then "LOLOLOL MONEY SHOT! GAY PORN!" They then IMed each other the answer and we quit.

I had quit WoW because had bad experiences with pick-up parties. People quitting or kicking me out of parties because of their own inability to admit mistakes.

[FARTRON]

I think it's a very tenuous road to go down, but I like some of the ideas in the article. I really don't like the idea of censoring chat, and I really enjoy a lot of the zaniness that goes with online games. It's when it falls over that ledge into griefdom that I have a problem.

I think arbitrary rules that are meant to curb such behavior are a lot less effective than architectural changes; instead of censoring, implement gameplay changes like the ones mentioned for Shadowrun. That's one reason I like Dystopia so much, because the point system really emphasizes team achievement. Having a small community helps keep the focus on objectives over kills, but having the scoring system goes a long way too.

I've also always been a fan of the votekick as a problem solver.

[Stij]

I'm obviously not saying online games should parent children, but I think at the moment, by creating a game where inappropriate behavior does not carry the same risk values as in day to day life, they can actively undo responsible parenting. I don't think it's valid, as game designers, to say that such a thing just "isn't our responsibility."

^This.

Of course, at the same time, you don't want to be too restrictive to new players, or else the player's sense of freedom will be ruined, which may have an even worse effect then what you're trying to prevent.

[Inane]

Warning - while you were reading 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

I think a worthy goal might be having two servers, one with a system where if you're a total dick you get banned from the server (maybe with a lot of volunteer 'police'), and the other one you only get banned if you're cheating.

[Melly]

I like the idea of working with the game and online service designs when trying to encourage a good friendly community.

Not sure how many of you will get this one but an example of how the game's design can effectively create a shitty community is DotA: AllStars (one of the most popular Warcraft 3 TFT custom maps). I'm not going to explain the game in detail, but it's designed to be played with two teams, and bad players can very effectively screw up every effort made by the good players of their team to win. So basically what you see playing that game is the continuous bashing/flaming of the newbies, as well as the 'leavers' (those who leave a game in progress, crippling their team since there's no way for another player to join in the middle of a match). A very effective example of how design can encourage a shitty community.

I actually think that most FPS games are more newbie friendly than that because even if you have a shitty teammate usually it won't screw up your efforts to own the enemy, so you might have a few laughs at his expense if you're a bit assholish, but otherwise you wouldn't care much.

[Chris Whitman]

It's about control, basically. You sign up for a game, and by ruining your play, it gives someone an opportunity to control your experience. Since cooperative play requires multiple people to be complicit, one person who 'opts out' of behaving reasonably can force the play to change, which puts them in a power position, since they control whether or not the fun continues.

In most offline activities, the majority of people would face ostracizing social responses to that kind of behavior (imagine people behaving like that in a friendly game of Pictionary), but online, with anonymity virtually guaranteed, they can just keep moving on to different groups and continuing to exercise the same control.

Pretty much the only successful modifier for that kind of behavior is extinction. Instead of reward or punishment, totally remove the response that normally results from that kind of action. In your iSketch game, if you kept playing regardless of the other team's behavior, and completely ignored them, they would begin by ramping up the behavior in an attempt to elicit a response, but eventually they would reach a peak level where, if their actions were still ignored, they would simply stop.

The issue is, and this is where in-game mechanisms for social control come in handy, they have to get this response all the time. Otherwise they get random reinforcement for their actions, and the behavior will continue.

[Chris Whitman]

I think a worthy goal might be having two servers, one with a system where if you're a total dick you get banned from the server (maybe with a lot of volunteer 'police'), and the other one you only get banned if you're cheating.

Banning isn't a good option, since, in games where banning exists, people will actively seek bans. I know it sounds weird, but the purpose of that kind of behavior is just to get a response. Any kind of response, including being forcibly removed, reinforces the behavior.

[Akhel]

Warning - while you were reading 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Haha, same thing happened here.

Anyway, great article. About the teamwork problem (accusing teammates of "kill-stealing" and such): I think the problem is with the scoring system. Unfortunately, most online players still have the "e-peen" mentality, valuing getting points (or whatever) more than helping the team win (or whatever, you get what I mean).

This is a frequent problem in Team Fortress 2. Even though Valve did their best to reward teamwork, there are still problems such as engineers not helping others build or repair their sentries (since it does not give them points), snipers standing on the battlements and killing exclusively other snipers instead of moving and helping the team by eliminating specific targets (since that'd give them less points) or slow players not dropping the intelligence so that faster ones can carry it (this was addressed in a recent patch, but still).

Achievements are also an incentive to this mentality. They encourage people to, instead of helping the team, "killing an enemy with the paper plane while crouching and saying your name backwards" to get the "midget paper plane demoniac killer" achievement.

I think the best way to solve these problems would be to eliminate individual player status tracking. Show to the world status like "games won", not "people killed". Eradicate achievements, they are stupid. Encourage players to form clans and play in the same team as their clanmates, even in public servers.

Obviously, everything I just said only applies to team games.

Summarizing: Few players care about helping the team. Too many players care about e-peen enlargement. Solution: castration eliminate individual player status tracking.

Hope this was not too confusing.

[Melly]

I think that, taking some ideas from here and my own, a game whose community would be encouraged to be friendly and welcoming would be:

1- The game could have some kind of quick-start tutorial for playing online, that focuses on how you can be helpful as well as being a decent player. Also, include in the tutorial suggestions on how to be a good player in the community and also how to behave in the face of assholes (ignoring them until a mod deals with them or until they give up).

2- In team-based games, the game must encourage teamplay. A team based game where you have a list of players and the highest player is simply the one with most kills doesn't encourage teamplay, only, like Akhel said, the "e-peen enlargment" behaviour. The game should reward players who play well in teams, usually simply by showing how many matches they own, but there could be different types of stat tracking related to teamplay, though I'd have to think more about those.

3- Give the player full control over who he gets to listen to in the game. Let him silence anyone easily if he must.

4- Actually reward players who are model gamers, who helps newbies get into the game and help maintain the community clean and clear of morons. Basically give more power to those who are nice people, encouraging such behaviour.

5- Don't create a system that lets the player invest real money into the game simply in order to have 'gold accounts' which let them have infinite friend lists or whatever other benefits. It alienates anyone who has more important things to do with their money and encourages a community filled with self-centered dickwads who believe themselves better then others because they were willing to waste more money.

6- If all else fails, the game should have a team of mods who would check for anyone acting like a dick and take proper precautions. Instead of banning him, though, an interesting alternative could be to 'silence' his account, without telling him in any way. He would be completely unable to communicate with others as his messages would simply not be shown to anyone else, without indication to him of the fact. Obviously eventually people would catch up to it, though, but I imagine some people would simply feel like they're being ignored and give up.

[team_q]

2- In team-based games, the game must encourage teamplay. A team based game where you have a list of players and the highest player is simply the one with most kills doesn't encourage teamplay, only, like Akhel said, the "e-peen enlargment" behaviour. The game should reward players who play well in teams, usually simply by showing how many matches they own, but there could be different types of stat tracking related to teamplay, though I'd have to think more about those.

Most games, that you are able to do so, reward players who capture/help, but that doesn't stop people from calling you a 'dumb-ass llama fag'. Also getting higher kills and being a dick are two different things.

3- Give the player full control over who he gets to listen to in the game. Let him silence anyone easily if he must.

Most games have a mute function that applies to specific players.

4- Actually reward players who are model gamers, who helps newbies get into the game and help maintain the community clean and clear of morons. Basically give more power to those who are nice people, encouraging such behaviour.

A good idea, but its hard to define 'helping' in a game about killing people. Also how do you teach someone to shoot more accurately? When to capture?

5- Don't create a system that lets the player invest real money into the game simply in order to have 'gold accounts' which let them have infinite friend lists or whatever other benefits. It alienates anyone who has more important things to do with their money and encourages a community filled with self-centered dickwads who believe themselves better then others because they were willing to waste more money.

I don't understand what you are refering to here, I don't know of any game that gives you asshole powers for 5 bucks a month.

6- If all else fails, the game should have a team of mods who would check for anyone acting like a dick and take proper precautions. Instead of banning him, though, an interesting alternative could be to 'silence' his account, without telling him in any way. He would be completely unable to communicate with others as his messages would simply not be shown to anyone else, without indication to him of the fact. Obviously eventually people would catch up to it, though, but I imagine some people would simply feel like they're being ignored and give up.

Give up what? playing? paying? remember dicks are people who pay money to play games too, some people enjoy that and will pay for that experience. Plus there are mods on most servers I play on that do activly ban and kick people. Remember though, mods that sign up for free come from the same stock of people who play the game.

[Chris Whitman]

Give up what? playing? paying? remember dicks are people who pay money to play games too, some people enjoy that and will pay for that experience. Plus there are mods on most servers I play on that do activly ban and kick people. Remember though, mods that sign up for free come from the same stock of people who play the game.

If they don't get a response, eventually they will give up on being dicks. Many of these people are probably reasonably well-behaved in their day to day lives, but they may have control or power issues which make them prone to exploit this social environment. When that possibility is removed, you would be surprised how quickly the behavior can stop.

As I mentioned, punishment will not change a negative, attention-seeking behavior. Banning or kicking will actually reinforce poor behavior. Extinction works, and as Melly suggested, rewarding good behavior is an excellent choice. Obviously, specific implementations of these techniques would require work and close study. What we're doing right now is a bit of casual brainstorming.

The current social system for most online games is obviously broken, but it doesn't help to throw up your hands and say, "There's nothing we can do! People are just dicks!" when all the evidence we have of social behavior contradicts that statement.

[Melly]

Most games, that you are able to do so, reward players who capture/help, but that doesn't stop people from calling you a 'dumb-ass llama fag'. Also getting higher kills and being a dick are two different things.

I think I said 'encouraging'. You know, not forcing it upon the player, but creating a system in which people would feel more confortable playing in a more proper fashion. I know getting high kills and being a dick are two different things, I never said they were related. I said that rewarding the player for getting high kills in a team-based game where that stat ultimately should not be important encourages players who don't care about anything but their own personal stats. Now, if you're playing a game focused on your own personal achievements, that's a different story.

Most games have a mute function that applies to specific players.

I didn't say games didn't have that, I said that's something good for a game to have.

A good idea, but its hard to define 'helping' in a game about killing people. Also how do you teach someone to shoot more accurately? When to capture?

I'm not limiting this to first person shooters, and was referring more to community based actions in any online game. And you 'can' teach someone how to properly act in a game to help their team the most or simply be better at the game, whatever the type. You can teach strategies and tricks, for example. And if you put some thought into it you can create systems that allow people to mention helpful players who helped them get into the game, or help out in general.

I don't understand what you are refering to here, I don't know of any game that gives you asshole powers for 5 bucks a month.

I've seen internet gaming services that did that. They didn't automatically allow you to be an asshole for 5 bucks a month, but they let you simply do more stuff and have a shinnier looking handle/avatar/etc. They made you look more important, and as much superfluous as that is, for the types of people that would pay for such a thing it would be enough for them to feel like they're automatically better than their peers, thus acting like assholes.

Give up what? playing? paying? remember dicks are people who pay money to play games too, some people enjoy that and will pay for that experience. Plus there are mods on most servers I play on that do activly ban and kick people. Remember though, mods that sign up for free come from the same stock of people who play the game.

Give up being assholes, at least in that specific place. And if they stop playing altogether, even better. And again I did not say there weren't mods already doing that in most games and online gaming services. And I'm pretty sure that if the people in charge aren't morons they aren't going to give mod powers to assholes.

[Tanner]

Warning - while you were reading 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Haha, same thing happened here.

Anyway, great article. About the teamwork problem (accusing teammates of "kill-stealing" and such): I think the problem is with the scoring system. Unfortunately, most online players still have the "e-peen" mentality, valuing getting points (or whatever) more than helping the team win (or whatever, you get what I mean).

This is a frequent problem in Team Fortress 2. Even though Valve did their best to reward teamwork, there are still problems such as engineers not helping others build or repair their sentries (since it does not give them points), snipers standing on the battlements and killing exclusively other snipers instead of moving and helping the team by eliminating specific targets (since that'd give them less points) or slow players not dropping the intelligence so that faster ones can carry it (this was addressed in a recent patch, but still).

Achievements are also an incentive to this mentality. They encourage people to, instead of helping the team, "killing an enemy with the paper plane while crouching and saying your name backwards" to get the "midget paper plane demoniac killer" achievement.

I think the best way to solve these problems would be to eliminate individual player status tracking. Show to the world status like "games won", not "people killed". Eradicate achievements, they are stupid. Encourage players to form clans and play in the same team as their clanmates, even in public servers.

Obviously, everything I just said only applies to team games.

Summarizing: Few players care about helping the team. Too many players care about e-peen enlargement. Solution: castration eliminate individual player status tracking.

Hope this was not too confusing.

Actually, I've found TF2 to be one of the better communities of an online FPS in recent memory.

And I always help my fellow engies.



I do agree about the achievements contributing to "fuckwaddery," though.

I think a good example of of good teamwork in a game would be Planetside. If you lonewolf it, you're going to die. You have to work well in a team, or else you're fucked.The people there are pretty nice, too, from what I've experienced.

Another great FPS community right now is ZDaemon. I was playing recently, and pretty much everyone is really nice. I suck at DooM, but they don't put me down or anything when I keep getting killed by Cyberdemons. It helps that I play mostly co-op, though.

[team_q]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound antagonistic. I would love a way to play games without having to deal with jerks and such, I dunno, I guess limiting some peoples fun rubs me the wrong way. I guess games about shooting each other just brings out aggressive tendencies in people. Other game types you see less examples of such jerkiness.

[Zaphos]

When I play multiplayer games it's generally more for the social experience than the game experience (although obviously both are important to me), so I tend to want to play with people I already know or have at least some social connection to outside of the game.  So I think it'd make a lot of sense to tie the game matchup system to existing social networks; if I'm a member of a forum or facebook or etc, I want to say, is anybody from one of my communities or groups of friends playing?

Aside from it being more enjoyable to play with people I know, just tying identities in game to identities in other social networks when possible should reduce the anonymity-fuckwad factor substantially.

Even if they can't always use existing external social structures, a personal player rating system (just: "I enjoyed playing with Bob," "I did not enjoy playing with Joe") could allow a system to infer relationships like, "I don't like to play with people in these graph-cliques," or "don't match me with people who are a very different age from me," or etc.  If people enjoy spouting off too much maybe the game will have a harder time matching them with people, but it's a much subtler thing than being 'banned'.
It seems most automatic player-matching in games I've heard of so far is trying to match purely on skill, which, aside from apparently often not working, seems to ignore the (to me much more important) social element.

So yeah, in short: I hope developers don't try to re-invent social structures when they can exploit existing ones, and that they do personalize matching on social criteria.

[team_q]

When I play multiplayer games it's generally more for the social experience than the game experience (although obviously both are important to me), so I tend to want to play with people I already know or have at least some social connection to outside of the game.  So I think it'd make a lot of sense to tie the game matchup system to existing social networks; if I'm a member of a forum or facebook or etc, I want to say, is anybody from one of my communities or groups of friends playing?

This is my favorite feature of Steam, I never just play a game, I play with friends from my friends list.

[Movius]

This article is really quite awful in parts. The second half does a fairly good job of selling the social aspect of their game (They have some good ideas). But then there's the other half with such bizarre lines as,

Psychological experiments are interesting, but they have no value if they don't lead to influencing social behavior in real life.

Generally the first half could just be summarised as "I should be able to do whatever I want online, but other people shouldn't. Particularly those evil 'hardcore gamers' and by 'hardcore gamers' I mean 'idiots' because the terms are synonymous amiritegais?"

[MisterSmith]

Truthfully, I never really did that much online gaming with my 360. I did it mostly with friends, but sometimes I'd do it with random people. Truthfully, I've never really had any of these bad experiences that many people have. I've actually had quite a few pleasant ones.

Granted, I don't doubt for a minute that there are some serious dickheads on XBL. I consider myself lucky for never really having dealt with them.