I was just watching the anime series Log Horizon again. In that series, players of a MMO game are pulled into the game world, and experience all sorts of adventures there. One thing that struck me as interesting was how the protagonist of the series, Shiro, deals with the problem of bad behaviour of other players:
Initially after coming into the game world, many players/guilds do whatever they want "because it is allowed by the game rules". This leads to conflicts with other players and the NPC population. So Shiro works to form the "round table", a council of powerful guilds to make rules/laws that all players must follow. Of course, there wouldn't be much weight to the decisions of such a council without it being able to enforce its decisions. So Shiro secrectly makes deals and purchases the guild building, which is essential for all players because the bank is located there, as well as guild registration (where players can join/leave guilds). This way, he can force other players/guilds to "play nice" because otherwise he could stop them from being able to access their banks or guild management.
I wonder if such a system might be something for Pantheon. We have seen a lot of discussions about bad ("toxic") player behaviour. The main mechanism that is supposed to help against that is reputation: We can blacklist jerks, making it hard(er) for them to find groups etc. However, if the jerks decide to team up, what is going to stop them? The problem always remains that we have no way to force other players to behave "nice" (at least in a PvE environment - on PvP servers things may be different ;)
But if players could form a council that had some power over the actual game world, and could make life hard for the bad boys? How could it work, how should it be formed? Some ideas:
- The council could be made up of guild leaders of larger guilds (or their appointed delegates). For example, if a guild has 30 members or more (real members, alts not counted), the guild leader could be eligible to take part as member of the council. Participation would be voluntary of course. The council would only form once there are enough eligible members (how many should be required?)
- There could be a council building/office in every town, where council members could make proposals and vote on those. I don't think formal meetings should be required, instead there should probably a message board for the proposals, and a vote box (or similar). Proposals should be timed, so that you can only vote on them for a certain time, and then the result would be mailed (?) to the council members.
- How could the council enforce its rules? As in the example of the Log Horizon world, it could have the power to set access limitations for the bank for example, or other important facilities like NPC vendors (flexible enough to allow settings for single players as well as entire guilds). Maybe there could even be a prison that they could sent offenders to (although I personally wouldn't like that...punishment of the council should limit players in their gameplay, not prevent gameplay at all).
- The council should probably appoint an executive member(s?) who has that right to edit those "access lists".
What do you think? Would this be a good idea? Or could it be abused too easily? Or could evil-doers just circumvent any punishment placed by the council? Would it help immersion, or would it bring too much real world politics into the game?
As you said player reputation is the only circumvent to negative behavior. I think it would be cool to see for players to be able to flag people for various reasons. Such as verbal harassment, loot stealing, intentionally wiping groups, After a certain amount of Flags, this player's transgressions would be made publically known to group leaders who are trying to recruit. This system could warn a player after they have been flagged as a warrning, and it could also clear its self every to 4 months. The flagging could also alert GMs to potentially abusive behavior and they could impose bans on people.
However, I think that any system that is controlled by players has the potential to suffer from abuse. I feel like a player council puts too much power in the hands of the players when it comes to the topic of a punishment based system, as does the idea of a flagging system. I think that each could be abused by guilds that have a higher number of players, votes or flags could be multiplied by creating alt guilds or reporting someone on a guild-wide scale. As is the case I doubt we will ever see either of these systems.
I do, however, think that it would be cool to see players be able to vote on things such as in-game events, new systems, and things like this. It would be cool to see VR maybe implement a command board that would give each player a vote (account-based) to give them a better understanding about how the player base as a whole feel about the system. I think that this might allow VR to better stay in touch with what their community as a whole wants, and its something that I feel like many other games would have benefited from in the past.
I would also like to see the addition of communities on top of the guild system. Maybe a player can only join one guild at a time, but they can join multiple sub-communities. I think that the addition of communities would strengthen player based interactions and possibly do something to help negate griefing and abuse. If nothing else a player who is abusive in one setting is probably abusive in another setting, being part of multiple communities would increase the number of reports that this player gets.
Nice idea, I like it, but if a group of players defines what is good and what not, other players can suffer. In other words, who controls the controllers?
Exaggeratedly said: Just imagine there are 1000 guilds with 25 players but only 10 guilds with 30 players or more, the 10 guilds will define how all others have to behave. No matter which border you set for the number of players, it is always wrong, because there will always players who won't have an influence to any decission.
I imagine in a world without instancing, like Pantheon is, that high level guilds will have to come together and work out schedules for raiding. This seems natural conclusion to me.
What I would not want is a player council working with developers to influence game design. That would be catastrophic.
crazysyd102 said:Nice idea, I like it, but if a group of players defines what is good and what not, other players can suffer. In other words, who controls the controllers?
Exaggeratedly said: Just imagine there are 1000 guilds with 25 players but only 10 guilds with 30 players or more, the 10 guilds will define how all others have to behave. No matter which border you set for the number of players, it is always wrong, because there will always players who won't have an influence to any decission.
Obviously, such a system cannot exist alone, VR and the GM system are always the "higher up" instance that can be appealed to. If the council proposals and vote results are recorded (in the database), then the GMs can also review and override them if they're in conflict with game rules etc.
As I said, there would definitely have to be a reasonable threshold for number of members before the council may work. Of course this doesn't have to be set in stone, and can even be adjusted on a per-server basis by VR. They can see the average number of guild members and set parameters accordingly.
The goal should be that the council represents a good majority of the players on the server, and gives them a way for self-regulation. Of course, if you have a server full of loners or tiny guilds, this system may simply not work...but I don't think this will happen in Pantheon, given the game focus on community and teamwork.
I think Brad mentioned on at least one of the streams they aren't going to have players having anything resembling GM-like powers, even if they were to do some sort of volunteer Guide system. I think that's the right approach. Players aren't beholden to anything other than whim and mob rule for meting out justice, and I can only see it being applied frivolously and incorrectly if left up to them.
There are already issues in other games even with things like the ability to mark text as spam where bad actors and guilds get together to silence people they simply don't like or are competing with.
Love the idea, though it would need a lot of conditions met to work properly. Perhaps something that could be put to the test on TEST SERVER (which I hope will be a thing).
Chanus said:There are already issues in other games even with things like the ability to mark text as spam where bad actors and guilds get together to silence people they simply don't like or are competing with.
And what's the problem there? Whats so different between silencing player from ignoring his messages even if they are visible - other than perhaps different blood preassure of person reading it?
I shudder at the thought of guild leaders, say from the early EQ days making the rules for the rest of us, because they behaved quite badly themselves. Blocking content, etc.
i applaud your faith in humanity, but people tend to act in their own self-interest and those that they identify with.
The ‘others’, the rest of us, would not fare as well.
Hegenox said:Love the idea, though it would need a lot of conditions met to work properly. Perhaps something that could be put to the test on TEST SERVER (which I hope will be a thing).
Chanus said:There are already issues in other games even with things like the ability to mark text as spam where bad actors and guilds get together to silence people they simply don't like or are competing with.
And what's the problem there? Whats so different between silencing player from ignoring his messages even if they are visible - other than perhaps different blood preassure of person reading it?
These spam filters after a trigger point prevent other players seeing the person's messages, not just the person reporting them. Guilds know this and use it to their advantage.
Chanus said:These spam filters after a trigger point prevent other players seeing the person's messages, not just the person reporting them. Guilds know this and use it to their advantage.
Ah, I thought you talked about blocking all chars of ones account on all chars on personal account - which is in my opinion normal and needed. But a group should not have ability to block what one person say to everyone else - everyone can decide it for themself. But blocking the ability to craft/vendor/bank/respawn on guild territory (guild castle) which would be much closer and convinient to do and would save a lot of time, than going to nearest town - wouldnt be gamebreaking but would definitely be a hindrance - which in my opinion is a good way of punishing bad behaviour. And perhaps even in towns some options would become unavailable - like a bouncers would throw you out when you attempt to enter a tavern etc.
Hegenox said:Chanus said:These spam filters after a trigger point prevent other players seeing the person's messages, not just the person reporting them. Guilds know this and use it to their advantage.
Ah, I thought you talked about blocking all chars of ones account on all chars on personal account - which is in my opinion normal and needed. But a group should not have ability to block what one person say to everyone else - everyone can decide it for themself. But blocking the ability to craft/vendor/bank/respawn on guild territory (guild castle) which would be much closer and convinient to do and would save a lot of time, than going to nearest town - wouldnt be gamebreaking but would definitely be a hindrance - which in my opinion is a good way of punishing bad behaviour. And perhaps even in towns some options would become unavailable - like a bouncers would throw you out when you attempt to enter a tavern etc.
I don't really have any problem with guilds being able to block players from guild-owned features, provided it isn't a situation where a guild monopolizes that feature for all players (I don't know that such a thing exists).
I don't think it's a good idea to give players the power to block other players from accessing things that are supposed to be accessible to all players, though.
To be clear, the idea is not to have such a council make "rules" for all other players, rather they should help to police bad behaviour. "Reputation matters", but is that enough to change the behaviour of "toxic" players? As someone said: "You can do more with a nice word and a gun, than with just a nice word" :)
I would prefer if the player community could actually self-regulate, instead of VR GMs having to babysit us!
As for the problem of self-interest: A proposal of the council would need a majority to pass. This actually prevents "bad apple" guild from voting in their own interest. A "bad" idea making it through the council voting can only happen if it is what the majority of the players as represented by their guild leaders/representatives want.
The problem with allowing the players to self-regulate is beyond a certain point, you are giving them abilities that cause problems for VR, from increased CS complaints to legal ramifications (which has been a problem in the past with volunteer Guide programs).
If you don't think "bad apples" can get their ideas through representative bodies meant to filter them out, just look at the state of politics in like half of the West today.
I think, and from what I've heard in streams I believe VR agrees, that players just shouldn't have certain powers above using in-game mechanics to enforce customs and norms.
Well as we know "bad guilds" always happen and leaving the fate of all players to lets say 10 guilds from the top most prosperous ones overlooking their behaviour would be a bad idea. But if the WORTHY guilds were chosen for their input on propagating good behaviour and help for other players by everwatching eyes of the GODS (Devs), which could intervene and demote when a council guild become "corrupted", then it would work - "The eye of a master maketh the horse fat".
Sarim said:I wonder if such a system might be something for Pantheon.
But if players could form a council that had some power over the actual game world, and could make life hard for the bad boys? How could it work, how should it be formed? Some ideas:
- The council could be made up of guild leaders of larger guilds (or their appointed delegates). For example, if a guild has 30 members or more (real members, alts not counted), the guild leader could be eligible to take part as member of the council. Participation would be voluntary of course. The council would only form once there are enough eligible members (how many should be required?)
- There could be a council building/office in every town, where council members could make proposals and vote on those. I don't think formal meetings should be required, instead there should probably a message board for the proposals, and a vote box (or similar). Proposals should be timed, so that you can only vote on them for a certain time, and then the result would be mailed (?) to the council members.
- How could the council enforce its rules? As in the example of the Log Horizon world, it could have the power to set access limitations for the bank for example, or other important facilities like NPC vendors (flexible enough to allow settings for single players as well as entire guilds). Maybe there could even be a prison that they could sent offenders to (although I personally wouldn't like that...punishment of the council should limit players in their gameplay, not prevent gameplay at all).
- The council should probably appoint an executive member(s?) who has that right to edit those "access lists".
What do you think? Would this be a good idea? Or could it be abused too easily? Or could evil-doers just circumvent any punishment placed by the council? Would it help immersion, or would it bring too much real world politics into the game?
Sorry, no, this would be a horrible idea and would not give the results you are seeking. Why? Because players are always looking out for the only best self interest, not the best interest of the whole. EVE Online has their Council of Stellar Management, a 'governing' body elected by the players that meet with CCP games bi-annually to discuss important game matters and nearly from the start it was politicized. Which ever alliance had the most people would basicaly force their members to vote for their candidate(s), stacking the council with people who would promote those things that best benefited that alliance.
Pantheon won't have alliances, but it will have guilds and a strong enough guild with enough players could dominate the political landscape. Like minded guilds could band together to nominate people who would promote their agenda. Again, the self serving humnan nature.
Then there is the issue that a strong enough guild does not need, not really care, about any penalties some player group would impose because that guild is completely self sufficient. Black listing an individual could have an impact, but a guild? Irrelevant.
Favoratism will run rampant and the large guilds will dominate the smaller guilds as they always have and always will. Even if the smaller guilds band together, the larger guilds will just ignore them anyway.
here ye here ye! i, stellarmind, ceo of the council of toxicity will now commence the 2nd quarter annual meeting for the pvp servers. we will now go over the rules of engagement:
1. if you can take it, it's yours.
2. if you can defend it, it's yours.
3. trolling and grieving is permissible under the ultimate rule of enhancing player situational awareness, adaptibility and tolerance, henceforth, building a robust community.
a. guerilla warfare is allowed under the event of a 1vX situation.
b. 1v1 or agreements for said location is a gentlemans rule and will be honored.
- failing to adhere to text screenshot is a bannable offense.
c. a 'good fight' confirmation ends any conflict between individuals or groups.
that ends the 2nd quarter of the council of toxicity for pvp servers.
I have two strong objections to the OP's suggestion.
1. Players should have no control over the game world - none at all - other than through what their characters properly do in compliance with the terms of service, and any minor powers VR chooses to give Guides should such a position be established.
2. Guilds should under no circumstances have any more ability to control the game world than players that are not in guilds.
The OP is probably not trying to give a strong incentive for players to join large guilds, and large guilds to become larger and larger, but this is what the idea will most assuredly do. Let those that want large guilds form and join them and those that want smaller and more personal guilds form and join them. Let those that want no guild at all neither form nor join them. Do not, please, do NOT make those in small guilds second class citizens of Terminus and those not in guilds third class citizens.
Sorry - the idea is well intentioned but ... the results would be catastrophic.
To the extent that VR wants a player council with no power whatsoever - solely for discussion purposes - that is another idea entirely. Probably not a *good* idea based on history in other games but my comments above do not deal with that question at all.
Baldur said:I think it would be cool to see for players to be able to flag people for various reasons. Such as verbal harassment, loot stealing, intentionally wiping groups, After a certain amount of Flags, this player's transgressions would be made publically known to group leaders who are trying to recruit. This system could warn a player after they have been flagged as a warrning, and it could also clear its self every to 4 months. The flagging could also alert GMs to potentially abusive behavior and they could impose bans on people.
No, no, no, and for the love of all that is Holy.... NO. This is a horrible idea and one that has been discussed here in these forums before. It would lead to griefing and abuse and would cause way more problems and drama than it would solve. The community will organically, and without systems, police the bad actors themselves.
That said, I’m perfectly fine if the in-game friends/blocked list has either a note field or drop down list of predefined choices where each player can note why that person is added to those lists but where it can only be seen by the player whose list it is.
Just my two coppers....
dorotea said:((No, no, no, and for the love of all that is Holy.... NO. This is a horrible idea))
You understate the sheer awfulness of player flagging. It is much worse than you say.
i could form a coalition of players that just flag people i don't like and get the banned for no real reason at all. i could even automate it :D
Just to make a thing clear, that I think was misunderstood: It should be "one guild, one representative on the council":
- Guild A has 100 members -> 1 representative
- Guild B has 500 members -> 1 representative as well
- Guild B has 10 members -> none (too small, number obviously arbitrarily chosen)
The idea is not that the biggest guild has the most votes or something like that! What I want is something like: Guild XY is intentionally blocking content etc. The council could come together and discuss this with the guild XY...if they do not respond to a warning, then the other guilds on the council can, by vote of majority, decide that something should be done about guild XY. Unless guild XY has enough friendly guilds that vote for them, they will probably be punished.
I readily admit that there are a number of problems that need solving. Alt guilds for example. Also, there would have to be a minimum number of guilds taking part in votes of course to make them binding.
But I still think it might be an idea that could help to make the community stronger overall if we solve these problems.
That's a hard no for me. Any reputation systems or player/guild policing/flagging/enforcement is destined to be abused and cause far more problems than they help.
Sarim said:The idea is not that the biggest guild has the most votes or something like that! What I want is something like: Guild XY is intentionally blocking content etc. The council could come together and discuss this with the guild XY...if they do not respond to a warning, then the other guilds on the council can, by vote of majority, decide that something should be done about guild XY. Unless guild XY has enough friendly guilds that vote for them, they will probably be punished.
And what could be done exactly? Nothing. The answer is nothing.
Unless these other guilds themselves decide to become the monsters themselves and try to brigade, train, KS, and otherwise go out of their way to interfere with the gameplay of whichever guild they dislike which would probably fall under harassment in the ToS.
Iksar said:Sarim said:And what could be done exactly? Nothing. The answer is nothing.
Unless these other guilds themselves decide to become the monsters themselves and try to brigade, train, KS, and otherwise go out of their way to interfere with the gameplay of whichever guild they dislike which would probably fall under harassment in the ToS.
i'd say this is acceptable under pvp servers. dealing with harrassment is quintessential for pvp.