As Kilsin and Rachael mentioned, a justice system must be tied directly to an interaction such as grouping with someone for X amount of time, or trading with a player. Allowing anyone to vote against anyone would just be abused.
Honestly, certain perameters could be established to create a decent system such as this, but word of mouth would still be the better option. As long as servers don't have too many players on them, people will have a reputation.
Kilsin said:Gadgets said:Let natural selection do it's work imo.
This is how we view it too ;)
We discussed many topics on reputation systems, leaving a + or - against players after grouping, points systems and many other variations and it all came back to player behaviour and reputation, in games like EQ and VG, these typically worked themselves out into a type of community justice system and if someone acted up and was an ass to someone else, that person on the receiving end would call for help and the community would usually unite to fend off the offenders, that is what social interaction and community bonding is all about, we have a much more mature community here and we believe you will all be fine in handling a lot of this stuff yourselves.
Players who act up will find it hard to group/raid/socialise/sell wares etc. to the point of hardly being able to play the game, so they have to adjust their attitude and fit in or risk being tarnished, and for those who just don't learn, we will have GMs and VR staff to deal with them. ;)
I agree with this! Might be a problem on launch when the "mmo of the month" locusts swarm though. Something to think about. Understand I am not advocating changing this plan. A few months in things should settle I would think. Anyone who sticks around after that can just learn to TOW THE LINE! Or we shall shun them and train them and not ever ever rez them! :)
Cromulent said:Arweena said:Yes I do mean that the guilds would grief those people right out of the game, but those guilds were the same ones that would host server wide events with prizes and parties after the event. So while they would do something that many would consider unacceptable it was only done to those who had first proved that they weren't going to play nice with the others on the server. Also I should note that it was never a 1 offence type thing, the officers of those guilds would keep lists of people who had been reported for KSing, intentionally traning, ect and after 3 or 4 reports from different people over a period of time the guilds would step in.
Wow that sounds like an awesome system. Vigilante systems solve all the worlds problems. Guilty until proven innocent says I!
Sorry for my obvious sarcasm in my post but the quoted text annoyed me no end. Arweena seems to be saying they want a system where a guild griefs players off the server with absolutely no proof that the player in questions has done anything wrong. Basically a player could just send 3 or 4 tells to the guild leader over the course of a couple of weeks about a player they don't like and then the guild will grief that player until they quit. This is just absolutely unacceptable.
This is why we have GMs and player guides because they can actually witness players griefing and then they can take the appropriate action if they have proof that the player has broken the rules. Not some random guild that just griefs players because someone with a grudge has reported the player numerous times to the guild leader.
This is why we have a criminal justice system with judges, juries and defence lawyers so people can't just abuse the police to do their dirty work for them. I would hope that if a guild was found doing this they would all be banned for griefing themselves.
Vade said:Crom, you mad bro? You posted that quoted text not once ... but twice. You gonna be alright?
The first post was sarcastic and not very helpful to anyone in the discussion. The second post was a more helpful critique of the idea and why I thought it was a bad idea.
Cromulent said:Cromulent said:Arweena said:Yes I do mean that the guilds would grief those people right out of the game, but those guilds were the same ones that would host server wide events with prizes and parties after the event. So while they would do something that many would consider unacceptable it was only done to those who had first proved that they weren't going to play nice with the others on the server. Also I should note that it was never a 1 offence type thing, the officers of those guilds would keep lists of people who had been reported for KSing, intentionally traning, ect and after 3 or 4 reports from different people over a period of time the guilds would step in.
Wow that sounds like an awesome system. Vigilante systems solve all the worlds problems. Guilty until proven innocent says I!
Sorry for my obvious sarcasm in my post but the quoted text annoyed me no end. Arweena seems to be saying they want a system where a guild griefs players off the server with absolutely no proof that the player in questions has done anything wrong. Basically a player could just send 3 or 4 tells to the guild leader over the course of a couple of weeks about a player they don't like and then the guild will grief that player until they quit. This is just absolutely unacceptable.
This is why we have GMs and player guides because they can actually witness players griefing and then they can take the appropriate action if they have proof that the player has broken the rules. Not some random guild that just griefs players because someone with a grudge has reported the player numerous times to the guild leader.
This is why we have a criminal justice system with judges, juries and defence lawyers so people can't just abuse the police to do their dirty work for them. I would hope that if a guild was found doing this they would all be banned for griefing themselves.
I'm going to guess you got to that part and just stoped reading my post so here's the rest so you can read all of it
Arweena said:In cases of disputes these same guilds would have designated members or officers who could be called apon to mediate issues. All of this left the GMs free to handle the game related issues that couldn't be managed by the community as a whole. Back in those days a GM could be seen running around taking over giants and killing people or attending the guild run events to just socalize with the community.
If VRI goes down the path of community managed servers I would expect to see some of these same types of things happening. The biggest difference now vs then is it's a lot easier for the officers of a guild to communicate. Back in 1999 we didn't have guild forums or google docs where a list of problem people could be kept and shared quickly, all sharing of information had to be passed to a single officer or shared back and forth between officers, belive it or not it took a lot of work to manage the list of who was known to be a problem person on the server and who wasn't but it still worked for years.
I can't say how all the other guilds or even the other officers in my guild handled the reports of griefing but I can say that for the instances I handled every one was considered a dispute to be mediated BEFORE any action would be taken. The fact is 99% of the reports of griefing I got were simple misunderstandings by lower level players and were quickly resolved. The 2 times I had to request a grief were well warented as the responses I got from the people doing the initial griefing were "screw you there are no rules so I can do what I want" which was technically true since in the begining there was nothing in the EULA about any form of griefing.
I can also say that my guild held it's members to a much higher standard, the 1 time I can recall recieving a report of a member griefing someone nearly resulted in that members removal from guild, and that was on a SINGLE report. As it was that member ended up spending 3 hours PLing the person he had griefed in order to remain in the guild.
Does it seem harsh and possibly a little like vigilante justice sure I can see how people may see that, but the reality is IT WORKED and it worked well.
Arweena said:Cromulent said:Cromulent said:Arweena said:Yes I do mean that the guilds would grief those people right out of the game, but those guilds were the same ones that would host server wide events with prizes and parties after the event. So while they would do something that many would consider unacceptable it was only done to those who had first proved that they weren't going to play nice with the others on the server. Also I should note that it was never a 1 offence type thing, the officers of those guilds would keep lists of people who had been reported for KSing, intentionally traning, ect and after 3 or 4 reports from different people over a period of time the guilds would step in.
Wow that sounds like an awesome system. Vigilante systems solve all the worlds problems. Guilty until proven innocent says I!
Sorry for my obvious sarcasm in my post but the quoted text annoyed me no end. Arweena seems to be saying they want a system where a guild griefs players off the server with absolutely no proof that the player in questions has done anything wrong. Basically a player could just send 3 or 4 tells to the guild leader over the course of a couple of weeks about a player they don't like and then the guild will grief that player until they quit. This is just absolutely unacceptable.
This is why we have GMs and player guides because they can actually witness players griefing and then they can take the appropriate action if they have proof that the player has broken the rules. Not some random guild that just griefs players because someone with a grudge has reported the player numerous times to the guild leader.
This is why we have a criminal justice system with judges, juries and defence lawyers so people can't just abuse the police to do their dirty work for them. I would hope that if a guild was found doing this they would all be banned for griefing themselves.
I'm going to guess you got to that part and just stoped reading my post so here's the rest so you can read all of it
Arweena said:In cases of disputes these same guilds would have designated members or officers who could be called apon to mediate issues. All of this left the GMs free to handle the game related issues that couldn't be managed by the community as a whole. Back in those days a GM could be seen running around taking over giants and killing people or attending the guild run events to just socalize with the community.
If VRI goes down the path of community managed servers I would expect to see some of these same types of things happening. The biggest difference now vs then is it's a lot easier for the officers of a guild to communicate. Back in 1999 we didn't have guild forums or google docs where a list of problem people could be kept and shared quickly, all sharing of information had to be passed to a single officer or shared back and forth between officers, belive it or not it took a lot of work to manage the list of who was known to be a problem person on the server and who wasn't but it still worked for years.
I can't say how all the other guilds or even the other officers in my guild handled the reports of griefing but I can say that for the instances I handled every one was considered a dispute to be mediated BEFORE any action would be taken. The fact is 99% of the reports of griefing I got were simple misunderstandings by lower level players and were quickly resolved. The 2 times I had to request a grief were well warented as the responses I got from the people doing the initial griefing were "screw you there are no rules so I can do what I want" which was technically true since in the begining there was nothing in the EULA about any form of griefing.
I can also say that my guild held it's members to a much higher standard, the 1 time I can recall recieving a report of a member griefing someone nearly resulted in that members removal from guild, and that was on a SINGLE report. As it was that member ended up spending 3 hours PLing the person he had griefed in order to remain in the guild.
Does it seem harsh and possibly a little like vigilante justice sure I can see how people may see that, but the reality is IT WORKED and it worked well.
I was probably a bit harsh in my response to you so apologies for that first up.
I don't think it is a great idea for a guild (or multiple guilds) to grief a griefer for the same reason I don't think it is a good idea for a government to execite murderers. You are supposed to be above that sort of action and by doing it yourself you are lowering yourself in the eyes of other people on the server. I played EQ for over five years and never really encountered anyone griefing. I might have been trained once or twice but after being initially annoyed about it I'd get a rez and we'd have a laugh about it. It was a bit of fun. We had a server forum where people could flame other players if they wanted and it actually added quite a bit of entertainment to the game seeing all the drama that people caused.
I'd rather we leave this sort of thing to volunteer guides and GMs because they are the ones who are 100% impartial in their dealings with players (well at least they are meant to be impartial). Getting other people involved generally results in black lists. Being disabled myself I have faced discrimination in the past and I'd hate to see discrimination enter the game in the form of black lists even if that person has actually been found to be doing something wrong. I firmly believe that you should give people a second chance. Heck maybe even a third or fourth chance.
I just want to see a more compasionate server population that actually understands people rather than just issuing arbitary punishments to people. Punishments don't really help. If you want someone to change for the better you need to invite them into your community and teach them the proper ways to behave.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Cromulent said:I was probably a bit harsh in my response to you so apologies for that first up.
I don't think it is a great idea for a guild (or multiple guilds) to grief a griefer for the same reason I don't think it is a good idea for a government to execite murderers. You are supposed to be above that sort of action and by doing it yourself you are lowering yourself in the eyes of other people on the server. I played EQ for over five years and never really encountered anyone griefing. I might have been trained once or twice but after being initially annoyed about it I'd get a rez and we'd have a laugh about it. It was a bit of fun. We had a server forum where people could flame other players if they wanted and it actually added quite a bit of entertainment to the game seeing all the drama that people caused.
I'd rather we leave this sort of thing to volunteer guides and GMs because they are the ones who are 100% impartial in their dealings with players (well at least they are meant to be impartial). Getting other people involved generally results in black lists. Being disabled myself I have faced discrimination in the past and I'd hate to see discrimination enter the game in the form of black lists even if that person has actually been found to be doing something wrong. I firmly believe that you should give people a second chance. Heck maybe even a third or fourth chance.
I just want to see a more compasionate server population that actually understands people rather than just issuing arbitary punishments to people. Punishments don't really help. If you want someone to change for the better you need to invite them into your community and teach them the proper ways to behave.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Apology accepted.
I do understand your point about leaving things to GMs which may work today but to give you some perspective on why the guilds on my server took the stance they did. Back in the early days of EQ1 there was no PNP. If you had a problem like someone train camping your body and you just kept dieing trying to get to your stuff and you petitioned it the responce you'd get back was something along the lines of "We're sorry you've been unable to get to your body but there is nothing we can do to help, maybe you should ask some other adventurers to help you get it back. Have a nice day"
Because there were no policies against that kind of behavior it was left to the community to determine what was acceptable, what wasn't and find a way to enforce it. I do understand that things have changed in the 17 years since EQ1 came out and depending on how VRI sets up their rules will ultimately determine if the kind of guild run justice, if any, is needed. Personally I would much rather see a set of very basic rules in the EULA reguarding the various forms of griefing so that the GMs and guides can be the ones to enforce them.
I get the feeling that this may end up being a topic that you and I just have to agree to disagree on. :)
Ahh PVP solves so many issues. Someone pisses you off kill them.. Someone steals a kill kill them. Someone trains you??? You train 500 mobs on his group AOE and get credit for all the players kills :D
Unless someone is exploiting an in game bug or stuff along that line GM and guides should never get invovled in something like Oh bob stole my kill or JimBobDan just trained me. There are already mechnics in every game to deal with it. Ignore it and try again or never group with him and hope your guild never groups with him as well. Training happens both on accident and on purpose. I cant count the times that I was Solo deep ina dungeon running to a named mob when I rounded the corner and a group was casting AOE and aggroed all my train. Not my problem nor is it my fault. I was playing the game how I decided without exploiting. Nor was it a dick thing to do stuff happens and sometimes you will die.
VRI should take an EVE approach to managing the game. If they arent exploiting and using bugs they dont care find a solution yourself
I like the idea of having an in game reputation system based on player behavior, however, I cant seem to devise one that would not be easily exploitable. So my favorite way to deal with this would be instead of adding a player to your ignore list, you ignore a entire account. Racist spammer wont stop yelling things in /ooc? Ignore not just this toon, but ALL of his toons so when he comes back on after deleting this toon, and adds becomes HHitler instead of just Hitler, it doesnt matter, you dont have to deal with him.
However, friends list should be handled differently, occasionally you just want to log on and spend the evening doing trade skills, or lvling your lvl 17 enchanter you are loving in your free time, and not wanting to attend the guild raid ( shock! I know, you would never do this! ) you dont really want your whole guild / all of your friends to notice you are on your alt "goofing around" instead of raiding. Ergo, friends list should be per toon, not per account.
What say you?
I say make it honor-based and offer some sort of escrow service as part of a "premium" subscription package. If you don't want to pay for premium, trade with people you know. If that kind of service (among other perks) is worth a couple extra bucks a month to you, the option is there.
EQ2 actually had a simple solution to this problem. the commission crafting system. The crafter opened the tradeskill interface while targetting another player, then the other player could add materials, and view the progress of the combine. The crafter went to work, and on completion the other player got the result. There was no way for one player to screw the other over; as once crafting commenced the exchange was made. I don't recall how payment worked (if this was integrated or not) but noone could steal our materials, and it even allowed another player to make a combine with a notrade component that you had.
Well. I was originally in the group of letting the players/community sort it out. And that WILL work. It just helps reinforce the concept that your personal reputation (and by extension your guild, vice versa) matters.
Anything negative would be bad. But I wonder if a strictly positive rating option would help? The trick would be to make it only awardable when someone completes a crafting... You could make it so when someone trades you a crafted item, you would have an option to give them a mark of endorsement, damn diablo PK ears come to mind :P
Blah, bottom line for me, I'd rather time spent on more important things that the community can't fix themselves like class balancing, zones, tweaking bugs, New classes, etc.
EDIT: BTW, I meant to include that one thing I do want to see, is a local-chat-emote on whether the crafter is successful or not.
Gadgets said:Let natural selection do it's work imo.
Agreed. Reputation should be organic, not something measured by an in-game UI element. This shouldn't be another meter or progress bar to fill.
Are we seriously to the point where we're requesting progress bars and meters to measure social status?
I think it's a good idea tbh.
If you initiate and complete a trade through the trade UI, both players get a box that asks them to leave a positive or negative feedback.
I don't really see how that is harmful to the social aspect of the game at all. If anything, it's a measure that will prevent people from requiring GM intervention because they can just simply not trade with assholes with a ton of negative reviews.
As I said before too, only giving the prompt after you successfully complete a trade through the trade UI means that it is impossible to abuse. You can't spam someone with negative feedbacks if you haven't completed a trade with them.
I don't see what the issue is in this case of trading cash for the combine service. They could design it where it shows a trade window, player adds mats and cash, other player does combine (and you can see the combined item. Then to complete transaction, each player must hit the accept button to complete trade. If accept is not hit for each players, all mats and cash are returned without combine, basically a reset.
Reputation will carry out naturally but I don't think this kind of a trade even needs one. This will come down to who has earned the skill for the combine and of those that have, who charges the best rate.
Pyye said:I don't see what the issue is in this case of trading cash for the combine service. They could design it where it shows a trade window, player adds mats and cash, other player does combine (and you can see the combined item. Then to complete transaction, each player must hit the accept button to complete trade. If accept is not hit for each players, all mats and cash are returned without combine, basically a reset.
Reputation will carry out naturally but I don't think this kind of a trade even needs one. This will come down to who has earned the skill for the combine and of those that have, who charges the best rate.
Funny, the system you described exists almost verbatim in EQ2. I think they called it commission crafting.
It worked well and it's a good way to tip for high value items without having the risk of trust between either party.
Yeah that is probably where I remember it... The whole game can be designed to do "smart" trades where it protects the players from fraud or deception.
Reputation will come down to other factors like pulling trains on other parties, rushing and wiping group because you can't properly play your class at that rate OR the fact that you overplayed the pace of your group. You get a pretty dang good idea who the jerks are in any game. Sometimes I can tolerate a jerky type player if they play their class well, doubt we will be friends, but I do like to win.
Kalgore said:VRI should take an EVE approach to managing the game. If they arent exploiting and using bugs they dont care find a solution yourself
Agreed. Stop looking to someone else to solve your problems. Policies and rules won't stop someone from training you or otherwise griefing you now and then, here and there. It might stop them if they continually do it but otherwise you're still on your own.