| Joe McGinn |
|
Riot Games is a great leader in this field, I have a lot of admiration for what they are doing here. Thanks for sharing.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Michael Joseph |
|
|
How about when the client detects an abusive line of chat, instead of filtering it or in addition to, have a little MS Clippy style character appear and ask the player if he had a difficult childhood? In other words, make the abusive player concious of how he may be being perceived by others.
The player will know that the other players know he's getting "scolded" by the Clippy thing and that will also limit retaliation perhaps. anyway, just an idea that falls on the side of education mixed with psychology over just kicks\bans... Treat the adult acting players like adults, treat the child-like ones as children with the promise of better treatment when they graduate to adult style play. Keeping them in the game but in a penalty box allows for refined behavior modification, simply kicking them off after some max threshold of disruptive behavior has been reached does not. Make it part of the game. For all we know this sort of thing is already patented... lol. |
|
|
| Maria Jayne |
|
|
I remember the first time I logged into Warcraft 3 multiplayer 2v2, within the first few seconds my "teammate" said 'leave" being a stubborn bitch I said no of course. I was promptly taken apart by both opponents while he did nothing to assist me. I think the intention was if I dropped from the game before dying he would have gotten a better score or something.
I think stats tend to ruin online games, for all their value at allowing people to see them, they create a nasty mindset of cheating, exploiting and doing whatever it takes to raise them up. I still find it contradictory to have any form of scoring or statistical analysis between players on the same team. How can comparing yourself to your team mates ever work out well for the team? I suppose if your idea of being a team is weeding out the lower scoring players it helps...but that's really not what being part of a "team" is about is it? It always ends up with the higher scoring player believing they were of more value than their team. At that point all you need is for that higher scoring player to be arrogant and not know/respect the people they are playing with, to form a negative opinion of their team mates. It's only a matter of time before resentment creeps in and they start blaming losses on low scoring team mates and believing in their own score as a measure of their quality. I never played another match and it's that Warcraft 3 experience that puts me off trying LoL. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| David Lowe |
|
Personally, I'd like to see repercussions for "poor sportsmanship"/bad behavior hit the player right were it counts, either demoting stats (an obvious demotion), up to and including limiting online performance during the game the infraction occurred in (aiming becomes more difficult, or moves slower, or gun jams more, etc.). At some point, a negative player's financial contribution to the online world matters less than the bad vibes they're also sending out.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Simon Ludgate |
|
|
"While he recognizes that "a decent amount" of trash talking is okay" - I disagree.
Maybe I live in some ivory tower of gaming nirvana, but I don't see any need for nor have any desire to be exposed to any trash talking at all. I think one of the big problems is that people can't explicitly specify the level of behavior they're comfortable with when playing League of Legends. There's no slider in the options that lets you pick between "no trash talk, some trash talk, lots of trash talk". People can chose to be matched with like-minded players. When players in the "no trash" bracket get reported for trash talk, they are automatically relegated down to "some" if they accumulate fifteen votes. They can survive in the "some" bracket and it'll give them something to think about if that many people are complaining about their behavior. If the tribunal process clears them, they can go back up to the "no" bracket, but otherwise they're stuck in "some"... Getting out of the "some" bracket? Well, it's a social problem, so maybe there should be a social remedy. The player is required to write an apology letter that's sent to every player that complained about their behavior. If the majority forgive, they're back up in the no trash talk, otherwise they're stuck waiting on an appeal from Riot's PB&J team. Same process can bump someone from the "some" bracket down to the "lots" bracket. The point is that if you want to effectively shape social behavior you have to use social interventions: you have to force players to take social actions, like choosing a social tier or making social gestures like writing apology letters. Having to write an apology is actually quite powerful. Especially if the in-game letter-writing interface prevents any kind of copy/pasting of text, so each letter has to be painfully hammered out. In regards to the abuses of the system, if the tribunal finds "not guilty" against people you accused, or you too frequently make accusations against people who have no other accusations, you could be suspended from making accusations for a period of time. Simple. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Sigurd Bernhardsen |
|
In my experience (specifically in League of Legends) people use punishments as weapons during games. The word "reported" carries no weight, because everyone is reporting everyone for everything. The same applies to other online games I've played, and it always seems like punishments end up feeding the trolls with more systems to abuse.
The one thing that seems to have worked very well so far was the "honoring" system. People generally seemed to act better for a while, hoping for an "Honorable Opponent" or "Teamwork" commendation. This has slowly turned into people acting like they want for the match, then saying "honor for all" at the end, hoping for reciprocation. Still, I feel like there are now more friendly players around (if not less abusive players). I'd suggest taking this further, maybe by reducing the base IP gain, and increasing it based on how many commendations a player gets (1 commendation = 1% more IP, up to a max of 200%). Then there would have to be upkeep, to make sure players continue behaving well. As is clear, I'm supporting the carrot rather than the stick -- but I really believe this is the best way to reward friendly players. Let the stick be watching the friendly players rack up more IP. |
|
|
| Matthew Williamson |
|
Great article.
Repercussions are fine for unsportsmanlike behavior, but I'm glad Riot is taking other steps to stem the communities behavior. The honor system, for example, was very successful in its first few weeks. The community improved and there was a significant drop in cursing, etc. you actually had friendly matches! There were almost no angry players in games, people weren't cursing at other players and offering advice, and negative attitudes were kept in check. The problem was these players were being positive in hopes for a reward from the honor system. Once the rewards were known and considered trivial, most players reverted to their old habits. Had there been better rewards, such as skin points which could be collected through honor to purchase skins for champions, the behavior may have continued. That being said, there are many games negative that are due to champion select. I.e when multiple players fight over the same position, do not agree with the team composition, believe you're going to lose from the outset, etc. These negative attitudes flow right into the first few minutes of the game and if anything goes bad, the bad language starts flowing. These problems are caused by the role players want to play. The fighting over top lane, middle lane, ADC, jungle and the majority of players not wanting to support. A possible fix to this would be enabling players to toggle their preferred lane(s) and matching a team in solo queue together that way. This also would provide an incentive to learn support, as your queues would be much shorter. Ultimately this attitude problem is not unique to League of Legends. It extends to all MOBAs. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Dom Kovell |
|
"League of Legends has become well known for at least two things: proving the power of the free-to-play model in the West, and a vicious player community. "
The former has been proven with soaring sales, record-breaking log-ins, and record-breaking views of LoL tourneys. The latter, on the other hand, is never proven and is never provided with evidence beyond personal anecdotes. I do not understand why the LoL community is supposed to be somehow worse than other online communities. This article's characterization of the community as "vicious" would lead readers to believe that other online communities are somehow better. Rather, the article is citing a long-held belief that many LoL players recite on the forums. What is not properly grasped here is that the sheer volume of these complaints is likely a result from the high amount of players. Last time I checked, LoL has surpassed WoW in player profiles. What is often overlooked is that the number of complaints is most likely an acceptable percentage of total player experiences. The Tribunal has been active long enough that by now, it has created an even more positive experience than other games without a similar troll-hunting system. The phenomenon I described above is largely "negative bias". Riot's own Lyte, who is referenced in your article as one of the PhDs, has posted many times on the forums about the importance of understanding negative bias, and the implication is to trust hard logic and real numbers and metrics instead. Here are some facts that I'm going to combat the "vicious" comment with. The Tribunal's judges are the community; thus, LoL's "viciousness" is only as bad as the community allows it to be. Riot has reported that only an extremely low amount of players actually end up in the Tribunal, and most of those players end up in the Tribunal only once, having learned their lesson. The amount of false positives is above par with medical mistakes that lead to deaths in hospitals. The Tribunal works, and these facts would lead me to believe that the LoL community is therefore BETTER than other communities. Blaming the "vicious" community is akin to blaming a city for a terrible incident. I just read an article where a tabloid photographer took a picture of a man about to be hit by a subway train, rather than help the man. The man died. Terrible as the incident was, I'm not going to judge the whole community of New York by the story. Rather, I look into psychology 101 and learn about how crowds of people diffuse responsibility, and thus crowds often (sadly) neglect to provide aid. In a similar fashion, the mob mentality allows for anonymous actions. The internet is a wonderful and interesting place, but it's a high-tech mob. With the power to ruin someone's day and avoid the consequences, trolling is going to happen. This is known, and Penny Arcade's long-celebrated Dickwad Theory lends it truth. Riot is attempting to curb, not cure, the negative side effects of online anonymity. However, I feel that reinforcing the stereotype that LoL's community is somehow worse, hurts these efforts. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| TC Weidner |
|
|
you dont need fancy degrees and teams to study this, the way to fix it is very easy. Make people have to use their real names. There problem solved. Now wasnt that easy.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Bjorn Hubert-Wallander |
|
I support Riot's efforts to improve the community and player behavior in League of Legends, but they way they're talking to the community/press, using words like neuroscience, about it really bothers me. I've been watching Riot's communication with the community and the public about their player behavior initiatives over the past year or so and I think I have a good handle on what they're doing. Let's talk about three related, but very different, fields of science.
Cognitive science/cognitive psychology/social psychology: These fields are concerned with studying human behavior and thought. How people act around others compared to when they're alone, how people solve word problems, how people respond to different types of feedback (e.g., reward vs. punishment). The vast majority of what Riot appears to be doing with player behavior is informed by these fields. They don't care about neurons or biology or the brain; they care about *behavior*. And rightfully so, since that's what actually matters to them. Cognitive neuroscience: This relatively new field is concerned with studying how human behavior and thought is supported by the brain. For example, what parts of the brain appear to be involved when people are solving word problems, or math problems. People in this field might be interested in learning something about human behavior, but more important to them is learning about how behavior/thought is *linked to biology and the brain*. This is less relevant to Riot's work, since you certainly don't need to know anything about whether or not the left intraparietal sulcus (for example) is involved in self-control to improve self-control in people who play your game. Neuroscience: This field is not related to Riot's work. Neuroscience is concerned with the biology and physiology and function of the nervous system. Not necessarily the human nervous system, and not even necessarily the brain. Neuroscientists study, among other things, how single neurons or small systems of neurons transmit information to other neurons, how certain neurotransmitters (e.g., dopamine) affect neural function, or how small hair cells in the ear turn sound waves into neural signals. This field is entirely concerned with biology and hardcore information processing and not at all concerned with human social behavior. Again, from what I can tell about their new player behavior initiatives over the past year or so, this field does not inform Riot's work directly, and perhaps not even indirectly. So now that we know these things, hopefully we can see how when Riot or the press use words like neuroscience to describe what they're doing, they're being irresponsible. I get that neuroscience is a very flashy, attractive word these days, but it's simply not true that it's involved in Riot's work. Unless they're keeping some big neuroscientific project or information from us, which is theoretically possible. What Riot is doing appears to be strongly informed by social psychology and cognitive psychology (which is great!), but it does *not* appear to be particularly informed by neuroscience. And so at best Riot (or its public-facing people) is being lazy or ignorant about how their portray their work. And at worst, they're just being dishonest. I certainly expect that it's the former. Either way, I wish they would stop and be a little more responsible with their considerable public visibility. |
|
|
| Russ Menapace |
|
Once evil players are identified, why not invisibly nerf their stats, so they become feeder fish for the other players? That way the evil players are provided plenty of opportunity to be angry, and the other players can take great joy in smiting them.
One of the great joys of online gaming is smiting a trash talker. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Keith Burgun |
|
|
Compare the communities of Counter Strike with TF2. Same company made both games, they're the same genre. One community is constantly yelling racial slurs at you (CS), and one community is generally nice, works together and has a large female population (TF2).
The difference is that TF2 was designed to appeal to someone other than adolescent males. LOL is only designed to appeal to adolescent males, so you shouldn't be surprised to see most of the community being jerks. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Alan Youngblood |
|
|
As a LoL player I have felt the problem is often my own teammates insulting me and the rest of the team. It feels like a result of the "troll" being too competitive and not accepting a random mix of teammates.
If we go on Bartle's 4 player types, the killer/griefer is actually a valid player-type, yet unlike the others they actively make the other 3 have a worse experience. So it becomes a question of who is more valuable to you as an audience, and if you choose the achievers, socializers and explorers over the killers you've likely chosen the most critically acclaimed and lucrative, perhaps also most fulfilling as a developer. For other developers I highly suggest what MechWarrrior Online has done: higher barriers to entry, skill over anything else (you have to perform well in game as well as cooperate to survive), niche marketing. If you don't attract "everyone or anyone" you don't run into the problems of having an overwhelming amount of griefer jerks playing your game. Or take Journey for a good online gaming experience by design. It is impossible (or more difficult than is worth) to grief someone on that game. So what to players do? Help each other. Share experiences. For LoL and those that already have big audiences this is certainly worth fighting for, although I think fighting in this case would be best served by doing "nothing" to griefers. That is, find ways to actively ignore them and effectively downvote them out of relevance (similar to reddit?). From a psychological standpoint the best way to stop this type of behavior is to starve them of the attention and effects they are seeking. LoL already has an ignore player/blacklist that I use as a player, but that may not be enough. Riot may need to encourage and teach the community to use it and have a system on the backend that counts blacklisting and at a certain point makes it harder for the offending player to be matched up with other players. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Justin Sawchuk |
|
Well I havent played LOL but dont they have some kind of ranking system so you arent stuck with noobs. I think once you really get into the competitive side of the game of course you are going to be furious if your teammate sucks which can really ruin a game.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Alex Covic |
|
|
Being mean on the Internet reveals insecurity in real life.
"Fix the problem" or are you just filtering the symptom (out of your game)? There's your real "project". |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Matt Cratty |
|
The basic rule of thumb is this:
If a player is a **** once, he will be so again. In 15 years of playing community-based games online, I've never seen that rule violated. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Michael Wenk |
|
So.. You have the tribunal and ban the player, and what does that really do? If the player likes LoL enough than that player will just register again. I bet the bad player looks at it as a cost of doing business for getting the "fun" that player wants.
Riot benefits somewhat because that player is forced to spend more money. But the community doesn't really benefit because the player in question isn't really removed. The other things that they can ban by (CC, Name, IP Addr) are all relatively easy to work around. So should they stop? No. It obviously works to a degree, and more importantly it makes the players feel like they are doing something, even if the doing something ends up being that the player has spun their wheels. What does worry me is that Riot is starting to cement itself in a particular method or ideology. I would think more agility would be better in this sort of thing. After all, the problem is really unsolvable because the problem's root cause is human nature. Unless you seriously think a person should be incarcerated for griefing in an online GAME, there's no way around this. And even then, the problem would just be mitigated, not entirely eliminated. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Curtiss Murphy |
|
|
Kudos to Riot! Their business model is already changing the industry, but this takes the cake! I can't wait to see some of the publications.
|
|
|
| Robert Alvord |
|
I'll state what I've already stated to Riot countless times, before I finally gave up on playing their game. The game is designed to promote bad behavior, as someone who wants to do poorly to hurt their team can do so without provocation. I played since closed beta for a couple of years, but the community that developed is one of incessant cyber bullying. Many of those who would not act that way eventually end up doing so out of frustration of constantly being bullied and harassed.
Riot has been going about this the wrong way the whole time, by trying to punish those who are doing poorly to hurt their team or troll, and using the player community to do it, which propagates the problem. Rewarding good behavior is a classic and proven method of dealing with situations like this, as exemplified by parents and bosses. Instead, there isn't enough punishment in the world for a player who wants to be difficult. Simply reward the good behavior to help players rise out of the "muck," and place those folks into a different pool of players that never have to face the others. |
|
|
More: Social/Online, Design, Business/Marketing, Exclusive