Consequences of socially objectionable behavior

In the recent live stream the question was asked "Will we be able to kick a player from a group just before downing the boss to prevent them from getting loot?" and we were told yes, but the offender would risk reputational damage.

If the risk in being a ninja looter, or guild bank thief, or doing anything socially objectionable, is damage to a player's reputation on the server, then players should NEVER have access to name change, or server transfer as those allow a player to avoid the consequences of their socially objectionable actions, while likely maintaining their ill gotten gains.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

daveywavey

"Free-for-all.[24]
Whoever is first to loot gets the loot.[22]
Lootmaster.[1][24]
A master looter (or lootmaster) is a player designated by the party leader to decide how loot is distributed in a dungeon or raid party.[24]
Round-robin.[1][24]
With round-robin looting, party members take turns looting.[24]
Need or greed.[1][24]
This is a traditional need before greed system based on dice rolls.[24]
Since there is very little gear binding in Ashes of Creation, it's left to the party to deal with players who excessively roll Need on loot.[28]"

In this instance of a player wanting to "ninja-loot" by kicking someone, they're clearly the Party Leader already in order to do the kicking, so they'd just instead have chosen the "Lootmaster" setting, and will just keep whatever they want anyway. There's no real need for kicking someone just for loot purposes.

Nerror

At least in A1, it required a vote for the party or raid leader to change the loot rules. I think a simple majority won. But it's not something they could just do on the fly.

Percimes

I'll echoed what @Depraved said, a public list that is permanent and which one has no way to get a fair defence when put on is a recipe for easy exploit and manipulation. That an individual, or a guild, keep a book of grudges is one thing, that they try to spread the word about it is step further, but a server-wide public log is a complete other thing.

I've put people on my block list at time, usually because they were spamming the chat, but I've never bothered to check who was on it afterwards, and, honestly, I'd probably forgotten why they ended up their anyway. I'm not into drama, so there isn't many "offences" that are worth me bothering in the first place, not worth my time and energy.

Chaos_Legion

We need social rank system where players could up or downvote other players as 10000 is a lot of names to remember. Serverwide or node only idk but that could work.

Nerror

Chaos_Legion wrote: »

We need social rank system where players could up or downvote other players as 10000 is a lot of names to remember. Serverwide or node only idk but that could work.

That will just be weaponized and abused. Notes are fine, ingame or out of it.

Fantmx

To those concerned about unfair practices or not being able to defend yourself it would be a very easy process to identify the action. And once the action has been identified offer the player that received the action the ability through a UI pop up to add them to a list.

Players will be able to share lists and thoughts regardless, this would at least be a way to create one that was official and the action known to have happened.

Vaknar

Great discussion around the answer Steven gave on this question during the livestream!

It's an evocative topic! Threads like this are very helpful for the team, so appreciate all the feedback here!

I encourage everyone to discuss questions and answers from the monthly Q&A on the forums like this, so we can gauge feedback on them ^_^

Noaani

Yeah, a public list of any sort is totally unnecessary.
In Ashes, there are likely to only be around 2500 players in the part of the world we frequent. These are the people we will be grouping up with.

It isnt like WoW where you could group up with any of the millions of players in your region.

As such, players will very quickly get to know the people around them that want to run similar content. You dont need a server wide reputation list when you already know the people you are likely to end up grouping with

Nuub

Some people WILL steal if the game allows them to. Obviously, IS is ok with theft, it's built into the game. Certain sanctioned theft, for instance killing a player and taking their gatherables, have in game consequences in addition to any reputational consequences one might suffer. That means that a scoundrel would be encouraged to thieve through guile rather than through violence, and reputational damage isn't as important as upstanding citizens would like to think. I can imagine some communities where being a known scoundrel doesn't prevent you from taking part in group activities, especially if that scoundrel has great gear and is competent.

My worst experiences in an MMO were when I experienced RL racism through the game, but after that, were the times felt victimized by disproportionate loot distribution. Makes me want to give up if I cannot earn a reward through merit and must also curry favor with the loot distributors.

If each player had could enable personal loot for themselves, for example, when an item drops, it is distributed first to an eligible player, that player has the choice to take the loot, or pass it to the party to be distributed in the manner set by the party leader. A player can forgo personal loot option in favor of the party option, to not be bothered by the loot prompts. Most loot in the game will be trade materials, right? well, instead of a boss dropping one big certificate, drop 10 fragments of a certificate to promote more consistently even distribution.

This would allow guilds/groups the freedom to distribute loot as they like, while any random person joining them can rest assured that they wont be treated unfairly.
No matter what the loot rules are, you could still get kicked from the group and killed, possibly losing some or all of what you just looted.

Unequal systems are most often championed by those disproportionately rewarded. I like the risk v reward, but i don't want to weigh the risk of getting screwed out of loot, with the risk of missing out entirely.

Noaani

Nuub wrote: »

Some people WILL steal if the game allows them to.

I think you are perhaps forgetting that we have more than two decades of games where this isn't a problem.

Sure, there are also some situations (in specific games, mostly) where it is an occasional issue - but it more "not an issue" than it is an issue.

tautau

The actions of the toon reflect the character of the person playing it, without all the social constraints of the 'real world.' While game reputation does provide some constraint, someone who is an A-hole in life will be an A-hole in game.

Depraved

Kilion wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

problem with the list is i could just add people to that list because I don't like them, just to ruin their reputation.

Especially the first part sounds right to me, seeing how we will interact with overly sensitive teens and cozy solo lobby players. Which is why I would only support a personal journal to keep track of ones own experiences, rather than make these lists sharable. And for the same reason I suggested that you have to directly SEE the person standing in front of you to add them to the reputation files of your journal. Otherwise I fully agree people would just put others on black lists and share those to slander them.

Depraved wrote: »

in 20 years of mmorpg, I think I've only been kicked off of a party once so that I couldn't loot. and I've probs only done it 2-3 times to people who had scammed or done bad things to a friend or a guildie. id dare to say 99% of people wont kick or be kicked before looting.

And even if it were more than that - it seems like a worthwhile effort to adjust the software to check for actual participation in the fight rather than just group association upon opening the loot window.

I'm no software developer but I imagine the process to be something like this:
Upon entering the fight: Add players in same group to a list.

Check and tick box for participation in the fight based on archetype (since Intrepid already has a screening feature to spot bots it should be possible to extract data from that which confirms participation)

Upon opening the loot window anyone on the open-fight list and who ticked the box for participation will be presented with the options earned through looting rights irrespective of whether they are still in the group or not, whether they are dead or not, irrespective of where they are.

This would also lock leeches out from getting loot they did not work for to earn.

Or make it a public vote to kick someone off the group.
Or make such behavior reportable so that at least the one kicking will receive an ingame punishment - making them corrupt or lowering their reputation with the victims allies.

There are tons of options what could be done and I think what will ultimately be the line of action for Intrepid so that players can figure out how to deal with it themselves. And I think if that is what is going to happen taking responsibility like that can only be encouraged.

it would be easier to not allow kicking or inviting players to a party while they are in combat or at a certain distance e of a boss. also prevents some abuses in PVP =D

Laetitian

Nuub wrote: »

My worst experiences in an MMO were when I experienced RL racism through the game, but after that, were the times felt victimized by disproportionate loot distribution. Makes me want to give up if I cannot earn a reward through merit and must also curry favor with the loot distributors.

I mean, chances are that if you get kicked from a party while completing a public dungeon boss, you still have your personal loot chance to the encounter. So you do have that chance to gain the loot through "merit." And compared to the average player in your party, your chance would only be a little over 10-15% lower (because they will still have tagging priority).
Unless the game assigns all your threat/looting rights to the party while you're in it, and you don't get it back when you're kicked. Arguably, if that's how it works, that might be something to make a suggestion about. But again, we're talking about a pretty niche issue here.

In any case, for rare stuff, your solo loot chance is just a much lower chance than someone who's still in the party getting it, who happens to be the best candidate to be able to use the loot within that party.

The point of party loot distribution is to make it more reliable that some fair system, or someone who's trusted by most members of the party, will improve the chance that the loot goes where it can create the most value.
If you're running dungeons with party leaders you don't trust, you have to be willing to take the (still fairly low!) chance that they might rip you off. If you are this opposed to that risk, just group with people you know. Or never group with anyone and see how much that will get you - just realise that you're reducing your chance of getting the stuff that you're most qualified for, and will have to trade your way to the stuff you need, which is fairly difficult when it comes to items in demand.
Those are your options if you are that sensitive. It's a decent number of options to cope with your excessive sense of loss aversion and get satisfying results without every once in a while "losing" the rewards for investing 30-60 minutes of your life. If you want more options, be less sensitive, idk what to tell you...

Most loot in the game will be trade materials, right? well, instead of a boss dropping one big certificate, drop 10 fragments of a certificate to promote more consistently even distribution.

Yeah, also don't have any legendary equipment. Just give players item stat points for playing the game.

Kilion

Depraved wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

problem with the list is i could just add people to that list because I don't like them, just to ruin their reputation.

Especially the first part sounds right to me, seeing how we will interact with overly sensitive teens and cozy solo lobby players. Which is why I would only support a personal journal to keep track of ones own experiences, rather than make these lists sharable. And for the same reason I suggested that you have to directly SEE the person standing in front of you to add them to the reputation files of your journal. Otherwise I fully agree people would just put others on black lists and share those to slander them.

Depraved wrote: »

in 20 years of mmorpg, I think I've only been kicked off of a party once so that I couldn't loot. and I've probs only done it 2-3 times to people who had scammed or done bad things to a friend or a guildie. id dare to say 99% of people wont kick or be kicked before looting.

And even if it were more than that - it seems like a worthwhile effort to adjust the software to check for actual participation in the fight rather than just group association upon opening the loot window.

I'm no software developer but I imagine the process to be something like this:
Upon entering the fight: Add players in same group to a list.

Check and tick box for participation in the fight based on archetype (since Intrepid already has a screening feature to spot bots it should be possible to extract data from that which confirms participation)

Upon opening the loot window anyone on the open-fight list and who ticked the box for participation will be presented with the options earned through looting rights irrespective of whether they are still in the group or not, whether they are dead or not, irrespective of where they are.

This would also lock leeches out from getting loot they did not work for to earn.

Or make it a public vote to kick someone off the group.
Or make such behavior reportable so that at least the one kicking will receive an ingame punishment - making them corrupt or lowering their reputation with the victims allies.

There are tons of options what could be done and I think what will ultimately be the line of action for Intrepid so that players can figure out how to deal with it themselves. And I think if that is what is going to happen taking responsibility like that can only be encouraged.

it would be easier to not allow kicking or inviting players to a party while they are in combat or at a certain distance e of a boss. also prevents some abuses in PVP =D

Yeah there could be fairly easy solutions for this from a programming perspective - if they are intended. Maybe that's what we need on this, a confirmation that Intrepid does not intend to further limit options of exploitation of "mercenary" type group members

Laetitian

Kilion wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

problem with the list is i could just add people to that list because I don't like them, just to ruin their reputation.

Especially the first part sounds right to me, seeing how we will interact with overly sensitive teens and cozy solo lobby players. Which is why I would only support a personal journal to keep track of ones own experiences, rather than make these lists sharable. And for the same reason I suggested that you have to directly SEE the person standing in front of you to add them to the reputation files of your journal. Otherwise I fully agree people would just put others on black lists and share those to slander them.

Depraved wrote: »

in 20 years of mmorpg, I think I've only been kicked off of a party once so that I couldn't loot. and I've probs only done it 2-3 times to people who had scammed or done bad things to a friend or a guildie. id dare to say 99% of people wont kick or be kicked before looting.

And even if it were more than that - it seems like a worthwhile effort to adjust the software to check for actual participation in the fight rather than just group association upon opening the loot window.

I'm no software developer but I imagine the process to be something like this:
Upon entering the fight: Add players in same group to a list.

Check and tick box for participation in the fight based on archetype (since Intrepid already has a screening feature to spot bots it should be possible to extract data from that which confirms participation)

Upon opening the loot window anyone on the open-fight list and who ticked the box for participation will be presented with the options earned through looting rights irrespective of whether they are still in the group or not, whether they are dead or not, irrespective of where they are.

This would also lock leeches out from getting loot they did not work for to earn.

Or make it a public vote to kick someone off the group.
Or make such behavior reportable so that at least the one kicking will receive an ingame punishment - making them corrupt or lowering their reputation with the victims allies.

There are tons of options what could be done and I think what will ultimately be the line of action for Intrepid so that players can figure out how to deal with it themselves. And I think if that is what is going to happen taking responsibility like that can only be encouraged.

it would be easier to not allow kicking or inviting players to a party while they are in combat or at a certain distance e of a boss. also prevents some abuses in PVP =D

Yeah there could be fairly easy solutions for this from a programming perspective - if they are intended. Maybe that's what we need on this, a confirmation that Intrepid does not intend to further limit options of exploitation of "mercenary" type group members

I thought we just got exactly that confirmation, and that's what triggered this debate? This subsection of the debate seems a bit misguided to me.

Isn't that exact decision/principle that the quote here confirms, which was the impulse that this thread spawned from?
In the context of the Q&A question, I am pretty sure "Yes, it will be possible (...)" is equivalent to "Yes, we plan not to prevent/prohibit (...)"

tautau

Regarding disallowing adding members to groups near raid bosses: Sometimes a player will involuntarily be disconnected from the server while in a boss fight. When they log back in, still near the boss fight, they need to be added back to their party. We need to be able to do this.

superhero6785

I'm fully on board to have a Rating system for all players (1 star - 5 star, with comments). Someone go out of their way to help you? Give 'em 5 stars! They ninja loot? 1 star! If all you ever do is screw people over, then good luck finding a raid party with that 1.5 star rating....

akabear

"The best government is that which governs least." "That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves.".

Less tools by programming, more capacity for the community to regulate..

Iskiab

Just wanted to add that this is a PvX game. There’s less of this behaviour in PvP games because the player being wronged actually has recourse (in MMO PvP games at least).

It’s where the term ‘carebear’ came from. When someone makes you mad on a PvE server the only thing you could do is a ‘care bear stare’. On a PvP server people behave a lot differently because actions have consequences, and PvPers love drama because it makes PvP more interesting.

Child Item