Fixing Player Toxicity

League of Legends (LoL) has become synonymous with toxic player behavior. From my brief experience, as well as all the chat log people link, there is something about the game that makes players positively inhuman to one another. You may remember that I recently talked about how a poor community is the only true deal-breaker for me, so I was very pleasantly surprised to see that Riot, the makers of LoL, have been paying as much attention as every else.

Jeffrey Lin, lead designer for social systems in LoL, undertook an interesting experiment to see if he and his team could better understand player toxicity, which he defines as "offensive language, obscenity, and displays of negative attitudes." While Lin states that "online gameplay has an inherently toxic element that must simply be accepted," any online gamer knows that there's a line between those annoying 12 year olds looking for trouble, and people who are genuinely awful in their online interactions. I accept that I'll have teammates killing me in hardcore mode of Call of Duty, but I won't accept someone blowing up my chat window with vitriol.

After Lin constructed some player profiles, he found that players who are truly toxic (i.e. acting out without provocation) are rare, but that these few players infect others who then carry that toxicity to their own games. So toxic players are like patient zero in any zombie movie, but how to fix it?

I'm not sure when this experiment was conducted, but when I played LoL years ago the opposing teams could talk openly in a shared chat channel, as well as a private team channel. While my experience had an equal share of rude players on either team, Lin decided to make cross-team chat optional for players. With this option, they noticed a general decrease in toxicity - and when you can't see the other team mocking your team or singling you out, which leads to your team scrutinizing you more, I can understand how this would be beneficial and why many games don't allow it from day 1.

Now this is where LoL goes from being known for its community to being known for how it handles its community. Riot's Tribunal system empowers players by keeping each other accountable. In most games, moderation is handled by a skeleton crew that can't possibly work to keep players in check and help them learn better online social skills (something that really should be taught in school at this point). The Tribunal system instead takes an offending player's actions and displays it for the whole community to see and, most impressively, allows them to decide the player's fate.

I'd heard mentions of this, but I was skeptical. If people are horrible because anonymity allows them to be, then wouldn't giving an entire group of them control over another player's fate be doubly bad? As it turns out, just the opposite happened. An unnamed number of cases have gone before the community, and after 105 million votes, 280,000 players have been punished and returned to the game without causing any further problems.

Now there's a lot to the linked article that's worth reading, but the Tribunal is what has caused some stir in the gaming community. Players are tired of toxic behavior in games, and reporting seems to do no good unless the offense is incredibly offensive and against a game's Terms of Service. I've talked to many players over the years who express discouragement at player behavior, yet shrug their shoulders because they feel like nothing gets done about it.

Yes there is a mute/ignore feature, but that's just a Hello Kitty bandaid placed on a bigger problem. People need to learn to act like human beings, pure and simple. Kids are thrown on to the internet, see people acting like jerks, are allowed to act like jerks without repercussion, and grow in to mostly-functioning adults who are incapable of understanding that the people they're yelling at are, in fact, people. The Tribunal system has its flaws to be sure, but when players know that their behavior can be punished, and especially when it is punished, will eventually make them think about how they're acting.

I would love to see more games implement this across the internet. Sure it would be rough while the problems were ironed out, but imagine an online gaming world where your online reputation was affected by your behavior as much as your real-world one. It would need to tread cautiously so that players weren't punished unfairly, but Riot's cases use bad behavior from several gaming sessions so that a player isn't banned for having one bad game. The system is brilliant because the moderators don't need to dig through mounds of behavioral reports, letting many slip through the cracks because it isn't worth their limited time. Instead they let players decide whether someone deserves to be banned for 24 hours for scatological insults while they spend time dealing with players who need to be banned permanently.

What do you guys think of the Tribunal system? Do you have an online game that would benefit from the players taking an active role in improving their community, or do you think it's just a bad idea? You can read more about it here, but I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts.



See you tomorrow!

Remember to follow me on Facebook. I'm doing a blog post every single day for 2013, and Facebook is a great way to stay up-to-date as well as take part in my monthly giveaways!

Comfort in Random Results

If you're anything like me, you enjoy games that use random results in tandem with skill. Whether it's a Warhammer 40k and your perfectly executed strategy falls apart because the dice gods frown on you, a computer RPG where that big number explodes over your enemy's head to signal a critical hit, or even Monopoly where you can strike it rich or go bankrupt based on a single six-sided die. As I've played a variety of games in my life, I've almost always lost interest in games that are based solely on calculation, and you win or lose based 100% on your actions.

Most of us enjoy this because it adds tension to the game. No matter how much of an upper hand your opponent has, you're rarely out of the game. A single attack could devastate a key piece of your opponent's plan, an ability that triggers on a critical hit could give you the edge you need, or you can find yourself in those wonderful do-or-die moments where the perfect dice roll will win you the game. These games aren't only left up to chance - you must play your pieces carefully, cast the right spells, and maintain control of anything not left up to chance. But no matter how much I calculate, nothing in the game is ever certain except that I or my opponent will emerge victorious.

While I love the thrill of the game, there's also something comforting about that randomness. I have never enjoyed fighting games because it requires perfection to do well. There's no room for error, and any slight mistake can end the game for you. To me, that's torturous. While randomness allows a B-rank player to put up a fight against an A-rank player, things like chess, Street Fighter, and even Starcraft set a very hard division between skills. 

Some love that because it demands that they reach their maximum potential and devote themselves to improving. They have to work tirelessly to learn all the nuances until they can play a nearly flawless game. Every victory is earned 100% by them, and any loss is 100% on them.

I don't like that. I like having room to fail, and letting a part of my success or failure not be in my hands. It lets me battle both my opponent and chance, but it also lets me breathe a little easier when I make a mistake because there's room to recover from it.

Let me clarify that I don't think randomness wins games. I could go down to my local shop and play against Keith, a guy who is representing America in a global Warmachine tournament coming up. If we played 10 games together, despite me being a decent Warmachine player, I would count myself lucky to end with a 1-9 record. I might be able to flail about and seem equally matched at the beginning, but even the best dice rolls will only do so much for me.

However, two equals can get together and enjoy the fierceness of skill vs skill as well as the excitement of the unknown. If we've both played our first turns perfectly, then victory goes to the one who can work around and with the dice, not win because of them. It's not about rolling dice randomly and losing because no matter what you did, you just couldn't win because of random results.

Of course sometimes I do lose because of bad results. It's rare that I can look back on a game and say there's nothing I could have done differently, but it happens. When it does, I do my best to accept the loss as my own and not whine about bad dice. After all, that comes with the territory of unpredictable results.

That's my take on randomness in games - what's yours? Do you like the excitement, the way it can smooth over a bad play, or something else entirely?

See you tomorrow!

Remember to follow me on Facebook. I'm doing a blog post every single day for 2013, and Facebook is a great way to stay up-to-date as well as take part in my monthly giveaways! And now is the perfect time to enter and win a piece of terrain!

What Does It Take?

In all aspects of life, we have our breaking points. For things like jobs and friends we need to have stamina because it's hard to let those things go, but with gaming we can be much more petty. Whenever something new is announced for a video/tabletop/card game, you'll inevitably have people standing out on the street corner with their big cardboard sign declaring that the end is nigh. Everyone is quitting the game and the company will go bankrupt, there's mouth-frothing, and if you were new to the internet you'd think it was time to start looking for a new game.

Of course everything turns out fine and people begrudgingly accept that the new addition is great until another announcement is made. Now some of these people just let their passions get the best of them, but some people genuinely fear that their beloved game is done for. Those are the ones who are seriously having to ask themselves whether this change, if it goes badly, will be the death of the game for them.

Major changes in my gaming history that have pushed me out of the game include GW price increases, YuGiOh's catering to little kids (more so than what they did originally, anyway), Legend of Zelda's departure from a normal controller, and Microsoft is pushing the envelope with the Xbox One. However, the one thing these all have in common is that there is usually something I could overlook. If I enjoyed GW's stuff enough I'd pay their premium price; if I could have prevented Link from running around like a terrified moose I'd have beaten the Wii game; and if Microsoft can do enough to outweigh the bad decisions they showed us, I might be debating between XB-O and PS4.

[Beware, unintentionally long psuedo-tirade incoming]

However, there's one thing that will always turn me away from a game no matter what, and that's the community. If I can't tolerate the people I'm forced to be around, I will drop the game no matter how much I enjoy it. I had to quit Halo because I spent weeks without finding a single mature person that owned a mic. I will no longer play competitive games at a gaming shop because anything from Magic to Warmachine (and even D&D!) seems to bring out the competitive d-bags who can't seem to balance civility with competitiveness. Competitive games thrive on the community, and because of that it's the players that can truly be the death of a game.

Fortunately online games have taken measures to cut out the really bad apples with things like online reputation and report functions. But a company can only ban so many players before their bottom line is affected - as sad as it may be, the most unpleasant players in a game are often the more diehard fans.

So then what to do? Sure I could unplug my mic, ignore chat, avoid annoying players face-to-face, but then I'm forced to take away the best part of competitive/team games, and that's getting to play with other people who share an interest with me. Unplugging my mic turns Call of Duty is as entertaining as playing against AI opponents, and only playing Magic with a handful of mature people becomes monotonous. It's not that I'll quit a game because of the presence of bad people, but when pleasant people are put on the endangered player list, it's time to move on.

But that's just me. Almost everyone I talk to about this thinks I'm crazy because they can't see how sucky people could be an automatic deal-breaker. I admire their patience, but I don't play multiplayer games just to compete with a faceless opponent. Generally speaking, a multiplayer game tends to have less pizzazz than a single-player experience simply because game makers understand that the competitive nature of multi-player makes us overlook an otherwise tedious experience.

If you've ever taken part in a "training room" where you can play the multi-player game against computer opponents, you know that the experience is much different simply because you're playing alone, and all you have is a shallow gaming experience. To me, multiplayer games are all about the human interaction. Even if I'm not talking to anyone, successfully working together with - or fiercely competing against - other people is key to my enjoyment. If I have teammates whining, yelling at other people, being over-the-top offensive, etc., I will have 0 fun because the people who are a part of my gaming experience are unbearable. I can take and give jabs and light-hearted trash talk, but if I have an opponent mocking, insulting, or complaining about me or the game, then I no longer care about the game.

I play competitive games to play a fair match against a mature opponent. I don't want to waste my free time on an unpleasant experience. That's my time. I can deal with crappy people in the real world where things matter, but when it comes to my hobbies I simply can't bring myself to find pleasure in a bad experience.

[Ok, you can start reading again]

Whew. This was supposed to be 3 or 4 paragraphs long. I have work to do tonight and you guys got me thinking about all these games that "could have been" if people could have just grown up and played the game! The point of today's post was to ask you your breaking point. You've seen the what and why of mine, so I'm curious to hear yours.

What is one thing in a game that will almost automatically push you out? Cost? Graphic style? Skill requirement? Your favorite army/class/whatever no longer being powerful or relevant? I'm curious to hear how others can walk away from something that they might otherwise be willing to play for years, so be sure to use that comment section down below!

See you tomorrow!


Remember to follow me on Facebook. I'm doing a blog post every single day for 2013, and Facebook is a great way to stay up-to-date as well as take part in my monthly giveaways!

Producer vs. Product

My wife is just super. We're going to be getting a sizable chunk of money, and while I was planning what bills to pay, she flat out told me that I have to buy a colossal and a good foam bag. Sweet, right? I worked my way through which colossal I'll be getting (I shall call him Big Red), but now I'm left trying to figure out which bag to get.

I've always wanted to get KR Multicase foam simply for the price. I recently got a basic set of foam, and while I wasn't thrilled with the look of the foam (rough cuts, bottoms glued unevenly), the functionality was exactly what I expected. I'm tempted to get a big metal case of theirs and never again worry about army storage, but I've always wanted to try Battlefoam. I always used the excuse that it is overcosted (which I think it is), but now that I can actually buy one without hesitation, I'm still not sure.

Here's my problem with Battlefoam - they're a bit of a bully. From a business standpoint they don't do anything that hasn't been done by big companies already. The problem is that they're a big business in a small market. Foam trays and carrying bags is very niche, and anything done by a company will be magnified simply because we're a much more interconnected customer base.

Case and point, Battlefoam is very fond of lawsuits. For a writeup on their past dealings, see a slanted article written by Blood of Kittens. It basically boils down to Romeo, the owner of Battlefoam, trying to muscle out his competition. There's nothing wrong with that - any major brand on our store shelves likely has at least one such lawsuit in their history. But as I said, they aren't Nike or General Mills. They sell a non-mandatory product to a small group of people. The existing options are limited as it is, and them trying to squash their competition is a bit... well, douchey.

However, I'm willing to shrug that off because if I were to refuse business to any company that operated with a bit of moral ambiguity, I'd die. But right now they're tangled up in an incredibly frivolous lawsuit with the owner of Blood of Kittens, a blog that has been very vocal about his displeasure with Battlefoam and its owner. And that's what sets me off.

The difference between this lawsuits and previous ones is based entirely on what's being done. When suing another foam company you're trying to protect your intellectual property or (and I don't approve of this) bending the law to muscle out your competition. It's often not a popular decision, and I'd never defend a baseless lawsuit, but that's the up and down of free enterprise. But BoK isn't a competing company - it's one guy with an opinion that Romeo doesn't like. Is it hurting business? Probably, but that's also the up and down of free speech.

I can't fathom why Romeo thinks this is a good idea. In our world of wargaming, this is very much a big business attacking the "little guy." It's not just bully tactics, it's downright idiotic. While BoK will obviously win this case, the fact that the owner of Battlefoam got his feelings hurt and cried "I'm telling Mom!" is utterly baffling.

But that's my emotional reaction. The more pragmatic side of me realizes that Romeo isn't Battlefoam. The bags and trays aren't somehow immoral because of the company owner's own underdeveloped level of maturity.The product is good; expensive, but unquestionably top-of-the-line. I would buy the bag if I'd heard nothing of Romeo's ruthless business tactics. Does a silly lawsuit make someone more unethical than a company who uses child labor?

What do you guys think? Is a business's practices a deciding factor in whether you buy from them? Is it fair to refuse business just because their negatives are more public than another company? How far does a company have to go before you'll say "I'll never give them my business!" and mean it?

I thought I could easily answer this, but between my examinations of GW and Battlefoam, I have to concede that crappy, ethical business decisions may not be cause enough to swear off a product.

See you tomorrow!