334 replies to this topic

[IONTIGER]

How many of you guys play halo on the xbox? There will be plenty of accidentall friendly fires. All you can do is either temp ban from the session or forgive. However, there are those who do get a kick from intentionally fragging a friendly. Just have an option where the affected player can forgive or kick the teamkiller out of the game session. If you accidentally frag a team member it is best to apologize and continue as a team.
On MW4 multiplayer I seen it happen alot on there as well. Apologize, forgive and continue on as a team or get kicked from the game in session. No additional penalties needed.

[Karyudo ds]

IONTIGER, on 19 March 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

How many of you guys play halo on the xbox? There will be plenty of accidentall friendly fires. All you can do is either temp ban from the session or forgive. However, there are those who do get a kick from intentionally fragging a friendly. Just have an option where the affected player can forgive or kick the teamkiller out of the game session.

Problem is that if the damage is persistant and death is semi perminent for the match then one accident could cost your team... which really no one is going to accidentaly one shot kill a friendly. In a F2P setting Tribes simply turns FF off but I do think FF has a big effect on tactics and balance. Plus Tribes has lots of explosions. Though in MW4 games I rarely ran into random people doing that. Though if the system was set up to point out griefers it might help avoid them... though there always will be griefers no matter what you do. Not sure if it would be likely here though.

[Helmer]

mockingfox, on 19 March 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

that one game with a griefer IS FORING SOMEONE TO PLAY WITH A GRIEFER!
you contradict yourself in the same post

Perhaps bad wording on his part . He simply suggested, same as I did earlier, that if there is someone during the course of a match whom is displaying a "negative playstyle" you can simply add them to your own person blacklist of players you would rather not be matched up with.
No one is forcing you to play with a Griefer, you can simply disconnect if its so bad, add him to your list, and not have to play with him again. Or, like in your solution, play with the Griefer and hurt him financially.

I do not see how your solution is any different. Would you not still need to play with said griefer in order for them to wrack up a large C-Bill Penalty? We could say "that one game with a griefer IS FORING SOMEONE TO PLAY WITH A GRIEFER!"
But I do understand looking at his post where it might be viewed as contradictory.

Not that I do not agree with your solution, I whole heartedly do. I also feel that an escalating financial penalty is in order, but would also like to couple it with a way of avoiding playing with those individuals again. Hitting them financially will make most individuals avoid griefing, however, I could see those dedicated to it simply purchasing C-Bills with real currency, or griefing within their financial means, then playing it straight for another 10 matches.

It will probably take multiple detterants in order to achieve the disired result. I think we all agree that griefers and negetively unfortunately plague Multiplayer games. Hopefully MWO will allow you do weed out the players you enounter you would rather not play with (But certainly want to play AGAINST when possible) again.

Edited by Helmer, 19 March 2012 - 12:29 PM.

[mockingfox]

This is going to be long and hopefully well though out, it contains a couple of ideas that sprouted from the Greifers/TKers thread and I am simply creating another topic so that people do not have to read through a bunch of pages to get up to-date.

Reputation and Negative action:
It has been suggested by many and a rather popular idea. Each player would have a transgression part of their player card a sort of gold/red bar that would display your current reputation (a better idea is their name would be colored this way). this would show number of team kills and their total Negative action score. This would be based on how much FF and TK they have committed and could possibly reflect other player reviews. In short it is a compilation of everything negative the player has done.
note: there would be a threshold for what is considered FF, for example a few lazer burns would not be enough to break the threshold and be recorded as negative HOWEVER a whole bunch of smaller actions throughout the match would break the limit and all of them would be put twards your Negative actions.
This limit would be lessened the more negative action score you have, making cronic greifers easier to punish for less. As they comit more and more crimes the games tollerane goes down and down.

But this not enough, simply tagging greifers as greifers will not stop them.
Having to pay for the FF damage you have caused is another popular idea that has surfaced and I agree. All FF damage you deal you would have to pay for before anything else (more on going negative later)
however simply paying for repairs is not enough to stop a cronic greifer, you need to make them hurt much more if they are to reform. I think there should be a fee based on the crime commited and weighted by their overall Negative action score. This way good players who slip up arent hit neirly as hard as those who do this constantly and consistently.

here is a formula for calculating this.
(negative actions score + (bad gamesX4)/total games X base crime value = final penalty c-bills

what is a negative action? this can be decided later (and how much each is worth) but for now lets assume that a worry-some amount of damage is worth about 1 Negative action (about 8-10% of a mech's total hp or mabye use another index debat over it as you will) lets also say that a killing shot on a friendly is worth 5 all by itself.

EX1) you fire off a salvo of missles and they slam into a friendlies back. lets assume that this delt about 10% of their total health and therefore is worth 1 Negative point. lets also say that this is your second game with a negative point out of 10. lets also assume that the base crime value is equal to the repair cost in this case and lets assume that this is 200c-bills (all of this is just so i can crunch numbers for you scale it as you will)

so lets fill in the equation
(2 + (2X4)/10 X 200 = final penalty
now lets play this out
10/10 X 200 = 200c-bills

since you get about 1 transgression for every 5 games and it wont really effect you much.

EX2) killing your teammates is fun! you've decided that killing scout mech's is your vice in life and railing ppc's into them and watching them screem in pain is to fun to go without. the next game you kill a commando outright with and alpha strike insta killing their center body. a full 50% of their total hp and a TK thats 10 Negative point's! and this is your 3rd bad game out of lets say 12 total.
killing that mech was also very bad base crime value equal to his total mech cost (assume 2450)

lets fill out
(12 + (3X4)/12 X 2450 = final penalty
24/12 X 2450 = 4900 c-bills!

woah! suddenly you lost money that match and on top of your own costs you barely have enough to reapir your own mech really shouldnt do that again if you want to keep stocking up your mech lab with fun toys!


this would be an effective method for fairness of FF and also keeping greifers from running rampant! suddenly the game is just not as fun for them as it was for that poor player who they shot! NO BODY WINS WHEN YOU GREIF OTHER PLAYERS!

Getting greifed
you watch as your mech smolders to bits, betrayed by some random A-hole. you are mad, you ARE FURIOUSE! what can you do to really stick it to this guy?
1. all of your repair bills for the damage he caused is paid for by him and if the server detects a certain amount of Negative actions in the game total it will repay those who have not committed Negative Actions. (those whith a certain amount of Negative actions will become blue neutral players and shooting them does not penalize you however it does not reward you either as this could be abused easilly, them shooting you still gives them negative actions so it does not promote further transgressions.. OR we could jsut boot them your call)

2. you can file a player report, there will be a threshold just like damage but if a player has recieved enough to break this threshold or already has enough Negative Actions to warrent this behavior He will be given more Negative Actions by your player report. the amount of negative actions granted is weighted by how many reports that game and how many bad games played (another equation could be made for this have at it!)
this way someone you dont like and simply report wont be hurt to hard, yet someone who is a known greifer will be worse off for annoying you!!!!


Going negative
you dont have enough c-bills to pay for those you hurt. what do you do? some suggested that you should have to sell off your top items starting with biggest mech. I dissagree however agree that you should have to sell off all excess items/mechs until either your debt is paid or you have 1 mech left with a reserve amount of weapons worht left.
this way you still have 1000 c-bills worth of c-bills left and a mech so you can still play (minimally)
1. all money you make aftor this point goes directly to going positive
2. you cannot repair your mech as that costs money you dont have, instead if you would be destroyed or run out of ammo you are brought back to 1/4th ammo and health (this can be debated)

we still want people to play, but greif to hard and to often and you should have to give up your hard work.

Matchmaking and reputaion
This is all nice but as a person you dont want to see a greifer ever! what do we do to make this happen? first we initiate incentives and penalties like those above and second we make it weigh into MM
1. those with poor reutation will have a tendency to get matched with those with poor reutation. let them have each other mess each others day up.
they are still penalized for hurting each other as normal so the only way to improve is to simply not grief back... like the rest of us, and wait till the scales balance back in their favor and they get matched with better people.

now that greifer just messed up you K/D spread. he made you LOSS! this is unforgivable! you'll never be able to make it into the elite merc corps who were looking at you!
2. dont worry any game with a certain amount of Negative Actions will be recorded as "spoilded by others" on your record. this will be a disclaimer that the match was unfair and it will not be added into your displayed K/d W/L. So dont rage quit just keep playing.


this is all for now. feel free to add constructive critism and your own ideas!
and remeber to like my post please i put alot of work/thought into this!

[Danko]

CoyoteBlue, on 18 March 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

This is why a rating system can be abused, a Punish system will never work properly, and a Pay-Damages system will hurt innocent people more then the ones doing it intenionally.

You think that trolling will always happen: true... anyway I disagree with your conclusion. The point is making it harder with low/reasonable effort, so very few will attempt griefing.

[Red Beard]

I don't think any elaborate system that punishes players for something will go over that well. It is my opinion that players should be allowed to "moderate" the games themselves.

[Mezlabor]

Just get into a clan to avoid this type of behavior. I have a feeling most serious MWO will want to be in a clan. Pub matches Im sure will be disorganized zerg fests. Like in any mmo pvp the pub matches nearly always lose to premade teams. I know it will be no different here. Players who shoot their own team mates will almost definetly be kicked from their clans and will wind up black listed by clans eventually. They will only wind up in pub matches.

[cinco]

what a long pointless post. they aren't going to use your system just because you spent an hour fleshing it out, son.

no one wants overcomplicated systems like this. think simple and elegant...evolution. not creation.

Edited by cinco, 19 March 2012 - 02:00 PM.

[mockingfox]

this would allow players to moderate themselves, reports would weigh more against repeat offenders and not as badly if not at all against shining examples.

also if a players record includes their transgressions alongside their better plays it will help merc corps decide who to allow in or not.
just like a guild in WOW would ask around if a player was a ninja looter (long ago but still) instead its just their attached to the player.

there could be ways to be forgiven, for example if you played a certain number of games with almost no Negative actions you could have old ones be erased or removed, having showed that you have stopped you would be forgiven.

but if you guys arent for it alrighty mabye it was to extreme.

Edited by mockingfox, 19 March 2012 - 02:00 PM.

[Red1769]

Yeah...we went over something like this already. The matchmaking system will have some effect. Lone Wolves will never be able to play if everything is "clan" stuff or premade teams that you play with all the time. And that Lone Wolf could be just as good of a team player as anyone else. This idea is one that appeals to me. The later posts from page 9 or 10 and beyond in the below link is probably most beneficial. So the same thing there doesn't happen here, please, if you have nothing to contribute to the thread, don't post here. If all you're gonna do is troll, again please don't post here. Surely we don't need to get a moderator in here again to stop that kind of thing. We all know Red Beard's position on any system like this (outright against it).

http://mwomercs.com/...her-miscreants/

Edited by Red1769, 19 March 2012 - 02:05 PM.

[Shai tan]

I do like some kind of Pos/Neg Reputation tracking. As for FF, I have FF in tons of games. Sometimes ya just can`t help it. But I always oppologized for it. I`d love to see a Pos/Neg Rep thing that other pilots could free vote for. And you got Neg or Pos based on your in the field behavior. But it`ll prolly never happen.

[Red Beard]

mockingfox, on 19 March 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

this would allow players to moderate themselves, reports would weigh more against repeat offenders and not as badly if not at all against shining examples.

also if a players record includes their transgressions alongside their better plays it will help merc corps decide who to allow in or not.
just like a guild in WOW would ask around if a player was a ninja looter (long ago but still) instead its just their attached to the player.

there could be ways to be forgiven, for example if you played a certain number of games with almost no Negative actions you could have old ones be erased or removed, having showed that you have stopped you would be forgiven.

but if you guys arent for it alrighty mabye it was to extreme.

It seems like you are more concerned about griefers and the like than most, Fox. I cannot say that I think you're idea is BAD...just a bit on the over complicated side. To me, self moderating means that certain pilots that pull those kind of shenanigans will get a bad rep without any help from the MW:O system. Other players and most of the factions will get wind of players like this and black ball them without thought. I know I would.

[Red Beard]

Red1769, on 19 March 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Yeah...we went over something like this already. The matchmaking system will have some effect. Lone Wolves will never be able to play if everything is "clan" stuff or premade teams that you play with all the time. And that Lone Wolf could be just as good of a team player as anyone else. This idea is one that appeals to me. The later posts from page 9 or 10 and beyond in the below link is probably most beneficial. So the same thing there doesn't happen here, please, if you have nothing to contribute to the thread, don't post here. If all you're gonna do is troll, again please don't post here. Surely we don't need to get a moderator in here again to stop that kind of thing. We all know Red Beard's position on any system like this (outright against it).

http://mwomercs.com/...her-miscreants/

Funny you mention moderator. He considered "that kind of thing" a very minor issue. You have much less effect than you give yourself credit for.

Back to some productive bantor...

Keep in mind also, that since you will have to tie your account to a credit card, getting banned in the game, as opposed to a forum ban, is a much more serious affair. IMO, grievers and other jacka$$ players will get their dues without any need for help from the system.

Edited by Red Beard, 19 March 2012 - 02:12 PM.

[mockingfox]

Red Beard, on 19 March 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

It seems like you are more concerned about griefers and the like than most, Fox. I cannot say that I think you're idea is BAD...just a bit on the over complicated side. To me, self moderating means that certain pilots that pull those kind of shenanigans will get a bad rep without any help from the MW:O system. Other players and most of the factions will get wind of players like this and black ball them without thought. I know I would.

I dont believe that the system is that complicated, just complex enough so that it can take into account the relevant variables to calculate how good/bad you are on average.

this way 1/2 misfires will mean little to nothing while 6/7 will actually make you reconsiider.
and while i do mention greifers constantly this also goes for underskilled players who just dont think before they let lose their alpha strike, once again a mistake isnt going to mess up your month but being a little losse with your aim will be detrimental not only to that poor sap you just hit but also yourself.

this is just a way to ensure fairness to those who were honest and a way to deter players from harming those they should not.

Red Beard, on 19 March 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Funny you mention moderator. He considered "that kind of thing" a very minor issue. You have much less effect than you give yourself credit for.

raised eyebrow?

[Red1769]

How many people are in a faction? couple hundred? couple thousand? couple tens of thousands? What about Lone Wolves that could branch out to any faction? Even on the internet, with those kinds of numbers, how fast do you really think news will travel? This would allow a person just one quick look to see if they're good/bad, whatever. Looking at it, it's not really all that complicated. A quick formula or two and some extra coding, ta da. This is just more detail of what was being discussed there into the implementation of it.

Oh, and I don't give myself any credit for that. I'm not that niave (or however you spell it) when any number of people or even a mod himself could have noticed and stopped it/reported it. Just keep it civil is all I ask. Again, if nothing else, let's agree to disagree and move on. There is no need to degrade any thread by throwing insults around.

Edited by Red1769, 19 March 2012 - 02:34 PM.

[Red Beard]

mockingfox, on 19 March 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

I dont believe that the system is that complicated, just complex enough so that it can take into account the relevant variables to calculate how good/bad you are on average.

this way 1/2 misfires will mean little to nothing while 6/7 will actually make you reconsiider.
and while i do mention greifers constantly this also goes for underskilled players who just dont think before they let lose their alpha strike, once again a mistake isnt going to mess up your month but being a little losse with your aim will be detrimental not only to that poor sap you just hit but also yourself.

this is just a way to ensure fairness to those who were honest and a way to deter players from harming those they should not.

I can dig what you are saying here and I even can get behind the IDEA that we should be able to track the players who are not playing as tight as most of us would like to see. I think self moderation is a bit more viable since it does not put any added pressure on the devs and allows the players to deal with things of this nature in their own, creative ways. After a game is finished, if you had a pilot that went postal on your team, just take to the forums and blacklist the guy. Let all of your faction members know and put the word out. I see that method as much more potent. Word of mouth spreads like wildfire.

[mockingfox]

Red1769, on 19 March 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

How many people are in a faction? couple hundred? couple thousand? couple tens of thousands? What about Lone Wolves that could branch out to any faction? Even on the internet, with those kinds of numbers, how fast do you really think news will travel? This would allow a person just one quick look to see if they're good/bad, whatever. Looking at it, it's not really all that complicated. A quick formula or two and some extra coding, ta da. This is just more detail of what was being discussed there into the implementation of it.

this is exactly what i want. one quick look and you can judge the guy for youself instead of waiting for a mod to look him over at the end of the month. plus this system would sting enough so that people would think twice before they make it a habit, if we dont punish them in a meaningful game related way as apposed to just our rage and expelling them from our clan (which they probably dont care about anyways) they will just keep going causeing more hurt and rage.

plus in any online game even if it wasnt my team getting screwed it still made me agry, because now the other team didnt have a fair fight and would quit leaving us with a bitter taste in our mouth.

moderators arent fast nor numerouse enough to catch everyone. A system that does this automatically and takes action in relevant real time would be a blessing for online game-space.

Red Beard, on 19 March 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

I can dig what you are saying here and I even can get behind the IDEA that we should be able to track the players who are not playing as tight as most of us would like to see. I think self moderation is a bit more viable since it does not put any added pressure on the devs and allows the players to deal with things of this nature in their own, creative ways. After a game is finished, if you had a pilot that went postal on your team, just take to the forums and blacklist the guy. Let all of your faction members know and put the word out. I see that method as much more potent. Word of mouth spreads like wildfire.

right this is simply a system to track them better/faster than a lengthy forum search.

[Garth Erlam]

cinco, on 19 March 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

what a long pointless post. they aren't going to use your system just because you spent an hour fleshing it out, son.

no one wants overcomplicated systems like this. think simple and elegant...evolution. not creation.

I don't think coming up with ideas like this somehow negates that - it can be simplified. Thus, it is evolution. No-one created something amazing because they were like "man, I wish this candle was 5% brighter..."

[T0RC4ED]

My thoughts on FF... My biggest Issue is people who have no situational awareness and walk into my line of fire. They must be thinking something like this "Hmm I see a stream of ballistic and energy weapons comming from over here I wander what happens if i put my head down and charge into the guy thats taking fire". It never fails they always get mad because they are dumb. FF by IDF... If someone calls for fire on a location its probably a good idea to not be standing in the impact area...USE THE COMS thats what they are there for.

[CaerusBlue]

A page or two back someone posted some legitimate counter-points to my post and I thank them but I'm rather lazy, so I'll reply to the last post, heh.

Quote

You think that trolling will always happen: true... anyway I disagree with your conclusion. The point is making it harder with low/reasonable effort, so very few will attempt griefing.

I don't -think- trolling will always happen, I know. Not because I'm smart (quite the contrary), but because I've been there done that in a lot, a LOT of F2P games. Play some games of Battlefield Play4Free, you will immedietly find griefers and idiots doing dumb things because they're dumb, don't care, are 10 years old (not they're fault they just don't understand), or have nothing better to do then laugh at the chatcomms.

Lets say theres 1 in every game of 24, 1 guy thats just, a ******, -that- guy. The one that yells that you all suck, and you all picked wrong mechs, and you need to Learn to Play, and that you're the reason he's sucking. (Or she, not trying to be sexist here folks.) This dude(dude'ette), will enjoy damaging your leg and legging you, or shooting off your only big gun, and leaving you there, because your detracting from -his- game experience therefore it's only right that he detracts from -your- game experience. In the back of your minds pick 24 random people from High School, how many of them will enjoy annoying you just because they can. Now imagine them with fake names and with zero ties to whom they are as a person.

It's gunna happen. Problem is, How much is it going to cost for team-legging someone? Or making their armor red? or yellow for that matter? How much for taking off someones gun? I don't know why, or how, but it's never, ever the 1st person that gets in trouble for doing something, it's always the 2nd. he may have shot you in the leg a few times, but when you shot back because you want him out of your face, or you crash into him, or he intentionally strafes in front of you as you fire, -You- will get screwed, and have to pay for -his- (her) expenses, even though -he-(she) is the instigator.

Make sense? I'm not stating that the pay-for-damage scheme is unusable and shouldn't be considered, on the contrary I think it's probably the best shot we have at some form of balance. But if you support something you need to show all of it's faults for it to become stronger and better.

Now for all of you that will be playing with units, clans, teams, guilds, squads, whatever you wish to call them, you most likely won't be encountering this issue ever, and in the rare occasion you do, dropping out and re-joining a new game will easily remidy it, but for people like me, that play public games, all the time, it's going to be an issue.

A big, big issue.