I was talking to a friend today about the game I am working on and how I want to simply allow self regulation when it comes to player conflicts in game. I have no intention of having any of the players moderate the game in any capacity because I've seen how well that works in the past.
So for instance, let's consider this a ORPG that is hosted by me, players connect to it. Is there any sort of feasible way to remove a player from another player's game play experience?
Not in the way you'd ban a player, but in a way a player chooses to block another one for poor behavior. Instead of simply blocking their chat logs and stuff like that, the player would simply no longer exist, just for that player in game.
You wouldn't see their chats, you wouldn't see them in game, they are just gone. And a player blocked by another one would also fail to ever see them again. If they were standing in your way, it wouldn't matter because you don't see them and you'd just walk through them, etcetera. They wouldn't be able to interact with one another in any capacity.
ID:2535288
 Jan 5 2020, 2:11 pm
|
|
Alright, I kind of figured it'd have to be in more depth than what I was hoping for, thanks!
| |
I think the big thing you have to bear in mind is how mutable the environment is.
If players can open doors, drop items that have physical representation in the world, etc., then you're going to create a surreal playing experience that gets lots of bug reports if you allow shadowblocking of other players. But if the world map is mostly static and gameplay happens in other realms (like combat happens in a minimap), doors are simply locked or unlocked and their state is relative to players and not absolute rather than something that visibly open or close, etc. then it can work. Essentially, this idea works better the more your game functions on a model where the visible world of the game in exploration mode is a lobby where players interact and they can connect to instanced content (dungeons, minimap/menu-based combat, etc.) that is only shared between players who have already agreed to interact (joined in a party/group), less well the more mutable the game's environment is meant to represent a literal world that can be changed by player actions. | |
So I'll discuss this a little further, if you check my profile you'll see what I am working on right now, and it's largely designed to have a very retro aesthetic, while still having some modern day functions.
There's won't be visible doors opening and closing. I had been struggling with how I was going to represent loot dropped on the ground, because I didn't like how roguelikes represent stuff while on the ground, IE "/" being a sword. Ultimately, I decided that I was just going to have characters auto-loot everything from their kills right away.Loot and exp gains will be tied directly in to the first person to hit a monster (or their party). Instead of dropping gear, players can choose to either sell them to a pawn shop dealer, or destroy them. Players will still have the ability to trade, but involves directly interacting with one another. Finally, I plan on doing a bank system that is like World of Warcraft (kinda), where the bank is linked to a player key instead of their saves, so whatever you deposit in your bank can be shared with any characters saved under that key. So I think besides seeing monsters die for no reason (damage numbers being displayed too), that aspect of it shouldn't be too screwy. | |
Why not keep the player visible, but just mask their name/icon to something generic using an override image?
That way there's no weirdness, and all their chat/trade/party stuff just silently fails? | |
Yeah, I'm going to second that suggestion. If you want to get fancy with it, make a generic character type that would have a reason to be fighting random monsters (like a guard or a bounty hunter) and just use them as stand-ins. To get fancier, you could make different generics for different regions and tie it into the story.
Have the game treat them like aloof NPCs who will refuse interactions, and whom you can pass through and vice-versa. | |
Fostering weakness by avoiding confrontation is not healthy game design. :) Nobody will want to play a game for long when the game is built to shadow-block them. If the person refuses to cease being unreasonable, no reason to try to build the game around preventing them from griefing, just ban the abuser! Don't over think simple things. :)
I'd say the better game design is to provide a public arena where people can have duels and fights and other players can observe, participate by releasing creatures, and place bets. May just add that to my own project, feature creep! lol.. Make it so this Colosseum has no talking, so people can't talk smack. All business, gladiator style. Think you're tough? Prove it and let the words rest with the dead. ^-^ | |
Look, I just didn't feel like banning people from the game for being jerks, when people could just ignore them.
I wanted to just allow players the option to moderate the game themselves in a way that doesn't directly stop problem players from actually playing.I felt like keeping actual game moderation as hands off as possible would eventually end up in a better playing experience. I decided to just ignore that concept for now since I am still in really early stages. Besides, at the end of the day a problem player will most likely figure it out and just try and harass more players. | |
Well, I feel like a big dummy, I'll just have checks for players that are ignored and then just block any sort of interactions with them. I suppose there's no real reason to wipe them off the face of the planet.
| |
Fostering weakness by avoiding confrontation is not healthy game design. I find that people who feel wronged enough to try to get someone banned often have some pretty strong feelings aboutg being expected to do something like block another user to hide their impact. One method of dealing with this, is making user reporting auto-ignore a user. Even if the developer has no intention of reading any of the reports, a feature like that can really help shut down the prevalence of whiny, entitled users trying to get their way and kick someone else out of the game. The problem with conflict is two-fold. The person who is accused of wrong, and the accuser. A report button that isn't a report button at least helps a player move past their focus on the perceived wrong, and hiding that user from the reporter, will in most cases create an environment where they can move past their feeling of being wronged without the developer having to pick a side. I can really understand the urge to let players tailor their own environment this way, because it gives the player more control of what they are subjected to during a play session. Not all players are gonna be able to just get over it. It's not really the developer's job to enforce those lessons. Best to just give people the ability to opt out until a player becomes such a widespread nuisance to the entire community that dealing with it becomes truly necessary. The bigger issue with giving the player no real recourse that doesn't require your consent, is that you are basically inviting people to bombard you with petty fights, and you are making yourself part of the community culture. | |
Yep, if done properly the buddy/honor system always works.
| |
I like the idea of a report function auto ignoring users and I am going to consider that when I start designing the moderation system.
Thanks for the insight. | |
I still think its better for people to try to reason things out.
But of course I am a diff generation and nobody is reasonable anymore. :) | |
Good for you.
| |
AERProductions wrote:
I still think its better for people to try to reason things out. It is better that people reason things out for themselves. We have law enforcement in the real world though because people don't always abide by the expectations of participating in a community. Yeah, it's better people don't get in domestic disturbances, or walk on my damn lawn, but at the end of the day, every community's gonna have a kid or two that won't get off my god damn lawn. A smart way of allowing people to get on together without having to bring in the fuzz, or resulting in some kids that won't get off my lawn getting pumped full of birdshot from my lawn-defense-boomstick, I don't think can really hurt if the developer is willing to put the time into it. | |
It's entirely possible, if you design with it in mind from the start.