We build games to bring players together, but what happens when they don't along? Zero tolerance bans, AI-assisted moderation, and even player-run tribunals all continue to fail. But why?
Holy shit what a great read, and to think you wasted your time at Blizzard when you could've been the Hunter S. Thompson of the gaming world. I guess you still could?
I spend too much time at the Overwatch forum, presumably for some masochistic reason I've yet to resolve, and I comment on these topics a lot... most recently on the subject of R6:S removing match chat, and threads about how 'the matchmaking is rigged', when really I can't think of a competitive game that has more variance than Overwatch and yet so many players don't seem to understand that sometimes players on either team are peaking and sometimes they're having a terrible game. No, it has to be the matchmaking! ...so this really spoke to me, maybe in a narcissistic way as it's affirming a lot of my own perspectives. xd
I've been playing OW since it released and after reaching GM in an easier season with the expectation that the environment and attitude of the players would somehow improve I now only solo-queue QP, and I've never enjoyed the game so much. Sure the highs aren't as high but the lows sunk to the depths of humanity and that just wasn't a place I wanted to hang out. The turn around time is quicker and so a bad game doesn't last as long nor does waiting for the next one. After 5 years I mostly just play to enjoy the fluidity of the game/gun play and the gratification of landing my arrows... yes, I like Hanzo and I'm not ashamed of that.
That said, I think one of the worst decisions the OW team made as it pertains to 'toxicity' is showing players their SR. I think subconsciously it causes players to hold their team mates responsible, both pro and retro actively... which is irrational, but so are our expectations most of the time. Giving your 'skill' a value gives it more meaning which tethers to part of the players identity which leads to more 'toxicity', or something.
Interesting point of view. From my experience as a gamer I mostly agree that game design can encourage toxicity and yes it can solve most of it. Problem is, do you want to ruin the experience of all other players because some of them can't control themselves? By making your design less competitive, less stressfull, less time efficient (having to find a group for example) and less social.
So yes unless you're willing to go to great lenght and restrain yourself creatively toxicity is there to stay and all game designers can do is make sure that it doesn't become harassment/dangerous by giving player tools to curate their own (like joining a guild, having a friend list, etc) and have some restrictions in place. Something I really miss in wow for example is you can't account ignore someone unless you added him as bnet friend. And something that was done in this way for me in wow was the removal of master loot, some players were having toxic interactions because it so all players had to lose it.
P.S. I do believe that solo queue might be more toxic, but you're basicly making the experience of a lot of players worse when only some of them might be more toxic in it. Lot of players also consider getting declined in groups toxic behavior/elitism, so for them it might be less toxic to have solo queue.
I agree with you that you are sacrificing something by removing solo queue. To be clear, I'm not saying you should have to remove solo queue or even solo queue ranked to address the issue, and I only briefly touched on some "solutions." It could be as much as conceding that some level of unwanted player behavior is to be expected in a solo queue ranked experience. What bothers me is the insinuation that the toxicity is purely a player problem, when it's more complicated than that (and to be fair, the Fair Play Alliance admits that as well.)
Also agree with you regarding master loot and the ability to ignore players without having them on bnet, good points.
Good article. I think it's the height of naivety to assume that big developers don't rig matchmaking systems to increase engagement. Likely they have done so since the very beginning, as player intuition has intimated. Why wouldn't they?
Increased toxicity, as you point out, is an unsurprising byproduct of the progression treadmill developers have carefully engineered. The industry then has the temerity to yell, scream and bluster at its own toxic creations. The sheer hypocrisy of this industry never ceases to amaze me.
Holy shit what a great read, and to think you wasted your time at Blizzard when you could've been the Hunter S. Thompson of the gaming world. I guess you still could?
I spend too much time at the Overwatch forum, presumably for some masochistic reason I've yet to resolve, and I comment on these topics a lot... most recently on the subject of R6:S removing match chat, and threads about how 'the matchmaking is rigged', when really I can't think of a competitive game that has more variance than Overwatch and yet so many players don't seem to understand that sometimes players on either team are peaking and sometimes they're having a terrible game. No, it has to be the matchmaking! ...so this really spoke to me, maybe in a narcissistic way as it's affirming a lot of my own perspectives. xd
I've been playing OW since it released and after reaching GM in an easier season with the expectation that the environment and attitude of the players would somehow improve I now only solo-queue QP, and I've never enjoyed the game so much. Sure the highs aren't as high but the lows sunk to the depths of humanity and that just wasn't a place I wanted to hang out. The turn around time is quicker and so a bad game doesn't last as long nor does waiting for the next one. After 5 years I mostly just play to enjoy the fluidity of the game/gun play and the gratification of landing my arrows... yes, I like Hanzo and I'm not ashamed of that.
That said, I think one of the worst decisions the OW team made as it pertains to 'toxicity' is showing players their SR. I think subconsciously it causes players to hold their team mates responsible, both pro and retro actively... which is irrational, but so are our expectations most of the time. Giving your 'skill' a value gives it more meaning which tethers to part of the players identity which leads to more 'toxicity', or something.
Anyway, thanks for that.
Interesting point of view. From my experience as a gamer I mostly agree that game design can encourage toxicity and yes it can solve most of it. Problem is, do you want to ruin the experience of all other players because some of them can't control themselves? By making your design less competitive, less stressfull, less time efficient (having to find a group for example) and less social.
So yes unless you're willing to go to great lenght and restrain yourself creatively toxicity is there to stay and all game designers can do is make sure that it doesn't become harassment/dangerous by giving player tools to curate their own (like joining a guild, having a friend list, etc) and have some restrictions in place. Something I really miss in wow for example is you can't account ignore someone unless you added him as bnet friend. And something that was done in this way for me in wow was the removal of master loot, some players were having toxic interactions because it so all players had to lose it.
P.S. I do believe that solo queue might be more toxic, but you're basicly making the experience of a lot of players worse when only some of them might be more toxic in it. Lot of players also consider getting declined in groups toxic behavior/elitism, so for them it might be less toxic to have solo queue.
I agree with you that you are sacrificing something by removing solo queue. To be clear, I'm not saying you should have to remove solo queue or even solo queue ranked to address the issue, and I only briefly touched on some "solutions." It could be as much as conceding that some level of unwanted player behavior is to be expected in a solo queue ranked experience. What bothers me is the insinuation that the toxicity is purely a player problem, when it's more complicated than that (and to be fair, the Fair Play Alliance admits that as well.)
Also agree with you regarding master loot and the ability to ignore players without having them on bnet, good points.
Good article. I think it's the height of naivety to assume that big developers don't rig matchmaking systems to increase engagement. Likely they have done so since the very beginning, as player intuition has intimated. Why wouldn't they?
Increased toxicity, as you point out, is an unsurprising byproduct of the progression treadmill developers have carefully engineered. The industry then has the temerity to yell, scream and bluster at its own toxic creations. The sheer hypocrisy of this industry never ceases to amaze me.
yo that dinosaur egg thing killed me. and i was alrdy dead