Theory of Laws in MMOs
I know I caused some trouble with this Puzzle Pirates thing, but it's a good case study. This post is long and rambling and unevenly written, so sorry about that.
Matthias really struck the heart of the matter when he said "The MMOG genre usually relies on the spirit of the game rule to ensure that as many people as possible have fun." This is where our difference in ideology lies, and everything is just a consequence of that.
Here's a random thought to chew on: "directly maximizing as many people's fun as possible is sometimes counter-productive." The CPL thinks you can maximize the spectator's experience by making rules about not hiding in corners in an fps game, but that will certainly lead to tournaments no one wants to play in or go to. "Maximizing the fun of as many people as possible" also smacks heavily of the "tyranny of the majority" concept. A majority might decide, for example, that Jewish people should be persecuted, that gay people should have fewer rights, and so on. Allowing those things would "satisfy the most number of people." (This is by definition, since in this hypethetical we're saying the majority wants these oppressive things.) So in the United States, we have rules to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority." There are some things that the majority doesn't get to push on other people, at least not so easily.
So does this system of rules we have in the US fail at "maximizing the fun/happiness of the majority"? After all, the majority might want to do something, and they can't. Yet...if they could, then the damage to the world or the society might be so great that no one would end up being happy.
Also note that "protecting the rights of the individual" are important in the above concept. Individuals have a few rights that are important enough that they can't be trodden upon just if the majority wants to. Also note that the things the majority can't do is a relatively small set. The majority is free to pass all sorts of laws about all sorts of things, as long as they don't violate the important, small set of "constitutional rules."
So now I offer you two possible systems of rules for MMOGs.
System 1: Sirlin's Pro-Individual Laws
A) The point of this system is to give the players as much freedom as possible. This system asserts that to do otherwise is counterproductive to creating a community. Players are free to pursue anything in the game they like, whether or not it was intended by any game designer, and whether or not anyone else thinks they should pursue them...as long as they act within the rules of the game.
B) The game creator asserts that there are a very few areas where the rights of the indivdual need to be secondary. Any behaviors that crash servers, for example, are not allowed, even if the method uses only "legal" moves. An exploit that produces or "duplicates" in-game money or very valuable items is also in this realm, as such a behavior leads to immediate, irreperable harm, even when done through "legal" moves. The game creator does have room for discression here, and the rules are on purpose somewhat nebulous. Stopping game-destroying bugs is more important than individual player's rights.
C) There is a large class of behaviors that seem "unfair" or "too good" and yet are technically legal and that do NOT fall under the above paragraph's "emergency powers." Examples from World of Warcraft would be a method of splitting linked monsters so they can be fought one at a time; the advantages of fighting on rooftops where city guards cannot reach you; using a warlock and rogue combo to pull a boss to an area where the fight is substantially easier; using the build-in macro system to backstab with a sword, even though the designers only intended backstabbing with daggers, and so on. These behaviors provide advantages to some individuals, but they are not world-shattering. They also make other players "unhappy" and sometimes feel "griefed." But that's the price everyone pays to play in a free system where seemingly arbitrary codes of conduct are not used.
D) When exploits are discovered, the game creator must decide whether they are "world-shattering" or not (ie, if they fall under paragraph B or C). If they are not world-shattering (and the overwhelming majority of all exploits are not), then the course of action should be to quietly fix the exploit. Players who use the exploit in the meantime are not punnished at all, as any such system of punishment creates too much burden on the behalf of players. Players should be allowed to use all legal moves available to them, as long as they do not violate paragraph B. If the game creator discovers a world-shattering exploit, then the course of action is to immediately announce that all users of this exploit will be warned in-game, then banned. In the meantime, the creator will fix the problem as soon as possible.
System 2: The Pro-Group Laws
A) The point of this system is to protect the "fun" of the largest number of people. A very few people always ruin the fun of the many, so the few should either stop doing that or be kicked out. It's impossible to list all ways that someone could make someone else unhappy so the rules are left intentionally vague. Note that this system is basically the same as System 1, except that Paragraph B) of System 1 is expanded to include almost everything.
B) If enough people are unhappy about a behavior and/or if the game creator is unhappy about a behavior, then the "spirit of the game" rule can be invoked at any time to legislate out otherwise legal moves. This means that these behaviors are still possible to do by using only legal game rules, but doing them is prohibited and leads to a warning, then a ban.
C) Somehow, the creator must maintain an even hand. There are so many gray areas that enforcing gray-rules fairly and evenly without discrimination or internal corruption becomes a major concern. Players are also faced with an artificial set of nebulous rules on top of the actual coded game rules. Even though Sirlin highly frowns on additional artificial rules of almost any kind, the creator feels negatives are outweighed by the positives of satisfying "the majority." Individual rights of players never existed in the first place since the creator owns the universe. If a minority enjoys riding the edge of rules but they are causing trouble, then there is no problem with banning them, as the majority is what matters.
What type of community will develop under each of these rulesets? Is one ruleset better than the other if you had to start a new government in a new country (and you weren't allowed to choose democracy)?
--Sirlin
July 21st, 2005 at 4:55 pm
The answer to your question is actually pretty basic: it depends on the size and structure of your community.
If you’re talking about a system involving millions of people (for example, the United States) hard rules are necessary and the only logical choice, as grey rules are inherently corruptable and abusable, often with no one to be held accountable.
But in a small system, say with only a few dozen people, this can become a lot more simple. A teacher can send a student to the principal’s office, not because he or she has absolute authority over the student, but because grey rules can be evaluated fairly on a case by case basis.
I disagree with “spirit of the game” rules in most MMOs because there are far too many judgement calls to make such a grey rule clear. However, with Y!PP, it appears that even with the large number of players, even this grey law even comes up rarely, with each case given adequate scrutiny. I therefore think that the rule is justified in this case.
Whether the enforecement of the rule itself was fair is another story entirely. RD found what you can barely even call an exploit (midnight raids in MMOs date back to Trade Wars 2002; that it’s announced in advance seems to make it even less sneaky). Both sides can access the exploit (buy surrendering the island and then taking it right back). Because the community declares this to be “mean spirited” is ludicrous. RD found a clever way to take a quick advantage of the situation he was in.
Yes he was ruthless, even mean, but its easy for an island-holder to sit back and call this behavior anti-social, if it keeps them their island. Laziness to secure hyour status is not a shield to hide behind.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Oh, forgot to sign that one. I guess I should go to the effort of getting a Blogger account.
John Bono
July 21st, 2005 at 11:48 pm
I’ve never met anyone in charge of anything that was intelligent enough to be trusted with ruleset #2.
July 25th, 2005 at 7:50 am
well, system 1 puts much focus on the developres
they have to fix bugs and stuff as soon as “exploits” and such are found, which costs manpower and money
its easier to rely on rules than to make the game exploit-save
July 26th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
The problem with hard rules is that it makes the system very rigid and ultimately boring.
The #1 killer of MMOs and MUDs is banning all innovative gamers because they were “breaking the system” or “ruining the spirit of the game.”
Suddenly, no one wants to try new ideas in the world because they’re afraid of being banned!
Once the rules are so rigid it eliminates all freedom, the game becomes boring, and the ‘majority’ quits.
If someone’s legal technique is so powerful that others complain about it, then your best options are:
1) Add a hard rule to fix the activity. It must be hard, and not subjective (the 24-second rule in basketball is not called the “don’t hold the ball for too long without shooting” rule, for example.) This creates gameplay around the new rule, and helps keep the game alive for longer.
2) Accept the break as a legal tactic. This option is extremely powerful and can make or break the game. In Diablo 2, each ‘broken/overpowered idea’ changed the class heiarchy (”Assassins are the best this time”; “Sorcs suck in this patch”) and kept the community interested. This rule can completely change the way the game works, and keeps it alive long after the original content gets boring.
System #2 is much less likely to use these rules. It instead bans anyone who has a game-changing idea. The game will eventually grow stale and the majority of players that it tried to protect will get bored and go play the Next Big Thing.
System #1 keeps the game alive by transforming the playfield and introducing new content to the game, keeping the game alive. And lifetime is the most important aspect to an MMO.
July 26th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
As pointed out, Blizzards approach to WoW is very much a babysitter mentality ;
“This hunter just sniped me from that roof”
“well why not call a rogue friend to stealth up there and kill him?”
“pfft ill just petition a GM and blizzard can make getting on roofs an exploit”
Lineage2 on the other hand, takes a completely different approach - every single player dispute is left to the players to resolve, thanks to the games “free-for-all” system -
another player trained 20 mobs on you and you dropped your 5million gold armour and weapon? ok go kill him.
another player is stealing your mobs? ok go kill him.
L2 and WoW are two polar extremes, and obviously Blizzards approach to player disputes caters to the mass market rather than the seasoned MMO veteran.
Unfortunately it seems that Blizzards carebear mentality is now rubbing off on more than just its casual gamers.
Recently threads have begun to emerge over on the Archimonde server forums, complaining about a weapon “The Judges Gavel”, the Gavel by comparison to lvl 60 weapons is fairly weak with no additional stats, what it does have however, is the chance on hit to imprison the target..meaning if you swing long enough whatever you’re hitting will be unable to move….in CTF games this also has the side effect of making your target drop your flag if he has it, thus breaking stalemates and ending games fairly quickly.
Horde guild “Nurfed”, one of the “top” guilds, has been behind calls for the Gavel to be “nerfed” - see the irony?
If you see an enemy coming towards you and you know he’s wielding a gavel, it shouldnt be that hard to defend against, but no! much easier to whine on the boards..
So I guess this backs up what Chadius said :
“The #1 killer of MMOs and MUDs is banning all innovative gamers because they were “breaking the system” or “ruining the spirit of the game.”"
Banning, or labelling a tactic/innovation as “cheap” and “overpowered”.
-Andrew Lee
July 27th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Not every weapon is balanced on first inception Andrew. Those players feel that a particular weapon is too powerful and are requesting that it be reviewed. Probably a good idea if it ends matches too quickly.
As I said above, I’ve never met anyone smart enough to be trusted with ruleset #2. That doesn’t mean tactics should not be tested and looked at ever again. Given the size of MMORPGs nerfs are going to occur.
Calling for use of the weapon to warrant a banning would be sad, trying to prevent the game from becoming about a single tactic is not. (Whether or not this is true for your example is not the point.)
JIM
July 29th, 2005 at 4:03 am
yeah, but i guess whatever ruleset you applay, there will ALWAYS be people who complain
lets take the game i play mostly, natural-selection
its quite well balanced, has a welldefined ruleset, but many people for example complain about scripting or bunnyhopping
if there was no scripting or bunnyhopping, people would complain about other things, thats the way people are
they prefere to complain over working on themselfes
July 29th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Know whats great about MMOs they are evolving to keep the a lot elitists (cough.. Sirlin..cough), from exploiting and getting away scott free.
Example: In guild wars a patch introduced an exploited where an easy quest could be redone over and over for massive amounts of exp in a short amount of time. Users than repeated the quest over and over had their accounts banned the next day. Even though anyone could do this quest and everyone and their mother knew about the exploit, most user decided not to use at and report it as a bug.
July 30th, 2005 at 8:48 am
thats how it should be, and thats(if i understand correctly) how sirlin means it should be
if there is an exploit, fix it hardcoded ingame, dont make up rules
July 30th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Should/Could probably drag this into a full article. Which would be appreciated.
July 30th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Blizzard is very babysitter-ish at times; another example is in the CTF map, the Horde base has a place on the hill where you can run up that has no equivalent on the Alliance side. It also has a couple of advantages (near to respawn point, length and “outdoors”) over the normal ways to get in.
Running up this hill is now considered an exploit, which I find very silly, even if it gives an advantage for Horde over Alliance. (Of course, the Alliance could try using to graveyard camp the horde, or provide faster backup to their flag carrier at the start. Not as easy an advantage in either case, but maybe they could find something to make it so).
On the other hand, WoW is built with a long patch cycle, due to code size, complexicy, etc. So in cases where things should probably be fixed (such as the hill example above, if Alliance players don’t come up with anything) they may have a while before they can do it. And “We don’t want you doing this, but we’re just going to sit on our ass about it until the patch comes around in a month” can sound wrong.
In the Judge’s Gavel example, a simple rule can be drawn, at least - any action taken to force a player to drop the flag except through his own actions or his death is an exploit - at least until they fix some of the immune -> drop flag stuff.
August 1st, 2005 at 4:07 am
im not much into that mmorpg-stuff, but dont have other mmorpgs like daoc have tighter patch schedules?
seems its possible
on the other hand, by now i guess wow is a bit bigger than daoc
August 2nd, 2005 at 10:57 am
The “elitist” accusation is actually a compliment in this context, as well as something most people apparently don’t (but should) consider a goal. If you are the best in your class, it’s because you pushed the envelope and questioned why things should be as they are, while the rest of the sheep allowed themselves to be lured into such ridiculous explanations as “the spirit of the game.” The best of the best doesn’t interpret the intent of the designer, except to the extent the designer successfully conveyed that intent within the design of the game. As some have pointed out, the best players can transform a game into something even better or with a broader range of interest than it was ever intended to be or have.
What the “elitist” whiner above was really complaining about might be this: now that MMOs cater to a wider variety of player, the losers (i.e. scrubs) are upset that the winners keep upsetting their narrow-minded, carebear worldview by challenging designers and programmers to think past a reflexive ban and be more creative, to become better than that. Dude, read this website. Better yet, read Sirlin’s book when it comes out (I hear it might be just a matter of weeks) because it was aimed at people like you. If you are the best of the best at playing, then you are in a position to demand that others push themselves to improve on their way of thinking, designing and programming. If you are the best, those of us who recognize it might listen to you. Mr. Whiner, if you ever get there, we might listen to you, too. kggthxbye
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:32 pm
I’m sure elitist is a compliment to Sirlin and many other gamers too, because their goal in playing a certian game is to become elite. A large part of eliteness (and in MMO’s moreso than any other game) is dedication. Whether this dedication is good or bad is all in the point of view.
If I lost because I didn’t press the punch button 999 times in a row, ok I’m a scrub to you. Now from my point of view your a scrub to me, because I probably quit playing a went for a jog before you finished pressing a button 999 times.
See thats what us “scrubs” do, we leave. And when we leave that just makes all the elitists normal players.
So now we know: elitist use what they think is esoteric knowledge, bugs, and unintended advatages that have no counter. Scrubs leave. Finally we get to communities and game designers you try to fix this mess.
Now when communities and game designers step in, elitist display two new traits. They sneer at community rules and stick out their tounges and say “you can’t make me”. And when game developers implement these rules they cry.
I know we are just playing games and maybe thats where these immatured attitudes come from. Before 1991 baseball didn’t have a rule outlawing steriods but people using them then are no less a cheater that Bonds and Palmero today.
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:10 pm
The last two posts both contain some good points, so kudos.
“So now we know: elitist use what they think is esoteric knowledge, bugs, and unintended advatages that have no counter.”
A better way of looking at the “elitists”, is that they push the envelope, this does not necessarily mean that they are reliant on bugs and “unintended advantages”.
-Andrew Lee
August 3rd, 2005 at 10:27 am
Awww, I hurt Mr. Whiner’s feelings.
“If I lost because I didn’t press the punch button 999 times in a row, ok I’m a scrub to you. Now from my point of view your a scrub to me, because I probably quit playing a went for a jog before you finished pressing a button 999 times.”
You incorrectly assume I’m one of these elitist players, or that I’m a player at all, or that calling me a scrub would hurt my feelings. I’m not, I only play a few games (not very well), I don’t think twice about irrelevant insults, and I only make that last point so this discussion doesn’t degenerate into a silly name-calling argument. But I am successful at what I do, for the same reason the best game players are successful at what they do, and why we all read this blog. Your posts indicate that you are not such a person. You might be buff from all that jogging, but it takes more than that to forge a career, assuming you have one, and even if it’s athletic in nature.
You are not a scrub because you couldn’t push a button for the 1000th time. You are a scrub because you don’t understand whether or not that button is going to help you win the game, or whether you should push a different button, or whether the game is broken and should be fixed because it’s all about That Button for the win (which is one point of the YPP thread). Elitists recognize the entire button problem, regardless of whether the button is real or metaphysical, and that is why they are the best of the best.
It may be true that the scrub leaves if he can’t win (although that’s not really the definition, it’s just a side effect). Winners find a way to win, either in a computer game or in real life. If you couldn’t pass the 6th grade, that jog isn’t going to help you get your degree. If you couldn’t figure out college-level physics, then maybe it wasn’t for you, but you might have to re-think med school. Again, going for that jog is useless if you were hoping to be Joe Whiner, M.D. instead of Joe Whiner, B.S. If the button was required for the M.D., then going for the jog was a poor choice. I’m not explaining this to hurt your feelings (although I must admit, I’m enjoying your new moniker, you can call me Elitist if it makes you feel better), or for the benefit of elitists who already understand the concept. Some people who are trying to get something out of this website might need it for their own self-improvement, and I’m hoping that those who add to the debate will make some useful points for my benefit, as well.
One point Mr. Whiner might not have intended to bring up is that, if scrubs are the target market, then designers should cater to their needs and whims regardless of whether their rules make sense. It might be true that catering to the lowest common denominator is simply good business, which is why Jerry Springer is still on the air. This might offend someone who constantly strives for improvement in himself and others, but money is money and I have no counter-argument to that. Except that catering to the lowest common denominator might lead to a tyranny of the majority, etc., as the original post observed.
“Now when communities and game designers step in, elitist display two new traits. They sneer at community rules and stick out their tounges and say “you can’t make me”. And when game developers implement these rules they cry.”
Isn’t crying what you’re doing by complaining that the winners keep beating your (or whoever’s) game (well, not really you, but it looks like you’re taking that side of the debate)? Besides, the whole point of saying “You can’t make me” is to bring attention to the bug that cannot make the player do what the designer intended. If you cannot make me do what you intended short of banning me from certain completely do-able actions, then you have failed to design a competitive game. This particular issue is not just limited to games. In real life, businesses and individuals need to know what they can and cannot do, and they sometimes file lawsuits when the law is ambiguous or even counterintuitive. The “spirit of the game” is exactly the kind of ambiguous rule that invites lawsuit-like activity.
“I know we are just playing games and maybe thats where these immatured attitudes come from. Before 1991 baseball didn’t have a rule outlawing steriods but people using them then are no less a cheater that Bonds and Palmero today.”
I don’t profess to know about baseball, but doesn’t it ban the use of performance enhancing drugs such as steroids or other enumerated examples? If that’s the case, then the ban is on some definition that people must interpret, which gives them a kind of discretion that might not translate as well in the computer game context (someone who knows how to program games might be able to answer that question, but Mr. Whiner does not appear to be qualified). The point is that the steriods example is useless to the discussion at hand, unless you were offering an example of a potentially ambiguous rule that will lead to tedious debate over whether excess protein enhances performance in the same or different ways than steroids, or whether the steroid ban was sufficiently defined so that people should have known how to act before the word “steroid” was even mentioned. Ex post facto laws are so serious that we have a constitutional amendment against them, which is another good reason not to include them in your game of choice, thanks for raising the issue.
Back to the discussion on rulesets. Word to Comment #3. If the classroom theory actually worked in real life, then why did someone accuse Cleaver of having a group of darlings, and why could I always talk myself out of detention in the 7th grade?
August 4th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
“One point Mr. Whiner might not have intended to bring up is that, if scrubs are the target market, then designers should cater to their needs and whims regardless of whether their rules make sense.”
This to me is the eternal conundrum, and one perhaps worthy of a separate post all of its own.
Who does a developer design a game for:
“The hardcore player/elitist” - the minority.
“the casual player/scrub” - the majority.
Let’s use World of Warcraft as an example. Blizzard promised the hardcore MMO player that World of Warcraft would be worth their time. Blizzard hired two of the most prominent EQ players, Tigole and Furor [fohguild.org/forums] to help with Raid and Quest design. Clearly a move designed to bring the EQ raid community onboard to WoW.
However, whilst Tigole and Furor in the past were very vocal about EQ’s failings, it seems this hasn’t helped them avoid making some of the same mistakes - the recent bugged and rushed release of the games second raid dungeon, Blackwing Lair, is only further confirmation of this.
In addition, as mentioned in previous posts, Blizzard is very carebearish and babysitter-like, and increasingly adds new rules to enhance the gameplay of the casual/scrub.
All of the endgame dungeons, have since release been made easier to allow less experienced/less skilled/ less hardcore players to experience that content.
Can you blame Blizzard for this? WoW has massive sales figures and subscription numbers because its early game is so welcoming to the casual player, it makes sense to allow those players to experience the “difficult” endgame content to keep them playing.
So, what does a developer do -
design a game for the elitist, gain critical acclaim and a small but loyal fanbase.
or
design a game for the casual/scrub, poor reviews, little to none competitive play, and a game that tops the sales charts [at least until The Sims Xpac 345 or EA “generic sports sim 2k9″ is released]
-Andrew Lee
August 5th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
The rule system is vastly too complicated. That’s the problem with most MMOs. With a simpler system (or at least with simple dominant rules,) everyone becomes educated about what’s “broken” and what’s “OK.”
Diablo (the original) is a good example. Everyone knew about hex editing their characters to godhood. Clans proudly declared themselves as “Cheating” or “non-cheating.” And that was that. Non-cheaters decided that it was more fun to play a game where the risk was greater.
Maybe we need MMOs where you can affect your challenge difficulty, AND you can reject people from dungeons/challenges based on your power/level.
You want the ultra hyper power that breaks everything? OK, here you go. The scrubs don’t want you in their team ’cause it’ll break everything. But the hardcore guys are figuring out how to break it even more. Go test it with them!
It’s a crazy idea, but until designers can force everyone to play a game exactly how they wanted it to and still have fun (IMPOSSIBLE,) it might just be better to “have it your way.”
I mean, scrubs and elitists did pay the same amount.
-Chadius
August 5th, 2005 at 8:11 pm
“You are not a scrub because you couldn’t push a button for the 1000th time. You are a scrub because you don’t understand whether or not that button is going to help you win the game, or whether you should push a different button, or whether the game is broken and should be fixed because it’s all about That Button for the win (which is one point of the YPP thread). Elitists recognize the entire button problem, regardless of whether the button is real or metaphysical, and that is why they are the best of the best.”
The problem with this (for me at least)is the meta-game becomes more important than the game. All the good players are playing the button pressing game, while the casual players the “actual” game.
Its obvious from my posts which game I prefer. Unfortunately the elitist gamers destroy the type of game I enjoy. Since there is more like me than the elitist (or they wouldn’t be very good elitists) pressures eventually force the designers to destroy the game they enjoy.
“This particular issue is not just limited to games. In real life, businesses and individuals need to know what they can and cannot do, and they sometimes file lawsuits when the law is ambiguous or even counterintuitive. The “spirit of the game” is exactly the kind of ambiguous rule that invites lawsuit-like activity.”
There are different expectations of actions in large and small communities. You might be deemed clever for figuring out ambigousness and loop-holes in coporate law but figure out a way not to pay your neighborhood association dues and your neighboors won’t be so enamored with you. Isn’t that a pretty picture, you can call your neighbors scrubs and they can go complain and get the loophole fixed and shun you for the rest of your life.
“Ex post facto laws are so serious that we have a constitutional amendment against them, which is another good reason not to include them in your game of choice, thanks for raising the issue.”
Now this is something I really want to agree with you on. If the ability to make laws or rules lies in the hands of the wrong person they could easily destroy the fairness of the game. The ex post facto laws can also be used to introduce fairness back into the game. When rape only carried a 5-10 year sentence it was unfair to the victims of the rapists. Now it carries a much much higher sentence and previous victims have no way of getting some justice.
– Mr. Whiner
August 6th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Until City of Heroes, I was pretty much bored with the idea of MMOs. WoW committed the same grave sin as everything else, and we really haven’t gotten past that problem. Almost MMOs fall into “PK level treadmill” trap:
Gain levels -> Gain power -> Figure out which build works the best -> Become better than everyone else.
And the problem lies in that. How do you tell when you’re better than someone else?
The scrubs compare numbers to figure it out. The better character has a higher level, better defense, better offense, faster attack speed, etc. This sounds like the “actual” game Mr. Whiner is describing.
But to elitists, level doesn’t matter. Eventually everyone will hit the max level. So now it comes down to
techniques, weapons, game engine exploits, anything and everything that requires more than just numbers to give you the win. This sounds like the “meta” game Mr. Whiner is pointing out.
So it’s a bad situation for PK level-treadmill MMOs. Either allow teh elitist to “break” the ruleset and scare all the scrubs away, or babysit everything and piss off the elitists, as well as bore the scrubs until they quit and find something better to do.
It’s the biggest reason I’m not a fan of MMOs that rely on PvP. They should concentrate on PvE (City of Heroes) or be super-crazy-social (A Tale in the Desert.)
-Chadius
August 6th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Taking abreak from the current argument, I’d like to head in a slightly different direction. I don’t know if you all play Halo 2, but cheating on Xbox Live is common, and very annoying. I’d like to know all your opinions (particularly Sirlin’s) on modding Xboxes, lagging people out of a game, and other “exploits.” Is this something that a player should be able to take advantage of, and Bungie and the Halo community at large don’t think is in the “spirit of the game”? Or should these be considered “game-breaking” glitches, and are rightfully banned?
Dawolffman
August 6th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Cheating is not playing to win. That should really be obvious if you understand the concept in the slightest.
What you have basically asked is if Sirlin thinks it is ok for you to break your opponent’s fingers at the arcade.
Did you even think before you typed that out? Can you think?
JIM
August 7th, 2005 at 10:12 am
That’s just the point. Is it cheating? There are problems with the code of the game, problems with the networking setup, problems with Xbox Live and the nature of the Internet. Is exploiting this cheating? What is cheating, anyway? It’s my personal opinion that modders and hackers ans such are rightfully banned, but I’d like to know everyone else’s opinion on the issue. Did you even think before writing THAT message? Becuase if you had, you would have realized that I wasn’t asking whether cheating is right, I was asking whether people thought it really WAS cheating. You don’t need to reply, either; I think you’ve made your opinion on the matter pretty clear already.
Dawolffman
August 7th, 2005 at 10:39 am
Could we maybe abstain from trying to insult the other side here?
I’ve always thought the concept of playing to win isn’t about doing everything possible but rather not holding back because of morals or ethics or whatnot.
I think the answer to most of your situations lies in how it’s done.
I’d say modding the Xbox is an example of how you can change the game enough where you’re no longer actually playing the same game.
Any win there is rather meaningless.
Lagging people out of the game sounds like a pretty game-breaking tactic.
I’d say go for it though, for the sole reason of exposing it as a broken game.
If however you need to run the server yourself, or have to run external programs in order to do so, I think it’s well out of the scope of the (any) game you can think of.
People keep jumping around on the concept of “spirit of the game” here. I mean what’s it supposed to mean anyway?
What the majority of the community thinks it should be like? What the developers feel it should have been like? What serveradmins usually agree on being acceptable?
Give a definition if you will, and the arguement will be easier.
– N00b
August 7th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
It all really depends on if these lagouts and other allegedly cheating methods are possible from within the game itself. If you have to run a second program, and Bungie hasn’t explicitly said that it’s okay, then it’s cheating.
If it’s just running in certain patterns or trying to overload their connection by sending chat messages, well then it’s not cheating (though considerably mean).
You have to be more specific to meet Sirlin’s definition of acceptable practice. If you read all of Sirlin’s articles on Sirlin.net though, your questions will probably be pretty easy to answer.
-John Bono
August 8th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
I wonder if Sirlin, or any of you, have seen this
http://forums-en.wow-europe.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-gmmessages-en&t=95
-Kyx
August 10th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Feeling lonely? Hook up with Real Singles now for $4.99 to connect, and only $0.99 a min. A true match is only a phone call away. Give it a try 1-800-211-9293.
August 10th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
Kyx,
That blizzard post about Lord Kazzak “codes of conduct” is the most offensive thing I have seen in a while. Blizzard has gone way, way in the wrong direction on this. Ugh.
Why even have this encounter if it has so many “extra” rules on top of the actual game rules?
–Sirlin
August 11th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
It was only a matter of time I guess, but 2 guilds on my server got a 3 day suspension for giving eachother free alterac valley wins.
Basically, 40 from each guild queue up for AV battleground, they /afk out if they don’t get matched up with the other side, they let one team win the first game for free honor points, then the favour is returned.
When you have 40 people on one faction getting effortless Honor Points, everyone else on that faction has to earn more Honor in order to rank up, so clearly getting free wins fucks up the honor curve.
The kicker is, after 2 and a half days, Blizzard overturned their suspensions and removed the warnings from their accounts.
So basically, it’s not ok to try and stop another raid group from killing Kazzak, but it IS ok to cheat the honor system and make it harder for everyone else on your faction to rank up.
Blizzard, you’re retarded.
-Andrew Lee
August 16th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
That reminds me a lot of what happened a few years ago at USFIRST (a high school robotics competition). The scoring for individual matches was taken by multiplying number of boxes in the highest stack a team (composed of two robots) had times the rest of the boxes on their side of the field. The winners didn’t get thier score, but three times the score of the losing team.
Many teams quickly realized that in competition, if they could agree not to knock over their opponent’s stacks (say, at a height of six boxes), they could both get far more points out of the match losing than they would have otherwise. And winning made an even bigger difference. Keep in mind that normally, it’s hard to defend even a stack of three boxes.
So people started making agreements–usually 5 or six box stacks, and they would compete against eachother as if those stacks didn’t exist. If your stack was knocked over, then you’d knock over your opponent’s as retaliation.
Immediately after this started happening, many teams started petitioning judges to penalize teams for the practice, suggesting they throw out scores of even matches that had aleardy passed.
The judges response went something like this:
Since there is no way to determine whether every scenerio of stack agreements is pre-arranged, or even implied or agreed upon in any way (after all, other teams could just be bad at controlling their robots).
Also, it is not the teams’ job to so narrowly determine a ’spirit of the game’ clause in such a situation (after all, the isn’t the spirit of the game cooperation and learning).
There was more to it than that, but basically they said that the game was still just as interesting, and not really that broken, especially given that there was no discrete enforcement possible.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:23 am
Nice discussion going on here!
Okay guys, just wanted to add why I prefer the “babysitter” approach to all games.
When rules are used that were obviously not intended by the designer and/or totally change the game, it seems the game enters a stadium of concern. These moments can either make or break a game for players.
(example: The hill problem in WoW will make players feel that the Horde have an unequal advantage, or other players will see it as an extra layer of strategy)
I’m personally mixed on this one. But if there’s one thing I don’t like, is examining a game, reading the rules, playing for a couple of hours, becoming rather skilled… and then finding out suddenly that the game has to actually be played in a totally different way in order to win at high levels.
I like WoW because it’s an interesting combination of classes that seem nicely balanced. But I’d be heartbroken if (for example) a Rogue became top tier because of a glitch making it’s wand use even better than a Mage’s spells.
If that adds more strategy, that could be more fun, but please make it obvious to the new player that this is a game where rogues play like mages, and that the best character is projectile shooter and not a fair balance between projectile shooters and tanks.
Because I am a picky player. I have thousands of games I can play competitively. I might love Wow, but if the competition isn’t fair or balanced enough to my liking, I’ll play another game.
Then again, I’m perfectly happy not being the best player. I’m happy as long as I get a pleasurable amount of winning for a pleasurable amount of effort.
So, yeah, I’m a scrub to some elite players. Go figure.
August 18th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
There seems to be come confusion over two points that are easy to state, but have so many permutations that it’s hard to see the big picture.
(1) Video games are not real life, and should not be confused with real life despite the temptation to do so.
Unlike in real life, you don’t need to persuade fellow players to live up to your expectations and consequently make the world a better place. Games can dictate some types of behavior by making it technically impossible to engage in others. If you can make a code of honor, ethics or morals unnecessary, it frees up a lot of time to just play the game instead of debating how to play it and who won — there should be no discussion of what Jesus would do, or who will regret his behavior when he meets his maker, in the context of a video game. And yet that seems to be what some people are saying. Isn’t a video game the best place to either act out behavior that is otherwise socially inappropriate, or learn how to counter such behavior, without dealing with real life consequences, so that you will be better equipped to deal with real life? Isn’t it easier to learn these lessons in an environment that doesn’t invite lawsuit-like activity with its ambiguous rules? Ask Paul Hamm whether he should have given up his Olympic gold medal, and when you’re done arguing about it, think how much easier life would have been if they had simply eliminated the possibility to engage in lawsuit-like activity so that people would not be distracted from appreciating the sport. Is that the world you envision for your simple (in comparison) computer game?
With respect to YPP, it seems that people were more interested in a supportive community than in a competitive environment, and they expected Cleaver to mete out punishment according to this unspoken understanding. Thus, the YPP players who support the “spirit of the game” rule appear to believe that the rules of their game should mirror real life behavior. Please see heading (1).
Also, if the game is not going to be competitive, that’s the designer’s choice, but WHY PRETEND? Why delude people into thinking it’s a competition by allowing people to engage in any kind of competitive behavior, like taking over islands?
2) People should know what game they’re playing.
I don’t understand the distinction between the actual and the meta-game, but I’m not sure Chadius’ definition is the same one intended by Mr. Whiner, so I’m not sure whether “expert” and “casual” players are playing a different game. They might have different expectations on how the game and other players should respond to their behavior/tactics, but should the expectations define the game?
For example, take Chadius’ question of how to tell when you’re better than another player. Sometimes, you’re only competing against yourself; at other times, you’re competing with someone else’s access to EBay; at still other times, you’re competing against someone else’s decision to press a particular button, cast a particular spell or use a particular weapon. If Mr. W is referring to those different types of mini-games-within-the-game, then the real problem is identifying which of those competitions you’re faced with at any given moment.
The pro-babysitting poster might not know what game he is playing, which would explain why he would be upset if a rogue could suddenly use an unfair wand. It sounds like he thinks he is actually engaged in true competition against other players. If he’s enjoying himself, good for him. But doesn’t he already know that some people in WoW can EBay, others can grind, their friends can stealth and one-shot kill you while you’re otherwise engaged, one minute you’re allowed to fight on rooftops but the next minute you’re not, there’s an elite boss wandering around but you’re not allowed to fight him unless the GMs approve…? Besides, if the wand is that game-breaking yet not immediately un-programmable, it might fit the criteria for a ban and, as the poster in question might not know, a ban is an acceptable babysitting moment. The Lord Kazzak rule does not seem ban-worthy, because it’s too hard to enforce or because all variations of offensive conduct are not discrete enough to detect.
One original point of the YPP thread is that YPP’s creator is playing a different game in his head, and while some might agree with his thoughts, a game creator is in a special position to dictate behavior to conform with whatever is in his head, so that no one needs to read his mind. More humble posters from the game industry have pointed out that you can design a game that becomes more than what you thought it would be, and when that happens, you might get more fulfillment by swallowing your pride and seeing what happens next.
In YPP, if you’re looking for a role-playing experience instead of a competitive one, then maybe you should shy away from all competitive aspects of the game. If you know how people can act within the game, whether or not you like it, you can adjust your own behavior to avoid any unpleasant interactions that are inherent in the game. If you are clueless, you are headed for disappointment.
“But if there’s one thing I don’t like, is examining a game, reading the rules, playing for a couple of hours, becoming rather skilled… and then finding out suddenly that the game has to actually be played in a totally different way in order to win at high levels.”
How does this comment support the designer’s decision to change the rules on a whim or for violation of the “spirit of the game”? I’m not familiar enough with WoW’s hill problem to have an opinion on whether it’s actually a problem, but anyone with decent reasoning skills can participate in the quest for an answer. If you really did examine the game and read the rules, then point to the sentence that says running up a hill is illegal. Maybe you decided this problem is unfair, based on a different set of rules that’s only available in your own head. Other players may coincidentally share that mindset, but that doesn’t make it an official rule, unless there’s a rule that “We will also follow the mindset shared by a particular set of players, but we won’t state the rules flowing from that mindset because everyone should know what it is.” In which case, please see (1) on how games differ from real life. Again, if the hill problem is game-breaking, it might indeed warrant a ban, but wouldn’t you want to know that whoever gets to impose the ban did the appropriate analysis (by, say, operating within ruleset #1 above)?
If people knew what game they were playing and what mini-games can be played, maybe they wouldn’t be so upset whenever they encounter others who are playing a different game. That right there is the essence of scrubiness, which I wish people would get right, there are articles on this website that explain the concept. I play WoW and suck at PvP, but when I joined a PvP server, I walked in with full knowledge that I could be ganked while picking flowers. Should I be upset that other players actually gank? That would make me a scrub. If I’m mad at anyone, it should be (1) me for expecting people on a PvP server to leave me alone because in the real world, most people would view ganking is a no-no, and (2) maybe the designers for thinking that ganking is in any way competitive and should be encouraged (I’m not sure about the latter point). But I don’t play WoW to be competitive, nor could I be in a world where other characters are more powerful than me by virtue of such un-competitive traits as time spent grinding and amount of friends in your guild. If I’m looking for competition, I should go elsewhere. If I’m looking for a fun way to spend a few hours, I will (and very often do) venture forth in Azeroth. If the pro-babysitter poster thinks he’s being competitive in WoW, that’s his whole problem right there. It’s also the subject of another thread: http://www.sirlin.net/.blog/2004/10/pvp-in-world-of-warcraft-again.html. Maybe if YPP players think they’re being competitive, they should read that thread as well. If you don’t want to be competitive, it’s ok to admit it, that’s not what makes you a scrub. What makes you a scrub is insisting that the game you are playing in your head is the game everyone else should be playing.
“Its obvious from my posts which game I prefer. Unfortunately the elitist gamers destroy the type of game I enjoy. Since there is more like me than the elitist (or they wouldn’t be very good elitists) pressures eventually force the designers to destroy the game they enjoy.”
Getting back to the “spirit of the game” debate, I don’t think this comment supports such an ambiguous rule. If Mr. W represents the majority of players, why can’t they flex their muscles as a community? “Expert” players can force designers to make unbreakable games (and I agree that this ultimately benefits the entire community); “casual” players can simply refuse to buy or play those games, as some people in this thread have threatened to do. Is it really necessary to ask a potentially corrupt dictator to enforce rules, under the (usually false) assumption that he will enforce them exactly the way you want against only the people who, in your opinion, deserve it? Again, you’re assuming that the dictator is playing the same game you have envisioned. Can you name any kind of dictator who ever satisfied the will of all or even most of the people? (I don’t know the answer, but it would be enlightening if you could actually cite an example in enough detail to permit discussion.)
The same goes for the neighborhood association example, because neighbors can also band together to deal with offenders. This example is a bit too far away from game playing, so let’s dispose of it by observing that your neighbors don’t usually call on some higher power, ask for a favor, and have you booted from the neighborhood. Maybe you could decide whether you want to be friends with your neighbors (and let’s not make the mistake of assuming everyone wants to be friends) and use legal means to deal with others, but there would be some due process issues if you were suddenly banned from your own house, and the ensuing lawsuit could very well make the neighbors into, financially speaking, poor losers.
Some have tried to explain why the idea of playing the same game should not apply to a particular community. But Chadius and Andrew Lee hit it right on the head when they explained that sometimes, an innovation can evolve a game into something better for everyone. And, for those who have not read this article: http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm, Sirlin addresses this very idea by explaining that scrubs are the people who are too busy banning behavior that doesn’t fit within the narrow confines of their “code of honor” or “spirit of the game”, that they never push the game to its limits, find counters to the exploits, and breathe new life into a game they’re perfectly willing to write off as broken.
Which brings us to Andrew Lee’s question about which market you should target. Maybe you do what Guild Wars tried to do. People who like the adventure of questing can do so in instanced adventures, without the kill-stealing, uninvited PvP, or other unpleasant interactions. (Maybe you add an option that allows them the thrill of “competing” against others to finish a quest, kill a mob, gain a momentary advantage over a certain area, all without regard for levels or an uneven amount of opponents.) People who like balanced PvP can enter the arena on equal footing, without irrelevant advantages like EBay. You have the option to play the game you want (of course, scrubs will always complain because they don’t know which game that is). Or maybe you do what Blizzard refuses to do (perhaps because it’s too obvious), which is to announce “You cannot play this game to win, there is no winning in Azeroth, but have fun venting your frustrations by ganking low-level noobs, enjoy our amazing graphics, and check out the way our characters dance, baby.” In the end, it’s all about catering to the money, wherever it can be found, no matter how slick your marketing campaign.
As for the ex post facto thing, I guess it comes down to this. I’m a big fan of due process, full disclosure, knowing all the information, etc. It sucks that the world is unfair and that certain people escape punishment (yes, I think the rapist should go free if it wasn’t a crime when he committed the act, I also think rape should carry the same death sentence as murder but it doesn’t, the religion of your choice probably explains that the rapist will be punished in due time anyway, and Batman teaches us that vengeance is overrated). But we should probably stick to games instead of getting bogged down in a broad discussion of criminal law, even though I’m the one who brought it up. Isn’t it better to know when there are rules and when there are no rules, so you can plan around them? It’s less frustrating than complaining that you can’t control other players’ actions.
I might be projecting a bit, but maybe Mr. W’s (and others’) real concern is that the world is an inherently unfair place, and there is no escape from it, even in the fantasy world of your game, and even despite heading (1) above. This is not a disparaging comment; I make it because sometimes I am similarly frustrated. But games, just like my wise parents, sometimes teach us unpopular lessons. Maybe we should thank people like RD, who remind us that the world is unfair and give us an opportunity to learn how to deal with it in preparation for situations that really matter. Maybe instead of trying to avoid the unfairness, we should face it head-on, by ourselves, without placing blind faith in a higher power that is no less human than the rest of us.
August 25th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
Just so you know there are girls out there who find video games really [b]sexy[/b]. I’m a halo 2 addict myself.
Blonde Bomber73
September 19th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
Those last two posts are awesome. The first because I found it very intelligent and well-written. Who the hell are you? You’ve got a lot of things just right.
The second because it’s a blonde girl who plays games, probably a hot one! Who the hell are you, too? ;)
–Sirlin
August 7th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Quoting from Paranoia RPG:
(Which is a mini-MMO if you count 6 players and a GM ;) )
“Well can I stockpile points infinitely?” You ask. But Game balance is seldom an issue in Paranoia.”
(freefor all style)
October 11th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Eh. Andrew’s a fool if he’s going to bash the various sports sims. Unlike his other games, EA can’t change the fundamental aspect of each game, because gasp, the game its emulating in real life is static, and won’t change drastically each year. granted, EA has gotten a tad bit lazy, but the various Maddens are still damn fine games in their own right.
January 12th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Reminds me of skiing in Tribes. Originally an exploit of the game’s physics, but implemented in the later versions as a feature.