Being a jerk could force you to pay more on Steam

[noTuX]

There are always gonna be assholes around. It is the internet after all.

Making a person pay more for being a dick will probably make them act even more dickish because of that whole "sense of entitlement" thing people tend to have.

The only solution I can think of, is to implement a better voting system. If a person is being a dick, then get rid of em. But of course, this system will be abused as well.

From my experience with the various Socom games I play, you will be voted it you're not that good, too good, a noob, a kid with an annoying voice, not in a clan, in the wrong clan, not willing to accept a clan invite, not white, a female that is not showing tits, not speaking english, talking too loud, not talking loud enough, camping, running out and getting killed to quickly, being racist, not being a racist, black, have the word "black" in your name (cause then, you're black), gay, not drunk, and using certain weapons (noob tubes) even though they are part of the game.

Dicks are gonna be dicks, no matter what. Attempting to punish them will result in major online networks getting hacked...

*cough* PSN *cough*

[The Derrit]

dota has the worst community in the world

never goin to happen

on topic: it will be interesting to see how this is implemented. this sounds like it will flop, but who knows.

completely fact i tried to play online after playing with my friends and after the first game someone flamed at the host until he kicked me out for no other reason then "i don't like him"

actually retarded

[big giant circles]

I play L4D2 now and then. Do you know how often one team will ragequit because the other team outclasses them completely? And the better players will lose voicechat because of it? How does that make any sense?

I think the focus would be a way to tell if people on your own team are leaving. Ragequitting because you are getting soundly trounced by another team is pretty common. I'm pretty sure it would be easy enough for them to detect obvious differences between other teams quitting because a team is obliterating them vs someone's own teammates leaving because they are a jackass.

And if it's pattern based, it would probably be easy to tell if driving your teammates away it's a consistent occurrence.

[SotSS]

For games like online FPS', just let people host and moderate their own servers. Some people/clans might abuse their mod powers and ban people unjustly, sure, but going all the way back to Tribes in '99, I've never played a game with dedicated servers and mods where it wasn't a piece of cake to find at least a couple of servers with good mods who would keep the morons out and let everyone else play.

In a game like DotA where there aren't really "servers" but individual game sessions, game replays can used to prove that someone is, say, team-killing, or doing other less-than-desirable behavior. Add in the ability to record audio for those times when someone is constantly shouting racial slurs, and give the ability to copy chat logs, and you can take all this information to the forums or send it to mods and there you have proof that player YooABitch is a dickwad.

[Cecilff2]

I think the focus would be a way to tell if people on your own team are leaving. Ragequitting because you are getting soundly trounced by another team is pretty common. I'm pretty sure it would be easy enough for them to detect obvious differences between other teams quitting because a team is obliterating them vs someone's own teammates leaving because they are a jackass.

And if it's pattern based, it would probably be easy to tell if driving your teammates away it's a consistent occurrence.

Yeah but then it punishes bad but not necessarily dickish players. The ones stuck on the trounced teams.

[big giant circles]

I'm not sure I understand those who are staunchly opposed to this notion. Help me understand. 1. Are you somehow worried that you yourself might be unjustly caused to pay more for games/features? Or 2. are you really that concerned about defending Johnny McGriefer's "right" to not have to pay more for a game? Or maybe 3. you're a griefer yourself and don't want to get any flak for it? Or 4. is there some other reason?

Because if 1. I wouldn't worry about it, I doubt that will happen.

If 2. Why are you bothering to do favors to people who will do none for you?

If 3. You are a douchebag and your opinion is invalid.

If 4. Please elaborate.

Yeah but then it punishes bad but not necessarily dickish players. The ones stuck on the trounced teams.

Not necessarily. If people are legitimately unplayable bad as teammates, they'll probably either learn to start playing with friends or stick to single player. But I do see your point, and if a system like this were put in place, I'm sure Valve would probably spend a lot of time working out whatever it is that analyzes the player's effect on others, good or bad.

[Gollgagh]

I have never seen a reputation system that wasn't completely fucking broken; I really don't like the idea of having a pay-grade system tied to that. If you can show me that one of these systems can work, that would ease my worry significantly.

Of less importance is the fact that I utterly despise meta-games and this would turn all of steam into one big meta-game.

[Schwaltzvald]

Welp I'd probably have to say good bye to a part of online gaming; at least in regards to Valve if shit like this gets implemented. Isolating a certain group of players based on past poor behavior beyond a server admin banning them from the server is just stupid. Vice versa, having innocent players actually be concerned constantly whether their reputation gets trashed and having to defend it in some twisted mockery of a judicial court system in regards to having privileges to actually play a game or be discriminated for trivial issues is absolutely disgusting.

What a way to not only suck the fun out of gaming but to also shit on everybody who enjoy online gaming in general.

PS: the DoTA community makes the Halo community look like saints that shit rainbows, delicious moeblobs and actual fun.

[zircon]

I sincerely doubt Valve will implement as stupid a system as "click here to say this player is a jerk!" As has been said multiple times, it sounds like one of their ideas was behavior-based instead, and focused on reward. If you bring players to a server and people follow you around, that means you have a good rep. It IS possible to design systems like this that are hard (or impossible) to game due to how they are constructed.

[big giant circles]

Somewhat unrelated, but you know, I'm not sure there's any one game that can boast the "worst community ever" award. Gamers are just prone to be selfish, whiny, impatient, demanding dicks. That's sort of a fact that reaches across a lot more games than just DotA or Halo or L4D.

I still don't see how anybody has answered any of my 4 possible ideas why this idea is being so scorned by a few. Please specify?

[Doulifée]

so my friend and I get a lot of heat online because we speak French on the mic. I can see how people who don't speak the language would not want to play with us, so I guess with this system I would be considered an asshole

french curses > all i should play more with you.

[Nicole Adams]

The problem with this idea is it's positive punishment. On the surface, people may think the introduction of an aversive stimulus (paying more) would deter people from acting like jerks, but studies have shown positive and negative punishment are not nearly as predictable as using reinforcement and they don't necessarily decrease the likelihood of a behavior. Like OA said on page one, "just make the players who are fun to play with get rewarded [use positive reinforcement]."

[Crowbar Man]

Not sure why the topic keeps floating back to "bad people paying more"

I'm pretty sure its rewarding people who make people happy, like giving out special items / discounts.

But everybody starts at base price, good or bad. You don't do anything to build a positive community, you just dont get special items / discounts. Not "pay more".

I would imagine it like "Your server got a good rating for 3 weeks in a row, heres a promo code for 5% off your next valve purchase" or something along those lines.

Not "JESUS WHY IS YOUR RATING SO LOW? WE'RE CHARGING YOU DOUBLE, FOREVER, JERK. OH AND PLEASE DIE IN A FIRE. Your friend, gaben"

[Nicole Adams]

The fact that Newell says, "Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice." is an example of positive punishment. The introduction of this extra fee is meant to decrease the unwanted behavior of the individual.

EDIT: There are two systems of both reinforcement and punishment going on, but Valve should strongly re-evaluate their idea of using punishment.

[Crowbar Man]

I would seriously hope that comment he made would be joking and not a serious business decision, otherwise, yeah, that would be really retarded/stupid.

$100 dollars for voice doesn't sound like he was being 100% serious, at least to me. Unless hes batshit insane...

*remembers theres hats in portal 2

... again Im going to hope that it was a joke. lol

Edit: Unless hes talking about someone who like, on every sever, every game, has multiple complaints from tons of people. Some EXTREME case where someone has been warned over and over, etc.

Even then, why let them pay to get the voice option back (other then its profitable), just ban them for TOS violations at that point.

[Nicole Adams]

Because he is toying with the idea is a problem. Like I said, punishment can be unpredictable and if such a course is taken it could seriously hurt Valve. (Again, not necessarily charging the $100, but using punishment in general.) In addition, there is the other problem that this idea only uses learning theory. There are of course so many other factors that play into a person's behavior, which Valve has no way of manipulating.

[Crowbar Man]

Definitely a good point, even in the example of paying for voice because you are a "bad person" may just make people feel entitled to be able continue their behavior because they paid for it, etc etc.

[Nicole Adams]

Yep, what can arise when punishment is used are compensatory behaviors and other ways of coping. It's just too messy for Valve to even consider.

[RoadiePC]

Just as a thought, why not call it something like metaphorical PaintBall.

Imagine: you play an average of 6 hours of TF2/week, and you have a regenerating supply of "Black"(negative) and "White"(positive) markers(paintballs).

-Markers regen at a rate of one per, say, 3 hours of game time

-each steam account can have a max of, say, 3 markers

-you can use one each each positive or negative mark once per day, ten times total PER PLAYER marked.

-You cannot mark someone unless you're actively playing with them, and once you do, you cannot mark them again for at least 24 hours.

So Jim, Todd, and Andy are all playing TF2, and Bill joins. Jim just plays, no team-play, communication, etc.

Todd is showing Bill tricks & helping him get better, so Bill "marks" him with a white, using up his one white mark for the day. Andy, on the other hand, is a douche, so Bill & Todd both "mark" him negatively.

one hour Later, Jim joins in with helping Bill learn, so Bill "marks" him positively, which he can, since his last white mark was not used on Jim.

It could keep trolls from markbombing victims, since their attention span would most likely rule out following around the same user.

Does this make sense, or am I confusing everyone else as much as I confused myself?

EDIT: minor point revision. Also, the example names are random--Anyone here named Andy(I'm looking at Zircon, who's awesome) is NOT being called a douche.

[big giant circles]

Again, I'm amused at how many people are somehow put-off, offended, scared, shocked, whatever the applicable emotion is at the notion of punishing griefers.

All of you get a big fat LOL. Because the best way to deal with a problem is to just ignore it, and respect it's right to continue to be a problem, riteguys?

I honestly don't care if this actually becomes a real thing so much, but I do maintain that I applaud Valve for even having the balls to discuss a system like this. The "AAAAAAAAAARGHH VALVE YOU SO STUPID FUUUUUUUUUU" reactions are puzzling, but entertaining. You all talk like it would seriously disrupt your lives. Anyway, carry on.

[Gollgagh]

so I explain my worry to you and not only do you completely toss it out the window, you laugh at me

that'll learn me to try to respond to you in any kind of serious fashion

[big giant circles]

so I explain my worry to you and not only do you completely toss it out the window, you laugh at me

that'll learn me to try to respond to you in any kind of serious fashion

My bad, I must have overlooked that. Let me rewind a bit.

I have never seen a reputation system that wasn't completely fucking broken; I really don't like the idea of having a pay-grade system tied to that. If you can show me that one of these systems can work, that would ease my worry significantly.

Again, I guess I don't get what your worry is. I really don't know what else to say here. Your concern has been noted, I just don't get what your major fear is. Why would it be so bad to try out a system that makes decent folks pay less and douchebags pay more?

Of less importance is the fact that I utterly despise meta-games and this would turn all of steam into one big meta-game.

How so?

I mean no offense, but I'm not going to lie, I do find it laughable that people would get so indignant at the idea of punishing people who's primary function is to inflict misery on others. Sorry if that includes you, but whatcanyado?

[Crowbar Man]

BGC: I'm pretty sure the current conversation has swayed towards two general things:

1) The inefficiency of systems like these that can, and usually are, abused by greifers themselves.

2) Whether any sort of "pay more" punishment would even work in the end, would that stop someone from being a jerk, or would they pay and just continue? Again, as stated by Nicole, Valve is assuming the "punishment" will make people stop. Some people have more money and stubbornness than sense or manners. Some people can't/don't learn from "punishment"

I think its an interesting conversation. A little quick to dismiss the discussion :/

To answer your 4:

1. See 1)

2. Nope.avi

3. I am a griefer and a jerk :/ and a bad person ;_;

4. See 2)

Not to say im opposed per se, I just think business sense wise and possible legally, charging people for being "bad" doesn't seem like something they'd really do.

Rewarding people for being good though sounds good in my books.

[big giant circles]

BGC: I'm pretty sure the current conversation has swayed towards two general things:

1) The inefficiency of systems like these that can, and usually are, abused by greifers themselves

2) Whether any sort of "pay more" punishment would even work in the end, would that stop someone from being a jerk, or would they pay and just continue? Again, as stated by Nicole, Valve is assuming the "punishment" will make people stop. Some people have more money and stubbornness than sense or manners. Some people can't/don't learn from "punishment"

I think its an interesting conversation. A little quick to dismiss the discussion :/

Fair point. However, I don't think the point is to make griefing stop as much as it is to simply punish the people doing it and reward the people not doing it. No force of nature can stop someone from being a dick if that's what they're set on. However, I would feel a lot better knowing that they're paying twice as much for the game than I did just so they can annoy others.

Putting people in jail doesn't mean they're suddenly better people, or are going to stop committing crimes when they get out, but I'm glad they're in there because they sure don't deserve to walk around with the same liberties that non-criminals do. Same principle applies here.

*edit* Also, yes, you are a griefer. You strike me with lightning in minecraft all the time (I keed I keed)

[Crowbar Man]

Putting people in jail doesn't mean they're suddenly better people, or are going to stop committing crimes when they get out, but I'm glad they're in there because they sure don't deserve to walk around with the same liberties that non-criminals do. Same principle applies here.

well this is like a jail where you can just pay your way out, so its even less efficient than a real one!

However, I would feel a lot better knowing that they're paying twice as much for the game than I did just so they can annoy others.

People having more money than me AND still being jerks wont really make me feel any better :/

I'm the worst kind of griefer: An admin