- Joined
- Mar 5, 2018
- Messages
- 163
Since joining in the spring of 2018, I’ve come to see Major Command as an oasis of good behavior in a world where poor sportsmanship is all too common. With very few exceptions, this game features player interactions that are characterized by goodwill and grace in defeat. I’ve been the beneficiary of experienced players proactively reaching out and coaching me, something that I believe is uniquely common in this environment. Coming from deep experience in other online gaming communities, such as League of Legends, MC is a delightful and welcome change of pace for me, and I’d imagine, a key attribute of Major Command’s improving player base and player retention statistics.
That baseline of courteousness makes it all the more jarring when heated disagreements do crop up. Bad attitudes and hostility expressed here stick out and make a memorable impact on those who witness them. As is in ample evidence elsewhere in online gaming, they have a high contagion factor that can stir an otherwise welcoming community into a vortex of negativity. Consequently, incivility and its causes are taken lightly to the detriment of all.
This piece focuses on the rare bad conduct I have had occasion to witness. My objective here is to help elucidate the causes and contributing factors of unfriendliness and to explore opportunities for systemic intervention that could help to keep Major Command special as the player base expands.
Identifying Root Causes:
Admittedly, my sample size is small, so I will defer here to others with deeper experience.
Diplomacy
Use of Diplomacy features (diplomatic messages and agreements) appears to be a common point of disagreement among players. Many players will have faced the problems that arise when only three parties remain in a game. Uses of explicit and secret diplomatic agreements in such situations are almost always prejudicial and are by their very nature unfair for those excluded.
Unwritten convention is frequently cited by experienced players in such situations, reminding game participants when use of diplomatic features should be avoided. Such reminders have proved to be problematic in my experience, with players chafing at having to abide by rules not explicitly included in game literature and not precluded from the feature-set.
As has been discussed at length elsewhere in the forums, the problems of diplomacy extend far beyond three player and three team games. Effective use of diplomacy is, at present, frequently a decisive factor in game outcomes. This frequently leaves involved players feeling cheated, especially if they are on the wrong end of diplomatic coordination.
In-Team Coordination
The strangest way conflict arises is from disagreements in private team chat. One typical example is when one player, or a group of players, is being communicative about strategy but another party abstains from discussion and acts independently to the team’s detriment.
Supposed Collusion and Suicide
Anyone who has played this game long enough will have witnessed circumstances that raise suspicion of plays made in bad faith. The most common variety is when two or more players appear to act in secret coordination to the detriment of others. Suicide is a subset of this, where one player sacrifices their own chances at winning by throwing their forces in a fruitless attack against an opponent, thereby giving a third party an easy opportunity for advantage. Conveniently, such behavior is explicitly against the rules and already has a mechanism for correction through the cheater-reporting private support forum.
Preexisting Enmity
When players arrive to a game with an established grudge things tend to get ugly fast. In a small community where a few players are highly active and engaged in a large percentage of active games, this category of incivility has the capacity to crop up frequently. Few people know how to properly deescalate an ongoing disagreement and some are unreceptive to attempts to rectify animosity.
Targeting Behavioral Change
Disagreements on Major Command frequently remain civil. The expression of opposing perspectives is a normal feature of any healthy community. It is only the differences in opinion yield to bad-mannered disputes that we need concern ourselves with.
Actionable cases are easy to identify. They almost universally include the use of foul language and, in rare cases where they don’t, bystanders and those on the receiving end of personal attacks may be relied upon to bring suspect conduct to the attention of the community.
Corrective Actions
It should be the objective of any corrective action program to disrupt cycles of bad behavior, guiding those who engage in hostility towards right action and reintegration with the community. In rare cases, an outright ban might be necessary. Normally, the community should expect that offenders can be reliably changed.
Changing the behavior of bad actors should be a straight forward process using incentives, disincentives, and explication of proper conduct.
Incentives might include:
• More explicit visual representation of honor status, allowing highly honorable players to show-off their reputation and serve as an example to others.
• Increased privileges
• Explicit rewards for long term good behavior
Disincentives might include:
• Explicit visual representation of bad honor status. Public shaming is incredibly powerful.
• Temporary chat restriction
• Temporary restriction of total game count
• Temporary banning
These ideas are far from comprehensive, and some may well be entirely inappropriate for Major Command. As with everything else I’ve posted in the forums, I’d be very interested in the opinions of community members on this topic.
Reference Material
League of Legends, a game that reached over 100 million monthly active users, suffered from an extreme case of regular poor player behavior. As the game has matured, Riot Games, the developer, has poured considerable effort into course correction for the community. Some of what they have tried has worked, much of it has failed. Their lessons learned might well serve to inform future developments on the player behavior front for Major Command. Here is a brief overview of the literature on the subject specific to League of Legends: Summoner Code, Tribunal, and Honor System
That baseline of courteousness makes it all the more jarring when heated disagreements do crop up. Bad attitudes and hostility expressed here stick out and make a memorable impact on those who witness them. As is in ample evidence elsewhere in online gaming, they have a high contagion factor that can stir an otherwise welcoming community into a vortex of negativity. Consequently, incivility and its causes are taken lightly to the detriment of all.
This piece focuses on the rare bad conduct I have had occasion to witness. My objective here is to help elucidate the causes and contributing factors of unfriendliness and to explore opportunities for systemic intervention that could help to keep Major Command special as the player base expands.
Identifying Root Causes:
Admittedly, my sample size is small, so I will defer here to others with deeper experience.
Diplomacy
Use of Diplomacy features (diplomatic messages and agreements) appears to be a common point of disagreement among players. Many players will have faced the problems that arise when only three parties remain in a game. Uses of explicit and secret diplomatic agreements in such situations are almost always prejudicial and are by their very nature unfair for those excluded.
Unwritten convention is frequently cited by experienced players in such situations, reminding game participants when use of diplomatic features should be avoided. Such reminders have proved to be problematic in my experience, with players chafing at having to abide by rules not explicitly included in game literature and not precluded from the feature-set.
As has been discussed at length elsewhere in the forums, the problems of diplomacy extend far beyond three player and three team games. Effective use of diplomacy is, at present, frequently a decisive factor in game outcomes. This frequently leaves involved players feeling cheated, especially if they are on the wrong end of diplomatic coordination.
In-Team Coordination
The strangest way conflict arises is from disagreements in private team chat. One typical example is when one player, or a group of players, is being communicative about strategy but another party abstains from discussion and acts independently to the team’s detriment.
Supposed Collusion and Suicide
Anyone who has played this game long enough will have witnessed circumstances that raise suspicion of plays made in bad faith. The most common variety is when two or more players appear to act in secret coordination to the detriment of others. Suicide is a subset of this, where one player sacrifices their own chances at winning by throwing their forces in a fruitless attack against an opponent, thereby giving a third party an easy opportunity for advantage. Conveniently, such behavior is explicitly against the rules and already has a mechanism for correction through the cheater-reporting private support forum.
Preexisting Enmity
When players arrive to a game with an established grudge things tend to get ugly fast. In a small community where a few players are highly active and engaged in a large percentage of active games, this category of incivility has the capacity to crop up frequently. Few people know how to properly deescalate an ongoing disagreement and some are unreceptive to attempts to rectify animosity.
Targeting Behavioral Change
Disagreements on Major Command frequently remain civil. The expression of opposing perspectives is a normal feature of any healthy community. It is only the differences in opinion yield to bad-mannered disputes that we need concern ourselves with.
Actionable cases are easy to identify. They almost universally include the use of foul language and, in rare cases where they don’t, bystanders and those on the receiving end of personal attacks may be relied upon to bring suspect conduct to the attention of the community.
Corrective Actions
It should be the objective of any corrective action program to disrupt cycles of bad behavior, guiding those who engage in hostility towards right action and reintegration with the community. In rare cases, an outright ban might be necessary. Normally, the community should expect that offenders can be reliably changed.
Changing the behavior of bad actors should be a straight forward process using incentives, disincentives, and explication of proper conduct.
Incentives might include:
• More explicit visual representation of honor status, allowing highly honorable players to show-off their reputation and serve as an example to others.
• Increased privileges
• Explicit rewards for long term good behavior
Disincentives might include:
• Explicit visual representation of bad honor status. Public shaming is incredibly powerful.
• Temporary chat restriction
• Temporary restriction of total game count
• Temporary banning
These ideas are far from comprehensive, and some may well be entirely inappropriate for Major Command. As with everything else I’ve posted in the forums, I’d be very interested in the opinions of community members on this topic.
Reference Material
League of Legends, a game that reached over 100 million monthly active users, suffered from an extreme case of regular poor player behavior. As the game has matured, Riot Games, the developer, has poured considerable effort into course correction for the community. Some of what they have tried has worked, much of it has failed. Their lessons learned might well serve to inform future developments on the player behavior front for Major Command. Here is a brief overview of the literature on the subject specific to League of Legends: Summoner Code, Tribunal, and Honor System