Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Further escalation of the clusterfuck-tensions

61 posts, 1465 views
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 4 (61 records)
sort
in relation to https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/32271

quote:
If you demand perfect wording every time then you demand that the moderators spend a lot more time doing a thankless task.


i don`t think that is thankless because without it the whole discussion would have been a lot more fruitful. Neither SGrankLu5ck nor me doubt that GBrankczesio crossed the lines with teamkilling and and that spam of hostile comments. I don`t "demand" perfect wording either. It is just that the "playing badly" part has spawned a lot of discussion and conflict in the recent past already.
(Btw, SGrankLu5ck was is GBrankczesio's team in that game)

quote:
Making your case with relation to GBrankczesio will just make your argument look terrible.


completely agree and support.

so:

If the position of the admin-team towards the way clusterfucks are regulated is completely unquestionable (unquestionable things being problematic in general imho, but anyway), then be it so. Still, this creates at least two problems. The smaller one is that it unintentionally contributes to things like the thread linked above, even if it in no way justifies this behaviour. The second one is that it somehow undermines effords for decent team-play. It is hard to take those games serious at all when you always have at least one troll or really bad (plus maybe even uncooperative) player in your team, for whatever reason. This creates a cycle where more people feel that putting efford into the game is punishing, hence they play below their abilities as well. I think RUrankFirepluk has already said countless times that he feels that way.

I accept and understand that the All-Welcome-Room should stay All-Welcome. But are you, independant of this, comfortable with a situation where a player like DErankManu12 only plays once every two weeks or ROrankSigero not playing at all anymore because of this?
Thats why i suggested having the paladium more often. This would basically leave the AWH untouched and at least offer us some more posibilities to have satisfying games.

I could also host a private passworded room, but i suspect i would have to keep it up for a LONG time until enough players are aware of it. It also has some other disadvantages:

- It would also be even MORE exclusive to many people as they couldn`t even spectate.
- I would be afraid of password-leaks. I wouldn`t like to be forced to kick people out.
- I suspect the room wouldn`t be visible for many people, because of the "hide passworded rooms" option. So i would have to constantly announce it in the lobby-chat.





+0 / -0
45 days ago
High elo room should always/much more often be available. Why is it not, again? I remember few new guys saying they even like to just spectate in it because its awesome to watch and learn. Or do you, new guys?

Czesio frustration stupidity would likely not happen in high elo room. Or if it did, you'd likely get a quick booting.

What is !proposebattle? (dont answer)

I'd rather be quickly killed by an enemy purple at my front than slowly by the friendly red dwarf at my back.

+1 / -0
quote:
doubt that GBrankczesio crossed the lines with teamkilling


He also reclaimed USrankpatrician paladin to build his singu in same game. As it wasn't his first grieving action in recent times then it could be also ended with ban.
I think that was marked as 'playing badly' not just singu building.
+1 / -0
45 days ago
+0 / -0
DErankkatastrophe I think I have to address some meta-level things, given how frequently this conversation has repeated itself.
quote:
If the position of the admin-team towards the way clusterfucks are regulated is completely unquestionable (unquestionable things being problematic in general imho, but anyway), then be it so.

Here you fail to draw the distinction between "unquestionable" and merely having received a disagreeable answer. The regulation of the big teams rooms has been questioned, answered, and even experimented with on multiple occasions. You keep asking the same question and receiving essentially the same answer. Asking again isn't going to change the answer unless someone comes up with new ideas or the situation changes significantly.

Setting up the "other side" as being unquestionable is a very bad way to start a conversation with that "other side".

The answer to your question is the combination of a few simple facts:
  • Being welcoming for new players is a necessary condition of the ongoing health of the multiplayer community.
  • Not having any public games available to join and play is unwelcoming. Being able to see an active game but being excluded from playing it is particularly unwelcoming.
  • Enough people dislike high skill variance in games to make them choose to play in an elo-restricted room rather than an All Welcome room.
  • The playerbase during a not-insignificant amount of the day is only large enough to support a single large team room.
  • Seeding new rooms is risky and difficult, to the extent that people often end up spectating a game they cannot play rather than go create a game that they can play.
The conclusion from all these facts is that a permanent elo-restricted large teams host would result in the destruction of the community. It wouldn't be swift or noticable at the time, but after a few years we'd look at a shrinking community, wonder why all the new players dried up, and then realise that no new players came in because it was too difficult for them to play a public game.

In short, this
quote:
Thats why i suggested having the paladium more often. This would basically leave the AWH untouched and at least offer us some more posibilities to have satisfying games.

is plain false. The All Welcome room would obviously be impacted by the creation of an exclusive room because the two rooms would compete for players.

Before you pick apart the minutiae of the five facts I presented, the facts are not making black-and-white claims. I'm not saying that seeding a room is impossible or that the high-elo room would invariably be the only room available. The facts are all merely factors that make it a bit harder for new players to enter the multiplayer community. If you make it hard enough for people to enter a community then the community dies. Look at how many of the currently active players joined within the last year and halve that number.

DErankkatastrophe it is all a matter of tradeoffs. Your repeated posts of this nature certainly tell us that this is something at least a few people care about, but it doesn't tell us how many people care about it and to what extent. There isn't much data with which to make this tradeoff. The thread by DErankManu12 is a bit better but isn't much data because, while most people would agree that having more strategies and less skill variance in games would make the games more fun,
  • people don't say (and are probably bad at judging) how much they value this improvement,
  • the forums is likely a vocal minority that doesn't accurately map to who plays games,
  • people who talk on the forum wouldn't necessarily start playing low-variance large team games, and
  • the thread was about meta and balance too, not just skill variation.
It is also hard to judge how often a bad situation comes about from skill variation, and there could be other social or mechanical solutions to these bad situations that don't involve room management.

To hold more fruitful conversation on this topic you will need to:
  • Propose solutions from the perspective of realising that your desires are just one of many sets of competing desires. Simply stating "here are my desires and how to fulfill them" is redundant I know your desires and don't disagree that your proposals would satisfy them (at least temporarily until the proposal kills the community). A tradeoff must be found.
  • Acknowledge and address the five facts above. Find solutions in reference to those facts.
  • While not necessarily required, it would be useful to gather convincingly impartial information that can be used to gauge the magnitude of the tradeoffs. How many established players are significantly negatively affected by the current system? Would a proposal fix their problem, or was their problem an unconcious proxy for a deeper problem? What does player influx and retention look like at the moment?

On your reference to the previous thread:
  • If you want to claim that moderation issues around "playing badly" are common then cite examples that are actually relevant.
  • It is ridiculous to expect SGrankLu5ck to be paying attention to who started what between GBrankczesio and USrankpatrician.
  • GBrankczesio has "high elo" so you're not going to be excluding him from a "high elo" host.
+0 / -0
45 days ago
Czesio has high elo, but he do in this battle nothing:

http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/972777

First he insulting me, tell me iam a ass, and other insultings/griefings.

Then he do nothing, and start build a Singu....

Then he going total afk...

and this was not a clusterfuck game!
+0 / -0
45 days ago
quote:
He also reclaimed USrankpatrician paladin to build his singu in same game. As it wasn't his first grieving action in recent times then it could be also ended with ban.
I think that was marked as 'playing badly' not just singu building.


Yes, he Damage with his pure badly playing and griefing/sabotage the games.
+0 / -0
quote:
Here you fail to draw the distinction between "unquestionable" and merely having received a disagreeable answer. The regulation of the big teams rooms has been questioned, answered, and even experimented with on multiple occasions. You keep asking the same question and receiving essentially the same answer. Asking again isn't going to change the answer unless someone comes up with new ideas or the situation changes significantly.


Here you fail to aknowledge that i have asked different things over time, i got your opinion about new players the first time (years ago) and accept it completely. I have experessed this multiple times already.

quote:
In short, this
quote:
Thats why i suggested having the paladium more often. This would basically leave the AWH untouched and at least offer us some more posibilities to have satisfying games.

is plain false. The All Welcome room would obviously be impacted by the creation of an exclusive room because the two rooms would compete for players.


1. Not that we didn`t have an "expierienced only" host two times already that got closed because no one played in it.

2. Note also that i wrote MORE often. I dind`t choose those words arbitrarily.


quote:
The answer to your question is the combination of a few simple facts:

Before you pick apart the minutiae of the five facts I presented, the facts are not making black-and-white claims.

Acknowledge and address the five facts above. Find solutions in reference to those facts.


That is what i meant with unquestionable. You tell how the world IS, then protect those views from criticism, then demand me to aknowledge them and act according to them.

I have already done exactly that.
- I have said that recognisng and occasionaly fulfilling the needs of other players COULD create a more welcoming athmosphere for new players, this was recieved as a malicious attempt to "shift blame" on them. "Blaming" and seing "unintentional contribution" is a difference. I also aknoledged that it is unrealistic and unfair to expect new players to communicate or play a certain way.
- The proposal of a mini-tutorial was a try to get a compromise done. This was deemed technically impossible and socially unacceptable.
- After that, i was trying to find a solution that leaves the AWH untouched. Your comments above are saying that it is impossible to host other rooms without affecting the AWH to the point of zk dying.

quote:
A tradeoff must be found.


I don`t know if you are realizing it but i already try to find this tradeoff.
Like maybe hosting the Paladium 3 times a month instead of 2.

quote:
Simply stating "here are my desires and how to fulfill them" is redundant I know your desires and don't disagree that your proposals would satisfy them (at least temporarily until the proposal kills the community). A tradeoff must be found.


You have already said that those desires are not just mine. I will repeat what i said earlier:

quote:
If there is a group of people that constantly gets ignored and declared unimportant by you, while you neither provide alternatives nor showing the will to alter your position even the slightest, then you are effectively telling them to leave the game. This is neither fair nor productive or useful.


At this point i don't know what to say more. I cannot do more than to think about how to make the games more satisfying for many players and making proposals. The game doesn`t JUST consist of new players. Yes, we got a lot more players, but we are also consistently losing players because they feel their needs being dismissed and ridiculed. I can only beg you to show insight into that and that this ALSO hurts the community and your with it your goal of having a florishing game that makes people happy to participate. It´s your turn now.


I guess i will stop making those long posts. They feel like a giant waste of time. I will limit myself to just point out when we get more drama and people snapping or leaving because of this.




+0 / -0

45 days ago
quote:
I will limit myself to just point out when we get more drama and people snapping or leaving because of this.

Communities have drama and people leave. It is a thing that happens. I for one am not going to be impressed when you try to shoehorn each instance of this into your narrative.

I was already not impressed by you dragging your pet topic into the czesio thread when it seems pretty clear that czesio is acting like a jackass even when he doesn't have the excuse of playing in a clusterfuck.
+1 / -0
45 days ago
quote:
How many established players are significantly negatively affected by the current system?

As the current system is loosely defined I will specify what that means for me: being forced to play with people that I absolutely hate playing in the same team with (and that set would be 2-3 high ranked players, noobs are mostly ok). I would prefer to spectate a game rather than team up with certain characters. Would not name people here, it's a matter of personal opinion - I will say though that I don't mind playing with Firepluk for example.

quote:
Would a proposal fix their problem, or was their problem an unconcious proxy for a deeper problem?

The deeper "problem" is that everybody values something else in the game. Some like crazy strategies. Some like cheese. Some like winning. Some like porcing. I do not think it's a problem, it's more like how groups are. I do not think it would be beneficial to make arbitrary low granularity communities, but any possibility to control a bit more what you get rather than "lobster pot" OR "being killed by top 10 in matchmaker" would be good. Things like proposal battle but implemented enough to be usable (on propose battle, among other: show how many already accepted, ability to cancel join, list of proposed battles).

And on the topic of high elo room. Would the problem with the community size be less if you have the high elo room available only when lobster pot has more than 20 players? I have seen on weekend many times 16v16, don't think a high-elo room would have been then a too big problem. And disable it when population in open rooms decreases below a threshold.
+3 / -0

45 days ago
quote:
I was already not impressed by you dragging your pet topic into the czesio thread when it seems pretty clear that czesio is acting like a jackass even when he doesn't have the excuse of playing in a clusterfuck.


criminality-prevention doesn`t claim that criminal acts are justified nor does it claim that the victims of criminality are to blame. what i am trying is to do conflict-prevention as far as possible.
recognising what lead to czesio acting like a jackass doesn`t excuse the behaviour and trying to prevent cases like that is beneficial for everyone here.
+0 / -0

45 days ago
quote:
recognising what lead to czesio acting like a jackass

My point is that you have no evidence as to what led to czesio's behaviour besides what you would like to be true in order to push your same old argument.
+0 / -0
I have talked to him in private and observed his comments for a long time. I sadly cannot look into his head. I cannot prove ANYTHING definitely but i think i got a pretty good understanding.
As far as i see it:

- was a pretty unremarkebly player regarding his behaviour for really long (correct me if i am wrong)

- got upset about people that he percieved to be playing bad on purpose in clusterfuck

- got upset about being percieved as someone who is elitist in general

- https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/32223

- gets ONLY shit (although deserved) in the above post

- feels as even more unimportant to you

- for whatever reason (real-life, addiction to zk maybe) avoiding zk is not an option.

- throws next temper-tantrum, assumingly because he sees no other way to vent. Goes way overboard.


I don`t know about anything you or other admins communicated in private obviously.

+0 / -0
quote:
- got upset about people that he percieved to be playing bad on purpose in clusterfuck

In your exegesis, this seems to be the turning point. Either the player seeks to cultivate an environment in which they can play at a higher standard, or they seek to go off the rails and "punish" the others for not providing it.

I would assume that a player who seeks to cultivate an environment with a higher standard of play would be a regular in the high-elo event room, but i don't think i've been observing that here or here.

Consequently, i don't even think that higher availability of the high-elo room would change things. I am also not certain that you could avoid the bad transition here by cultivating some culture of pursuit of higher play in opposition to the culture of "lel lobster cooked" - again, because that's readily within reach, but one is not grasping for it.

Is there any experiment that you would stage to determine if this even works? Do you have any other intervention in mind?

quote:
- feels as even more unimportant to you

[Spoiler]

quote:
- for whatever reason (real-life, addiction to zk maybe) avoiding zk is not an option.

This is called pathological use. Don't do it.

Unfortunately, RTS is one of the genres that seems to be more susceptible to causing this. I would advocate that if you find yourself in such a situation, you actually need to figure out how to play less.

If you feel like providing counseling to people who feel that their life is getting destroyed by their addiction to ZK, please do so.

Additionally, if someone really feels like they need to lay off the lobster to retain the goods in their real life (cases such as exams, or work deadlines), we do provide bans by self-request.

However, this was not about one of those cases.

quote:
I don`t know about anything you or other admins communicated in private obviously.

Personally, i am neither qualified, nor do i get paid enough to provide free psychological counseling to everyone who plays a game that i sometimes contribute to in other ways for free.

It is wonderful that you seek to provide that service to the project.

I don't see what your conflict is though with following through with harsher measures if this fails (e.g. gets from the "feels upset about players who play worse than him" to "actively blows up ally units").

You keep saying that of course at this point mod action is necessary; but yet, this thread exists.

Could you clarify on this?
+1 / -0

45 days ago
(need to finish paper in the next 30 hours, will insert answer here later)

+0 / -0

45 days ago
quote:
(need to finish paper in the next 30 hours, will insert answer here later)



Plz don't kill forum.
+0 / -0
Hi~

As mentioned in the previous thread, I am aware the reason behind the ban aka GBrankczesio's reclaiming and teamkilling. However, I would like to highlight again that I also understand his/her rage aka the root of the issue.

In another thread, I also mentioned that there is a difference between being untalented and being deliberately bad/trollish.

The thing is in cluster room, while most people are playing to their capability, you only need a few black sheeps to fuck it up for everyone. These few black sheeps are enough to make some people stop playing. AUrankAdminGoogleFrog, regarding about the amount of people that cares, cares enough to complain, I think it is reasonable to say that people also believe the administrative team is not gonna do anything about it even if they do complain. I mean, the complains weren't first of its kind either. It is a old problem, it has persisted.

Take for example, there was a match where DErankSnowlob was building fusion at frontlines and beside players' factories, I reported it, was he/she warned for that? I doubt. Does he/she know is a bad thing to do? Of course, that is why he/she did it.

USrankShaman, top 50 in the casual ladder, he was seen building newton jump pad, was it useful? You tell me.

How about USrankpatrician? He usually seen building strider at the back, many times building 2x to 3x the caretakers of his income. Sometimes even starting detri off the start, as someone who played thousands, as in 7k+++ games, don't tell me he doesn't know that (detri right off the bat) is frown upon?

The list could go on.

As mentioned in other thread, why should these people's fun be more important than others?

PS: Just to elaborate, I don't agree with GBrankczesio becoming part of the issue like trolling like they did/do.
+2 / -1
45 days ago
quote:
I also mentioned that there is a difference between being untalented and being deliberately bad/trollish.


The problem here is subjectivity. Making the decision of whether behavior is deliberately bad or the result of a lack of knowledge/talent puts more burden on the mod to gauge, based on his subjective viewpoint, whether to ban or not based on the behavior. Different people can have a different view on this, and a mod may make a judgement call that many others in the community would disagree with. Since there's no way to establish an objective rule on this, you can end up with a mod that abuses their power or is at least perceived as abusing their power, and there's no right answer. Who's the final judge anyway? There are already several complaints in the Steam reviews about unfair bans, and it's hard to say something's fair when the judgment is subjective.

There's also a lack of precision here. When you introduce subjectivity like this, imprecise concepts like "untalented" vs "trollish," where do you draw the line between the two? And you also have to take into account the skill of the player, right?

We can all agree teamkilling is very clear-cut and defined. Jump a skuttle on a teammate, blow them up, etc. Maybe you can reclaim a solar if it's blocking your factory, i.e. gaining strategic value.

But are we going to moderate an inefficient use of resources...?
Starlight as first building: Certainly won't finish, provides no value to team.
Bertha rush: This will finish soon enough, and provide value... but it won't have as much impact early on as a factory would... is this trolling?
Singu rush: Big eco boost, maybe better to start it later... is this trolling?
Spamming phantoms: costs a lot of power, low DPS/cost... is this trolling?
Say a unit gets super-buffed, hotfix is on the way but right now it's so dominant that clearly you should use this unit. What if you use a different factory because you don't want to use this unit... is this trolling?
Going amph/hover in a sea lane and losing to ships... is this trolling?

This list could go on too.

Do we want to ask everyone to play optimally all the time? Semi-optimally? No experimenting? No experiments costing over 2000 metal? Even if the answer is "yes", how do you moderate that? How do you apply this fairly?
+5 / -0


44 days ago
I think the attitude problems of certain community members overshadow the damages of individuals doing silly stuff by a considerable margin.
+3 / -0
44 days ago
USrankTitanShadow12

And that's why these black sheeps took advantage of these grey areas; subjectivity, benefit of the doubts, etc. You know if these black sheeps keep to their own games, deal with their own shits, nobody cares. However, when they step into a cluster game, a team game that filled with dozens others and start doing their shit at expenses of the team....in other words, the fun of this minority is built upon the expenses of others.

Let put it another way. If a purple start building a newton ram, are you fine with that? If a purple start building detri at the start, are you fine with that? If a purple go and build fusion right beside everyone's factory, are you fine with that? If a purple squad up with another purple to rush a nuke or spam bb or pala, are you fine with that?

If you are fine with any of those, great, you win your argument but if you not fine with any, just even one of those. I have to ask you why? Why can't they do those things?
+1 / -0
Page of 4 (61 records)