| 1 |
[q]have said already that getting toxic is generally unacceptable[/q]
|
1 |
[q]have said already that getting toxic is generally unacceptable[/q]
|
| 2 |
Fair enough.
|
2 |
Fair enough.
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
[q]Does that mean that thoughts about how to change a game-mode "that is liable to make (you) upset" are not viable?[/q]
|
4 |
[q]Does that mean that thoughts about how to change a game-mode "that is liable to make (you) upset" are not viable?[/q]
|
| 5 |
My understanding is that your solution is more or less "verify that everyone meets a competence bar". I doubt this can be had [i]in a public environment[/i] because some people never improve even after years of play. This still retains the option for the people aggrieved by teammate incompetence to play in private invite-only rooms or biweekly on Platinum.
|
5 |
My understanding is that your solution is more or less "verify that everyone meets a competence bar". I doubt this can be had [i]in a public environment[/i] because some people never improve even after years of play. This still retains the option for the people aggrieved by teammate incompetence to play in private invite-only rooms or biweekly on Platinum.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
[q]Again, it is unfair to lay the complete blame to the non-new players as you do.[/q]
|
7 |
[q]Again, it is unfair to lay the complete blame to the non-new players as you do.[/q]
|
| 8 |
I did not say that. Who's straw-manning whom now?
|
8 |
I did not say that. Who's straw-manning whom now?
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
[q]Yes,
as
you
can
see
this
list
is
not
as
long
as
yours.
That
is
because
the
overall
problem
is
way
LESS
with
them.
But
in
the
(
insert
Aquas
better
word
for
"ideology"
here)
that
is
the
official
line
of
you
admins,
they
have
to
take
NO
responsibility
towards
their
team.
[/q]
|
10 |
[q]But
in
the
(
insert
Aquas
better
word
for
"ideology"
here)
that
is
the
official
line
of
you
admins,
they
have
to
take
NO
responsibility
towards
their
team.
[/q]
|
| 11 |
Where did you read that? What is the limit of responsibility that you are willing to demand? How will you check for that?
|
11 |
Where did you read that? What is the limit of responsibility that you are willing to demand? How will you check for that?
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
13 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
As far as i know there is no solution (short of "find 10x more players" that satisfies more than two of these criteria:
|
15 |
As far as i know there is no solution (short of "find 10x more players" that satisfies more than two of these criteria:
|
| 16 |
- Allows everyone with zero skill to join
|
16 |
- Allows everyone with zero skill to join
|
| 17 |
- Forces games that are balanced
|
17 |
- Forces games that are balanced
|
| 18 |
- Forces games to be low skill variation
|
18 |
- Forces games to be low skill variation
|
| 19 |
- Is actionable from inside either player-category given pitiful human nature
|
19 |
- Is actionable from inside either player-category given pitiful human nature
|
| 20 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 21 |
So we have to do tradeoffs. The current tradeoff is "allow everyone" + "force balance". It is not actionable from inside - it is enacted by the algorithms and the people who write them, and it often fails the low variation criterion, which in turn amounts to somewhat sacrificing the happiness of the "veteran" caste, which you in turn blame for some their bitter toxicity. These veterans - if you define that as "people i can trust to not fail disastrously without hand-holding - are the minority, at least for me.
|
21 |
So we have to do tradeoffs. The current tradeoff is "allow everyone" + "force balance". It is not actionable from inside - it is enacted by the algorithms and the people who write them, and it often fails the low variation criterion, which in turn amounts to somewhat sacrificing the happiness of the "veteran" caste, which you in turn blame for some their bitter toxicity. These veterans - if you define that as "people i can trust to not fail disastrously without hand-holding - are the minority, at least for me.
|
| 22 |
\n
|
22 |
\n
|
| 23 |
(As an aside, i notice quite a few highly toxic noobs, who usually get the stick and then leave negative reviews on Steam about how admins are nazi. So i don't actually subscribe to "bad games, therefore toxicity" explanation; from my experience, bad apples tend to be already bad to begin with).
|
23 |
(As an aside, i notice quite a few highly toxic noobs, who usually get the stick and then leave negative reviews on Steam about how admins are nazi. So i don't actually subscribe to "bad games, therefore toxicity" explanation; from my experience, bad apples tend to be already bad to begin with).
|
| 24 |
\n
|
24 |
\n
|
| 25 |
As far as i understand, your alternative suggestion is more or less "force balance" and "force low variation" at cost of "only let auto-vetted players in" and "enact by dev/algo/admin power". Aside from its efficacy in actually raising the skill waterline, this still amounts to throwing the new players under the bus instead of the veterans. In my humble opinion, though, the majority of ZK players are incompetent.
|
25 |
As far as i understand, your alternative suggestion is more or less "force balance" and "force low variation" at cost of "only let auto-vetted players in" and "enact by dev/algo/admin power". Aside from its efficacy in actually raising the skill waterline, this still amounts to throwing the new players under the bus instead of the veterans. In my humble opinion, though, the majority of ZK players are incompetent.
|
| 26 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 27 |
Your tradeoff throws the majority under the bus. Why?
|
27 |
Your tradeoff throws the majority under the bus. Why?
|
A thread about community management