Do No Harm

I love this game, and I think it’s very much worth having a discussion about how to support a strong player base.

Using LFG is a good approach to help build community. So is not name-calling. There are many things that are subjective, but calling someone names or making generalized statements about someone sucking or being a noob (vs actually giving specific suggestions about how the group can succeed) is objectively negative behavior. Of course, each of us chooses how to react. My preferred approach is to ask the person to stop and to leave if they do not. I play the game to have fun; that is not my idea of fun. I don’t start a fight, simply state my preference.

Helping other players out also builds community. I’ve had many people help me out over the years, and I probably wouldn’t still be playing if they hadn’t.

I think calling out bad behavior, calmly and respectfully, also helps support the community. I’m not talking about playing moderator. That’s up to the Daybreak. I’m saying that I find it helpful if I’m in a group where one person starts insulting someone else when others in the group ask for the insults to stop. The report function should be used if TOS are violated, but it goes a long way to know that not everyone agrees that insulting other players should be part of running an instance.

So can we agree that people who have limited time shouldn't expect the queue to deal them just "pro" players?

So can we agree that people who have limited time, who then form in a group using LFG, can expect a level of competency from players who are of a reasonable CR?

And that when said players fail to meet such a reasonable expectation they then get kicked without the other players being made to feel guilty or remorseful?

Now here's the problem with people like you. Posts before you agree with "limited time" issue and "RL" and how other players should be mindful of that. Now you use a scenario and point out how players leaving an instance are not mindful of that, but:

- you do not know what happened to the player behind the tank in RL. Said tank could have done exactly what I suggested before, entering the Q with very limited time at hand or no time and all and their kid(s) already nagging them that they will be late for soccer/hockey/lacrosse etc, impacting the performance already before last boss. And at the last boss there was no further way to stress that time window any more, and there wasn't even a wipe - as you say, we don't know that part either.

- could also be a person who was returning and tried sme content after the stats revamp and realizing it won't work out, leaving to not further waste the precious time of the others.

You however try to center this example around your world and view, despite pointing out that there are "half truths" and thus, other sides to stories the one telling can't know, whenever the story told does not fit your point of view.

If a player does not have time to waste, it's their issue and they should stay away from entering any Q blindly. The Q is for everyone, and "pro"/"elitist" players are a minority. You may not like that, but by math it is unlikely to get permanently groups just build from a certain minority group.

A video game or playing that video game should not be center of "the universe" or only source of enjoyment for a person. Whoever is at that point has - probably mental- issues, like it or not. And the one who has issues is the one who should take care of these issues, it's not other people responsible for this.

1. We do know there was a "wipe", it's in the opening post. We don't know whether there was any of what you've described, you're making assumptions to excuse the face value of the behavior based upon nothing presented in the OP's argument. Let's say for arguments sake however this was the case. Do you think such an issue was communicated within the instance? Perhaps it wasn't hence the reaction from the other players. Notwithstanding that point isn't it somewhat rude to enter an instance knowing that you have limited time and that this limited time is actually going to cost you the instance.

This is where we are in agreement about players having limited time considering the facts before they enter an instance and ascertaining whether the instance can be completed, if said instance can be completed while run with competent players then the player could arguably proceed, if said instance fails because of incompetent play, especially moreso from players who at face value shouldn't fail to that extent, then that's not alright and the risk of kicking/speaking out is likely to occur. Especially if said communication due to an issue as you've described is lacking.

Most people are arguably reasonable and I'd assert that if a person expresses an issue forcing them to leave most people would be reasonable about it. People are upset when communication is lacking, just look at the feedback here often when Daybreak fails to communicate properly.

2. That's possible, but again an assumption on your part, notwithstanding that however, the player was CR255, indicating they have been around a lot longer than just returning after a break or revamp. I'd assert you're stretching with that theory and again I'd also reiterate the communication point above, perhaps it was a piece of information omitted going into the run. Was there a second tank in the run? If there wasn't the tank was obviously somewhat, personally confident in his ability.. I'd be very surprised if they wiped with two tanks in the group, but anything is possible.

3. Doesn't fit my point of view? This isn't about fitting my point of view, it's about a blatant omission of detail. The questions raised above, your assertions applied to defend the OP's position, questions in and of themselves, show there is a glaring lack of information being presented, Do we not agree this amounts to "half truths", You can call it something else if you like, but it is certainly a lack of information and our questions are evidence of the fact.

4. Who said they were queueing blindly? Perhaps it was a group formed in LFG, (yet another question or detail ommitted) that is hardly a blind queue, in an LFG group you can see the CR of the group entering beforehand, you have the facts in front of you to ascertain the probability of a successful run or a run that isn't going to encounter difficulties.

I have to ask the obvious question at this point, it appears you're just as equally making assumptions and assertions to make the circumstance fit your point of view.

5. No one said the video game is the center of a persons universe or their single source of entertainment, it would appear you've decided to make this assertion here yourself, to add an unnecessary emotive element to your argument. People don't have mental issues because they have a desire to have their time appreciated or if they exhibit frustration at a given scenario. There is a difference between making remarks or comments or kicking someone because of incompetent gameplay and viciously attacking people or "cyber bullying" them.

These threads do not tend to acknowledge the distinction between the two and ommitting details surrounding how a situation arose doesn't help the cause.

A. Yes people should be nice to each other, wherever possible.
B. Yes people should avoid unnecessary conflict
C. No people should not avoid making remarks when they feel they have been aggrieved as long as the remark isn't outright abusive or breaching the Terms and Conditions of the game.
D. No people should not avoid kicking people from instances when they are causing problems or playing badly. There is a 3 hour cool down in place to avoid abuse.
E. No people should not destroy instances by bringing in league mates to circumvent the system, something raised earlier.

In closing of this post, I'd say to you, one would be better suited avoiding accusing people of having "mental illnesses", mental illness is a serious issue and shouldn't be something bandied about by the unqualified, it's not your place to decide whether a persons actions amount to a mental illness and making such an assertion is horribly reckless.

Dude,.............really??? I thought you were better than this.

Now you're not only being incredulous you are being argumentative and downright obnoxious. If you're going to sit here and try to be disruptive as you can and not add anything beneficial to the thread. Then maybe you need to step back. All you're doing at this point in time is trolling. And, before you try to come back with...... All I'm trying to do is show the other side of the coin. Well, your not. You're being argumentative and nothing more.

We all know that everything is not all peaches & cream but we sure in the heck can try to make this game as positive experience as we can for others.

One last thing.
When you join a team instance. You are agreeing to be part of a team. When you are a part of a team you stick together through thick & thin,..... no matter what. You don't make excuses and if a member has to go, you accept that. No matter what the reason is. Why? Because he was part of the team. Yeah, he shouldn't quit but maybe he had to mow the yard or mom said get off now or you're grounded. You don't call them names on the way out of the door. That's cowardly, chickensh*t and unsportsmanlike. Yeah he told him didn't he. As he was walking away with his back turned.

All you're doing is proving the OP's original point for making this thread in the first place. You're being exactly what the OP is describing.

Sadly, and I'm sure we can agree on that sadly, no. Because the game - and the community - allows player to reach that CR without being competent at all, and you know that. Whenever people are carried, the community produces a case of high CR without competence. The game produces them with gear drops from TCs.

Nope, because as pointed out above, the expectation is not reasonable. I know you are around like forever, so you know that CR is no good indicator of a player's skill. Neither are SP, but at least they are a little less random than CR since SP from TCs are still limited compared to SP from being carried.

You can only expect a certain level of performance from players you actually know. And if they fail to deliver, you wouldn't kick them because you know them, and because they know you back, they'd offer to leave the instance if you have a backup and excuse their performance, maybe even explain what is limiting them on that special day (I've even ran into people playing video games with a broken arm....).

The game does not feature any good indicator a players skill, and I can agree that this is superfrustrating for players if they face that problem even in a group they build from LFG. And I can totally understand that you'd wish for what you describe, because it would be a more fun way to play DCUO for the players who really deliver that bit of competence you're expecting. Just, with the way the game is designed, the expectation is not reasonable. It gets a more probable base with every high end/elite content feat someone has, because who would find people to carry them through all that elite instances ? Plus they still have the possibility to beat the content later, outgeared.

And I know from your posts in many threads that you know about all these shortcomings in the game design. People exploit those shortcomings, reducing competence to something one could wish for, not expect.

The best way to play DCUO is with a group of people like-minded and like-wise skilled. Every noob gets that hint from veteran players, again and again. But once they reach endgame level - rightfully, in a competent way - the suddenly forget about the hint they gave so many times to other players. The game can not deal you "competent" players, because the game is not designed around that group of players. And people cannot determine if a player is competent enough before actually having played alongside them.

Obnoxious is a rather subjective assertion, you're implying I'm being extremely unpleasant, unpleasant to whom? Is it unpleasant when someone puts forth an opinion you disagree with?

Argumentative, is it argumentative to engage in a discussion and debate, or is it only argumentative when you don't agree with the person doing it?

I'm basing my discussion around the facts being presented and asking further questions, because the answers to those questions would change the dynamic of the scenario being presented.

Let's take all the kickings that occur in this game as well, we don't really know whats happened prior to them, perhaps someone said something, perhaps someone did something, perhaps someone isn't listening, perhaps someone is just outright bad and causing wipe after wipe.

Said person then comes to the forum and makes a thread saying "Why aren't people nice" I got kicked from an instance again for doing literally nothing, I got in there and they all just screamed at me and kicked me, so rude"

Post then gets immediate likes everyone joins the pity party and the person is made to feel better about themselves, sure this isn't a bad thing, but what if the truth is that the person swore at everyone before they left or absolutely stunk and was the healer and just randomly stopped healing all the time, or never cast any heals and copped the kick because they were bad... This is what I'm stressing 'we only ever know the framework being presented to us, a framework that is almost, always, one sided".

Also it is not trolling to assert an opinion or an opinion that differs from other people in the thread, You really should learn what trolling is and at this point I find your accusation that it is just a rather shallow attempt to shut me down without actually acknowledging or discussing the points I've raised. I would assert because you likely realise there's an element of truth in them.


For the record I feel it's rather obvious I'm not saying people shouldn't "try to make the game a positive experience", I'm saying that if people on both sides were a little more considerate of the dynamics that might exist on both sides of any given circumstance people might more readily get along.

There's always two sides, if not more sides, to a story, with multiple people feeling different things, not just the feelings and perception exhibited within posts made within threads like this.

I'm actually not being exactly what the OP is alleging, I'm articulating my position, a position grounded in reason and diplomacy that when people don't get along, we shouldn't form a kangaroo court, believe everything that gets said, simply because it gets said or avoiding asking further questions to understand the full context.

Again you'll be pleased to know I'm not advocating people go around "abusing people" far from it and if you spent some time reading my posts and ascertaining my argument, you'd perhaps see that.

Agree on the communication thing. Sorry for the wipe thing, missread your post at that point and didn't care to go back to the OP to check, my bad. Still, like in the other post, we won't be able to agree on expectations and face value

Yes, assumptions can take people far out So why assume that a player is at a certain level of competence, which is what these expectations essentially do ?

Oh, we agree on the lack of information. As I put it myself in that post - there is a side of the story the guy telling can't know. In a raid there can be 7 sides (or even more after group rebuilds) unknown, each the personal circumstances of the other guys participating. In the existing example, there is possible even a side reducing the "surprised"-statement to something less insulting from the POV of the guy stating it.

Of course I make assumptions, as stated above. I even assumed I made it clear that the tank RL parts are assumptions. I did not attend that group (nor was I the tank LOL).

Yet, people behave like it. And spending "precious" time on it surely does give the game a value it doesn't deserve.

Agree.

I used the term "issues", not illness. Because there is a difference. Some people have a certain "tick" that would not be considered "normal" but can live with it quite well. The inner urge to order things etc. And thus these issues do not necessarily reach the state of illness. However: video games and especially MMOs are designed to prey at people with mental issues. There are various examples of game companies hiring psychologists to make their games more "appealing", these have been posted here on the forums a lot of times. People with a diagnosed mental illness usually have the professional help to stay away from this; people just having "issues" however often get sucked in. Sometimes the choice of words is important, which is, well, back at the communication thing, this time the receiving end

Like I said, " Before you try to make excuses"
Don't try to feed me your line of crud. I can see your BS coming from a mile away.

I didn't say you were advocating anything. All you're trying to do is argue for the sake of argument and nothing more.

I was wondering why this thread was ongoing than the original 2 pages....


LMFAO!

Very true, but at the same time we shouldn't be excusing these players for said incompetence. It gets to a point where things are going to be said or done, such as perhaps snide comments or kicking them.

I would put forth the assertion that there is a difference between a "snide remark" and "abuse" it's like categorising a crime, is opportunistic theft less severe than premeditated theft. The courts would certainly assert so, given the distinction in sentencing that occurs for said crimes of difference.

The game certainly doesn't do us any favours in coddling these players and allowing them to reach high levels argubaly undeservedly, but I wouldn't extend that to amount to a reasonable position that a player should assume all high CR players are potentially trash players, that leaves us in a rather horrible position indeed.

I would absolutely agree with you when this comes to the most relevant pieces of content and again this is a fact that should be considered prior to entering an instance, particularly with time restraints.

There are numerous factors considered by the player, would you agree? With CR and SP being two of them and one other tied to this, is what piece of content is being run and would the CR's indicate that issues won't arise.

If we revert back to the example at hand, it was ZooE, it could equally have been USEe or JFAe, doesn't really matter, but if the players are of a high CR, one might 'reasonably conclude' and I'd argue that's a largely reasonable conclusion that the player(s) wouldn't experience difficulties with a piece of content 12 months old.

This is the trouble though, because despite the fact that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, it's also equally a completely unreasonable one, because as you've asserted, we both know, numerous people in this game are tragically bad, it is for those reasons I'm not suprised passing comments get made in those sorts of circumstances or people get kicked, it likely stems from a sense of bemusement more than anything.

Again all I'm really challenging people to do is remember there's always two sides of any story, one of which we commonly hear, we can all be nice to each other and we should, but it is also important to understand why and how things at times go wrong and ascertain ways potentially all parties can find a way to better get along in the future

I've probably arguably hashed out a lot of this in my post above, realistically it appears we probably agree and disagree somewhat in terms of what expectations we should place on other players entering content at any given point in time.

I appreciate your explanation as to the "mental issue" part and acknowledge what you're saying, I apologize in relation to my misinterpretation of your intent, because I just consider them to by and large be the same thing, however I understand the distinction you are making and intending to express and agree with most elements of it.

Actually it's an interesting conversation that Wade Spalding and I are rather constructively engaging in, it's far from "for the sake of it". I'm sorry you subjectively have feelings to the contrary.

I think you are the same guy I spotted in-game a while back, who for the entire day (well the entirety of the hours that I was online that day, atleast) kept popping up in Trade & LFG-chat trying to publicly trash and call out an entire high-end league for a kick against either you or somebody you knew, in a group with players from said league during an Elite-raid. Never the less....

Whether the kick that was openly discussed was fully justified or not I do not know, but the point I want to make here is that only painting out one side of the picture when talking about toxicity and leaving out the other will never do anything BUT just spreading more toxicity and it also shows me that some players will just use the topic of toxicity to spread their own agendas more so than about "spreading happyness and love across the servers".

Toxicity exists in practically all online-games, in many aspects, can we please stop acting like there's only one specific crowd or player type being toxic around here?

Agreed, there's no one type of player or one group/a few specific groups of players that should be called toxic. People have good days and bad days. The culture and climate of any game isn't dependent on one or two players. That's why I think it's worthwhile having the conversation about things players can actively do to sustain a non-toxic culture, which, in turn leads to a stronger player base.

General comment (not directed at Zneeak or anyone else in particular): There have been a lot of posts that are very concerned about getting all sides of the story or getting all details. I understand that some of the posters have the opinion that the anecdotes shared are false or skewed. Of course, even if every detail that the poster could remember was shared, it would still be skewed because it's only one player's POV.

We all know that players can act negatively towards each other, and we all know that it gets out of hand sometimes. Each of us has a different experience and opinion on how bad or frequent that is. While the argument being made, as far as I'm able to understand, is that threads like this are unproductive because they don't include all sides, or every detail of the situation, I have to disagree. The end results of these examples were that the community felt more toxic for the person giving the example, not less. From my perspective, hypothesizing dozens of different reasons for a given scenario to go in a certain way is the approach that isn't productive.

The kick function is a tool; it is not inherently good or bad. The chat options in the game are tools; they are also not inherently good or bad. I think the title of the thread sets up a very good discussion. It's good to recognize the fact that we can each choose to just not be a jerk. That clever put-down may not be against the TOS, but was it really necessary? Helpful?

If you kick someone, I think it's helpful to tell that person why, and, if you get kicked, don't take it personally, even if the kicker meant it that way. If a group isn't working, try suggesting new approaches/tactics.

To all the players who have taken the time to do just that, work with their team, whether in an LFG group or a blind queue, thank you! Those have been the best raids I've ever been in, when we faced challenges, messed up, had to rethink and try again, and ultimately triumphed. Those stories are why I still love this game!

A good first step when talking about toxicity, especially if your true goal is claimed to be players displaying a more decent and respectful attitude toward eachother, is to stop trying to narrow down the toxicity into certain crowds and player types. People create labels and sides and want others to chose one, that same attitude and viewpoint allows toxicity to occur when it suits a certain side or agenda.

That green-lighted part is an important one... When the "opposing ones" of the story gets their side out aswell, you have a more detailed picture of what actually happened. An example I want to share:

I remember a thread a couple years back where a player on Test server made a "let's blame these Elitist-jerks with only my side of the story, depicting them as the bad guys in every aspect that makes me look like an innocent victim"-thread. The "opposing ones" later entered said thread with video footage from the very run that the other player made the thread about, the footage showed the unmentioned actions of the other player hindering the group and the progression of the run for the rest of the group, with him refusing to take any advice that was given about the mechanics, while going off at anyone daring to question his performance said run.

The "opposing ones" did also show toxic behavior in it all, but these players being toxic for the sake of being toxic was the only picture the other guy tried to show the public in that thread, while trying to swoop his own involvement of the problem under the rug.

This is the big problem whenever the topic of toxicity comes up. Some people just can't handle being part of the potential issue in a situation, so instead of owning up to it and trying to make the best of it whether it is adapting or ultimately leaving the group, they go off and put blame toward others with angles that paint the picture that suits them the most, not what actually happened.

This type of stuff happens all the time and that's why toxicity will keep existing.

I think we all know this is true. We had a 255 tank join our COT E run who asked to take the adds at 1st boss and instantly died each time. He walked out after the 3rd wipe and we got another tank. People on chat said he was atomic because they saw the mass density SC being used, but he never had his aura up. Maybe you can tank nowadays without your aura, but when I used to tank as atomic I always made sure to have my aura up.
We had 2 first timers as dps in my COT E runs yesterday and today. They were both up front about being new to elite so we gave them pointers. Yeah they both died on King Shark's charge, but we finished with no kicks. One was even volunteering to leave at last boss because his damage was 15+ million behind the other 2 dps, but we told him it was OK to stay. I could definitely see the improvement from both in surviving after a few wipes and picking up on what to do. They can pass that experience on to others as well. It's more frustrating to me when people join looking for a carry in elite and don't let the group know. I've had way too many COT E and Hive E runs with dps players standing outside the door when 5-6 of us left finish the boss. I think that's OK for normal, but should not join elite runs for a carry.

POV is a very important factor in this. And now here's the really silly part about it, one that seems unfair on top: The top players, the competent ones, are in the position to keep an eye on different POVs and understand them, mainly because they are the ones who develop their knowledge through the game, have usually been "noobs" themselves etc. They usually have been in both places, and that's what's putting them in the position where the neutral follower of this discussion would expect them to be considerate and regardful. And I say it's silly and unfair because I've been at the point were I've had it with being considerate and regardful myself.

No matter how considerate and regardful one is to another, unexperienced, bad, limited player, there will most likely be the next, even worse example of that kind waiting to ruin your next run as well. And that sums up to feeling unfairly treated - "my time to teach them? I have no fun in teaching, I want to play!" - and teaching players with a total lack social skills won't even listen. As I said, I get that point, been there.

I pointed out several times in the past that it is the obligation of the game, and as such, the devs, to generate a system of tutorials that actually teaches new players the ropes. Step by step and in a good, considerate learning curve. Instead they put a pile of crates into the tutorial so that new players "unable" to activate their movement mode can get along without being bothered to actually learn something, right from the start. And as a result I just yesterday had to point out to a new, interested player here that they shouldn't get frustrated when they encounter the to some point "insane" differences between solo/duo content on one end and raid on the other extreme and that it will take some tries to get used to it. Because in the years in between no one in the community kept nagging the devs about adding the teaching system to the game, and the few that tried stopped at the "ok, but that will be (half a) year without new content"-response whenever the card was played.

DCUO has deep structural weaknesses, and these also lead to the players not interested in developing their skills/knowledge further. I never said that every high CR player is trash, because it's simply not true, but there are enough trashy players at endgame-capable CR around to ruin the elite run of the few endgame focused players on a seemingly regularly base. It's a direct result from several design flaws DCUO keeps alive (for way too long already). How we deal with those players however dictates if it stays that way or not. The game can't teach them, and the "youtube" advise does not always fill the gaps of understanding. Plus, and that is the other side of the story, can be perceived as an insult, especially when given while not being asked.

And of course, it's a social problem. The group of people we call (or who call themselves) gamers nowadays is very different from the group called gamers roughly 20 years ago, when MMOs became slowly a factor of gaming for the larger companies and moved away form the "courageous project" status the early ones had. And that development covers the whole video game market, not just the MMO sector. Games get simpler, less challenging, especially the mainstream products with mainstream licenses.

Which makes trying to "force" the concept of "evolve your skill as a player" on the current casual, the majority of players who start video games with the clickclickclick-things on facebook etc. nowadays, a lost cause. Trying to teach players in game to get a "yaddayadda"-type of response feels like fighting windmills - because it essentially is. You can't fix in a single video game what the gaming industry and politics in the department of social engineering let slide or willfully neglect on a global scale - for the sake of making more money. You really become a Knight of La Mancha when trying to teach the values of skill development, etiquette, persistent or the concepts of growing with the challenge, dedication, etc. nowadays. With all the positive connotations the word/title of "Knight" brings up as well as the negative conotations coming from the Don Quixote approach.

As I said multiple times in different threads, door sitters get a kick from me no matter what. Also no discussion - if you need/want to be carried, at least participate the best way you can. But blatant leeching is beyond anything. Heck, I'm usually willing to take a wipe and vote them out before finishing the boss fight in the second attempt (but my friends usually say it's not worth it). And I'm not OK with that behavior even in just the normal runs either.

Come with a "bad"/"iconic" loadout - I'll probably "carry" you. Come at minimum CR - maybe let's run the normal version first, but still I'll help there (if I'm in the mood). Come as a freeloader unwilling to even participate - nope, no way, that's really getting my goat, and I consider the very basic attitude behind such behavior as "toxic".

And if someone here in the thread is of the opinion that categorizing door sitters is a bad approach or kicking door sitters needs an "explanation" afterwards - be my guest, I'll read your POV. But to me there are certain categories of behavior that are simple unacceptable and shouldn't be accepted by other players, because every time a player accepts that kind of "shortcoming", they allow the problem to proceed to even higher (tier) content.