Did they remove

[Jetty]

Did they remove the old patch notes about the new rules and ♥♥♥♥? XD

[Cursed Hawkins]

You mean this? Cause if so then you didn't look that hard.
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/739630/view/3282584538846009232

[unknown]

Originally posted by DumbJetty:

Did they remove the old patch notes about the new rules and ♥♥♥♥? XD

I wish. I mean did it ever occur that perhaps just being able to block people would solve all of the issues that this is trying to address without banning people for potentially minor things. such as "Repeatedly kicking someone?"

I mean sure don't be a jerk to others, but why is repeatedly kicking someone considered a bannable offense. Along with other things. I mean like 50% of the examples are really not a problem such as exploiting. I mean its coop. People are going to have fun together. Payday 2 solved this issue by just labeling people a cheater and giving players the options of filtering out those players. Didn't stop them from playing though. Just gave the host the option to not play with them.

And even beyond that. Couldn't most of the issues that they are trying to solve be fixed with a block button?

[Cursed Hawkins]

Originally posted by unknown:

Originally posted by DumbJetty:

Did they remove the old patch notes about the new rules and ♥♥♥♥? XD

I wish. I mean did it ever occur that perhaps just being able to block people would solve all of the issues that this is trying to address without banning people for potentially minor things. such as "Repeatedly kicking someone?"

Pretty sure this DOESN'T work as well as you think, given that the person you blocked just has to connect to your games via your profile since said profile still displays the game you're playing along with a join button in the same slot! Meaning that feature is about as good as a bandaid on a gaping wound.

[Cursed Hawkins]

Originally posted by unknown:

People are going to have fun together. Payday 2 solved this issue by just labeling people a cheater and giving players the options of filtering out those players. Didn't stop them from playing though. Just gave the host the option to not play with them.

If that's the BEST example you got then you're in for some reality checks because that's system for PayDay 2 IS FLAWED beyond believe as there's literally people cheating WITHOUT the damn tag because of how certain mods for that game work!
Edit: oh yeah and then there's the false positives as well, almost forgot about those.

[unknown]

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

Originally posted by unknown:

People are going to have fun together. Payday 2 solved this issue by just labeling people a cheater and giving players the options of filtering out those players. Didn't stop them from playing though. Just gave the host the option to not play with them.

If that's the BEST example you got then you're in for some reality checks because that's system for PayDay 2 IS FLAWED beyond believe as there's literally people cheating WITHOUT the damn tag because of how certain mods for that game work!
Edit: oh yeah and then there's the false positives as well, almost forgot about those.

But does it really ruin the game? I play pub lobbies in payday 2 all the time. I think I can count on 1 hand the number of times in my hundreds of hours of pub lobbies that it was a problem. And that resulted in a me utilizing the ban feature in payday 2 which prevents them from coming back.

I did not say it was perfect by any means. But I would argue a report system where the burden of proof is on the accused is a far worse one and has already shown issues on other platforms. If the goal is to keep jerks out of your game, why not spend time on implementing a block feature. I mean it has been done before in many other games including small dev team games. I mean its not like this is some tini game with low sales figures. Its one of the few success stories for indi developers because its a darn good game with a large following. Resources are there to come up with good solutions.

My issue is not with the attempt, but with the dirrection. The issue with reporting systems like this is they will always either result in either innocent people being banned due to the burden of proof issues, or it will result in too few because the developers don't want to ban people hastily. Reguardless of which method it is you will have issues. And given the low amount of falsely banned reports on steam I would argue its the too few issue. Though it has only been out for a short time. Not to mention its a manual ban system where a person has to make the decision.

Remember that too much and too little are both issues here. And it also doesn't address the issue of people just not wanting to play with particular people. I suspect by virtue of being human that you have had people that just rub you the wrong way. They are not necessarily doing anything wrong but you just don't get along with them. And sometimes its a 1 way street. I don't necessarily want to play with someone I dislike. I doubt you do either. And while it doesn't appear that they are banning people for repeatedly kicking someone, I would think that the block feature would allow someone to choose to not play with particular people. Whether that is due to that person being an absolute POS or just not wanting to play with a small kid that gets on your nervs. Reguardless that would alleviate that issue while also not requiring resources for people to MANUALLY look at reports. Even if its a system of x number of reports in Y period of time gets you looking at them, its still something that requires an actual person to look at. And you have the issue of determining whether reports are accurate and banning someone falsely or not banning a true offender.

Really what I look for is the ideal solution to a problem that is also cost effective resource wise.

[Jetty]

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

You mean this? Cause if so then you didn't look that hard.
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/739630/view/3282584538846009232

Thanx.. Okbaiiiiii !

[Maya-Neko]

Originally posted by unknown:

If the goal is to keep jerks out of your game, why not spend time on implementing a block feature. I mean it has been done before in many other games including small dev team games. I mean its not like this is some tini game with low sales figures. Its one of the few success stories for indi developers because its a darn good game with a large following. Resources are there to come up with good solutions.

A block feature doesn't prevent toxic behavior, it just relocates the problem. The damage is already done, before you even have the option to block those people. That's like the police sees how you get robbed and instead of preventing it from happening in the first place they're just telling you to hold your wallet tighter next time.

Originally posted by unknown:

My issue is not with the attempt, but with the dirrection. The issue with reporting systems like this is they will always either result in either innocent people being banned due to the burden of proof issues, or it will result in too few because the developers don't want to ban people hastily. Reguardless of which method it is you will have issues. And given the low amount of falsely banned reports on steam I would argue its the too few issue. Though it has only been out for a short time. Not to mention its a manual ban system where a person has to make the decision.

Innocent people getting banned rarely happens, unless the devs made an automatic system, which is prone to being exploited. But since the reports are worked through manually, that will only leave the human aspect, which can avoid banning people just by numbers when they realize, that the reasons for a ban doesn't seem to add up properly or if there are many players on the reporting side, which seem to abuse the system.

And on the other hand yeah, having mildly toxic people not getting banned is definitely a problem, which however is quite acceptable, as long as most of the toxic players still get filtered. But just because that might happen doesn't mean, that it's a good idea to not use any kind of report system to begin with. Like you wouldn't stop investigating murders, just because thiefs get cought less often or would you?

[unknown]

Originally posted by Maya-Neko:

Originally posted by unknown:

If the goal is to keep jerks out of your game, why not spend time on implementing a block feature. I mean it has been done before in many other games including small dev team games. I mean its not like this is some tini game with low sales figures. Its one of the few success stories for indi developers because its a darn good game with a large following. Resources are there to come up with good solutions.

A block feature doesn't prevent toxic behavior, it just relocates the problem. The damage is already done, before you even have the option to block those people. That's like the police sees how you get robbed and instead of preventing it from happening in the first place they're just telling you to hold your wallet tighter next time.

I would argue its more like having a gun and taking a self defense course than what you describe. It puts power in the hands of the player to control their environment. I mean we have all been on the internet a long time. You will never remove bad experiences. That is part of life and part of being on the internet. But I believe the tools to end a confrontation like that instantly is better than having to report and kick with the possiblility of them coming right back to the point where you have to make the game private or just go offline until they are banned. I don't think that is a good system because it isn't an automatic system. Banning someone manually like this is slow and 1 report will not do it.

[Jimmy Hunter]

Originally posted by unknown:

But does it really ruin the game?

Yes, cheaters ruin Payday 2 lobbies.

[unknown]

Originally posted by Maya-Neko:

Innocent people getting banned rarely happens, unless the devs made an automatic system, which is prone to being exploited. But since the reports are worked through manually, that will only leave the human aspect, which can avoid banning people just by numbers when they realize, that the reasons for a ban doesn't seem to add up properly or if there are many players on the reporting side, which seem to abuse the system.

And on the other hand yeah, having mildly toxic people not getting banned is definitely a problem, which however is quite acceptable, as long as most of the toxic players still get filtered. But just because that might happen doesn't mean, that it's a good idea to not use any kind of report system to begin with. Like you wouldn't stop investigating murders, just because thiefs get cought less often or would you?

I defiantly don't mind a reporting system in some form. Though I think what they have outlined is a bit much. I mean some of the options just seem a bit over the top and crazy.

EX: "reporting someone for repeatedly kicking someone"

Those aspects are a bit much. But obviously someone being an absolute POS to someone is something different. And I so far have yet to to really see people complaining about that.

[Maya-Neko]

Originally posted by unknown:

I would argue its more like having a gun and taking a self defense course than what you describe. It puts power in the hands of the player to control their environment.

Well, you don't prevent the first robery. You just take a gun with the name of the robber with you, so that this one person in particular won't rob you again. But obviously the next person can still do, because you carry no gun with their name yet.

Like there are tenth of thausands of players out there every day. Even when there are only 1k toxic players out there, then you still state, that it's ok like having all those 1k toxic players joining your lobbies at least once and if they learn to wait, until they're within the game, then we're talking about like 150 hours of acceptable toxicity you're allowing to happen towards you, if you're really unlucky enough to see each of these at least one with everyone of them wasting at least 10 minutes on average of your time.

But if there's an actual ban system in place, that might ban like >90% of people, before they ever get the chance of joining your lobby and wasting those 10 minutes.

Like there's no benefit i can see in only having a block system without any kind of ban system, as that just tells people, that it is ok to be toxic, because there are no penalties at all. Like that's literally the reason, why there are so many toxic people in open lobbies to begin with, since before the update there were no penalties.

Ultimately it would be better to have both, a block and a ban system, but if i could choose only one, then it would definitely be the ban system, which is more efficient at protecting the players properly.

[unknown]

They are not allowed to just record people's conversations obviously. But that doesn't necessarily prevent someone from recording their own game. If it just temporarily stored the conversation log using the voice recognition program that deletes itself after every game they could allow you to record a section and you have to make the decision to send that text audio log and then you report with proof.

[Cursed Hawkins]

Originally posted by unknown:

Originally posted by Maya-Neko:

A block feature doesn't prevent toxic behavior, it just relocates the problem. The damage is already done, before you even have the option to block those people. That's like the police sees how you get robbed and instead of preventing it from happening in the first place they're just telling you to hold your wallet tighter next time.

I would argue its more like having a gun and taking a self defense course than what you describe.

Not really, just to reinforce Maya's example but with what a police officer would say in such a situation, they would rather you just give the robber or robbers the money they're asking for rather than defend yourself, not because they don't want you to do just that but because it's a more safer option than trying to defend yourself in a situation where people are extremely unpredictable especially when they have guns involved.

[unknown]

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

Originally posted by unknown:

I would argue its more like having a gun and taking a self defense course than what you describe.

Not really, just to reinforce Maya's example but with what a police officer would say in such a situation, they would rather you just give the robber or robbers the money they're asking for rather than defend yourself, not because they don't want you to do just that but because it's a more safer option than trying to defend yourself in a situation where people are extremely unpredictable especially when they have guns involved.

Well the point was not the details, but that you can end the confrontation perminantly with that individual with the click of a button. That was the point. its a case of if you don't want to deal with it you don't have to. Mabey a bad example on my part since those situations are more nuanced given the danger to you, but A robber entering your house and a troll being a jerk on the internet are 2 very different things. 1 is an annoyance while the other is literally potentially life and death.

The overall point was that a tool to end a situation right at the start is preferable to a tool that takes a couple of days if not a week to work after damage has already been done which in the case of this game is just an unpleasant gaming session. I would rather just end it there so I can keep on playing.

Let me phrase it like this. Imagine a discord you are a part of gets raided by trolls. They start cursing everyone out and posting an endless stream of offensive images. For the sake of being jerks. Now imagine if the moderators for said discord opperated on a manual review ticketing system. So you had to make a report. it went in a box and all the information they have is what you can type in a text box. Now say this system requires multiple reports for them to even read them. How much damage would be done waiting for that to happen. And obviously most discords to opperate that way. They have a moderator in chat who will just ban them immediately having observed the behavior first hand and the situation is over. I advocate for letting the players or server host do that. And since its a ban they never show up ever again unless they make a new steam account and buy a 2nd copy. Which would also circumvent any bans of the reporting system anyway so that is a flaw with both systems. Though I doubt many will do that.

[Maya-Neko]

Originally posted by unknown:

but A robber entering your house and a troll being a jerk on the internet are 2 very different things. 1 is an annoyance while the other is literally potentially life and death.

It's a the metaphor. There was no real comparison done here, but the example with the robbery is just used as a proxy, since it has a very clear definition within the moral compass of most people and the law itself compared to the troll problem, which seems to be somewhat vague in most discussions, which could lead to misunderstandings.