Should people lose access to a game because of how they act?

Nocturnus

New member
Oct 2, 2007
108
0
0
Yes and No.

If there is an online component and an offline component, and someone seems content to repeatedly act like a )(@*#($)*)(@#$? Then remove them from the online component, and allow them to play the offline.

If there is only an online component, and someone seems content to repeatedly act like a )(@*#*$)&@(*#)(@*#? Sorry Charlie. Remove them. Sucks to be you.

It really is simple: Don't act like an asshole when you're playing with other people, and you won't lose access to the game. Most if not all games that i've ever played online have controls in for "bad days", but if near every day is a "bad day" and you take it out on me or other people who are trying to have a pleasant and relaxed experience online? I have no sympathy for you then. You earned your ban. Maybe then you'll think twice before you act that way again.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
Loonyyy said:
Signa said:
You reminded me I hadn't seen the video. I've been mostly posting in my "free" time at work where I can read and type a response, but watching a video would be hard to get away with.
Let me make it clear: Killing Floor 2 doesn't have any mechanism for keeping evidence on reports, it doesn't have a report button that I've found, after I put up with some moron who couldn't stop abusing everyone around him (And Killing Floor, especially the second, does not give you time to fuck with settings on the fly to deal with that). The idea that this is going to be abused is mistaken. If you want to make a report, you're going to have to contact TWI, and organise your own evidence.

They've made clear what they already do. This is, and was, their policy.
That said, I don't think the video changed any of my concerns. I am relieved that they gave one guy like 20 chances before pulling the plug on him, and if that's what we can expect, I will have a hard time complaining about that.
They've so far banned a couple of people, and they said it was for exploiting, and crashing games. Have you ever levelled in a TWI game? I'd be fucking pissed if someone crashed my game during that too. Fucking Red Orchestra 2 and Killing Floor have some of the longest levelling I've experienced outside of an MMO, with massive spacing of game changing rewards. I would never have bothered if they weren't some of my favourite games. 20 chances is pretty damn lenient, far too lenient for people who want to be able to play the damn game. Losing up to an hour, nope. That makes people quit the game, for good, and makes the game worse for everyone else.
This whole time, I've been operating under the assumption of general asshattery being the topic of discussion. Crashing servers is beyond that. If someone gets warned 20 times, and still keeps intentionally crashing servers, I say fuck em. That's not just "disruption in a movie theater" that's burning down the building.


I am still concerned how they mentioned sexism after this Calgary Expo thing went down. One person's idea of being a sexist harasser is another person's idea of having a conversation.
Oh come the fuck on. If they don't want to have a conversation, then don't keep pestering them. I know that there's this... thing... going on with sexism, but can we be honest and realise that it does occur on some level, to the extent that some people like to send harrassing, stalker message shit, both ingame, and postgame through accounts systems. There are some people who will go to a lot of effort to do this.
I'm not trying to derail this thread with this part, it was just a point on how irrational people can be about certain topics. That irrationality can cause people to witch-hunt down other players, and be just as disruptive as the trolls we are discussing, only they will attack a person by trying to kill their CD-key. That's what I'm worried about. That's not an offense worth banning keys for.

As for the rest of your post, most of that should be covered by kicks/server bans, but not key bans.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Signa said:
All in all, I'm pretty content with your reply. I acknowledge I'm being a slippery slope alarmist, and I'd prefer to be wrong about it. Still, I'm cautious and cynical because of things have gone over the last half-decade or so. I can't just take something like this at face value anymore.
Sure, but please recognize that until the evidence presents otherwise, we only have the face value to go on. The people debating with you here aren't debating with the notion that the trolls will be falsely accused trolls but instead full blown pie fucking trolls.

I also acknowledge I was coming off as too kind to the pie fuckers. It doesn't look too reasonable when applied to the proper troll context the analogy was supposed to draw. I just prefer to live and let live when it's possible in a general context. There's always going to be some conflict between people, and while there's options, there's a way to avoid that conflict. We have options, and excommunicating paying customers from a gaming community should be the final option, after all other options has been exhausted. I don't see other options being exhausted, and if those other options were even used, it shouldn't even get to this point of removing a user.
Banning someone from playing the multiplayer section of a game doesn't really have anything to do with "live and let live". In this case it is a person not allowing others to enjoy their games and so they've instead lost the right to enjoy theirs.

Live and let live is what the troll is failing to do here and the banning mechanics is to repair that damage.

Now, as I said, if we can dump all the trolls in one big pot a let them stew against themselves then that's fine. But that sort of tracking system takes a lot of programming and client tracking that would impact development of the game. So if that isn't an easily creatable environment then the alternative is blanket bans. Please remember that I fully expect the individual to receive warnings except for in the most egregious of scenarios. So the impacted individual would not just be a troll but an unrepentant one at that.

Signa said:
This whole time, I've been operating under the assumption of general asshattery being the topic of discussion. Crashing servers is beyond that. If someone gets warned 20 times, and still keeps intentionally crashing servers, I say fuck em. That's not just "disruption in a movie theater" that's burning down the building.
Your threshold for someone purposefully crashing the servers is for them to have been warned 20 times? You must have the patience of a deity. Presumably a deity known for patience.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
Lightknight said:
Signa said:
This whole time, I've been operating under the assumption of general asshattery being the topic of discussion. Crashing servers is beyond that. If someone gets warned 20 times, and still keeps intentionally crashing servers, I say fuck em. That's not just "disruption in a movie theater" that's burning down the building.
Your threshold for someone purposefully crashing the servers is for them to have been warned 20 times? You must have the patience of a deity. Presumably a deity known for patience.
I am pretty patient. But you're right, I'd say 5 times would be generous.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
I'm all for watching this unfold, more as a social experiment than anything.

Before, I might have sided with the trolls and griefers on the grounds of consumer rights; if they were localized and not constantly acting maliciously. But they aren't; they're everywhere and many of them aren't acting in good fun. ("for the lulz" covers real malice as much as practical jokes)

So over the years, I just got tired of dealing with their bullshit. Not in an angry way, but more of eye rolling and sighing at the time I wasted for their amusement. So I largely stopped bothering with pubs, and eventually most online gaming entirely.

So now, I'm more curious to see how they will respond when they receive punishment that actually counts for once: Right in their wallet.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
Band from online but should still play offline. Or let them have a special arsehole server for all banned people? That would be fine.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
Yes. Buying a license doesn't give you the right to treat others like complete shit. Devs running online games have always had clauses in their ToS or EULA documents about how they'll restrict your access if you behave like a bag of dicks. They should too. If someone is going above and beyond trying to go after someone, then show them the door. The thing is, every dev and publisher on steam can already do this. They can already ban people from their servers, there doesn't need to be any change in steam policies to fight against cheaters and boorish behavior because cheaters and assholes can already be stopped.
 

conmag9

New member
Aug 4, 2008
570
0
0
I have always been extremely leery at the prospect of someone loosing what they paid for this way. There's far too much room for false positives, bad interpretations of situations, and it just doesn't feel right. I hate trolls and strive to be polite on the occasion I interact with people in online games (nearly exclusively in League of Legends. I'm not much of a multiplayer sort of person), but banning people for behavior is just asking for trouble.

Now, temporary banishment to a zone where you play with people who have a similar record might work. Keeps the real trolls separate but doesn't keep you out forever. Also, works as a redeeming factor, in some cases.
 

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Joccaren said:
What you're saying from the theater analogy is to basically take the long and stupid route instead of just, you know, banning that particular ticket.
In this case, just ban a specific CD key from accessing official servers. Anything else is just stupid or, well, stupid. And it still doesn't cover the regulation of private servers.

They've made a new solution to something that isn't really a problem and sticks their hand further into the rectums of users.
And how, pray tell, do you ban the ticket?
You made the movie, but Valve gave out the tickets. Valve installed automatic gates to your theatre, so you don't even scan the tickets - people scan them, walk in, and watch the movie.

Obviously you ban the ticket by going to Valve. Valve bans the ticket. Because of the way Valve's ticketing system works, however, that also kills the ability to use the ticket at home. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure Steam's DRM doesn't differentiate between offline and online play - if you play offline the DRM does nothing, if you play online it can block access. Steams DRM applies to both.
Valve could alter this to allow someone to play offline when the DRM blocks their online access only, however that would take time and money.
The games company could create a system that reads the Steam account and bans Steam users themselves from the online servers, but this would cost time and money.

Your theatre analogy doesn't hold up because of the complications you've introduced with the ticket. Who made the ticket? Who regulates tickets? Its the same one ticket for every server, so how do you only ban the ticket in one place when you've outsourced the "Banning" to the ticket regulators?

In the theatre world, it might not make sense. In the online DRM videogames world, its the rule rather than the exception.
Being able to "Ban" a ticket requires there to be a system in place to ban it. Whilst it would be prudent of developers to make such a system, I won't begrudge them if they decide not to.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
May 2, 2020
2,909
35
53
Country
United States
Joccaren said:
LegendaryGamer0 said:
Joccaren said:
What you're saying from the theater analogy is to basically take the long and stupid route instead of just, you know, banning that particular ticket.
In this case, just ban a specific CD key from accessing official servers. Anything else is just stupid or, well, stupid. And it still doesn't cover the regulation of private servers.

They've made a new solution to something that isn't really a problem and sticks their hand further into the rectums of users.
And how, pray tell, do you ban the ticket?
You made the movie, but Valve gave out the tickets. Valve installed automatic gates to your theatre, so you don't even scan the tickets - people scan them, walk in, and watch the movie.
Big part of this is, does KF2 have CD keys? Because this is going to change a fair bit based on that.
In short, no, Valve was a reseller but Tripwire also distributed their own keys for the game. Ban the key from official online servers, problem solved.
Obviously you ban the ticket by going to Valve. Valve bans the ticket. Because of the way Valve's ticketing system works, however, that also kills the ability to use the ticket at home. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure Steam's DRM doesn't differentiate between offline and online play - if you play offline the DRM does nothing, if you play online it can block access. Steams DRM applies to both.
Steam DRM, yes. VAC, no.
Valve could alter this to allow someone to play offline when the DRM blocks their online access only, however that would take time and money.
The games company could create a system that reads the Steam account and bans Steam users themselves from the online servers, but this would cost time and money.
Or, just ban the CD key from official servers. This has been the solution for god knows how long.
Your theatre analogy doesn't hold up because of the complications you've introduced with the ticket. Who made the ticket? Who regulates tickets? Its the same one ticket for every server, so how do you only ban the ticket in one place when you've outsourced the "Banning" to the ticket regulators?
Part of my point. Just use CD keys!
In the theatre world, it might not make sense. In the online DRM videogames world, its the rule rather than the exception.
Being able to "Ban" a ticket requires there to be a system in place to ban it. Whilst it would be prudent of developers to make such a system, I won't begrudge them if they decide not to.
Ban the unique ticket. This wouldn't be hard even keeping to the stupid theater analogy. Also still doesn't even touch on the argument of them regulating private servers.
 

BadNewDingus

New member
Sep 3, 2014
141
0
0
Horrible idea. You paid for the game, you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't cheat.

Although, I do like when games force you to play with other trolls if you are one yourself. But to take away a whole feature because you're behaving like a child? That's just silly.
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
BadNewDingus said:
Horrible idea. You paid for the game, you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't cheat.

Although, I do like when games force you to play with other trolls if you are one yourself. But to take away a whole feature because you're behaving like a child? That's just silly.
While I agree I feel that if the person is ruining the game for others by trolling, griefing, etc they should be banned from playing on the official servers. If they want to create their own server or play on a public server that would be fine. If I ran a public server and someone was griefing, trolling, or etc I would ban them.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
If it's a single player game then no, under no circumstances. If it's multiplayer, then yes, arsehats should be banned after a warning or two. Another solution that's more palatable is like (I believe) how xbox live works. All the arsehats get to play with each other in their own lobby and decent folk don't have to interact with them.
 

Stg

New member
Jul 19, 2011
123
0
0
This is great news. More developers need to take a firm action against people who only want to go online and ruin other people's experience. With KF2, it won't be as easy to circumvent bans like you can with TF2, but people need to learn there are repercussions for their actions.
 

SebastianVelcro

New member
Mar 6, 2014
8
0
0
MajorTomServo said:
Maybe just make it so you can't play online with strangers if you're too much of a douche canoe. Like, you can only play with people on your friend's list or offline against bots.

So uhh... douche canoe eh? How did you come up with that one?
 

MajorTomServo

New member
Jan 31, 2011
930
0
0
SebastianVelcro said:
MajorTomServo said:
Maybe just make it so you can't play online with strangers if you're too much of a douche canoe. Like, you can only play with people on your friend's list or offline against bots.

So uhh... douche canoe eh? How did you come up with that one?
My sister says it a lot; she probably got it from Tumblr.
 

Patathatapon

New member
Jul 30, 2011
225
0
0
nomotog said:
last I checked, you can't really play killing floor by yourself. Losing access to multiplayer would basically be losing access to the game.
Trust me when I say you get very good at it eventually, to the point where team mates can inconvenience you (Yeah, I solo'd a patriarch on HoE West London once... after 50,000 failed attempts.).

But that's not the real issue in their ability to play the game. Those people are playing like that for the sole purpose of being a douchebag because it gets other peoples goats. So really, not letting them attack other people is taking their own game away from them.
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
Assholes will be assholes wherever they please and however they can. Bans, debuffs or lockouts won't do much to deter someone who just can't take to a game in a positive mindset. I've seen people with a competitive spirit that was so unbearably strong that even playing a game of chess against them was inadvisable.

What I'd do, personally, is stick offending parties with a disparaging title for a long period of time. Say, you've been a dick online, log out and someone's reported you? Your clan tag or custom-made title gets replaced with "Unsportsmanly". Other players take that as a warning and disconnect as soon as they see you.
 

silasbufu

New member
Aug 5, 2009
1,095
0
0
Is this something new? I'm not 100% accurate on the subject. What is so different from this and being banned from MMO's for example (temporary or permanent), for being an asshat, something that exists for probably at least 10 years?