Band from online but should still play offline. Or let them have a special arsehole server for all banned people? That would be fine.
Should people lose access to a game because of how they act?
- Thread starter Bat Vader
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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.
And how, pray tell, do you ban the ticket?LegendaryGamer0 said:
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.
Big part of this is, does KF2 have CD keys? Because this is going to change a fair bit based on that.Joccaren said:
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.
Steam DRM, yes. VAC, no.
Or, just ban the CD key from official servers. This has been the solution for god knows how long.
Part of my point. Just use CD keys!
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.
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.
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.BadNewDingus said:
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.
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.
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.).nomotog said:
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.
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.
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.
KF2 devs can go fuck themselves with a chainsaw. "Moderate private servers"? Get fucked, you're going to shut down the servers that keep your game alive because they don't live up to your standards? Tripwire alone has lost faith in me as a consumer due to the "Oh, we're an established company with a highly successful game series, let's release a fucking game in Early Access!", let alone the fact that it had like a 1/3 of the content from the first one.
As for the matter at hand? Mute them if they are truly that toxic. I prefer shit to be handled from server to server. If they're outright hacking then sure, VAC ban them but apart from that you should really just give them some good ol' mod/admin justice.
As for the matter at hand? Mute them if they are truly that toxic. I prefer shit to be handled from server to server. If they're outright hacking then sure, VAC ban them but apart from that you should really just give them some good ol' mod/admin justice.
As a general rule of thumb i think it's pretty crappy to lose something you paid money for without any kind of refund or recourse. I understand you need a way to police behavior and keep the overall community a fun place to be for the majority and that some people are absolute twat waffles you don't want ruining that but it doesn't change the fact that a company can flip the off switch and you lose a product you paid money for is really shitty.
I like the solutions proposed so far, banning multi-player access, Confining the problem childs to their own server, or forcing them to host their own server so only people playing with them are people who specifically choose to play with that person. I've heard the recommendation for other services like xbox live that keep track of your "reputation" that if your rep falls below a certain point you are just auto muted in all online games, if people want to risk it, they can unmute you but you would have to earn back the right to talk automatically to everyone. but that can only really combat foul language not poor playstyles.
I've also personally seen abuse of the "report" option in some games to punish people who play poorly or ask too many "dumb" questions. I love the community on Marvel Heroes seriously nicest group of online gamers i've ever stumbled across, but even there I watched some people collaborate to report a kid for "spamming" when he asked for help 1 too many times. no matter the system abuse will happen so there must be a review or appeals process even post serious ban.
Maybe a good solution would be to allow players to "share" rep, someone gets booted for playing like a jack ass then another player could vouch for them and invite them to participate in a game with other people, if the behavior continues, both of their reps take the hit. peer pressure seems to be the most effective way to get people in line sometimes. sure you could have trolls teaming up but they could only do it two at a time and certainly not for very long.
I like the solutions proposed so far, banning multi-player access, Confining the problem childs to their own server, or forcing them to host their own server so only people playing with them are people who specifically choose to play with that person. I've heard the recommendation for other services like xbox live that keep track of your "reputation" that if your rep falls below a certain point you are just auto muted in all online games, if people want to risk it, they can unmute you but you would have to earn back the right to talk automatically to everyone. but that can only really combat foul language not poor playstyles.
I've also personally seen abuse of the "report" option in some games to punish people who play poorly or ask too many "dumb" questions. I love the community on Marvel Heroes seriously nicest group of online gamers i've ever stumbled across, but even there I watched some people collaborate to report a kid for "spamming" when he asked for help 1 too many times. no matter the system abuse will happen so there must be a review or appeals process even post serious ban.
Maybe a good solution would be to allow players to "share" rep, someone gets booted for playing like a jack ass then another player could vouch for them and invite them to participate in a game with other people, if the behavior continues, both of their reps take the hit. peer pressure seems to be the most effective way to get people in line sometimes. sure you could have trolls teaming up but they could only do it two at a time and certainly not for very long.
I can't say I can get behind this. When one pays money for a game they should have access to it. There can be some measures in place, like removing from matchmaking for a certain amount of time or something, but total banning? No. I have been on the receiving end on a ban that I should not have received that makes me anxious about this. I was banned from playing Smite without warning or appeal because their anti-cheat detected something it thought was a cheating program. I have no such thing on my laptop, and have no idea what the system picked up. I tried to explain this, but to no avail. The $40ish dollars I spent on the hero pack and a few skins now is totally worthless. It's an awful system with too much room for failure.