The Science Behind Shaping Player Behaviour in Online Games

Just as it always helps to act well onto others and seek not to cause seperation, then humans will always react in natural ways to the environment they are in and the energies it breathes.

Meaning, if the community is toxic the natural cause is the game itself, what is possible what is not possible(such as reporting in the post above), how fun it is vs how frustrating it is, how rewarding it is etc.

If the proper conditions are in place the community will flourish. You cannot blame humans for being humans, if you want people to not feel as frustrated/irritated with the game, and subsequently with each other, then make sure the gameplay keeps people happy. Do not blame them, people do not know better and if it is easy to abuse each other for own gain they will keep doing it on the internet.

EDIT: And also, the best way for the community to be least toxic is to be a very small closed group, something that is not desirable because it essentially means the game will not be very great in many ways. Rather seek to compare to the size of the game vs it's toxicity to see if there is an issue.

I think there are serious problems. We have the overly heavy RNG that produces unhappy players abound, and then there are who seemingly see no difference between well balanced drops and drops balanced for full time players only.

Personally i am not of the kind who wants to play all the time everyday for almost no rewards. I hope for PoE to take over the crown that D2 holds till this day, to create gameplay as satisfying and rewarding as that was. PoE in comparison is barren and the rng balance is frustrating since we are being starved of currency, thereby creating unhappy players who then proceedlingly become enfuriated when they clash with those who see no difference in RNG balance, because after all RNG is RNG, so therefore any RNG balance equals any other, apparently.

Another sympton if the too-low rewards is the rage against magic find. People need magic find in order for the game to be satisfying to them, because the level of drops is not in balance with what people like. Therefore it feels like they are being forced by the game to play something they do not, and that does not make them want to play poe, because poe's strength should be individual choice. If the drops were higher, and ways to get geared quicker, like in d2, then people would skip magic find and not care, because it was easy enough to handle the game without it. Here it is not, which creates the feeling of being forced into something you do not want by the game.

A good initiative to assist the community is limiting ways to scam each other by having to hover over items in trade and such things, that breeds a healthy atmosphere.

the best most friendly community i have ever been apart of ruled their forums with an iron fist. there was a bold line that if crossed you were only rarely given more than one second chance then you were out and that was it. This was a guild I was in during TFC's heyday called TPF(team play first) it was a guild that emphasized team work, fairplay and respect and didn't put up with people who didn't follow that simple code of conduct. granted, in the larger game community like PoE's that's almost impossible to do as our small community of a few hundred was a lot easier to manage than a few thousand but that's the problem this community is just to big with too many different kinds of people. The internet was also a much smaller place back then and i don't believe there is anyway to go back to that. general game forums are really just a place to bitch about the game troll people and offer direct feedback anymore. not a place to be taken seriously.


if you want a friendly community it always has been and always will be up to the players to build it this is one thing that hasn't changed in my long gaming career. the best communities are always self made with strict rules and guidelines to attract like minded people, they never materialize out of thin air, it takes hard work and dedication. GGG cant be expected to do that, its not their job and its asking to much with such a large community. This is why Riot is on fools quest. they will never be able to make people stop acting like assholes because that's just the nature of some people and people don't change.



I know I am no angel and I have done my fair share of poking and prodding players purposely as many others but I have a line i try to never cross. I do my best not to make it personal when giving someone a hard time but even then I sometimes cross that line by getting myself to worked up or maybe I just had a shitty day and needed to vent but regardless no ones perfect after all but to think this community or any other large community can be saved is just naive.

I have seen a lot of socialistic and borderline communist ideology in this post. So, I am going to bite the bullet as it were and take a different standing on the subject. I really don't understand the "iron fist" approach but if I were to go just based off of the advocates in this thread I would say/vote against it. There are very few if any situations where establishments succeed in the long run if the opinions and freedoms of the common individual are limited, restricted or otherwise oppressed. In the literal application of this thought, a player is more likely to quit and even write a nasty review that would hurt the game and it's reputation rather than help it if every "100th post on rng" was mysteriously locked/punished. As a moderator once told me. There is no rule against multiple threads on the same subject. This is truly justified with logic.

The attitude of "Go away, no one wants you here" is toxic and should be punished in of itself in my opinion. When people come to the forums, they come to socialize with people who share interests. Not to provide a thesis on their experiences in the game. This "well thought out, logical, and intelligible standard" is hypocritical at best. In fact, it reminds me of a television personality that is widely accepted as toxic and senseless. That personality is Nancy Grace. If you can't handle an opinion with average intelligence backing it, you probably have serious issues on a level relating to psychosis. Information on this can be viewed here.

Do I think the moderators are doing a good job of settling the toxicity of it's players? Probably not... I'm sure they try their best, but the problem is much bigger than a couple of toxic players now. You basically have a continent ravaged by a zombie virus. I quit playing the game about two months ago because of the behavior of the general public. I come back and this is where the community is now? "We need to push people out and away" that fall below some individual's standards? It's one thing to have an opinion on yours and others behavior, but it's completely different to propagate a sense of arbitrary and empirical understanding on behavior because you can't control yourself and conduct yourself with a little bit of discretion.

I want to conclude my opinion with the fact that I am here as a precursor to my actions in the future which will be carried out when certain standards are met. I really enjoy this game. Their "ethical micro-transaction" idea is genius and wonderful. The fact that this is a Free game makes it much more appealing. All that can be said about the game in a positive light can easily be overshadowed by a couple of glaring problems such as community toxicity. My position on the subject is that moderation needs to be measured and unbiased. Moderation should not be totalitarian and ruled by intellectual prowess lest you want to hurt the game/studio.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

There are very few if any situations where establishments succeed in the long run if the opinions and freedoms of the common individual are limited, restricted or otherwise oppressed.

Creating a set of rules and then enforcing them isn't socialist, communist, toxic, or damaging. All societies place restrictions on the freedom of the individual, and all private societies are voluntary.

This is a forum owned by a private company. GGG has every right to restrict access to the forums when people come here and abuse their privileges.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

The attitude of "Go away, no one wants you here" is toxic and should be punished in of itself in my opinion.

It's 'toxic' to punish players that break the terms of service by doing things to expressly harm others? That's complete nonsense.

"

Creating a set of rules and then enforcing them isn't socialist, communist, toxic, or damaging. All societies place restrictions on the freedom of the individual, and all private societies are voluntary.

You think something as vague as "unintelligible unoriginal posts should receive moderation" is a reasonable rule? No, that is oppressive sir. You are (figuratively speaking) imposing a impossible rule on your members which will drive people away. Like I said before, people don't come to forums to pretend that they have PHD's and propose radically new theories on physics. They come to socialize. That's it. If you(speaking figuratively) come to forums to stroke your delusional and arrogant intellect then you are the problem not the 100th person/s who makes a thread about their frustrations with the game.

"

This is a forum owned by a private company. GGG has every right to restrict access to the forums when people come here and abuse their privileges.

So it's your opinion that companies shouldn't be reasonably accountable for their actions?

Fact: A company has a purpose from a business point of view that states something similar in nature to the following sentence. "I will make money off of customers."

Fact: Customers are people, not numbers. they exist outside of the company and it's purpose. If they disagree with the company and its practices they will, I repeat, WILL take their support of that company that they could offer and apply it some where else.

Fact: Companies need customers but customers don't need every company.

What can be deduced by all of this? Customers get privileges from the company under the unspoken understanding that the company plays fairly just as they expect customers too. What's that saying again? Was it "treat others how you want to be treated", or was it the one about not asking something of someone that you otherwise are incapable of? Now, if we are to take the advice of these "iron fisters" we have a more totalitarian like moderation policy which violates the "play fair" understanding. That is my point.

"

It's 'toxic' to punish players that break the terms of service by doing things to expressly harm others? That's complete nonsense.

It is toxic to exile instead of reform.

Evidence to the fact = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP-k47rIIyA

All of this is of course presented with the up-most respect I can offer one whom I am not familiar with and have no affiliation to.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

I have seen a lot of socialistic and borderline communist ideology in this post. So, I am going to bite the bullet as it were and take a different standing on the subject. I really don't understand the "iron fist" approach but if I were to go just based off of the advocates in this thread I would say/vote against it. There are very few if any situations where establishments succeed in the long run if the opinions and freedoms of the common individual are limited, restricted or otherwise oppressed.

Why say "common individual?" There are very few situations which succeed in the long run if the freedoms of the individual are limited, restricted or otherwise oppressed. No need to qualify it so much.

But here's the rub: property owners are individuals, too. The right to one's own property is actually the most important of individual rights. So who is the violator: the owner who tries to enforce rules on his own property (the forums he pays for), or the masses who assert their right to express themselves however they wish on the property of another?

I'm not against freedom of speech or the pursuit of happiness. But I am very much against the idea that others have an obligation to provide you a megaphone due to "freedom of speech," or that others have an obligation to make you happy, due to "pursuit of happiness." Censorship on a governmental level is an abominable evil; censorship in a private establishment should be expected, in respect for being allowed to freely visit the property of another.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

In the literal application of this thought, a player is more likely to quit and even write a nasty review that would hurt the game and it's reputation rather than help it if every "100th post on rng" was mysteriously locked/punished.

And he is free to do so. What doesn't make sense is being forced to give your critics a stage on which to hurl barbs at you. GGG allows this anyway, but it should be emphasized they have no obligation to do so; it is done in the attitude of "challenge accepted."

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

The attitude of "Go away, no one wants you here" is toxic and should be punished in of itself in my opinion. When people come to the forums, they come to socialize with people who share interests. Not to provide a thesis on their experiences in the game.

I agree that the attitude of "go away, no one wants you here" is toxic when applied to people. However, the same attitude towards particular ideas isn't. I'm not seriously suggesting banning people for stupidity; I'm just saying I've been in that kind of environment before, and it wasn't bad. However, holding that standard to the threads themselves is just fine. Both users and moderators should try to avoid arguing the person and instead argue the idea.

As you said, "it is toxic to exile instead of reform." If you ban the user, reform is impossible because they are exiled; if you fail to ban the misbehavior, reform is impossible because the misbehavior is not exiled. Threads should be sanctioned, not people.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

This "well thought out, logical, and intelligible standard" is hypocritical at best. In fact, it reminds me of a television personality that is widely accepted as toxic and senseless. That personality is Nancy Grace. If you can't handle an opinion with average intelligence backing it, you probably have serious issues on a level relating to psychosis.

The ideal level to set the bar lets in average intelligence; it's below average which should be purged. And I don't watch Nancy Grace, so I can't comment on it.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

My position on the subject is that moderation needs to be measured and unbiased. Moderation should not be totalitarian and ruled by intellectual prowess lest you want to hurt the game/studio.

I want the same. The difference is that I believe the current problems are caused by an entirely too lax approach. I believe moderation needs to move away from lax and closer to totalitarian, but by no means do I believe that it should go all the way over; there is definitely the possibility of "too much of a good thing" here. Moderation in all (well, most) things, to include moderation.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

"

Creating a set of rules and then enforcing them isn't socialist, communist, toxic, or damaging. All societies place restrictions on the freedom of the individual, and all private societies are voluntary.

You think something as vague as "unintelligible unoriginal posts should receive moderation" is a reasonable rule? No, that is oppressive sir. You are (figuratively speaking) imposing a impossible rule on your members which will drive people away. Like I said before, people don't come to forums to pretend that they have PHD's and propose radically new theories on physics. They come to socialize. That's it. If you(speaking figuratively) come to forums to stroke your delusional and arrogant intellect then you are the problem not the 100th person/s who makes a thread about their frustrations with the game.

Your argument presupposes that GGG always enforces all its rules to the utmost of its ability, which is a flawed assumption. The creation of a rule serves a purpose besides a precedent for enforcement; it is also a declaration of right, and a general warning against the worst of offenses. Making it an official rule that GGG may lock and exile your stupid thread doesn't mean they have to enforce such a rule 100% of the time; discretion is not forfeit. I believe strongly in a strongly worded, assert-owner's-rights Terms of Use, with the possibility for mercy afterwards.

For example, I believe that the Terms of Use should prohibit the use of any macros whatsoever. According to the letter of the law, that would mean keybinding /oos or Alt+F4 to a specific key would be a ban-worthy offense. However, I don't think enforcing such a rule on those who macro /oos should be a priority; instead, the purpose of the rule would be to have a precedent for banning those who create degenerate "cheat" macros which is blanket enough to cover all possibilities. I wouldn't like to see people with simple /oos keybinds get banned; hopefully the moderation staff has bigger fish to fry than going after such people.

In the same way, there should be a blanket rule which gives GGG the right to restrict virtually any post, since it's difficult to make a ruleset which covers all possible forms of misbehavior. That doesn't mean that I think moderators should enforce such a policy to the letter like totalitarian robots.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

"

This is a forum owned by a private company. GGG has every right to restrict access to the forums when people come here and abuse their privileges.

So it's your opinion that companies shouldn't be reasonably accountable for their actions?

Fact: A company has a purpose from a business point of view that states something similar in nature to the following sentence. "I will make money off of customers."

Fact: Customers are people, not numbers. they exist outside of the company and it's purpose. If they disagree with the company and its practices they will, I repeat, WILL take their support of that company that they could offer and apply it some where else.

Fact: Companies need customers but customers don't need every company.

What can be deduced by all of this? Customers get privileges from the company under the unspoken understanding that the company plays fairly just as they expect customers too. What's that saying again? Was it "treat others how you want to be treated", or was it the one about not asking something of someone that you otherwise are incapable of? Now, if we are to take the advice of these "iron fisters" we have a more totalitarian like moderation policy which violates the "play fair" understanding. That is my point.

A private company should have the right to refuse service to anyone. Obviously, if they refuse service to everyone, they won't be a company for very much longer... but that's not the point of a right. Rights are about options, not obligation.

Thank you, OP, that was a very interesting video.

But breaking it down to the core it just prooves common knowledge: To keep people away from being nasty you need certain rules and you need to communicate these rules very clearly.

Being toxic is not a problem of the 12345th complaint about RNG. The 12346th complaint just prooves once more there is a serious problem in the game and should be taken care of by the devs.

Being toxic is also not an uneloquent post, that is maybe a little bit hard to understand. The reason could be a different native language, a lack of education at school, or something else. So who will decide how much "eloquence" is needed to be allowed to post in a gamers forum?? Here I would like to remind you of George W. Bushs "eloquency" and he has been the president of the USA. ScrotieMB would not let him talk here in PoE-Forums.......( Hmmm... in this special case I would even agree...)

Being toxic means a VERBAL ATTACK against somebody else or the game itself. This is what we see in our forums a whole lot more than needed. It starts with "what is this shit about" to " don´t let the door hit your back". We can see personal harrassement as well from fanboys as well from dissappointed players. We need rules against this behaviour and I think our mods are doing a pretty good job about it, but I also see, that more and more people are on probation.

So, if our mods are doing a good job but in spite of that the number of toxic language is still rising I would say the source of this misbehaviour is something deeper than the normal provocant behaviour out of anonymity.

What makes people really ranting is if they love something and see how this something ( doesn´t matter what it is) changing into something else they can´t love any more. So what the OP´s video did not mention is the fact that the most toxic forums are forums of games in which players are very much frustrated. A really toxic forum is the last warning that a game is about to loose a big part of its playerbase because of disappointment and frustration.

Unfortunately I saw it here during the last few weeks and I am pretty sure that a lot of this general bad temper is a result of many complaints who haven´t been adressed by the devs. If you see 30 threads about the same subject, you should at least say: " Yes, we noticed there is a problem". Nothing more, just to let people know the devs are there and they are not blind and still controlling things. The moment players feel there is no controll, no care, they loose all temper and will start ranting and loosing all respect.

And I think this is our main problem now in PoE. A lack of the Dev´s showing control and awareness of Problems and concerns.

"

pneuma wrote:

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

The attitude of "Go away, no one wants you here" is toxic and should be punished in of itself in my opinion.

It's 'toxic' to punish players that break the terms of service by doing things to expressly harm others? That's complete nonsense.

It is always toxic to reflect negative energies which is what it is if you tell someone to go away because no one wants them here, implying that no one likes them.

These are negative actions that breed more negative actions any way you put it. You did not have the discipline to not let them annoy you, and in being annoyed at them you lash at them, which is just as bad as whatever they did.

Telling someone to leave because no one wants them is a very bad thing in any setting, it is an insult where no insult is needed, it is to continue doing bad instead of stopping it.

You even said it yourself, "punish". It is never healthy to punish others because you feel justified because then we are back to old ideology which is an eye for eye, and you know that leaves everybody blind.

"

Moonlight33 wrote:

And I think this is our main problem now in PoE. A lack of the Dev´s showing control and awareness of Problems and concerns.

The devs in this game are great at interacting with the community and taking community suggestions. The "reduce life nodes" thing was my idea, for example, and Courageous thought of the Eternal Orb before its introduction. They're amazingly responsive to community feedback. Sure, they don't respond to everything, but can you really expect them to? They're trying to make the game, not just talk about it.

To then go and blame the devs for the toxicity of the community... that's just the utmost of ingratitude.