fairness
Latest
Path of Exile unholsters the banhammer for cheaters
The team behind Path of Exile has been pretty forgiving up to this point. Players have been a bit more commonly warned that there will be penalties if they're cheating. But that's over now. The latest race season has finished, and players who were found to have cheated have been given a grand total of no rewards even if they were technically eligible. Nearly 4,000 players will log in to find a warning to disable any cheats they have running before they get banned. From this point forward, any incidents with cheating software will result in a ban, end of discussion. This is true even if the player in question argues that the cheat was being used for quality-of-life purposes; those issues will be addressed in the future and don't justify cheating. Players are reminded that they are allowed to run tools that don't require the client to be running and single-action hotkeys without a problem, so don't worry about being punished just for having Fraps in the background. Just... don't cheat.
MMO Mechanics: MOBAs vs. MMO battlegrounds
It may feel as if MMOs have always existed as a core part of our gaming repertoire, but the genre made its indelible mark on the industry just over a decade ago. MMO titans like World of Warcraft, EVE Online, and City of Heroes shaped the mechanics we now use as markers and basic standards for the quickly growing genre, and those mechanics have been reiterated and reforged by the countless additions to the MMO clan that we know and love today. This new MMO Mechanics column aims to navigate the mechanical minefield that is the modern MMO through in-depth opinion pieces, comparative analysis, and a little bit of Irish wit, starting with a peek at what distinguishes MMO PvP battlegrounds from Massively Online Battle Arenas. If women are from Venus and men are from Mars, MMOs and MOBAs must be from different galaxies altogether. Despite the similarities between MMO PvP arenas and MOBA matches, the two take very different approaches to progression, persistence, and matchmaking. This leads to two very separate yet equally engaging ways to test the mettle of your character against the might of a human opponent.
Some Assembly Required: On balance and fairness
Today it occurred to me that The Secret World's faction choice is meaningless. You're probably aware that the game features three organizations, but if you're not a regular player, you may not know that picking one is largely an aesthetic exercise. Sure you get different lines of dialogue in the game's numerous cutscenes depending upon whether you're a Dragon or a Templar, and you get Illuminati-specific outfits if you roll that way, but outside of these niceties and perhaps roleplay, TSW's factions are pretty pointless. They're pointless because there's no real consequence for picking one over the other, and there's no lasting impact on either the world or gameplay that results from in-game factional "wins." Anyhow, when I mentioned this to a friend, his very first comment was that "any changes would need to be fair and inclusive."
Expedia adds to Google's EU antitrust woes, decision expected after Easter
Google's position as the dominant search engine doesn't come without a price. Smaller search sites have already tapped on the EU Commission's door to register their complaints about how they are ranked, and Microsoft has also let its feelings on the matter be known. Now, we can add the Redmond spin-off, Expedia, to that list of sore losers disgruntled firms. The travel search site claims it has specific details outlining how the search giant has violated European anti-competitive laws. A Google spokesperson issued a statement saying "We haven't seen the complaint yet, but we've been working to explain how our business works, cooperating with the European Commission since this investigation began." The EU Competition Commissioner says a decision will be made after Easter, at which point Mountain View will either be charged, or the investigation will be dropped. If only that were the end of its EU troubles.
The Daily Grind: Do you want a 'fair' fight?
Fair is a four-letter word. I mean, literally it is; you can count them if you like. It's a figurative four-letter word too, especially when it comes to MMO design and PvP. What's unfair to some is smart tactics to others, and the subjectivity here is responsible for a large part of the rancor that underlies PvP discourse. Funcom's Craig Morrison recently expounded on the subject via his personal blog, and among the interesting nuggets up for discussion was the notion of a fair fight (and more specifically, whether MMO players actually want one). Some do and some don't, of course, but the more important question seems to be what is a "fair" fight? Can it even be defined, let alone coded? Morrison writes that "most people simply don't like being fodder for a dominating force. They don't like to be bullied or out-muscled by a force that the game mechanics have allowed to have a clear position of dominance." He's right, but what's left unsaid is that everyone has the same opportunity to take advantage of those game mechanics. What say you, Massively readers? Do you want a "fair" fight? If so, how do you define the word in this particular context? Every morning, the Massively bloggers probe the minds of their readers with deep, thought-provoking questions about that most serious of topics: massively online gaming. We crave your opinions, so grab your caffeinated beverage of choice and chime in on today's Daily Grind!
The Lawbringer: What WoW can learn from other microtransaction models, part 2
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Mathew McCurley takes you through the world running parallel to the games we love and enjoy, full of rules, regulations, pitfalls and traps. How about you hang out with us as we discuss some of the more esoteric aspects of the games we love to play? Two weeks ago, The Lawbringer took a look at the EVE Online currency model, what happens when value is dictated by the players, and the successes and failures that Blizzard can learn from when moving forward the revenue model for WoW or any other secret MMOs in the pipe. This week, part 2 discusses the batch currency model, where players purchase one set of currency and earn another. While WoW is not likely to move to this type of currency in the near future, Diablo 3 has already embraced it with the real-money transaction auction house, which eschews a purchased currency for, well, currency. The prime example in recent gaming history of the successful batch currency model is Riot Game's wonderful League of Legends. I've been a Defense of the Ancients fan since the early days of the mod, and the fact that such a simple concept has evolved to a genre in and of itself is remarkable. Combined with the fact that there are 15 million accounts, millions playing all over the world, and a ridiculously successful microtransaction model for customization and convenience items, League of Legends has got the world captivated. But why is World of Warcraft not something that could benefit from selling its own currency, or, rather, why would Blizzard never let it happen? Let's find out.
New Gamasutra feature looks to define fairness in MMOs
Buying power! Class Balance! Easy mode! We'd be willing to bet that those pharses invoke some pretty strong feelings in many of you. When it comes to MMORPGs -- especially those of the free-to-play variety -- fairness is often a huge concern. Whether it's in the form of class balance, content tuning, or buying to win, equality is a delicate subject. Mr. Simon Ludgate over at Gamasutra realizes this, and has put together an incredibly in-depth feature discussing the philosophy of fairness in MMORPGs. The feature is packed with star-power, with commentary from En Masse's Brian Knox, Trion Worlds' Scott Hartsman, Richard Garriott, and more. For the full, in-depth, and interesting feature, head on over to Gamasutra.
Lost Pages of Taborea: Content needs to meet the versatility of gear-upgrading
Last week I compared looting and class-bending in Runes of Magic with similar features found in RIFT. RoM's system of gear customization was a part of that article. This week, I want to talk business. Don't worry, I'm not a business major about to sling pie charts at you or talk about quarterly earnings. I want to talk a bit about business, specifically about how it might relate to decisions developers make concerning what kind of balance to put into an MMO. RoM's gear system is extremely flexible on the outside, but inside there are some restrictions. Some of these restrictions are imposed by the game, but some are imposed by players. In this week's Lost Pages of Taborea, let's take a look at how the flexibility and choice of RoM's gear system -- and other systems -- are in opposition to the game's content and some desires players have.
Microsoft lodges antitrust complaint against Google with European Commission, ignores irony
So Microsoft doesn't like anticompetitive behavior, huh? Since when? Brad Smith, General Counsel for the Redmond rabblerousers, has posted a lengthy blog post outlining Microsoft's concerns with "a pattern of actions that Google has taken to entrench its dominance" in online search and ads, which he claims is detrimental to European consumers. Funnily enough, half the post is about Google's legal issues in the US, but we'll set that aside for now. What this boils down to is that Microsoft is finally taking the gloves off -- Google accused it of pushing other companies to do its dirty work -- and is now adding its name to the list of objectors to Mountain View's stranglehold on search in Europe. The European Commission is already taking a regulatory looksee at Google's tactics, so this isn't sparking off a new investigation, but it does add the glamor of two big names locking legal horns yet again. Hit the source link for Brad's exposition of Google's villainous wrongdoings.
Google to face formal EU antitrust investigation over unfair downranking of search competitors
Way back in February, the European Union announced its intention to look into allegations made against Google that the search leader wasn't ranking its competitors fairly in the results it delivered. Well, that fact-finding mission seems to have unearthed at least some hint of impropriety on Google's part, as it's now shed the "preliminary" label and has become a full-on antitrust probe. The original complaints came from EJustice.fr, Foundem.co.uk, and Microsoft's price comparison service Ciao, and they're still the basis of the investigation, though secondary issues, such as Google's conditions for advertisers and the way it tracks ad campaign data, will also be looked at. Let's not forget, however, that we're still dealing with allegations here, and it's going to be quite tricky to show any misdoing without delving into Google's famed algorithms and internal practices -- then again, maybe that's exactly what Mountain View's competitors are after. Update: Google has responded to the news on its Public Policy Blog.
The Daily Grind: What isn't fair?
To many people, "fair" occupies the same mental space as Santa Claus and the Fallout MMO -- it's nice to believe in, but it doesn't really exist. Balance in an MMO is hard enough without adding in standards of fair play, and in any environment more complex than Team Fortress 2, there will be some things youu consider blatantly unbalanced. (Even in that environment, actually.) But there are always some things that strike you as just being inherently not fair -- things that on a conceptual level make the game less fun, especially in PvP. Stuff where you find yourself blaming the mechanic even when something is your own fault. Stealth is a classic one, as many players find the idea that you could be killed by a heretofore unseen presence not remotely fair. Another classic is any form of crowd control -- few people are pleased at PvP matches consisting of their character being unable to act while other players unload on them. What about you? What mechanics do you consider inherently unfair to play against?
Why loot drama happens (and how to prevent it)
I like this post over at I am a Paladin -- it's a pretty insightful look at why drama is so easy to come by in bigger guilds. Blizzard has done almost everything they can to divide loot fairly (and they're still working on it, with the addition of more token systems), and there are certainly plenty of systems out there to try and keep things as fair as possible. Still, as long as there are only a few rewards to split among 25 people in a raid, there will always be loot drama -- as IaaP says, when people aren't rewarded for their hard work (or at least they perceive that), then frustrations start to set in. And gone unchecked, that can lead to jealousy or resentment, which leads to anger, and that all leads to the kind of spectacular guild breakups you can read about in Guildwatch.So how can you avoid all that? If the main reason people start causing drama is that they don't feel rewarded, then you've got to find a way to reward them. That might mean going with a more fair loot system (I've been in a few guilds that have switched to DKP at the first hint of drama), it might mean changing up the way you run things (by switching groups around or switching roles in a raid), or it might mean stepping back down into an easier raid to better gear up some of your members. As long as Blizzard requires more members than loot in a raid, there will always be imbalances, but hopefully most drama issues can be avoided if everyone realizes that though any given piece of loot might get passed out unfairly, there'll always be enough to go around.
SWAPS loot system offers another DKP option
I'm finding myself really fascinated with loot systems lately -- the old DKP is pretty good, but even that has drama, and it seems like there's a lot of interesting ideas going around about how to evenly and fairly distribute loot amongst a group of people. OutDPS has a writeup about a loot system called SWAPS. Instead of sending "points" off into the void, you actually "give" your spent points to everyone else in the raid. You start out with 1,000 free points (though those are distributed over time, to prevent new players from having tons of points early on) and then when an item comes up, everyone bids on it: the highest bid gets the item and the points they bid are spread around to the rest of the raiders. In other words, if someone in a 10-man raid bids 500 points and wins an item, those 500 points are distributed evenly amongst the other nine raiders. While the winner loses the 500 points they spent, everyone else gets a bonus 56 points. The person winning the item "pays" for the privilege of taking it by beefing up everyone else's point totals.It is probably not a perfect system (there's no way to reward points for anything other than loot dropping, for one thing, and while some people have modified the rules to create a separate bidding pool for class items, the basic system doesn't cover class or offspec items), but it does solve a lot of the questions of fairness, and it keeps everything pretty above-board: if you are low on points, the only reason would be that either you just started raiding, or that you've just spent a lot of points on an item. There's an addon, of course, and it will give you all sorts of reports and updates on where all of your raiders are at in the system. If you've been poking around for a DKP system that is based on being open and fair, it might be worth trying out in your guild.
Officers' Quarters: Friendly favors
Every Monday Scott Andrews contributes Officers' Quarters, a column about the ins and outs of guild leadership.I'm sure plenty of officers out there can sympathize with the dilemma in this e-mail. The officer who wrote it has recently been promoted (yay!), but now her friends come to her for special favors, intervention with other officers, and insider information (uh oh). She wonders if she can be a good officer without pushing her friends away. (Go easy on this e-mail in the comments. English isn't her first language.) Hello!Since you mostly base your posts on e-mails from your readers I thought to send you one concerning my own current problems (I wouldn't know if people can relate to this).I'm a fairly new (2 weeks) officer in a 25men raiding guild. We have about 30-35 raiders and more social members! I started off as taking over the healing assignments, which led to my opinions about healing setup/healing trials, which led to partly raid leading and then I got promoted. We're only with 3 leaders (the GM and 2 officers-including me) which I think is enough for our guild, people listen. The tasks get done, communication is good . . .But, I'm this kind of person that cares for the people, I want to stand up and have a fair treatment (which happens in my guild). The thing I've experienced thou[gh] with that attitude is . . . I'm friends with a lot of people in the guild, and sometimes that makes things difficult. In these 2 weeks I've experienced several times of friends expecting me to do them a favour officer wise.
