EA taking action against toxic players

124»

Comments

  • lassarusenTTV
    15 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    is this gaysir or have i entered wrong site?
  • GeneralXIV
    308 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye said:




    Bad things can happen when people don't need to worry about the consequences of their actions imo. While I want people to be free to express themselves in-game, I think its important to have something resembling a boundary when a line gets crossed and it becomes something that can cause harm to others or make their game experience unenjoyable. That's my personal opinion about this. Maybe a part of me also holds people to the same standards I try to set, idk.

    Some rules only keep the honest people honest.

    Some people act "kindly" only because they feel that some sort of karma will return to them, rather than acting kindly because it's simply the right thing to do.

    We see  all of that in video games.  "Medics would revive more if they got more points."  I mean, the analogy is a bit of a stretch, but there are other actions, many against the EULA of the game, that people still do quite often.

    Ignoring the fact there are times when rules are incredibly wrong and used as weapons instead of protecting people, I think most good/fair/sensible rules and restrictions are there only because of the bad people. *nods* A good person never needs rules imo, they never need to be threatened with negative consequences to do the right thing. They just... do it?

    It's like in Battlefield V. If they turned off the chat filter today and turned off the anti-cheat, a good person wouldn't shout, swear, insult other players, insult other groups of people, make the game less fun for others or cheat so they could gain an advantage. They would just play as normal or maybe help other players in some way. In this context, I think the new policies only exist because of the bad players, because they wouldn't need to have these things if no one tried to make the game less fun for others?

    But this is humanity. People really are terrible sometimes.
    This is why it was so much better in the private servers era of BF3/4 where the multitudes of player communities could self moderate.
    EA needs to swallow whatever pride or control obsession they have that prevents them from allowing third party hosts.

    I only started playing Battlefield with V, so I have no idea what things were like before... but I'm not sure I'd support community self-moderation. I think having private servers could be potentially a very mixed experience, because if you have a very good admin who cares about making the game fun for everyone and moderating the in-game chat when people use slurs and be offensive, I think it would be great. In many ways, better than what we have now because things would be more proactive and banning players would be easier. But, if the owner of the server either didn't care or encouraged people on the server to behave badly, then it would make the communities toxic. I think having private servers/admins could complement things like a chat filter and a report system, but I'm not sure I'd want to play in a private server if things were placed completely in the hands of miscellaneous people. Just my personal opinion :P
  • A_al_K_pacino_A
    1113 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    GeneralXIV wrote: »
    (Quote)
    I only started playing Battlefield with V, so I have no idea what things were like before... but I'm not sure I'd support community self-moderation. I think having private servers could be potentially a very mixed experience, because if you have a very good admin who cares about making the game fun for everyone and moderating the in-game chat when people use slurs and be offensive, I think it would be great. In many ways, better than what we have now because things would be more proactive and banning players would be easier. But, if the owner of the server either didn't care or encouraged people on the server to behave badly, then it would make the communities toxic. I think having private servers/admins could complement things like a chat filter and a report system, but I'm not sure I'd want to play in a private server if things were placed completely in the hands of miscellaneous people. Just my personal opinion :P

    That's where communities come in. A server with a bad reputation will soon only attract the people who are happy to go along with it. That leaves the decent folk using the highly regarded servers.
  • Hawxxeye
    7779 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 23

    I only started playing Battlefield with V, so I have no idea what things were like before... but I'm not sure I'd support community self-moderation. I think having private servers could be potentially a very mixed experience, because if you have a very good admin who cares about making the game fun for everyone and moderating the in-game chat when people use slurs and be offensive, I think it would be great. In many ways, better than what we have now because things would be more proactive and banning players would be easier. But, if the owner of the server either didn't care or encouraged people on the server to behave badly, then it would make the communities toxic. I think having private servers/admins could complement things like a chat filter and a report system, but I'm not sure I'd want to play in a private server if things were placed completely in the hands of miscellaneous people. Just my personal opinion :P
    Yes it was abusable. But the stuff in the first video can already happen even in BFV community games

    .
    However since then the private servers are off the match list if they have too much tampering so the bad servers will becomes deserted.



  • GeneralXIV
    308 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    GeneralXIV wrote: »
    (Quote)
    I only started playing Battlefield with V, so I have no idea what things were like before... but I'm not sure I'd support community self-moderation. I think having private servers could be potentially a very mixed experience, because if you have a very good admin who cares about making the game fun for everyone and moderating the in-game chat when people use slurs and be offensive, I think it would be great. In many ways, better than what we have now because things would be more proactive and banning players would be easier. But, if the owner of the server either didn't care or encouraged people on the server to behave badly, then it would make the communities toxic. I think having private servers/admins could complement things like a chat filter and a report system, but I'm not sure I'd want to play in a private server if things were placed completely in the hands of miscellaneous people. Just my personal opinion :P

    That's where communities come in. A server with a bad reputation will soon only attract the people who are happy to go along with it. That leaves the decent folk using the highly regarded servers.

    The thing is, imo, if toxic players are all kinda sealed away together, I think it will lead to more toxicity. People who troll for jokes etc will have their behavior reinforced and it will become something more. Like with YouTube, their recommendations keep people in their comfort zones and they are never really exposed to other people, and I think that's a mistake. It means people are less likely to view things critically because they already agree with them and many other problems. I think exposure to other players and causing both toxic and non-toxic to mix isn't ideal, but long-term it could benefit the overall gaming community. I think in an environment where people troll others and everyone acts as they do, they will never have someone standing up to them. Even if someone only says "not cool, dude" in the chat, at least that's something they would never have otherwise.

    Yup, I think sealing them away would be a bad thing and lead to more negativity if/when they returned to public servers.
  • MrCamp121
    1168 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    (Quote)
    This is actually an extension of the "power corrupts" statement. Power does not corrupt but it exposes what the person truly wants to do once they have the power to do so.
    .(Quote)
    Especially when considering that this subjective toxicity they are actually targeting is more often than not the words and expressions that certain vocal groups of people who are not even videogamers are the ones who mainly take issue with.A company should tailor their products around the actual people who pay for it and play instead of some organized non-gamers spamming the company's social media.and if a player is actually making themselves cesspit of malice on the chat only then they should just be manually reported by other players.

    Exactly. Well said
  • cashm0n3y08
    270 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    CPU_UK said:
    Here's a crazy idea, do what I do and turn off chat, that way I don't care what they are typing because I can't see it.
    That makes too much sense and requires way too much personal responsibility than people can handle. People would just rather have some sort of authoritarian censor everything they don't agree with or words that make them feel upset. Welcome to 2020 "DICE ban players that say EZ because it makes the loss I just took sting even more!" 
  • Hawxxeye
    7779 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 23
    CPU_UK said:
    Here's a crazy idea, do what I do and turn off chat, that way I don't care what they are typing because I can't see it.
    This will also shut off any potentially useful exchange of information as well.
    If you consider turning of the chat a victory, it is Pyrrhic one.


    CPU_UK said:
    Here's a crazy idea, do what I do and turn off chat, that way I don't care what they are typing because I can't see it.
    That makes too much sense and requires way too much personal responsibility than people can handle. People would just rather have some sort of authoritarian censor everything they don't agree with or words that make them feel upset. Welcome to 2020 "DICE ban players that say EZ because it makes the loss I just took sting even more!" 


    I said that I do not want to see that drivel, not for them to be banned. Do not put words into my mouth please. Alternatively no filter at all, I hate double standards where we are not allowed to swear a little but a prick who tries to laugh at the efforts of the other team is A-OK
  • MarxistDictator
    5251 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Your mental equivalents of profanity to whatever are not valid because you repeatedly claim they are. ez is just the latest in a long line of overplayed memes. I remember when umad was literally 3/4 of all chat in game, didn’t bug me. But I reiterate broke driverfield should start working on anti cheat long before they make the in game chat anymore censored and pillow clad than it already is.
  • Magikf1ngers
    253 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye said:




    Bad things can happen when people don't need to worry about the consequences of their actions imo. While I want people to be free to express themselves in-game, I think its important to have something resembling a boundary when a line gets crossed and it becomes something that can cause harm to others or make their game experience unenjoyable. That's my personal opinion about this. Maybe a part of me also holds people to the same standards I try to set, idk.

    Some rules only keep the honest people honest.

    Some people act "kindly" only because they feel that some sort of karma will return to them, rather than acting kindly because it's simply the right thing to do.

    We see  all of that in video games.  "Medics would revive more if they got more points."  I mean, the analogy is a bit of a stretch, but there are other actions, many against the EULA of the game, that people still do quite often.

    Ignoring the fact there are times when rules are incredibly wrong and used as weapons instead of protecting people, I think most good/fair/sensible rules and restrictions are there only because of the bad people. *nods* A good person never needs rules imo, they never need to be threatened with negative consequences to do the right thing. They just... do it?

    It's like in Battlefield V. If they turned off the chat filter today and turned off the anti-cheat, a good person wouldn't shout, swear, insult other players, insult other groups of people, make the game less fun for others or cheat so they could gain an advantage. They would just play as normal or maybe help other players in some way. In this context, I think the new policies only exist because of the bad players, because they wouldn't need to have these things if no one tried to make the game less fun for others?

    But this is humanity. People really are terrible sometimes.
    This is why it was so much better in the private servers era of BF3/4 where the multitudes of player communities could self moderate.
    EA needs to swallow whatever pride or control obsession they have that prevents them from allowing third party hosts.

    I only started playing Battlefield with V, so I have no idea what things were like before... but I'm not sure I'd support community self-moderation. I think having private servers could be potentially a very mixed experience, because if you have a very good admin who cares about making the game fun for everyone and moderating the in-game chat when people use slurs and be offensive, I think it would be great. In many ways, better than what we have now because things would be more proactive and banning players would be easier. But, if the owner of the server either didn't care or encouraged people on the server to behave badly, then it would make the communities toxic. I think having private servers/admins could complement things like a chat filter and a report system, but I'm not sure I'd want to play in a private server if things were placed completely in the hands of miscellaneous people. Just my personal opinion :P
    Speaking as someone who ran Battlefield servers from 1942 - BF3, I can honestly say that if a server is badly administered, it will be abandoned.  People won't play on it, and the will go away because it's not cheap to rent a server.  (Not one on a decent backbone anyway).  Before that, we ran Counter-Strike servers through CS: Source.  

    My clan was required to switch teams in a steamroll to help balance it out.  I didn't allow racist, bigoted, or misogynistic language on our server.  Cheaters were banned immediately after observation from an admin.  Good nature smack-talk was fine, even swearing was fine (I mean, it was a rated M game, and still is, right?).  We didn't have a chat filter, or any big mods on there. 

    However - other servers that sprang up and went away while we were operating it was mainly because of admin complaints.

    What it does lead to, however, is a sense of community around the servers if it's done right.  We had forums, in-person activities since most of us lived in the same general area (e.g. - a 3-4 hour drive away at most), a website with a calendar of events, we competed in CAL, OGL, and a few other amateur ladders, etc.  We had servers going from the late '90s - about 2012ish.  We only disbanded because most of the regulars got married and had kids and just didn't have time.  A few of us old farts tried to stick it out further, but we had to make the decision to shut down the servers.  

    However - I still have those friends.  We still have a Facebook group we keep in touch in.  Some of us still play together when we can.  

    Community servers have a LOT to offer, and any possible negatives are outweighed by the positives ten fold.


  • Hawxxeye
    7779 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 24
    Your mental equivalents of profanity to whatever are not valid because you repeatedly claim they are. ez is just the latest in a long line of overplayed memes. I remember when umad was literally 3/4 of all chat in game, didn’t bug me. But I reiterate broke driverfield should start working on anti cheat long before they make the in game chat anymore censored and pillow clad than it already is.

    It might surprise you but I actually agree with your statements.
    .
    Different people have different sensibilities and tolerances to the same words. What EA is doing with their blanket univeral A.I. filter is helping nobody cause it makes communication harder and harder.
    .
    They should really give up on it entirely or replace it with some customizable filter that we can all tailor to ourselves without affecting anyone else.
    .
    Cheating on the other hand... I think we can all agree what we do not want to be happening in our games.
Sign In or Register to comment.