in-game supervision of player created content

  • following my initial answer in this thread Quests? Or NO Quest? , i started thinking about what i said.

    more specifically this part:

    the only thing i'm concerned about is the fair gameplay part and it would be nice to have some supervision of player created quests (doesn't really matter how they do it but for example moderators who report to the GMs could be a possibility because GMs have better things to do than go around checking player content 24/7)

    what i mean by it is essentially that if someone were to create anything that abuses the idea of making your own content, like unwinnable quests and such, there should be a way to get the content changed or removed from the game.

    i am aware of the concept that was brought up about this, the voting on player created content by other players, but i don't think we've touched on this aspect yet on the forum so i wanted to take the chance to include it in a bigger thread about supervision in general.

    hence this thread.


    so getting to the point (yes, i'm going somewhere with this)


    starting off with the specific idea of the votes:

    i have a few concerns about this

    1. enforcing the vote: whenever you get someone trying to put unbeatable quests in the game (i mean the intentional ones here, not something the creator made impossible by accident like forgetting to connect a door to a key or stuff like that) you can assume they will not just change their content because people ask for it since this creator designed it to be that way. how will the staff deal with people like them?
    2. amount of votes: assuming that there is a solution for my first concern and that only bad votes need enforcing, how many votes will it take to get a staff member to enforce the vote. there will always be people that are not happy with something another player made, this could be because it doesn't fit their personal taste or someone could be having a really hard time clearing it while other players breeze through it. but also things like jealousy towards the creator because a number of possible reasons but if we take a broader approach to this last part and call it interpersonal relations we get to my third point wich is
    3. interpersonal relationships: a player with a lot of friends can try to have his friends compensate the bad ratings he's getting from the playerbase (for example by letting them share in the profits from his impossible quest) while a solo player who just doesn't fit in the community can have made something awesome and fair but (going back to point 2) if he gets a few bad votes, he has no way of compensating and if we add some hypothetical bullies that make bad votes just because of who made it. so this can go both ways, either we get impossible stuff that some people are abusing that doesn't get changed because the creator has too many friends, or the entire playerbase can miss out on some awesome content because the player can't compensate his bad votes OR both.

    of course this also has the significant bright side that players can get a say in what happens to the content of their peers in stead of staff members arbitralily removing or changing it


    i realise that putting it this way looks like it's a terrible idea but the reason i did is because i believe that there are solutions to my concerns and the players having their own voice in the fate of player created content beats the problems of the voting idea


    now let's talk about reporting players:

    we all know how reporting works. someone does something he shouldn't do and you report him so the staff knows about it.

    first of all i shall voice my concerns again

    1. interpretation: in my experience there have been more reports because of a misunderstanding than there should be. i think this can be best explained with a simplified example: let's say there are 3 people on a flat area with absolutely nothing there except for a line that they are not alowed to cross by law. 2 of the people are standing next to the line talking while the third is standing in the background. suddenly 1 of the people at the line drops his wallet and he steps over the line to pick it up. the person next to him was there and knows what happened so he won't mind, however the person in the background only saw the first person step over the line but is completely unaware of the circumstances that drove him to step over the line (the dropped wallet). even though he doesn't bear ill will towards the first, he (assuming he cares enough to) sends a report that someone crossed the line that they were forbidden to cross by law. but this is a problem with any kind of reporting in any game so this isn't really that important but my point here is that truth does not always match a witness.
    2. gravity of a report: if we go back to the example of 1. let's say that after he is reported for crossing the line the first person kills the third for reporting him, the second person than reports him for killing someone. there are now 2 reports but obviously the second one is a lot worse than the first. there has to be some distinction between the two for this system to work properly
    3. balance and sanctions: let's say every report gets you -5 points (ignoring gravity here for the sake of a simple explanation) and you get sanctioned at -25 (these would have nothing to do with a karma system if any would be put in the game). this would allow a player to be reported 5 times before a sanction. if we add some sort of time balancing that gives +1 every year (i don't know how realistic this is, it just makes for easier numbers) there would be more flexibility when players get reported over periods of time but not very much. only this would be a bad balance for both the people that got reported while picking up their wallet (see before) if they are a bit clumsier than other people and drop it more and the people who started out "evil" like someone who kills 4 people on his first day but over time they became a better person but in the next 5 years he accidentally dropped his wallet twice over the line and getting -25 or less. but this is a problem that can easily be adressed by something that counteracts a report, for example a compliment that gives +2 or something like that.

    i only added the third one for a complete argument but most games these days have a pretty decent balance and fair sanctions (there are exceptions of course but that's not what this thread is for)

    the advantage of reporting over voting is that it has a higher chance of getting to a staff member and as such can be taken more seriously and if needed has a faster response from the staff.


    again, this seems like there's nothing good about it and unlike the votes, this could be depending on how reports are handled. i really hope peria chronicles doesn't end up with an automated report program but instead having staff members confirming each and every report where there is any possibility of doubt (as i mentioned before: the truth does not always match the witness)


    now we have the 2 most likely to be in the game ways of keeping things fair however, i feel like this would not be enough in a sandbox game since there will be so much more players than staff members that checking all reports and confirming the rating of every piece of players created content would be impossible.

    so the idea i had was similar to that of game sages in aura kingdom. a group of players that sacrifice a part of their free time to act as moderators( or some sort of investigative unit) that are at the same time a sort of middle man between the regular playerbase and the game masters. to me it doesn't really matter if these players are hired staff members policing the in-game world or volunteers but i have my doubts when it comes to fairness without human involvement (people with some sort of authority, not necessarily in the same ways as staff members) to supervise player created content (mostly checking accuracy of reports and votes but possibly more) in peria .


    did i forget anything?
    do you agree or disagree?

    does anyone have other ideas on how to "supervise" player created content or do you think it dhouldn't be supervised in any way?


    i know it's a lot in 1 post but i hope at least some people can find some time to read it and respond :).

  • I will admit I did not thoroughly read through all that and merely skimmed it. (I will give it a proper read when I am less distracted)

    The topic here is one that has been discussed probably hundreds of times regarding not only games, but any platform that supported user-created content.

    Once you hand over this kind of power to the general public, you will always be faced with the types of issues you raised in your argument. Sadly however, I do not believe we will ever see a perfect system that deals with these issues. Someone will always be unhappy, someone will always try to find ways to exploit the system or just make it an overall unpleasant experience for others.

    I completely agree with you though that human involvement is a little risky, because yes, you will have people who truly care about making it a fair experience for all, and on the other hand you will have people who'll, once again, try to exploit it.

    The only thing we can really do is wait and see, since the game will have systems in place to deal with these problems. It will all boil down to the western publisher and their support staff, their policies and their GM staff. Perhaps they can request the developer to add moderation functionality for players who have a proven track record. (Maybe based on a recommendation/commendation system?)

  • a perfect system will never happen, all we can do is try to get as close as possible but we will never reach it because that's the way humanity works.


    as for the risky human involvement:

    - if they are hired staff members they would have less reasons to exploit it since (ideally) they should be independent from the players

    - if they are volunteers from the community, there would have to be a trail period or possibly several other tests too

  • as for the first and probably most important point. the maps that the players create probably will have to go through some test. like ''the creator has to beat the map before submiting'' much like happy wheels. if it is a team based map then they would play with an ai that helps them with the map (simply attacking everything and clicking every button would be enough). so it will HAVE to be possible to complete or it wouldn't be able to come in the game in the first place.

    as for the voting system. i think it would go somewhere on the lines of ''you can see the scoring/likes,dislikes of a certent map, so maps with a shit scoring will be less played than games with a higher score, if a map isn't played in x time then it will be deleted.'' this is only an idea but it would clean out ever trash map and would promote good maps.

    in the case of the ''wallet'' i think there would be a pool-voting-thing like tf2. you take a area were the insidend happend, (the boim or whatever the map is devided by) and have a voting on what to do with x, if y saw only the first person. but q saw everything then they would both vote then it would be a 50/50 result aka no majority aka no punisment. while submiting the voting you would have to say why. so ban y this player because killing x or kick y because he stole. that would give the trust to the people but if we get a community like tf2 then people would be reasonble with there vote.

    as for reports... i have no idea what so ever. only if something gets an IMENS mount if reports then the devs will react but not in any other surcimstances


    this is theoretical but it would make sens if they want a working system:saint:

  • first of all i want to get this out of the way: it's not just about player made quests or maps but every type of player created content and a general supervision since giving the players too much power without any form of controle can ruin the game, i just used quests as an easy example because it has a lot of different aspects to it

    . so it will HAVE to be possible to complete or it wouldn't be able to come in the game in the first place.

    so about this part i want to say that not everything can be completed like something that only serves as decoration (if somebody were to create a giant statue of male reproductive organs, you would want to vote it out too i think)

    but if we assume we are talking about a quest than you could get away with impossible stuff.

    let's say that you have a puzzle themed quest and part of it is a math question 1+1=? the creator can choose not to connect the answer 2 (or even 11) to correspond with what the player needs to answer to continue (the creator could set it so that answer of the question of 1+1=? is pi or something). or a creator can put a door right in front of the goal and set it to open with a code that only he knows like his irl birthday

    this way the creator would always be able to complete the quest while players will never finish (except by accident)

    in the case of the ''wallet'' i think there would be a pool-voting-thing

    i only used this "wallet" example for the reports because i kind of see those as a system to use in the case of big issues and offences against the rules set by the staff rather than about peer reviews among players. smaller things like bad quests can be because the creator is still new and trying to work out the problems in his designs gradually so that's more interesting to have voting for.


    all i want to say with this is that different situations have different ways and degrees of reaction from other players. and with a game where players have this much power over the game world, there has to be some sort of verifying the validity of votes, reports and possible other ways of peer reviews.

  • all i want to say with this is that different situations have different ways and degrees of reaction from other players. and with a game where players have this much power over the game world, there has to be some sort of verifying the validity of votes, reports and possible other ways of peer reviews.

    i know that it isn't a perfect system, this is just a thought on how it may work to get a idea on how to make stuff. as we can expect the beta/alpha will test the living shit out of this system much like we saw in trove where there were like 6 diffrent kinds of systems before they seteld on this one. all i want to say is that it was only speculation and possibilities and not concreed facts/rules the devs should go by.

    in the open world we will see A LOT of chages in the system so it will be waiting to see the devs go through trail and error...:saint:

  • I really, really hope it's not an automated system that's used to handle all the reports, since that obviously could allow serious reports to go unnoticed and minor reports could be handled way too severely (like YouTube's flagged videos system). Hopefully real people, either developers or moderators, will handle the reports and flags and whatnot. Very interesting read though! I enjoyed it.

  • that's exactly why i want some form of supervision over it
    preferably someone who is payed for it and would not benefit from giving the content remaining ingame nor from the content being removed to keep things fair but since companies don't like to spend money i'd settle for volunteers who passed a trial period first