City of heroes article
By
Arctic Man,
Posted on: 2009-07-07 05:52 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
I believe he's adapted his tactics to posting lots of one-liners on certain fora to see whether it'll provoke people 
(No offense intended)
Cancelled in Three - MA ID #34608. Please play and comment! Top 10 placing in Projectionist's MA contest!
I think your all missing the point of the article itself, he set out to see real life social preconceptions and obligations by studying it in an environment where you are not required to abide by those rules in the first place to achieve the goal. Because after all City of Heroes is a game, the purpose of which is to win, all he did was follow the rules ignoring social obligations to see how social groups react and as he put it Maintain order and the social balance
To be honest I find this rather interesting, I mean what he was actually doing was using all that he had been provided with (powers, sets and the like) to achieve the goal. The fact that he ignored social structure was what defined or created his exclusion, but it still stand that he in fact did nothing wrong by the gaming laws. It was however a social created law that he had broken and therefore punishable by no one but the players themselves. And I can only imagine after realizing this (after the lack of response or punishment by developer/GM) that they took things into their own hands.
Now that said, some things mentioned are provoking in a sense, and I feel sometimes he may have got into the character and mode a little too much. For instance after winning he in fact provoked a response by entering into social interactions. I feel that if he wanted to gain a proper result all interaction should have been removed thereby not allowing players to get to know the person but only the character and their actions. (and respond to the actions themselves and not the communication) but I guess since the verbal interaction is part of a social structure he had to (and did so very plainly as to best preserve the results)
Anyway, Still funny to see what happens when you are allowed to ignore social obligations in a situation to gain a win. And how we react to said interruption.
p.s Also makes me wonder why there isnt a 60ft teleport suppression on drones +perception buff o.O
Edit:
[ QUOTE ]
If you read the word document itself (There's a link in the article to it) he made a number of poor assumptions. The main one being that the droning tactic he was using was within the "Rules" of the game. This is a very bad interpretation, as while the mechanics of the game allows droning it's not in a pre-defined ruleset for the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes its not prohibited by the game therefore no rules against it ergo allowed. The rule however is created by the social structure of the game community which i believe is where he wanted to study 
Forgot to mention about the Fightclub situation... Who defines the rules for having the fight club in a PVP zone? ... and who has to enforce them?
Not quite a anagram but...
Loyola U. = Lol @ yoU
if you squint at the 'a' a bit
Allodoxaphobia is the fear of opinions.
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. MARCUS AURELIUS (121-180 AD)
Also it seems like his entire article was about the breaking of social convention and the reaction it draws from others, and yet he completely failed to explore the reasons why tp droning is considred 'uncool', namely that it defeats the point of pvp (the actual versus part, forcing someone to die at the hand of a robot from which there is no escape while not actually dealing any damage of your own isn't what pvp should really be, and I doubt he had much fun doing it unless he was deriving pleasure from angering others (if so he should probably be analysing himself rather than the other pvpers in the zone (I say others, but... yeah)). Using a tactic against which there is no defense is a fine use of the noggin in a real life battle situation, maximise enemy losses and minimize your own, but in a game where the fun is in the fighting not the victory, I see it as an annoyance tactic rather than a calculated one to induce victory. The convention exists because without drone teleporting, the zone and all the pvpers in it are given the space and freedom to practice abilities with their own skills, and with each side (an at least slightly) fair chance for victory. This is why I think breaking up the lil 'fite clubs' (the bits where enemies stand around chatting in pvp zones seemingly to me for no reason) with a small or large team (with the right sets to incur totally minimal losses) would have been more interesting subject matter.
It's a similiar (albeit mildly) deal to why murder or thievery are forms of behaviour which result in ostracisation. The concept of a human having no right to kill another human for his pleasure or at his whim is a positive social dynamic which allows society to function in much greater safety, allowing for faster and greater growth of mankind in its social interaction and allowing the furtherment of individual pursuits. Thievery is deemed wrong as it goes against the global concept of possession. If a possession belongs to someone, no one has the right to take it without their permission. This too is a well thought out social convention, as it allows one to ammass wealth in a phsyical sense without it being immediately taken away, and items earnt and found can remain yours without having to keep a constant watch over them.
Granted, tp droning is by far the lesser of the 3 in terms of phsyical (namely the break up of play for the victim, having to go to hospital or stop pvping all together) and emotional (the feelings of anger and depression of death in an area where you might hold some personal pride in your abilities when fighting in the regular fashion) implications (rather than just sociological ones... stupid sociology...), but that doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't worth at least noting. A lot of social conventions are around for very positive reasons, and I'd think that the more poorly thought out ones should be the ones to be challenged. Or else we might see sociology proffessors going on killing sprees or burglaries 'to see what the social implications would be'.
@Rooks
"You should come inside the box... Then you'll know what I mean."
Wow i'm really interested in this whole debate all of a sudden its fascinating... i think this helps describe what he was poking at:
[ QUOTE ]
In order to rescue sociology as a positivist enterprise, it is useful to assume social rules exist more influentially as cognitive constructs than as material characteristics of the social environment. A corollary then assumes some mechanism by which individual members of society activate these constructs in promotion of social order and well-being particularly where that well-being is detrimental and/or inhibitory to the individuals involved. Or, in short, why should one sacrifice herself for the good of the whole? Frequently, the answer to this question refers to a common set of cognitive mechanisms e. g., rationality -- according to which individual members of a society are inclined to act predictably and, wherever necessary for species survival, altruistically. These individually determined but socially beneficial actions are then manifest within large social organizations structures as natural or system laws.
[/ QUOTE ]
In Laymans terms, He was studying what happens when you remove the "Rational" social law of society (or in this case the gaming world) and do what your supposed to do ignoring these. He Succeeded by winning the zone round at all costs.
Reading the word document closer, I definely can't see what made him think he was "playing by the designers' rules" as the article says.
[ QUOTE ]
The first set of Twixts breaching behaviors involved pvp tactics within RV: droning and, closely related, teleporting into non-player characters (npcs).
[/ QUOTE ]
The second bit is definetly not allowed as far as I know, since it can cause debt. That's suspension-worthy actions just there. Or at least I think a red name has said so in the past.
See now i would say its an acceptable tactic in certain situations.
If your heavily outnumbered by the villains and a quick tp foe puts the odds in your favour then i think i'ld be tempted too. Suprise the enemy by removing one of theirs and then go for the all out attack.
Of course in a situation where your doing it JUST to see their reaction/cause problems, then it is wrong. Sirens Call used to have problems like this a lot, but then again the stalkers there were tp'ing above the hospital door so their own fault 
@Damz Find me on the global channel Union Chat. One of the best "chat channels" ingame!
[ QUOTE ]
Reading the word document closer, I definely can't see what made him think he was "playing by the designers' rules" as the article says.
[ QUOTE ]
The first set of Twixts breaching behaviors involved pvp tactics within RV: droning and, closely related, teleporting into non-player characters (npcs).
[/ QUOTE ]
The second bit is definetly not allowed as far as I know, since it can cause debt. That's suspension-worthy actions just there. Or at least I think a red name has said so in the past.
[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently not:
[ QUOTE ]
After trying and failing to convince Twixt to behave properly in the broadcast channels available within RV, players quickly took their pleas to the games moderators (through petitions) and then, equally quickly, to the larger community of CoH/V players.
[/ QUOTE ]
As i said, the tactic is breaking no predefined in-game rules set by the developers, It does however breach social structure and the normal play style of RV (combating heros and villains).
I think what most people are missing is what his actual goal was within RV. To win the map. He wasnt trying to pvp. Pvp is a function of RV, its goal however is to tag all 6 pillboxes and capture the area for your side, and he simply used what was available ignoring social etiquette to achieve a win.
And that's what makes him hated by the community, like someone who embezzles money from a bank to get rich, dodging social conventions to achieve a goal. The difference that there's a real life law prohibiting this behaviour shouldn't be a factor as only the sociology is being examined.
@Rooks
"You should come inside the box... Then you'll know what I mean."
[ QUOTE ]
Reading the word document closer, I definely can't see what made him think he was "playing by the designers' rules" as the article says.
[ QUOTE ]
The first set of Twixts breaching behaviors involved pvp tactics within RV: droning and, closely related, teleporting into non-player characters (npcs).
[/ QUOTE ]
The second bit is definetly not allowed as far as I know, since it can cause debt. That's suspension-worthy actions just there. Or at least I think a red name has said so in the past.
[/ QUOTE ]
The only time I have specifically seen it mentioned by a red name is when used for specifically griefing a single player. As in following one player around and only doing it to them. And from recollection that goes for both.
One of the things he says early on in the interview is that he was doing this to people who weren't actually PvPing:
[ QUOTE ]
...quickly learned that players ignored the area's stated purpose. Heroes chatted peacefully with villains in the combat zone....
[/ QUOTE ]
If as a PvPer you went into RV and saw someone farming pill boxes, would you ignore them knowing that they aren't actually there for the PvP? Or if they were grinding mobs for a kill badge?
I know this has come up before and at the time the answer was pretty much if you go into a PvP zone you may be PvPed. I know this is a bit different because it's perceived griefing.
I suppose it's sort of good publicity for us - in a way
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Thee is stated by someone who knew him in the zone that he went far beyond grieving in-game. He wrote down the names of who he killed and placed those on forums every night.
He went out of his way to create hate against him.
That is no science.. that is provoking. And the responce of the community was completly normal.
If this guy would have provoked people in a bar like this he would have been attacked too.
- The Italian Job: The Godfather Returns #1151
Beginner - Encounter a renewed age for the Mook and the Family when Emile Marcone escapes from the Zig!
- Along Came a... Bug!? #528482
Average - A new race of aliens arrives on Earth. And Vanguard has you investigate them!
- The Court of the Blood Countess: The Rise of the Blood Countess #3805
Advanced - Go back in time and witness the birth of a vampire. Follow her to key moments in her life in order to stop her! A story of intrigue, drama and horror! Blood & Violence... not recommend to solo!
[ QUOTE ]
I think your all missing the point of the article itself, he set out to see real life social preconceptions and obligations by studying it in an environment where you are not required to abide by those rules in the first place to achieve the goal. Because after all City of Heroes is a game, the purpose of which is to win, all he did was follow the rules ignoring social obligations to see how social groups react and as he put it Maintain order and the social balance
[/ QUOTE ]
Dont know about everyone else but i understood it, it was just a complete waste of time wasnt it.
What did he think peoples reaction was going to be? It didnt need a so called study to know that.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes its not prohibited by the game therefore no rules against it ergo allowed. The rule however is created by the social structure of the game community which i believe is where he wanted to study
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it is prohibited by the rules and can be construed as griefing, Xanthus got a ban for droning as did someone else who's name escapes me now.
I guess that would be the difference if he tried that stuff in EU then.
@Rooks
"You should come inside the box... Then you'll know what I mean."
[ QUOTE ]
I guess that would be the difference if he tried that stuff in EU then.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think had he done it here you and your mates would have killed him enough to sicken him of his experiment
Also i dont doubt for a minute he was regularly removed from the zone by the US pvp'ers, its just saying he was wiped the floor with didnt fit in with his rubbish report.
Isn't droning ok, but not if it's done too much?
I thought the devs had said that the PvP zones are "anything goes" palces?
It's like the NPC mobs - the devs could reduce their level if they wanted to - like make the mobs in RV cap at 45 or so.
But as they've filled the zones with dangerous mobs and instant kill drones, and given players the possibility to tp enemies, as well as being aware of the problems caused by excessive droning, then it looks like they're cool with it to some extent.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess that would be the difference if he tried that stuff in EU then.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think had he done it here you and your mates would have killed him enough to sicken him of his experiment
Also i dont doubt for a minute he was regularly removed from the zone by the US pvp'ers, its just saying he was wiped the floor with didnt fit in with his rubbish report.
[/ QUOTE ]
But wouldn't they have posted screenshots and logs for it on the forum? If he became that unpopular, surely there'd have been a lot of PvPers seeing it as a challenge to take him down, and then share their victory with everyone on the forum?
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess that would be the difference if he tried that stuff in EU then.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think had he done it here you and your mates would have killed him enough to sicken him of his experiment
Also i dont doubt for a minute he was regularly removed from the zone by the US pvp'ers, its just saying he was wiped the floor with didnt fit in with his rubbish report.
[/ QUOTE ]
But wouldn't they have posted screenshots and logs for it on the forum? If he became that unpopular, surely there'd have been a lot of PvPers seeing it as a challenge to take him down, and then share their victory with everyone on the forum?
[/ QUOTE ]
Dont know go and ask them.
Some people put more effort into being a [censored] than others.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess that would be the difference if he tried that stuff in EU then.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think had he done it here you and your mates would have killed him enough to sicken him of his experiment
Also i dont doubt for a minute he was regularly removed from the zone by the US pvp'ers, its just saying he was wiped the floor with didnt fit in with his rubbish report.
[/ QUOTE ]
But wouldn't they have posted screenshots and logs for it on the forum? If he became that unpopular, surely there'd have been a lot of PvPers seeing it as a challenge to take him down, and then share their victory with everyone on the forum?
[/ QUOTE ]
1. Naming and shaming is banned on the forums
and 2. No one would have bothered if he was a joke of a pvper (which to me it seems like he was)
Killing him was not a way of earning respect from peers but a way of deriving personal pleasure it would seem to me.
Swatting an annoying fly isn't the kind of thing you brag about to your mates.
@Rooks
"You should come inside the box... Then you'll know what I mean."
The author of this article betrays a clear prejudice against MMO players. Somehow, he is surprised when he angers PvP players, when they have asked him to stop, told him how it annoys them, and when it is obvious to any sane-thinking person that such activity will incense people.
Clearly, for him to have access to Recluses Victory, he must have played the game up to level 40, Hero-side. Given the lack of XP in PvP zones, he must have played a very large amount of PvE content to get where he did. Surely, then, he sees the friendlier side of City of Heroes? Surely he has played with good, polite people on his travels. Surely he has engaged in teamwork with people of all creeds, all dispositions. Surely he has seen why people enjoy playing this game.
Instead he goes out of his way to cause conflict. Once this is done, he acts surprised, even shocked that people start treating him as a pariah. What's worse, he feels quite justified in all of this.
Given all that, I invite him to undertake another experiment. Drive your car with no regard for your fellow man. Cut people up, let nobody through, and blare your horn when anyone gets in your way. Tailgate people. While these activities do not necessarily breach the law, they will still incite road rage. (I hasten to add at this point that griefing is NOT a legal activity in City of Heroes, as has been stated elsewhere.) You WILL receive baseless threats. People will wind their windows down and throw obscenities at you. But to truly replicate what this man has done, you will need to harass the same group of drivers in the same place, daily, for weeks. Drive a distinctive car, such as a bright red pickup truck. Make sure people know that you are going out of your way to incite anger.
Can we conclude, therefore, that all people who drive are immature? Beyond that, can we publish a paper on the subject? I don't usually resort to hyperbole when arguing seriously, but...
No. Because that is stupid.
Necrobond - 50 BS/Inv Scrapper made in I1
Rickar - 50 Bots/FF Mastermind
Anti-Muon - 42 Warshade
Ivory Sicarius - 45 Crab Spider
Aber ja, nat�rlich Hans nass ist, er steht unter einem Wasserfall.
Whether what he did was within 'the rules' or not, social experiment or not... "WHAT AN UTTER TW@T!". 
This reflects badly on NCsoft, the fact that they sat on their hands and allowed this blatant griefing to carry on for so long.
[ QUOTE ]
Dont know about everyone else but i understood it, it was just a complete waste of time wasnt it.
What did he think peoples reaction was going to be? It didnt need a so called study to know that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Knowing the likely result and actually seeing what REALLY happens are not always the same. The point here was to provoke some kind of reaction by making himself unwelcome, and seeing what actually happened. In that, it's an interesting experiment, but I know full well that had I been an unwilling part of it, I'd be absolutely LIVID once the truth came out.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually it is prohibited by the rules and can be construed as griefing, Xanthus got a ban for droning as did someone else who's name escapes me now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Knowing Xanthus, are you sure he wasn't banned for something else, like being Xanthus? (Sorry, I couldn't resist that!)
The thing is, he WAS reported and he wasn't banned. As no action was taken, what he was doing clearly wasn't against the game rules. Also, you know full well that the US and EU servers frequently seem to operate under different sets of rules. Look at the US, where players can even get deleted characters restored!
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[ QUOTE ]
Look at the US, where players can even get deleted characters restored!
[/ QUOTE ]
Quick get the worms back into the can!!!!
@Damz Find me on the global channel Union Chat. One of the best "chat channels" ingame!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at the US, where players can even get deleted characters restored!
[/ QUOTE ]
Quick get the worms back into the can!!!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Dont make me get started on that again, now that was a REAL experiment
If you read the word document itself (There's a link in the article to it) he made a number of poor assumptions. The main one being that the droning tactic he was using was within the "Rules" of the game. This is a very bad interpretation, as while the mechanics of the game allows droning it's not in a pre-defined ruleset for the game.
The experiment was deliberately designed to illicit a negative reaction from those around his character. The behaviour of the character was within the gaming mechanics, but were socially reprehensible. If the zone had allowed hero-on-hero actions, in addition to the established hero-on-villain actions, he would have quickly discovered that his supposed moral stance of "Must remove all villains from the zone" was incorrect. The "Breaching" behaviour that he went out of his way to present to the community quickly resulted in his ostracism from not only the villains, but the heroes as well.
I don't understand the requirement for establishing this kind of, previously documented, social interaction (Or lack of it in this case) in a simplified and purely artificial environment.
I'd be very interested in what he's up to now.
Union: @Ban-Sidhe