InfamousResult wrote...
I really doubt they're going to alter the way they ban people just because a few of them might actually be so ignorant that they can't figure out that shooting insta-kill rockets over and over in every match is exploiting. And we wouldn't be able to tell who the ignorant parties are, because everybody can just claim ignorance.
The exact same thing can be said of your suggestion to add a "compiled list" of things that will get you banned to the actual game. People can just claim that they skipped it, or didn't read it, and that they were still ignorant. "Buhhh, but who really READ that? I just wanted to play a game, I didn't want to READ." It'd be a lot of work just to get a message out that wouldn't actually change anything.
The system is as good as it's going to get. My apologies to any players who just plain don't have common sense, but like I said: Ignorance is not innocence. No matter how ignorant you are.
That's unfortunate, because banning innocent people = creating more people who will hate on BioWare and EA. It also means fewer people playing multiplayer, which means less fun for people who want to play with other people.
The goal shouldn't be to ban as many people as possible, it should be to fix the bugs so that they can't be abused in the first place, even by accident. Banning people in lieu of fixing the issue simply isn't an option. Okay, it is an option, but I don't think it's a very good one, especially if the goal is to get more people playing multiplayer, and to get them to continue playing it long after they're finished with the single player.
I don't think it's too difficult for them to create a MOTD for multiplayer that you can't easily skip through (like many EULA dialog boxes) to ensure that at the very least, people have _skimmed_ through the latest news, and if people skip reading it, even after seeing a 'Important Message for Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer Players Regarding Bannable Offenses', then it's at least the player's fault for skipping reading something that important and their own fault if they get ban-hammered. What's not okay is liberally applying the bans without warning to people who may not have read the forums, or for whatever reason may not even have access to the forums (remember how wonky the BioWare/EA/Origin account system became after consolidation?). This is especially important for Xbox 360 players because Microsoft doesn't allow internet browsing via Live Gold, so that means no reading of forums for 360 players unless they also have access to a laptop or some other internet-connected device from which to read them. I wouldn't even bring this up if one of the terms for playing ME3 multiplayer was that you agreed to read the forums on a regular basis, but I'm pretty sure that's not one of the requirements for playing multiplayer that I remember reading when I installed the game.
As well, I'd sooner they temporarily disabled glitchy weapons, classes, etc. so that people can't even accidentally abuse a glitch, than see people get banned for accidentally setting off a glitch.
I've been an admin on online multiplayer games before, and I know quite well the satisfaction to be gained in catching cheaters and punishing them, but I also remember it being an annoying, frustrating and time-consuming thing to constantly have to be suspicious of players, to spend considerable time trying to distinguish between a cheater who is deliberately abusing a bug and a clueless newbie who simply didn't know any better, and often the rules I was expected to enforce were ones that could just as simply have been hard-coded into the game to be impossible to do, rather than having admin dedicated solely to prevent people from doing something the game mechanics are allowing people to do. While it's more work for coders, ultimately it's a better solution than having to pay people solely to police the game.
Leaving bugs in a game, particularly ones that give cheaters a massive advantage/incentive to abuse, and then hoping people will stop abusing them just by threatening people with the ban-hammer, is not exactly a tenable position for a software company to be in. And if blanket bannination is inadvertently penalizing perfectly innocent players, well guess what? That's one less paying customer who won't be buying future BioWare/EA products. That's not a sound business model any way you look at it, and it has a considerable negative impact on the good name of the company. And all it takes is for one popular gaming blogger to get caught up in a blanket ban to start a huge crapstorm about it on the internet to see the entire thing get blown totally out of proportion.
And really, I would happily do without my precious Falcon VI for a while if it meant not having to worry that I'll accidentally glitch and get banned for 'cheating' that I wasn't even trying to do anyway. And what has this current wave of the ban hammer accomplished, except to get people start accusing other players of cheating _solely_ for having a Falcon as their weapon in the game lobby? I'm sure there's a whole bunch of people who started playing multiplayer who just got their shiny new rare Falcon and were itching to try it out, but every time they enter a lobby they get kicked (and aren't even told why), or accused of cheating, etc. That sort of suspicion harms the ME3 multiplayer gaming community, and that does impact how people perceive the game, especially if they don't even understand _why_ people are acting this way.
I only know now because I finally started reading the forums, and for all I know the times I've been kicked before were entirely to do with my using my Falcon, and not, as I assumed, because people were just being jerks. ;P
Retour en haut
