I have been a player of City of Heroes for one continuous year, during which time I have met several wonderful people and generally had fun playing.
I suffered no punishments as a result of the actions detailed here, but have by this time simply lost faith in direction taken by the City of Heroes staff.
I suspect that were the staff to demonstrate an increased awareness of the concerns of at least a minority of the players in the game, and future good-faith actions taken to prevent similar such situations, I would return.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Mission Architect and the Beta version
Mission Architect was formally announced on 8/26/08 in a post by Matt Miller, Lead Developer and hereafter referred to by his forum persona, Positron. Mission Architect (MA) was said to allow players to "make their own story arcs using a customized version of the tool used by our mission writers, in some cases rivaling our own internal tools in ease-of-use."
In that same post, he also went on to say, "I should probably take this moment to talk about what the Mission Architect is not meant for. It is not meant for 'easy leveling' or 'badging' or 'farming'. Those are things that we specifically wanted the Mission Architect NOT to do."
On 9/25/08, Positron made another post on the official boards that indicated that they would be including the ability to include "custom characters" in the MA due to customer feedback.
He also announced a new feature, called a "Leveling Pact", which would enable two characters to be "pacted" and gain experience points (XP) at the same rate, even if one of the two characters was offline. The stated goal for this was so that both characters would, "allow you and a buddy to create new characters and have your XP be permanently in sync, whether both characters are online or not."
Positron provided additional information on the upcoming features in a post on 11/05/08, wherein he provided further information on Level Pacting, "Characters that are level 5 and under can form a permanent bond that will evenly split all XP they ever earn, keeping them in perfect level sync their entire careers (unless they decide to break the Pact)."
Positron responded to questions regarding announced MA badges. Badges in City of Heroes are generally earned as an in-game representation symbol of events a specific character has achieved. There is a significant number of players who attempt to collect as many badges as they can, but for some of the more difficult to earn badges, they resort to an activity known as "farming". There appears to be no definitive definition of farming, but it's generally understood to involve performing a repetitive task in a short amount of time, for a given goal such as badges, experience points (XP), or in-game money. Due to the high requirements of some badges, farming is the only method a player could reasonably certain high-requirement badges, in less than a few years.
Positron acknowledges this in a post made on 2/28/09, when he remarks, "That said there are a lot of badges available to earn in Mission Architect. A good chunk of them are only in "test mode", so if you REALLY just want to farm those badges, you don't need to publish the mission (actually you CAN'T publish the mission) in order to earn it."
Thus, some interpreted his statement to reflect an understanding that "farming", such as for badges occurs and may even be necessary, albeit for some badges.
In the same post, he also expresses confidence that most exploits the City of Heroes staff could imagine made using the MA system were addressed when he stated, "Now, I am not going to say we've covered EVERY edge case, but we've covered every edge case we could think up. Suffice it to say that if you have read everything here and have a 'great idea on how to break the system', chances are we've thought of it and made it impossible."
He also pointed out an increased ability to determine possible exploits being used, "We've added a TON more datamining hooks exclusively for Mission Architect as well, so we can easily see spikes in aberrant behavior. Spikes point us to exploits, which points us to log files, which reveal the identities of exploiters. So if you find a really big exploit in the system, I'd encourage you to PM me or another Dev and try to get your Bug Hunter badge, as the alternative is not pretty."
He later defines an exploit in the following post, "If your personal moral compass flip flops or even wavers a little while doing something in the game that is obvious to you is not intended behavior, it's probably an exploit."
Closed Beta testing began, which offered a chance to test out various systems to be included in a future software update (referred to as an "Issue") prior to its live release. Reports from former Beta testers indicate that the City of Heroes staff were warned of several possible exploits, of which many were corrected during the Beta testing period or soon after the Issue 14, which contained MA, was released. However, several were not addressed.
In that same post, he also went on to say, "I should probably take this moment to talk about what the Mission Architect is not meant for. It is not meant for 'easy leveling' or 'badging' or 'farming'. Those are things that we specifically wanted the Mission Architect NOT to do."
On 9/25/08, Positron made another post on the official boards that indicated that they would be including the ability to include "custom characters" in the MA due to customer feedback.
He also announced a new feature, called a "Leveling Pact", which would enable two characters to be "pacted" and gain experience points (XP) at the same rate, even if one of the two characters was offline. The stated goal for this was so that both characters would, "allow you and a buddy to create new characters and have your XP be permanently in sync, whether both characters are online or not."
Positron provided additional information on the upcoming features in a post on 11/05/08, wherein he provided further information on Level Pacting, "Characters that are level 5 and under can form a permanent bond that will evenly split all XP they ever earn, keeping them in perfect level sync their entire careers (unless they decide to break the Pact)."
Positron responded to questions regarding announced MA badges. Badges in City of Heroes are generally earned as an in-game representation symbol of events a specific character has achieved. There is a significant number of players who attempt to collect as many badges as they can, but for some of the more difficult to earn badges, they resort to an activity known as "farming". There appears to be no definitive definition of farming, but it's generally understood to involve performing a repetitive task in a short amount of time, for a given goal such as badges, experience points (XP), or in-game money. Due to the high requirements of some badges, farming is the only method a player could reasonably certain high-requirement badges, in less than a few years.
Positron acknowledges this in a post made on 2/28/09, when he remarks, "That said there are a lot of badges available to earn in Mission Architect. A good chunk of them are only in "test mode", so if you REALLY just want to farm those badges, you don't need to publish the mission (actually you CAN'T publish the mission) in order to earn it."
Thus, some interpreted his statement to reflect an understanding that "farming", such as for badges occurs and may even be necessary, albeit for some badges.
In the same post, he also expresses confidence that most exploits the City of Heroes staff could imagine made using the MA system were addressed when he stated, "Now, I am not going to say we've covered EVERY edge case, but we've covered every edge case we could think up. Suffice it to say that if you have read everything here and have a 'great idea on how to break the system', chances are we've thought of it and made it impossible."
He also pointed out an increased ability to determine possible exploits being used, "We've added a TON more datamining hooks exclusively for Mission Architect as well, so we can easily see spikes in aberrant behavior. Spikes point us to exploits, which points us to log files, which reveal the identities of exploiters. So if you find a really big exploit in the system, I'd encourage you to PM me or another Dev and try to get your Bug Hunter badge, as the alternative is not pretty."
He later defines an exploit in the following post, "If your personal moral compass flip flops or even wavers a little while doing something in the game that is obvious to you is not intended behavior, it's probably an exploit."
Closed Beta testing began, which offered a chance to test out various systems to be included in a future software update (referred to as an "Issue") prior to its live release. Reports from former Beta testers indicate that the City of Heroes staff were warned of several possible exploits, of which many were corrected during the Beta testing period or soon after the Issue 14, which contained MA, was released. However, several were not addressed.
Mission Architect goes live, actions and punishments
On April 08, 2009, the Issue containing MA was released live to all servers. This received considerable online press from such sites as Massively.com and Wired.com.
When this issue was released, all players received an in-game notice (termed a Message of the Day, or MOTD). I have thus far been unable to find the exact wording of this MOTD, but to my personal recollection it reiterated the potential punishments for violating the Terms of Service as they relate to utilizing in-game exploits.
Anecdotal evidence from a variety of players at the time suggests that MA would be a large hit, as the areas where players could experience MA content were extremely busy, especially compared to other areas of the game that relied upon traditional, non-MA content.
Of course, there were players who saw MA as an excellent opportunity to utilize MA features to engage in "farming" for traditional rewards, such as experience points or in-game wealth, and thus created MA missions to engage in this activity.
For the most part, the City of Heroes staff were quick to alter or remove any of the mechanisms that provided such rewards out of proportion to the in-game risk. Such action removed some "custom creatures" that offered no threat but still provided rewards. A few patches were released during this time.
On April 23, City of Heroes enacted a "Reactivation Week", wherein lapsed accounts were granted the ability to login and play, both to celebrate the game's 5 Year Anniversary and to experience the MA content.
During this time, a type of MA mission referred to as a "Meow Farm" (known as such because of the name of one of the more popular MA missions to utilize a specific creature) became popular and widespread by a large number of players. Due to the way City of Heroes and MA are designed, it allowed players to "farm" characters to the highest level available in the game, 50, within a matter of hours. Several players reported taking a character at the lowest level (1) and having them reach 50 within as few as four hours, although it appears six to twelve hours being the more common amount of time.
Coinciding with this period, although admitted later, the City of Heroes staff where in what was referred to as a "publishing blackout" that prevented updates that would prevent such ability to level a character in such a manner. The lack of such communication regarding the "publishing blackout" led many players to conclude that such activity was condoned, as it was widespread and due to the volume, would have had to be willfully ignored by the City of Heroes staff under normal circumstances.
As a result, on 5/5/09, Positron began a forum thread entitled, "Abusing Mission Architect". In it, he again expressed the desired goal of MA, that being to "have an outlet for players to craft cool stories, using our assets, that other players could play and participate in. Other players could rate those stories and the best-of-the best would rise to the top."
He also reiterated that they expected some level of "abuse" of the MA system and announced a zero-tolerance policy for such "abuse".
He also made clear that as part of that policy, players that "abused" egregiously the MA system as the City of Heroes staff defined such abuse would be subject to "losing benefits they have gained - leading up to and perhaps including losing access to the characters power-leveled in this fashion." (emphasis in the original)
He also alerted players that some badges for MA would be modified or removed from the game.
He also said that those players "who knowingly use an exploit when creating an arc, run the risk of having access to MA suspended, or worse- depending on the severity of the action, their account banned."
To explain the position and actions of the City of Heroes staff, he explained that they were constructed to maintain a level of "risk:reward ratio", in other words, to ensure that actions taken in the game would provide rewards equal with the risk of those actions.
Two days later, after his thread had reach almost 750 pages (each page representing approximately 10 posts from players), he created another thread, entitled "FOLLOWUP: Abusing Mission Architect".
In this, he provided clarification to a few questions raised, in the form of a Question and Answer session.
His first answer addressed a question regarding the potential loss of characters that had utilized MA to quickly level, explaining that "Only the worst of the worst, exploitive, powerlevelled characters will be removed from the game. We don’t take retroactive punishments lightly, but some offenses are so egregious that no one would question their intent and those ill-gotten gains should be dealt with. I just want to emphasize that no one is looking to ‘punish’ anyone here, but rather remove the rewards of exploitive behavior."
In response to a request for a concrete definition of "abuse", he replied, "I know a lot of you want to know an exact definition to see if you were actually abusing the system, or just playing the game, but I don’t want to be set up in a situation where our definition of abuse is abused."
He was also asked about the removal of some badges, explaining that, "I apologize in advance if we remove a badge that someone got legitimately through normal gameplay. We didn’t want MA to become a badge farm".
For the first time, he informed the players of the "publishing blackout", "We had a publishing blackout during the reactivation that prevented us from putting new code up onto the live servers."
That was the state of affairs over the next couple of weeks. Discussion raged on regarding his statements (which culminated in a 369 page locked thread)
At some point on 5/20/09, players began to receive notice that they had violated the End User License Agreement (EULA) and their accounts were receiving a 72 hour ban from playing. Additionally, they reported characters that had reached lvl 50 were being deleted. This information was gleaned by in-game conversations as no official word of such actions was made available by the City of Heroes staff.
Among those players reported to have experienced the above punishment, some indicated that they had not engaged in such "abuse" of the MA system but in fact had characters which were part of a "level pact" with another player. They appear to have been affected by the afore-mentioned punishment as they were evidently seen by the City of Heroes staff to have "trained" within in the maximum allowed time (approximately 10 hours) but there appears to be no definitive estimate for how long it actually took for the character to reach the maximum level. This is in large part due to the design of the game, which separates the time taken to level and the time taken to train. As the two can differ by a significant period (for example, 40 hours in the former case and 20 minutes in the latter), many characters that were level pacted appeared to have gone from level 1 to level 50 in a duration deemed insufficient.
In-game discussion tended to support the notion that an automated script had been executed, which automatically performed the above action if a player had a character level and train (the step taken to realize the benefits of leveling) to level 50 in under 10 hours, although evidence discussed seemed to reveal some punishments affecting characters trained beyond 10 hours and skipping some trained in under 10 hours. Thus, it could be understood that level-pacted characters were affected as a script would lack the judgment provided by human discernment.
During this time, there was no official statement made concerning the action, to explain the scope or criteria.
As a result, several of the players affected began posting to the official City of Heroes Forum, detailing the actions taken against them and asking for clarification.
Due to the official forum policies, one of which precludes such questioning, their requests for more information were deleted and in some cases, warnings given out to the players responsible, threatening them with the possible loss of future forum posting. However, due to the same forum policies, mentioning this warning or continued requests for clarification could also result in the punishment being enacted.
This forum rule states as such, "4. Private communication between Customer Support, NC Interactive, Inc. (“NCsoft”) members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue.
You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions, email or PM correspondence, in game chat logs, etc.) received from any of the aforementioned without permission. As such, warnings and bans are not to be discussed on the forum. Such matters shall remain private between the NCsoft and the user. Questions or comments concerning warnings and bans will be conveyed through e-mail or private messaging. Likewise, discussions regarding moderator actions are not permitted on the forum. If you have questions regarding a post or thread that has been removed or subject to other moderation, feel free to contact a moderator to discuss it.
Additionally, another forum rule was also apparently cited for the removal of discussion of the day's events,
17. Proprietary forums
The City of Heroes/City of Villains Message Forums are private message forums administered by NCsoft. All message board content is allowed at the discretion of NCsoft. NCsoft reserves the right to remove any message board content at will without notice for any reason at our discretion.
As the following two days went on, several posts or threads created by numerous players were deleted or edited as a result of these official forum rules.
Concurrent to the events occurring on the forum, one user who had a character level-pacted had contacted the City of Heroes Customer Support section and been told that they (Customer Support) had been instructed not to restore any such level-pacted toons or rescind the 72-hour ban, thus players had to face the possibility of going into a 3-day holiday (Memorial Day for Americans) with a significant portion of it being prevented from playing the for-pay game, under circumstances they felt to be erroneous.
Thus, the state of affairs for much of that day and the following consisted of players creating posts which violated either or both of the above two rules and subsequently becoming increasingly hostile as their threads were deleted or discussing the situation in various in-game methods.
Also during this time, discussion raged on between those who agreed with Positron's position regarding MA "farming" (and extrapolated to include all "farming) and those who were in favor of such activity. This culminated in the thread where the discussion occurred (Positron's FOLLOWUP: Abusing Mission Architect thread) being locked on the later afternoon of 5/21/2009, with an official notice stating that:
"Hello Everyone,
At this time we are locking this thread.
We are aware of your concerns and we are looking into it."
Those players who possessed level-pacted characters quietly had their characters restored from deletion on 5/22/09 and were given a thirty-day credit for play as compensation. This cannot be confirmed, as even confirming such restorative actions taken by the City of Heroes staff would violate Rule 4 of the forum rules, as stated above.
A statement was made that indicated that the following issue 89 of 113 MA badges would be made unavailable and removed from those characters possessing any number of those 89.
As it stands, as of 5/28/09, there has been no additional response from the City of Heroes staff regarding this matter.
When this issue was released, all players received an in-game notice (termed a Message of the Day, or MOTD). I have thus far been unable to find the exact wording of this MOTD, but to my personal recollection it reiterated the potential punishments for violating the Terms of Service as they relate to utilizing in-game exploits.
Anecdotal evidence from a variety of players at the time suggests that MA would be a large hit, as the areas where players could experience MA content were extremely busy, especially compared to other areas of the game that relied upon traditional, non-MA content.
Of course, there were players who saw MA as an excellent opportunity to utilize MA features to engage in "farming" for traditional rewards, such as experience points or in-game wealth, and thus created MA missions to engage in this activity.
For the most part, the City of Heroes staff were quick to alter or remove any of the mechanisms that provided such rewards out of proportion to the in-game risk. Such action removed some "custom creatures" that offered no threat but still provided rewards. A few patches were released during this time.
On April 23, City of Heroes enacted a "Reactivation Week", wherein lapsed accounts were granted the ability to login and play, both to celebrate the game's 5 Year Anniversary and to experience the MA content.
During this time, a type of MA mission referred to as a "Meow Farm" (known as such because of the name of one of the more popular MA missions to utilize a specific creature) became popular and widespread by a large number of players. Due to the way City of Heroes and MA are designed, it allowed players to "farm" characters to the highest level available in the game, 50, within a matter of hours. Several players reported taking a character at the lowest level (1) and having them reach 50 within as few as four hours, although it appears six to twelve hours being the more common amount of time.
Coinciding with this period, although admitted later, the City of Heroes staff where in what was referred to as a "publishing blackout" that prevented updates that would prevent such ability to level a character in such a manner. The lack of such communication regarding the "publishing blackout" led many players to conclude that such activity was condoned, as it was widespread and due to the volume, would have had to be willfully ignored by the City of Heroes staff under normal circumstances.
As a result, on 5/5/09, Positron began a forum thread entitled, "Abusing Mission Architect". In it, he again expressed the desired goal of MA, that being to "have an outlet for players to craft cool stories, using our assets, that other players could play and participate in. Other players could rate those stories and the best-of-the best would rise to the top."
He also reiterated that they expected some level of "abuse" of the MA system and announced a zero-tolerance policy for such "abuse".
He also made clear that as part of that policy, players that "abused" egregiously the MA system as the City of Heroes staff defined such abuse would be subject to "losing benefits they have gained - leading up to and perhaps including losing access to the characters power-leveled in this fashion." (emphasis in the original)
He also alerted players that some badges for MA would be modified or removed from the game.
He also said that those players "who knowingly use an exploit when creating an arc, run the risk of having access to MA suspended, or worse- depending on the severity of the action, their account banned."
To explain the position and actions of the City of Heroes staff, he explained that they were constructed to maintain a level of "risk:reward ratio", in other words, to ensure that actions taken in the game would provide rewards equal with the risk of those actions.
Two days later, after his thread had reach almost 750 pages (each page representing approximately 10 posts from players), he created another thread, entitled "FOLLOWUP: Abusing Mission Architect".
In this, he provided clarification to a few questions raised, in the form of a Question and Answer session.
His first answer addressed a question regarding the potential loss of characters that had utilized MA to quickly level, explaining that "Only the worst of the worst, exploitive, powerlevelled characters will be removed from the game. We don’t take retroactive punishments lightly, but some offenses are so egregious that no one would question their intent and those ill-gotten gains should be dealt with. I just want to emphasize that no one is looking to ‘punish’ anyone here, but rather remove the rewards of exploitive behavior."
In response to a request for a concrete definition of "abuse", he replied, "I know a lot of you want to know an exact definition to see if you were actually abusing the system, or just playing the game, but I don’t want to be set up in a situation where our definition of abuse is abused."
He was also asked about the removal of some badges, explaining that, "I apologize in advance if we remove a badge that someone got legitimately through normal gameplay. We didn’t want MA to become a badge farm".
For the first time, he informed the players of the "publishing blackout", "We had a publishing blackout during the reactivation that prevented us from putting new code up onto the live servers."
That was the state of affairs over the next couple of weeks. Discussion raged on regarding his statements (which culminated in a 369 page locked thread)
At some point on 5/20/09, players began to receive notice that they had violated the End User License Agreement (EULA) and their accounts were receiving a 72 hour ban from playing. Additionally, they reported characters that had reached lvl 50 were being deleted. This information was gleaned by in-game conversations as no official word of such actions was made available by the City of Heroes staff.
Among those players reported to have experienced the above punishment, some indicated that they had not engaged in such "abuse" of the MA system but in fact had characters which were part of a "level pact" with another player. They appear to have been affected by the afore-mentioned punishment as they were evidently seen by the City of Heroes staff to have "trained" within in the maximum allowed time (approximately 10 hours) but there appears to be no definitive estimate for how long it actually took for the character to reach the maximum level. This is in large part due to the design of the game, which separates the time taken to level and the time taken to train. As the two can differ by a significant period (for example, 40 hours in the former case and 20 minutes in the latter), many characters that were level pacted appeared to have gone from level 1 to level 50 in a duration deemed insufficient.
In-game discussion tended to support the notion that an automated script had been executed, which automatically performed the above action if a player had a character level and train (the step taken to realize the benefits of leveling) to level 50 in under 10 hours, although evidence discussed seemed to reveal some punishments affecting characters trained beyond 10 hours and skipping some trained in under 10 hours. Thus, it could be understood that level-pacted characters were affected as a script would lack the judgment provided by human discernment.
During this time, there was no official statement made concerning the action, to explain the scope or criteria.
As a result, several of the players affected began posting to the official City of Heroes Forum, detailing the actions taken against them and asking for clarification.
Due to the official forum policies, one of which precludes such questioning, their requests for more information were deleted and in some cases, warnings given out to the players responsible, threatening them with the possible loss of future forum posting. However, due to the same forum policies, mentioning this warning or continued requests for clarification could also result in the punishment being enacted.
This forum rule states as such, "4. Private communication between Customer Support, NC Interactive, Inc. (“NCsoft”) members, moderators and administrators of the forum and the forum users is not to be made public on these forums or by any other venue.
You are not permitted to publicize any private correspondence (including petitions, email or PM correspondence, in game chat logs, etc.) received from any of the aforementioned without permission. As such, warnings and bans are not to be discussed on the forum. Such matters shall remain private between the NCsoft and the user. Questions or comments concerning warnings and bans will be conveyed through e-mail or private messaging. Likewise, discussions regarding moderator actions are not permitted on the forum. If you have questions regarding a post or thread that has been removed or subject to other moderation, feel free to contact a moderator to discuss it.
Additionally, another forum rule was also apparently cited for the removal of discussion of the day's events,
17. Proprietary forums
The City of Heroes/City of Villains Message Forums are private message forums administered by NCsoft. All message board content is allowed at the discretion of NCsoft. NCsoft reserves the right to remove any message board content at will without notice for any reason at our discretion.
As the following two days went on, several posts or threads created by numerous players were deleted or edited as a result of these official forum rules.
Concurrent to the events occurring on the forum, one user who had a character level-pacted had contacted the City of Heroes Customer Support section and been told that they (Customer Support) had been instructed not to restore any such level-pacted toons or rescind the 72-hour ban, thus players had to face the possibility of going into a 3-day holiday (Memorial Day for Americans) with a significant portion of it being prevented from playing the for-pay game, under circumstances they felt to be erroneous.
Thus, the state of affairs for much of that day and the following consisted of players creating posts which violated either or both of the above two rules and subsequently becoming increasingly hostile as their threads were deleted or discussing the situation in various in-game methods.
Also during this time, discussion raged on between those who agreed with Positron's position regarding MA "farming" (and extrapolated to include all "farming) and those who were in favor of such activity. This culminated in the thread where the discussion occurred (Positron's FOLLOWUP: Abusing Mission Architect thread) being locked on the later afternoon of 5/21/2009, with an official notice stating that:
"Hello Everyone,
At this time we are locking this thread.
We are aware of your concerns and we are looking into it."
Those players who possessed level-pacted characters quietly had their characters restored from deletion on 5/22/09 and were given a thirty-day credit for play as compensation. This cannot be confirmed, as even confirming such restorative actions taken by the City of Heroes staff would violate Rule 4 of the forum rules, as stated above.
A statement was made that indicated that the following issue 89 of 113 MA badges would be made unavailable and removed from those characters possessing any number of those 89.
As it stands, as of 5/28/09, there has been no additional response from the City of Heroes staff regarding this matter.
Failure Analysis
There have been a variety of negative opinions expressed concerning the conduct of the City of Heroes staff during this period. The opinions expressed below are comprised from conversations and observations made for the most part from within the game because as noted above, most threads or posts which expressed them were purged for violating at least one forum rule. Also, in some cases independent verification will not be provided by me, as many such conversations were conducted in confidence, but in that event an item will only be listed if it was revealed to me by at least two independent parties. It should bear notice that some of the possible punitive actions taken against any player who has contributed to my body of work could range from a simple 72-hour ban to complete forfeiture of future playing privledges in perpetum, even if they have paid to play in advance.
1. No notice was given by the staff of City of Heroes that they were engaged in taking action against those players they judged to be in violation of the City of Heroes Terms of Service, such as account banning or the deletion of characters related to a particular account. To the best of my knowledge, there were no instances where a player suffered only one of the mentioned punishments, but due to the nature of the event, I am unable to verify this.
2. The only in-game warning or discussion of misuse (as deemed by the City of Heroes staff) was the in-game MOTD provided when the game was launched. Players who do not frequent the official forum could thus honestly have missed all further discussion made regarding what would potentially be considered an exploit by the City of Heroes staff.
3. Certain players have alleged that the original Positron post made in his "Abusing Mission Architect" were later altered without notification to that effect (known as a "stealth edit") to make the language used appear to be more polished. While this author cannot disprove that such an action took place, he has been unable to find any evidence presented by forum readers that this occurred and in fact, his memory is such that the original post remains as it originally existed. This includes the commonly cited complaint that Positron originally referred to "retroactive" in terms of punishment (he does use this word in his FOLLOW UP: Abusing Mission Architect thread) and that he said that such potential punishment would be done on a "case-by-case" basis.
4. There was no notification that was given when the punishments were being carried out, such as by a concurrent notice to that effect on the official forum or via a MOTD for those who were or would be playing the game.
5. The explanation given for why a behavior that was so wide-spread as the "Meow farm" not being corrected for a least a week ("publishing blackout") is seen as an excuse for the City of Heroes staff to arbitrarily punish players or it demonstrates an amazing lack of flexibility in internal rules and policies.
6. Positron says that "a majority of players" have spoken (negatively in regards to MA "farming") in reference to his interaction with players during the 5th Anniversary event. A very logical question to ask if he was being literal (spoke with upwards of 70,000 persons in one day) or simply used the majority of a small data sample set (the few hundred players at most who could interact with him) to determine policy.
7. A lack of clarity regarding exactly what criteria was used to punish players. Positron said that doing so could potentially "set up a situation where our definition of abuse is abused." Thus, a firm definition of "egregious abuse" is also undefined. As noted, based on informed speculation, it appears that the criteria for "egregious abuse" as defined by the City of Heroes staff is a character that had trained to the maximum level of 50 in fewer than 10 hours. However, it must again be stressed that such criteria is based solely on observation of those players who admitted they were affected and should not constitute a definitive mark. Also, even if that was true in this case, the City of Heroes staff could freely institute a differing mark in the future.
As a result, players are to be guided solely by the ambiguous criteria given previously, "If your personal moral compass flip flops or even wavers a little while doing something in the game that is obvious to you is not intended behavior"
8. There exists certain player-organizations that are sanctioned by the City of Heroes staff (known as "Event Committees"). In addition to the normal warnings given to players posting on the forum during the two days that constituted the majority of the forum outcry, both organizations were additionally warned that they faced further sanctions, such as the removal of certain perks made available to them by virtue of membership in such an organization. In at least one case, one player lost such perk without warning while another member altered their posts, presumably in response to such a warning.
9. The enactment (and existence) of certain forum policies were used to stifle either genuine curiosity about an unannounced activity or later, outrage at the methods used to enact such activity. It is speculated that the reason for a policy as Rule 4 (detailed above) is to stave off protests of a particular punishment or warning handed out, yet in execution it often served as a mechanism to prevent a genuine information exchange.
10. Another criticism is the fact that there was no immediate acknowledgement that such an action as the punishments being handed out ever occurring. As it stands currently, according to the City of Heroes staff, it never happened.
11. Many players have felt a lack of communication from the City of Heroes staff, often cited is the apparent dismissal of feedback regarding (at the time projected) changes to the Player vs. Player (PvP) system and this current situation is seen as a continuance of that lack of two-way communication.
12. A general disconnect wherein such an action was taken and yet presumably simple bugs that were fixed but have returned (chat bugs in particular) and not been fixed makes players question the City of Heroes staff's judgement.
13. The apparent lack of consideration for characters who were level-pacted. Also, it has been demonstrated to me that a character can be brought to level 50 in fewer than 10 hours without the use of MA, thus making such emphasis on MA abuse specious. Also related is the apparent unevenness of the punishment. There were characters who were brought to level 50 in less than the apparent mark of 10 hours (some in as few as four) who suffered no repercussion and some who took longer than 10 hours who did. Also, some persons who leveled to level 49 in under 10 hours and stopped were likewise unaffected.
14. Perhaps the most damaging criticism is that by their words and deeds, the City of Heroes staff has served to help divide the player community into various factions. Examples would include Pvpers vs. Non-PvPers, "farmers" vs. non-"farmers", and those who accept the City of Heroes staff actions and those who disagree with them - indeed, even those who believe such actions occurred and those who do not.
1. No notice was given by the staff of City of Heroes that they were engaged in taking action against those players they judged to be in violation of the City of Heroes Terms of Service, such as account banning or the deletion of characters related to a particular account. To the best of my knowledge, there were no instances where a player suffered only one of the mentioned punishments, but due to the nature of the event, I am unable to verify this.
2. The only in-game warning or discussion of misuse (as deemed by the City of Heroes staff) was the in-game MOTD provided when the game was launched. Players who do not frequent the official forum could thus honestly have missed all further discussion made regarding what would potentially be considered an exploit by the City of Heroes staff.
3. Certain players have alleged that the original Positron post made in his "Abusing Mission Architect" were later altered without notification to that effect (known as a "stealth edit") to make the language used appear to be more polished. While this author cannot disprove that such an action took place, he has been unable to find any evidence presented by forum readers that this occurred and in fact, his memory is such that the original post remains as it originally existed. This includes the commonly cited complaint that Positron originally referred to "retroactive" in terms of punishment (he does use this word in his FOLLOW UP: Abusing Mission Architect thread) and that he said that such potential punishment would be done on a "case-by-case" basis.
4. There was no notification that was given when the punishments were being carried out, such as by a concurrent notice to that effect on the official forum or via a MOTD for those who were or would be playing the game.
5. The explanation given for why a behavior that was so wide-spread as the "Meow farm" not being corrected for a least a week ("publishing blackout") is seen as an excuse for the City of Heroes staff to arbitrarily punish players or it demonstrates an amazing lack of flexibility in internal rules and policies.
6. Positron says that "a majority of players" have spoken (negatively in regards to MA "farming") in reference to his interaction with players during the 5th Anniversary event. A very logical question to ask if he was being literal (spoke with upwards of 70,000 persons in one day) or simply used the majority of a small data sample set (the few hundred players at most who could interact with him) to determine policy.
7. A lack of clarity regarding exactly what criteria was used to punish players. Positron said that doing so could potentially "set up a situation where our definition of abuse is abused." Thus, a firm definition of "egregious abuse" is also undefined. As noted, based on informed speculation, it appears that the criteria for "egregious abuse" as defined by the City of Heroes staff is a character that had trained to the maximum level of 50 in fewer than 10 hours. However, it must again be stressed that such criteria is based solely on observation of those players who admitted they were affected and should not constitute a definitive mark. Also, even if that was true in this case, the City of Heroes staff could freely institute a differing mark in the future.
As a result, players are to be guided solely by the ambiguous criteria given previously, "If your personal moral compass flip flops or even wavers a little while doing something in the game that is obvious to you is not intended behavior"
8. There exists certain player-organizations that are sanctioned by the City of Heroes staff (known as "Event Committees"). In addition to the normal warnings given to players posting on the forum during the two days that constituted the majority of the forum outcry, both organizations were additionally warned that they faced further sanctions, such as the removal of certain perks made available to them by virtue of membership in such an organization. In at least one case, one player lost such perk without warning while another member altered their posts, presumably in response to such a warning.
9. The enactment (and existence) of certain forum policies were used to stifle either genuine curiosity about an unannounced activity or later, outrage at the methods used to enact such activity. It is speculated that the reason for a policy as Rule 4 (detailed above) is to stave off protests of a particular punishment or warning handed out, yet in execution it often served as a mechanism to prevent a genuine information exchange.
10. Another criticism is the fact that there was no immediate acknowledgement that such an action as the punishments being handed out ever occurring. As it stands currently, according to the City of Heroes staff, it never happened.
11. Many players have felt a lack of communication from the City of Heroes staff, often cited is the apparent dismissal of feedback regarding (at the time projected) changes to the Player vs. Player (PvP) system and this current situation is seen as a continuance of that lack of two-way communication.
12. A general disconnect wherein such an action was taken and yet presumably simple bugs that were fixed but have returned (chat bugs in particular) and not been fixed makes players question the City of Heroes staff's judgement.
13. The apparent lack of consideration for characters who were level-pacted. Also, it has been demonstrated to me that a character can be brought to level 50 in fewer than 10 hours without the use of MA, thus making such emphasis on MA abuse specious. Also related is the apparent unevenness of the punishment. There were characters who were brought to level 50 in less than the apparent mark of 10 hours (some in as few as four) who suffered no repercussion and some who took longer than 10 hours who did. Also, some persons who leveled to level 49 in under 10 hours and stopped were likewise unaffected.
14. Perhaps the most damaging criticism is that by their words and deeds, the City of Heroes staff has served to help divide the player community into various factions. Examples would include Pvpers vs. Non-PvPers, "farmers" vs. non-"farmers", and those who accept the City of Heroes staff actions and those who disagree with them - indeed, even those who believe such actions occurred and those who do not.
Suggestions
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of the situation concerning the bans is analyzing the failures of them and offering suggestions to prevent such a situation from occurring in the future.
In that light, here are some suggestions presented to the players and City of Heroes staff in general.
1. When any such action is taken in the future by the City of Heroes staff, there should be both in-game and web-based (such as the official forum) notification given.
2. Criteria should be published that clearly defines what the staff considers "abuse" and the criteria should be the minimum they will accept. An example given by Positron is that if they said that they considered gaining four levels in 30 minutes to be abuse, then people would gain 4 levels in 31 minutes and argue that they had thus not committed abuse. I believe such arguments as specious as the City of Heroes staff could determine an amount of time they could "live with" - such as 16 hours to go from level one to level 50. Part of the act of compromise involves accepting a situation you would not prefer, as applicable to all sides. As it is, players are simply gaining whatever levels they deem sufficient and then not logging of their characters to inflate the timestamp serve to only further undermine the City of Heroes staff's authority.
3. The official forum policies should be revisited. As an example, while an argument can be made that the game's Customer Support section is the proper venue for disputes regarding account punishment or action, it can also be interpreted as serving to cover-up un-even moderation, such as if players simply use the forum to compare punishments for given offenses.
I can understand such action taken on posts which serve to complain about specific punishment as public posts on the official forum are not the proper venue, but posts which are either non-confrontational or which describe more widespread action should not be censured.
Indeed, in this particular instance, such a policy may have actually been detrimental to the City of Heroes staff as players who do not frequent the official forums often learned of the punishments from other players in-game, and thus may not have received a completely neutral view.
4. The City of Heroes staff should clarify their position regarding such behaviors as "farming", in order to produce a more educated paying-community. If the City of Heroes staff is, for example, opposed to "farming" then they should state as such and define "farming" to the best of their ability so that players (who pay to play) can make educated decisions regarding their continued such status as players or their actions that constitute farming as defined by the City of Heroes staff. As it is, there are some players who believe such actions never happened, which sets up another "them vs. us" grouping of those who know they did and those who (reasonably disbelieve based on the lack of evidence) that is only fostered by the continued official silence regarding the situation.
5. The City of Heroes staff should make such actions as necessary to serve to end evidenced strife among members of given extra- and self-defined communities, such as "farmers".
6. Human nature being what it is, an acknowledgement and public apology for the way the recent situation was handled on the part of the City of Heroes staff.
7. Some sort of formalized means for the players to interact with the City of Heroes staff should exist. Of some concern with such a means would be the perceived perception that those players who enjoyed such regular contact with the City of Heroes staff (i.e. the Event Committees) also faced heightened punitive actions against them by the City of Heroes staff.
In that light, here are some suggestions presented to the players and City of Heroes staff in general.
1. When any such action is taken in the future by the City of Heroes staff, there should be both in-game and web-based (such as the official forum) notification given.
2. Criteria should be published that clearly defines what the staff considers "abuse" and the criteria should be the minimum they will accept. An example given by Positron is that if they said that they considered gaining four levels in 30 minutes to be abuse, then people would gain 4 levels in 31 minutes and argue that they had thus not committed abuse. I believe such arguments as specious as the City of Heroes staff could determine an amount of time they could "live with" - such as 16 hours to go from level one to level 50. Part of the act of compromise involves accepting a situation you would not prefer, as applicable to all sides. As it is, players are simply gaining whatever levels they deem sufficient and then not logging of their characters to inflate the timestamp serve to only further undermine the City of Heroes staff's authority.
3. The official forum policies should be revisited. As an example, while an argument can be made that the game's Customer Support section is the proper venue for disputes regarding account punishment or action, it can also be interpreted as serving to cover-up un-even moderation, such as if players simply use the forum to compare punishments for given offenses.
I can understand such action taken on posts which serve to complain about specific punishment as public posts on the official forum are not the proper venue, but posts which are either non-confrontational or which describe more widespread action should not be censured.
Indeed, in this particular instance, such a policy may have actually been detrimental to the City of Heroes staff as players who do not frequent the official forums often learned of the punishments from other players in-game, and thus may not have received a completely neutral view.
4. The City of Heroes staff should clarify their position regarding such behaviors as "farming", in order to produce a more educated paying-community. If the City of Heroes staff is, for example, opposed to "farming" then they should state as such and define "farming" to the best of their ability so that players (who pay to play) can make educated decisions regarding their continued such status as players or their actions that constitute farming as defined by the City of Heroes staff. As it is, there are some players who believe such actions never happened, which sets up another "them vs. us" grouping of those who know they did and those who (reasonably disbelieve based on the lack of evidence) that is only fostered by the continued official silence regarding the situation.
5. The City of Heroes staff should make such actions as necessary to serve to end evidenced strife among members of given extra- and self-defined communities, such as "farmers".
6. Human nature being what it is, an acknowledgement and public apology for the way the recent situation was handled on the part of the City of Heroes staff.
7. Some sort of formalized means for the players to interact with the City of Heroes staff should exist. Of some concern with such a means would be the perceived perception that those players who enjoyed such regular contact with the City of Heroes staff (i.e. the Event Committees) also faced heightened punitive actions against them by the City of Heroes staff.
Personal Notes
I did not set out to write a vitriol-laced article and I hope it has remained so. I simply wanted to write as neutral as possible timeline of recent events and yet also be able to voice my opinion (which is honestly free from venom - I have a lack of faith, not anger regarding the City of Heroes staff).
As for my bias, let me explain. I was not personally affected by the punishment although I know people who were. The ones who had "powerleveled " their characters quickly met such punishments with an indifferent air, or as one expressed, "eh, I took my chances." Even the players who had their characters level-pacted and were punished expressed the notion that receiving compensation of 30-days of play in addition to having their deleted characters restored to be fair.
However, the opinion that struck me (and one I agree with) is the notion that the City of Heroes staff is consistently making one poor decision after another regarding Mission Architect, starting with Positron's original "Abusing Mission Architect" thread.
I played almost entirely on the City of Heroes' server known as "Justice" and in that time was simply amazed by the wonderful community on that server. In looking over the people who have been censured on the forum as well as those who have announced (and carried forward) their intentions to quit the game they enjoyed playing, it appears to my (biased) count that most of them are from Justice.
The fact that such a number include persons with many years of playing City of Heroes as well as players like myself with one year or fewer attests to the strong community that exists on Justice, and I'd like to take this opportunity to express my admiration for all of you I have encountered, regardless of whether or not we agreed (or even liked one-another). A game such as City of Heroes can only exist upon such communities and it is a testament the character of the people in the game who belong to one.
Finally, this document is entirely my own, save quotations made of certain individuals. I wrote it not to hurt anyone, but hopefully to serve as a springboard for conversation.
I'll leave it to the future to determine if any such conversation is officially possible.
--enri
Email Me.
As for my bias, let me explain. I was not personally affected by the punishment although I know people who were. The ones who had "powerleveled " their characters quickly met such punishments with an indifferent air, or as one expressed, "eh, I took my chances." Even the players who had their characters level-pacted and were punished expressed the notion that receiving compensation of 30-days of play in addition to having their deleted characters restored to be fair.
However, the opinion that struck me (and one I agree with) is the notion that the City of Heroes staff is consistently making one poor decision after another regarding Mission Architect, starting with Positron's original "Abusing Mission Architect" thread.
I played almost entirely on the City of Heroes' server known as "Justice" and in that time was simply amazed by the wonderful community on that server. In looking over the people who have been censured on the forum as well as those who have announced (and carried forward) their intentions to quit the game they enjoyed playing, it appears to my (biased) count that most of them are from Justice.
The fact that such a number include persons with many years of playing City of Heroes as well as players like myself with one year or fewer attests to the strong community that exists on Justice, and I'd like to take this opportunity to express my admiration for all of you I have encountered, regardless of whether or not we agreed (or even liked one-another). A game such as City of Heroes can only exist upon such communities and it is a testament the character of the people in the game who belong to one.
Finally, this document is entirely my own, save quotations made of certain individuals. I wrote it not to hurt anyone, but hopefully to serve as a springboard for conversation.
I'll leave it to the future to determine if any such conversation is officially possible.
--enri
Email Me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)