Alright. I don’t know if it matters too much to go into this level of detail but a part of me is more interested in the philosophical/moral implications in this kind of argument, and @xxWeaSeL242xx
you seem like a reasonable fellow so I am making a bit of an investment in you in the form of time. Going to crack open the ol’ philosophy honours ba and put it to use (because it certainly has little use in my career).
Just to make clear, I don’t really have much “skin in the game” so to speak. I don’t play darktide anymore (striking due to the RNG/progression system), and if I did I would just use the mod, and I know I wouldn’t use it to make people feel bad, so the outcome is mostly ephemeral to me. I would also say IF it was true (get to that in a moment) that the existence of the scoreboard was directly related to a vastly increased number of incidents of people being inflamed, name calling, running ahead, missions failing, etc. I would AGREE that the score board is doing more harm than good and taking a moral utilitarian stance I would completely be fine with seeing even the mod support removed for it. Often society moves at the slowest pace, and some can ruin it forever. We have low speed limits because SOME people can’t handle the reaction times and fidelity of high speeds so we aim low and are cautious (this line of argumentation has it’s own implicit premises and assumptions). However, I am deeply skeptical and doubtful that there is such a causal or even correlative pattern between the behaviours we are looking to “weed out” in the community and the existence of a score board.
Lets break the “anti-scoreboard” argument into some simplified premises and conclusions, as I can see it from @xxWeaSeL242xx mainly (using you as the advocate for this position, because I haven’t really engaged in this conversation/debate anywhere else).
So I am not sure if you’re broadly generalizing or to whom exactly you are referring but I am going to take it at face value and assume it is referring to everyone who is firmly in the “pro-score board” camp. Firstly, communities contain bad eggs and ne’er-do-wells. Just because someone is “toxic” they are still, unfortunately, a “part” of the community. We may not want them to be, but they are if they interact with us. Secondly, I think this is the dangerous argument to make when assuming everyone in the opposite is one way. Because the argument is easily beaten, all you would need is ONE person who IS pro-score board to be a kind, non-insulting person and this premise turns false. To “steel man” your argument a bit we can say “most” pro-scoreboard players treat others a certain way to make your claim more reasonable, but we will get to that later. Thirdly, people could technically be awful or like insulting people and be aware of it, but just don’t want to change/see a problem with it (this is a tangent, not really related).
I think this also really isn’t doing the argument justice, it’s a straw man logical fallacy. No one is claiming the reason they want a score-board is for an ego certificate. You can make the claim that’s the real psychological reason behind the action of wanting it, I would disagree, but the onus/burden of proof would be on you to ground that claim into fact. A few considerations on this; 1- humans are generally prideful creatures. I would say the main reason people don’t want to be insulted is to protect their egos. The opposite of your claim could be made “Well all anti-score board people are just soft and have delicate egos that can’t stand criticism” but I would say this claim has the same problem in the opposite direction, so I wouldn’t make it. I am sure very few people enjoy being insulted, but I think everyone likes to build confidence. Get praise from family, friends, co-workers. A lot of things in life can be seen as an “ego certificate”. Participation trophies, getting likes on social media, etc. I mainly bring this up because I don’t think it’s inherently a problem to want/crave things that boost your self confidence or worth. Secondly, I think in video games, score board or not, people can get “ego boosts” from performing well or getting kills, or soloing things, etc. Finishing penances. There’s other factors, unrelated to the score board, that I think people could perform (veteran shooting an elite as psyker is about to brain burst them) because they want the kill. I think in games in general, most players (by a wide margin) enjoy being DPS heavy.
Thirdly, this is again the issue of making wide and absolutist claims but you essentially have to prove every single “pro-score board” player wants the score board for “ego” reasons. It would take only one example to disprove the premise. I will use myself as an example (I could be lying just to prove my point but lets operate on the premise we aren’t lying about our personal goals/motivations since it’s pretty much impossible to disprove) I am a hard determinist, existence monist, existential nihilist, moral relativist and subjectivist (with my own personal values), b-theorist for time, atheist, etc. Why do I bring this up? These beliefs pretty much remove all objective claims at ego, the ego doesn’t even exist in my metaphysical model. I am just a temporary pile of atoms existing in a slice of time, dying and being reborn in the next moment by a new pattern of matter, inheriting the memories of the dead past self. That the universe is a giant ocean/desert and we are all parts of the same thing, the metaphysical massive spatio-temporal blobject. Nothing has meaning or value (objectively), the self is an illusion, free will is impossible, and there is no reason to feel pride in anything, least of all skill in a video game. I could be lying, but I can say feeling an “ego boost” in comparison to others, is not a priority for me (at the very least, not in any way that is greater than the average persons needs for validation/approval in a very human way, such as the “anti-score board team”).
Now, lets say you disagree with me there and still think it’s ego. Fine, I can’t really say much else to it (How does one prove humility in a forum?). However, I think it’s valid to say there are other reasons people would want it. Some listed were:
1.) Testing your own builds and comparing
2.) Seeing if your perception of yourself and your competencies line up with reality
3.) Seeing what other people do to try out their build
I am sure there could be other reasons but I want to focus on this. I think this is hard to disagree with, you may say there are other ways to find this out (youtube videos and such) but there is an inherent and personalized convenience in this information. And one thing secondary sources can’t take into affect is play style and skill. Maybe one player does a lot more push attacks than the average player. Maybe more heavies or lights. Maybe more block cancel animations to restart light attack chains (I can’t be bothered to do the latter). So some weapons having competencies in some of these areas over others will matter more to some players over others, and getting direct feedback is a lot more useful than secondary sources online, taking their word for it as to how they perform (and how are these people getting their metrics?).
Scoring poorly is perfectly fine and normal, especially if you played a more support role. When I play ogyrn I don’t think I am getting most kills by a long stretch. I think if “pro-scoreboard” players were scared of being “last place” on the score board they probably wouldn’t be advocating for it. The “woof” at the end though I feel is a little ironic. If the whole point of the argument against toxic score boards is to “be nice” to people online… I think the message comes off as hostile and does the thing you’re trying to avoid people doing online with the score board? I could be misinterpreting the tone and intention behind it but insulting people for wanting the score board because others would insult them… is the definition of ironic.
^Just see the above comment. I think this also is self defeating, because it’s hostile and goes against the “spirit” of the “anti-score board” camp.
So this is more of where the conversation gets interesting to me. There is a lot of implications in this but lets break it down into some premises.
1.)- The scoreboard increases chances of attack on other players
2.)- People naturally want to attack other players
3.)- This is a proven pattern in gaming
Conclusion- The score board should be removed to reduce the attack on people.
I won’t fully dispute premise 1, but I do think it’s a marginal increase if any at all, but I will address that later. Lets assume it’s true for now at a meaningful increase. I want to address premise 2. I actually disagree that people are instinctually and naturally inclined to aggression (as a majority). It’s common, for sure, but humans are social creatures and it is more opportunistic and selfish to make allies out of people than enemies (we are pack hunters). We tend to be polite with strangers and in social situations because it is the most advantageous position to be in, compared to being stand-offish and confrontational. Now, I agree the internet and anonymization and de-personalizing people makes this a lot easier. So lets focus on that.
My own stakes/claims:
Premise 1.) Different game genres have radically different statistics of toxic behaviours
Premise 2.) Different types of gamers/demographics have higher tendencies to play certain genres.
Premise 3.) Some people are more “toxic” than others.
Premise 4.) There are fewer “toxic” players than “regular” players
Premise 5.) PvP games drastically have more incidents of toxic behaviour
Premise 6.) Competitive people are more likely to exhibit “toxic behaviour”
Premise 7.) Darktide is a cooperative game.
Premise 8.) Toxic players are more likely be “toxic” in all incidents that they have any reason to be so.
Premise 9.) The existence of the score board doesn’t change the game into a competitive game
Conclusion- The existence of a score board should have minimal at best increased chances of “toxic” incidents. A lot of my premises, full disclosure, is mostly anecdotal. We can debate the individual premises and they would have varying consequences for my position on this matter. But to back up some of my claims lets look at premise 1. League of legends if notorious for toxic behaviour. Same with call of duty. Doing some secondary research:
Notice all of these games are PvP games. (Premise 5). Top 10 most toxic gaming communities, according to esports.
Looking at another game, that I think has similar DNA to darktide, but also has a score board; DRG. DRG shows kills, minerals mined, number of times you went down, and number of players you revived. And yet:
^Anecdotally I have had pretty much nothing but positive experiences with players in DRG. The one negative experience that stands out was someone double dipping on the supply pod without saying anything (unrelated to score board). Some people hitting buttons too early and such, but widely a very supportive bunch. Now these aren’t very reliable metrics, granted just more anecdotal information. I would think that a poll asking questions like “Do you think the community for X game is toxic? How toxic?” And comparing cooperative games of similar genres with others with and without score boards would probably get a good rough and objective idea as to the increased delta between the two.
A poll was done here for Darktide specifically. Assuming the numbers are true for sake of argument, that’s 86% of people saying they want a score board. Now premise 4, for me, I say there are fewer toxic people than non-toxic I am HIGHLY dubious that ~86% of people are generally considered “toxic”.
My main point/take away here from all of this is that people and situations and variables are complex and we cannot ignore the variables. Crime rates differ in real life, as do transgressions online and while playing video games. Just like you suggesting a score board would increase changes of toxicity I will say there are lots of elements within games, players they appeal to, regions and languages, and cultures, that can all play roles in changing the variabilities and likelihoods of things.
I will chalk this up to a misunderstanding, but hopefully I have expressed myself clearly enough that I am not wholly painting everyone as constructive and positive.
This is more of an interesting claim that brings me back to my old moral classes. I get the feeling you are a utilitarian with your moral model. But lets broaden this up and extend this beyond the sphere of video gaming for a moment.
Premise 1.) There is a possibility of a worst case scenario due to X
Premise 2.) The worst case should be avoided if the benefits do not outweigh it.
Premise 3.) The best case benefit X provides can be achieved without X
Conclusion- X should not exist.
(You can correct me if I am wrong in trying to repeat and restructure your arguments). So start with a small disagreement on premise 3, I don’t think there is much point in debating things if there is an alternative that gives everyone want they want (best case for both groups) if both camps (in this case pro and anti score boarders) can get what they want without issue, then why bothering arguing about it? I think we should presume for the sake of argument, and not doing a disservice to the other side, that they cannot achieve the “best case scenario” with alternatives. They can maybe be achieved suboptimally (debatable) but it for sure shouldn’t be considered the “best” case. I think, as I stated earlier, there is no real alternative to direct player feedback that a score board can really do. You have a sample size of 10 games lets say, on the same difficulty across the same map even sometimes, maybe even private with bots, and you can get pretty accurate information regarding how you personally perform. Remove a lot of variables. (Could argue about score boards only being available in private matches potentially but playing with real players are also important metrics). No tool or source online really can provide that as an alternative.
Now back to the main topic. So worst case X is someone being belittled in some unfair and uncalled for way lets say. Now, the existence of worst case, isn’t guaranteed, it doesn’t happen 100% of the time, we can agree on that, so what percentage is it? Does it not matter?
The justice system sometimes incarcerates innocent people (a worst case scenario) but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do away with it. What about social media in general? People kill themselves from cyber bullying, do we really NEED social media? Surely we can achieve “Best case scenarios” without it? Cats can give you toxoplasmosis. You don’t need a pet cat, but a lot really like them. Others have allergies (prolonged exposure to allergy sources can cause permanent asthma). Doing shrooms and some other drugs can permanently change you into a schizophrenic depending on your genetic makeup. Or bipolar. We should ban all drugs, even for therapeutic reasons due to the worst case, no? (Emergent research is showing therapy benefits to shroom/acid lead therapy sessions. I am straight edge though so not really glorifying drug use or anything). I think there are lots of little risks we acknowledge and take when we get things. I had to get my wisdom teeth removed, there was a worst case scenario I would lose permanent feeling in my mouth if they hit the wrong nerve, chances were low enough. Now, you are probably saying the chances (of the worst case) are very likely, which is fine, but my main point is the existence of a “worst” case scenario shouldn’t be enough to deter an action, and that the likelihood is vastly important to the decision making of whether to allow X or not. Something governments and people have to make all the time.
Now one slightly tangential thing I would like to bring up is the difference between constructive feedback and “toxic”. This is a hard area to navigate online without proper tone and body language. But I would argue:
1.) People can be sensitive/defensive on topics
2.) People should strive to be open to criticisms and judgements
3.) Authenticity and honesty should be valued
4.) People can give criticisms without the intent/effect of making themselves feel better or others worse.
Conclusion- Constructive feed back should be promoted and is appropriate to do.
If I am playing on damnation and notice someone is dying a lot, and for the sake of argument, lets say we objectively agree this player is not ready (due to gear or skill) for this difficulty and is more of a liability than an asset for the team. How should this be handled? “Not to sounds harsh, but I think you aren’t ready for this difficulty yet”. Anything you quickly type in the chat, I think, could be misconstrued as “toxic” (would just like to clarify I have maybe only said this 3 times in my life in DRG, VT2, and darktide). I am not sure if there is a better way to phrase (in a way that is short and concise) but I think a statement like that is appropriate. Some people can feel hurt, sure, but I don’t think the other person is intending to be awful/evil. Whether you think “constructive feedback” is a small or not portion of the perceived “toxic” behaviours is fine, my argument isn’t central to this but I do think it’s important we correctly identify and acknowledge/define what we mean when we say “toxic”. As well as people not being TOO sensitive either.
So in a hypothetical universe you could maybe have a test for how “aggressive” or contrarian someone is but I don’t think it would be per tool. If you’re an aggressive person that puts people down online I don’t think you would need a new test per game. Maybe per genre. What would you do if someone was just objectively aggressive and belligerent? They never broke any laws and technically never did anything “wrong” but would they be exiled from society? How would you deal with these cases? What if certain demographics of genetic backgrounds had higher chances for toxicity? Would we do eugenics programs? I think in a fully controlled society you could maybe isolate for this, so not entirely disagreeing with the notion that you could maybe license people’s driving on their psychology to not exhibit road rage and such if we had the science to uncover peoples minds (watch psyhco-pass?) but in reality we do not. A driving test doesn’t really have the capabilities to know the likelihood of someone’s road rage… and even if it did its (the persons mind) liable to change, for better or worse, as people are not static. Same with buying video games. We sell butcher knives for cutting meat in our kitchens even though people are stabbed to death with them, but they are still sold without psychology assessment tests. I think, in our flawed world, we actually need to invest in the opposite approach.
Bullying I think is actually the closest approximation to this issue so how do schools and governments try to address this issue? They don’t try to create systems bullies can’t exist in or remove tools or forms of communication that could be vectors for bullying (otherwise the internet would be banned). It’s just not possible nor feasible. Instead they invest in telling people what support tools are there, reporting people, going to the police, help lines and therapy etc. If I was a parent (which I never will be snip snip) I wouldn’t teach my children with the expectation bullies need to be avoided and things where bullies exist need to be avoided. I would train them up with resiliency in mind and how to deal with it, and how to try and not inflame them further and how to have their own respect and values. And what they can do to report on them in the most egregious cases. I think the same is here, because I think people are still going to be toxic score board or no score board (that I hope we can agree on). Same for r@pe. You can’t tell rapists to simply not r@pe. It’s not fair to put the burden on victims but that’s why we have r@pe whistles and services to help prevent the incident and punish those who perform it.
To me this seems like something this preacher player would do regardless of a score board. I will say, I think there is one thing that does cause more toxic behaviour in darktide, but it isn’t the score board. It’s the crafting. The crafting/progression is so bad, there’s a lot of players in damnation that probably shouldn’t be. All trying to farm plasteel. People who can play that difficulty with high clear rates are probably frustrated playing with players who can’t play according to the needs of that difficulty. In VT2 I think they mostly fixed this by having CATA give the same rewards as legend so people new to the game, had no mechanical reason/benefit to play on that difficulty and that promoted better team matchmaking and player types/skills. The current system is designed poorly on mission rewards and difficulty and general grind.
I would say this is more of a failure in ease of muting/blocking players rather than the score board itself.
So I don’t think this is the claim either. I think most people don’t like being insulted. I just think better tools need to be available to block those people, potentially even automatically. Personally, I just mute all voice chat and only use text. People’s voices break the immersion for me. I do think though there is a case to be made for some people SHOULD have some “thickness” of skin and that overly sensitive and having very “thin skin” to a point you cannot take any criticisms from someone, even with good intentions is something that should be worked on (getting flash back of my ex’s).
TLDNR:
I think the strongest interpretation position of the anti-scoreboard camp is:
Premise 1.) The score board changes a cooperative game into a competitive game
Premise 2.) The score board increases the chances of toxic players to behave in a toxic way
Premise 3.) People in a competitive game exhibit anti-team focused behaviours
Premise 4.) The benefits of a score board aren’t worth the issues.
Conclusion- Don’t allow score boards.
But as stated above I don’t think there is strong correlations between these. I don’t think the game is that much more, if at all competitive, since everyone still needs to survive and work together. At most it’s a friendly killing competition like with Gimli and Legalos.
I think the benefits are seen by a vast majority of players and they seem to think it’s worth arguing over (Assuming the ~86% number is correct).
I think toxic players are going to be toxic regardless with minimal increases into their interactions. If I am the type of person to say “you suck” and I see you go down to pox walkers again I will probably say it, score board or no.
Anecdotally I am more reminded of the kindness of strangers than their pettiness. Having randoms be ok with me doing a penance to solo a monster as a psyker? I felt AWFUL even asking, but private games weren’t possible, and even if they were, I doubted I could tell the bots to cease fire. But they allowed me. Another time, trying to play a squishy class with a build I wasn’t comfortable with + having a bad game, going down the third time, I apologized and the other players said not to worry and gave tips (VT2). In cooperative games specifically, I think the goodness of people is much more likely to show than the opposite. And a score board, at the very end, I don’t think changes that much other than the near- obligatory “GG”. And I don’t think it changes that much kill stealing, running ahead again if at all. Maybe we will get hard facts and I will be proven wrong. Maybe Fatshark will do a scoreboard opt-out update for a few months, see the number of blocks/bans, then change it to opt-out or remove it and see what changes. But without rigorous data like that I think the most we have is our personal experiences and general trends in comparable games. Maybe someone should just do a poll and ask “How many players are toxic in darktide” and keep scoreboards out of it to prevent biases.
I will stop here. Need to put my wrists on ice. Apologize for the wall text.