About the first point,, ist true nothing can be predicted, but considering the possibilities and finding out which route has more chances of happening, that the clsoer to that we can get to something. There is still a chance of being wrong, but i guess thats a risk that people take when trying to guess what other people will do. Yeah, there was no way to know if Ankama would have done somethign or not other than that. Trying to guess what players were doing isnt as impossible mainly because in the forums it was easy to see what they were thinking, and not trying to put everyone on the same bag, but many people had very simple perspectives and the fact that they just threated to quit instead of asking for ways to help fix it hints a bit on how close or far away they were from doing something about it. And after all, no experiment is perfect, thats why its a experiment, to find out if theories are right or wrong, and how right or wrong they were.
Trying to guess what players would do isn't a big problem, it's fairly easy I would say. But my point isn't about prediction on social science, but how Ankama would see this. What me and Kurkula are trying to show is a counterpoint to the perception that banditsareus is trying to present us, that "they did those things for science, to prove a point, they weren't really trolling you" but since they can't really predict things like they appear to be doing, they actually aren't "impartial social scientists making tests on gamers". Their base data was too vague to give them something substantial for calculus, therefore they can't really be impartial like scientists on Breaching Experiments
(since they didn't even pass through the common standards for those kinda of tests anyway). They just were doing things as they saw fit. That's the point we're trying to prove.
About the next 2 , im not saying that they would have never become united if it wasnt because of this but the exact opposite. Something like this was bound to happen eventually, and its better for it to happen right now during the beta while Ankama has time to think and test alternatives than later, closer to release or after the release. Of course this is only relevant from the betatester perspective and a lot of people dont really care about that and are just playing for... well, playing. its true that the players that experimented this now wont be the same or will be a huge minority when the game is released, but there were some things that are really important that happened as colateral damage. Getting an Embassador and pointing out the huge flaws early is one, but since they are colateral damage they dont really justify it, i admit that. But still, sometimes a problem needs to happen for people to take it seriously.
Well, I disagree with the concept that bad things are bound to happen. Sure, you can't totally prevent bad things from happening, that would be paradise, an utopia, but that doesn't mean you should make little of it when it happens. That's like saying "I won't take baths anymore because I'll end getting messed up again anyway". You should care about bad things happening, you can't stop them all but at least the big ones you should try to prevent, because if you don't, then they'll certainly happen. Just think about, for such an exploit to happen, first you need to find the exploit, you need to recognize it first, know how to exploit. But when you do find the exploit what should you do? Warn the developers to fix it and prevent such exploits to happen or to abuse those exploits and cause griefing? Which one of those two options seems the right one to you? Most people would warn the devs and hope them to fix it because that seems to be right option since, well, it cause way less griefing to the people around you. If the devs don't take it seriously they'll warn them again and again till they take seriously, if they don't only THEN they prove such exploit on a field test, a short sample to prove his point. What bad people do? They exploit it for for a large period of time and make a fun of it, because they aren't interested in fixing the exploit, they're interested in exploiting, in getting a feeling of power over it.
Which option do you think Banditareus chose?
Lastly, about their intentions. I dont know whats my position about this one. Even if they have had good intentions, a lot of people would still want to stone them because they care more about what happened and less or not at all about the why behind it. So this point becomes more or less valid depending on the person, i dont know if i wanna go that deep into this to figure out how relevant the original intentions. Thinking about it makes me think of many hypothetical examples of people with bad intentions doing good things, or people with good intentions doing bad things and all the possible combinations and i dont wanna think that much into that. That would make this way too complicated.
I guess these examples are quite meaningless, it's fairly obvious that if their intentions was to troll then no forgiveness should be given even if it did something good by colateral damage, because this colateral damage wasn't needed for them, if it didn't happen it wouldn't make a difference for them, to troll was the objective. If their intentions were good but they acted wrong on it then they should publicly and sincerely apologize for it, which they aren't, and if they do, they'll have to do a lot hell of explaining to be conceivable.
But since their intention seems to be trolling right from the beginning anything good that comes from it is not really valid evidence to judge them. Even if you highlight the good deeds to put people on a grey area, when the end of the day comes things are just black.
Firstly, it was from the very beginning that Ankama allowed a player to dictate a nation. They didn't add the possibility to use dictator-like laws just to punish whoever used them, that's completely unfair and would make no sense as to why they had implemented them in the first place. Also, as they said, their primary goal was entertainment. Any possibility of an experiment was an interesting byproduct of their main goal.
Dictatorship is a very relative term. To put on action a radical and extreme law makes you a dictator? For some people maybe, but sometimes radical measures are needed to fix a situation, that doesn't make you a dictator. What makes you a dictator is to impose such radical and extreme laws in times which they aren't needed, causing a suffering which could be avoided, for a period way longer than was actually needed to begin with, that's what makes a dictator. His will is the law, and nothing
, not even logic can change his will, his will is above anything else, even rationatility and common sense, and the law should abide to it. Just because there are extreme laws on Ankama's system that doesn't mean that a dictatorship is liable of enforced tolerance by them, that is the reason why you can impeach a governor for crying out loud. This episode actually pointed out that the popularity meter was badly tuned (again, colateral damage), because people tried to impeach him. If Ankama was totally fine with a dictatorship then such system, to impeach a governor, wouldn't be needed.
Secondly, this is a game. Whether something is morally right or wrong is irrelevant. If players did not like it, they could have logged out at any point in time. You are basically calling Ankama's game feature of dictation morally incorrect but as this exists ingame and STILL exists in-game after a month, your argument is invalid here (Again, because this is a game. It's not like lives are at stake or anything.).
So, because this is a game, the people's feeling, the gamers sentiments are irrelevant? Morality is inexistent because it's a game? Morality exists on human perception of the world by the simple assumptio that you should not cause sufering on other people because if everyone does it, then you
will most likely suffer as well. And the concept of trolling, or griefing (being the word grief
a state of sadness, mind you) already implies that there is a victim, which is someone who is damaged in any way by the criminal, which means morality is a possiblity inside a game because injuries and damages are possible. In ANY system in which a human being interacts with another human being, directly or indirectly, morality is an issue. If not, then just think about it, Why does the concept of fairness exist? If morality isn't a issue inside a game why the devs care so much about creating a system in which everyone has the same rights? If morality is not a issue then you shouldn't really care about injustices. But it is, if people are griefed, that is, if people are getting constantly bullied by someone else, making their gaming experience sad, they won't like the game and won't play it anymore, which is bad for everyone, that's why morality is an issue inside a game.
And I'm not calling Ankama system morally incorrect, flawed maybe, but morally wrong no. As I said, sometimes extreme measures are needed, sometimes you'll be forced to put high taxes, but that doesn't make you a dictator.
Also, judging by what you have said about Newton, it sounds as if you would say the exact same thing to ANYONE who makes a discovery. Someone eventually will, that person who was first just happened to be Newton at the time. In this case, Sabotage was that person. Really, getting an online community to work together is an extremely hard thing to do and without someone like Sabotage to rise up, they would remain disorganized. You expect them to make the same discovery with wanting a "great governor" that is only able to what every other governor has been doing since the political system was introduced in Wakfu? Surely the want for the same-old same-old challenges, war or peace, weather and environmental protection that EVERY governor provides would cause a mass unity of the nation and everyone voting in the governor popularity for the first time. Yes. Right.
On another point, testing things fast is the whole point of an open beta. If not, the game would have remained in closed beta where their few testers would have sufficed.
Yes, I would say the same thing to anyone, it is a principle, it applies to everyone. I'm not trying to diminish Newton's geniality, what I'm saying is that we're not dependent on him. He is a genius not only to have thought and done a good thing about it, but to be first to do so, and that's why we mark him on our history, the other people who thought the same way he did are also genius, but since they came after him it's kinda of irrelevant to mark them as well. And you clearly are misunderstanding the point. You don't become worshiped as a good example when you do something first, you need to do something good
to be worship as good deed. People worship the man who thought on the first plane, the first computer, the first theory of quantum physics, the first good thinker, not the first rapist, the first dictator, the first killer. People who did groundbreaking deeds in bad ways are not worshiped, they're frowned upon and used as bad examples to prevent it to happen again. Sabotage was the first dictator, but that does not make him as good as Newton.
Yes, no better way to unify people than by a cataclysmic event, like war, natural disasters or a common enemy, but that doesn't mean you should purposely cause cataclysmic events just for the sake of unity.
I expect them to discover the importance of politcs in a natural way, not by ruining their game experience on purpose. The Amaknians do take politics way more seriously than Bontarians and Brakmarians and they never had a governor as bad as Sabotage. They learned the importance of politcs simply by experience, they saw that when a good governor shows up things gets easier for everyone (like Xylomentalozolin) and when a governor not so good showed up things aren't as easy, so they perceived "politcs are important to make my gaming experience more enjoyable". There's really no secret to it.
Also you're changing the meaning of a open Beta. Beta is just a stage of the game production that comes after the Alpha, which is in itself a very raw and incomplete form of the game. Beta is when all the pieces of Alpha are put together and the project starts to appear more as a game, but incomplete.
The beta testing is the process to test a game in its beta phase. The Open Beta is when a game in beta state allows the entrance of voluntary players to play/test the game. The players, being a voluntary don't really have the obligation to search for bugs and report it, it'll help a lot if they do but aren't forced to do it since they're after all, voluntary. What open beta players really help mandatorily are another kind of tests, that they perform simply by playing the game. Like stress tests on servers, client-server communication, server updates and etc. Have you ever heard about any non-online game that had a Open Beta test phase? Even games that have stand alone portions of the game like Medal of Honor and Battlefield perform open beta tests mainly on its online portion, because there are tests that can only be done with a large number of people. They can help speed up things if they wish to, but they aren't forced to do it. Speed shouldn't come before quality.
And again, as you said it too, Banditareus did that for pleasure, not to show Ankama their weak system, which makes the point about speed even more invalid.
After all, as this is beta, they'd want every aspect of their game tested. Sure the players may forget after some time but more importantly, Ankama now know if they want to change anything for when the final release happens.
You don't necessarily need to prove a point this way, you don't need to create a blackhole to prove quantum physics. And besides, the time-frame Sabotage used to do his/her things was not nearly even close to a sample, was way higher than actually needed to prove a point. Also, he never discussed the weak points of the system directly so he wasn't trying to prove anything at all.
You talk about this being the "wrong way" to do this but really, there is no right or wrong way. There is however, ANOTHER way of doing it. Ruining the playing experience of others is highly irrelevant. After all, you are here to TEST the game, not to play the game and have fun, that's not the goal of a beta.
I will iterate once more. This is a game and they were only using a feature that Ankama themselves implemented. You may as well be saying the same things to "good governors" for using the game's inbuilt features to create a pleasant gaming experience.
No wrong way? heh, way too relativistic for me. To ruin the experience of others is irrelevant? Are you serious? You're fine with griefing people? You're fine by people having bad experiences in the game? Then why do you play a game at all? Just to annoy people? Sure, you're here to test the game, but if the game is just unbearable to play then its unbearable to test. The assumption people usually have about a beta is that it will be more or less fun to test the game, if there's no fun at all, just annoyances and grief people will stop playing the open beta, people will stop testing the game, which is no good for a game developer. Since again, for a player to test a game in open beta they don't necessarily need to report anything, they just need to play it, I'm sure the majority of players who have played Wakfu beta never used the bug report button.
And not only because they're using an Ankama's feature it means what they are doing is right. If I use a baseball bat to beat my girlfriend to death does that mean that the company who made the bat is fine with it? Certainly not, what matters here is not if you are using tools which are official or not, but what are you doing with those tools.
This post has been edited by Cronqvyst - October 20, 2011, 06:27:09.