Jump to content
MinerMax555

This has to end...

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone!

 

The following organizations will be removed very soon:

 


Reasons:

- Real life people represented

- Real life company names involved

- Imaginary people from popular IP represented

 


Reason:

- Real life people represented

 


Reason:

- Fake accounts spam

 

About the preventive measures we have in mind (we would like to have your feedback on this):

Giving the right to join an organization only if the user is a backer is a bit over the top in our opinion. 

However, we are considering to give the right of creating organizations only to backers. This should limit abuses on this topic.

 

@Warden:

This is not explicitely forbidden at the moment as the Forum chart doesn't cover some cases that could occur on the Community Portal.

However we should update this soon. 

 

All in all, it's also a matter of common sense:

As long as an action can have a negative impact on the Community Portal (flooding with fake organizations, fake accounts, and inappropriate content), damaging the visibility of legit organizations and/or members, yes, some action will be taken from Novaquark side (and later, with the help of the Community Portal team).

 

Regarding this phenomenon, while it won't impact directly the game development, it will impact it indirectly. 

Here is how it works:

 

- As the community is growing, relying that mods will handle always this kind of things manually eternally wouldn't be very smart.

 

- The most logical way of handling such situation, would be to update the portal in a way to dissuade such behavior.

 

- Until now, the Community Portal has been developed internally, by developers who are also developing the game. At the moment, updating the portal means we take dev time that would be used on the game itself otherwise. That's an issue, we are aware of that, and that's why we are currently looking for recruiting a Web developper, that will be dedicated to the task, in order to have everyone focusing on their own specialities and to prevent any disruption in the workflow of the developers who are supposed to work on the game itself.

 

- Handling such abuses on the Community Portal is also time taken away from Community Managers to work on more constructive things. True, this is part of our job, but while we are handling this kind of situation, we aren't doing something else (regular reports to the dev team, new wave for the Alpha team, internal tasks related to the Alpha phase preparation, internal tasks related to the Community Portal, Moderators selection, helping the Customer Support, writing Kickstarter Updates and Newsletters... and that's far from being the whole list).

 

Best regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
About the preventive measures we have in mind (we would like to have your feedback on this):

One idea is to require the account be a week old or a backer to join/make a corp. It would not get ride of the problem but people just doing it for the lolz probably won't want to wait a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possible ways of limiting such impact or damage

 

If we want to limit fake accounts boosting organizations, the most easy thing that pops up in my mind is to make it harder. Seems obvious, but would be the first realization. Thus we ask how it can be made harder - likely by adding some sort of requirement.

 

mefsh, for example (if not others before him), just suggested we add a time requirement before anyone can join an organization. That seems like a good option, even if it's not really a lasting solution as someone could also just create X accounts and then wait for X amount of time. If it would not stop some from doing it, it would delay the problem at least.

 

A tougher limitation would be pledging. In another certain game in development, you can only join an organization via the integrated organization system (here, it would be our community hub with all the organizations) if you pledged. That would be a bigger deterrent but not all could be in favor of it, as it could also exclude players from certain organizations - players that are not ready to pledge yet.

 

Perhaps there are other ways, but I let others step ahead. I mostly focus on these two aspects now:

 

- Limit who can join an organization by adding the requirement that an account is either X old or has pledged

 

A time requirement merely delays the problem if one was serious about it, a pledge is a harder deterrent but could exclude a few players - for now.

 

However, would it be that bad? I don't think so. Players (without pledge) could still join an organization via the forum and later via the community hub if they pledged.

 

Other alternative: We roughly keep it as it is, but mark user accounts in organizations that did not pledge. It would basically make spotting some alt cases easier without really doing much else. Would still require some sort of manual action or investigation. The time limit or pledge requirement would be more automatic, resulting in less initial work for anyone.

 

E: I guess the "Only backers can create organizations" thing could also work as compromise and likely limit these cases, but once someone backed it would mean free reign for alts if one was again serious about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. The time limit or pledge requirement would be more automatic, resulting in less initial work for anyone.

I would prefer a solution that is as automatic as possible. The less intervention needed the better in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

About the preventive measures we have in mind (we would like to have your feedback on this):
Giving the right to join an organization only if the user is a backer is a bit over the top in our opinion. 
However, we are considering to give the right of creating organizations only to backers. This should limit abuses on this topic.
 

 

The backer can found an organization in this development stage. He invests money, which in turn means trust. And any backers, undecided or interested parties can already join an existing organization. The amount of work is reduced and all who are serious about it are rewarded.
 
Seems to be fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of the time limit option. As I see it, people mostly abuse things like that if it's easy and instant, since they do it for fun rather than actual damage. And waiting is absolutely no fun. Restricting the right to found would mostly get rid of these problems

 

 

- Real life people represented
- Real life company names involved
- Imaginary people from popular IP represented

 

but not of the fake spam. 

So, maybe implement both of these features to stop both kinds of misbehavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really glad to see that some initiative is being taken against these kinds of alt accounts and I fully support the idea of only backers being able to make organisations as backers who have supported the game know or I hope that they know the game is more than about just blowing stuff and building ships, its a social experiment altogether and that this kind of game can only be made amazing when we have real people, people who are invested in the game and continuing its story, so it is my hope that they themselves will not be accepting any alts even to bolster their ranks as in the long run those alts do not account for anything.
It may not be a full proof plan but it is a start nonetheless. The idea behind waiting a week or so before joining any org is interesting but won't stop dedicated people to do it again, so as many others have said before its just delaying the inevitable though I am sure it will reduce the number of alts somewhat.
Now definitely legit orgs should check out the people who are applying and not just accept anyone just to be on top of leaderboard though it does not stop a person from filling their own orgs.
This alt frenzy is cancer to this community and I seriously hope some strict measures are applied so that it may not happen again or at least on this scale.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not against only backers being able to create orgs.  If that's what we've gotta do, then that's what we've gotta do.  But I can think that some people will be left out of that might not really deserve it.  Maybe only allowing one org for non-backers; maybe even making it so that can either set up one org or only join one org might work.  And maybe those kinds of orgs can have a limited numbers members allowed too?  Maybe they can set up an org for DAC?  Any way we can think of that would still allow people without lots of money to participate, even if in a limited way, would be my preferred choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any way we can think of that would still allow people without lots of money to participate, even if in a limited way, would be my preferred choice.

I also agree with this.

I can see the appeal of backer only benefits but I'm a little uncomfortable with things that exclude people. The main goal is creating a vibrant community interested in playing the game. Even if that sounds a little bit too much like space hippie babble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's really being excluded though? The cheapest backer pledge is only $16.00 USD an you can upgrade your pledge if you wish. Anybody who has PayPal and a job at McDonalds can be a part of this for as much a few Big Mac's. I think people who are willing to pay at least a little to fully enjoy and help the development of the game is game's primary audience anyways. Just my 2¢

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Giving the right to join an organization only if the user is a backer is a bit over the top in our opinion. 
However, we are considering to give the right of creating organizations only to backers. This should limit abuses on this topic.

 

 I would vote for that +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

About the preventive measures we have in mind (we would like to have your feedback on this):
Giving the right to join an organization only if the user is a backer is a bit over the top in our opinion. 
However, we are considering to give the right of creating organizations only to backers. This should limit abuses on this topic.

I can see where this is coming from, and it isn't actually a bad idea. There is one thing that bothers me however.

 

From friends' reactions, recent topics all around the gaming community and especially the comment section of the recent IGN video featuring JC and DU at GDC, it's easy to tell that Dual Universe has a really hard time to be taken seriously or being believed at all. For a vast majority of people as it seems, Dual Universe looks to be another cash grab in the steadily growing list of space sims and MMOs, people consider it a second No Man's Sky if you want to phrase it like that.

 

Now imagine a potentially doubtful player doing research on the game and bringing up the trust to look further into it. As soon as he sees that you have to pay money to create an organisation, so in order to do what you want or at least prepare it, this player would be detered as it does indeed seem like a cash grab at that point. 

"Give us your money in advance so you are free to do what we advertised before" may sound a bit overly critical, but that's what it would likely look for the average hysterical player. Trading this risk for a rather ineffective measure as I find isn't going to end well for the reputation of this game in this stage

 

It's a completely different topic as soon as DU has proven that it's in fact capable of what it promises. 

So if you want to introduce this measure in this exact form, I'd recommend to wait at least until Alpha, because that's when people will be able to see that it works and players become less doubtful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see where this is coming from, and it isn't actually a bad idea. There is one thing that bothers me however.

 

From friends' reactions, recent topics all around the gaming community and especially the comment section of the recent IGN video featuring JC and DU at GDC, it's easy to tell that Dual Universe has a really hard time to be taken seriously or being believed at all. For a vast majority of people as it seems, Dual Universe looks to be another cash grab in the steadily growing list of space sims and MMOs, people consider it a second No Man's Sky if you want to phrase it like that.

 

Now imagine a potentially doubtful player doing research on the game and bringing up the trust to look further into it. As soon as he sees that you have to pay money to create an organisation, so in order to do what you want or at least prepare it, this player would be detered as it does indeed seem like a cash grab at that point. 

"Give us your money in advance so you are free to do what we advertised before" may sound a bit overly critical, but that's what it would likely look for the average hysterical player. Trading this risk for a rather ineffective measure as I find isn't going to end well for the reputation of this game in this stage

 

It's a completely different topic as soon as DU has proven that it's in fact capable of what it promises. 

So if you want to introduce this measure in this exact form, I'd recommend to wait at least until Alpha, because that's when people will be able to see that it works and players become less doubtful.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, we are considering to give the right of creating organizations only to backers. This should limit abuses on this topic.

 

This will work as a short term solution but what happens once the backing portal closes? A potential long term solution that allows anyone to create organisations as well as taking it out of the Community Managers hands is to appoint Moderators that approve of an organisations creation.  Some may still slip through though, so a moderator can mark these as problems and either have the legates fix it or have the community manager put it in quarantine.

 

I am not saying this is *the* solution. But it is *a* solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While only allowing backers to create organizations is a good idea I believe it might cause some negative affects on new people looking at maybe pledging. I am not pledged yet because I do not know fully what to expect yet. I would like to get into alpha but over $120(USD) is too much for me to spend on a game that has no real game play video beyond the basic videos released by developers. There is also the issue of already created organizations by non-pledged players. What will happen to us? Will we be punished because others abused it or will it be handled on a case by case basis as other artificially inflated organizations appear and are discovered? Perhaps another solution would be to "tag" accounts that all log in from the same IP addresses....have an automatic checking system that just checks the database for last used IPs and check how many IPs are the same so if you have say 5 or 10 accounts being accessed from the same IP maybe flag them and their owned organizations for review. This could at least cut down work by having the program check and flag automatically so IP checking doesn't have to be done manually for say 50 accounts. I don't know how that part is done for DU's setup so it could be easier than the forum on my organization's website in which case that might not be very helpful.

 

edit: Perhaps maybe requiring a bit of activity on forums be a requirement to create an organization? Make it require X posts on Y different threads for non-pledged members to join or create an organization. This way it will require the account to actually do stuff making artificially inflating numbers require more work and effort especially for larger numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could lead to misuse by traitors/infiltrators.

How?

 

If only the Leader / creator of the corp has this right to remove legits, it will get rid of spys and traitors that have lied and wormed their way into a powerfull postion.

 

At this time not even the corps creator can not get rid of a spy or traitor. This would lead to the corps collapse!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One idea is to require the account be a week old or a backer to join/make a corp. It would not get ride of the problem but people just doing it for the lolz probably won't want to wait a week.

 

This would unnecessarily "punish" those who haven't paid anything and don't want to generate trouble.

The possibility of joining some friends in an organization should remain immediate, especially because all those who will try the game in the free trial period will be in this case. We can't announce to them "great, you can try the game, but you can't join your friends before a week has passed". There is no MMORPG where someone has to wait a week to play with his friends.

 

Possible ways of limiting such impact or damage

 

If we want to limit fake accounts boosting organizations, the most easy thing that pops up in my mind is to make it harder. Seems obvious, but would be the first realization. Thus we ask how it can be made harder - likely by adding some sort of requirement.

 

mefsh, for example (if not others before him), just suggested we add a time requirement before anyone can join an organization. That seems like a good option, even if it's not really a lasting solution as someone could also just create X accounts and then wait for X amount of time. If it would not stop some from doing it, it would delay the problem at least.

 

A tougher limitation would be pledging. In another certain game in development, you can only join an organization via the integrated organization system (here, it would be our community hub with all the organizations) if you pledged. That would be a bigger deterrent but not all could be in favor of it, as it could also exclude players from certain organizations - players that are not ready to pledge yet.

 

Perhaps there are other ways, but I let others step ahead. I mostly focus on these two aspects now:

 

- Limit who can join an organization by adding the requirement that an account is either X old or has pledged

 

A time requirement merely delays the problem if one was serious about it, a pledge is a harder deterrent but could exclude a few players - for now.

However, would it be that bad? I don't think so. Players (without pledge) could still join an organization via the forum and later via the community hub if they pledged.

Other alternative: We roughly keep it as it is, but mark user accounts in organizations that did not pledge. It would basically make spotting some alt cases easier without really doing much else. Would still require some sort of manual action or investigation. The time limit or pledge requirement would be more automatic, resulting in less initial work for anyone.

 

E: I guess the "Only backers can create organizations" thing could also work as compromise and likely limit these cases, but once someone backed it would mean free reign for alts if one was again serious about it.

 

Having organizations full of fake accounts is a "lesser evil".

We will still monitor the organizations having an anormal growth. If this is done in order to raise in the Top15 or Top30 (to gain undeserved visibility), this might end up with the org deletion. However, we also keep in mind the scenario where a big MMORPG guild/corporation/clan suddenly chose to create an org in Dual Universe and suddenly dozens or (even hundreds) of people join the organization in a matter of hours. This has happened a few times already with group of players already active in other MMOs like EVE Online since the opening of the Community Portal. Of course, we won't delete anything in this case.

 

 

but not of the fake spam. 

So, maybe implement both of these features to stop both kinds of misbehavior.

 

Yes and no:

A player backing a game is naturally less encline to create trouble.

If he does, the player generally understand that it might jeopardize his backer rights and that's a natural deterrent.

That's one of the main reasons of "free to play" community toxicity: most of the players having a bad behavior are generally those who have nothing to lose because they haven't spent anything in the game and if they are banned, they can always recreate another account and continue.

A backer creating an organization hosting mainly fake accounts (and by fake accounts, we mean "account made just for the only purpose of inflating numbers". An account made to infiltrate an organization doesn't enter in this category) in order to gain visibility would get a warning, possible organization deletion, and sanctions on his account if he does repeated actions in this direction.

 

I can see where this is coming from, and it isn't actually a bad idea. There is one thing that bothers me however.

 

From friends' reactions, recent topics all around the gaming community and especially the comment section of the recent IGN video featuring JC and DU at GDC, it's easy to tell that Dual Universe has a really hard time to be taken seriously or being believed at all. For a vast majority of people as it seems, Dual Universe looks to be another cash grab in the steadily growing list of space sims and MMOs, people consider it a second No Man's Sky if you want to phrase it like that.

 

Now imagine a potentially doubtful player doing research on the game and bringing up the trust to look further into it. As soon as he sees that you have to pay money to create an organisation, so in order to do what you want or at least prepare it, this player would be detered as it does indeed seem like a cash grab at that point. 

"Give us your money in advance so you are free to do what we advertised before" may sound a bit overly critical, but that's what it would likely look for the average hysterical player. Trading this risk for a rather ineffective measure as I find isn't going to end well for the reputation of this game in this stage

 

It's a completely different topic as soon as DU has proven that it's in fact capable of what it promises. 

So if you want to introduce this measure in this exact form, I'd recommend to wait at least until Alpha, because that's when people will be able to see that it works and players become less doubtful.

 

 

This way of thinking is understandable but it can be debunked easily.

We have to chose between:

 

- Letting all the creating/posting powers to the non-backers accounts, and see a growing number of abuses as the community grows, which will make the community looks bad (and this will also make potential players go away), because of all the inappropriate organizations created and all the inappropriate content posted on it and the limitation of manpower to handle all those cases manually.

 

- Limiting a bit the rights of non-backers accounts without excluding them from being part of the community, especially as it just concerns the rights on the Community Portal, and not the access to the game itself (any non-backer player will still have a free trial period at official release to judge about whether or not it's a game worth to play. No cash grab offer a free trial period to test it before paying). If someone is suspicious about Dual Universe - which again can be understandable with some events that occurred last year in the gaming industry - then the best thing to do is to suggest him to wait until the official release to try the game for free.

 

While only allowing backers to create organizations is a good idea I believe it might cause some negative affects on new people looking at maybe pledging. I am not pledged yet because I do not know fully what to expect yet. I would like to get into alpha but over $120(USD) is too much for me to spend on a game that has no real game play video beyond the basic videos released by developers. There is also the issue of already created organizations by non-pledged players. What will happen to us? Will we be punished because others abused it or will it be handled on a case by case basis as other artificially inflated organizations appear and are discovered? Perhaps another solution would be to "tag" accounts that all log in from the same IP addresses....have an automatic checking system that just checks the database for last used IPs and check how many IPs are the same so if you have say 5 or 10 accounts being accessed from the same IP maybe flag them and their owned organizations for review. This could at least cut down work by having the program check and flag automatically so IP checking doesn't have to be done manually for say 50 accounts. I don't know how that part is done for DU's setup so it could be easier than the forum on my organization's website in which case that might not be very helpful.

 

edit: Perhaps maybe requiring a bit of activity on forums be a requirement to create an organization? Make it require X posts on Y different threads for non-pledged members to join or create an organization. This way it will require the account to actually do stuff making artificially inflating numbers require more work and effort especially for larger numbers.

 

Your concerns are understandable.

That's why, if we go for limiting the right of non-backer accounts, we will try to avoid making it retroactive.

In short: the non-backer accounts that would have created an organization before such update will keep their organization but wouldn't have the right to create new ones after the update. Moreover, this will be a temporary situation as a non-backer account using a DAC once the game will be officially launched, will have the same rights as a backer account on the Community Portal. This way, it will remain possible to create organizations - on the long term - without necessarily paying anything (but it will necessitate time investment).

 

About your suggestions:

- IP Adress Checks is not a reliable way to prevent such abuse. It's not very difficult to use a proxy nowadays, and it would completely bypass this kind of preventive measure. 

 

- Unfortunately, putting a limit tied to the number of posts on the forum will have two effects:

1) It will discourage players wanting to participate in the community but not especially wanting to post on the forum.

2) It will increase spam posting on the forum to reach the quota. So the problem would not disappear, it will be just moved to another place.
 
Anyway, if you have other ideas or suggestions on the topic, don't hesitate to mention them.
The decision won't be taken tomorrow, and this is great feedback to improve the Community Portal in the long run! :)
 
Best regards,
Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, if you have other ideas or suggestions on the topic, don't hesitate to mention them.

The decision won't be taken tomorrow, and this is great feedback to improve the Community Portal in the long run! :)

 

Best regards,

Nyzaltar.

Gebus! Is literally everyone at NQ a sensible person?

Heresy!

 

Thanks for that very insightful answer Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×