※ 引述《guteres (走出自己的路)》之铭言： : http://blog.dota2.com/ : 昨天blog最新的更新, 看来还有有一些恶意的玩在在上面欺负人 小弟大略翻译一下重点，不会逐字翻，请大神勿鞭。当然意思差很多麻烦请纠正。 One goal we have for Dota 2 is to have as many people playing and enjoying the game as possible. To do so, we suspected we’d need to encourage behaviors that have positive effects on the game and community and discourage behaviors that have the opposite effect- like causing other players to play less or not at all or to discourage them from trying out the game in the first place. One of the things we also suspected was that we wouldn’t be able to tackle that kind of problem without releasing the game – it’s the sort of thing where you need a lot of data to know whether or not your changes are having any effect. 我们其中一个目标就是希望能够有更多玩家喜爱这个游戏，为此，我们应该扬善惩恶。 但是这一切都必须在游戏开放的过程中收集资料，找到改善的方针。 Now that Dota 2 has been out for a while, and gathering a nice mix of new and original Dota 1 players, we’re able to gather data to find answers. One of the first things we dug into were the factors that contributed to a player quitting. While it might seem obvious that someone is more likely to quit if they have a negative experience in a game, we’ve learned in the past that we really need to test our assumptions to make sure we’re not fixing the wrong thing. Interestingly, some of the factors we assumed would affect leaving didn ’t – for instance, the outcome of matches doesn’t correlate at all to the likelihood of quitting. Losing a bunch of Dota 2 games doesn’t seem to cause people to quit. But one thing that did stand out in the data was the amount of negative communication between players. Put simply, you are more likely to quit if there is abusive chat going on in your games. 现在 斗塔II 已经开放一段时间了，加上斗塔I的玩家资料，现在我们能够透过资料找到 答案了! 第一个重点就是，中离，很显然如果你游戏玩的不爽，你就会中离，但是我们还 是需要时间与资料来验证我们的假设，结果发现，队上的阵容组合再烂，输的再多场 都跟中离没有太大关联，但是如果队友互相干谯的话就会!! So, further investment in discouraging negative communications seemed like it would be valuable. But where to draw the line? Should we allow all (potentially) abusive behavior in-game, or should we work to diminish it and push players more towards the positive and collaborative side of things? We don’t want to restrict anyone’s speech nor prevent anyone from speaking their mind, but for everyone who feels slighted by their inability to say exactly what they want to their teammates or opponents in-game, there is someone on the receiving end of that criticism who is having just as bad an experience (or worse). 所以降低队友互相干谯的频率应该会改善中离，只是该如何界定界限呢?我们应该允许 游戏中的不良行为或者直接禁止掉这些(我想应该就是打fuck会被消音之类的) 我们不想要限制任何人的发言，但是如果有人让你在游戏中打的不爽，你可以游戏结束的 时候检举他!! After some discussion internally, we reached the decision that it seemed in the best interest of the Dota community to not push away players who actually enjoyed the game. As a consequence, this meant restricting the ability for some members of the community to say whatever they want. To put it another way, we only want people to quit playing if they actually just don’t like the game. That thinking led us to the current communication ban system. Its goal is to reduce the toxicity that occurs verbally or via text chat, and as a result, to avoid causing players to quit the game solely due to negative communication experiences. 我们内部讨论後，为了不流失喜爱斗塔的玩家，决定还是要禁止某些玩家的发言权， 换句话说，我们就是要那些不想玩得快滚!这个想法创造了现在的禁言系统，目标 就是避免玩家被干谯到中离。 Now that it’s been live for over a month, we’re able to see some of the effects it’s having, and the conversation the community is having around it, and we felt we should answer some of the questions we’re seeing out there and pass on some of the data we have. First, a couple of notes on the implementation: Multiple people ganging up on you to report you in the same game has no effect on whether or not you are banned. We are looking at patterns of behavior over time only. If you are currently communication banned, any communication reports you receive in that time period do not contribute towards, nor result in additional bans. The system is not yet ideal, but we felt it was better to gather data on this first step before trying to complicate it with extra nuance. We’ve changed the algorithm several times already, and we’ll continue to update it in response to the community’s feedback, and the data we’re gathering. 现在这个系统上线一个月了，我们也看到了一些成效，同时我们也认为应该要回应一些问 题。 首先，关於禁言系统执行的一些重点。 即使有一群人在同一场游戏里检举你也不会影响到你会不会被禁言，我们看的是长期的 行为模式。 如果你被禁言了，那麽在禁言这段时间又收到的检举将不算数。 目前系统还不是很理想，但是在改变前还需要更多资料，未来我们会持续依照大家的建议 以及收集到的资料持续改善。 The most common question we get is why we added the communication ban system when we already have an in-game muting system. Shouldn’t players who don’t like what they’re hearing just mute the speaker? Ignoring the side problems around some players not knowing about muting, and that the damage is often done before you know you should mute someone else, the real problem with the muting approach is that it doesn’t provide strong feedback to the speaker. Some of our earlier data showed us that offensive players can be rehabilitated and that they manage to modify their communication so that they don’t cause negative interactions. To be able to do that though, they need to know when they’re producing negative interactions, and the communication ban system lets them know this. Our data shows this is working exactly as we hoped – many players banned eventually reach a ban free communication style, and the percentage of players being reported for communication bans is dropping over time. 玩家最常见的问题就是，不是已经有了可以将游戏中玩家静音的功能，为什麽还要禁言 系统？ 我们怕的就是你还没来的及静音该玩家，就被他的言语给伤害到弱小的心灵阿! 另一个重点就是，透过禁言系统才能够让该玩家明白自己讲话太靠背了! 我们先前的资料显示，讲话靠北的玩家是有救的，为了救他们，有必要在他们讲话靠北的 时候让他们知道。根据资料显示，这个系统是有效的，有许多被禁言过的玩家，在被禁 言过後，就学习到如何靠北不被BAN的神技(大误)，就改过向善， 讲话都有"请谢谢对不起"(小误) We also hear from users reporting false reports and unwarranted bans, and when we investigate them we typically see that they’re unaware of how they are coming across to other players in-game. The perspective one has over what is or isn’t warranted or abusive varies by player, and that’s one of the reasons why we’ve tried to build a system where the community gets to own the definition of abuse, and the community’s overall decision finds its way back to the people who cross over the line. We’ll continue investigating these claims to make sure the system is working as intended, but ultimately, this system is not designed to please everyone, and our data makes us believe that even those banned by it are better served by the positive effect their lack of speech has on the community’s health. 我们也有收到些不实检举的抱怨，当我们实际调查时发现，他们不知道他们在游戏中是怎 麽得罪对方的，这也是我们需要定义"讲话靠背"的原因，这界限最後也透过大家一同划定 我们会继续调查这些争议，确保禁言系统的功效如同预期，同时统计资料也指出我们做得 不错，以下统计资料 A few statistics: Since the ban system has been implemented, there’s been a 35% drop in negative communication interactions. Less than the 1% of the active player base (players who have played Dota 2 in the last month) are currently banned. 60% of players who receive bans go on to modify their behavior and don’t receive further bans. Total reports are down more than 30%, even after accounting for the reduction in the number permitted per week. Overall, we’re happy with how the system is proceeding. The communication ban system was an attempt to remove a specific set of behaviors in the community, and given its harshness and the change in expectations it engendered, it was always going to be something that was met with criticism. As is often the case, there’s still a lot of work to do, but the early results are promising. 1. 自从系统上线後，玩家靠背率下降35% 2. 上个月所有玩家中，不到1%被禁言 3. 60%被禁言过的玩家，都改过向善了! 4. 所有检举下降了30% 5. 我们目前对於这套系统感到很满意，这套系统居然管用!(误) 但是我们会继续努力! --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 60.249.191.142