※ 引述《guteres (走出自己的路)》之銘言： : http://blog.dota2.com/ : 昨天blog最新的更新, 看來還有有一些惡意的玩在在上面欺負人 小弟大略翻譯一下重點，不會逐字翻，請大神勿鞭。當然意思差很多麻煩請糾正。 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. 我們其中一個目標就是希望能夠有更多玩家喜愛這個遊戲，為此，我們應該揚善懲惡。 但是這一切都必須在遊戲開放的過程中收集資料，找到改善的方針。 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. 現在 鬥塔II 已經開放一段時間了，加上鬥塔I的玩家資料，現在我們能夠透過資料找到 答案了! 第一個重點就是，中離，很顯然如果你遊戲玩的不爽，你就會中離，但是我們還 是需要時間與資料來驗證我們的假設，結果發現，隊上的陣容組合再爛，輸的再多場 都跟中離沒有太大關聯，但是如果隊友互相幹譙的話就會!! 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). 所以降低隊友互相幹譙的頻率應該會改善中離，只是該如何界定界限呢?我們應該允許 遊戲中的不良行為或者直接禁止掉這些(我想應該就是打fuck會被消音之類的) 我們不想要限制任何人的發言，但是如果有人讓你在遊戲中打的不爽，你可以遊戲結束的 時候檢舉他!! 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. 我們內部討論後，為了不流失喜愛鬥塔的玩家，決定還是要禁止某些玩家的發言權， 換句話說，我們就是要那些不想玩得快滾!這個想法創造了現在的禁言系統，目標 就是避免玩家被幹譙到中離。 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. 現在這個系統上線一個月了，我們也看到了一些成效，同時我們也認為應該要回應一些問 題。 首先，關於禁言系統執行的一些重點。 即使有一群人在同一場遊戲裡檢舉你也不會影響到你會不會被禁言，我們看的是長期的 行為模式。 如果你被禁言了，那麼在禁言這段時間又收到的檢舉將不算數。 目前系統還不是很理想，但是在改變前還需要更多資料，未來我們會持續依照大家的建議 以及收集到的資料持續改善。 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. 玩家最常見的問題就是，不是已經有了可以將遊戲中玩家靜音的功能，為什麼還要禁言 系統？ 我們怕的就是你還沒來的及靜音該玩家，就被他的言語給傷害到弱小的心靈阿! 另一個重點就是，透過禁言系統才能夠讓該玩家明白自己講話太靠背了! 我們先前的資料顯示，講話靠北的玩家是有救的，為了救他們，有必要在他們講話靠北的 時候讓他們知道。根據資料顯示，這個系統是有效的，有許多被禁言過的玩家，在被禁 言過後，就學習到如何靠北不被BAN的神技(大誤)，就改過向善， 講話都有"請謝謝對不起"(小誤) 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. 我們也有收到些不實檢舉的抱怨，當我們實際調查時發現，他們不知道他們在遊戲中是怎 麼得罪對方的，這也是我們需要定義"講話靠背"的原因，這界限最後也透過大家一同劃定 我們會繼續調查這些爭議，確保禁言系統的功效如同預期，同時統計資料也指出我們做得 不錯，以下統計資料 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. 自從系統上線後，玩家靠背率下降35% 2. 上個月所有玩家中，不到1%被禁言 3. 60%被禁言過的玩家，都改過向善了! 4. 所有檢舉下降了30% 5. 我們目前對於這套系統感到很滿意，這套系統居然管用!(誤) 但是我們會繼續努力! --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 60.249.191.142