The Soapbox: Getting to the heart of toxicity in MMOs

So we’ve gotten another post from a developer saying that they’re going to really 100% be better about rooting out toxic players from their games. Seriously, we mean it this time. The latest one is from Blizzard, but let’s be real, this is something that’s always happened. We always get periodic statements from companies that this time they’re really going to address toxic behavior, someone links that inevitable Penny Arcade strip, nothing really changes, play laugh track, roll curtains.

I’d like to be happy about this, I really would, but it’s so much empty posturing, and it came out only shortly before the announcement that everyone who plays the game can now be signed to the Overwatch League. I think the two are pretty closely connected. And I think we need to actually start talking about this because this sort of darkly toxic problem is at the core of the designs of these games, even though on some level it’s entirely separate. The problem isn’t that these games are designed to be toxic; it’s that they’re designed to encourage toxicity.

Getting rid of individual toxic players, as Blizzard purports to do, is merely treating the symptom. We need to discuss the disease.

Sort of a symptom and a cause at once, oddly.

Rest assure that it is a disease because it helps keep far too many people away from these games. I know people who were really curious about World of Warcraft back in the day who were pushed off just by player reputations. Even though the worst of WoW‘s populace has never made up a sizable portion of its players, the reputation is there. There are people who might love League of Legends, but they’ll never know because they’ll never play the game in the first place.

And yet there are islands of brightness despite this. I’ve found plenty of people praise Final Fantasy XIV‘s community as just being less toxic in some often hard-to-define way. It’s not that people are all friendlier or less likely to be jerks or something. it’s just that really nasty attitudes tend to be quietly discouraged rather than tacitly encouraged.

I think that cuts to the heart of the matter, and it’s why WoW has gotten a worse reputation over time. It’s a pretty simple issue to understand: These games encourage you to treat other people as, functionally, impediments.

The closer your game is at its heart to telling players “other people are what stands between you and what you want,” the more toxic players it’s going to attract. Simple and straightforward.

Of course, none of the games people mark as toxic are games that go out of their way to say “other people are scum, step on them until you have what you personally want.” This is Overwatch, not Gordon Gekko’s Gospel of Greed Training Simulator. But the elements are still baked into the core of the game design due to a number of design decisions, the sort made very early on.

The first part is that these games have a strong competitive element at their core. This is, of course, part and parcel with games; most games have a strong competitive side. That’s a large part of what makes them games and not just interactive online stories. But in the most toxic online competitive games, the emphasis is not on “let’s overcome this as a team” but on “let’s win.” EVE Online makes screwing over other players a core feature of its gameplay, part of its sales pitch. And you know full well that the point of LoL isn’t to revel in the game’s lore — it’s to beat the pants off the other team.

WoW doesn’t have a PvP focus, but it does have gearing that basically allows players with more dedication to exist on a stratum above that of every other player. In some ways, it’s even worse in that regard; the high-end progression scene stretches so far for such a small segment of the population that it fosters an idea of elitism that shoots through all of the game’s systems. (Compare this to the aforementioned FFXIV, where progression gets you marginally better gear for a short time and then everyone catches up; there’s not as much sense of “I’m better than you” when you just have a 3% leg up on someone for two months.)

YOU ARE MY TOOLS

Next, these games decouple character and player. I’ve heard it said that online fighting games are some of the most vile cesspools you can imagine in terms of community, and that makes sense because when you look at the other player, you see Just Another Chun-Li. You aren’t really seeing your teammates in Overwatch, you’re seeing Hanzo and Mei and Lucio. As I’ve been picking on WoW here, I’d like to point out that this is the point where WoW most firmly diverges, with its big contribution being that armor sets and characters tend to look rather similar based on the limited character creator and rather… monolithic armor design. EVE, however? You don’t even see the avatar, just the ship, which is pretty recognizable just by its silhouette.

This is one of the many, many reasons I despise the Penny Arcade strip someone is inevitably going to link in the comments so I’ll just do it for you. This is not about the offender’s anonymity. What’s happening is not that you’re anonymous and thus act like a jerk; what happens is that your targets are anonymous. That’s why decoupling player and character matters. Yelling at someone who has a distinct look feels like yelling at a person, but yelling at a generic character feels like yelling at Bowser in a single-player game. It’s an AI component; it doesn’t have feelings.

For the third point, these games ensure that clearing is better than complaining. I have had some runs with some truly atrocious people in various games, and in many cases as much as I might have wanted to get rid of them, I also recognized that the faster option was to just take a deep breath, soldier on, and get the match/dungeon/whatever over and done with. Complaining (or leaving) just slowed things down, and depending on circumstance, it might actually get me into a worse situation (like lowering my season rating or locking me out of battleground and dungeon queues).

By discouraging people from leaving matches early, a lot of games subtly reinforce this idea. You don’t want to drop out in the middle of a LoL match, even if one of your teammates is a terrible human being. You need to just finish the match. So it becomes a case where you’re inured to the idea that this is just something that happens and not something you should act upon.

We go together, and by we, I mean you.

Concurrently, it helps when these games put obvious emphasis on individual success or failure. This one is a little more complex, but I think Overwatch’s payload maps are a perfect example of how this can happen. Not every character is well-suited to parking on the payload and helping it move; Tracer, for example, should be zipping out and harassing the enemy team. It’s very possible for a player to do this successfully but find that the other team members are not guarding the payload. Thus, you emphasize the feeling in a player’s mind of the other people being impediments rather than allies.

Last but not least, these games are environments where offenders are punished in only the weakest of ways. To some extent, this is just going to happen; after all, Blizzard may really hate the transmisogynistic jerk in Overwatch chat, but the comapny wants his money more. Heck, EVE goes so far as to celebrate these people. (Yes, technically the game celebrates being cutthroat and ruthless, but it’s such a short walk between those points that you can sit down and have coffee while occupying both.)

Put all of this together you’ve created a garden where toxic weeds are going to grow. You have a system where players are not given incentives to report this behavior, but players who are inclined to this behavior anyway will flock to you. Like the Stanford prison experiment, it’s less of a proof of how people act in a vacuum and more a proof of what happens when you give people who want to feel important a chance to treat others as impediments, act like bullies to targets they won’t feel empathy toward, and then be rewarded for their combative impulses.

“So how do we solve it?” you ask. Frankly, that could be another equally lengthy diatribe (which I’m not writing today because this is already pretty sizable), but in brief: Don’t design these elements as the beating heart of your game. If your core gameplay is predicated on these problems, you are going to keep finding toxic players. You can ban some of them, but more will show up just as surely.

And if you don’t acknowledge that these are, in fact, the breeding grounds – if you act like toxicity isn’t a problem that has to be addressed at the root level – then you’re still basically encouraging the problem. We cannot treat the symptoms. We have to treat the actual disease.

Or we have to acknowledge that these games do, in fact, want to be infested with toxic players from top to bottom. Which seems like a bad choice to me, but hey, I already don’t play them.

Everyone has opinions, and The Soapbox is how we indulge ours. Join the Massively OP writers as we take turns atop our very own soapbox to deliver unfettered editorials a bit outside our normal purviews (and not necessarily shared across the staff). Think we’re spot on — or out of our minds? Let us know in the comments!
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Code of Conduct | Edit Your Profile | Commenting FAQ | Badge Reclamation | Badge Key

LEAVE A COMMENT

150 Comments on "The Soapbox: Getting to the heart of toxicity in MMOs"

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Dušan Frolkovič

Main problem in most of these games is that they have a solo queue in a team based game. Then you throw 4/5/6 random people, each with their own view of how to play the game, into a match and expect them to magically sort it out and work together.

My advice against toxicity: get rid of solo-queue, only allow full teams. Give time for people to find teammates with similar priorities.

Reader
Keir

Bang on. I currently play vanilla WoW and the difference in dungeons from this to the live version is massive. When you have to assemble a group together, you act as a team; when you queue by yourself and get thrown in with some strangers you’ll never see again, you have no incentive to act responsibly.

Reader
Patreon Donor
Veldan

I couldn’t agree more. Even in MMOs with LFG tools like that, I more often than not made my groups through chat, and it always lead to groups that were 1) better and 2) nicer people. Solo queueing into groups never did the genre any good, as much as I like to play with strangers.

Edit: I was talking about MMOs only here

Reader
Dušan Frolkovič

The LFG works for the group of people that view dungeon as their chores for today and just want to get it over it. Which is fine and it works for them (personally, this would be a warning sign for me that it is time to move on).
But it does not work for people that want to enjoy the dungeons.

Reader
Patreon Donor
Veldan

But that’s the point, the latter should be everyone. Developers should seek to design the game so that it is enjoyable and content is not reduced to chores.

Reader
Dušan Frolkovič

I do not think that is really true. There just is a group of players that enjoys the MMO of their choice for the progression part. For them, they can do the most boring gameplay possible or the most enjoyable one, they will rush through, because the shiny at the end is what they seek. For them the finish is the target, not the journey.

We are at the point when MMO or even MMORPG is just not enough of a term to cover everything, and the games need to start to define themselves to be more specialized. If try to cater to too many different groups of players, one gets the old too many cooks problem.

Reader
Patreon Donor
Veldan

Well true, but this is only half the story. Why do people rush through with the finish as target? Because they genuinely enjoy speed clears and setting fast times? Very few people have that mindset. Most do it because they didn’t want to do the content in the first place, but felt forced to do it because of the reward that it gives. That’s the problem. People that would otherwise not do this content, end up in it, because it’s necessary for progression, and then want it to be over as fast as possible because they don’t enjoy what they’re doing. Solutions:

1) Remove or reduce the progression part so that only those who are in it for the fun queue up
2) Make the content truly great and enjoyable so that the experience of being there is greater than the reward and becomes people’s main motivation
3) Seperate queues, pretty much like Bree said below
4) Don’t do solo queues so that people form groups of likeminded players

In order of easy to implement: 4 > 3 > 1 > 2

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

I mean, that’s never going to happen? MMO players for the most part don’t even want to go back to that, let alone shooter fans. Why not just build a queue UI that asks you what your priorities are and matches you accordingly?

Reader
Dušan Frolkovič

It would be a possibility, but one would really need to define what each priority means.
Because it would not just need to allow for choosing roles (tanks, offense, tjorbjorn etc.), but also things like “casual”, “hardcore”, “first time, so i will not skip cinematics”.

But the fact that people prefer comfortable matchmaking before a non-toxic environment does say something.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

Oh, I would LOVE the cutscene option! And yeah, I think people would rather risk the chance of a toxic group than spend a couple of hours making single-serving friends, as the phrase goes, for sure — it’s a good wager to minimize time wasted. In a game where toxic groups were the norm instead of the exception, that’d probably change (although more likely, non-toxic people would just leave and find a less-toxic game).

Reader
Patreon Donor
Veldan

Who said anything about a couple of hours though? I mean, people love to talk about ye good olde days, but in more recent games, if I formed a group in chat, we’re talking about 5 to 10 minutes.

capt_north
Reader
capt_north

Games exist in a broader cultural context, in which we’ve witnessed the devaluation of empathy and altruism in many quarters in favor of a more insular and selfish worldview.

While this can lead to fascinating philosophical discussions of the nature of man, on a pragmatic level you can quantify, analyze and modify the frequency of the behaviors in question. The mathematical branch known as game theory (which is usually not about games) has practical applications here.

It’s not necessarily the designer’s responsibility to make the world a better place… but encouraging better behavior in a game context may have beneficial spillover effects on real life.

Reader
Robert Basler

Game devs need a psychologist on staff. I’ve read a lot about this issue and small design changes can make big differences in behaviour. The Psychology of Video Games posted a link to a study a while ago that showed that if you remove the ability for players to see other players’ level, that they treat each other better.

Riot has also done extensive research and experimentation on removing toxicity, lots of it is documented on Gamasutra with nice charts and graphs and video.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

Robert, do you happen to remember where the link was on TPOVG? I’ve done some poking around and can’t find it and think it would make for a super interesting discussion!

Reader
Jennifer Yaner

As long as there is some sort of competitive mode in a game it will breed toxicity. Toxic behavior stem from elitism and competitiveness, as long as the game has a place where either those two things can exist it will never be free from toxicity. Case in point being Overwatch and every MOBA. You generally do not find toxic attitudes in casual games, with the exception of some like Minecraft. Most cooperative games without a PvP or competitive element are generally very lax.

I will, however, disagree about FF14 being non-toxic. The end-game raids require extremely skilled players, requires high knowledge of game mechanics, as well as top-end gear. This breeds elitism and hardcore mindsets that in turn brings about toxic behavior. No offense to the author, but if you think FF14 is low on the toxicity scale, then you clearly never played the end-game content.

This mainly comes down to players and not the developers. If the developers want to curb this type of behavior they need to crack down on this behavior and start strict punishments for offending players. Otherwise, we just have people who will never stop this behavior because it is never punished.

Reader
Patreon Donor
Veldan

All very true, and I think the last paragraph is the most important.

Reader
Fred Douglas

I think this is well put and highlights some useful ways to curb toxicity (making games less stratified), but ultimately we can’t rid games of aggression while we continue to live in an extremely violent and divided society.

Reader
Jonny Sage

Lets play Sarcastiball instead. Its SOOOO much more fun.

SarcastaballPromo2.jpg
Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
mike foster

FFXIV is one of the nicest communities I have ever been a part of. I think maybe because everyone understands that Square is the real enemy.

Reader
Malcolm Swoboda

I don’t care anymore. I go on friendly channels. I know to step away from toxic channels. I make my friends I play with. But I’m also not someone who wants the dozens of consistent players (or public access to players that I ‘manually’ join with) all the time.

Reader
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Suikoden

This is such an important topic. You are so correct in saying that treating the symptom doesn’t stop the disease. FFXIV is pretty good about this, and I think it’s because of the love its members have for the game. My hypothesis is because they don’t want people to quit their game. And they do want people to tank and heal. In some games it’s like it’s people’s passion to get others to quit the game. I never understand that.

Reader
Skardon

with 468 hours in overwatch, my take on chat is that it’s 50% benign, 35% cringing, 15% brutal.