A Different View of "that" Live Stream

[Virchow]

Many of you are dead wrong on this.

I really dislike Daglar's stance on PvP. I'm pretty vocal about ideas for change.

But as an employer, from a business standpoint, you're absolutely wrong about him banning the person calling for the firing.

The only mistake he did make was unbanning him.

If I ran an official Rift Event and someone did that, I would ban them in a second.
If I ran an real life official Rift Event and someone did that, I would ban them and have them removed from the premises by security.

What's more, any manager I hire, I would demand they do the same. It would be company policy, in black and white, in the employee manual.

This was a real-life official business stream for a multimillion dollar business, not a casual discussion between equals. My belief, currently, is that it made several dissidents unsettled that they may get banned just for not agreeing, but I'll bet that's not it.

Many of you don't understand business principles in regards to a 'hostile work environment' and relative legal exposures. Did you know that it's actually completely the owner's onus to protect their employees not just from an internal hostile environment, but an external (read: clients i.e. you) environment as well.

[Fryday]

Stop whining and lets play there end of thread

shhhh, the adults are talking.

[Lords0fpain]

Many of you are dead wrong on this.

I really dislike Daglar's stance on PvP. I'm pretty vocal about ideas for change.

But as an employer, from a business standpoint, you're absolutely wrong about him banning the person calling for the firing.

The only mistake he did make was unbanning him.

If I ran an official Rift Event and someone did that, I would ban them in a second.
If I ran an real life official Rift Event and someone did that, I would ban them and have them removed from the premises by security.

What's more, any manager I hire, I would demand they do the same. It would be company policy, in black and white, in the employee manual.

This was a real-life official business stream for a multimillion dollar business, not a casual discussion between equals. My belief, currently, is that it made several dissidents unsettled that they may get banned just for not agreeing, but I'll bet that's not it.

Many of you don't understand business principles in regards to a 'hostile work environment' and relative legal exposures. Did you know that it's actually completely the owner's onus to protect their employees not just from an internal hostile environment, but an external (read: clients i.e. you) environment as well.

the "official" profesdionalism was just oozing from that stream on thier part. Yea, ban out of chat, sure. Ban from game for feeling someone done a poor job and feels that they should be fired (and have no control over that)? Get real. Now if threats are made or the behavior presist, yea, it maybe warrented.

no one was physically there for any escalation of the situation. An over sensative, childish reaction.

[Ianto Jones]

That being said, I cannot fault him for protecting his staff. That was the proper move, though the attitude may have been off.

I feel that this maybe one of those situations where it may be best to leave these kind of activities to the individuals who are hired to handle the community.

I didn't even watch the recent Livestream where this particular incident occurred, and yet I knew precisely what Fryday was talking about when he made this thread. I think that says something. I didn't mean to cast a judgment one way or another on any single incident. I was commenting more on the general tone and demeanour of the aggregate. The issue is form, not function.

[Xgame]

shhhh, the adults are talking.

I don't see you being the adult here :P It seem like i am taking responsibility of my own action. Instead of trying to prove other wrong when this thread was litterly made to trololol *yawn* you an adult pls lmfao :P

[Ianto Jones]

I don't see you being the adult here :P It seem like i am taking responsibility of my own action. Instead of trying to prove other wrong when this thread was litterly made to trololol *yawn* you an adult pls lmfao :P

Of course, when you realise that this is the typical Rift player nowadays the dismissive condescension makes a lot more sense.

[Lords0fpain]

Very well put. I understand that being attacked daily by the very people that are supporting your paycheck is frustrating and almost impossible to deal with at times. However, what the gaming community gives out is nothing compared to say...medicine. Once you involve someone's health or a loved one's health, things get to be very messy very fast. Throw in the fact that an individual may be under the influence of mind altering medications or drugs and a little confusion and you're going to have a wretched day.

That being said, I cannot fault him for protecting his staff. That was the proper move, though the attitude may have been off.

I feel that this maybe one of those situations where it may be best to leave these kind of activities to the individuals who are hired to handle the community.

What is he "protecting" the staff from? Harsh criticism? No threats were made and it was said over a chat channel.

Things like that are said all the time across all venues. See how many fans of losing football team are calling dropping players or firing head coaches.

When you deal with the public, thin skin is not a good to have....when someone mskes a threat, I can this type of reaction. Until then, it was childish.

[Muspel]

They expected us to jump for joy when they announced that we MAY get one warfront at launch. Whilst pvers can expect six new dungeons and a raid, if I am not mistaken.

On the other hand, PvErs are also losing all of the existing dungeons and raids as endgame content, just like we lost all of the dungeons and raids from Vanilla when SL launched. By contrast, all of the warfronts introduced in both Vanilla and SL are still around.

The juxtaposition of how they treat PvP vs. PvE is impressively tragic.

It's more of an issue of function. PvE content is designed to be consumed and eventually moved past, at which point you need new content. By contrast, in PvP, the other players are the content. Doing a dungeon or a raid with a different group does change things somewhat, but not to anywhere near the degree that doing a warfront with new opponents or teammates will.

Warfronts are released at a slower pace because they are never deprecated, unlike PvE content. This has two important effects-- first off, it means that if you have too many warfronts, then the individual queues for each one become longer and longer, since the playerbase is split between all of them (this is primarily relevant for players that try to queue for a specific WF). Secondly, it means that warfronts have to be particularly well designed, because they're going to be around forever. As a result, it means that warfronts should only be created when there's a clear, compelling design that will present engaging gameplay-- otherwise, you end up being stuck with something like Port Scion.

[Virchow]

the "official" profesdionalism was just oozing from that stream on thier part. Yea, ban out of chat, sure. Ban from game for feeling someone done a poor job and feels that they should be fired (and have no control over that)? Get real. Now if threats are made or the behavior presist, yea, it maybe warrented.

no one was physically there for any escalation of the situation. An over sensative, childish reaction.

The trouble is you don't fully understand the world you're living in.

The law is considered poorly constructed and 'overkill' by some, but it's the law.

Corporate response will always be even more protective/overreaching, and will be spelled out in policy to stay compliant.

It's not truly even much of a choice once there is policy, and when the law is somewhat unreasonable, the policy will be doubly so.

What you thought you saw was a tantrum, the ultimate disgrace of the PvPer. What you actually saw was an administrator adhering to policy (whether he was happy to or not, well that's another question).

Do me a favor and Google corporate responsibility for hostile work environment or touch base with a corporate compliance/HR lawyer.

[ItzCrooK2UxD]

Many of you are dead wrong on this.

I really dislike Daglar's stance on PvP. I'm pretty vocal about ideas for change.

But as an employer, from a business standpoint, you're absolutely wrong about him banning the person calling for the firing.

The only mistake he did make was unbanning him.

If I ran an official Rift Event and someone did that, I would ban them in a second.
If I ran an real life official Rift Event and someone did that, I would ban them and have them removed from the premises by security.

What's more, any manager I hire, I would demand they do the same. It would be company policy, in black and white, in the employee manual.

This was a real-life official business stream for a multimillion dollar business, not a casual discussion between equals. My belief, currently, is that it made several dissidents unsettled that they may get banned just for not agreeing, but I'll bet that's not it.

Many of you don't understand business principles in regards to a 'hostile work environment' and relative legal exposures. Did you know that it's actually completely the owner's onus to protect their employees not just from an internal hostile environment, but an external (read: clients i.e. you) environment as well.

You sir have this all wrong. The only thing that you got right was the part about the stream "not a casual discussion between equals.".

We are NOT equals. Many of us are paying customers and most savvy business owners understand that the customer is the ultimate boss. If the customers do not give businesses cash, there is nothing in the bank account for the owners/managers to distribute to their employees come payday.

Businesses are only successful if they can both retain old customers and gain new ones, and the love it or leave it attitude does little to help either. If any of my employees EVER reacted to an upset customer the way that Daglar did they would be looking for a new job, and advised that they do not want to use me as a reference. Because frankly when the HR manager from the company looking to hire them called and asked if I would hire them again my answer would be "Knowing what I know now, no."

They managed to ignore plenty of comments and concerns, and there is no reason that a typed outburst calling for the firing of an individual couldn't have also been ignored. It was a side show and little more.

To ban a potentially paying customer for expressing his thoughts OUTSIDE of the game is bullsh*t, and unbanning that player was perhaps the ONLY thing Trion got right.

The bottom line is Trion is a business and if I spoke to my customers the way that they allow their executive producer to speak to their customers I would be out of business eventually.

[asianguywithacamera]

Warfronts are released at a slower pace because they are never deprecated, unlike PvE content. This has two important effects-- first off, it means that if you have too many warfronts, then the individual queues for each one become longer and longer, since the playerbase is split between all of them (this is primarily relevant for players that try to queue for a specific WF). Secondly, it means that warfronts have to be particularly well designed, because they're going to be around forever. As a result, it means that warfronts should only be created when there's a clear, compelling design that will present engaging gameplay-- otherwise, you end up being stuck with something like Port Scion.

No no and no. How do you think the pve base would feel if they had to continue doing SBP and RotF over and over again at 65?

Based on your logic, pvpers don't get tired of the same warfronts because they're well-designed?

The only reason they're around forever is because pvp is a hindsight for the developers. Pve is first priority and pvp gets the scrap seconds if there's free time in their schedule.

[Muspel]

No no and no. How do you think the pve base would feel if they had to continue doing SBP and RotF over and over again at 65?

Pretty upset, because again, PvE content wears out its welcome more quickly.

Based on your logic, pvpers don't get tired of the same warfronts because they're well-designed?

I didn't say that. I said that warfronts inherently have more replay value, because again, the content is primarily about the teams. Facing different teams in a warfront is, in some ways, similar to what it would be like if you faced brand new bosses every time you entered a dungeon or raid.

Adding new souls (assuming that they're useful in PvP) actually does a lot more to spice up PvP than adding new warfronts, because they affect every warfront instead of just adding a new mode that will eventually settle down to the same level of popularity as the other warfronts. Not coincidentally, 3.0 was originally slated to contain four new souls, it's just that we received them early because they were (mostly) ready for release.

The only reason they're around forever is because pvp is a hindsight for the developers. Pve is first priority and pvp gets the scrap seconds if there's free time in their schedule.

See above. The reason that they're around forever is because PvP's replay value is primarily based on the opponents you face, not the maps you fight on.

This is something that you see in other areas as well. Re-reading a book that you've read before usually isn't as enjoyable as the first time, even if you like reading a lot. By contrast, if you enjoy basketball, you're not just going to play one game and then decide that you're done with basketball forever, because every game is different.

[Pesmergia]

Because PvErs are beacons of sunshine and don't complain about anything ever. It's not like they are removing an entire aspect of CQ in order to appease the carebears... No no no no no!

PvE good, PvP bad!

Short and sweet; if they actually put half the effort into PvP as they do their dragons, I daresay this community would not be so bitter.

Hit the nail smack on da head.

[Lords0fpain]

The trouble is you don't fully understand the world you're living in.

The law is considered poorly constructed and 'overkill' by some, but it's the law.

Corporate response will always be even more protective/overreaching, and will be spelled out in policy to stay compliant.

It's not truly even much of a choice once there is policy, and when the law is somewhat unreasonable, the policy will be doubly so.

What you thought you saw was a tantrum, the ultimate disgrace of the PvPer. What you actually saw was an administrator adhering to policy (whether he was happy to or not, well that's another question).

Do me a favor and Google corporate responsibility for hostile work environment or touch base with a corporate compliance/HR lawyer.

Probably be some empty arenas and stadiums if sports franchises banned everyone that ever says one of thier employees should be fired...and no money made from those avenues.

It was tasteless on the customer's part and completely mishandled and blown out of portion on "trion's" end, as that is who in essance was represented.

[ConclusionTheFirst]

Arenas and/or incentivised(read not forced) world PvP will go a long way.

This game does not need more warfronts. Not withstanding an actual deathmatch warfront, because we know that Trion hates Arena.