End Userbombing Now - Petition

Master1 · 2015-04-02 19:44:43

dragonranger wrote:

Master1 wrote:
Also, how is wanting to gain a few players being selfish? Am I supposed to sit for hours waiting for people to join my world? Sounds like a waste of time.
Maybe they don't want to join your world?

...Then they don't click on it? lol?

Xfrogman43, tentacleTherapist

Nou · 2015-04-02 21:07:38

AK712 wrote:

Nou wrote:
Your attitude really isn't helping your case mr. AK. We were trying to have a proper debate but you derailed it into personal attacks. Funnily enough, we had a talk about this yesterday, and you said people on the forum are mean, while it's in fact your defensive attitude that's causing you to turn to offence, making you the cause of all this.
You're acting as if you're a victim being bullied by people on the forum, but you started this by pretending you're some kind of master debater:
Let's address the other "arguments" here.
Putting it between quotation marks, making it seem like the arguments provided aren't even worth being called arguments.
All arguments have been nullified.
This is how you see yourself: https://youtu.be/F2hiFbuQ-Qw?t=2m50s
This is what you sound like right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IM1p-Tn-jA
___
A debate isn't about winning. In a proper debate you listen to other people's arguments, not throw all your arguments at them and shout harder than they do. Saying someone has a good point doesn't show weakness, admitting you're wrong shows character.
Well Nou, tell me this: You've been one of the fiercest advocates for userbombing. So why should people agree with you, that userbombing isn't selfish, if you've been exposed as a fraud and a hypocrite?
http://tinypic.com/r/358xp4p/8
Nou on people ingame: "People ingame are ****holes."
Nou on people in forums: "You know they're just dumb kids"
Yes, a real great example of people who userbomb. Maybe now you'd like to admit you were wrong. It shows character, as you said. And you need character to continue to be a secret guardian. But maybe it's better that our community had a guardian that didn't stab the entire community in the back.

Lol I'm the fiercest advocate for userbombing? Let me quote:

I don't mind people userbombing to draw attention to a level, but what I do have an issue with is minigame levels that keep 25 clones in while it's already on top of the list.

"I don't mind"
Plus I describe a scenario where I do mind.
That's some real fierce advocating.

Nou on people ingame: "People ingame are ****holes."
Nou on people in forums: "You know they're just dumb kids"

I stand by that. People in the game flame for any reason (no edit? --> flame).
Forum? The example in the pic is about the "processor ruined my life thread"; it's melodramatic kids whining. Don't pretend you also just discard that as a bunch of whining.

So far, you've been avoiding every actual argument proposed, every alternative, and haven't actually thought of any solutions yourself. You just want to be right. Stop being so short-sighted.

____

I see you edited your post while I was typing

...if you've been exposed as a fraud and a hypocrite?

Lol. Stop making a fool of yourself. This thread has no point anymore thanks to you.

Pyromaniac, Xfrogman43

dragonranger · 2015-04-02 23:30:46

Mylo wrote:

Solution: Use the random sort mode.

i do not know where this is. explain mores. plays and woots aren't random

Master1 wrote:

dragonranger wrote:
Master1 wrote:
Also, how is wanting to gain a few players being selfish? Am I supposed to sit for hours waiting for people to join my world? Sounds like a waste of time.
Maybe they don't want to join your world?
...Then they don't click on it? lol?

since "Am I supposed to sit for hours waiting for people to join my world?". what world exactly is this. is this world somehow better than the other worlds you are just pushing one down in the lobby. does it spark the sociality, and the multiplayer aspect of EE. something that the ee community /wants/ to play? if every single world were to gain a few players, the online list would still be the exact same. but if only some are getting extra players, then that is a clear advantage. if you are sitting for hours waiting for people to join your world, then, "Maybe they don't want to join your world?". maybe they want to join the stairs level. if they saw your world, then didn't want to click your world in the first place at the bottom of the list, why would they want to click it at the top of the list, besides from the fact you had a multiplayer/social world. you will only be filling up the top of the lobby list with worlds no one else wants to play. i see little point to bomb yours alone when other people at the bottom of the list are also wanting to get plays (is essentially not everyone who has their lobby shown in the lobby wanting more people). something needs to be done about making it easier for users to see worlds with less players, but you should not be the one to dictate that you need those extra few players more than anyone else

BEE · 2015-04-03 00:21:33

Okay, devil's advocate time. For userbombing:

I make art worlds. My minigames suck, no doubt about it. They are either bland, too easy, or simply impossible. I bossed yesterday and everyone somehow won... I have no idea how.

Because of this, players do not stay in my worlds for a very long time. They join, say "Ooh that's really pretty Bee!" then leave after a few minutes. So while I do get visitors, it rarely is enough at once time to be at the top and get the most exposure.

So my options are: 1. Make terrible minigames to go alongside my art 2. Recruit nublets to be my minigame minions 3. Make good art and simply accept the fact that not that many people will join it 4. Make good art and userbomb the level to get exposure 5. Stop playing ee

Now note, that I don't userboomb, what I do instead is invite a few friends to play then typically more people join.

Anak · 2015-04-03 00:50:22

dragonranger wrote:

if they saw your world, then didn't want to click your world in the first place at the bottom of the list, why would they want to click it at the top of the list, besides from the fact you had a multiplayer/social world.

People tend to join worlds that are at the top of the list(s). I only use online list, because I only usually liek to play on worlds that actually have people in them, rather than being alone.

For example, I'm not going to play Bombot with only one person in it. but I will play with like 14 in it.

MIHB_casts_confuseplayer · 2015-04-03 01:24:29

tentacleTherapist wrote:

Mihb is going to shoot me but isn't one of the primary things to do in ee make levels?

Why would I shoot you for that? I'm of the belief that the two activities of EE are making things and seeing what other people have made, and everything else is just variations on that.

dragonranger wrote:

I feel that bombing your world is essentially stating that your world is better than any other of these "bad" worlds currently at the top of the lobby lists, and that yours deserves to be there instead, DESPITE the fact that the EE community chose the other world over yours. Incredibly selfish.

The problem with this argument is that the notion that the maps at the top of the lobby list are maps that the EE community "chose" is wildly inaccurate. The EE community doesn't choose to go to maps, individual players go to maps. They choose maps with lots of players in them for two reasons:

1. Many people playing a map is a signal that the map is good.

2. People like playing with other people.

There are problems with both of these, however:

1. This behavior is subject to what is called "information cascades", where each individual who joins the map does so because there were other people in the map, not because the map is interesting. If you follow this all the way back, you can easily reach a point where people first started joining the map, which may be for reasons like a group of people gathering together to intentionally make things that aren't fun, just to annoy players who come in. Thats an extreme example, but the point is that these problems are well established as a result of dynamic sequential choices

2. This creates what is called a "network effect", where people will hang out in a map just because other people are there. They will do this even if every single player there would enjoy a different map more, because the map isn't what keeps them there, its the other players. Network effects like this are what cause quantifiably inferior products to dominate the market. A good example is the QWERTY keyboard, which continues to be the standard english layout in spite of there being multiple other layouts that are demonstrably superior.

In any case, the result is that some of the maps at the top are quality maps that people chose because they enjoy them; other maps are at the top purely because players can't collectively work together to "choose" something else.

BEE · 2015-04-03 01:43:27

MIHB_casts_confuseplayer wrote:

They choose maps with lots of players in them for two reasons:
1. Many people playing a map is a signal that the map is good.
2. People like playing with other people.

Similar to 2, but the reason I join maps with more people in them is simply:
3. They want to chat with other people.

I'd be happy if the top worlds had no or few minigames. Though I know I am in the minority here.

MIHB_casts_confuseplayer · 2015-04-03 01:55:10

BEE wrote:

3. They want to chat with other people.

Yeah, I consider all the social elements to be a subset of 2. Or you could rephrase 2 to be: "People like being around other people." Same result.

dragonranger · 2015-04-03 04:09:00

▼Hidden text

MIHB_casts_confuseplayer wrote:

dragonranger wrote:
I feel that bombing your world is essentially stating that your world is better than any other of these "bad" worlds currently at the top of the lobby lists, and that yours deserves to be there instead, DESPITE the fact that the EE community chose the other world over yours. Incredibly selfish.
The problem with this argument is that the notion that the maps at the top of the lobby list are maps that the EE community "chose" is wildly inaccurate. The EE community doesn't choose to go to maps, individual players go to maps. They choose maps with lots of players in them for two reasons:
1. Many people playing a map is a signal that the map is good.
2. People like playing with other people.

Sure I agree with 2. Which is why most of these boss, and hotel worlds are at the top. They /attract/ ee users. It's why most of the single player months-to-make worlds are at the bottom. They don't attract users with the multiplayer aspect of EE. So why should this non-multiplayer aspect be at the top of the lobby, attracting even more users who don't want to play it?

On point 1, sure. It is. But players are still staying in these worlds. If they are enjoying the social aspect then they are enjoying the world (if it is for example a boss). While there is a major difference between a boss world with only the creator and a boss world with 20+ people participating in it, there isn't one between 1 player in EX Crew Odyssey and 50. A higher player count will attract more players, but will it keep them playing the world. Why fill the top of the lobby with worlds people don't want to join. That don't even need more players...

There are problems with both of these, however:
1. This behavior is subject to what is called "information cascades", where each individual who joins the map does so because there were other people in the map, not because the map is interesting. If you follow this all the way back, you can easily reach a point where people first started joining the map, which may be for reasons like a group of people gathering together to intentionally make things that aren't fun, just to annoy players who come in. Thats an extreme example, but the point is that these problems are well established as a result of dynamic sequential choices
2. This creates what is called a "network effect", where people will hang out in a map just because other people are there. They will do this even if every single player there would enjoy a different map more, because the map isn't what keeps them there, its the other players. Network effects like this are what cause quantifiably inferior products to dominate the market. A good example is the QWERTY keyboard, which continues to be the standard english layout in spite of there being multiple other layouts that are demonstrably superior.
In any case, the result is that some of the maps at the top are quality maps that people chose because they enjoy them; other maps are at the top purely because players can't collectively work together to "choose" something else.

Well, I can't make much of an argument against this, since I know near to nothing on the issue of psychology, but honestly, I feel that EE users are smart enough to leave a world they don't enjoy (especially if they get stuck at a point). With so many other worlds they CAN join, why would they stay? The initial people could just be a group of friends, but it would never be able to grow larger unless users were enjoying themselves and wanted to stay

Well, it seems my point has now changed into: Non-social worlds (that do not use multiplayer aspects e.g keys) should not be guest/account bombed...

BEE · 2015-04-03 04:34:44

dragonranger wrote:

Non-social worlds

I'm not a minigame fanatic, so I may be wrong, but for those that play ee for the minigames, isn't interacting and social part of your fun? So no word could truly be "non-social", unless chat were turned off.

MIHB_casts_confuseplayer

dragonranger · 2015-04-03 06:08:46

any world in ee can be social, but it doesn't remove the point. if it has gameplay that doesn't affect other players, that is a non-social world imo. besides from chat, if you had 50 people in a world, or a sole person in a world, and you play the world the exact same, then its non-social to me since the multiplayer aspect isn't coming to play. (i couldnt think of any other world besides social)
and how does interacting and being "social" help in a mini without doors/keys. with minis, no other non-edit player can affect the mini itself
i exclude chat when it comes to worlds, since unless the world is designed specifically to use chat, the chat could be ANYTHING, and is usually completely unrelated to the gameplay of the world
essentially, simply 'worlds that don't change when there are more players, excluding chat', as i pretty much said in the second spoiler

devils advocate lolk seems legit.

MIHB_casts_confuseplayer · 2015-04-03 06:21:02

dragonranger wrote:

Sure I agree with 2. Which is why most of these boss, and hotel worlds are at the top. They /attract/ ee users. It's why most of the single player months-to-make worlds are at the bottom. They don't attract users with the multiplayer aspect of EE. So why should this non-multiplayer aspect be at the top of the lobby, attracting even more users who don't want to play it?

For one thing, I think you're underestimating the popularity of single player months-to-make worlds. How many of them get made? Not many, because they take months to make. For every one of those, there are probably 100 simple easy maps, maybe 200 or even 500. Even if people generally prefer the single-player worlds with fancy-**** minis, you'd still expect to see the top filled with mostly stairs, hotels, and the like, simply because there are way more of them, and maps reaching the top of the lobby is a somewhat random process.

I'm saying that as someone who finds most minigame maps tedious, both the easy ones and the hard ones. I don't like them all that much, but plenty of people do.

On point 1, sure. It is. But players are still staying in these worlds. If they are enjoying the social aspect then they are enjoying the world (if it is for example a boss).

And QWERTY remains the standard despite other keyboard layouts being pretty objectively superior. The issue with those maps being at the top isn't whether or not people can have fun with them, the issue is whether or not superior maps are being ignored at the bottom of the list.

While there is a major difference between a boss world with only the creator and a boss world with 20+ people participating in it, there isn't one between 1 player in EX Crew Odyssey and 50. A higher player count will attract more players, but will it keep them playing the world. Why fill the top of the lobby with worlds people don't want to join. That don't even need more players...

I am virtually certain that all of the most-played levels in EE history are minigame-oriented, such as 200 lava minigames and Iraka's levels. People like minigames. They like playing minigames with other people. They like moving through levels as their friends do. They like chatting with people about the level. They like being around other people.

Playing a single-player minigame level alone is not the same as playing it with other people.

I feel that EE users are smart enough to leave a world they don't enjoy (especially if they get stuck at a point). With so many other worlds they CAN join, why would they stay?

Because other people are there, and they like being around other people. You seem to be thinking of this like a light switch or a coin flip: a person either likes a map, or they don't. The map is good, or it isn't good.

In reality, people like a level more if there are plenty of people there; they may enjoy the level enough to stick around, even if they'd have quickly abandoned it if there weren't people there. Now, there is nothing wrong with that. But your argument seems to be fundamentally that the maps at the top are the maps that are the best maps or the maps that are the most fun for the players. There is a rough correlation with quality and being at the top of the lobby, but its rough; plenty of superior maps go unnoticed. Think about all the thousands of stair levels that have been made over the years. If you see a stair level that is popular in the lobby, what are the odds that it is the best stair level ever made? Extremely close to zero. It isn't a map's quality that takes it to the top, its the number of players in the map that sends it to the top, even if it is objectively inferior to other maps. This is not because players prefer inferior maps. This is because the lobby system is fundamentally broken in many ways.

BEE · 2015-04-03 06:47:28

Okay, so to clarify, Dragonranger, your view is now: "Worlds that do not require other players to be completed (eg. keys) should not be guest/account bombed."

dragonranger wrote:

i exclude chat when it comes to worlds, since unless the world is designed specifically to use chat, the chat could be ANYTHING, and is usually completely unrelated to the gameplay of the world

I think it is wrong to exclude chat. Until/unless EE gets a whole game chatroom, chat is an integral part of the game. In fact, I would not play ee if there were no chat function.

I probably will be the odd one out for this, but I don't join "OMG THIS LEVEL IS SO HARD" worlds because I want to actually try the level, I join so I can talk to people. If everyone were spread out, say 2 in each world, I wouldn't enjoy EE at all.

I know I am an extreme, but I'm sure other players are on the spectrum, where chat plays a significant role in their enjoyment of ee. It doesn't have to be related to the level being played. And the fact of the matter is that you can't chat with people that aren't in the level you are in. So even though there is no way that I will even pass the first mini, am I going to join that impossible world? Absolutely.

So, can we trust EE players to pick levels on their own? Sure, but your parameters for what makes a word a good world is off, at least for me.

To me, a good world is one with a lot of other people in it.

AsurcH · 2015-04-03 07:49:59

I don't get this. Why are we trying to end userbombing? You can't simply end something because it is selfish or not accessible to all. You need a reason, something good it provides to do so and right now we have no reason to do such a thing. What would it provide if we banned all userbombing right now?

Seriously if you opened this topic 3 years before I would probably join the act, since first 20 levels in the lobby would have at least 30 people in it, but right now, without even scrolling down, the least played map has 4 people in it. I don't see a few maps adding 3-4 users by userbombing causing any problem here.

Pyromaniac

Minimania · 2015-04-03 08:43:50

AsurcH wrote:

I don't get this. Why are we trying to end userbombing? You can't simply end something because it is selfish or not accessible to all. You need a reason, something good it provides to do so and right now we have no reason to do such a thing. What would it provide if we banned all userbombing right now?
Seriously if you opened this topic 3 years before I would probably join the act, since first 20 levels in the lobby would have at least 30 people in it, but right now, without even scrolling down, the least played map has 4 people in it. I don't see a few maps adding 3-4 users by userbombing causing any problem here.

Remember that all problems in life reach back to selfishness.

dragonranger · 2015-04-03 09:58:04

@BEE Not completed, but rather "worlds where you could have as many people as you wanted, and the gameplay (excluding chat) stays the same for any of those players.
And well, looks like we share different opinions then. I hardly chat, and when I do, it's generally when I'm not doing anything in the world (e.g completing a mini). I see no reason to add chat to a world's quality, but you may.

And the fact of the matter is that you can't chat with people that aren't in the level you are in. So even though there is no way that I will even pass the first mini, am I going to join that impossible world? Absolutely.

And I share the complete opposite opinion. I'm leaving. If I want to socialise, I can do it in another designated world that will allow me to actually do something

@MIHB
1. I may be overestimating, but I am definitely sure some are incredibly hard for newer users. They generally have one path of minis, and if you get stuck on one you can't continue. There usually lacks a creator in the world from my experience, since it doesn't need the maker to work (however a bot level will e.t.c), and so therefore if you get stuck, you essentially can't do anything else in that world.
2. What makes these maps superior? How do you know users are gonna stay? Maybe they are being ignored because no one wants to play them since point 1...
3. Minigames really aren't a thing that multiple people can enjoy doing together compared to alone. Making it, yes sure. Chatting about how to get through it, yes sure. Anything else is irrelevant and really does not affect other users playing the minigame. I personally see no difference. There might be something behind the psychological side of not being alone in a level but I don't see any difference between completing minis alone, or with other users who don't affect your gameplay in the background.
4. It is not simply the player count alone. More players may affect users staying, especially in social worlds like stairs (due to keys), however, they won't stay unless they are enjoying themselves. I am not saying any map is superior. Pretty much a large portion of me saying people are selfish is that no map is superior. All maps are equal, but some interest players more than others. I do think it's a player likes a map or doesn't. If they are in the middle of the spectrum I just round them off. If they leave, they don't like it. If they stay, they do. So if one of the maps higher up on the lobby list has more players, a lot of players must like it enough to stay. Player count will affect the interests of users more in social worlds than in non-social worlds since it affects gameplay much more.

tentacleTherapist · 2015-04-03 10:57:43

A point I noticed a few scrolls up the page, someone made the point that you bombing means that players therefore will not go to someone else's world, while that would seem to obviously happen in theory I have found that it is not necessarily true. Playing in times of a high number of people guest bombing and low numbers of people bombing I have noticed that there isn't a particularly large variation of the time it takes for, and numbers of people to join your world when people are and are not bombing a lot. Therefore if that is the case you are not particularly "stealing" someone else's players to much the extent you are talking about. That is just an observation but it seems to be the case, if that makes sense, I've been up all night doing Psychology work so my brain probably isn't functioning at optimum efficiency ^^

skullz17 · 2015-04-03 16:46:19

@dragonranger

It's not about whether chat makes it a better world or not. It's about whether chat makes people want to stay. You might not be interested in a world if you don't like it, regardless of the social interaction. But the fact is, a lot of people do appreciate that interaction, and do have a better experience in that world as a result.

You say that if people aren't talking about the world, it's irrelevant. Well, yes, you can't make a world that generates chat that is unrelated to the world. That doesn't make sense. But, what can generate that kind of chat, is the amount of players in the world. And that's the point. If a world has a lot of players in it, it is likely to continue growing. If a world does not have a lot of players in it, it is likely to be ignored.

MIHB_casts_confuseplayer · 2015-04-03 21:41:02

dragonranger wrote:

1. I may be overestimating, but I am definitely sure some are incredibly hard for newer users. They generally have one path of minis, and if you get stuck on one you can't continue. There usually lacks a creator in the world from my experience, since it doesn't need the maker to work (however a bot level will e.t.c), and so therefore if you get stuck, you essentially can't do anything else in that world.

I absolutely agree that most are far too hard for new users. But there is a group of more experienced users who will mostly only play those, and ignore all the hotels and whatnot. Furthermore, the main reason that group of experienced users isn't larger is because so many new users see the hotels and whatnot and decide that EE isn't that interesting, and leave before they ever become the experienced user that enjoys them.

2. What makes these maps superior? How do you know users are gonna stay? Maybe they are being ignored because no one wants to play them since point 1...

What makes the maps inferior? How do you know users wouldn't prefer them if they were at the top of the lobby? Even more than that, how do you know users wouldn't prefer a specific hard-minis map over things that are at the top of the lobby?

I've already detailed exactly why map popularity has a lot of randomness to it. Being at the top of the lobby is no guarantee a map is good, and being at the bottom is no guarantee a map is bad.

3. Minigames really aren't a thing that multiple people can enjoy doing together compared to alone. Making it, yes sure. Chatting about how to get through it, yes sure. Anything else is irrelevant and really does not affect other users playing the minigame. I personally see no difference.

Your opinion means absolutely nothing here, because enjoyment is a personal thing. If I say I enjoy playing minis with other people, that playing them with other people makes me happier than playing them alone, then to me, minigames are social, and you can't tell me that my preference is wrong, because all that matters is personal opinion. Same for Bee, or anybody else here who thinks minigame playing is better as a social experience.

You are perfectly justified to not find minigames social or think that having people around improves your experience. But you have no right to take your own experience and say thats how it is for everybody or how it should be for everybody.

4. It is not simply the player count alone. More players may affect users staying, especially in social worlds like stairs (due to keys), however, they won't stay unless they are enjoying themselves. I am not saying any map is superior. Pretty much a large portion of me saying people are selfish is that no map is superior. All maps are equal, but some interest players more than others.

And what I've been saying the whole time is that a big portion of what interests players is having other players around, and which maps end up with lots of players is random in a lot of ways. Fun maps go unnoticed every day, and I'm not referring to the types of maps made by experienced players. Your statement that no map is superior. . . well, that is also your opinion; its also not an opinion many would share. People would disagree about which maps they think are better, but virtually all players have preferences. If all players found all maps equally fun, it wouldn't be a problem. But that isn't the case. Tons of extremely fun maps never get noticed because of sheer bad luck. I get the sense that what you're basically saying is that people should take their medicine and like it. I disagree; we should always strive to improve player access to maps they will enjoy more.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#51 2015-04-02 19:44:43

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#52 2015-04-02 21:07:38

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#53 2015-04-02 23:30:46, last edited by dragonranger (2015-04-02 23:47:06)

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#54 2015-04-03 00:21:33

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#55 2015-04-03 00:50:22

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#56 2015-04-03 01:24:29, last edited by MIHB_casts_confuseplayer (2015-04-03 01:38:36)

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#57 2015-04-03 01:43:27, last edited by BEE (2015-04-03 01:43:42)

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#58 2015-04-03 01:55:10

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#59 2015-04-03 04:09:00, last edited by dragonranger (2015-04-03 04:12:53)

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#60 2015-04-03 04:34:44

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#61 2015-04-03 06:08:46, last edited by dragonranger (2015-04-03 06:13:23)

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#62 2015-04-03 06:21:02, last edited by MIHB_casts_confuseplayer (2015-04-03 06:27:36)

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#63 2015-04-03 06:47:28

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#64 2015-04-03 07:49:59

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#65 2015-04-03 08:43:50

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#66 2015-04-03 09:58:04

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#67 2015-04-03 10:57:43

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#68 2015-04-03 16:46:19

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

#69 2015-04-03 21:41:02

Re: End Userbombing Now - Petition

Board footer