Vandraad said:Kalgore said:VRI should take an EVE approach to managing the game. If they arent exploiting and using bugs they dont care find a solution yourself
Agreed. Stop looking to someone else to solve your problems. Policies and rules won't stop someone from training you or otherwise griefing you now and then, here and there. It might stop them if they continually do it but otherwise you're still on your own.
It seems like leaving things open ended like that just makes it objectively worse for everyone, though.
I completely agree that people will find a way to grief somehow, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should leave everything open ended and invite people to do so.
Liav said:Dekaden said:organic
What does this word even mean in this context?
In the context of MMO's, an "organic" element would be something that is concieved and created by the community inside the game world, without direct developer programming or guidance. Could also be referred to as a sandbox element.
To everyone who thinks a reputation system for the person controlling his or her avatar is a good idea:
This is not eBay, Hot or Not, Tindr, or whatever social rating system exists in vast armpit of the internet. These servers will indeed have a community feel to them. You will indeed be playing and interacting with other people, and as such, you'll get to know your peers. In a group based game, you wont be successful otherwise. Consider real life for a moment (scary, I know): We don't have floating reputation bars over our heads or a way we can formally "rate" those we encounter. The great service at a restaurant, for example. You remember that, and go back because of it. By having things called conversations with people, you discover common interests, personalities, etc. Wait......am I really explaining how to make friends? Has the age of the internet reduced us to this? /facepalm
Just so my point is clear: We do NOT need developers to implement tools that tell us how to make friends or how to determine if we had a good time grouping with someone. Please do not reduce the social aspect of this game to rating people 1-5 stars, thumbs up or down, social progress meters, or any other manufactured system.
I'm not even touching on the rediculous amount of abuse that could occur in such a system. Consider the adage "the internet brings out the worst in people" and apply that to an open rating system for players. Is that really what we want? REALLY?
Dekaden said:In the context of MMO's, an "organic" element would be something that is concieved and created by the community inside the game world, without direct developer programming or guidance. Could also be referred to as a sandbox element.
To everyone who thinks a reputation system for the person controlling his or her avatar is a good idea:
This is not eBay, Hot or Not, Tindr, or whatever social rating system exists in vast armpit of the internet. These servers will indeed have a community feel to them. You will indeed be playing and interacting with other people, and as such, you'll get to know your peers. In a group based game, you wont be successful otherwise. Consider real life for a moment (scary, I know): We don't have floating reputation bars over our heads or a way we can formally "rate" those we encounter. The great service at a restaurant, for example. You remember that, and go back because of it. By having things called conversations with people, you discover common interests, personalities, etc. Wait......am I really explaining how to make friends? Has the age of the internet reduced us to this? /facepalm
Just so my point is clear: We do NOT need developers to implement tools that tell us how to make friends or how to determine if we had a good time grouping with someone. Please do not reduce the social aspect of this game to rating people 1-5 stars, thumbs up or down, social progress meters, or any other manufactured system.
I'm not even touching on the rediculous amount of abuse that could occur in such a system. Consider the adage "the internet brings out the worst in people" and apply that to an open rating system for players. Is that really what we want? REALLY?
Nope, and well said.
Dekaden said:In the context of MMO's, an "organic" element would be something that is concieved and created by the community inside the game world, without direct developer programming or guidance. Could also be referred to as a sandbox element.
To everyone who thinks a reputation system for the person controlling his or her avatar is a good idea:
This is not eBay, Hot or Not, Tindr, or whatever social rating system exists in vast armpit of the internet. These servers will indeed have a community feel to them. You will indeed be playing and interacting with other people, and as such, you'll get to know your peers. In a group based game, you wont be successful otherwise. Consider real life for a moment (scary, I know): We don't have floating reputation bars over our heads or a way we can formally "rate" those we encounter. The great service at a restaurant, for example. You remember that, and go back because of it. By having things called conversations with people, you discover common interests, personalities, etc. Wait......am I really explaining how to make friends? Has the age of the internet reduced us to this? /facepalm
Just so my point is clear: We do NOT need developers to implement tools that tell us how to make friends or how to determine if we had a good time grouping with someone. Please do not reduce the social aspect of this game to rating people 1-5 stars, thumbs up or down, social progress meters, or any other manufactured system.
I'm not even touching on the rediculous amount of abuse that could occur in such a system. Consider the adage "the internet brings out the worst in people" and apply that to an open rating system for players. Is that really what we want? REALLY?
This is what I got from this, just more distilled:
You mentioned exploitability and abuse, to which I counter that it's the developer's fault and they need to do better if the system is being abused. It's not like it's that hard.
You can't abuse this because it requires a substantial checklist to even access the rating window to begin with.
TL;DR: I don't agree with your objections, and one of them is simply incorrect because it disregards the fact that there are a million and one ways to code something to prevent abusability.
Liav said:Dekaden said:In the context of MMO's, an "organic" element would be something that is concieved and created by the community inside the game world, without direct developer programming or guidance. Could also be referred to as a sandbox element.
To everyone who thinks a reputation system for the person controlling his or her avatar is a good idea:
This is not eBay, Hot or Not, Tindr, or whatever social rating system exists in vast armpit of the internet. These servers will indeed have a community feel to them. You will indeed be playing and interacting with other people, and as such, you'll get to know your peers. In a group based game, you wont be successful otherwise. Consider real life for a moment (scary, I know): We don't have floating reputation bars over our heads or a way we can formally "rate" those we encounter. The great service at a restaurant, for example. You remember that, and go back because of it. By having things called conversations with people, you discover common interests, personalities, etc. Wait......am I really explaining how to make friends? Has the age of the internet reduced us to this? /facepalm
Just so my point is clear: We do NOT need developers to implement tools that tell us how to make friends or how to determine if we had a good time grouping with someone. Please do not reduce the social aspect of this game to rating people 1-5 stars, thumbs up or down, social progress meters, or any other manufactured system.
I'm not even touching on the rediculous amount of abuse that could occur in such a system. Consider the adage "the internet brings out the worst in people" and apply that to an open rating system for players. Is that really what we want? REALLY?
This is what I got from this, just more distilled:
- We don't have it in real life, so we shouldn't have it in a video game.
- It's bad because it's a developer-made feature as opposed to a community-made feature.
- Allowing people to anonymously be douchebags is somehow better than allowing people to be douchebags and have an indicator showing how much of a douchebag they are.
You mentioned exploitability and abuse, to which I counter that it's the developer's fault and they need to do better if the system is being abused. It's not like it's that hard.
- You initiate a trade with someone.
- If the trade completes, both parties receive a rating window for the opposite person.
- If the trade is cancelled, there is no rating window.
- Rate the transaction.
- There is a 5 minute window after a successful trade where you can retroactively change your rating to fix any errors or misclicks.
- Any time a trade is initiated, a small window is shown to both parties with how many +/- they have accumulated and what % of them is positive.
You can't abuse this because it requires a substantial checklist to even access the rating window to begin with.
TL;DR: I don't agree with your objections, and one of them is simply incorrect because it disregards the fact that there are a million and one ways to code something to prevent abusability.
lol, why not just have a hook to their ebay profile?
I personally don't think an in-game system would be necessary. MMOs have gotten carried away, IMO, with having to have a system in-game for everything - it's a kind of hand-holding in many cases, rather than leaving it to the players to work out on their own. Far too little is organic or player-driven anymore in the genre. For a MMO that's going to have a small community as Pantheon likely will, I'd say just let it come down to good old-fashioned "if you're a jerk, your reputation as a jerk will get around and likely come back to bite you in the ass. If you're a cool person, your reputation as a cool person will get around and likely benefit you".
In his interview with Brad some time back, Boogie2988 asked if "being server famous" would be a thing, or at least spoke about it. I understood exactly where he was coming from, and it's something MMOs really don't have anymore - at least not to any meaningful level. With cross-server everything, and player cooperation being so fleeting, there just aren't many opportunities to get to know others, or to build a reputation, where people eventually get to know you just by name alone, and your reputation actually means something and carries weight.
And if anyone doubts that player reputation on a server can get around and affect a player's experience (for good or bad), just ask me to tell you the story of a certain Black Mage I knew back on Pandemonium in FFXI :).
I think Pantheon is a (potentially) great place for that kind of organic server reputation to happen again. No in-game system required. Word of Mouth and personal experience will handle it just fine. Let it happen naturally and organically.
Liav said:Dekaden said:*snip*
You can't abuse this because it requires a substantial checklist to even access the rating window to begin with.
TL;DR: I don't agree with your objections, and one of them is simply incorrect because it disregards the fact that there are a million and one ways to code something to prevent abusability.
You were spot on Dekaden.
@ Liav - I'd like to hear the million ways to code to prevent abuse.
It's fairly simple - if there is a 1-5 star rating that has to be selected after the trade, all that has to occur is an *ss selects a 1 instead of a 5, even if they had a positive experience. No abuse of the system had occured - no code could be written to catch it. There's a reason sites like Facebook haven't allowed any ratings of people themselves - you will always have those who don't like you, or are jealous, etc. who will give a negative rating simply because they could. As Dekaden said, let players reputation occur "organically."
Reviving a dead thread (probably to the dismay of some) to toss in my take on the topic. Lots of good discussion here about the pros and cons and many feel very strongly on the topic. The primary argument posed by the detractors here is that a system like this is not needed and if implemented then it can be abused. While it is undeniably not needed, it is clearly desired by a portion of the community. I am not trying to argue for or against the implementation of a system like this, but I do want to address to topic of abuse.
There have been some good suggestions already posted here (positive only, only based on trading, etc.), but I believe they only treat the symptom and not the problem. I'll have to explain how I see this issue by comparing how a pantheon player's reputation system might play out in the real world.
xXBadGuyXx does something I don't care for (from bad language all the way to severe harassment)
It is clear that nobody disagrees with the first three, but some are horribly opposed to the universal approach (as am I). What differentiates them is the reach that one's opinion/review has. However, I believe there is room for more between Group and Universal, which might lead to some compromise.
Guild/Alliance system: I write the name of xXBadGuyXx in the "bad" section of the googledoc my extended social group keeps.
This could be as simple as an extension of the ignore system - Upon inspecting xXBadGuyXx you are told how many guild/alliance members currently have xXBadGuyXx on their ignore list. It could also be as extensive as you want it to be - Written reviews with 5 star ratings like Amazon, Yelp, or others. The main thing here is that there's no more room for abuse than what the community as a whole has already agreed to (you can always tell your friends that you don't like xXBadGuyXx).
Self-Adjusting system: I like and trust Joe, Bob, and Joanne and they like and trust me. I tell them that xXBadGuyXx is a bad guy.
If a mutual maximum rating is shared between two players, then their reviews of others CAN (after accepting a prompt) be shared amongst each other. Again, this limits the reach of your ratings/opinions. You could already tell Joe, Bob, and Joanne that you don't like xXBadGuyXx, so this does not extend abuse.
TL;DR
I'm not advocating for or against an in-game reputation system. In-game reviews should not be viewed universally. We already accept some level of abuse. Compromises can be made.
EvE has done some good work in this area. EvE maintains a "security level" for players which decrements based on actions like agressing other players in secure space and podding other players. Players can also set a personal reputation score for other players and entire corps and alliances. Corps can also set reputation for individuals, corps, and alliances. So a player ends up with a few metrics which can tell you a little about them: their security rating tells you roughly how much they pvp and whether they commonly pod other players. You also see an effective reputation base on their standing with you personally and with your corp.
Something like this can be extended to include a global reputation. A player's global reputation could be set to a weighted average of other players and guild's reputation score for that player. The system can be gamed by large guilds brigading an individual's reputation score but the more people make use of the reputation system, the less of an effect that is likely to occur.
This also allows for some features like automatically setting "Do not group" on a person or guild based on a reputation threshold and visually tagging players with poor reputation scores.
@liav I have no use for the slave morality that you peddle. Please quit trying to tell me my depravity is such that I need my hand held, lest I ruin everything. -edit for punctuation
CelevinMoongleam said:@liav I have no use for the slave morality that you peddle. Please quit trying to tell me my depravity is such that I need my hand held, lest I ruin everything. -edit for punctuation
You're right. **** laws, anarchy all around.
Thanks for making the first post on these forums that actually elicited an audible laugh from me. I shall cherish its memory.
Liav said:You mentioned exploitability and abuse, to which I counter that it's the developer's fault and they need to do better if the system is being abused. It's not like it's that hard.
- You initiate a trade with someone.
- If the trade completes, both parties receive a rating window for the opposite person.
- If the trade is cancelled, there is no rating window.
- Rate the transaction.
- There is a 5 minute window after a successful trade where you can retroactively change your rating to fix any errors or misclicks.
- Any time a trade is initiated, a small window is shown to both parties with how many +/- they have accumulated and what % of them is positive.
You can't abuse this because it requires a substantial checklist to even access the rating window to begin with.
TL;DR: I don't agree with your objections, and one of them is simply incorrect because it disregards the fact that there are a million and one ways to code something to prevent abusability.
And how do you not see how this could and would be abused? It seriously only takes a few trolls to give you a bad rating for your avg to drop. Or I could make a lvl 1 trader, con people for a week, then just move my stuff to another lvl 1 trader. This theory would solve nothing and bring in a lot of ways to add more bad things into the game. If this was actually a thing I simply wouldn't do anything on my main. Just leave it all to my trader bots. If it tied to your account, well I have 2 already anyway so just let 1 of them do the dirty work. There is always a way around these things and it's a waste of time trying to prevent it.
You want to make it so people can't be cheated on trades? Teach them to not be idiots. Every trade window has a button you have to hit to make the trade. If you hit that button and give someone something then it's your own fault if you get riped off. If you need to move something to another toon use people you trust, ie friends/guildies. If you're selling something, only take money at the same time of the trade not after. If you're buying, same deal, money for item at the same time. There is no reason anyone should be ripped off if they have half a brain
If you don't want to be scrammed, don't finish the trade until you get what you asked for. EQ2 has a nice system that shows both sides what they are getting from each other and you both have to confirm before it is executed. If you failed to look at the item before pressing confirm, that's on you, not the other gal.
if you gave someone an item/plat before getting your stuff, that's on you.
I would assume a similar system with basic protections will be in place.
Organic has to work because a rating system would definitely be abused. What allowed the organic system to work back in the day? Was it the small server size? The generation of players? Because it's not as efficient any more. Not to sound like an old man, but there's no fear of consequence in most mmos anymore.
I liked Kilsin's comment about not being big on the idea of name changes. It's a scapegoat for hotheads and immature players that think they can get away with anything with a one-time fee of ~$20. This should be a VR discretionary power only, brought in for rare cases of harassment etc...
I think cross-server group/dungeon finder utilities are to blame for this, along with the ability to power level back to end game content with a new identity quickly when needed. Pantheon will solve both of those problems based on what we already know from Brad and team. Add in a limited set of character slots with a manageable server population and I think we have an environment that supports an organic reputation system.
Wolfsong said:I personally don't think an in-game system would be necessary. MMOs have gotten carried away, IMO, with having to have a system in-game for everything - it's a kind of hand-holding in many cases, rather than leaving it to the players to work out on their own. Far too little is organic or player-driven anymore in the genre. For a MMO that's going to have a small community as Pantheon likely will, I'd say just let it come down to good old-fashioned "if you're a jerk, your reputation as a jerk will get around and likely come back to bite you in the ass. If you're a cool person, your reputation as a cool person will get around and likely benefit you".
In his interview with Brad some time back, Boogie2988 asked if "being server famous" would be a thing, or at least spoke about it. I understood exactly where he was coming from, and it's something MMOs really don't have anymore - at least not to any meaningful level. With cross-server everything, and player cooperation being so fleeting, there just aren't many opportunities to get to know others, or to build a reputation, where people eventually get to know you just by name alone, and your reputation actually means something and carries weight.
And if anyone doubts that player reputation on a server can get around and affect a player's experience (for good or bad), just ask me to tell you the story of a certain Black Mage I knew back on Pandemonium in FFXI :).
I think Pantheon is a (potentially) great place for that kind of organic server reputation to happen again. No in-game system required. Word of Mouth and personal experience will handle it just fine. Let it happen naturally and organically.
Not doubting anything, but can you share the story of the black mage anyway? Sounds interesting. =D
oneADseven said:Wolfsong said:I personally don't think an in-game system would be necessary. MMOs have gotten carried away, IMO, with having to have a system in-game for everything - it's a kind of hand-holding in many cases, rather than leaving it to the players to work out on their own. Far too little is organic or player-driven anymore in the genre. For a MMO that's going to have a small community as Pantheon likely will, I'd say just let it come down to good old-fashioned "if you're a jerk, your reputation as a jerk will get around and likely come back to bite you in the ass. If you're a cool person, your reputation as a cool person will get around and likely benefit you".
In his interview with Brad some time back, Boogie2988 asked if "being server famous" would be a thing, or at least spoke about it. I understood exactly where he was coming from, and it's something MMOs really don't have anymore - at least not to any meaningful level. With cross-server everything, and player cooperation being so fleeting, there just aren't many opportunities to get to know others, or to build a reputation, where people eventually get to know you just by name alone, and your reputation actually means something and carries weight.
And if anyone doubts that player reputation on a server can get around and affect a player's experience (for good or bad), just ask me to tell you the story of a certain Black Mage I knew back on Pandemonium in FFXI :).
I think Pantheon is a (potentially) great place for that kind of organic server reputation to happen again. No in-game system required. Word of Mouth and personal experience will handle it just fine. Let it happen naturally and organically.
Not doubting anything, but can you share the story of the black mage anyway? Sounds interesting. =D
Please take it to PMs folks, the thread needs to stay on topic :)
I really think people are over stating how much a community can police itself in a PC game (besides some sort of PvP server) when relating to theft. If I get stiffed in a transactions, the answer being given is to let the community take care of it? I don’t see how this works. If I’m a noob and trade my hard earned materials to someone who then logs off or laughs and runs away am I supposed to just spam chat crying to everyone that hasn’t blocked me about my robbery? I get if they are in a guild you could report it but let’s say they aren’t. Do I hope I can hurt his name so much people turn him down for groups? That seems like a ton of work spanning a long period of time just to punish him for something that only affected me. Public Shame Only Works If The Person Cares About Their Image. If they are just a true griefer why would they care what I think or what others think? If they can get some free loot from me and they go group with their griefer buddies the entire system break down.
Xonth said:I really think people are over stating how much a community can police itself in a PC game (besides some sort of PvP server) when relating to theft. If I get stiffed in a transactions, the answer being given is to let the community take care of it? I don’t see how this works. If I’m a noob and trade my hard earned materials to someone who then logs off or laughs and runs away am I supposed to just spam chat crying to everyone that hasn’t blocked me about my robbery? I get if they are in a guild you could report it but let’s say they aren’t. Do I hope I can hurt his name so much people turn him down for groups? That seems like a ton of work spanning a long period of time just to punish him for something that only affected me. Public Shame Only Works If The Person Cares About Their Image. If they are just a true griefer why would they care what I think or what others think? If they can get some free loot from me and they go group with their griefer buddies the entire system break down.
It actually has little to do with public image and more to do with denied access to groups/raids, lack of help to finish quests, content, no one willing to buff, trade, rez, help with corpse runs etc. if you are an arsehole and continue to troll, steal kills and act like a clown for their own amusement, they will find it gets very boring and very lonely very quickly.
People don't forget when they are treated like dirt by these people and the reputation will spread very quickly among a community like ours, so I think you underestimate the power a community can have on players like this and if they all band together and form a guild of trolls, I (or any number of other VR staff members) will happily jump in and deal with them in an official capacity, likely resulting in warnings, temp and perma bans and account removal.
I think it is best to try these things first before dismissing them, we have a few programs, systems and features in place to prevent a lot of issues and the community will play a big part in a few of them, but dismissing or disagreeing with it by only using your opinion before actually trying it in our game is harmful to the overall development and turns people against entire systems before anyone actually tries it out first, which is just crazy...
I can assure you that if players slip through the cracks of the community policing we will come down hard on them for serious issues and we won't hesitate to ban someone for continual trolling, if they want to buy the game again, create a new account and pick up where they left off, it will take a matter of seconds to end that dream of theirs again. :)
Yes, I agree with Kilsin. Griefers in EQ didn't last long, and thieves lasted an even shorter time. Reputation meant you were either welcome everywhere by others players, or you lost all ability to progress in the game outside of excruciatingly slow soloing. Then when you got up to the top of the levels and you wanted into guilds because you NEEDED raids to progress, you were openly met with hostility.
Before that, you NEEDED other players. Corpse runs, rezes, ports... all of these things meant you HAD to on good terms with clerics, monks/ necros/ rogues/ bards/ etc., wizards/ druids...
Once you got a bad reputation, you couldn't get around, you couldn't get your corpses back, you couldn't get rides to places, you couldn't get groups... and trust me, people DID spread the word. "You" wouldn't be spreading the word alone. Once someone got themselves in hot water, it was like a small town... word hit the opposite end of the server before you could so much as blink an eye.
Not to mention the fact that players never tired of training trainers and never got tired of KSing them... retribution was swift and typically reflected exactly whatever behavior you started things out with. Ironically, a person who trained a trainer wouldn't get a bad reputation, often the opposite. So retribution against nasty people can sometimes become a passtime for some particularly angry folks. That's where GMs sometimes stepped in, lol. Also, if there is a GM system, that's another way in which it was policed. GMs would show up and watch while invisible and next thing you know, the ban-hammer fell from the sky upon the hapless chap training people and laughing about it.
Sudden unrelenting silence was not uncommon when some person thought he or she was being funny killing people by exploiting game mechanics.
Trains were an integral part of EQ life. They led to arguments, but they also led to cooperation, assistance, and many other positive interactions. They made people play smart instead of simply sitting there watching leashed mobs walk back and being all, "meh, they can't reach us here, just pull". In some games, you can even pull right beside mobs that are walking 'home' and they are immune to you and ignore you.
Not in EQ. If there was a train, people were invising and flopping or flailing around and panicking and then laughing in triumph as they sit at the zoneline puffing and panting in real life from the victory over adversity.
Reputation in early EQ literally made progress possible or impossible. You cooperated with other pepole or you struggled and eventually gave up because, "this game is too hard, it's not fair." 10 hour walks from Halas to Kelethin because you thought training people was funny... believe you me, you'll learn fast enough not to be a jerk.
malist said:Organic has to work because a rating system would definitely be abused. What allowed the organic system to work back in the day? Was it the small server size? The generation of players? Because it's not as efficient any more. Not to sound like an old man, but there's no fear of consequence in most mmos anymore.
I liked Kilsin's comment about not being big on the idea of name changes. It's a scapegoat for hotheads and immature players that think they can get away with anything with a one-time fee of ~$20. This should be a VR discretionary power only, brought in for rare cases of harassment etc...
I think cross-server group/dungeon finder utilities are to blame for this, along with the ability to power level back to end game content with a new identity quickly when needed. Pantheon will solve both of those problems based on what we already know from Brad and team. Add in a limited set of character slots with a manageable server population and I think we have an environment that supports an organic reputation system.
There are a number of factors at work with issues with the reputation system.
1. No more need for player cooperation in order to travel. There was a time when every druid or wizard on the server put you "on the list" and you had to hoof it everywhere. When you can get around in a heartbeat by opening a map or clicking on a rock... there is no dependence upon your reputation to travel.
2. The ability to solo all the way. When you can solo effectively all the way to the top, then reputation is meaningless because you don't NEED groups, anyway.
3. The ability to have hirelings instead of getting help from others. This goes back to no need for groups.
4. The ability to get your corpse back by yourself. Pay a bit of extra cash and voila, you're scott free. This is another lacking player inter-dependency that supports bad behavior due to reputation not mattering at all.
5. Pay-for-it rezes. Many clerics and druids and shamans refused any rez of any kind to players who were jerks. No amount of money got you a rez. In most games now where rezes of any kind are a thing, you can just pay the game for the rez, as well as the corpse recovery.
6. Too many systems in place that allow you to have a group at all times simply by clicking to group with anonymous players for very strictly controlled dungeons.
7. The instancing system. With the instancing system, there's very little reputation except as an AFKer, etc. to be had to begin with. Instancing itself is pretty much one of the worst things for games, with phasing being either equal or just as bad.
8. Loot systems that protect everyone. While they prevent ninjalooting, they also completely release everyone from any sort of discussion about loot. "I won it" and that's the end of things. There's little to no room for negotiation.
9. Cross-server grouping, as noted already.
Another large issue is that there is less continuity of players these days. It's hard to gain a reputation by only being there for a couple of weeks, and the majority of others are also only there a couple weeks. One thing about EQ was that players literally played for YEARS. In that time, networks were created, and new people coming in stood out precisely BECAUSE EQ servers WERE like small towns. The same people had been there for years and people "moved in and moved out" and losses were mourned and arrivals were watched warily.
Rachael said:I could see people abusing the system, say a guild of trolly people find someone they don't like for whatever reason (not a legitimate reason) and have the whole guild "thumbs down" that player, perminantly giving them a poor reputation because a group of trolls decided to hate on them.
"Well guys, that guild beat us to the raid mob.....Everyone spend a day down voting all its members."
This I can see happening, easily. Or downvotes in game over a forum thread. A lost pick up group loot roll loss, yeah no thanks. People tend to be petty.
Rachael said:disposalist said:I do admire the optimism, but couldn't a simple rating system compliment that community justice system? A useful first stop? When it was discussed did you come up with negatives for the idea? I'm genuninely curious, not trying to second-guess the wisdom of the dev team!
I could see people abusing the system, say a guild of trolly people find someone they don't like for whatever reason (not a legitimate reason) and have the whole guild "thumbs down" that player, perminantly giving them a poor reputation because a group of trolls decided to hate on them.
Exactly what I was thinking. It could negatively be abused. In EverQuest I was working my Beastlord epic and was in the middle of the ocean camped on an island. Another Beastlord showed and tried to convince me he had right to fight the mob first. He was wrong as I hate been there for hours but alas the mob spawned and I gave him the opportunity to get help there and set a time. Because I had help but he seemed desperate and half my help was eating we all voted and agreed he had 1 hour. More than fair. 1 hour passed so my entire group engaged and I got what was mine. He reported me and the GM's took my side after viewing everything. He began to slam and slander me on the Brell Serilis server board and claimed my group snaked on him and that we were rude and all this other B.S.
Unjust, Untrue, I was there first, I didn't have to try and let him get people. I believed him when he said he was there even before me but he had to log because his wife had to use the computer for work and then let him back on. I was being cool, I made my folks wait, the GM's viewed all the comment logs and looked at who was where and said I did nothing wrong. But because someone was upset he didn't get a participation ribbon I was slandered on the boards.
I say we let our reputations speak for themselves as I believe this community will run off the asshats. This community I am speaking of is you and me the ones that already paid and are here talking on the forums. The others of which I speak are the ones who will just hear about the game and grab it on release, ***** about all the systems we are praising and cause trouble. Yes. we will have to deal with and tolerate them until they get bored and go find a new game.
Just my opinion but I don't think it's on the dev team to create a system to make people behave because these same people will find a way to work around it and then the dev team will waste time trying to fix that and so on.
If community matters in Pantheon, reputation will matter and no system is needed. You may have the griefer, Kill stealers, trainers, or even the guild of arsehats. But, part of what makes a community feel alive is the infamous players/guilds etc. and the relationships that form as a result of their arsehattery. Shared adversity is a strong bond.
I don't think I'm for any sort of reputation system. I've browsed through the thread and was initially on the fence. I figured there was little need for me to post since I was really fine with whatever was decided. But after reading through everything, I think I've stepped on the "no reputation system" side.
I don't have any awful stories to share about how the reputation system was abused against me, or any fears of how it might be abused in the future. To the contrary, the only game I've ever played with an actual reputation system was MapleStory, I think. You could either upvote or downvote someone, and certain gear had reputation requirements. You could only give someone a vote either way once a week, but it wasn't account-based. It boiled down to a petty market where people would offer to pay a few mesos for an upvote, and the system never really had true meaning. All that dev time could have been spent creating something that had some depth to it.
And that's really what put me over the edge. There's such a discussion going on here, and clearly if the system were to be implemented, it would need to meet a lot of standards to not be abusable, to not be shallow, to be fair... and for me personally, even if the time spent creating that reputation system was relatively minimal, it still wouldn't be worth it to me compared to using that time to develop a few new armor sets. Not when the system should occur naturally given the premise of the game.
Tralyan said:Eh, I dunno, you know there's gonne be that jackass that sits there and "thumbs down" you 1,000,000.00 times just to rustle you. I don't think there was necessarily anything wrong with the tried and true method of word of mouth. No need for gimmicks. But that's just me.
-Tralyan
THIS ..and it can be for any reason..could be a competing crafter. I would hesitate to give a tool like this to the general public, I've seen it abused on forums....can imagine what it would be like ingame. And it would create extra headaches for Customer Service etc. Let's not and say we did. :P
disposalist said:Having read this: -
Kilsin said:VattoLoco said: @Kilsin Will there be something in place, for say trading the crafting mat to someone else for a combine, to protect both parties in the transaction. I know in many games there have been issues with people saying they will do a combine, get traded the mats and then log out. Essentially will there be something in place to prevent "stealing" or is it just going to come down to this person's reputation is tarnished and the person that traded is just out the money?...Not that I am aware of Vatto, it will most likely come down to being careful and only trading those items with people you know and/or trust, this is why reputations will be very important in Pantheon, a great crafter will have a very good reputation for always coming through, giving great price offers, making quality items etc. so it will most likely be in the players hands to not fall for tricks and trade valuable items with people you don't know very well, such precautions like you take in real life :)
I thought I'd post my related wonderings.
Could/Should there be some in-game player/character rating system? For situations like the above, sure it's a healthy sandboxy community social thing to let people take "precautions like you take in real life", but in real life people have much more severe consequences to stop them swindling someone. Short of in-game police and courts maybe a reputation system of some kind would help with knowing who to trust and even helping direct you to crafters and traders you might want to meet.
Maybe policing it could be guild-centric? If you are a member of a guild with a good reputation that would support your reputation as a trader because, if you swindle someone, you know your guild will "come down on you"?
It's a pretty negative issue so far, but I suppose the positive side is that a good reputation gets you more sales and more guild members.
I know these things are tricky - if you pee off someone their whole guild then down-rate you and trash your reputation *shrug* Too tricky?
I suppose something as simple as just being able to view the number of 'successful' (without complaints) trades a person has made might be enough?
thinking a little about a tenet:
A belief that game economies should be predicated on delaying and minimizing item value deflation
And a focus on an economy that is largely player driven
The only topic I found was this one with the search function.
I'd love to suggest merchant reputation
Based on merchant activities,players would gravitate towards either of those 2 but can remain neither if they are honest merchants;
Swindler
Few things that might make you one:
-selling stolen items
-buying extremely low priced,selling extremely highly priced
-Draconic prices for the items you put on the AH
Side-Effect when you become wealthy being a swindler:
Skinflint/cheapskate
you lose certain merchant skills and privileges
And start to lose reputation if it displeases merchants to bargain with you
Philanthropist
Few things that might make you one:
-Donating items or money
-Sending money to different account for no reason
-Mass-selling craften goods for a price that practically is a steal
Side-Effect when you become wealthy being a philanthropist:
Ability to become innvestor
-Giving back to the community when you become wealthy
-Ability to enter a partnership
(since we want to avoid mass-selling of crafted items to avoid deflation,a negative side-effect might be more in place?)
Might this help minimizing deflation?