This is why this kind of system should only have positives and a single unit of measure without comments unlike a rating system for when you purchase an item from amazon. If they like you, they like you. If not they can remove thier like. And even if someone exploits the system by grouping for an hour to get a like, i feel that is a better option and i would rather see them being a productive member of the community than a troll or griefer. Heck, i imagine people will buy likes, but at least its a positive system that promotes interaction with other players.
There will be other issues with this kind of system i am sure. There are people that are crafters by trade. So maybe add in some sort of commend system for when you trade with someone. It could be a 3-4 part system: trade reputation, group reputation(mentor reputation), raid reputation, leadership reputation. You could even just have a general reputation that can be accessed even out of group.
It is something worth kicking around.
Before this discussion of a voting based reputation system goes too far, I should let you know that this has been discussed already in other threads.
I don't have a Bazgrim-esque comprehensive list of said threads, but sticking "reputation" into the search bar will yield at least a few of them.
To loosely summarize the opinions of the majority there: Regardless of how you design a voting system there will be a "good" result and a "bad" result. If the system is designed to function as a way to determine good from bad, then it can be abused to either falsely give good ratings for bad players or bad ratings for good players. Even if you can only upvote, bad players can upvote other bad players en-masse. The general opinion was that this system is inherently flawed.
My opinion is that this system could work if you have a personal voting network. The problem with abusing the universal system is that everyone's vote counts equally and there's no filter. I would propose a system where you choose whose opinions you care about by mutual maximum rating. If you and JohnnyRogue have given each other 10-star ratings, then JohnnyRogue's (and everyone else you have a mutual maximum rating with) opinion of AliceTroll affects the average rating that you see when you inspect her. That's the system that I would want to use at least...
Realistically, anyone willing could make a website that people can add player names, what they did, and all that other jazz on their own, we really don't need an ingame system for this. Kinda like what they did with the EQ auction houses on the TLP server, you can basically look for whatever it is you are looking for and it will show the last time someone reported seeing it and who was selling it, and you could send them a tell and see if they still had it, except it'd be a player reputation site instead of an auction lol.
However, again that isn't at all what the OP is trying to get at, his question is simple, does someone's reputation whether good or bad affect if you would group with them or help them with quests and what not.
Aayden said:kreed99 said:Would you leave out negative components of this commend system? or allow groupmates to rate you negative? I think it should be all positive or none. So a base line of -0- means you either suck or nobody has left any positive (new players/solo'ers)
What about artificially inflating this count by having 2 accounts? You would need a list of players that left a commend so that you can verify the count. And you would want to keep it simple perhaps a "Like" button that leaves a tick on your backend account info stating Player A left a Commend. With this option you can only have 1 tick per person so you would need to group with other people to get it higher. Also, allow us to untick this Commend after the group incase we find out they did something horrible.
I imagine a twostep system. While grouping/raiding you can click thier name and commend them. After you are done grouping/raiding you can go back in and edit your commend's incase you change your mind. But only allow commend creation while in group/raid.
This is an option. Could tie it into other sort filters like LFG tool. Higher Commend count more groups you get. I know a lot of higher levels would spread the love just to get a high Commend count. It would generate social gameplay.
This would also help make loot decisions easier for guild leaders that dont run DKP. This guy helps out a lot more vs. this guy is only on here for raids.
The negative aspect of the commend system is fundamentally a bad idea i think. If they could somehow manage to fit that in, how they would idk, it may help.
From the standpoint of -0- being a baseline so basically you suck is a good indication that if you dont have any commends by level 50 youre probably a jerk. I do like the idea of being able to edit or remove that commend afterwards. I have played with many people that initially seem to be good folks, but after several game play sessions you find out there is more negative than positive to them as a member of the community or as an individual in general.
Additionally, to combat exploitation i would agree with you that a commend is a "like" that is tied to your account so you cant just create 8 alts and give 8 commends.
A commend system may encourage higher levels to reach out to lower levels or a group in need, as you brought up social interaction - youre a cleric running by and you see a player losing their fight and decide to stop and heal them, or you throw a couple buffs running by a group hoping for a commend. On the other hand people could use it as a bargaining chip like "hey if i heal/buff you, commend me" and that could be potential for exploit and in turn potential inflate your commend score.
So as i mentioned i dont think its the "solution" but it could be a way to keep track of your reputation on paper so to say.
EDIT: Some may argue as a cleric youre obligated to heal someone in need. I have received nasty tells by someone i ran by, that i never stopped to even evaluate their fight and didnt heal, telling me its my job as a healer to stop an heal someone. Which in my opinion i technically have no obligation to heal anyone but myself and those in my group. However, this may encourage people that dont generally stop to think twice about a fight theyre running by, to do so. Not everyone in a community based game is bent on helping every last person they see, but if the devs can encourage that kind of gameplay, i say do so.
I like the way you have outlined it mate, that kind of thing could even be useful to Devs for deciding who may be worthy of being approached for a guide program, and the alt thing could be fixed by making it so it is an account wide restriction for you to commend the same player once.
SoWplz said: Sorry on phone and can not quote. Philo : This type of story is why these things can't be legitimately moderated. Why didn't your group invis to the mob you wanted to kill? You putting them on some sort of personal D-bag list seems like the biggest issue with this scenario. I'm confused by this comment? Are you saying I would be in the wrong cause I did not invite down to a name mob to kill before the other group did?
Not exactly, I'm saying you are in the wrong for judging others by putting them on your personal "D-bag list" when they didnt actually do anything wrong.
Maybe they didn't have any ill will towards you and weren't trying to screw you?. They saw a named mob was up and went and killed it. Seems pretty cut and dry. To call someone a D-bag and put them on a hate list seems like an over reaction. So much so that you are bringing it up years later. I encourage you to try to see things from the other persons view when you get put in a situation that you find disagreeable. It is difficult sometimes, definitely easier said than done. But I've had times when I've realized I was actually the one in the wrong because I didn't assess the situation correctly in the first place. That wouldn't have happened if I wasn't so quick to judge by jumping to conclussions.
kreed99 said:This is why this kind of system should only have positives and a single unit of measure without comments unlike a rating system for when you purchase an item from amazon. If they like you, they like you. If not they can remove thier like. And even if someone exploits the system by grouping for an hour to get a like, i feel that is a better option and i would rather see them being a productive member of the community than a troll or griefer. Heck, i imagine people will buy likes, but at least its a positive system that promotes interaction with other players.
There will be other issues with this kind of system i am sure. There are people that are crafters by trade. So maybe add in some sort of commend system for when you trade with someone. It could be a 3-4 part system: trade reputation, group reputation(mentor reputation), raid reputation, leadership reputation. You could even just have a general reputation that can be accessed even out of group.
It is something worth kicking around.
Early on..on these very forums, there were upvotes and down votes. If someone had a knot in their face about someone..say a mod or anyone, they would spam the downvote. Same for guildies promoting guildies..spam the upvote. That system is faulty, and hardly fair. Left to their own devices and given a tool like that, "some" people will abuse it. I saw this in action. I don't want my rep ruined by someone who doesn't like the colour of my hair. :)
Cana
Dubah said:Realistically, anyone willing could make a website that people can add player names, what they did, and all that other jazz on their own, we really don't need an ingame system for this. Kinda like what they did with the EQ auction houses on the TLP server, you can basically look for whatever it is you are looking for and it will show the last time someone reported seeing it and who was selling it, and you could send them a tell and see if they still had it, except it'd be a player reputation site instead of an auction lol.
However, again that isn't at all what the OP is trying to get at, his question is simple, does someone's reputation whether good or bad affect if you would group with them or help them with quests and what not.
If that system is used to "out" people..that website could run into legal problems. There was an attempt at doing that on the old EQ forums, in the end management decided against it ..and stopped that action. There could have been some lawyers involved in that decision. We have to be careful what we wish for.
Sorry if this was talked about before. I was simply responding. Every system has a flaw, but you need to find those flaws and exploit them for positive and not negative. Downvotes are definitly out - far too much abuse. Commentary on votes is out - because thats just no... we dont need that. It has to be simple. An ingame system is better than using a website because it can be monitored by the dev’s and if it needs adjusting or resetting it can be done. It could be one of the reprimands for getting temp banned - reputation reset. That would really sting.
If you split it out by category and only allow certain circumstances for upvotes than your rating can be judged better. We wouldnt even need a general reputation rating as the others would cover who you are as a gamer. I would almost bet the devs have had a conversation about this as they probably want to integrate something into thier mentor program so you can seek out higher rated mentors.
No system will be perfect but if we keep it simple and positive and integrated it can do a lot of good to promote community. They can always change thier mind if abuses are rampant. Or they could stear clear and focus on important stuff like pixel shaders and ai mechanics lol
Honestly, all you really need is a system where you can personally rate and comment on someone then retrieve that information later on. There's no need for any sort of public system because, as has been pointed out, any such system is inherently flawed. Just let the player put a note about someone when they encounter them, possibly along with a rating system and tied into the ignore system all in one place then have that info accessible by pop-up if mousing over their name in chat or from rt click menu, etc..
Something like:
rated 0, "verbally abusive to group members, ninjad loot", ignored 5/5/2020 @ 18:23:37
rated 6, "adequate tank but slow pacing"
rated 9, "excellent healer, great at pulling **** out of the fire"
rated 4, "friendly but really not good at the game"
rated 7, "good player but kind of a ****"
rated N/A, "gold seller", ignored 5/2/2020 @ 14:26:11
In the end it really is up to the dev’s. I am super interested in what they come up with. I just enjoy talking about this stuff cause it lets me interact with people that have similar thoughts. I am going to play this game regardless and i will be a constructive member of the community and not a troll. /thumbsup
Ainadak said:Before this discussion of a voting based reputation system goes too far, I should let you know that this has been discussed already in other threads.
I don't have a Bazgrim-esque comprehensive list of said threads, but sticking "reputation" into the search bar will yield at least a few of them.
To loosely summarize the opinions of the majority there: Regardless of how you design a voting system there will be a "good" result and a "bad" result. If the system is designed to function as a way to determine good from bad, then it can be abused to either falsely give good ratings for bad players or bad ratings for good players. Even if you can only upvote, bad players can upvote other bad players en-masse. The general opinion was that this system is inherently flawed.
My opinion is that this system could work if you have a personal voting network. The problem with abusing the universal system is that everyone's vote counts equally and there's no filter. I would propose a system where you choose whose opinions you care about by mutual maximum rating. If you and JohnnyRogue have given each other 10-star ratings, then JohnnyRogue's (and everyone else you have a mutual maximum rating with) opinion of AliceTroll affects the average rating that you see when you inspect her. That's the system that I would want to use at least...
i know this, but the idea pretains to if reputation really matters and it can. In game mechanics are something that may influence your reputation to make it matter more so than just word of mouth.
Aside from that, its not a voting system. It's more like given a set choice of "praise" you can personally give that player, once and only once. You can pick one category and leave one commend to that character for the course of your account life.
Hokanu said:
I like the way you have outlined it mate, that kind of thing could even be useful to Devs for deciding who may be worthy of being approached for a guide program, and the alt thing could be fixed by making it so it is an account wide restriction for you to commend the same player once.
---
Exactly my thoughts on the account wide restriction for this idea. It would help exploiting, not that there arent other ways to inflate this type of reputation score. But i think its something worth thinking about and i definitely think it pretains to if reputation really matters.
Reputation is obviously a relative thing. So if there are systems in place besides chalking it up to "community policing" (so to say) then its definitely something the devs can make matter. Now if the devs decide to implement any sort of player reputation system, its definitely something like any other system and it will need to be tested and accepted by the community.
CanadinaXegony said:Dubah said:Realistically, anyone willing could make a website that people can add player names, what they did, and all that other jazz on their own, we really don't need an ingame system for this. Kinda like what they did with the EQ auction houses on the TLP server, you can basically look for whatever it is you are looking for and it will show the last time someone reported seeing it and who was selling it, and you could send them a tell and see if they still had it, except it'd be a player reputation site instead of an auction lol.
However, again that isn't at all what the OP is trying to get at, his question is simple, does someone's reputation whether good or bad affect if you would group with them or help them with quests and what not.
If that system is used to "out" people..that website could run into legal problems. There was an attempt at doing that on the old EQ forums, in the end management decided against it ..and stopped that action. There could have been some lawyers involved in that decision. We have to be careful what we wish for.
I mean, if you don't want to be "outed" then don't act like an A-hole, people get outed every day for acting like this, not only that but they were using EQ forums, obviously management will stop that lol. I'm a firm believer in you get treated the way you act, you run around disrespecting people there's no reason for me to respect you, idk what could be used as far as lawyers go, i could see intellectual property issues, but there are loopholes to even that. I guess it depends on how far people want to take it. I'd use that website to watch for those guys that are constantly causing problems and turning a good community into a venomous community lol. That's just my 2 cents on the subject tho. Anyways, we are getting way off topic lol.
(Sorry, this will be a long post, and it probably won't make sense at first why I'm saying this. Bear with me.)
In EVE, my corporate (guild) recruiting process looked like this:
1) Get an API key for the person wanting to join
2) Examine their corporate history. Were there any known "bad" corps on the list? Were they jumping from corp to corp? Did they join corps and then leave them again a few weeks later, even if there were big gaps in between? If we were on friendly or neutral terms, contact the CEO of the corps they'd been in to see if they were good or not.
3) Examine their mail. Were there any mails to people in known "bad" corps? Anything suspicious?
4) Examine their contracts. Were there any contracts set up with people in known "bad" corps? Anything that might make it look like they were being used as a "shell account"?
5) Examine all of their alts for the same flags. Examine their character names - did the names "look like" the names of any known bad characters, even if not on the account? (a lot of players, both good and bad, will tend to name all their characters similarily).
6) Examine their skills and compare to account age. Did it look like the account was only active intermittently, like once or twice a year, or was it always active and being used
7) Plug the character name, and alt character names, into the public killboards. Were there any shared kills with known "bad" corps?
8) Assuming we hadn't disqualified the person at this point, interview.
9) Wait 2 weeks (without telling them why) to see if they gave up and joined some other corp instead.
10) If everything was still good, bring them in at a rank that had no permissions to anything.
EVE is a very different game from what Pantheon will be, so you might be wondering why I posted this - and mainly, I'm using it to illustrate the lengths that someone intent on being "bad" will go to in order to get away with it. If someone really wants to be terrible to others, they will create multiple alts, or multiple accounts, or use renames, or whatever other tools they can find to get around any systems the game has in place. We did all those things because we had to (because in EVE, sabotage, spying, and stealing is part of the game), but I would HATE for us to have to get to that level of complexity here in Pantheon.
People will find ways to game any sort of reputation 'system' - whether it's finding away to avoid a negative reputation, or finding a way to artifically improve their own reputation. The truly bad apples out there will actually see it as a game. They'll try to find a way to have a "great" reputation in the system while still getting away with all the bad things they do. They will look for ways to do character assassination on people who they disagree with or don't like as well. Because logging in eight different accounts to artificially downvote someone's reputation is fun for them.
Thankfully, these kinds of people are rare. They make really lasting impressions when you run into them, but in my experience, most players are normal people who really just want to play the game like everyone else. Sure, some of them might be terrible communicators, and some of them might be self-centered, and some of them might be overly aggressive or defensive because they assume that YOU are bad, but when you actually talk to them and get to know them, they're not really out to be jerks to everyone else on purpose.
So when it comes to reputation 'systems", what I would prefer, and I think the only thing that would really work in the end, is similar to what Zyellinia put forward.
- Allow me to add other players to my reputation list, with a "Good" or "Bad" value and a note as to why.
- In-game, the names of players that have negative or positive ratings show up with a differnet color on my client (this should be something I can configure) - in the same way that someone on your friends list might show up in a different color.
- The list is mine and mine alone. Don't make it easy to export and share (although people will still do this with their friends and guilds). For example, I can almost guarantee that my guild will have a members-only place on our forums where people can share the names of other players and guilds that were either awesome to them or terrible to them. But it's not something we'd make public, because it's too easy for that to get misused in a public forum if someone just heard a rumor or has a vendetta.
Doing it this way allows us to say "hey, I remember that dude trained us out of a camp last week" and exclude people from our groups and guilds, without becoming something that's easy for people to game or use as a weapon. Reputation will rely on word of mouth to spread, but honestly any other way of doing it can be subverted. It won't be perfect and it won't always allow us to spot the bad people we haven't encountered or heard about before, but it will give us a basic tool to help.
Honestly, even something like this can be weaponized ("Hey I heard from a guy I know that heard from a friend that Neph is mean to kittens, so we shouldn't group with Neph") so even this might be too much. But I don't think I'd feel comfortable with anything more than this being built into the game or put up on a website somewhere.
If you made it this far and actually managed to understand what I was rather poorly attempting to communicate, you get +1 forum points :)
Nephele said:(Sorry, this will be a long post, and it probably won't make sense at first why I'm saying this. Bear with me.)
-snip-
If you made it this far and actually managed to understand what I was rather poorly attempting to communicate, you get +1 forum points :)
Sounds like a seriously amazing system in Eve! I just dont think the VR guys want the negative vote system, but it may change if the toxicity is high and out of control! great post!
However, i I'm really upset about that Kitten incident Neph. -1 to your score!
The unfortunate part of having many different playstyles means that many different opinions will exist about each and every single playstyle. That would also include the interpretations of reputation. The one I am thinking of the most are those that enjoy a certain aspect of roleplaying their character while they play the game. There will be some people that simply don't get the roleplaying aspect and may look unfavorably on characters that choose to roleplay. Because of that the reputaion may be tarnished unfairly. The same with any other sort of communication breakdown such as not speaking the same language; perhaps the use or lack of use of voicechat; or an ability or inability to use a keyboard. Not helping a plyer who is getting beaten by guards because you don't want to hurt your own faction with your own guards could also get you a tarnished reputation (think back to the factions that existed in EQ). If factions play an important part in the game than reputations can be unfairly tarnished because of that simply because different players already pursue different factions.
The criteria for scoring a reputaion could be significantly different than the criteria for evaluating a reputaion. That doesn't bode well when everyone will be assuming a one-score-fits-all as a measuring stick for reputation or for playing. A solution of adding comments to a reputaion score means anyone interacting has to parse everything written and establish whether they agree or disagree with a reputaion based on their own opinion of what should matter with reputation. I don't think that's a reasonable expectation for players.
Obviously some things are universal. A "south-end-of-a-north-bound-cow" person, for example, could probably be universally ostracized. Conversely, a younger player or inexperienced person playing for the first time unaware of the nuances of playing the game (based on inexperience) should not be universally ostracized. A person building factions as opposed to those who don't care about factions should also not be universally ostracized - nor should the person who doesn't care about factions.
I believe reputations should matter. But I do not have a solution as to how that can be implemented in game where I would trust the reputation scoring measure to begin with.
I am less concerned with genuine differences of opinion than I am with outright malice and griefing.
Some person, or worse some guild, can with no legitimate reason start a campaign to villify someone's reputation. We all recognize the possibility - to me this is entirely sufficient in and of itself to decide the matter.
Zyellinia said:Honestly, all you really need is a system where you can personally rate and comment on someone then retrieve that information later on. There's no need for any sort of public system because, as has been pointed out, any such system is inherently flawed. Just let the player put a note about someone when they encounter them, possibly along with a rating system and tied into the ignore system all in one place then have that info accessible by pop-up if mousing over their name in chat or from rt click menu, etc..
Something like:
rated 0, "verbally abusive to group members, ninjad loot", ignored 5/5/2020 @ 18:23:37
rated 6, "adequate tank but slow pacing"
rated 9, "excellent healer, great at pulling **** out of the fire"
rated 4, "friendly but really not good at the game"
rated 7, "good player but kind of a ****"
rated N/A, "gold seller", ignored 5/2/2020 @ 14:26:11
Yes for your own personal use..I agree with that. So you ignore someone...ability to put a note beside that name. :)
Dubah said:CanadinaXegony said:Dubah said:Realistically, anyone willing could make a website that people can add player names, what they did, and all that other jazz on their own, we really don't need an ingame system for this. Kinda like what they did with the EQ auction houses on the TLP server, you can basically look for whatever it is you are looking for and it will show the last time someone reported seeing it and who was selling it, and you could send them a tell and see if they still had it, except it'd be a player reputation site instead of an auction lol.
However, again that isn't at all what the OP is trying to get at, his question is simple, does someone's reputation whether good or bad affect if you would group with them or help them with quests and what not.
If that system is used to "out" people..that website could run into legal problems. There was an attempt at doing that on the old EQ forums, in the end management decided against it ..and stopped that action. There could have been some lawyers involved in that decision. We have to be careful what we wish for.
I mean, if you don't want to be "outed" then don't act like an A-hole, people get outed every day for acting like this, not only that but they were using EQ forums, obviously management will stop that lol. I'm a firm believer in you get treated the way you act, you run around disrespecting people there's no reason for me to respect you, idk what could be used as far as lawyers go, i could see intellectual property issues, but there are loopholes to even that. I guess it depends on how far people want to take it. I'd use that website to watch for those guys that are constantly causing problems and turning a good community into a venomous community lol. That's just my 2 cents on the subject tho. Anyways, we are getting way off topic lol.
The point is..its not the player outing another publically on a gaming forum, that gets sued..its the game company. In the end all the flak would come back to VR.
dorotea said:I am less concerned with genuine differences of opinion than I am with outright malice and griefing.
Some person, or worse some guild, can with no legitimate reason start a campaign to villify someone's reputation. We all recognize the possibility - to me this is entirely sufficient in and of itself to decide the matter.
This absolutely this. :)
@Nephele that was a pretty rigourous system. In the old days ..in the first Guild Wars when it released, we had people apply to our guild..an actual application. Then guild members would group with them and test them out over a month. Our prerequisite was having a sense of humor, seriously, because we sometimes did pvp in the "nude" (no armor) and other things for fun and laughs. We were called The District Nudists. hehehe It worked for the most part, it was for laughs and most people had fun. :)
CanadinaXegony said:@Nephele that was a pretty rigourous system. In the old days ..in the first Guild Wars when it released, we had people apply to our guild..an actual application. Then guild members would group with them and test them out over a month. Our prerequisite was having a sense of humor, seriously, because we sometimes did pvp in the "nude" (no armor) and other things for fun and laughs. We were called The District Nudists. hehehe It worked for the most part, it was for laughs and most people had fun. :)
Sounds like a fun guild. I still kind of kick myself that I didn't get in on GW1 (as well as FFXIV) when they first launched. I tried them out years later, but it's not the same.
For Pantheon, Shadowfire's evaluation process will look something like this (much simpler than what we had to do in EVE):
1) Have the person "apply" on our website and tell us a little bit about themselves and their goals, and "agree" to our code of conduct. (This also registers them for the forums and calendar, conveniently).
2) Review the application for anything that makes it seem like they might not be the right fit for our focus and the community we want to have in-guild. For example if someone comes in and talks about how they love raiding and want to be in a top-end raiding group someday, that's just not what we're about. If we recognize their name as someone with a bad reputation, that's probably a hard no.
3) Interview. Give them the opportunity to ask questions. If they seem like a good fit, and a nice person, offer them the option to join the guild. If they seem like a wrong fit, but still a nice person, refer them to other guilds we know that we think would meet their needs better.
My reputation matters to me. I hope to build a reputation as a fair minded, community building player not only within whatever guild I end up joining but within the server as a whole. I know there are a lot of like minded players on these forums. On the other side of the coin, there are players that wish to build the reputation of top dog on the server and I've encountered whole guilds of like minded players where this reputation is so important to them that they will stop at nothing to be the "top". This also includes doing everything in thier power to make sure other players can not achieve the same achievements they have made. This leads to all sorts of toxic behavior.
Since VR has toted #CommunityMatters, I think much of Pantheon's success will depend on what mechanics are in place to both promote and strengthen players' ability to community build as well as dappen the impact any one group can have to hamper other players enjoyment of the game. The latter is certainly challenging in an open world, non-instanced, pve game.