Rating system for players

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

52 minutes ago, TheHalcyonOne said:

Honestly I'd only be in favor of something like this if reputational movement was solely upwards. As in, no down-voting. People can be so subjective on what does or doesn't warrant negative reputation, but what makes a player worth playing with is usually a little more universal to people. If you see somebody that doesn't have any reputation, you just know to keep an eye on them.

Actually, that's quite a niche thought... you could then compare their rating with their overall gameplay hours... although who's to say they don't play privately often, by themselves or generally have anybody actually bother to vote them up?

1 hour ago, TheHalcyonOne said:

I think most people understood what he was getting at without the elaboration and knew they weren't hard and fast rules.

Well, I didn't. And in case for those who didn't understand, an elaboration is better so as not to create unnecessary prejudice/conflict in game due to misunderstanding/lack of elaboration on forums or whatever.

[Faintly Macabre]

11 minutes ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

Actually, that's quite a niche thought... you could then compare their rating with their overall gameplay hours... although who's to say they don't play privately often, by themselves or generally have anybody actually bother to vote them up?

If you're worth playing with, people will generally make a note of it. And even if you get really unlucky and they don't, it's just to offer something to take a look at when people show up, and keep an eye on if they don't have a lot of rep yet. I wouldn't recommend using it to out-and-out filter people.

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

21 minutes ago, TheHalcyonOne said:

If you're worth playing with, people will generally make a note of it. And even if you get really unlucky and they don't, it's just to offer something to take a look at when people show up, and keep an eye on if they don't have a lot of rep yet. I wouldn't recommend using it to out-and-out filter people.

Question is whether people would use it as a way to determine whether to keep an eye on people generally or to filter other players out most often.

Being generally skeptical and pessimistic about things, I would deviate more towards the latter, but we could never know unless it got put into practice, I guess. Wait, didn't somebody say it already got put into practice for another game? So, how was that going?

Edit: Whirpool's Aura system... not sure if that'd be good in DST. But in terms of forums... It's kind of what I had thought about myself before, where it's a system that would determine how something is hidden. This way, people can say what they want, but if they say something the majority consider, say Spam, Flaming, Off-topic ect and so a message, a post, a topic or even a user could be considered Spamming, Flaming, Off-topic/Wrong topic (well, not sure if this could apply to members), Inappropriate, Insulting etc. And the users who have selected to not see any content according to those selections in their check box (knowing me, I probably would only hide spam for myself ) would not see it, so the forum could be whatever each user wants it to be pretty much in layout to fit their preference or whatever. Perhaps not perfect, but it's something certainly plausible to achieve, considering that this forum generally has very nice folk... Ugh, shouldn't go off-topic so much >_>

[SuperPsiPower]

5 hours ago, verm1ll1on said:

That would be the exception. You never measure things based on the exception. As almost everything, there are positive and negative sides. We don't stop something good because people use it for bad purposes once in a while.

I think this system deserves a try. Also, I don't think grieffers are too profound about griffing. Like "hey, m8, I'm a ******* ******* who likes to ruin everyone's else games, so please give me a good rating to other won't be suspicious of my true intentions" or "hey, m8s, let's team up and ruin this guy's rating on this one guy pls".

 

I don't see that happening a lot.

I'm just looking at the bigger picture. The exception is the flaw in this type of system

[Arlesienne]

32 minutes ago, SuperPsiPower said:

I'm just looking at the bigger picture. The exception is the flaw in this type of system

Sad but true. On one hand, just upvotes feel a bit off. On the other, there is too much easy room for abuse otherwise.

Personally, individual recommendations suit me just fine. People who bother to write such reviews usually more or less have good intentions.

[LadyD]

I like the idea of upvoting only. It works on the forums here. Well sort of, it does rule out chances of abuse of the system but it also relies on people being good enough to upvote you. 

When I am playing on open servers I tend to be suspicious of people who don't contribute to a base they are in. Or don't bother asking but just taking things. For the most part I have not encountered any griefers or rude people, I tend to look at it this way- play as though your grandmother is watching. Please and thank you go a long way to indicating you are a decent person not looking to make trouble. And Always remember it is a game, if it bothers you- let it go and move on. Sure its bothersome when someone ruins your work but chances are you won't see that player again in another server and if you do- well you now know to avoid them. 

*shrug* if people were kinder, more patient and more relaxed then the need for a rating system is probably null. I recommend every time you find someone you enjoyed playing with on a server- ask if they want to be friends and do it again sometime. Then you will soon have your own group of friends you know are good players and will help you keep the trolls at bay. 

[AlternateMew]

Some sort of rating system might be beneficial. Personally, I'd still be wary of everyone. Just less so with a better rep.

...Though on second thought, I can hear it now.

"Pls rate me up!" "Like me now" "Hey guyz up my repz plx"

And they'd get it. People would listen. And there goes being able to trust ratings. Back to silently judging their every word and action to see if I want to risk trusting them.

[verm1ll1on]

15 hours ago, SuperPsiPower said:

I'm just looking at the bigger picture. The exception is the flaw in this type of system

That's not looking at the bigger picture, you're just stating the obvious. "oh ****, there's a flaw! it can be abused!"

 

Guess what: that's pretty much everything that exists.

[SuperPsiPower]

22 minutes ago, verm1ll1on said:

That's not looking at the bigger picture, you're just stating the obvious. "oh ****, there's a flaw! it can be abused!"

 

Guess what: that's pretty much everything that exists.

Why implement something that has no real ingame purpose aside from distinguishing people for who they are? It's pointless. and yes, that was looking at the big picture. Implementing something that could easily influenced by Trolls and Griefers is easily Anti-fool proof and seems like a waste of time implementing.

Above, you stated that "It deserves a try". And I agree that with some tweaks it could be very useful, and could have potential into being added into the core game. 

"We don't stop something good because people use it for bad purposes once in a while."

Taking a look at some of the character changes, your logic isn't infallible.

[QooQoo]

I think there should be downvotes, but what would happen is the downvotes would not make people lose as much reputation as what is gained from upvotes. 

Also, downvotes should require some sort of review, so others could see what the problem was for them. Only someone who would take the time to write a review for why they downvoted someone is persistent enough to explain.

[CaptainChaotica]

YES, totally, on the review for downvotes thing.  YES.  Not only would it at least somewhat weed out the lazy haters who are downvoting just because they can, but knowing WHY somebody was downvoted (assuming the reviewer is telling the truth!) would be very useful, too. 

For example, some might not care if somebody was downvoted for swearing in the in-game chat....but I think EVERYbody will care if the person who just joined their server is a known griefer.

It'd be like putting out a wanted poster on people like that, and frankly, I'm perfectly fine with that.  Sure, you get the occasional mostly-decent type who burned down a base just ONCE for funsies, but...I dunno, I think if you're likely to do that at all, you're likely to do it again at any time. "Calling all cars!  Calling all cars!  Be on the lookout for Username Here!  Last seen torching a farm in ServerName!"

Now, of course, it's abusable, as any part of this is.  BUT.  I do think that _requiring_ you to write a review will at least slow some of the abuse down.

...Notorious

[Pyr0mrcow]

Age of Empires 2's re-release all over again.
People use the rating system to filter in the good people. Sure, that's a great idea, on the surface.
Then, others can't play with the better players. It becomes difficult to improve yourself. The frustration from people shunning you just because you hadn't been playing the game since the ratings began and thereby having a low rating results in people rightfully giving up on the game, and the community dwindling into almost nothing but a few die-hards that completely reject any new people who attempt to get into it. Self-perpetuating cycle, because there's little reason for new people to want to join the game and every reason for them not to.

DST has enough problems retaining people at the moment. If you start implementing a ranking system based on how people play, keeping track of each time they get blamed for griefing, annoy another player, bring down the hammer of justice, ect, I'd be really surprised if we continued to have enough of a player-base to even be minimally functional by the end of next year.

 

Not meaning to shoot this idea down so hard, but...well. It's a horrible idea.
More grief prevention or some sort of small in-game tutorials would be a lot more helpful. I know part of the theme of the original DS was that you were thrown into a world with nothing but your experiences to guide you, but...the 'not knowing anything about the world you're in' part has some trouble translating into a multiplayer version of the game where a few basic mistakes can destroy everyone and everything around you.

[QooQoo]

8 hours ago, Pyr0mrcow said:

Age of Empires 2's re-release all over again.
People use the rating system to filter in the good people. Sure, that's a great idea, on the surface.
Then, others can't play with the better players. It becomes difficult to improve yourself. The frustration from people shunning you just because you hadn't been playing the game since the ratings began and thereby having a low rating results in people rightfully giving up on the game, and the community dwindling into almost nothing but a few die-hards that completely reject any new people who attempt to get into it. Self-perpetuating cycle, because there's little reason for new people to want to join the game and every reason for them not to.

DST has enough problems retaining people at the moment. If you start implementing a ranking system based on how people play, keeping track of each time they get blamed for griefing, annoy another player, bring down the hammer of justice, ect, I'd be really surprised if we continued to have enough of a player-base to even be minimally functional by the end of next year.

 

Not meaning to shoot this idea down so hard, but...well. It's a horrible idea.
More grief prevention or some sort of small in-game tutorials would be a lot more helpful. I know part of the theme of the original DS was that you were thrown into a world with nothing but your experiences to guide you, but...the 'not knowing anything about the world you're in' part has some trouble translating into a multiplayer version of the game where a few basic mistakes can destroy everyone and everything around you.

 

Hmm, okay, I like your insightful post.

First of all, a suggestion to those who are you new to the game, I recommend them to first host their own world, possibly alone. It even recommends that when you first play the game. 

Anyways, an idea to combat the problem of having people get shot down are, not being able to have the rating of a player go below 0. Another way I guess is having reviews eventually deleted? Because people can change, and giving them another chance can enable them to reflect upon themselves.

Or maybe the first few negative reviews of a person would be sent to that person privately as a warning. I dunno, warn them about the effects of leeching and griefing.