GameAmp: GW Account credibility?

Forum >> PvE & Quest Discussion >> Preview: Factions >> GW Account credibility?

1 2 Next >

User

Message

lani

GameAmp Staff
Posts: 623
Joined: 09/08/2005
Credibility: 28 pts

GW Account credibility?

Hi!
If you read these fora, you'll have noticed two things by now.
Probably some other things as well, such as a god ugly new Profile system ;-), but for the purpose of this discussion I mean these two:
Everybody hates higher level noobs and Gameamp has a credibility system.

Now, what if there was a kind of credibility system in Guild Wars itself. I.e. you could rate people on their game performance team-play for example. This would be an account level rating, so it would be cross-character.
This credibility would be visible somehow for teamleaders picking their team-members. This would surely affect the way people act towards each other and give experienced / friendly players some kind of peer recognition in the game. I have feel some trepidation about it to though.

A noob might very well give negative votes towards someone who's trying to keep the group together and complete the mission and thereby relieving the noob from his spotlight posioton. So it's vulnerabal to pettiness in a way. I wonder how much though. I think it'd be best not to let guildmembers vote on each other to prevent Guilds being formed and deformed just for voting on each other or making inter-guild voting less weighty. Hmmm, someone's vote would be more weighty the higher their own credibility would be.

Ideally you'd only be able to vote on another person once. This might be a bit data-intensive to keep track of, so maybe it would only be possible at the end of Missions for example. You'd be able to cast votes on your teammembers, or maybe just cast a vote on one of them who stuck out. That would also negate the pettiness vulnerability.

Your thoughts?

Edit: P.s. my apologies if someone previously came up with the exact smae idea or variant thereof and I missed his post on it.

***THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED***

Bored? Curious? Check out my "Gaming Experiences" Blogerette thingamjiggy whatchamacallit Now with Comment feature!

09/30/05 13:50

WingsofLead

Posts: 0
Joined: 08/07/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

While such a thing would be nice, how many people would actually do what is intended though? You can have runners start charging for credibility on runs to Droknars. While this in the end could be a useful side-effect of knowing who the good runners are, it would then be hard to tell high credit party players vs. runners.

The other thing would be the classes which end up being over looked. Or at least feel like it. As a Mesmer, I cast my spells at the target of opportunity/best target, not on just the main/called target, but other mobs to weaken or distract them. I've been in a few earlier parties where my other team mates didn't even realize a monk was in the group. Then at the same time, I don't know just exactly who was doing what themselves since I'm not even attempting to keep track of what the others are doing as a part of the team. I just end up trusting them to do what they are supposed to do, only those who go out of their way to not do whats expected of them catches my attention.

I'm mixed in my opinion about this. I really don't want to start hearing Credibility shouts lfg like the ones I hear about for "Experienced"(Xp not Times through mission) people or shouts of X amount of experience lfg for UW or FoW. Especially when there will be people who go after a high credit rating despite not having earned it fairly. Though on the other hand, I would like being able to give credit out to competent leaders and take credit away from people who are inconsiderate (Rushing Portals despite being told to wait, falling behind alot and missing battles due to running back and getting items, ect.).

I guess I would like to see a Guild Wars "Credibility", though it would have to be carefully monitored for abuse and with its amount of people, that would be tough to do. Anyone have any ideas on how to do that? I would try to come up with something but my mind finally decided to shut-down on innovative thought now that I'm no longer caffinated and sleep deprived.

Why? Why did I have to be a procrastinator through high school and only do my papers the night before? Now I can't write a decent paper unless I'm sleep deprived and overly caffinated. *Cries*

09/30/05 14:23

BrianFellow

Posts: 1
Joined: 07/11/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

I think credibility should be given at the end of missions not 'Forge running' or anything like that.

Bryan Fellow LVL 20 R/Me - Ch 1. Completed
Annec Ro LVL 20 N/Me - Ch 1. Completed
Healer Henchperson LVL 20 Mo/N - Ch.1 Completed

Don't hate the player, hate the programmer

09/30/05 14:29

lani

GameAmp Staff
Posts: 623
Joined: 09/08/2005
Credibility: 28 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

QUOTE

Why? Why did I have to be a procrastinator through high school and only do my papers the night before? Now I can't write a decent paper unless I'm sleep deprived and overly caffinated. *Cries*

Do you mean to say that there's another state of being? What's it like? I've heard stories about this huge yellow thing in the sky. Does it have anything to do with that? ;-)

Anyway, back to topic. Good input btw :-)
I'd think that overlooked Professions might have a chance if people with higher, credibility, I'm gonna call it Peer Standing from now on as that sounds better imo, have a stronger vote to cast. They'll be more likely to vote good players regardless of their profession. As it is I was more thinking along the lines of voting for general behavior as to obvious effectiveness in killing enemeis. In the latter case it would get askew in no time doue to zillions of Warriors thinking they're the best :-)

I'm also thinking that a positive vote only system might be best. I.e. don't demerit (correct word?) bad players. If we do that people will get stuck with a stigma. Ok, maybe working that off might be a good incentive for better behaviour, but it might make people leave the game.
From our perspective that might not be bad, but Those who Serve naturally want as many people playing and buying the game ('s) as possible. So that would be something that might or might not be worthwhile to them.

I seem to recall the boys from Google working on something like this in regards to Orkut as having 85.000 close personal friends didn't seem to be the right tack to take. I wonder what became of their studies?

Oh well let's see what other people think and have to say :-)

Bored? Curious? Check out my "Gaming Experiences" Blogerette thingamjiggy whatchamacallit Now with Comment feature!

09/30/05 14:37

UCCat

Posts: 6
Joined: 08/04/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

One possible way to negate petty voting, or negative credability rating... would be to have any minus given, come off your score as well... i.e. only positive ratings or no ratings given...but i can see 'i'll give you a 5 if you give me a 5' becoming rampant...

what about a game generated ranking? I dont know how much data is kept, gathered, stored etc on a character/player... but have a game generated ranking based on missions completed, quests completed, deaths/hours played, fows of equal or higher rank killed, - cred for creatures of lesser level than you?

Sounds like a big process, maybe a huge sink for CPU time and data storage, i have no idea... but a possible solution?

ooooo, and a PS... how about distance traveled or time spent in an instance without kills = neg credability... i.e. stop the runners... OR, neg cred for entering a level of play significantly above your current players lvl?

***THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED***

Forlorn Sorrow-Level 20 Nec..........Forlorn Sniper-Level 20 Ranger..........Forlorn Shadow-Level 20 Monk..........Forlorn Sychee-Level 20 Mez..........Forlorn Spearangel-Level 20 Paragon..........Forlorn Starz-Level 20 Sin..........Forlorn Scorch-Level 20 Ellie..........Forlorn Spiritseek-Level 20 Rit..........Forlorn Scarmaker-Level 20 Warrior..........Forlorn Scytheangel-Level 20 Dervish

09/30/05 14:51

Elbrayn

Posts: 0
Joined: 08/09/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

I used to play a game called CnC Renegade and if someone was doing very well you would Type !rec "playername" and it would give them a recommendation or you would type !n00b "playername" when they do something wrong. Unfortunately although its a good idea in theory it does not play out that way. To many people just used to n00b someone for no reason or rec there friends just because they are friends. so the system gets skewed results.

Nice idea though.

[img]http://www.ozclan.com/forums/album_pic.php?pic_id=1801[/img]

09/30/05 15:11

lani

GameAmp Staff
Posts: 623
Joined: 09/08/2005
Credibility: 28 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

QUOTE

Sounds like a big process, maybe a huge sink for CPU time and data storage, i have no idea... but a possible solution?

Well, a lot of this could be done client-side (i.e. on the player's computer. So only the results need to written away at a server, in your account profile.

QUOTE

what about a game generated ranking? I dont know how much data is kept, gathered, stored etc on a character/player... but have a game generated ranking based on missions completed, quests completed, deaths/hours played, fows of equal or higher rank killed, - cred for creatures of lesser level than you?

Well, you could make average deaths per hour a rating, oh wait. Maybe not. (Just figured out mine). Your ideas have merit, but I'd rather not have this based on game statistics.
It wouldn't be 'peered'. I mean, I'm not gonna let a computersystem tell me if I'm a nice peoples person in game than I would let a convicted felonous organization determine whether or not this music I'm listening to is legal. :-)
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with your point. It might be useful as a base for the same system.
I.e. you can get some rating by "just playing the game" but a larger chunk of it ought to come from your peers in the game, hence Peer Ranking :-)

Bored? Curious? Check out my "Gaming Experiences" Blogerette thingamjiggy whatchamacallit Now with Comment feature!

09/30/05 15:14

lani

GameAmp Staff
Posts: 623
Joined: 09/08/2005
Credibility: 28 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

QUOTE

To many people just used to n00b someone for no reason or rec there friends just because they are friends. so the system gets skewed results.

That's why I was thinking of a positive voting system, i.e. no negatory votes.
P.s. a multiplayer game where you go head to head with each toher and can demerit the piece of scum that just whooped your butt. Hmmm, I wonder why such a one-dimensional system failed? ;-)

UC Cat's idea of making negative votes count against your own as well might be a good idea to.

Everyone seems to be thinking in -5 to +5 votes like we have here at Gameamp. That's not required persé ofcourse. It might be just 'a vote', i.e. 1 point or something.
Also, but I think this would be to complex, it might be possible to have say five categories to rate someone your voting on. Say you want to vote on Nice Guy X after a mission, you click the appropriate button and you get to spend maybe ten points across some categories: Team-play, Politeness, Game understanding, Tolerance and Tactics.
Like I said this'd probably be to complex.

Bored? Curious? Check out my "Gaming Experiences" Blogerette thingamjiggy whatchamacallit Now with Comment feature!

09/30/05 15:20

WingsofLead

Posts: 0
Joined: 08/07/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

Coffee!.....Oops *Hides his mug*

@lani
Peer Standing? I like the sound of that. Voting being based on behavior and teamwork would be very nice, but how to keep it at that, rather then the "I give you 5 cred, you give me 5 cred." as UCCat mentioned.

You are right, negative "standing" would cause people to quit the game. Maybe instead the standing would lower over time to 0 naturally? Only at a small rate and having players able to recast a standing vote for someone else after this credibility goes away. Hey, maybe this will cause Healing Monks to actually show up more in missions they've done for standing! Though that would also mean that many more warriors standing around offerring help in missions for credibility as well. *shudders* I can almost see a whole district filled with nothing but warriors in Thunderhead keep offering to help for "Standing points" and looking for 2 Monks, despite having done the missions already.

Oh, and the hige evil yellow thing in the sky? I don't know what its called, but it BURNS! Stepping outside under it can make you feel as if you grabbed a light bulb thats been on all day(Normal not Flourescent).

@UCCat
Game generated ranking doesn't inspire me too much. If it was kill count, does it go to the group or a single person? If it was a single person then Interrupters/Non-direct Dmg/Buffers/Debuffer styles would be left in the dust, Healing Monks would be even more less common, ect. If it was for a group, then that single person who joins a team, then goes afk for the whole mission gets better standing(You could limit it to a certain circle I guess...hmmm.) Deaths? I would stop attempting new strategies then, since I often end up dieing while testing out a new combo of skills(for me at least). Well, it might work if it contained a wide range of possibilities to earn standing, equally.

@Anyone
Sorry if I have a habit of pointing out flaws, but that comes from the "debugging" of code habit I've developed from programming.

09/30/05 15:24

dalakian

Posts: 0
Joined: 09/29/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

seems like a good enough idea, but people would rate u bad for no reason maybe if like your whole party could vote against you or something. or if u trade with someone u can rate them. A good plan would be a at the end of each quest with a party, your team rates each player.

09/30/05 15:27

lani

GameAmp Staff
Posts: 623
Joined: 09/08/2005
Credibility: 28 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

@WingsofLead: I don't mind if you point out flaws as it helps to optimize the code ^w^W refine the idea. You don't do it just to shoot something of, but add insight as to why something wouldn't work and/or add your own recommendations, that's not nit-pciking, it's constructive criticism.

@dalakian: Not sure if after every Quest might be a good idea. Read WingsofLead's thoughts on the hundred Warriors at Thunderhead. I can imagine it now, starting up a new character, get through pre-searing Ascalon (I think the system wouldn't be for there yet) then go into Old Ascalon, just to pounced upon by hundreds of people wanting to assist me with every quest out there. There is such a thing as overhelpfullness :-) At the end of every Mission would be good enough I think. I'm still in favor of 'just' a positive voting system, no demerits.

I do like the idea of a "Are you happy with this trade?" button in the trade option. I'd not weight it as heavily as Mission partition though. I mean giving away stuff for free is a reward in itself imo.

Btw, soryy about the double post just now, or my intensive prescence in the thread for that matter. It's just that the idea has gotten hold of me :-)

Bored? Curious? Check out my "Gaming Experiences" Blogerette thingamjiggy whatchamacallit Now with Comment feature!

09/30/05 15:40

MustelaNigripes

Posts: 7
Joined: 07/13/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

The idea is a good one. But, boy are there problems to be over come. Many have been mentioned already.

1) Revenge Votes: Taken care of by making positive only. Too bad though, it is the ones that have a bad rating that I'd most want to know about.

2) Pal Votes: Eliminating within guild votes helps. There will be many ways around this.

3) Buying Votes: Either with a vote, gold, or as a condition of an item sale.

4) Ignorance: Lack of knowledge of what a player does. How many times have you been in a party that had a missing a player long before anyone even noticed he was gone? How many threads are there where someone complains about another class because they simply do not understand the class? People don't realize who is casting what, or how much an impact others have. Did you realize that you lived because the Mesmer cast a spell that slowed the mob of opponents on you? Or that the R/Mo cast a spell on you that reduced the damage you took when you got mobbed. I play a couple of characters with Mo as the secondary. People usually either do not know that a spell was cast on them, or they think it must have been the one primary monk that cast it.

09/30/05 16:07

lani

GameAmp Staff
Posts: 623
Joined: 09/08/2005
Credibility: 28 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

QUOTE (MustelaNigripes)

3) Buying Votes: Either with a vote, gold, or as a condition of an item sale.

4) Ignorance: Lack of knowledge of what a player does. How many times have you been in a party that had a missing a player long before anyone even noticed he was gone? How many threads are there where someone complains about another class because they simply do not understand the class? People don't realize who is casting what, or how much an impact others have. Did you realize that you lived because the Mesmer cast a spell that slowed the mob of opponents on you? Or that the R/Mo cast a spell on you that reduced the damage you took when you got mobbed. I play a couple of characters with Mo as the secondary. People usually either do not know that a spell was cast on them, or they think it must have been the one primary monk that cast it.

I'll respond to these two problems, as I seem to have made atleast some progress towards tackling your first two points and I'm hoping other people will refine them.

#3) That's why I'd put less weight on a vote based on a sale then on completing a Mission. As to buying votes otherwise, someone would have to pay me to go along with a mission then vote for him at the end. Either that or he'd have to start lobbying or bribing for it just before the end of the mission. Neither option sounds very practical, though they are possible ofcourse. I still think the ammout of effort it takes would be a mitigating circumstance.

Another thought. When considering this one has to be able to judge the impact of any cheat on the whole system. What if a hundred, or a thousand people get a few Peer Ranking Points by hedging the polls so to speak. On a system with 1.000.000 people, that's not much. Problem is, we can't really judge how many would 'cheat' in this way. I do know NCSoft is looking for money sinks, so they might even approve. And isn't wealth a means of buying Social Standing in Real Life as well? We all like to think/pretend it isn't so, but....

4) Well, that's always a problem. Ignorant people voting, just like or especially in ... Ah lets not say anything that would get my country invaded by the largest militairy force in the world or antagonizes half the people on this site just yet. :-)

Seriously, this is a drawback. Supporting classes, or better said, people who choose to play subtly supporting builds (Curses Necro, most Mesmer builds used today, Protecting Monk) might have a tendency to be overlooked. I do know however that most mages quickly start appreciating a supporting Necro. And if I give 'm a little hint by calling my spells, even warriors seem to realize that the enemy is somehow attacking at half speed. My Mesmer is a rather flamboyant Me/W, so I don't get underappreciated, atleast not after the first mob or two has been dealt with remarkable alacrity.

Bored? Curious? Check out my "Gaming Experiences" Blogerette thingamjiggy whatchamacallit Now with Comment feature!

09/30/05 16:27

DexAholic

Posts: 5
Joined: 09/06/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

@lani: this could be a really good idea, however, whenever you establish any system (especially when you involve numbers and 'levels') people want to turn it into a contest or race. People always seem to find a way to abuse numeric systems. It must be in our nature somehow. Also, if you put any data on the client machine you know people would find a way to edit the data!

@UCCat: Again with the numeric systems = will be abused concept. I'm sure that people would find ways to 'farm' credibility if you tried to establish a stats-based system. However it would be really cool if the game kept track of detailed stats just for the enjoyment of the player. People seem to love to find ways to inflate numbers and then attach meaning to them to dangle in people's faces...

@WingsofLead: I'm of the same thinking as you when it comes to abuse. I don't think a credibility system like the one here at GameAmp would be healthy or meaningful in the game itself. BTW - I've been a programmer/designer for 15 years (7 professionally), so I know what you mean about it being difficult to turn off your compulsion to engineer systems and debug (or knit-pick)...

So, how about this for a simple and fair solution...I'm sacrificing some details for usability here, but sometimes that's the price you pay to get someone to use your system:

Ratings are shown as percentages instead of indefinitely climbing numbers. That would reduce people's inclination to battle and race for credibility (or Peer Standing) points. You can only vote one of three ways after a mission or grouping with people: Recommend, Don't Recommend, or Neutral (which is the same as not voting). The number shown is the percentage of positive (or recommended) votes out of the player's total number of votes. If you hover over the percentage it would tell you how many total votes had been cast for the player to provide context. A player can only place a Recommend vote for another player once a week, and they can only place a Don't Recommend vote once every two weeks. That would encourage people to make new friends to get more votes. Don't Recommend votes negate Recommend votes, but if a person falls into a negative score the 'negative points' only last a week from the time they were cast. That way the player 'learns their lesson', but they can wait for their score to go back to zero again so they're not stuck with a negative forever.

What do you guys think? I think that could work.

09/30/05 16:34

lani

GameAmp Staff
Posts: 623
Joined: 09/08/2005
Credibility: 28 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

QUOTE

So, how about this for a simple and fair solution...I'm sacrificing some details for usability here, but sometimes that's the price you pay to get someone to use your system:

Ratings are shown as percentages instead of indefinitely climbing numbers. That would reduce people's inclination to battle and race for credibility (or Peer Standing) points. You can only vote one of three ways after a mission or grouping with people: Recommend, Don't Recommend, or Neutral (which is the same as not voting). The number shown is the percentage of positive (or recommended) votes out of the player's total number of votes. If you hover over the percentage it would tell you how many total votes had been cast for the player to provide context. A player can only place a Recommend vote for another player once a week, and they can only place a Don't Recommend vote once every two weeks. That would encourage people to make new friends to get more votes. Don't Recommend votes negate Recommend votes, but if a person falls into a negative score the 'negative points' only last a week from the time they were cast. That way the player 'learns their lesson', but they can wait for their score to go back to zero again so they're not stuck with a negative forever.

What do you guys think? I think that could work.

I was allready thinking you'd need some system to downgrade spikes, people who really stand out from the crowd, either through cheating or honestly gained it would be ridiculous if one person had 100.000 while the second best, more average had something in the order of 3500. But I'm neither a mathematician, nor is my English in that department good enough to have a sensical discussion, I'm afraid. I do know that there are ways of doing so, in a numerical or percentage based system. One way would be to make votes less effective the more you get them. Vice versa you'd let votes count for more if they're redemption votes. I.e. someone with a negative score.

One question though, a percentage of what? I'm probably missing something here. If I have 50% Peer Rating, what/who is 100%, the guy with the most Rating? Or a secretly set value? Either case might work with my suggestion of flattening the curve, or how do I say that.
Damn! I hate not being able to express my idea's in proper English, or even US English for that matter ;-)

Bored? Curious? Check out my "Gaming Experiences" Blogerette thingamjiggy whatchamacallit Now with Comment feature!

09/30/05 16:45

Sainty

Posts: 4
Joined: 09/28/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

Although I sometimes detest playing with noobs, I do think this measure would be a bit over the top. It almost seems like you would be superior to people who lack social skills or gameplay abilities.

I think everybody who payed for the game has the same right to play and be part of a party in missions and quests.

If you get rated very low.. how the hell are you gonna learn how to do it right.. and last but not least.. If only non-n00bs bought this game.. I think there'd be just 100 ppl on European servers total.. that wont be enough to support GW at all..

Sainty Salvation || Sainty Battle || Sainty Nature || Naughty Sainty

09/30/05 16:49

lani

GameAmp Staff
Posts: 623
Joined: 09/08/2005
Credibility: 28 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

@Sainty:
Hmm, you make two statements that appear to be in direct contradiction of each other. At the one hand you express yourself against this idea because of a sense of superiority or elitism (my term), on the other hand your 100 non-noobs in Europe smacks of the self same to me. I do believe you would count yourself a non-noob. I do ;-)

Care to elaborate on this? I don't mind criticism, but please don't just shoot something down without comming up with an alternative of some kind.

I may be naïve in this, but I'd not immediately/automatically reject someone with a low Peer Rating, especially as I put it on an account level basis, someone who's playing his 6th character across the game would almost naturally have a much higher level than someone who's playing with his first. That's why I very much like Dexaholic's idea of using a percentage. It'd be less overwhelmingly in favor of veterans though at the same time allowing you to more easily spot them. Also the ladder ought to become harder to climb the higher you get.
Still I'd think twice before joining a group filled with five or seven people with very low Ratings. I'll admit to that.

***THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED***

Bored? Curious? Check out my "Gaming Experiences" Blogerette thingamjiggy whatchamacallit Now with Comment feature!

09/30/05 17:04

WingsofLead

Posts: 0
Joined: 08/07/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

Lani, Sainty has a good point. Many people can and probably will take offense to being classed in a certain range, and discrimination would likely cause alot of people to ignore some lesser skilled players who need help. Hell, controversies similar to this already has been taken to the schools due to "Graduating with Honors" and Valedictorian on graduation, where people claim that holding these people above others is discriminating and humiliating to those that don't make the Honors.

If I was rated badly, I would still want to attempt to go on missions, though no one would accept me if they see the low rating. Sure, if rating was the character specific, and not account specific, then you could just play another character for a week, then go back. But waiting that long is still rather harsh.

So, while it would be nice to easily spot the newbs from the veterans, the newbs still have payed for the game to play so should be able to play. I doubt anyone would want to be labeled as a newb by the game itself and ignored by everyone for a game they payed to play.

*Brainstorm*
Wait a minute. Competition, going to be people with low scores, going to be people with high scores, and a "Standing"? I think I have an idea.

Since, the Peer Standing method would indeed become a contest or competition between players, why not make it to where only the low ranked actually able to increase the rank for the high ranked. Meaning after you earned a certain rank, anyone near/at/above the same rank as you CANNOT increase your rank. Meaning you are tempted to help the low ranked players to increase your Standing and compete with others?

09/30/05 17:28

DexAholic

Posts: 5
Joined: 09/06/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

@lani: the number would be calculated as follows:
(([total positive votes] - [total negative votes]) / [sum total of votes for player]) * 100

So you would see your percentage of positive votes out of your total votes. You could see the total number of votes by hovering the mouse over the percentage.

09/30/05 17:29

WingsofLead

Posts: 0
Joined: 08/07/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

@DexAholic

QUOTE

(([total positive votes] - [total negative votes]) / [sum total of votes for player]) * 100

So allowing for a negative percentage come to pass? While good in theory, one situation comes to mind. Others deciding to rate down a newbie right off the bat, giving them a negative percentage straight from the start. That would cause some problems. Though that is the only problem I can spot right off the bat.

Turn off compulsions of an engineer? Why do such a horrible thing? =P

09/30/05 17:36

lani

GameAmp Staff
Posts: 623
Joined: 09/08/2005
Credibility: 28 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

Sainty's post dit set me to thinking (so I'll probably end up double posting again, sorry).
Allthough Sainty's statement is a bit low on argument and high on passion imo, it does raise a nice question about my suggestion, is it wanted?

I'd say yes, but I'm approaching it from my own perspective, which is an incentive for people to ben respectful towards one another and use team-play more often, not to punish people for lack thereof. There's countless of psychological studies which show that reward is a better incentive than punishment. From what I gather, Sainty fears the system would be one of punishment of less socially capable people. Not my intention at all.

Is my idea reward or punishment. That's a good question. It all depneds on how people would react to this. So how would you all personally react to a system such as this? When picking team-members for example, as I believe this to be Sainty's fear, that people with low(er) Peer Ratings wouldn't be able to get parties to go with.

If that's so, the system itself isn't immediately flawed, there might be a different form of reward needed though. I'd be happy with Peer Ranking initself, but maybe for some a more material reward would be better, something along the lines of the faction system perhaps, where you could get items in exchange for your Peer Ranking. I've heard that a lot of people would like to be able to customize their items before selling them and be able to put their names on it. That might be a nice reward system. Just thinking here.

Once more, I'm looking for constructive criticism. If you think something won't work, by all means say so. Just add why it wouldn't work and if possible, what would work, if only just for you. So far posts have been admirably constructive btw :-)

Bored? Curious? Check out my "Gaming Experiences" Blogerette thingamjiggy whatchamacallit Now with Comment feature!

09/30/05 17:44

DexAholic

Posts: 5
Joined: 09/06/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

Ok, let me clarify here...I typed that last description too quickly:

The rating would be a percentage based on the number of positive votes you've received out of the total number of votes you've received:

(([total positive votes] - [total negative votes]) / [sum total of votes for player]) * 100

There would not be a Standing 'race' because there is no absolute numeric count, just the percentage, which cannot go over 100%.

You can vote one of three ways:
Positive Vote = +1
Negative Vote = -1
Neutral Vote (or no vote) = no change (but an actual neutral vote would add to their count and affect their rating)

You can only cast 1 positive vote for any given player once per week.

You can only cast 1 negative vote for any given player once every two weeks.

Limiting the allowable frequency of votes would prevent abuse of the system.

Hovering the mouse pointer over the Standing Rating would show the total number of votes a person has received. This would provide some context for the rating.

If a person gets into a negative Standing rating (below zero), each negative vote counting toward the negative rating would drop out after two weeks (or a week), eventually returning the person's rating to zero. That way you couldn't simply judge a person by having a zero rating...they could be bad or just new (everyone deserves another chance!). The two weeks of a negative rating should be enough punishment to make the person want to strive for better performace or social cooperation, but it does not damn them to a life of blacklisted status.

This way you would have to consistently maintain positive votes, neutral votes, or no votes to keep your percentage up, but there would never be any huge differences in people's ratings.

Seriously think about it. I think it's a fair system.

***THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED***

09/30/05 17:45

lani

GameAmp Staff
Posts: 623
Joined: 09/08/2005
Credibility: 28 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

Posts are flying hot and furious now :-)

@DexAholic: your system's very fair. But I think it's only fair on paper. In reality the negative percentage option would constitute, or alteast perceived as, punishment I fear. Something I wish to avoid. Hence my suggestion of positive votes only.

I did not make this clear at first, sorry. I've corrected that in my elaboration on Sainty's judgement. I'm also not set against this being somewhat of a contest, just that it should get harder and harder the further you go. I.e. it should be easier to get the first 25% than the last 25%, possibly impossible to gain 100% I do like the idea of a percentage rather than a number. Peer Ranking 3276 says very little in itself. Have 3276 people voted for me or what? If it's a percentage it's more acceptable if the meaning is obfuscated.

QUOTE (WingsofLead)

Since, the Peer Standing method would indeed become a contest or competition between players, why not make it to where only the low ranked actually able to increase the rank for the high ranked. Meaning after you earned a certain rank, anyone near/at/above the same rank as you CANNOT increase your rank. Meaning you are tempted to help the low ranked players to increase your Standing and compete with others?

Yeah, I like this. It's the opposite of my earlier suggestion of giving people with higher rating more weight, but that's ok :-) Effectively you could make a vote's weight dependent on the current rank. It'd take one or two votes to get from 5 to 6% but a couple of hundreds to get from 49 to 50% and thousands to get from 89 to 90% That sounds like something.

Bored? Curious? Check out my "Gaming Experiences" Blogerette thingamjiggy whatchamacallit Now with Comment feature!

09/30/05 17:59

DexAholic

Posts: 5
Joined: 09/06/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

QUOTE

@DexAholic

QUOTE

(([total positive votes] - [total negative votes]) / [sum total of votes for player]) * 100

Maybe we could give newbies an initial period of immunity to negative votes.

09/30/05 18:00

WingsofLead

Posts: 0
Joined: 08/07/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

@lani

QUOTE

It'd take one or two votes to get from 5 to 6% but a couple of hundreds to get from 49 to 50% and thousands to get from 89 to 90%

So its not a percantage, but a level system instead? Needing more "xp(votes)" to level up rather then sheer numbers. That could work, and prevent seeing negative numbers which is harsh on the psyche. Combine it with the fact that only the low level/ranked(By Peer System) players could give counting votes to a certain player of rank X and above, then maybe......

@DexAholic
Sorry Dex, but my thoughts are starting to get railroaded down Lani's style rather then attempting to deal with percentages. Also, negative numbers on a rating, I think, don't sit well with many people, especially those who recieve those.

***THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED***

09/30/05 18:09

DexAholic

Posts: 5
Joined: 09/06/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

QUOTE

QUOTE (WingsofLead)

Hmmm....I see what you're saying. That's why I was suggesting only allowing a player to cast a negative for another player every two weeks. You would have to be pretty upset to go through the effort of marking the next time you could cast a negative for them on your calendar! =P

That's also why I was suggesting that negative ratings fade away to neutrals over time...it's like a 'forgiveness factor'.

I was suggesting the straight percentage system to put people on equal footing with one another, at least outwardly. You could look at how many total votes they had to see how much weight you wanted to give to their rating.

The method you're proposing is more of a ladder paradigm (like leveling -- eeew!), which would reward people on quantity of votes instead of the overall quality of their performace up to a point in time. Once someone had ultra-high credibility and could never have it lowered what is their motivation? I think you need some kind of negative credit system, albeit a forgiving one.

Maybe a combination of my 'level playing field' concept with your 'weighted votes' concept would work...? I must say that a ladder system just feels like another race for numbers to me. I'm imagining some knucklehead who's been playing for a long time saying, "you listen to ME cuz I have 99% cred, punk!"

***THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED***

09/30/05 18:14

WingsofLead

Posts: 0
Joined: 08/07/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

@DexAholic

QUOTE

Once someone had ultra-high credibility and could never have it lowered what is their motivation.

Well, with higher "levels" you could have a higher "loss" of votes over time. The higher the level the more votes lost. Though being able to give a negative vote on a "level" system, is that what you meant? If it was, then that actually may work. While one vote won't cause a player to loose a level of Peer Standing, many would.

Oh, and if that experienced player did say that "Listen" to me line, they would probably have a sudden drop in their percentage.

***THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED***

09/30/05 18:24

DexAholic

Posts: 5
Joined: 09/06/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

QUOTE

@DexAholic

QUOTE

Once someone had ultra-high credibility and could never have it lowered what is their motivation.

That's my point. They would see a drop in their rating ONLY if people could give them a negative vote. This system also has a built-in system of weighting votes based on total number. The more votes you had contributing to your percentage, the more difficult it would be to change that percentage up or down (it would require more votes).

The more votes you had the more solid your standing would be. Over time it would take more and more votes to raise or lower your rating. If you had a lot of positive votes and your rating was high and then you only got negative or neutral votes for a long period of time your rating would begin to drop very slowly. If you were new with 10 positive votes and you got a negative vote, your rating would go down to 80% for a week or two before the negative would change to neutral, raising your rating back up to 90%.

The only time that negative votes would significantly affect your rating is if you were getting a lot of them over a short period of time (which would mean getting each one from a different person, remember?)

Also, if you made the negative votes temporary (they would change to neutrals over time), their rating would eventually level out to a slightly lower number (because of the neutral votes affecting the percentage), but it would always end up above zero.

***THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED***

09/30/05 18:33

lani

GameAmp Staff
Posts: 623
Joined: 09/08/2005
Credibility: 28 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

QUOTE

Oh, and if that experienced player did say that "Listen" to me line, they would probably have a sudden drop in their percentage.

Not sure if a quote within a quote is gonna work :-)

Anyway, I'm having a hard time believing someone with the "you listen to ME cuz I have 99% cred, punk!" attitude comming to that percentage with our combined systems. He certainly won't reach 98% that way. :-)
I understand the temptation of giving negative votes, but I'm still not happy with its obvious drawback. Besides that's what your Ignore list is for.

I do agree with a slow, steady drop over time of your rating though. It wouldn't do to have someone play the game, get about 60 or 70% Peer Ranking (which ought to mean he's a very good, very agreeable player), stop for two months and go back into the game then without checking any update info and start advicing people on their PVP/PvE builds. He'd likely be believed due to his ranking, but he might be way off.

Something that might do something along the lines of negative voting but not be that negative is if you've got points to distribute for players in a mission. Say an equal ammount as there are player-slots in the Mission minus one (yourself). Playing the Mission with less players than nessecairy might be a drawback. So some checks need to be in place to prevent 4 lvl 20's doing the great Northern wall just to give each other Ranking. But back to the idea. You'd have 5 points to distribute per mission, with one given to all 5 players if you abort voting (neutral). If theirs henchies they get a locked token vote of one. The rest you can distribute over the other players, giving some zero if needed, giving some all.
Hmmm buddy prone, isn't it? Well it's getting late, or it did an hour ago, really. I'm heading for bed and I'll see if someone else has some really bright idea in the morning. Cya.

***THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED***

Bored? Curious? Check out my "Gaming Experiences" Blogerette thingamjiggy whatchamacallit Now with Comment feature!

09/30/05 18:55

DexAholic

Posts: 5
Joined: 09/06/2005
Credibility: 0 pts

Re: GW Account credibility?

Ok, how about this:

The same as the percentage system I proposed before, except no negative votes. Neutral votes almost do the same thing, but less viciously. The more overall votes you have the more 'watered down' your positive votes will become. Therefore, neutral votes will slowly bring your rating down if you aren't getting the periodic infusions of positive votes.

If you think about how percentages work, most of the other things you guys are proposing are built-in while maintaining an extremely simple system. I admit that there would have to be a few tweaks here and there, but I would still prefer it to a one-way escalator. But hey, that's me. Who the hell am I anyway? ;-)

09/30/05 19:12

1 2 Next >

Don't Forget! - Rate users posts to reward or demerit their posts with Credibility!