Suggestion For A Possible 'player Reputation' System

[FierceRadiance]

Here's a suggestion for a reputation system, something roughly like Apple's App Store ratings, or like eBay's feedback system.

 

First of all, it's a given that any system contains within it the possibility of being exploited, given enough cleverness, time, desire, and wiling exploiters.  That said...

 

The concept at its core would be fairly simple; A yes/no vote at the beginning of each mission, and a similar one at the end.

 

Let's start with the vote at the end first.  At the end of a mission, the participants would have to vote on who gets credit for completing the mission.  This vote wouldn't decide whether a given player gets completion bonii, that would still be determined by whether the player lived/made it to extraction in time, the same as it is now.  But it would decide whether the player gets the opportunity to receive anything at all for having played the mission.  (Obviously, ammo would have to be excluded from such a vote, as it is used during the mission.)  If a player received enough negative votes, it would mean that player would lose out on everything (other than ammo) they picked up along the way--all drops including boss drops, Fusions Cores, BPs, Artifacts, credits, etc. in addition to not getting any XP.  It would essentially be as if they hadn't played the mission, except that the fact that they were bounced at the end of a mission would be recorded.  It would take a majority vote to deny a player any mission benefits, i.e., 3 out of 4, 2 out of 3, or 1 out of 2.  If the Devs wanted, they could speed the system up by assuming that if a player makes no vote at all, say they just click "Okay" on the end-mission summary, then they are presumed to have voted 'yes' for everybody else in the mission.  All benefits, drops, etc. for a mission wouldn't accrue to players until after the conclusion of the mission, and a vote has been taken.

 

Players who quit out early pose something of a problem.  The simplest solution would be for the Devs to say that if you don't stick around till the end of the mission, either as alive or else as dead & spectating, you don't get anything for that mission -no XP, credits, drops of any kind, nothing.  But if they didn't want to make it so cut-and-dried, they could allow the other players to decide at the end, as described above.  Again, this would necessarily require drops (excluding ammo) not to accrue until after the mission has ended and everyone has voted.  So if you bail early on a mission, you don't necessarily know immediately whether or not you received anything for that mission.  Such a delay might serve as an incentive for players to stick it out and play out the whole mission.  Any players who quit before the end of a mission would not get to vote, but would be subject to a decision by the remaining players.

 

The vote at the beginning of a mission would be the conterpart to this 'kick' system, and would be where a player's Reputation would come into play - a yes or no 'play/no-play' vote at the beginning of a mission.  Each player would get to see the name and reputation of the other players in their potential group.  They could see that each potential teammate has played X thousands of missions, and has received X number of 'no-benefits' votes.  This would also be expressed as a percentage number, so that the voting player has enough information to make a quick five- or ten-second decision on whether they want to play with this group or not.  This vote would be a simple thumbs-up or thumbs-down choice about playing as a part of this particular group, not whether to kick a particular player out of the group.  In effect, 'this is your potential group, take it or leave it.'  That way, rushers -or any other 'problem chiddren'- would eventually become known for their behavior.  The system might even become self-correcting, as players who cause problems will either gain the reputation they deserve and end up playing mostly with others of their kind, or might possibly change their behavior rather than earn a poor reputation.  (Eh, we can hope...)

 

Yes?  No?  Suggestions and improvements?  What say you, Tenno (and Devs)?

[SparklesnChaos]

I see zero reason for this.

 

It would cause nothing but problems.

[bulwarklion]

No.

[Guest Sess1on]

I see zero reason for this.

 

It would cause nothing but problems.

This

[Saziel]

This is asking for trouble. Do not want anything like this.