Host Rating

[Drakontis]

So, while I was playing the other day, I had an idea. We have had many discussions regarding hosts, both bad and good, and ways to regulate who is host. A "Do not want to host" option could result in the game being a deadzone as people try to connect to the 1 or 2 people who prefer to host. My idea, however is that there be a simple rating system for hosts. 

 

Game ends and a screen pops up before or after the rewards.

 

Rate this host. 

 

1 2 3 4 5 

 

1 being lowest, 5 being highest. 

 

As you play the game, your host rating improves, averages out, etc. When a match begins from the lobby, the player with the highest host rating average is chosen, resulting in *hopefully* everyone having a better experience in the game. People with little or no host rating would be excluded from being chosen unless everyone is in that tier so to speak, such as on Mercury. 

 

A reset could also be bought for platinum in case somebody changes their computer or ISP and want to have a better evaluation of their hosting ability. 

 

Player 1 is using a laptop with crappy internet connection. They move to a larger city with better internet and buy a gaming desktop, buy a reset and are able to host more reliably. 

 

It could be a decent way of getting people a better gameplay experience. 

[BlastGoggles]

People would rate terrible hosts positive ratings to troll or rate players who did not play skillfully in-game lowly.

[Unit5976]

And then someone rates the laggiest mofo 5.

 

I think the rating could be better calculated by a computer, measuring latency between the players, and then placing them on maybe a 1-1000 scale, starting at 500. If they have high latency and frequent lag spikes? They won't be placed so high in their next run when compared to other players and their ratings. Say, they're lowered to 430 after the first run, and then join a different run where a guy has 520. Mr. 520 over there gains priority as host over 430, since he has a better track record.

 

It could run based on an average taken from your previous 25 runs, so if you do get a better computer and connection, after 25 consistent runs that have gone well, you'll be back to hosting more often.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Unit5976

[SynthReBorn]

I 2nd this idea, or something along the lines of it.  Too many times have I connected to someone with ridiculous latency issues making the map nigh unplayable.  Also I don't have the "best" connection myself so it would be nice to have a system in place that would give everyone the best shot at a stable game.

[Quetzhal]

Players who get low host ratings in the first game they host will never be able to get a higher rating due to the game constantly picking others, and will therefore never be able to host - even if the cause of the low rating was either trolls or just a temporary bad connection (someone else decided to start downloading something on the same connection, for instance). These players should not be punished by having to pay real money in order to host. Also, I imagine certain players would get aggravated with constantly having to rate hosts after each match.

I also see a whole host of other problems, such as people using clanmates to get their host rating up, etcetera.

I do, however, like Unit5976's solution. It seems quite practical.

[Unit5976]

I do, however, like Unit5976's solution. It seems quite practical.

I aim to please.

[Drakontis]

I definitely thing that his idea is probably better than mine in the long run. 

 

Also, as of now, I don't think there's a reliable way of telling who the host is, so having people troll with 5's or 1's wouldn't be as much of a problem, especially since it is averaged out.