Reputation System, would you want it?

[SquireAngel]

So, most veteran players, and probably a good number of newer players have had it happen. You're sitting on recruiting, see a keyshare, and you join. Everyone puts a key up, except that last guy. Comes around to his turn, and he bolts faster than a fat guy after free cookies. Almost anyone can experience the frustration, when you get an AFK player for the entire mission, leeching up all the loot you and your team mates have at least diligently collected. Now, you can certainly try reporting the AFK players, but really, we've all had the one time we started a mission, and had to step away, so do we really want DE to bring down some hammer on us? I'd say no. However, It would be nice to be able to avoid those lazy players, looking for nothing but a free ride. Enter the reputation system. Under the profile viewing section, you would see a rate up or rate down option, and their overall general 'score' . Say you're going to run a t4sab keyshare. You invite all those randoms, and it's time to show keys. You take the moment to look at 2 of the profiles. One guy has a -4 score, but was first to show his key. Oh, he probably just died alot in a draco or two, you think. However, you look under the last guy, who says he'll put his key last, and he has -100 reputation. You smell a naughty naughty boy, tell the others you'll reinvite them, and then proceed to disband the squad. You reinvite the other 2, and leave the guy, who got so low in rating by skipping out on his keys in keyshares, from mooching your last spot. You invite a new guy, who has a +15, and everyone shares a key. 

This is one of the more direct applications, with you able to avoid getting burned by devious minds, looking to laze about. You could use it trading, if someone seems to offer a trade outside of just, here you go and here you go. It would allow clan leaders to keep tabs on just how toxic a member may be upon inviting them. Nice, patient souls could earn more rep by answering questions for flustered newbies, showing their good spirit, and getting a non-existent golden star for not being an &#!. Being indiscriminately trollish has the appeal because it won't back lash on you. But, should a player troll too hard, and it starts to bar him from raids/void runs/etc., because now it has something of a player trackable record, Now, this doesn't directly punish us, as we all tend to get that fiendish little itch, and grab our valkyr, loki, or limbo, and fluster our team mates just a tiny bit. With each player only able to rate once, it would prevent one persistent player from dragging a good player's name through the mud, or a singular troll creating an alt, and just spamming up to fix his horrible rep. 

[DakotaStorm]

Oh hell no, it would be abused like crazy.

[Genoscythe]

5 minutes ago, DakotaStorm said:

Oh hell no, it would be abused like crazy.

Basically this, too many trolls and people that would downvote just because.

[EothasianBoar]

Just a thought. please don't get too offend by this.

What will prevent the situation where A and B got personal beef. A is well known in A's own community, so A rally A's community to downvote B.

[Genitive]

Good as it sounds I also see quite an abuse potential.

[ThreeLeggedSnek]

Would like to see a test run. Also, a way to prevent trolling/abusing would be looking at how many times the reporter gives minutes rep. For example, someone who reports/-rep's 100 times a day is obviously abusing the system; there is no way he/she could have encountered that many in one day.

[RideaTear]

Its a good idea if it was used correctly but it certainly wouldn't be.

[Kazzamo]

They considered a reputation system at one point. There was even a bug where the UI for it would show after missions some times. It was scrapped and with that being the case I doubt DE has any plans to release one.

[PurpleBomber]

I don't really see the harm in just reiterating what DE has already implemented here on the forum: no downvote, only upvote. It does not and would not directly identify a "bad" player, no, but... well, I guess I don't really need to justify something that's already been implemented once, lol.

[(PSN)PillarOfWar]

1 hour ago, DakotaStorm said:

Oh hell no, it would be abused like crazy.

That for sure. In soooo many ways. 

[AutoPhox]

Even if you ignore or mitigate the trolling, there's still this disparity:

What if pubs don't bother rating randos? Now, the only people that look good are those that play with friends and clans. Pubbers look like they haven't been playing for weeks because no one bothers to use the rep system.

Sorry, any kind of rep system just ruins games like this.

[Raztan]

Bad idea from start because this requires people with common sense to work... and common sense well aint that common.

[(XBOX)Graysmog]

4 minutes ago, Raztan said:

Bad idea from start because this requires people with common sense to work... and common sense well aint that common.

[MagPrime]

Yeah...no....

It's been said; this system would be abused.  If it was upvote only, then I could get behind it, but certainly not a downvote option.  

Aside from abuse, I don't think that kind of reputation system would be good; just look at what we have here on the forums.  I have 10k (wtf) reputation points and I can honestly say that most of that comes from either Off Topic or being snarky.  

[Mastikator2]

A block system would be more than sufficient, make it so a person on your ignore list can't join a pug you're hosting, and make it such that you won't join theirs.

Find a bad player? Block them.

"Oh noes people are blocking other people" that is not  problem, that is a solution to the problem.

[MagPrime]

2 minutes ago, Mastikator2 said:

A block system would be more than sufficient, make it so a person on your ignore list can't join a pug you're hosting, and make it such that you won't join theirs.

Find a bad player? Block them.

"Oh noes people are blocking other people" that is not  problem, that is a solution to the problem.

Even better. Ignore is insufficient; a true block system would be perfect.  

IIRC a true block system means that blocking a player results in; you/they can't see anything you post/broadcast, you/they can't join PUG's with you/them.

[Sixty5]

It honestly sounds like something people would grind, as in

Hosting rep farm X mission, fast frames only. 

Wouldn't be hard to form a group of 4 and speedrun low level stuff and give everyone big plusses after. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see something like that in the game, but I don't think it would work. 

[Genoscythe]

5 hours ago, PurpleBomber said:

I don't really see the harm in just reiterating what DE has already implemented here on the forum: no downvote, only upvote. It does not and would not directly identify a "bad" player, no, but... well, I guess I don't really need to justify something that's already been implemented once, lol.

 

They actually considered exactly that for the game. They spoke about it maaaaaany devstreams ago, I do not remember if they said why it hasn't been implemented finally.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Genoscythe

[DxAdder]

Blocking is a much better solution

[DJ_Redwire]

Very simple - each time you're in a squad with a user you've never played with before, you have the option to give them an 'up vote.' Once you've up voted that person, you can no longer give them any more up votes, and they are essentially marked positive (unless you redact it later, and then up vote them thereafter). This prevents both the existence of 'negative' reputation, and also prevents players abusing the system by repeatedly up voting each other. 

[Torhque]

20 hours ago, DJ_Redwire said:

-snip-

A personal rep system that only you can modify would be great. I imagine it'd be similar to Xbox Live system where you can individually Prefer or Avoid players you've played with. 

Yeah the ignore system exists for the players you wish to avoid, but there's no option to essentially give randoms a "thumbs up" to increase your chances of getting paired up in the future.