New Feature: Player Reputation - Already Coded, Just Waiting For Implementation

[MarkField13]

Some of you may have already seen this, but I managed to capture it on video and talk a little bit about why we need it, and how it'll improve the game greatly, especially for PUGs. Additionally, this was a crazy map glitch, which is a bit odd.

 

 

[Xorpheus]

that is interesting. 

[-Kittens-]

Pretty sure self rating will pretty much find the same use that it does in LoL, ie abused horribly unto death by people who think they are the gods of gameplay because they play a very simple and direct tactic-derived game with a style they copied from a youtube or twitch video of a much better player.

 

It would be nice if the community is actually mature enough to use it responsibly...

 

 

ahahahaha I'm sorry, I couldn't finish that with a straight face, this community will abuse the hell out of this feature if it is in fact implemented as it's shown there.

Edited August 15, 2013 by -Kittens-

[Krotalon]

There's no negative feedback on the player reputation panel, which is needed.

 

this community will abuse the hell out of this feature

But this.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Krotalon

[InsomniacOvrLrd]

I saw the screen after dying on wave 18 on xini. There was a connection hiccup, and the rest of the team disconnected (hope they got hostmigrated). I couldn't keep them off the pod, died, and chose not to use a revive. The enemies all went into idle, and the unfinished reputation screen came up. I was unable at that point to fail the mission because nothing was attacking the pod, and unable to interact with the menu in any way.

 

The only solution was alt+F4. A bummer, and some wasted time.

[Hybridon]

Pretty sure self rating will pretty much find the same use that it does in LoL, ie abused horribly unto death by people who think they are the gods of gameplay because they play a very simple and direct tactic-derived game with a style they copied from a youtube or twitch video of a much better player.

 

It would be nice if the community is actual mature enough to use it responsibly...

 

 

ahahahaha I'm sorry, I couldn't finish that with a straight face, this community will abuse the hell out of this feature if it is in fact implemented as it's shown there.

 

If it only has positive stuff, and no negative ones, it will only be abused by friends up rating each other.

 

I think the biggest issue would be negative stuff in the reputation board, that would be really abused.

 

But I never played LoL, so Im not sure what could happen other than friend abuse, ofc, if its just positive stuff on the rep board.

[ClockworkSpectre]

No, no, and NO.  This post pretty much says how I also feel about it...

Pretty sure self rating will pretty much find the same use that it does in LoL, ie abused horribly unto death by people who think they are the gods of gameplay because they play a very simple and direct tactic-derived game with a style they copied from a youtube or twitch video of a much better player.

 

It would be nice if the community is actual mature enough to use it responsibly...

 

 

ahahahaha I'm sorry, I couldn't finish that with a straight face, this community will abuse the hell out of this feature if it is in fact implemented as it's shown there.

 

If the reputation was given in an impartial manner then fine, but people are not impartial.  Just like a vote kick system this would be abused like hell. 

[Eirshy]

Vote Kick wouldn't be abused like hell, and if it was people would be infamous for it and suddenly nobody would want to play with them.

 

All-Positive reputation systems are fine, they're just relatively meaningless without vanity rewards that require diligence and *random pugs* to obtain.

 

 

League's honor system was actually a good idea and implemented fairly well in the back end. The front end was not.

 

Complete strangers giving you honor was weighed much more heavily than people you played with regularly (to put it in the simplest form possible). The only real problem was that the comunity kinda forgot about it after a month or so, largely because the front end (what people saw) was just the number of times you've been honored, not the actual value of the honor you had. As such it was a generic e-peen value which could be stroked by your friends ad nausium. The ribbons added a little bit of achievement to the system, but Riot wasn't overly clear on how they worked (unless you, like me, did the research), so most people got disheartened when they saw their friend with 20 teamwork points have a teamwork ribbon, yet their 70+ teamwork points not have one.

 

The week it was released was probably the best week for a MOBA comunity in the history of MOBAs- because everyone was fishing for honor, so they were being overly courteous and team-spirited while the limelight was there, as directly asking for honor or offering honor trades was reportable (and getting convicted in the Tribunal results in a loss of all honor).

 

Honestly as much as people bag on Riot, they've actually made a lot of headway on the backend mechanics. It's just their inability to give people an accurate representation of F***-all on the front end has been absolutely terribad. Oh, and a lot of their programming backend is horror-show quality. I know this thanks to a friend of mine who has been reverse-engineering the client for S#&$s. One example... I actually can no longer ask why the patcher takes so long... I actually know the reason why.

Edited August 13, 2013 by TheBlueJelly

[MarkField13]

All-Positive reputation systems are fine, they're just relatively meaningless without vanity rewards that require diligence and *random pugs* to obtain.

 

Complete strangers giving you honor was weighed much more heavily than people you played with regularly (to put it in the simplest form possible). The only real problem was that the comunity kinda forgot about it after a month or so, largely because the front end (what people saw) was just the number of times you've been honored, not the actual value of the honor you had. As such it was a generic e-peen value which could be stroked by your friends ad nausium. The ribbons added a little bit of achievement to the system, but Riot wasn't overly clear on how they worked (unless you, like me, did the research), so most people got disheartened when they saw their friend with 20 teamwork points have a teamwork ribbon, yet their 70+ teamwork points not have one.

I'd like to see a system similar to league, but setup so that you can vote for individual things. So its not just "teamwork" or "helpful", but you can say "helpful was 7/10, but teamwork was only 3/10". That could give some pretty interesting ratings for players.

 

I kind of imagine something like this. It makes sense to give more weight to a non-premade group vote, rather than counting them all equal. Same holds true for clan votes. If someone in your clan upvotes you, it shouldn't count as much as some random Joe that happened to be in your game. I'd like to see this implemented in a way that you are able to view the other player's stats before starting a match. So, when you're advertising a void run and are looking for people to participate, you can see their score before the game starts, and then we'd need some way to kick that person out if you're the host to find another, more favored, player BEFORE starting the game. i'm not talking about vote kick from within the game, but some way to know a bit about the player before starting, similar to the gear score in many games (WoW, RuneScape I think, etc...).

 

While the score would always be relative to other scores (meaning that a flat score of 100 is meaningless unless you know several others only have 50), and would possibly be abused (but that can be dampened by scaling how much votes count for), I think it could be more positive than negative. If you imagined a point system where random player votes count for 5 and group/guild votes only count for 1, you're looking at the possibility of 15 points by doing good with random strangers, vs only 3 points when you have someone who could be upvoting just because. You'd have to play 5 more games with guildies than the other people who just play PUGs. The score would be more of an indication of "how good this player is for the player base," and not "how often he is upvoted by friends". If a downvote was implemented, it would have to be setup carefully, so that people didn't fall into a dark abyss of down votes. So that good ones could outweigh the bad ones eventually. Also, if you constantly gave downvotes without giving upvotes, your own votes would stop counting as much. Same with upvotes. If you continually upvote, your votes should count for marginally less, under the assumption that not EVERYONE you play with is good, and that you're potentially spamming good just because. As has been mentioned, there are several things that make this kind of system very complicated, especially if you try to incorporate anti-abusive systems.

 

Either way, its definitely welcomed on my part.

[Thelonious]

More likeky, hopefully, a reputation score based on teamwork actions: you gain "points" for rezzing, you lose some for dying, etc...

Could be extended to top stat players, even if being the top kill player is not necessarily the sign of being a "good" player, teamwork-wise. Or having the most item pickups for that matter.

 

Could also be tied to the already implemented skill system, where you get points for each successful mission, but lose everything if you fail or abort.

You'd get points for successful missions (+1), and lose even more for failing or aborting (-5 for example).

 

In short, it could be the ELO equivalent for a pve game.

 

But anything active like a vote system is bound to be abused.

[Bakercompany86]

Yeah it popped up at the end of a defense mission for me (and froze us in the game).

 

 

Cool feature.  Good idea.

[Eirshy]

More likeky, hopefully, a reputation score based on teamwork actions: you gain "points" for rezzing, you lose some for dying, etc...

Could be extended to top stat players, even if being the top kill player is not necessarily the sign of being a "good" player, teamwork-wise. Or having the most item pickups for that matter.

 

Could also be tied to the already implemented skill system, where you get points for each successful mission, but lose everything if you fail or abort.

You'd get points for successful missions (+1), and lose even more for failing or aborting (-5 for example).

 

In short, it could be the ELO equivalent for a pve game.

 

But anything active like a vote system is bound to be abused.

 

The problem with a system like that is it can never capture everything. Maybe you died because your ally dove in front of you as you fired your Ogris. Maybe you didn't get the revive because you were the Banshee that hit 4 to stall everything so someone could go revive the guy safely. Kill count? Ignoring Nova, a good sniper focuses on killing the biggest threats as fast as possible, and leaving the weak trash to the rest of their party to take down. As such, I find myself only really killing Heavy Gunners, Ancients, and Fusion Moas during void runs- because the "trash" doesn't need a weapon like a 5x Forma'd Lanka to oneshot, and delaying killing something that does is actually poor play.

 

Or going back to League of Legends... I had a game where I had a feeder score (3/7/2 or something terrible like that; was back before Eve's current incarnation, back before they had removed her stun; the enemy kept buying Oracles and I was already having an off day to make it worse) where the entire reason we won was because I baited a teamfight that ended in a 1 (me) for 5. Hell, my first ever ranked game I went 8/3/23 on Ahri, and if you asked anyone in that game I was the primary reason we won, as me and our jungler shut down theirs, I shut down their mid, and then proceeded to gank all day every day till all of our lanes were forced into a win.

 

You can't easily track plays with statistics. And you also can't destinguish plays from dumb luck with statistics. Only another player can even hope to make that distinction.

[MarkField13]

The problem with a system like that is it can never capture everything. Maybe you died because your ally dove in front of you as you fired your Ogris. Maybe you didn't get the revive because you were the Banshee that hit 4 to stall everything so someone could go revive the guy safely. Kill count? Ignoring Nova, a good sniper focuses on killing the biggest threats as fast as possible, and leaving the weak trash to the rest of their party to take down. As such, I find myself only really killing Heavy Gunners, Ancients, and Fusion Moas during void runs- because the "trash" doesn't need a weapon like a 5x Forma'd Lanka to oneshot, and delaying killing something that does is actually poor play.

 

Or going back to League of Legends... I had a game where I had a feeder score (3/7/2 or something terrible like that; was back before Eve's current incarnation, back before they had removed her stun; the enemy kept buying Oracles and I was already having an off day to make it worse) where the entire reason we won was because I baited a teamfight that ended in a 1 (me) for 5. Hell, my first ever ranked game I went 8/3/23 on Ahri, and if you asked anyone in that game I was the primary reason we won, as me and our jungler shut down theirs, I shut down their mid, and then proceeded to gank all day every day till all of our lanes were forced into a win.

 

You can't easily track plays with statistics. And you also can't destinguish plays from dumb luck with statistics. Only another player can even hope to make that distinction.

 

 Yes, and no. You're right in your examples of very difficult situations in which you should be (or shouldn't be) awarded positive points, but those are edge cases. If you look (using League again) at a player's track record, and constantly see that they are 2/5/25, 1/4/30, 0/1/4, etc... you know that they play a support/tank class and their primary feature isn't the kdr, but their assist count. That can be taken into account, using different kinds of algorithms (an assist counts as 1/2 a kill for instance). While it may be that a hard carry who constantly gets 15/3/4 will probably out-rank (in terms of gaining positive points) that earlier tank/support, the carry obviously knows what he is doing and does a good job at it. If you setup algorithms carefully enough, it could be the fact that you won earned you more points than the fact you went 25/2/1... Additionally, you can go 1 step more advanced and base the ratings not only on the player, but also on who they're playing and how they should be played. You get into an issue of having the game designers say "this is how this warframe/champion should be played, and not any other way" issues (like when I go carry Cho'Gath and destroy lanes, rather than tanky. But there are additional ways around that.

 

Ultimately I think it should be a combination of both system rating & player rating, which can then get combined however DE chooses to do so.