Thoughts About The Coming Reputation System

[FierceRadiance]

I originally posted this as a comment on a thread on the GD forum, but I'll follow Ced23Ric's advice and put it here also.

 

TL:DR  Any "reputation" system must include the option of expressing a negative opinion.

 

I'm concerned that DE, based on just the little bit we know so far, doesn't want a 'reputation' system, they want a 'positive reputation' system.

 

Reputation is -and should be- a door that swings in two directions, both positive and negative.  One of the things which troubles me is that, as I understand it, the system Steve broadly outlined in the LS seems only designed to offer players a positive benefit for playing with the same people over and over again, which as far as I can tell is pretty much what's currently happening already, with the introduction of the clan system and the strong incentives the game offers to join a clan.  If this impression of the new reputation system is correct, does that in-place mechanic really need a buff?

 

Also, if the reputation system only reflects the opinion of a relative handful of recent players (because it decays) doesn't that imply that everyone who plays with mostly their friends will always have a good reputation, regardless of their actual behavior?  This isn't how reputation actually works in a society, such as the WF community.  It isn't enough that a given player's five or ten best buds think he or she's a great person.  What should matter is how the community as a whole views them. 

 

Take griefer Lokis, to use an obvious example.  There's a subset of WF players who love using Loki to screw around with other players, teleporting them away from elevators or loot, rushing levels, etc. (full disclosure: Loki is the Norse god of mischief).  Within their circle of friends, this behavior may well be seen as reputation-worthy.  But I don't want to play with griefers like this, and based on the steady stream of forum threads, I suspect a majority of the WF community doesn't, either.  Will the reputation system address the issue of griefers, or defense heroes, or the modest handful of other gameplay styles considered obnoxious by a majority of players?  If not, then don't call it a reputation system. 

 

Please note that the system I hope DE will put in place doesn't (and shouldn't) call any particular behaviors "wrong".  But what it should do is reflect what a majority of players feel about such behaviors, which is exactly what a person's reputation does in real life.

 

I also realize that DE walks a very tricky line by offering players the option of, essentially, leaving negative feedback for fellow players.  A business rarely wants to place itself in the position of saying anything bad about it's customers, or even to be seen as encouraging others to do so.  Those of us who have been around long enough will recall the up/down voting system for thread comments, and DE gave the downvote option the axe after a relatively short period.  But how can you implement a system, any system, which attempts to reflect people's opinions without offering them the option of saying, in effect, 'I don't like this'?

 

A system that encourages behavior which doesn't need encouragement, but which ignores bad behavior, is not, IMO, something the game needs.   A true reputation system, which would reflect a majority of players' opinions regarding gameplay style with an enduring reputation score, is something I think the game could use.

[Soaron]

The problem with negative reputation is that you can't measure the players maturity. There are a lot of players that will straight out give you negative reputation solely on the fact that they didn't like the colors of your frame.  You might think this is an exaggeration, but I've seen plenty insulting in the game chat for zero valid reasons (like weapons being used or colors you chose).

 

Somebody "stole" your kills? You give someone negative reputation.

Somebody didn't revive you? You give someone negative reputation.

You are kinda drunk and feel a little trolly? You give someone negative reputation. ETC.

 

So with positive reputation, ONLY when you actually feel a player was good, you would give it. It takes a lot more honesty and its harder to give someone praise than to just rag on someone, or troll them.

[FierceRadiance]

You're absolutely right. Studies routinely show people are much more likely to complain than to praise.

But don't you think over time, good will out? Maybe I'm naive, but I believe there are far more good and decent players than trolls in WF (the forums notwithstanding LOL). And I have faith that, over time, the number of good ratings will outweigh the bad ones enough to make the system self-correcting.

[eksby]

If we look at other games with reputation systems, I'm not so sure that good will outweigh bad. Most people usually only rep you when they dislike you, but very rarely do people give others good rep unless they felt that the person was incredibly awesome. But one perceived $&*^ move? BAM, negative rep for you!

[OblivionNecroninja]

I think you're selling Loki (the norse god) a LITTLE short there.
EDIT: Also, what are "defense heroes"?

Edited August 17, 2013 by OblivionNecroninja

[Holynight6]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the rep system they outlined in the LS basically a "if you play with the same people a lot you'll get small bonuses when playing with those people"?

 

 

You're absolutely right. Studies routinely show people are much more likely to complain than to praise.

But don't you think over time, good will out? Maybe I'm naive, but I believe there are far more good and decent players than trolls in WF (the forums notwithstanding LOL). And I have faith that, over time, the number of good ratings will outweigh the bad ones enough to make the system self-correcting.

 

I agree. Too many people put their own words in other peoples mouths just to feel like they're right. You should assume good intentions. Judge people on what they say and do, not what you wanted them to say or thought they meant.

 

Back on topic though, isn't this system (assuming I've got it correct) just DE's spin on the "recommend a friend" feature most MMO's offer nowadays? Get your friends into Warframe, play with them a bit and you could both get some nice bonuses! - that sorta thing?

 

EDIT: The whole idea of defense is to protect the pod against waves of enemies. A defense hero is someone who does the opposite. They "attack the mobs trying to get to the pod". Usually this entails fighting mobs in their spawn or away from the rest of the group and the pod and generally trying to take all the kills for themselves. It's frowned upon because it's a risky strategy that only rewards the "hero", makes it more difficult for the rest of the team to grab pickups and generally makes the game less fun for those people who don't get to fight mobs because the "hero" killed them all.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Holynight6

[OblivionNecroninja]

Um... Does "defense hero"ing include jumping into a group of mobs, dropping an Ult, and then running back to the Pod? Because I'm guilty of that by virtue of it feeling like a good strategy...

Back on topic: I kinda feel like what would inevitably happen with a Reputation system with downvotes is that the Rushers and the Non-Rushers would just be constantly downgrading each other.

[Chakramx]

Seeing that this negative reputation has got an infamous name towards it how about it introducing an average.

Supposing some random guy gave you bad rep due to him dying so far away, and you couldn't help him.

If other people dont give bad rep within a set time about that same cause then maybe it could be ignored thus eliminating hordes of bad rep, same with good rep to make it even more fair

[FierceRadiance]

The whole idea of defense is to protect the pod against waves of enemies. A defense hero is someone who does the opposite. They "attack the mobs trying to get to the pod". Usually this entails fighting mobs in their spawn or away from the rest of the group and the pod and generally trying to take all the kills for themselves. It's frowned upon because it's a risky strategy that only rewards the "hero", makes it more difficult for the rest of the team to grab pickups and generally makes the game less fun for those people who don't get to fight mobs because the "hero" killed them all.

I'll add one more negative for Defense Heroes; kill XP is shared amongst the members of a group, as long as the members are physically close enough to each other.  When one (or two) members run off to the spawn point, often they end up so far away from the rest of the team that the teammates don't get to share in their XP for any kills they make.  This is the same problem that rushers create when they leave the rest of the team behind, although rushers often skip past most of their possible kills.

 

The basic problem, as I in my infinite wisdom see it (/sarcasm), this is a coop game.  You're expected to play as part of a group, working together to achieve a goal.  Many of the problems a reputation system might address stem from a common issue: people who want to play the game in a way that forces others to either play the same way, or else lose out on some benefit(s) or reward(s).  If a player wants to play Warframe in a way that can cause others to miss out, they're free to do so - by playing in Solo mode.  That way they get what they want, and nobody else is affected by their choices.  But many of these same folk don't want to play by themselves, and that's where the trouble starts.

Edited August 17, 2013 by PanUmbrian

[Enguzrad]

What kind of reputation system are we talking about? Just simple good / bad or we could express more complex traits of a player? Could we be able to mark a player as a rusher or as a good team player? And would it relate just to a player or it would take into account what warframe he was using? Because you can use Ash and do missions stealthly and other players marks you as good stealth player but you won't be doing missions stealthly when you are leveling some other frame.

[Moonsword86]

Until we know what the reputation will be for certain, all that is happening in this thread is speculation.

 

DE are currently saying that the rep system is A, but when testing A, they find that is breaks the game and have to come up with rep system B, which is slightly different from A.

 

What I am trying to say here is, wait for it to come out.