Yeah. Matchmaking blows and Elo rankings barely help, if Overwatch is any indication. Any given match is a mixed bag and a large portion (30%+) of matches are pretty much a guaranteed loss before you even leave the spawn.
I was more talking about MMOs though, but it applies equally to all games for sure.
While I feel like this idea is good intentioned, player votes should not have in-game rewards or punishments. The only place I see for this sort of system is for a community spot-light. This would then be a +1/voting system to give player small recognition to their contributions (positive or potentially negative). Some examples:
* Most helpful player of the month
* Most helpful comment of the month
* Best Salesmen
* Biggest troll of the month
* Funniest Joke of the Month
* Most intriguing question of the month
* Etc etc
While this might be interesting I'm not sure where it would sit on VR's priority list of things to implement.
Edit: Potentially these spot-lighted people could gain in-game titles but that's as far as I'd take it. Definitely no global muting or additional loot benefits.
Rydan said:Feyshtey said:
What prevents horrible people from downvoting perfectly nice, polite and respectful people, just to be ... trolls.I was talking about using such system for NPC's.
So, NPC's are horrible people ? ... maybe you have a point or offended some devs, lol
Do you mean to say that NPC's would rate players? or players would rate NPCs? Or the rating of 1player upon a 2nd effected the second player's reputation with NPCs?
Feyshtey said:
Rydan said:
Feyshtey said:
What prevents horrible people from downvoting perfectly nice, polite and respectful people, just to be ... trolls.
I was talking about using such system for NPC's.
So, NPC's are horrible people ? ... maybe you have a point or offended some devs, lol
Do you mean to say that NPC's would rate players? or players would rate NPCs? Or the rating of 1player upon a 2nd effected the second player's reputation with NPCs?
Eh... let's say:
1. I meant your actions against the NPC's would give NPC's a view of you and pass that on to other NPC's (I bit like how I originally perceived it would be in EQ2 (or was that SWG?), but more in depth where a NPC personal character trade would also be a factor)
2. or, NPC's could rate a player, but that would need some nifty AI
smitty said:
... The only place I see for this sort of system is for a community spot-light. This would then be a +1/voting system to give player small recognition to their contributions (positive or potentially negative).
...
While this might be interesting I'm not sure where it would sit on VR's priority list of things to implement.
I know of a local popular site that uses reader voting based on good content\substance
So ppl vote on more or less informative constructive posts
In there's also a selection option to view all +2 and above, or +3 and above posts, so you can quickly find the more informative or mroe contructive posts about the subject
That helps sifting\reading through a big thread faster to get up to speed
Liav said:I think the assertion that any game has ever been "non-toxic" is something that probably needs to be discussed first, because a lot of arguments are contingent on this being true. It's important to look at this "per capita", as well.
Are games more toxic, or has the increasing popularity of games caused people to be exposed to more personalities? Does this inceased popularity increase the number of negative experiences, which demonstrably sticks out in people's minds far more than positive/neutral experiences?
What people perceive may not be an accurate reflection of how things actually are. That is my point.
I think games where the attitude of the Devs or company is "laissez faire" (rule enforcement is lax..trolls are rampant, cheats are rampant etc) is where you'll find the most toxicity. I've noted the increase of trolling in the past few years, seems like almost something they are proud of..ie: A new person asks a question regarding a quest or area they aren't sure of, and instead of a helpful response, they get ragged on..heh what is up with that? Is it that hard to give a short response and be done with it? :) (saw this in Lotro the other day) just no reason to be toxic but some are. Makes no logical sense.
Cana
Porygon said: You need toxic people in a game to define what is non toxic. Without people ninja looting, no one would know that's a toxic act. "Toxic" is based off of what is the norm. If randomly, a large % of people in the game start donating 1g to the tank for his durability repair, and you don't, you are now a toxic player. I think these systems tend to regulate themselves so long as name changing and server transferring is not allowed. Or at the least publicly recorded [porygon has transferred from server a to server b under the new name pory]. Reputation would follow players.
When grouping with clerics back in the day we would pool the gems (at least our groups did) to give to the cleric for their costs. Was just loot that dropped, and agreed upon by the group. Some would donate a few of their own, some didn't. All up to each person. We never considered that to be toxic, just a choice.
Cana
I think any system like this should just aid in what people will already do without it. People will take down names of trolls and the like and maybe pool their list with their friends or guild. I would like to see a system that allows you to ignore and take notes, but also provide a thumb up to mark when someone was nice to you with a similar section for a note.
If they want to go the extra mile, then you could automatically share your ignore and thumb up list with your friends and/or guild. Basically if you inspected a player you would see three reputation things - if you have left a note for the person, how many of your friends have ignored/thumb upped them (without notes), and how many people in your guild have ignored/thumb upped them.
The way to avoid abuse of a reputation mechanic is to require some minimum bar for whose opinions you actually should care about.
I really agree with Porygon that toxicity must be allowed so that people learn. If you have never seen a negative consequence from hitting someone you will have had no reason to learn that hitting people is bad.
I think maybe a game rating system that would allow a downvote or result in 'punishment' would probably be too easy to abuse. The less ethical among us would use it as a wespon, unjustly towards enemies who didn't necessarily deserve it. But the positive aspect might work.
I also like the idea of rewarding players for mentoring, and/or helping out the newer, less experieinced. But it would have to be done in a way that doens't reward you for mentoring your guildies or their alts, because you'd do that anyways, but instead true newbies. Maybe a mentor/mentee matchmaking system that would match up the experienced players with newbies, but ensure that you couldn't just pick who you were paired with. It would have to include some kind of incentive for the experienced player, to make it worth their while.
Rydan said:Eh... let's say:
1. I meant your actions against the NPC's would give NPC's a view of you and pass that on to other NPC's (I bit like how I originally perceived it would be in EQ2 (or was that SWG?), but more in depth where a NPC personal character trade would also be a factor)
So... Faction. Like has existed in most games since EQ's inception.
CanadinaXegony said:Porygon said: You need toxic people in a game to define what is non toxic. Without people ninja looting, no one would know that's a toxic act. "Toxic" is based off of what is the norm. If randomly, a large % of people in the game start donating 1g to the tank for his durability repair, and you don't, you are now a toxic player. I think these systems tend to regulate themselves so long as name changing and server transferring is not allowed. Or at the least publicly recorded [porygon has transferred from server a to server b under the new name pory]. Reputation would follow players.
When grouping with clerics back in the day we would pool the gems (at least our groups did) to give to the cleric for their costs. Was just loot that dropped, and agreed upon by the group. Some would donate a few of their own, some didn't. All up to each person. We never considered that to be toxic, just a choice.
Cana
Yea, but that wasn't "everyone". That was more the point . If everyone was giving all gems to clerics, and you started looting gems, all of the sudden people don't line you. People that are jerks give us a reference point for nice people. Just like bad players give a reference point for good ones.