Proposal for a player trust system

Proposal: Distributed web of player trust

Purpose

Many players find that it is very hard to avoid grouping with people they disagree with. The system described herein is intended to provide a mechanism for avoiding people one is unlikely to enjoy gaming with, and ease the process of finding players with the same style as oneself.


Feature Overview

* Labeling of players to several levels of trust
* Decay of distrust labels over time in order to allow redemption
* Screening to avoid teaming with strongly untrusted individuals


Use-case Overview

1. Rate a player to a trust level


System Overview

The system is at heart a distributed web of trust, much as the proposal headline would suggest. It works by letting a player assign any other player in the game a "trust level". One might use more complicated systems, but in order to keep it manageable this proposal limits the trust levels to "fully trusted", "trusted", "unknown" and "distrusted". In this way, a single player may mark any other player with a trust level, and have them displayed (for example with an "aura" that is individual to each viewer) accordingly.

Whereas the one-player trust system would be useable, and indeed a good addition in and of itself, the real utility comes from the propagation effect that assigning someone to the "fully trusted" level has. When one does so, players that the other player trusts also become trusted by you, though to a lesser degree. And the ones they in turn trust also aquire some trust with you.

An example:
You mark player Adam as "fully trusted"
Adam marks player Billy as "trusted".
Adam marks player Caesar as "fully trusted".
Billy marks player David as "trusted".
Caear marks player Edmund as "trusted".

When you view Adam, his aura will show 100% trust.
When you view Billy, his aura will show 50% trust.
When you view Caesar, his aura will show 50% trust.
When you view Edmund, his aura will show 25% trust.
When you view David, his aura will show 0% trust.

In this way, trust will propagate along "fully trusted" links (but only one-way) but not along "trusted" links. "Trusted" and "fully trusted" differ only in that "trusted" does not propagate trust levels, the contribution to the total percentage of trust is the same.

In the same way, distrust gives a negative trust score of -100% for a distance in the web of trust of 1, -50% for a distance of two etc.

Propagated trust is additive, with a maximum of +100 and a minimum of -100, so that if several people in your web of trust have rated a person, their trust level would reflect the sum of all contributions.

Negativetrust (distrust) decay over time. An example of trust decay would be 1% of complete distrust disappears every day after the first week, meaning that someone that has earned a bad reputation can redeem himself by good behaviour. A person who many trusts that turn bad will rapidly loose trust anyway, so I deem that no artificial decay is necessary.


Main GUI components

The "aura" that shows the level of trust a player has with you may be a literal aura, like the ones boss mobs have, may be a halo or other symbol that reflects the level of trust for the viewing player.

The trust assignment could be made to look very much like the friends/ignore list. As an added feature, a possibility of adding a note to each name on the trust list with the offence/merit of the player would be good for keeping track of how they earned their trust levels.


Use-Case elaboration

1. Rate a player to a trust level

Purpose: Enables a player to rate another player to a level of trust that is appropriate.

Actors: Player

Main sequence:
1. The rating player selects the player to be rated. Either through right-clicking on his name in the chat or party window, or by using /trust <level> <character name>
2. The composit trust is updated and displayed through the aura manifesting around the rated player.


Additional functionality

In order to avoid grouping with distrusted players, it would be good to add a filter that warns you if a player in the group you are joining is below a certain trust level. For most people, the breakoff might be -10% or 0%, but that can be left to the user to decide. The warning might be by way of a popup window that asks you to confirm that you really want to join with the distrusted player.


Closing words

Please note that this system does not stop a "bad player" from marking you as distrusted, on the contrary. In fact, you as a player will benefit from it. The people who foolishly marked the "bad player" as "fully trusted" are likely to enjoy his style of gaming, and having them shun you will be an added bonus of the system.

Likewise, it is difficult to exploit the system, as you cannot dictate who will mark you as "fully trusted" in any way. Some attempts at griefing might occurr, but, after all, who will mark a griefer as "trusted" a second time, no matter how strong his acting skills? Misplaced trust will decay over time or be revoked.

Those familiar with the PGP model of trust might see slight correlations

This could be abused by having everyone in a guild vote everyone fully-trusted and such. But I would love this idea, it is just to easily abused.

I understand your reasoning behind this, and although it is meritorious, it's a bit over the top...no?

Actually that was a well thought out and done proposal, the only real downside I see is you will see in town : Buyng Trust for 5000g

and you know you will =P

Ah, yes, but do you trust people who would sell their trust for cold hard cash?

The point of the system is that you only see the trust placed in other players by people you fully trust...

LOL. yes you probably will.

I actually liked his process, I was just commenting that it is a bit much to organize and maintain.

The downside to this is the Moral Scammer. They will sell trust, but will it be good trust? no it will be untrust, as they wouldn't trust anyone who buys trust.

couldn't I simply rate someone with 'distrust' and then run along to all my friends and get them to do the same...just because I wanted to? abuse of this system would be rampant.

Exaclty. If you see someone selling trust, simply put them as "untrusted" and anyone they trust will be untrusted to you.

I dont see why this would be a problem, because hopefully evenyone in your guild is fully trustworthy to everyone else in the guild. Also as it deteriorates over time it would mean that the guild would constantly have to rate each other which is silly. But more than that if it is a linking system (which reminds me of 6 degrees of closeness), then if you are outside of said guild and have no link to said guild then they are still shown as unknown to you even if they did give everyone favorable marks.

As for abuse, I dont think there is such a problem. Say a greifer marks you untrusted. Well since you dont like the person anyway chances are you wont team with them again. Also said greifers friends would see you as untrusted, chances are you wouldn't want to team with them either. You see said greifer as untrusted and all griefers friends as untrusted as well, so abuse would work itself out of the system from what I see.

So all in all I think this is a fantastic system that I would like to see as well.

My only question is the following. Say a person plays by themselves or with henchmen till say uh Aurua Glade (I know I missed spelled it I am at work and cant think of actual spelling right now). Then this person decides to get a team, but since he has never teamed he will be unknown to all. He would then find himself in competition to find a team over people who have teamed the whole way along and have built some trust lines.

Add a kind of timer, if a money transaction was done between both person, the trust rating wouldn't be recorded.

My Example was just that, purely an example.

People who play with henchman the entire game (and have never played guild wars with real people in a party), I would not trust, as they know little group skills.

if you want to elaborate on this plan, what about building guild ambassadors? the person can be a part of two guilds or even being able to build statuses against other guilds: hostile, neutral, allied, etc.

just my 2 cents.

Ah agreed, but it would just makes things difficult perhaps for some people. In a team you always want people who understand teamwork and henchies is hardly teamwork, just wanted to point out little things I guess.

Ah and just thought of this because of your post. This game is designed for the "casual gamer" if they play 2 hours on saturday and earn a decent amount of trust but aren't able to play again until Friday their trust may have worn off, even if they are a fantastic gamer but can only play occasionally. So the time for trust wearing off would become an issue esspecially since Guild Wars uses a lot of energy to market to the "casual gamer."

Edit: but overall I think this system would raise the effectiveness of PUGs and frankly the likability of everyone in the PUG because chances are they will have similar gameplay styles overall adding fun
/me support!

Maybe the trust would only wear away when you are on. but stays in stasis when you are off.

Mmmm, it is true, as you say IndyCC. The decay should only apply to distrust - Trust will wear off quickly the "natural" way if undeserved. I'll change the proposal to reflect this.

This is a fantastic idea!

Don't go and change your proposal just yet. because I do think that trust and distrust both should decay. The rate of decay and how it decays jsut should be considered.

The reason trust should decay is because say you haven't teamed with someone in a really long time, they may have altered their style, maybe becoming more elitist which you dont like or for whatever reason and later dont enjoy playing with them.

As you said distrust should decay to redeem yourself.

However I really like arnansnow's idea that it decays based on time logged not real time. but i am not sure how this would work as say you are a casual gamer and you highly trust a hardcore gamer who also highly trusts you. Since he is logged more than you would his trust some how decay faster than yours?

Maybe there could also be a number near the trust percent that tells how many people trusted/ fully trusted/ not trusted, so you could see who had lots of trust in the past, but hadn't played for a while, against the person who played a lot and had lots of trust, and so on.

I must caution against any system that makes it possible for a player to see which persons have marked them "fully trusted", or infer such information... If one can do that, the (slight) problem of selling trust might escalate. On the other hand, there is nothing that says you can't change you trust setting to "distrusted" after having liberated the poor fool of his money, hehe.

Just a couple of thoughts

I like such a system but I worry what it'd do to the monk profession. We get enough bum rap as it is. A rating system would give people yet another way to abuse monks.

Trust is also a charged word. Players who don't play well aren't dishonest. I would just a more neutral word like reputation.

You can give people who give you a bum rap a horrible trust rating, and anyways people will still ask for you even though you have a bad rating, because monks are rare late game.

Can someone go running around rating people and give them unsatisfactories across the board? I can certainly see a bunch of teenage boys tearing through Lion's Arch doing just that. Just like I see them chasing after someone and mocking them or doing something else stupid these days. They can skew the whole system right there. Or someone else who gets a bug under their skin getting a bunch of people to give you a bad rating. There's no way to stop that kind of griefing. It's just too easy to skew no matter if it wears off or not.

I really like the idea of a trust system. I think it will encourage a stronger sense of community in the game, which could use it. I like the trust aura around people, since it would be intuitive and visual.

I would use the eBay model though for assigning trust though. People would rate each other only after a 'transaction' - meaning a quest or mission. At the conclusion of a quest or mission (after it's completed successfully, or everyone dies), you'd have an opportunity to rate each other party member: positive, neutral, negative. This would reduce buying and selling of trust, I think, and outright prevent people running through town distrusting everyone.

Trust would be displayed as both the total number of people who have given positive ratings to a person, and a percentage of positive feedback. Trust would also be account-based, so you couldn't create characters just to boost someone else's trust level. With your account, you could only rate each other account once.

To prevent arbitrary negative feedback, someone's trust profile could also show how much of each type of feedback they have given. You wouldn't want to party with someone who marks everyone as negative...

It definitely encourages cooperative group play in PvE, since having a higher level of trust makes it easier to find groups. I also have had a great time playing with certain people, and it would be cool to have a way to reward them for their teamwork and let other people know they're good players.

It also makes guilds a little more meaningful: As an officer, you want to accept trusted people into the guild. And as a member, you know if you play well with a guild you'll have a nice beginning source of trust.

I don't think trust should decay. A profile could simply show the last 20 trust ratings, to show the 'trend' of a player. I'm not sure this system should apply in PvP either - it would be hard to resist a round of negatives after a loss, even if you knew the other team simply played exceptionally well.

In reply to Pashet's, and all "abuse" issues:

I think that the system sorts that out-- Other players would only see the "bad" rating if they had a direct link of "fully trusted" players to said Teenage Boys (or any other "abuser of the system"). The system, as I understand, works on a "web" of trust, with each individual player at the center, not on a "global" E-bay style rating system. The system would also be useful only to people who use it, i.e., people who have friends that are "fully trusted". Otherwise, every player would appear "unknown" save those that the player herself/himself rated. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Xanthar.) It seems like quite a brilliant system to me (though difficult to implement). The only problem is that webs might be very small if the system isn't put into wide use. The trick would be to make it very simple and quick to use.

Simple Example: (In a Guild Wars world of four players )
- Teenage Boy rates Innocent Bystander as "untrusted"
- John Doe, having no relation to Teenage Boy sees Innocent Bystander as "unknown"
- Griefer Joe who has Teenage Boy rated as "fully trusted" is the only one besides Teenage Boy who sees Innocent Bystander as "untrusted"

\n

In reality, couldn't you just trust them anyways, i mean, without having a system. I believe an idea was proposed like this for a group rating system. The idea of marking someone as trustworthy is too much wishfull thinking. Just because YOU think someone is trustworthy, does that mean that he/she REALLY is, no, it doesn't. If you trust someone, then you shouldn't have to put a label on him. Let people have their own opinions on the people they meet. Just because you think one way of someone, does that mean we all have to?

This sounds like a really good idea. (Although I disagree that ANY trust, good or bad, should deteriorate. You should earn your trust back the hard way! Or meet new people.)

I would prefer that there be more steps on the trust ladder- it seems like there's only a couple of real levels anyone's trust could be, and I would like a more refined scale. But the basic idea is really solid, and griefing free (if you take the time to think about it.)

Yes, the thought of it is good. But, it is easily abused and will encourage more group discrimination. If your an a**hole, and you act like it, chances are, you're not getting an a good group. Just because some retard lables you as untrustworthy, should you be punished? And, if you really did do something naughty, you shouldn't be punished in a long term way. A system as proposed will only make this game become like highschool (and I know what that is like, trust me ). People will be put into classes, Uber l33t trustworthy, trustworthy, untrustworthy, jerk...etc. People will judge you based only on OTHER people's opinions of you, and to me...that's just wrong.

So, to the people who would get bad ratings this is a bad idea, and to the people who would get good ratings, this is a good idea. Funny that.

No, if you're some jerk, who buddies up with other jerks to get a good rating, then would it not hurt the whole community? And, if you're some unlucky fellow who gets paired up with said jerks and gets a bad rating, is that fair? Nope, it's not. I ask you, what is the point in having a player trust system other than that you already have. You know the good people in the game, you have a friends list, you have your opinions on said people. If you want someone else to trust these people, refer them, make friends. You do not need some title in order to get into a good group/guild or otherwise. If you are a generally good person, and you can get along with people, you don't need a rating. If you're a jerk, you'll get ignored by most except for your fellow jerks.

If you are the jerk group, even if you gave eachother good ratings it wouldn't effect the whole community, and read above for why, I don't feel like saying what has been said before if you would look.

There will always be jerks in the game who love to make other people feel miserable. But if they give people bad ratings, then the people will give bad ratings back and no one will party with them.

Well, then there will be a war of bad ratings and no one would benefit. People really shouldn't worry about giving people ratings other than the casual, "your good, hope to play with you again."
I also do not like restating what was once said, if you would read my post to actually GET what I am saying, then i wouldn't.
Just to make it clear, here is my POINT, I was trying not to be rude before:
Look, this idea has NO use whatsoever in my opinion. It would give other people a reason not to group up with you because of a title. If you really like this person, group with him, if you don't then don't. No need for a bunch of whiny little brats to give you a bad rating, and then whining for not getting a good one.


And, you have helped make my point. "There will always be jerks in the game who love to make other people feel miserable." You're right, and this rating system would just give them another outlet to make people miserable, no matter what. The system won't stop them.

Lineage II has this exact idea and guess what? It doesn't work. Great idea, but like a previous poster said this would be HIGHLY abused.

If you're looking for people to trust, look towards your guild. I know sometimes you can't always find people who are availble help when you want, but it's better than nothing. If you're not happy with your guild, hit me with a whisper sometime...

Arthas006not7, I might presume, but I think that you have gotten the idea about the system a bit wrong, and since you are not the only one, I'll endeavor to explain a bit more.

The system, as it stands, gives noone a global "rating". You are not rated to anything visible across the game - The system is about letting YOU see what people your FRIENDS trust and distrust when it comes to grouping in GuildWars.

There is nowhere in the proposal anything about people being able to see how a random guy has been rated by the general populace, because that means nothing. Only when a buddy of yours, one whos judgement you fully trust, has met Joe Random and rated him will a status be visible for you. The same goes for anyone.

So take the famed example:
"Moron A" rates me as "distrusted" because I didn't res him within 30 secs after he stupidly died
"Moron B" marks "Moron A" as fully trusted.
"Joe Random" is no moron, so he marks neither "Moron A", nor "Moron B" as fully trusted.
What does "Joe Random" see when he looks at my shabby avatar? He sees me as unknown.
What does "Moron B" see? He sees me as "distrusted", and that is fine by me, since anyone stupid enough to fully trust "Moron A" or "Moron B" is very unlikely to be a good player.

Simple. Just have the decay over hours played, not actual time.


EDIT: oops, I wrote this right after reading the post.



And for how many others of you has the word 'trust' lost its meaning from the 200+ times it has been used in this thread? lol

Okay, from the way others explained it to me in PMs, I got the idea of a GLOBAL rating. I like the idea of a friends list rating, great idea. No realy need for decay though. Or, we could just make the friends list bigger.

A trust-system would be nice, but, as somebody already said, will always a target of abuse in some way.
The easiest way to know who you can trust or not is (when it comes to getting people on your team) to listen to your feelings.

You can usually see who fits your team and who doesn't after the first battle during a mission.
And often you can already tell, if you take your time and talk to your team-members before you start the quest/mission.

I usually pick people by their names.
If somebody has a name that I like, I invite the character.
It's not foolproove, but it's a system.

All this talk about abuse without addressing what was said prior in the thread makes me feel the need to quote myself. So read above, read whole thread.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...9997#post79997
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...0417#post80417

Just a review of what I brought to the table.

I don't know if this has been said allready, but what if you could only "rate" someone inside an instance? That would probably eliminate some of the abuse.