Dear GuildWarsGuru,
I have not looked at each thread in this forum to confirm that this idea has not been mentioned before, but I have tried a few searches and no dice, so if I'm repeating an old idea, I apologize.
I was debating with someone in another forum about the merits of posting user names of good/bad players. I realize that this is a touchy issue, however I think we can at least come up with a reasonable way to track /good/ players.
The idea is to have a section of Guild Wars Guru dedicated to player feedback. So let's say I'm a registered user, I now have a feedback tag. When someone parties with me they can come visit my feedback page on guild wars guru to see my feedback score. If they enjoy their experience partying with me, they can leave good feedback for me. If they do not enjoy their experience, they can leave neutral/negative feedback. Negative feedback can include a link to some offsite screen shots of a player cursing or somesuch.
Hence when a person goes to ToA or UW for a run, they might say, "group needs a healer, needs vent & guild wars guru feedback". Anyhow, this wouldn't so much track bad players as it would allow people to make informed decisions and essentially expand their friends list of "good" players far more than the 50 names allowed on that list. At the same time, it would give a person an incentive to not go grief a group if he/she cared about his/her feedback on guild wars guru.
I realize that this may be a rather involved process, hence I can volunteer some of my time for this project. I know HTML, PERL, some Java, some Javascript, some PHP & MySQL, and I've (sadly) dabbled in ColdFusion.
Please let me know how you feel about this idea.
-Diomedes
Player Feedback
Diomedes
Inde
Nothing wrong with CF 
Personally, I am not a big fan of feedback systems for online gaming. From my own experience, the amount of trolls that an online game can generate is amazing. There are guilds with hundreds of members that are based soley on griefing. Imagine have that guild then go out and grief such a user rating system. This not only applies to rating people bad, but also people good.
Then again, a modified version with a rolling average would perhaps work. '15 of 25 people would group with this person again (taken from last 30 days)'.
Im gonna let THX/kzap make the final call here
Personally, I am not a big fan of feedback systems for online gaming. From my own experience, the amount of trolls that an online game can generate is amazing. There are guilds with hundreds of members that are based soley on griefing. Imagine have that guild then go out and grief such a user rating system. This not only applies to rating people bad, but also people good.
Then again, a modified version with a rolling average would perhaps work. '15 of 25 people would group with this person again (taken from last 30 days)'.
Im gonna let THX/kzap make the final call here
Aniewiel
There is a system like this in place at:
http://www.neverwinterconnections.com
Players who game with one another in site-created games can then rate their fellow players. Granted, this isn't on the scale of GW so I can't imagine how it would work here. Perhaps there are things like this in place for games like HalfLife or Unreal Tournament? Might want to do a little searching of multiplayer game sites and see what they can reveal. No sense reinventing the wheel.
Also for ideas: I'd like to see the ratings only stay with a player for a limited number of days and that, if a rating in the lower half of the scale is given, the player rating someone has to give a reason -why- they are assigning it.
http://www.neverwinterconnections.com
Players who game with one another in site-created games can then rate their fellow players. Granted, this isn't on the scale of GW so I can't imagine how it would work here. Perhaps there are things like this in place for games like HalfLife or Unreal Tournament? Might want to do a little searching of multiplayer game sites and see what they can reveal. No sense reinventing the wheel.
Also for ideas: I'd like to see the ratings only stay with a player for a limited number of days and that, if a rating in the lower half of the scale is given, the player rating someone has to give a reason -why- they are assigning it.
Esprit
Like said, this idea is good, but can be abused. Let's say you play a GvG battle, and the losing team is so pissed that they go and rate everyone, on the winning side, with a bad score just because they are sore losers. The motivation for someone who is pissed to rate someone bad is probably greater than someone who had a good experience.
Plus, what percentage of this site makes up the whole GW community? You'd need a main site where everyone could register. And support from ANET would be good too.
Unreal Tournament has an in game stat program/system, depending on the server you play, your stats are recorded. Your points are based on kills, deaths, kills with certain weapons, your accuracy with certain weapons, and points based on if you capture nodes or destroyed the main reactor (for CTF at least). But then again, GW is a totally different game, so that sort of system would be hard to translate over.
In game stats would be nice though, just for personal use. Like you can see how you did during a mission.
Plus, what percentage of this site makes up the whole GW community? You'd need a main site where everyone could register. And support from ANET would be good too.
Unreal Tournament has an in game stat program/system, depending on the server you play, your stats are recorded. Your points are based on kills, deaths, kills with certain weapons, your accuracy with certain weapons, and points based on if you capture nodes or destroyed the main reactor (for CTF at least). But then again, GW is a totally different game, so that sort of system would be hard to translate over.
In game stats would be nice though, just for personal use. Like you can see how you did during a mission.
Diomedes
Quote:
Like said, this idea is good, but can be abused. Let's say you play a GvG battle, and the losing team is so pissed that they go and rate everyone, on the winning side, with a bad score just because they are sore losers. The motivation for someone who is pissed to rate someone bad is probably greater than someone who had a good experience.
Quote:
I'm saying that you would at the very least have to have a screen cap proving that you were in the same party with that person. This would prevent a situation where I'm angry at XXX so I just start posting negative feedback. Now I need to at least be in a party with XXX in order to claim anything. Ideally the screen cap would include the offending action, however in some cases this is not possible (hence why I was asking if we can brain storm the issue together a bit).|
Im gonna let THX/kzap make the final call here
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my suggestion. -Diomedes EDIT: This is actually a new post, but I've been warned on double posting before. Anyhow, the idea of using an off-site host for screenshots is a big part of the deterrent for griefers. When you stick an image on one of those sites, you have a limited bandwidth and storage space, hence there's an incentive not to post every little thing on those sites, but rather only the ones that annoy you. At the same time, with the 15-20 day moving average idea (which I think is great) you don't have to have the image hosted forever. This would also keep guildwarsguru's bandwidth fees down. I really liked the idea of a 15-20 day moving average as well since it gives a person an opportunity to change. Sure everyone can be a jerk every now and then, but if after a certain point it goes away you have an incentive to stop being a jerk rather than continue being a jerk since your reputation is now stuck with you. If anything, I see the idea of unwarranted positive feedback being left as a bigger problem. If you get a whole guild of griefers to log on and say, "this guy is great, nice fellow!" then some people may feel that outweighs any negative feedback he/her has. Of course that call would be left up to each individual to make. -Diomedes
Esprit
Are you saying, in order to give negative feedback, you'd have to supply a screenshot to prove why you are giving negative feedback?
Quote:
If anything, I see the idea of unwarranted positive feedback being left as a bigger problem. If you get a whole guild of griefers to log on and say, "this guy is great, nice fellow!" then some people may feel that outweighs any negative feedback he/her has. Of course that call would be left up to each individual to make.
Imagine if a scammer got a good reputation, by having friends give him/her great feedback. Especially with Droknar runners, it would be hard to prove you were scammed, besides your claim it is, and then backing it up with a screenshot.
|
Diomedes
Quote:
Are you saying, in order to give negative feedback, you'd have to supply a screenshot to prove why you are giving negative feedback?
|
Quote:
|
Imagine if a scammer got a good reputation, by having friends give him/her great feedback. Especially with Droknar runners, it would be hard to prove you were scammed, besides your claim it is, and then backing it up with a screenshot.
Droknar's scammers can be avoided much more easily by simply not paying upfront (pay half at the halfway point and the rest at the end). This makes it not worth the time and effort for most scammers (hey, if they've already run half way, they might as well finish up the run and get the rest of your cash). Hence this is not intended to stop those sorts of people. However, to a certain extent it will. Let's say that a person has 99 good feedbacks and 1 bad feedback. I'll look through them and all 99 are from different people (let's say he's in a griefer guild or has a lot of dupe accounts). However that one negative is 2 screen caps. The first screencap has a group of 6 sitting in beacon's perch saying, "alright, I'm going to run you to droknars!" The second screencap shows him not in the party but the other 5 people standing there saying "wtf! not again!". Since screenshots have a date/time stamp on them, you can show that these were taken a minute apart and that no droknar's run happened. Now let's say you're looking through that feedback, you can just look at the percentage 99% good, or you can look at the individual feedbacks and judge for yourself. If the one negative is a screencap of the person swearing I might think, "Eh, he lost his temper." But if the screencap is the fake droknar's run, I wouldn't care if he had 1000 positive feedbacks for the 15-20 day period, I wouldn't trust him as a runner. So the idea would be that you're not just looking at the percentage, but you're also looking at the alleged offense and judging for yourself if you'd like to take the risk or not. However, this is /mostly/ an idea to help you form PUGs, not track scammers. -Diomedes Diomedes
I'm assuming due to a lack of response that this got a "no" but I was just hoping to see that in writing. I'd rather have my idea end with a bang than a whimper if you know what I'm saying
 -Diomedes
Aniewiel
The site admins are looking at several options regarding some type of "EBayish" rating system for buyers/sellers which would, of course, include the runner services that some are currently "selling" in Ventari's Sell-Etc. forum.
I am sure that, if they choose to install this type of system, they will make a huge announcement with lots of fanfare and some cake.
Diomedes
Quote:
The site admins are looking at several options regarding some type of "EBayish" rating system for buyers/sellers which would, of course, include the runner services that some are currently "selling" in Ventari's Sell-Etc. forum. | I am sure that, if they choose to install this type of system, they will make a huge announcement with lots of fanfare and some cake. Thanks for the update Aniewiel. -Diomedes |