Gaming Sessions Reputation Idea

[ExHaseo]

I can understand people having real life issues, but only every once in a while. Like say, one every 10 sessions or so. If your life is so sporadic that things pop up so often that it's more frequent than that, then you shouldn't commit to a session, because then you're just screwing over the others in the sessions when you inevitably can't make it. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell who's lying about having real life issues and who just decided they don't want to spend an hour boosting a game. The majority of the time, there's no explanation anyway, they just don't show up. The point is, if it happens every once in a while, your rep will be good enough to balance it out, if it happens a lot, then your rep will be bad. Which is the point of a rep system. If someone is unreliable, no matter what the reason, people should know so that they don't waste their time with someone who likely won't show up. 

And if you can't commit to a specific time, you can just make a session yourself and say so, and just not join sessions that do have specific times.

[STFUxDxD]

I recently saw one session host (don't remember for what game) who actually said he'd be online literally all day because he was unemployed. Made me LMAO. It was both sad and funny. No real life issues getting in the way for him! Haha

[Cherry]

Never happened to me really, I'm been with people that after getting their trophies, help other people to get ones that werent in the session at first, people can be nice sometimes. But yeah I'm sure people do that.

 

About legitimate reasons for not showing up on a session. I don't think real life issues should be considered in the reputation system, if it ever comes to be. Yeah getting back feedback for something out of your control is not fair, but how many times do you think it interferes with gaming sessions? Those kind of problems aren't common, if you pick your sessions carefully. So if you can't make it due to more important issues, you will get a bad "score" but if you are a good booster then you should have a lot of good ones from previous sessions to even the average.

in general, I like how the 5 star system in the forums works fine and could be used on gaming sessions.

I helped someone boost AC Brotherhood,purely for them because I didn't end up getting any trophies and still lack the plat,but everyone in the session was nice and stayed to help and make sure everyone got their trophies. I thought it was really nicely organized. Most boosting sessions are sloppy and not doing what they are supposed to be doing.

[Demigod]

I would be totaly behind this, the only thing is that things tend to go wrong with me when the time comes to start boosting. The last session I was supposed to have was helping this guy get the Playstation Allstars online trophies and right before we were suppose to start, I turned on my PC (because I wasnt going to use my mic, and I wanted to play some music while we kicked ass) My damn PC wouldnt turned on, I had to check what was wrong with it so I had to cancel the session at the last minute. I felt bad for the guy, but I wanted to find out what was wrong. Shit like that would most definitely give me a bad rep though.

[daftprophet]

No. This would be bad due to many factors.  RL emergencies, hate, etc.  

 

Yeah, it sucks when people don't show up but then you just don't boost with them after that. plain and simple.  I've had the luck of having more great than not and I consider myself a good booster, but I don't think this would be a good addition.

[Tenmyouji]

Glad this is being worked on. It's one of the better features that trueachievements and truetrophies boast.

Out of the 29 boosting sessions I've done there I've only encountered one issue. Out of the two I've tried to join here... they were both problematic.

[Asuka Langley]

O-Bear-Jection!

 

The Attendance Rep wouldnt be a right thing to do... Alot of things can happen between date of creation and the set date for the Session.

I for one would be Bear-y pissed off if i was in hopsital, then players gave me bad rep for not appearing for a session...

[Arkthur]

O-Bear-Jection!

 

The Attendance Rep wouldnt be a right thing to do... Alot of things can happen between date of creation and the set date for the Session.

I for one would be Bear-y pissed off if i was in hopsital, then players gave me bad rep for not appearing for a session...

IMO only the session creator should be able to evaluate the other players. That why abuse could be a little bit controlled, and in case something like what you said happens, you only have to deal with one negative score (depends on how many sessions you joined for)

[AssassinShadow56]

I like the idea, I can't argue against that idea, it's just great. I'm currently boosting ACB and I would like to know who could I trust.

Whenever I get the trophy I just stick around and help my friends (People in the friends list) and keep helping them get the trophies.

I always go first because I don't know who to trust, and my friends know that I only leave when there's connection error or something really important.

[StrickenBiged]

I reject the argument that RL gets in the way. If you've made a commitment to join a session, then that's different to just playing a solo session. You should honour that commitment or at the least send a message to the others in the session apologising in advance. But that's just courtesy, I can't see how the site could help with that sort of thing.

Edited September 7, 2015 by StrickenBiged

[X_RaceKing_X]

This is obviously something that can work. Like its best to have trusted gamers in a big session so no one leaves early. I had an experience in my SHIFT 2 session where the first player to get the trophy just immediately left! it pissed us all off. I wouldve loved to rate him poorly on the session so no gamers would trust him again. that way gaming sessions will be more smooth with trusted gamers.

[willmill97]

I'm glad to see people like this idea

[Lion-Lhasa]

I also agree with this idea although it needs to be done carefully so as not to be abused too much.

I've joined 2 RDR boosting sessions and in one session 25 people signed up, but only about 4 actually showed. In the other session of about 10 signings, only 3 showed up.

One person joined both sessions, left when he wasn't going first and never showed up for the second one. He's also hosting another session but again, I don't think he'll even show.

I'm hosting one atm and even though all 8 spaces are full I'm doubtful as to how many will be around.

 

It seems to be quite a problem with this site as there's no consequences for the selfish pricks. 

Edited May 22, 2014 by Lion-Lhasa

[TalynnStrike]

I like this idea. While i've never not had more than 2 ppl show up. I've been in some bad one's where the session leader only wanted his trophies and didn't care about anyone getting theirs. 

 

I've only led a few sessions though, but so far. Ppl are pretty good about showing up. 

[PSNP is crap i left]

I really think this should happen. Although, it has not happened to me i think that it's an amazing idea. Their attendance rate could be like this beside their name.

 

= Good

 = Mediocre

= Poor

Edited May 23, 2014 by Shin

[danielc655]

I always fear that will happen so I get the trophies I need first and then I help them. Might be a bit of a dick move but I still help them.

[The-Man-In-Black]

*Part* of the problem is sometimes having a host who doesn't have a clue what the hell they're doing. 

 

I'm one of those people who will gladly wait until dead last to earn whatever trophy/trophies we're going for just to make sure everybody else gets theirs, even though I risk people bailing out early leaving me hanging.  If I do happen to earn it early, I gladly stick around to make sure that everyone else earns theirs and nobody needs help with anything that we haven't covered.  I have no problem following the directions of the host and doing whatever it takes to make sure everybody gets what we set out to get.

 

But if you're a host who has no clue what the hell you're doing or have no control over the group, then fuck you I'm out.  I don't like to have my time wasted.  I've seen way too many hosts who just let everyone else fuck around, or spend an hour trying to figure out how to set up whatever session we need to set up, or sitting there doing nothing because he didn't have alternates sign up and someone no-showed.  Shit happens, don't get me wrong, and I will gladly sit and wait for an hour trying to get into a lobby on a flaky server.  Someone bailed out at the last minute and you've got an alternate who'll be ready in 20?  No problem!  Plenty of porn for me to watch on the internet while I'm waiting.  I have no problems when things happen due to unforeseen circumstances.   But I'm not going to stick around for bad hosts. 

 

If you're going to be a host, have a plan.  If you need X people, ask for X+3.   Know how to set up whatever session(s) you need.  Blatantly state that you're going for X, then Y, then Z, then random shit if there's time later.  Deny requests like "Hey, can we do this or that first?"; people who ask this are the most likely to bail on you once their requests are filled.  Boot anyone who wants to go "lone wolf" or otherwise be uncooperative, and replace them with an alternate.  Send friend requests out in plenty of time for people to respond, including alternates so they can be ready in case someone bails.   Require mics when possible, and (again, when possible) ask that people speak in a language common to everybody.   This really isn't all that difficult, and makes the session run a LOT more smoothly.  99% of failed boosting sessions are a result of either a bad/disorganized group of boosters or a shitty host. 

[StrickenBiged]

Feedback should be as neutral and factual as possible, IMO, to prevent things getting acrimonious and possibly leading to feuds. I like BlondMango's idea, but would add a third option so that your options after the session were:

 

1. Turned up & stuck around

2. Turned up, but left early (for whatever reason, e.g. he got his trophy and then bailed)

3. No-show.

 

The bar could be green, yellow and red. So a mostly green bar tells you this person is a reliable partner, a mostly yellow one tells you that this person will probably bail when it suits them, and a mostly red bar tells you that this person can't be trusted to show. 

 

If different users review the same player following a session, and those reports conflict (e.g. some say the player was a no-show, but others say they're a yellow or a green) then those votes should either not be counted or an average should be taken somehow. 

[Crespelio-X12]

Feedback should be as neutral and factual as possible, IMO, to prevent things getting acrimonious and possibly leading to feuds. I like BlondMango's idea, but would add a third option so that your options after the session were:

 

1. Turned up & stuck around

2. Turned up, but left early (for whatever reason, e.g. he got his trophy and then bailed)

3. No-show.

 

The bar could be green, yellow and red. So a mostly green bar tells you this person is a reliable partner, a mostly yellow one tells you that this person will probably bail when it suits them, and a mostly red bar tells you that this person can't be trusted to show. 

 

If different users review the same player following a session, and those reports conflict (e.g. some say the player was a no-show, but others say they're a yellow or a green) then those votes should either not be counted or an average should be taken somehow. 

This idea has over 1 year please make it happen

[szkodi]

I must admit that I was a bit against this idea since my last few sessions. Two weeks ago we had a session where 6 people were needed. One of them left after trophy popped out. We had a backup but this bloke also left, so as the other one five minutes later. It would actually take two of them 10 minutes longer to do that playing solo on multiplayer without signing up for session. This is no the end. We have decided to move this session for next week (with same host) at 5 pm.

An hour before sessions supposed to start I received email that session changed to 4pm, then 4:30pm and I couldn't reach home on that time. When I actually arrived we realised that host played different game and rest of us were lack of one player. Over an hour and no luck. Host sent me a private msg recently asking whether I want to join a new session this Friday while he couldn't do it last Friday. When I asked why did he ignored us last time he said "I got invited to different session to play the other game". Seriously? We need to have any decent rating system to avoid plonkers like that one.

I am 29, got wife, work etc but in my history I didn't made 2 sessions. One I was late and the other I told everyone day earlier that I can not make it cos of work. Everyone was cool while I posted about it in advance. There is always time to find someone else or so but there is nothing more annoying that people not staying extra 15 minutes to help these who helped him.

[DARKB1KE]

Implement it as fast as possible. 

[BreakingMyPinata]

Implement it as fast as possible.

I second this, tired of relying on players that sign up and no show for sessions.

[Sly Ripper]

Implement it as fast as possible. 

 

 

I second this, tired of relying on players that sign up and no show for sessions.

 

 

It'll be one of the features I work on after the major site update.

[matchpenalty]

This idea is a double edged sword. While giving negative feedback when deserved is fine, there is the potential of abusing it. People may give negative feedback just to be a troll or douchebag, I mean this is the internet we're talking about and there are people act like this knowing they can hide behind their keyboard. My suggestion would be to rely on some method of positive feedback only. The more positive feedback, the more reliable boosting partner you are. Those without a lot of positive feedback may be trolls, unreliable boosters, or simply new. Fortunately this system allows good boosters to separate from the bad without the risk of being unjustly given bad feedback.

[BlindMango]

It'll be one of the features I work on after the major site update.

 

Hey Sly, so I know you probably have some ideas of a reputation system already but some people always ask how it can be done without it getting abused. I've briefly gave some recommendations about the reputation system before, but I do wanna give more detailed feedback on sort of how this might work in the best possible way (with pictures!). So in my opinion, reputation should be displayed as a reputation bar of sorts under each persons name in a session (similar to YouTube's video like/dislike bar), which is the cumulative percentage (sessions showed up to out of total sessions signed up), it will look something like this:

 

 

The last persons rating says "Less than 3 sessions played". It should probably be similar to guide ratings where the rating won't show up until after like 3 sessions total, that way if say they miss their first session, they aren't forever screwed at 0% and they can recover after playing their third session when their rating shows up. If they miss a session they signed up for, they will get an overlay/popup warning next time they access the site describing the reputation system with an image of it and telling them how they didn't show up and how that can affect it.

 

 

But how will it get determined that someone didn't show up or didn't cooperate with a Gaming Session? Get the vote from the MAJORITY of people, and also you could also measure that with the stats of if that user earned the trophies intended for that session in the session time frame of all users too. Below is how the vote page would look for every person that was in the Gaming Session when you access the site about 5 or 10 hours after the Gaming Session started to be sure the session is over:

 

 

If you press "No", then the following thing shows up:

 

 

Visually, reputation bars may not work best, maybe star ratings would work better and so on, but this general format would probably work pretty well in my opinion

 

I went a bit into overdrive with the pictures, but I think it's the best way to show what I mean, also I was a little bored, lol

Edited January 11, 2016 by BlindMango