Gaming Sessions Reputation Idea

[thegirlruka]

 

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

The pictures 

 

I'll add some suggestions.

Maybe there could be a short (100 characters max) description of the session as well. Something simple could be said like "Reliable. Helped earn all trophies." or "Didn't show up. Wouldn't recommend." It could add a little more insight into the values of the reputation.

I'd also suggest that the name of the person giving the rating/description would be shown publicly. Anonymity can corrupt people but if they're held accountable for their actions then it's less likely that trolling would occur. It could also let people see that if Xx1337XnOxScOpEzX420xX gave one person 50 positive feedback that the person obviously created the account just to increase their reputation. It could be shown on psnprofiles.com/name/reputation or something.

I'm also a little biased towards a point system instead of a percentage system Someone with 1/5 positive feedback is more trustworthy to me than someone with 1000/5000 positive feedback even though their percentages are the same.

[Cleggworth]

The positive feedback only route, say a thumbs up, seems the most logical idea but I can see a problem even with that.

'No noobs plz. Must av 50 rep'

Every multiplayer game would turn into Destiny. People who don't play a lot of online would never get a look in

Edited January 11, 2016 by Cleggworth

[Lord_of_Ra]

This...this is awesome. Sorry I can't add anything else for this thread.

 

Thanks in advance. I'm looking forward to see it implemented.

 

Cheers.

[Satoshi Ookami]

Holy wow, dem pictures! o.O

Mango's idea is definitely great and I agree with imouto that percentage system could be less descriptive than the actual number of good/all sessions.

[FawltyPowers]

I don't like the idea of having negativity voting at all.

 

I've hosted a lot of sessions on various games and been involved with a lot of boosts.

 

I've known some people not turn up for a boost but have been reliable boosters for other sessions. Had to drop people from boosts because they weren't on time and had to take someone in their place - this would lead to someone giving you negative criticism. People who are reliable but obstructive, people who aren't skilled enough to tackle a particular session but are good boosters for other games, inexperienced players who don't quite follow what is happening and just need a push in the right direction, people with disabilities who need more detailed explanations of the way you're going to tackle trophies.

 

I could go on and on about the different scenarios out there that could lead to positives and negatives that aren't really justified. In the end I keep a list of people I boost with and use my personal judgement on who to have with me. My list would be looked at differently to someone else. In the end if you start tarnishing people, it will become very hard for them to regain any respect. If people see downvotes they won't include them.

 

EDIT: Just wanted to add that people are more likely to vote about a bad session than a good one. Also if people are given bad reputation there could be a lot of fallout attached to it, the person getting downvoted may then downvote everyone else that was in the session.

 

Upvote only could be useful but I would split it between upvotes for session attendees and session hosts as they are completely different.

 

EDIT: Could still be tricky getting into sessions if you are new, reliable and have no votes compared to someone who has been around a while, maybe isn't as good a booster but has some up votes. It all makes me feel a bit uneasy.

Edited January 11, 2016 by FawltyPowers

[Sly Ripper]

 

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

 

This is good. I was thinking about having two kinds of reputation, one for hosting and one for joining. The host would be able to rate each of the gamers and the gamers rate the host with the majority vote applying to the host.

[REDSHIRT64]

This is good. I was thinking about having two kinds of reputation, one for hosting and one for joining. The host would be able to rate each of the gamers and the gamers rate the host with the majority vote applying to the host.

While this idea is great.. There is always the risk of people negatively voting gamers out of spite or if they dislike the someone personally. It would be terrible if a good gamer had his "reputation" trashed because of an event out of his control. There needs to be a serious system of checks and balances to moderate and mitigate improper reputation voting.

[starcrunch061]

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. 

 

It sounds like you were part of a failed Red Dead Redemption gaming session. Maybe the same one I was in years ago! 

[DaivRules]

Is there any way to automatically check that a gamer is in a game during a session? Like when I'm playing and look at my friends list, it shows what game they are in, can that be programmed? Do a check that the gamer is in the game, say 10 minutes after the session starts to account for late joiners. This wouldn't blackball the player getting positive feedback, but to lock out spiteful hosts from saying they didn't join. I like different Host and player feedback and agree that there should be a minimum number of sessions/reviews before the rating is shown and I favor positive only ratings to reduce the spite voting possibility.

 

This is gonna be painful in v1 and won't be perfect. We're gonna have to shape it as a community and find a way to make it as fair as possible, but once that's done, maybe around v9-ish, I have a feeling it's gonna be amazing!

[ShogunCroCop]

My last session, the host was a no show. So I bailed after 20 minutes, because I had other games I wanted to play. It was for a game in which I already had the plat, but he needed one person to help him get an online trophy, so I was going to help. Not sure if he showed up later during the session, but it doesn't matter. If you make a session, and you can't be there, let people know in advance. I am not going to sit and wait the entire hour if after 20 minutes, you are a no show. So if the host did show eventually, I apologize for bailing, but you left me no choice.

 

Is there a way we can reflect situations like this in the ratings too? Some of us may "bail" after waiting a certain period of time but while the session is still ongoing, if the host never shows. I wouldn't want my reputation being affected if the host shows after I've bailed, because he never informed me he was going to be late. That wouldn't be fair to my ratings.

Edited January 11, 2016 by ShogunCroCop

[DARKB1KE]

Cool pictures. 

[Dycloide]

Hello,

Any news on the addition of the rep system ? :-)

[BlindMango]

Hello,

Any news on the addition of the rep system ? :-)

 

I think Sly (the site owner) is planning on adding stuff to gaming sessions sometime after the major site update launches and all the bugs and things are worked out with that first.

[nyantzu1986]

sorry outdated bump ,

Edited June 30, 2016 by nyantzu1986

[DARKB1KE]

Something has to be done, urgently!!! 

 

I've had 3 days of noshows sessions that never happen.  No messages, nothing. 

This behavior needs to be stopped. 

What is wrong with people?  Stop clicking join if you aren't going to play....

Edited July 10, 2016 by DARKB1KE

[hore]

I propose a thumbs up/thumbs down-type system, with a requirement to leave written feedback (minimum 20 characters or so) to state what the player did to deserve such a rating. This will prevent "revenge ratings" that may occur purely out of spite for someone giving you a bad rating.

 

You should be able to rate anybody in your current gaming sessions, at any time. No need to be the host to rate people. You can leave feedback for everybody in the session, or nobody. You can't rate the same person twice in a single boosting session, but you can rate them again if they're in another one of your boosting sessions.

 

This feedback should be public, and should be aggregated on their profile. Show how many thumbs up/down they've received, and their ratio percentage. Let us impose requirements like X amount of thumbs up for someone to join our boosting session, or a certain feedback ratio (like 80% positive feedback).

 

It doesn't need to be overly complicated. There's obviously more to consider, but something like this could work quite well.

[ars]

The feedback system has really been a tried and tested one on different auction sites for over a decade, as such it doesn't really warrant further discussion on pros and cons, or faux fear of troll abuse. I've used such an auction site for multiple years and it's quite easy to keep a 100% positive track record if you use any mundane logic in picking who you do business with. While the topic is hot on a new thread I'll just bring my findings here:

 

a. Neutral feedback should be an option. Otherwise it'll force you to either praise or punish a person who deserves neither.

b. Feedback giver and receiver should have a very short comment opportunity (say, 160 characters). This will alleviate "revenge feedback" and allow both parties to state their case - or just shout out thanks.

c. "Need x amount of rep to join" need not to be implemented at all. Session creators already have the option to enforce creator approval on requests to join.

d. Site notification on feedback, preferably with support for email alert

e. Admins need have the option to remove feedback entries for a limited time after, and users to edit (this will be the case when an agreement is mediated after an issue, or a participant approaches others with a valid excuse for, for example, a no show)

f. Finally gross misconduct should warrant admins disabling the user from giving or receiving feedback, marking him as banned from the system (effectively he could probably never again join the sessions subjected to creator approval)

 

Looking at the ongoing discussion about feedback ratings on that other thread makes it obvious to me these people haven't actually used one before. It's a system that will police itself. Especially when you are allowed to give neutral feedback, you are hard pressed to give a negative one without cause. It's not just an anonymity covered "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" on a Youtube video, you are directly affecting the reputation of a person you deal with and he/she can do the same to you.

 

The further the system polices itself is beneficial to alleviate Sly having to deal with it, and the "one zero minus" system in use at my local auction house has an extremely low rate of revenge feedback. Obviously it can be never be eliminated completely, because some people are like that, but for that reason you should have the opportunity to state your case with a comment, and in the extreme cases (multiple people spamming negative in a troll attack), site administration can step in.

 

The other questions surrounding it are a bit more vague, for example the fact that a boost is not just 1 on 1 situation like a normal consumer deal is. So will the creator rate all the participants? And all participants the creator? Or will everyone rate everyone else? In the latter case I'm intrigued to see what happens, as both positive and negative feedback should be amassing exponentially x)

 

Edit: I forgot to add a detail that will prevent preferential treatment. While my auction house lists all the positive feedback given, it will only calculate one feedback per account towards the overall feedback rating. This will remove a troll repeatedly sending negative feedback towards a user just as much, as it prevents friends from artificially boosting your rating.

Edited August 4, 2016 by ars

[damon8r351]

Not going to fix human nature with a rating system. And this isn't an auction site. The culture is different. Gamers are by nature driven by revenge. Any span of time spent on a multiplayer server will teach you that. Or just look at the hue and cry raised when someone gets their profile rated 1 star, despite that feature serving no purpose here. PSNP's not mature enough for a session rating system.

[ars]

That's a complete fallacy, PSNP is exactly like an auction site or any other place where a community driven project is attempted. There is an agreement made between two or more parties with the expectation of all participants to carry out their part of the agreement.

 

The fact random gamers are less reliable is due to there being no repercussions for it, like, oh no wait, a rating system. So I'm all for running it for a limited time as a test

 

I've spent time on multiplayer servers since the 90's and I've only been bullied in games where the mechanics directly encourage that, like The Division. Yet there neither have I ever been griefed during or after the match.

[Kingdom Keeper]

I'm more interested in stuff on the periphery of this. Are we able to see how many reviews a certain user has given? If I have someone who joins a session who gives a majority of bad reviews, I'm gonna feel nervous about playing with them. But fine if it's someone with split or mostly good reviews.

 

Will we be able to see each game the rating is attached to? Someone may be reliable, but what if they just suck at shooters?

 

And I think there should be some sort of priority level. You can't really downvote someone because they had to leave for a few minutes because their baby started crying. I know there are people that would do that though, especially if it cost them the match. So maybe this could work in conjuction with the 'casual play' option that's also be suggested. Not sure how it could be implemented, maybe if you listed as casual, you're immune from rating others and being rated yourself? That's the only fair way I can see it. I know some people would hide behind that. Only listing themselves as casual just because they're afraid of being judged. But we already have the option to moderate who joins a session. So I don't see that being too much of an issue.

 

Also, maybe have an arbitrary time limit on ratings? I mean, even credit only follows you for 7 years. Maybe after a certain amount of time, the written review remains, but the score no longer effects your rank? These are all just passing thoughts though. Nothing fully developed.

[DARKB1KE]

That's a complete fallacy, PSNP is exactly like an auction site or any other place where a community driven project is attempted. There is an agreement made between two or more parties with the expectation of all participants to carry out their part of the agreement.

 

The fact random gamers are less reliable is due to there being no repercussions for it, like, oh no wait, a rating system. So I'm all for running it for a limited time as a test

^^^^ Yes, completely in agreement here.  It's between two parties, the host and the people who join the sessions.  There's no repercussion for not showing up, they can waste other people's time and get away with it.

I think things would be a completely different picture here if reputation was involved.

[PSXtreme_]

After a very nice session run by Bongabrother  on the difficult RDR servers  , I wanted to post up the idea of a feedback/rating system for the gaming sessions. While nobody ever WANTS negative feedback, it would be helpful to weed out those who create sessions, or sign up for them, and don't show up.   Upon leaving negative feedback, it should be mandatory to say why the person received the grade, rather than just getting a low score or bad rating.  Revenge ratings out of hate/anger can be weeded out with a minimum of investigation and that falsifier can have their gaming session privileges removed...just like trophy cheaters aren't part of the leaderboards.

Edited November 26, 2016 by PSXtreme_

[MAUSZX]

There should be a thing that sets what sessions are really set for an specific day, and what are just placeholders.

[DARKB1KE]

Gaming tournaments and ladder systems back in the day used to use reputation system.  You had to agree to the points being distributed when you lost.  I think something like that could work for gaming sessions.  It would just have to be modified in a way.

 

Ideally, you would set it up as the "host" wins, and the players must submit reports afterwards, failure to do so is penalized.

I used "Cases Ladder" back in my Worms 2 days and it was effective.  There is incentive for registered session players to report their session afterwards.

 

Here is a description of how the system works:

http://www.igl.net/newuser/

Quote

The Ranking System

Case's Ladder has one of the simplest ranking systems ever used for competitive play. We call it a "Ladder" because each member holds a unique rank or "rung" that represents their standing among other members. The highest-ranked member holds the #1 Ladder position; someone ranked #2 is ranked below the #1 member. The goal is to "climb" the Ladder all the way to the top!

When you first join you are placed in an "unranked" category on the Ladder, and you become "ranked" after winning your first Ladder match. When you defeat a higher-ranked member, you move up in rank half the distance between their rank and your own. For example, if you are ranked #50 and you defeat the #1-ranked member, then your new rank would be #25. Your rank on the Ladder does not go down if you lose a match unless your opponent is ranked DIRECTLY below you. When members ranked below you are victorious against members ranked above you, it's possible the member will jump over you in rank and you will move down one rung.

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by DARKB1KE

[Hogie838]

SOMETHING HAS GOT TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS!! I am fed up creating sessions and people not showing up. One guy is online playing another game and wouldn't reply to my message. There needs to be a way to sort out the good sports from the bad. Have their name highlighted in red or something? I have all the names of these time wasting players written done and none will EVER be allowed join a session I create in the future. We are taking turns getting this trophy and managed to start a game with a random. The guy who earned the trophy first is staying until all others have the trophy. That is the kind of players I'm looking for!! Two spaces that could have been filled by people that actually wanted the trophy were lost because of these idiots. Please weed out the good from the bad. PLeeeeaaase!!!