Trialing Gaming Session Feedback

[madbuk]

5 minutes ago, BlindMango said:

 

•  Great - Fully Participated in the session. (Same with host*)
•  Could've Been Better - Showed up to the session, but left early. (Host: Wasn't a reliable host)
• Terrible- Distrupted the session and/or didn't show up. 

None of these options really apply to people who showed up to the session, and participated in it well, but took unexpected breaks in between (but always came back).

Not everyone has the time or patience to dedicate 3+ hours to dedicated boosting without any breaks in between, and that's perfectly understandable, but "Fully Participated" doesn't really apply, and neither does the second option, because they came back.

[BlindMango]

5 minutes ago, madbuk said:

None of these options really apply to people who showed up to the session, and participated in it well, but took unexpected breaks in between (but always came back).

Not everyone has the time or patience to dedicate 3+ hours to dedicated boosting without any breaks in between, and that's perfectly understandable, but "Fully Participated" doesn't really apply, and neither does the second option, because they came back.

 

I'd say this is pretty understandable when people do that as people need to take a break/take care of something real quick during every session. If anything "Great" would just need to be updated to say something more accommodating. But I don't think they'd be rated terrible of could've been better for taking a break in a 3 hour session, lol

 

Edited May 7, 2017 by BlindMango

[ProfBambam55]

Another quick question and this has occurred on multiple occasions...max Payne 3, bling brigade, gtaiv, sniper elite 3 to name a few...people join my session and are on time only to find out that either, for example, the US and EU versions don't have compatible online servers or are unable to connect to others after several attempts for whatever reason (usual bad Internet or servers)...the session is called off and moved to another day often with new players...I could see everyone's ratings being varied...not sure if I could rate this at all...do we have a neutral option for no rating or is it imperative that we vote?...I can think of a ton of variables that would make this scoring system relatively meaningless and particularly because I run sessions in an odd sort of way that I've found maximizes benefits to all players regardless of experience, native language, availability, time zone, etc. involved...heck, I might even ask people to give me a 0 rating as long as I could still participate in the sessions...couldn't care less about all these stats and ratings...trophies and gaming a fun hobby is all...

 

Edit: As I write this I'm currently involved in a session/community which has put me in contact with over 50 players this week alone...some in this site's session, others not...I can't remember who is who at all...have seen tens of thousands of IDs over the years and can barely tell them apart at this point (added that I usually am lazy and give people 3 letter nicknames)...i've messaged people like "wanna do co-op now?" and they respond "thanks, but I did it with you yesterday"...haha...if they earn the trophies they want in a manner they enjoy who am I to judge their performance?...

 

2nd Edit: conclusion: over the years i would say that the people i don't get along with or that have messed up sessions is about 1 of every 1000...i don't see a need for a rating system as i think this stat wil remain the same...perhaps those that complain about other people in their sessions and/or are demanding a system like this be set in place should look at their own methods of boosting/hosting and see if there is any room for improvement...sometimes just adding "first come, first served"...or changing the join limit to "unlimited spaces" can work wonders...are you always using the same "unsuccessful" style of running sessions or have you tried several different approaches and they all failed?...never had any real problems so could offer tips for those struggling with "bad apples" should it be needed...as a host, i find that the effort i put into a session is always reflective of the results i get out of them...and it's not like i'm some dude sitting at home with nothing better to do than boost trophies...i usually do all the organizing during my breaks at work...like now...haha... 

Edited May 7, 2017 by ProfBambam55
Added last line...and edit...and 2nd edit...

[BlazingCat83]

This could work good or bad depending on how it's implemented.

[woolva]

Going to be trial and error.

I still believe if such system was implented (which it has), it should be just the host that can rate participants, and participants can click an option if they disagree with feedback recieved, and if over 50%-60% of participants in the session disagree (unanimous, so that other participants cannot see if another participant has opted to disagree), then feedback scored by the host should be wiped for all participants for that session. That would prevent any host misuse.

In any event of how the feedback system goes on to work, misuse by users should result in a ban for a user to use the feedback system, and possibily some icon to replace where his/her percentage score would have been so other people who join them as a host can see that, that user has misused.

For participants to rate, the system would be way to open to abuse.

 

Also, there is an alert system in place when we go to the forum style part of the website. An alert type system should be implented on the normal side so that we can see if we are required to leave feedback. (and possibily the alaerts from the other side, so that it works vice-versa) Myself and i know many other's do not just randomly visit our expired sessions even when expired sessions are sitting there in limbo for a week.

Edited May 7, 2017 by woolva

[crimsonidol38]

10 hours ago, woolva said:

Also, there is an alert system in place when we go to the forum style part of the website. An alert type system should be implented on the normal side so that we can see if we are required to leave feedback. (and possibily the alaerts from the other side, so that it works vice-versa) Myself and i know many other's do not just randomly visit our expired sessions even when expired sessions are sitting there in limbo for a week.

 

I would say this should be extended to the thing that all session-related notifications should also be visible on the main site. There's quite a lot of people who use the gaming sessions but never ever use the forum of the site and i don't remember what the defaults are but IIRC only some of the gaming session notifications are send by email per default and most of them are just shown as notification in the forum.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Crimson Idol

[Lars]

14 hours ago, Crimson Idol said:

 

So far there's no warning/message that there's a feedback option when creating a session.

 

Personally I can't give any feedback on this yet but a thing I would suggest beside the rating is the possibility to add an optional textfield where you can input why you rated the person the way and when a person receives feedback (s)he knows what the reason for the rating was.

I think this is really necessary, if you give feedback that you can explain why you gave that rating to another player.

For some reason every session has its own story, and sometimes it just doesn't work out the way planned without a player being responsible. But i think it would be good to show no-shows for example, that is annoying and i've encountered it a couple of times now with group sessions. Sometimes life can get inbetween of course but it would be nice to let the other players know, then such a situation doesn't matter but i had it happen before that someone joined my session but didn't even accept my friend request, and then half a year later i got messages when i was going to help him getting his trophies.

[DARKB1KE]

On 5/7/2017 at 1:29 PM, madbuk said:

None of these options really apply to people who showed up to the session, and participated in it well, but took unexpected breaks in between (but always came back).

Not everyone has the time or patience to dedicate 3+ hours to dedicated boosting without any breaks in between, and that's perfectly understandable, but "Fully Participated" doesn't really apply, and neither does the second option, because they came back.

Just choose "Great".  You're overcomplicating things here. 

[Quikdrawjoe]

I kind of feel that a simple thumbs up/thumbs down system with the requirement that if you decide to rate another person you have to provide some minimum level of explanation for the rating (positive or negative).

 

I know, forced choice is horrible and what about all those "but if..." that people love to come up with.  That's the point of requiring an explanation if you choose to rate someone else.

[BlindMango]

Also, can the bubbles be pre-selected for "Great" and you'd just negatively vote anyone you needed to? That would probably be a big help for massive gaming sessions  

[Arkthur]

This is awesome, thanks Sly. Too bad this came after I finished U3 a lot of no-shows in there.

 

I'm really interested in seeing how this goes, hope it doesn't become a warzone.

[Jaguargenie]

I think this is fantastic. Honestly, this community is so great it is rare that people join a session, get their trophies and leave. When it does happen, it really stands out and makes you want to leave feedback. 

 

Here is my suggestion to tweak the system. Most people seem concerned about revenge ratings, etc. So what about making the rating system completely objective. For example, 3 ratings: "no show" (with maybe some kind of 'can't join another session for 2 weeks penalty'), "participated fully" (from session start to finish) and the last something like "hurt the session" (did something to hurt the quality of the session like leaving early, flaming, etc.)

 

I think this is such a great addition. Thanks for reading!

[Gibbo_0113]

Well my first session has already gone bad. Stayed up till 2:30 for a battlefield 3 session, not enough showed up so it didn't go ahead. I was left with bad feedback even though i was there at the scheduled time?

 

The feedback only works if people are actually honest when using it. For that reason i dont think this feature will work out im afraid.

 

EDIT: thinking about it, there needs to be an option for "session didn't go ahead" or "showed up but not enough players" which wont affect feedback.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Gibbo_0113

[MMDE]

Here's suggestions for improvement:

 

I told you when you first showed it to us in chat that it probably doesn't need this many options. Should probably be "good", "bad" and "didn't show".

 

Also, I think, if they leave bad feedback, they should add a reason!

[BeautifulTorment]

I think the automatic negative feedback is a terrible idea as it is implemented currently.

 

I tried to leave feedback after the session and it wouldn't let me -- I imagine because it had only just ended? I log in the next day only to find that I was automatically given negative feedback for not rating everyone else? This is a big problem and certainly needs to be tweaked.

[Shadiochao]

Certain options should be ignored depending on votes by other users.

 

For example, if the host is being uncooperative and somebody decides they're not going to stay, you can't really hold it against them when people tell the truth and say they left the session.

I once had a session where I showed up on time but wasn't invited to the game despite repeatedly asking the host and being ignored. That would've resulted in multiple no-show votes for me even though I did everything I could to try and participate.

 

Of course this could be abused, but that's kind of unavoidable no matter which way you do it. I think I've only ran into two problematic players in all the times I've boosted here or on any other sites, so in my experience people will do what they can to help whether or not they'll get rated for it. That makes it seem like this system is just something that could cause more issues rather than something that was necessary.

 

I don't think there needs to be both good and great options, either. If somebody tries to make a session work without causing any significant problems, a simple upvote is all they need, even if the session ultimately fails. What's really important to point out is why a single person caused problems for the others and the reasons behind it. So I'd make these the options:

 

Good - Participated as intended

Bad (multiple choice)

- Disrupted the session by not cooperating

- Disrupted the session by leaving unexpectedly

- Host: Did not invite players to games

No Show - Did not show up to the session and did not warn anybody in advance

 

Anybody who didn't vote should be treated as having selected positive feedback. If a player was really shit then I imagine they'd have something to say about it.

[ProfBambamGTAIV]

Suggestion: create a sessions rating dispute thread...then we could really weed out the ones who are problematic...haha...

 

hate to say it but I don't see this rating system making things run any better due to all the unique circumstances that arise during sessions...i can foresee many players just posting "Add me" without joining...and ratings only representing the "textbook" sessions/people...

 

And apologies for being all negative...I have a chance to voice an opinion now and try to make a difference is all...I'll deal/not deal with whatever system is implemented...my vote goes to abolishing this idea that sessions will improve if gamers have a rating...not fun or ideal and not worth my time imho...

Edited May 14, 2017 by ProfBambamGTAIV
Apologies...

[Combatting]

What about the people that get their trophies then do one afterward? DJ Hero springs to mind for me. 

 

Seriously, this needs thinking over after reading all the comments. I'm in the "this will be abused big style camp" as people will tend not to be honest when behind a keyboard.

 

Quote

 

Well my first session has already gone bad. Stayed up till 2:30 for a battlefield 3 session, not enough showed up so it didn't go ahead. I was left with bad feedback even though i was there at the scheduled time?

 

The feedback only works if people are actually honest when using it. For that reason i dont think this feature will work out im afraid.

 

EDIT: thinking about it, there needs to be an option for "session didn't go ahead" or "showed up but not enough players" which wont affect feedback.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case in point. How can you leave negative feedback yet you arrived on the scheduled time? 

 

Also, here is another thing. What if we all show up, then the servers start acting out in old games (for instance say RDR) or an unplanned server maintenance happens (which can happen), and we're forced to reschedule. How would you go about rating that? I can probably guarantee that one person will at least abuse the system instead of blaming it on the servers. 

 

Personally, if we all get our trophies (7-9/10 we do), then that's a session well done. There isn't really any need for this system. 

Edited May 14, 2017 by Combatting

[g-bake_1986]

There isn't really an option if you just chose not to pick somebody to boost with, for example if more people joined the session than required. I guess you could pick "no show" but that seems harsh to me.

I've only hosted one session so far and chose not to give feedback.

[mekktor]

Ok my first experience with this wasn't the best. An ongoing session with over 30 players which ended without warning and I just noticed I got a 0% rating for not giving feedback. And I haven't even had any communication with most people in the group. So yeah, despite putting my support behind this idea in the past, it definitely needs a lot of changes in order to be successful.

 

I would say simplifying it so that everyone gets a positive rating by default and removing the punishment for not rating others would be a good start.

[Vynzen]

 I will following this thread for futures development, it's interesting!

 

P.S. I already gave my first feedbacks to a past session! 

[Combatting]

Quote

Failure to leave feedback will result in negative feedback against you

 

I'm surprised this doesn't actually turn people off having it slap bang in the middle of your face. Why should we get negative feedback if you don't leave any? People not leaving feedback is normally a good thing meaning people turned up on time. A similar scenario, people not giving you feedback on Ebay is a good thing. 

 

So now I'm going to get negative feedback because the host has failed to respond to my friend request for a BF4 session. How does that even work!?!?!

 

It needs sorting out or removed altogether probably the worst idea I've seen for this site in recent years and will probably put me off joining further gaming session because the feedback leaves me as a negative player due to me not giving any feedback which is wrong on all accounts.

 

What if we don't have access to a PC or phone at the time given? (assuming there is some sort time period given to us to leave feedback after the intended time?).

 

Quote

 

I still believe if such system was implented (which it has), it should be just the host that can rate participants, and participants can click an option if they disagree with feedback recieved, and if over 50%-60% of participants in the session disagree (unanimous, so that other participants cannot see if another participant has opted to disagree), then feedback scored by the host should be wiped for all participants for that session. That would prevent any host misuse.

In any event of how the feedback system goes on to work, misuse by users should result in a ban for a user to use the feedback system, and possibily some icon to replace where his/her percentage score would have been so other people who join them as a host can see that, that user has misused.

 

For participants to rate, the system would be way to open to abuse.

 

5

 

And what if the host themselves doesn't show up on said time? 

 

Same can be said for the hosts, they can just abuse the system as much as we can.

 

I'm actually put off by this, and won't be using the gaming sessions (or at least joining them) just to make me a negative person in not leaving feedback. I will now be using them as a lurker when needs be. 

Edited May 14, 2017 by Combatting

[mekktor]

38 minutes ago, Combatting said:

I'm actually put off by this, and won't be using the gaming sessions (or at least joining them) just to make me a negative person in not leaving feedback. I will now be using them as a lurker when needs be. 

 

There's no need to let this trial affect you at all. Getting negative feedback if you don't rate people is just an idea being tested and it seems like not many people here like it so I can't see why it would stick around. And who cares if you get negative feedback now? As it says in the first post:

 

Quote

Feedback will be reset once this is all 100%

 

Fair enough to leave your opinions on it here and to do what you said if it's actually implemented in the final version, but at this point you don't need to change the way you boost at all.

[Combatting]

21 minutes ago, mekktor said:

 

There's no need to let this trial affect you at all. Getting negative feedback if you don't rate people is just an idea being tested and it seems like not many people here like it so I can't see why it would stick around. And who cares if you get negative feedback now? As it says in the first post:

 

 

It's the manner in the way it's worded for me. Also the fact it's kinda forcing you to give feedback. Why should we as users get given a 0% rating just because we didn't leave feedback, but we did everything as intended/required to do?

Edited May 14, 2017 by Combatting

[mekktor]

1 minute ago, Combatting said:

It's the manner in the way it's worded for me. Also the fact it's kinda forcing you to give feedback. Why should we as users get given a 0% rating just because we didn't leave feedback, but we did everything as intended/required to do?

 

I agree with you. I don't like it at all either (just see my post above). I'm just saying, it doesn't really matter at this point. Hopefully the feedback will be taken into account and it will be changed, and until then just ignore it because it makes no difference.