Trialing Gaming Session Feedback

[B1rvine]

Honestly, this whole thing is awful.  And here's why.  

 

It doesn't really have the potential to help anyone. 

But it will very likely negatively affect users.  

 

Not good at a game? Negative.  

5 seconds late? Negative!

Ooops. FIrst time playing and made one mistake.  PISSED ME OFF now. Negative!!! 

I'm not your puppet host. It doesn't matter if we spend 30 seconds longer to complete a task.  Negative!!!

I didn't get my trophy even though I just started online grind and you finished... WAAAAH.  Negative!!!!!  

Some weird stuff happened, due the huge variety of wrong things that can happen... Negative!!!!!!!!!!!

No smartphone for PSN App / Discord for MY requirement?  Ohhhhhhh tsk tsk..... Negative!!!

Didn't show because a host changed the original time?  NEGATIVE!

WAAAH WAAAAHHH WAAAAAAH I didn't get my trophy for any reason and I wasted an hour of my life.  NEGATIVE!!!!!!!!

 

Random person as a host:  Hmm he only has a 70% rating... KICK!

 

Positive Rating = Business as usual (so whats the point?)

Less than perfect negative ratings = less boosting happens.  

 

The minority of really bad boosters being targeted will be less affected than the majority of good boosters that get negative feedback for less than perfect conditions over time.

 

Edit:  Also, and this is very big.  He has semi bad feedback.  Lets look for a reason to give him more BAD feedback if he's not perfect but tries hard to boost in a tough game.  Look at the trophy dispute forum.  Neanderthals feasting upon every game in their profiles.

 

Edited May 14, 2017 by B1rvine

[turpinator1986]

4 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

Honestly, this whole thing is awful.  And here's why.  

 

It doesn't really have the potential to help anyone. 

But it will very likely negatively affect users.  

 

Not good at a game? Negative.  

5 seconds late? Negative!  

I didn't get my trophy even though I just started online grind and you finished... WAAAAH.  Negative!!!!!  

Some weird stuff happened, due the huge variety of wrong things that can happen... Negative!!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't show because a host changed the original time?  NEGATIVE!

WAAAH WAAAAHHH WAAAAAAH I didn't get my trophy for any reason and I wasted an hour of my life.  NEGATIVE!!!!!!!!

 

Random person as a host:  Hmm he only has a 70% rating... KICK!

 

Positive Rating = Business as usual (so whats the point?)

Less than perfect negative ratings = less boosting happens.  

 

The minority of really bad boosters being targeted will be less affected than the majority of good boosters that get negative feedback for less than perfect conditions over time.

 

 

Totally agree. Out of all the sessions I've ever created or joined on this site, I'd say about 5% of them went perfectly from start to finish. And that's fine because that's just how it goes. Connection issues, dlc not installed, just plain not being good enough at the game. I could go on. All these things are going to get marked down by trollers, people who think everybody should be at their extremely high standard of gaming, morons, you name it. Then it'll be harder and harder to join a session. It'll be like trying to join a game on the division without maximum gear score. KICKED. 

[B1rvine]

One more BIG issue with this.  

 

My feedback sucks!!!!!   Alternate account time!

 

Lets bypass the system.  Close one!

Or, I'll just give myself good feedback again. Whew!!!

 

Edited May 14, 2017 by B1rvine

[Kittens Are Awesome]

30 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

Honestly, this whole thing is awful.  And here's why.  

 

It doesn't really have the potential to help anyone. 

But it will very likely negatively affect users.  

 

Not good at a game? Negative.  

5 seconds late? Negative!

Ooops. FIrst time playing and made one mistake.  PISSED ME OFF now. Negative!!! 

I'm not your puppet host. It doesn't matter if we spend 30 seconds longer to complete a task.  Negative!!!

I didn't get my trophy even though I just started online grind and you finished... WAAAAH.  Negative!!!!!  

Some weird stuff happened, due the huge variety of wrong things that can happen... Negative!!!!!!!!!!!

No smartphone for PSN App / Discord for MY requirement?  Ohhhhhhh tsk tsk..... Negative!!!

Didn't show because a host changed the original time?  NEGATIVE!

WAAAH WAAAAHHH WAAAAAAH I didn't get my trophy for any reason and I wasted an hour of my life.  NEGATIVE!!!!!!!!

 

Random person as a host:  Hmm he only has a 70% rating... KICK!

 

Positive Rating = Business as usual (so whats the point?)

Less than perfect negative ratings = less boosting happens.  

 

The minority of really bad boosters being targeted will be less affected than the majority of good boosters that get negative feedback for less than perfect conditions over time.

 

Edit:  Also, and this is very big.  He has semi bad feedback.  Lets look for a reason to give him more BAD feedback if he's not perfect but tries hard to boost in a tough game.  Look at the trophy dispute forum.  Neanderthals feasting upon every game in their profiles.

 

 

I don't think a rating system is useful either. I'll take anybody most of the time. It's difficult just to get one person to join some of these sessions anyway. If they can't make it one time, I usually hound them for a week or two after that initial session. If still nothing, I move on to looking for others. No harm, no foul. My feelings don't get hurt that easily. I don't take a no-show personally. I know for sure a small group of people do, and I'm pretty sure they are the vocal minority who got this system to be put up in the first place.

 

Any sound minded individual is going to go about this in a similar fashion. Just ignore the ratings.

[DaivRules]

For everyone critical of this test for feedback (can someone who has time do a count of how many times this was suggested), please indicate how you *personally* would use this rating system as a host? Everyone seems really concerned with their feedback as a participant, but I'm curious how brutal some of you heathens will be as a host. 

Things like only allow 100% positive ratings to join, or won't care at all about the ratings?

I'm sticking with my old process of sessions that requires some effort, but helps. Contact after sign up to verify they respond, no response = boot. Ask for contact 24 hours before session to verify participation and readyness, no contact = boot. Give up to 15 minutes after session starts to participate or make contact.

I'd hope most people aren't robots with no leniency and take into account all the fringe reasons people gave above and reward effort and intention.

[Kittens Are Awesome]

1 minute ago, DaivRules said:

For everyone critical of this test for feedback (can someone who has time do a count of how many times this was suggested), please indicate how you *personally* would use this rating system as a host? Everyone seems really concerned with their feedback as a participant, but I'm curious how brutal some of you heathens will be as a host. 

Things like only allow 100% positive ratings to join, or won't care at all about the ratings?

I'm sticking with my old process of sessions that requires some effort, but helps. Contact after sign up to verify they respond, no response = boot. Ask for contact 24 hours before session to verify participation and readyness, no contact = boot. Give up to 15 minutes after session starts to participate or make contact.

I'd hope most people aren't robots with no leniency and take into account all the fringe reasons people gave above and reward effort and intention.

 

All of my responses were examples as me being host. I probably host 80% of the gaming sessions I take part in.

[DaivRules]

31 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

One more BIG issue with this.  

 

My feedback sucks!!!!!   Alternate account time!

 

Lets bypass the system.  Close one!

Or, I'll just give myself good feedback again. Whew!!!

 

That's going to be my fallback if some dick is uptight about ratings for participants. 5 quick private sessions with my alt account for 5 positive feedback, clears out my revenge ratings and gets the uptight hosts to let me join a session. 

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

All of my responses were examples as me being host. I probably host 80% of the gaming sessions I take part in.

 

I think the majority of hosts will think much like you, just wanted to see how many people are going to hardline this system. 

[Leenewbe]

Guess I'll need a disclaimer post for bad ratings in any sessions I host/join in the future stating that I don't support the rating system.

 I can make up my own mind when boosting and if I meet someone who is out for themself or leaves when they are done w/o helping. I then make the choice of refusing to add/boost with them. I don't need ratings for that considering it's only a very small minority that I've met during the years I've been boosting .

[B1rvine]

26 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

I think the majority of hosts will think much like you, just wanted to see how many people are going to hardline this system. 

 

Yeah, I'm pretty understanding in general.  I understand life happens and no shows happen.  I understand people suck at games sometimes.  I understand internet people are awful sometimes.  The one thing though that really irks me is people that can't pay attention.  As a host, if I have to explain something more than twice, or if you don't follow directions after I've explained something twice, you're on my poop list.

 

To answer your question:  Each session I host will be different, but for games that require 6+ boosters, I'll probably start allowing infinite gamers.  If you have a 60ish rating or below, I'll take you, but as soon as we hit the required amount, I'll likely kick you if someone 80+ joins afterward, at which point I'll only take 75ish and above.  It's really going to be game dependent though, depending on how much of a headache I think the whole experience would be.

[damon8r351]

Well, if my personal experience as a host with a person who requested a session rating system is any indication, I'm sure this clusterfuck is going to go swimmingly.

 

Namely: I showed up 15 minutes to set up the chat and wait. One guy shows up and we start chatting about the coming task. A second guy messages me 10 minutes ahead of time to respectfully ask if we could push it back an hour because of some personal issues that just came up, but he's making every effort to be there on time. Fair enough, we're both patient and we agree if the last person agrees. The third guy shows up 2 minutes later, reads the chat messages, throws a shitfit about no shows and bails, ne'er to be seen again. Then the second guy shows up 10 minutes after the original start time, ready to go and issues resolved, me and the first guy are still chatting, but I don't have enough people because the third guy wanted to throw his little shitfit. Also, I lied, he was seen again. I found him right here in the Feedback section, talking shit about about my session that he fucked up because he didn't have an ounce of adult patience, asking for a feedback system.

[BlazingCat83]

I don't really play MP, so I don't care too much personally, but I totally get how this could fuck things up for those who rely on it.

[Kittens Are Awesome]

22 minutes ago, damon8r351 said:

Well, if my personal experience as a host with a person who requested a session rating system is any indication, I'm sure this clusterfuck is going to go swimmingly.

 

Namely: I showed up 15 minutes to set up the chat and wait. One guy shows up and we start chatting about the coming task. A second guy messages me 10 minutes ahead of time to respectfully ask if we could push it back an hour because of some personal issues that just came up, but he's making every effort to be there on time. Fair enough, we're both patient and we agree if the last person agrees. The third guy shows up 2 minutes later, reads the chat messages, throws a shitfit about no shows and bails, ne'er to be seen again. Then the second guy shows up 10 minutes after the original start time, ready to go and issues resolved, me and the first guy are still chatting, but I don't have enough people because the third guy wanted to throw his little shitfit. Also, I lied, he was seen again. I found him right here in the Feedback section, talking shit about about my session that he fucked up because he didn't have an ounce of adult patience, asking for a feedback system.

 

Ahh...I love a good bedtime story.

 

This was my exact hypothesis of the type of person who are most likely responsible for this system.

 

Jolly good show chap. Jokes on us normies, eh?

[damon8r351]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

Jolly good show chap. Jokes on us normies, eh?

 

That travesty was the impetus behind what I later personally called the Rdkehoe Rule: Sessions shall be overbooked like a Southwest flight with extra participants to forestall scheduling conflicts, malicious incompetence, and immaturity. 4 years later, and that guy's behavior still pisses me off every time I think about it.

[ProfBambam55]

I've already said my piece here but just wanted to add that to me the people who are no shows or whatever already lose by not earning the trophies...I always make sure to help anyone who shows interest and dedication even if it means getting members who have already earned the intended trophies back together a week later to help the one person who respectfully messaged to say they would miss the session due to life circumstances or whatever....i pretty much have 100% success rate earning intended trophies and sessions have always been fun...(compulsory) feedback is just adding an unnecessary element to something that I think should be purely mutual fun for everyone involved...yes, there seems to have been an influx of compulsive session joiners/creators but to me this new idea is bordering on naming and shaming and I don't think it will affect things to be more positive or effective...someone who prioritizes life over trophies will always have my respect over try hards who take things too seriously and no shows will pretty much just be ignored without assuming the worst...a feedback system will not change this...the only ids I remember are the ones that mess around and so far only ever ran into one of them again, out of a total of about 5; and this is out oo thousands and thousands of gamers...solution was simple, kick from session, move on...as this site grows I think we'll see a lot of people misusing it but from what I've seen a bit of polite direction from moderators and senior members goes a long way...I can see this feedback system needing heavy moderation so why not just spend that  time putting together some guidelines and respectfully pointing newcomers and people who seem to be abusing systems in their direction...if we look at the number of personal boosting threads that are still being created and the way disputes are being handled I think it's safe to assume many members are not familiar with how the site works...I don't think adding feedback in this case is a "fix" for what is most likely gamers just needing a bit of direction...

[BlindMango]

Yeah I said it directly to Sly when he shared a screenshot of it before making this thread, forced feedback is going to be a bad idea.

 

The way this is laid out right now is... Well... A nightmare   Honestly I think the voting page shouldn't be showed at all to users unless they request it. They should first be greeted by an overlay from any page they visit on the site after the session that says "Was your session great? Yes or No", pushing yes votes everyone as "Great" automatically, pushing "No" sends you to the voting screen - easy and you're on your way. Remember this should be a system that isn't so in your face and is only a useful tool to root out bad sports. See my first post in this thread as to more of my recommendations. 

 

Sly, if you launch this system as is, it's going to be a complete mess. If you do force feedback, then users who don't make any feedback just shouldn't get positive feedback for that session at most. A lot of good people will just get negative feedback for a session they contributed in simply because they didn't know to find and check that specific session page after the session ends, especially if how it's done currently where they're not alerted with a pop-up or overlay.

 

You gotta be careful with this things, people have been requesting it because they thought it would be helpful, you don't want it to backfire and have the opposite effect! Most of what's needed it there, you just have to reconfigure how the user sees and interacts with it a bit in my opinion  

Edited May 15, 2017 by BlindMango

[turpinator1986]

7 hours ago, DaivRules said:

For everyone critical of this test for feedback (can someone who has time do a count of how many times this was suggested), please indicate how you *personally* would use this rating system as a host? Everyone seems really concerned with their feedback as a participant, but I'm curious how brutal some of you heathens will be as a host. 

Things like only allow 100% positive ratings to join, or won't care at all about the ratings?

I'm sticking with my old process of sessions that requires some effort, but helps. Contact after sign up to verify they respond, no response = boot. Ask for contact 24 hours before session to verify participation and readyness, no contact = boot. Give up to 15 minutes after session starts to participate or make contact.

I'd hope most people aren't robots with no leniency and take into account all the fringe reasons people gave above and reward effort and intention.

 

 

As a host i wont be paying a single bit of attention to the ratings. I don't agree with them, think it's an awful idea and I know that if a gamer joins one of my sessions that had a bad rating they're probably just like me, an honest hard working gamer who just doesn't agree with this terrible idea. I think most people are big and clever enough to figure out for themselves who are the real bad apples of this site. 

Here's my first experience of this system then. As mentioned in a previous post I joined a session over the weekend as a back up. they didn't need me to start and it descended into chaos anyway with people swearing at each other in the chat so I left. I've been given a bad rating from this session. A session I never even took part in. Nice one Sly, fantastic system. 

[mako-heart]

i didnt even know this existed, so i got bad feedback in the single session i joined? fucking great. also, i feel bad for not leaving the other people feedback because it was a good session :/

 

guess im not going to bother with these again.

[BlazingCat83]

7 minutes ago, mako-heart said:

i didnt even know this existed, so i got bad feedback in the single session i joined? fucking great. also, i feel bad for not leaving the other people feedback because it was a good session :/

 

guess im not going to bother with these again.

If it makes you feel better, it'll be reset once testing is done and be like it never happened.

[mako-heart]

1 hour ago, Torracat83 said:

If it makes you feel better, it'll be reset once testing is done and be like it never happened.

 

Barely.

[Sly Ripper]

9 hours ago, BlindMango said:

Yeah I said it directly to Sly when he shared a screenshot of it before making this thread, forced feedback is going to be a bad idea.

 

The way this is laid out right now is... Well... A nightmare   Honestly I think the voting page shouldn't be showed at all to users unless they request it. They should first be greeted by an overlay from any page they visit on the site after the session that says "Was your session great? Yes or No", pushing yes votes everyone as "Great" automatically, pushing "No" sends you to the voting screen - easy and you're on your way. Remember this should be a system that isn't so in your face and is only a useful tool to root out bad sports. See my first post in this thread as to more of my recommendations. 

 

Sly, if you launch this system as is, it's going to be a complete mess. If you do force feedback, then users who don't make any feedback just shouldn't get positive feedback for that session at most. A lot of good people will just get negative feedback for a session they contributed in simply because they didn't know to find and check that specific session page after the session ends, especially if how it's done currently where they're not alerted with a pop-up or overlay.

 

You gotta be careful with this things, people have been requesting it because they thought it would be helpful, you don't want it to backfire and have the opposite effect! Most of what's needed it there, you just have to reconfigure how the user sees and interacts with it a bit in my opinion  

 

There isn't really such thing as "negative feedback", the rating starts at 0 and you get closer to 100%. If you don't leave feedback you don't receive a good rating.

 

Forcing feedback is the only way to make it work otherwise cue "no one bothers with the feedback system" threads.

 

3 hours ago, mako-heart said:

i didnt even know this existed, so i got bad feedback in the single session i joined? fucking great. also, i feel bad for not leaving the other people feedback because it was a good session :/

 

guess im not going to bother with these again.

 

I know, there's no notification of it, just testing stuff.

[BeautifulTorment]

7 minutes ago, Sly Ripper said:

 

There isn't really such thing as "negative feedback", the rating starts at 0 and you get closer to 100%. If you don't leave feedback you don't receive a good rating.

 

Forcing feedback is the only way to make it work otherwise cue "no one bothers with the feedback system" threads.

 

 

I know, there's no notification of it, just testing stuff.

 

If you do what Mango suggested about having a page pop up asking for a user's feedback, and extend the length of time you can leave feedback, then you will effectively fix the glaring issues that have shown up in this trial.

[mekktor]

Yeah, I'll also be ignoring the feedback system if it remains compulsory. If that affects my ability to find boosting partners here then I'll obviously have to look elsewhere instead.

 

Edit: Just to add, I'm not against the feedback system itself (I've argued for it in other threads). I just can't agree with receiving negative feedback for not voting. And there's no motivation to sustain a good rating if it can be reduced for no reason at all.

Edited May 15, 2017 by mekktor

[thegirlruka]

2 hours ago, Sly Ripper said:

Forcing feedback is the only way to make it work otherwise cue "no one bothers with the feedback system" threads.

You asked for feedback on the methods of rating and the feedback seems to be against forced feedback. If you were going to disregard our feedback and do whatever you wanted anyway, why even ask for it?

Edited May 15, 2017 by kuuhaku

[Sly Ripper]

3 minutes ago, kuuhaku said:

You asked for feedback on the methods of rating and the feedback seems to be against forced feedback. I'd you were going to disregard our feedback and do whatever you wanted anyway, why even ask for it?

 

If 1 of 5 users in the session give feedback, how is it fair that the 4 people who couldn't be bothered to give feedback gets a good rating yet the one person who bothered gets nothing?

[Shadiochao]

Just now, Sly Ripper said:

If 1 of 5 users in the session give feedback, how is it fair that the 4 people who couldn't be bothered to give feedback gets a good rating yet the one person who bothered gets nothing?

 

Again, what's the problem with defaulting to giving positive feedback instead? You can get around that problem without having to resort to punishing people.

 

Besides, this solution you've come up with is only a partial fix. If somebody doesn't vote, the other four players still aren't getting any rating for that session, whether or not you hand out punishments for it.

 

It just doesn't make sense to give out bad ratings for things that aren't actually related to the boosting itself. I thought this is meant to help weed out the good players from the bad.