Curse

hallomik · May 29, 2006, 05:02 PM // 17:02

First of all, I realize there are already ways to deal with annoying players, namely henches, guilds, just mapping out, and griping to A-net for the truely loathsome players. These are all fine, but they really do nothing to encourage an obnoxious player from mending his or her ways. There's no greater turn-off to a new player than having abuse heaped on him by some insecure 13 year-old looking for someone to blame.

I've also noticed that behavior spreads. Just like people learn to use the phrases "LFG, WTS" and the various other conventions of the game, so too do they adopt the behaviors of other players. Unfortunately, over-the-top, raging anger has become common in pick-up groups.

Often, the screamers will justify their immature actions by saying the person deserved it because he was a "noob." We've all been frustrated by the non-listening player over-aggroing and causing party wipes. Particularly at the later stages of the game, we're less forgiving of poor play. Addressing this issue could reduce the frustration that leads to the outburts, but poor play doesn't justify the rage-aholics.

This adolescent fury is far more prevalent in Guild Wars than in other online games I've played. It is somewhat a function of the unique aspects of Guildwars: no monthly fees and no dedicated servers. Jerks can get in cheap and be reasonably confident they won't encounter their victim again. Welcome to the internet, I know. My proposal is to use the power of the internet to help combat the issue.

My proposal is an in-game system for players to rate two characteristics of the other players: Attitude and Skill. In my mind, the ratings work as follows:

A player will have the option of rating the Attitude and Skill of each player with whom he has grouped a set amount of time - i.e., 20 minutes (edit - or the successful completion of a mission). Only one rating per grouping event is permitted and must be applied then or not at all.

The ratings by other players will be anonymous and will not be immediately apparent to the recipient.

The ratings will decay over time, such that newer ratings have a higher impact than older ratings. Ratings beyond a specified period will have no impact.

The ratings received by a player will be visible to other players when deciding to group, much like the new Titles feature. (edit - if privacy is a concern, ANet may make displaying one's rating a toggle)

Each rating will have a "score" based on the average rating and a "weight" based on the number of votes received.

Skill Ratings are not permitted until the player has reached level 20 for a specified number of gaming hours (say 15) . Attitude ratings should begin after level 10.

Skill Ratings will apply to a character. Attitude ratings will apply to an account. (Edit - input below convinced me both ratings should apply to a character. See below for arguments.)

Playing with henches or solo will gradually bring negative ratings to neutral for both Skill and Attitude. This will give the anti-social and inexperienced players a reasonable way to make good other than just waiting. Hench playing will not bring down a good score or increase a score above "average/neutral".

As an example, suppose the rating system was a 5 point scale. One player might be rated "Attitude - Very Mature (4.8/50 votes) " and "Skill - not rated". Another player could be rated "Attitude - Highly Immature (1.3/200 votes) and Skill - Highly Skilled (4.3/300 votes). The person forming the group could decide quickly whether attitude or skill is the more important quality. Obviously, Mature Skilled players will be highly sought and Immature Unskilled players will be avoided.

You could also envision a similar system for trading, where players get rated everywhere from "scammer" to "honest Abe" upon the conclusion of a transaction.

(edited to incorporate the suggestions I found persuasive)

(edit - Also, please read my replies to the objections, constructive and the other kind, raised below.)

Fitz Rinley · May 29, 2006, 06:00 PM // 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallomik

Often, the screamers will justify their immature actions by saying the person deserved it because he was a "noob." We've all been frustrated by the non-listening player over-aggroing and causing party wipes. Particularly at the later stages of the game, we're less forgiving of poor play. Addressing this issue could reduce the frustration that leads to the outburts, but poor play doesn't justify the rage-aholics.

Cute term.

To some extent the issue has been addressed by preventing people from accessing areas before they have managed key triggers. This is a laudable change by ANet. It reduces the probablity of seeing a 7th level character scamming runners through ascension as I have seen done.

Quote:

Jerks can get in cheap and be reasonably confident they won't encounter their victim again.

Is it your intention to infer immorality is the domain of the tight-budgetted? Income is incumbant upon ones ability to be generous with what it purchases, nothing more.

Quote:

My proposal is an in-game system for players to rate two characteristics of the other players: Attitude and Skill.

Attitude is infeasible to rate in a public process. One who is introverted will rate poorly the extravert. A person who is intuitive will rate poorly those who function most from sensory data. A person who has better EQ (emotional quotient) will rate poorly a person who has more in IQ (intelligence quotient). A person who is means oriented will rate poorly someone who is more goals oriented. This is using just one set of dichotomies found in the Myers-Briggs personality profiling system.

Incase this seems irrelevant to what you descibe, please understand psychology is the study of attitude and its expression. A sensor/judgmental (SJ) will be more concerned with clearly defined goals and environment for action. An intuitor/feeler will be concerned with environemnt as it is applied in social interaction. An intuitor/thinker (mine) will will be concerned with conceptual application. In each case they will judge the others 'attitude' as poor based on whether they interacted under the same world view. We ahve not even dealt with the three temperaments found to be hard-wired from birth, in the Topeka Studies or with cultural framework in a global setting.

Quote:

A player will have the option of rating the Attitude and Skill of each player with whom he has grouped a set amount of time - i.e., 20 minutes.

I know of children that it took over 50 years to find out how much their parents really cared. Someone is supposed to be able to rate another in 20 minutes?

Quote:

The ratings by other players will be anonymous and will not be immediately apparent to the recipient.

What prevents me from giving everyone a negative rating just because I want to mess up the system?

Quote:

The ratings will decay over time, such that newer ratings have a higher impact than older ratings. Ratings beyond a specified period will have no impact.

So someone that cannot play often will never be capable of a high or low rating.

Quote:

The ratings received by a player will be visible to other players when deciding to group, much like the new Titles feature.

This would violate privacy I believe. While public embarassment has been used successfully in some cultures as a means of behavioral management, it is not generally promoted where I live under fear of being sued for *emotional distress.* All it takes is for one parent to sue because, ''My little Precious was demoralized, incapable of eating or sleeping, cried constantly and had to see a psychiatrist because of the mean people supported by ANet. See my bills?'' This is simply not possible in today's world.

Quote:

Each rating will have a "score" based on the average rating and a "weight" based on the number of votes received.

You really like sine and cosign dont you? The number of bell curves in your calculation are mounting. They may need a Cray to keep up with it.

Quote:

Skill Ratings are not permitted until the player has reached level 20 for a specified number of gaming hours (say 15) . Attitude ratings should begin after level 10.

So we test attitude before the person has finished adjustment to setting?

Quote:

Skill Ratings will apply to a character. Attitude ratings will apply to an account.

Logical, if and only if no one shares an account.

Quote:

"honest Abe"

Cultural specific reference in a multi-cultural environment.

I understand your frustration. I also understand that there are some who are of majority age who are also immature and some minors that are more inexperienced with the world and very mature otherwise. However, the only real complete and total solution is to kill off all children and never allow more of them.

Every child is a new wave of invasion bringing the non-civilized to our little world. They are one of the most destructive, self-centered, demanding, and stubborn things existing. Because they are not born civilized it is the process of those that have become civilized to inculcate it into them by whatever means needed (force, bribery, embarassment, legal action, social contract, or inspiration by higher values) at any given time. Eliminate all children from here on out and soon there will be no immaturity among humans ever.

However, it seems neither of our ideas is feasible, :sigh:. We will simply have to find another method; one that neither destroyes the species, nor sets up ANet for litigation. Perhaps socialization will work after education fails.

Fitz

MCS · May 29, 2006, 06:32 PM // 18:32

Or we can just add in vote kick.

Verlas Ho'Esta · May 29, 2006, 07:29 PM // 19:29

I like both ideas. it would certainly convey appropriate disapproval to certain, how shal I say it, retards? I don't care if they're children or not. The fact remains that people should have to behave themselves online, just as if they were in public.

/signed.

Thom · May 29, 2006, 08:15 PM // 20:15

Ummm, you can't replace good leadership with some automated rating system. A good dictator normally solves most of these problems. Find someone liberal with the kick button to lead your group-- problem solved.

felinette · May 29, 2006, 08:30 PM // 20:30

And what's to stop the jerk from rating you and everyone else low, even if you didn't do anything?

As far as henchies go, if you hench, it shouldn't affect your rating at all. How can someone be rated when they essentially soloed the mission or quest?

Can't see this working--you're relying on the guys you'd rate low to act maturely. What are the chances?

And how would you rate skill? Monks would probably be rated low if there were a number of deaths, even if it wasn't their fault, and vice versa--rated high if not many deaths, even though it was the skill of the individual players that achieved that. And do you honestly think most peeps could rate how much the mesmer on their team contributed? Most don't even know what skills a mesmer has, let alone if they're using them intelligently. And I can't count the number of times I've been in a PUG when someone else is thanked for something another player did. An MM can contribute a lot to a mission and because of that, would probably be rated highly, but how much skill is actually involved?

People are generally only paying attention to what they're doing--not what everyone else is doing. I'd have no faith whatsoever in player-rated skill stats. And then there's the problem that we all think we're the mature, skilled players and the other guy is the noob.

Kick button/vote won't work either. Same reason, and too open to abuse in other ways. Already discussed in another thread.

Overnite · May 29, 2006, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Quote:

This adolescent fury is far more prevalent in Guild Wars than in other online games I've played.

What did you play before ? Chess ?

Anyway. This is the most retarded idea I've read on this forum since like yesterday.

The "problem" of annoying players cannot and will not be solved. And it's not a big matter since nobody cares about it except for a few people. Your idea offers some incredible griefing possibilities, so guess who would be the only people benefitting from it.

And maybe it's just me but I personally prefer an occasional bad mannered kid that brings some spice to this dull game than one of those f*cking carebears who will re-type the whole game manual in public chat as soon as some newb asks a question.

Sientir · May 29, 2006, 09:26 PM // 21:26

It is a good idea, but...as has been said, it wouldn't work due to vulnerabilities for abuse. Overnite, what is wrong with helping new players? There are too many people who yell at them as it is.

fiery · May 29, 2006, 09:35 PM // 21:35

I stopped readying after the 13 year old remark, playing Guild Wars for a LONG time I have seen these "annoying players" range from 11-56, and yes older men can be complete asses.

Get a good guild, make friends.

Overnite · May 29, 2006, 09:56 PM // 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sientir

Overnite, what is wrong with helping new players? There are too many people who yell at them as it is.

Nothing, as long as you do that over the PM so nobody else has to read it.

shardfenix · May 29, 2006, 10:39 PM // 22:39

Will there be 2 different attitudes for pvp?
I want one title for how iway thinks of me, and another title for how good players think of me.

hallomik · May 30, 2006, 01:14 AM // 01:14

Lots to reply to here. The general reaction wasn't quite as negative as I'd expected. I won't respond to each and every point, but rather to those that seem like legitimate points to consider, regardless of tone.

To Fitz Rinley

Quote:

What prevents me from giving everyone a negative rating just because I want to mess up the system?

Nothing. But consider, if you go around givng negative ratings to everyone, that will very slightly lower the overall ratings and not really affect the system. It's a bit like saying, "what if I went on all these presidential polling sites and said I had strong negative feelings about all candidates." The answer is not much would happen because you are just one vote of many. Some people will rate harsher and some less harsh. It's not perfect, but it is far less subject to abuse than you imply.

Quote:

This would violate privacy I believe. While public embarassment has been used successfully in some cultures as a means of behavioral management, it is not generally promoted where I live under fear of being sued for *emotional distress.* All it takes is for one parent to sue...

I'll leave aside the irony of your arguing to protect people from emotional distress by doing nothing to curtail in-game verbal abuse.

If privacy is really a concern, and I'm not convinced of that, people can be given a toggle to choose to display or not display their "reputation." People forming groups can take a person's unwillingness to make that public into consideration.

Quote:

You really like sine and cosign dont you? The number of bell curves in your calculation are mounting. They may need a Cray to keep up with it.

Actually not. There is a mathematical concept called exponential smoothing that makes the computations trivial.

Quote:

Logical, if and only if no one shares an account.

I think you make a good point here. Probably both ratings should apply to characters rather than accounts. This would allow players to be Jekyll and Hyde if they chose, too. (I don't rule out the fact that some players will want to cultivate bad-boy personas.) It would also allow a player to make a fresh start on a new character. (I apologize in advance for the cultural reference, Jekyll and Hyde, above. Confused multiculturalists are invited to use Google.)

To MCS

Quote:

Or we can just add in vote kick.

There is a logical fallacy called the false choice which you engage in here. ANet may choose to implement my system, add the ability to kick, or both or neither. One doesn't preclude the other.

On the subject of the kicking, I believe that is subject to far more abuse than my proposal. I've not read the forums on this idea, but I can imagine an unscrupulous group of friends, vote-kicking all the "suckers" they invited when they get to the point in a mission where all the greens drop.

To Verlas Ho'Esta

Thank you for your support.

To Thom

See previous comments on kicking.

To felinette

Quote:

And what's to stop the jerk from rating you and everyone else low, even if you didn't do anything?

Nothing. But let's expand your scenario a bit. Suppose a group of 8 has one angry-at-the-world old woman heaping abuse on one poor player and 6 people trying to calm the situation down so they can all complete the mission with some degree of fun. A few of the other players suggest she calm down only to bring on the fury of this unhinged player. She's mad at the rest of the group and says she's going to poor-rate everyone. Well, if you're one of the other 7 and you know or suspect that this will happen, all 7 of you are going to poor-rate her and will likely high-rate each other in defense. You overestimate the ability of the out-of-control person to hurt other players. I don't think this is a serious concern.

Quote:

As far as henchies go, if you hench, it shouldn't affect your rating at all. How can someone be rated when they essentially soloed the mission or quest?

The point of this part of the proposal was to give a poorly rated player a chance to improve his or her score in some constructive fashion. Think of it as community service. As I said, this can only get you out of the gutter and won't bring you down if you have a positive score.

Quote:

Can't see this working--you're relying on the guys you'd rate low to act maturely. What are the chances?

Actually, I only hope that people straighten up after some damage to their reputation. I would never rely on it. Any person's self-improvement is ultimately up to them alone. What this system gives me (or new players who haven't gotten into a strong guild yet) is a way to avoid these players in the first place.

Quote:

And how would you rate skill? Monks would probably be rated low if there were a number of deaths, even if it wasn't their fault, and vice versa--rated high if not many deaths, even though it was the skill of the individual players that achieved that. And do you honestly think most peeps could rate how much the mesmer on their team contributed? Most don't even know what skills a mesmer has, let alone if they're using them intelligently. And I can't count the number of times I've been in a PUG when someone else is thanked for something another player did. An MM can contribute a lot to a mission and because of that, would probably be rated highly, but how much skill is actually involved?

I've done the Tomb of Primeval Kings many, many times. Regardless of my personal skill, sometimes my groups rock and sometimes they wipe/disband. Quite often my nec is singled out for compliments. Usually my Ranger is ignored, unless I'm pulling, in which case I get compliments or grief (not the greatest puller). I'm sure my nec would be better thought of in general than my ranger skillwise. I'm new to monking and I shudder to think what people might say about my abilities there.

My point is that you will sometimes get unfair ratings, or some character types may have inherent advantages over others. Pity poor assassins. I maintain that's all good. People are intelligent. They will know Assassins are going to as a class come up short against Nec's, but if you're looking for an Assassin, you'll take that bias into consideration. Maybe a Nec will have to have a 4.5 to be really considered strong, but a 2.5 'Sin will be sought after. These things have a way or working out over time.

Finally, remember that I said you'd need to be in a group with people for 20 minutes (or have completed a mission) before the ability to rate someone even became possible. For, quickly disintegrating teams, no harm no foul. Most of your ratings would come from successful runs.

To Overnite

Quote:

What did you play before ?

I played WOW on the PVE servers. There was a totally different vibe there which I prefer (the vibe, not the game), and I may return to. Good riddance, I'm sure some would say. However, there's a lot in Guildwars I really admire, and I'm impressed overall with what ANet is trying to do, so I'm sure I'll be haunting Tyria and Cantha for some time. Also, fundamentally I'm a cheap person,

.

To fiery

Quote:

I stopped readying after the 13 year old remark, playing Guild Wars for a LONG time I have seen these "annoying players" range from 11-56, and yes older men can be complete asses.

That's unfortunate. I never meant to imply that only young people are immature and only older people are mature.

To shardfenix

Quote:

Will there be 2 different attitudes for pvp?
I want one title for how iway thinks of me, and another title for how good players think of me.

I'm really more of a PVE player than a PVP, so I can't be sure. I think in PVP, it's rather more acceptable to abuse your opponents and such. I'm open to input from others, but in general I intended this to apply to PVE.

Fitz Rinley · May 30, 2006, 06:55 PM // 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallomik

I'll leave aside the irony of your arguing to protect people from emotional distress by doing nothing to curtail in-game verbal abuse.

Truth sucks. I'm actually arguing to protect ANet from frivolous suit over falsified emotional distress (whose falsification may not be provable in a court of law). It is not as if we ahve not seen this sort of thing before.

Quote:

Suppose a group of 8 has one angry-at-the-world old woman heaping abuse on one poor player and 6 people trying to calm the situation down so...

I almost choked on this because it is so reverse tot he anecdotal experience. I know three mature women who play, 2 of which are grand-parents and one of which could be. In one case I know she no longer sits her character down because of things done with the Warrior dance. One often plays a healer and simply states things such as, ''If you don't engage your brain, I don't engage my healing.'' This usually has an immediate sobering effect on the immature.

Fitz

hallomik · May 30, 2006, 08:47 PM // 20:47

Quote:

I almost choked on this because it is so reverse tot he anecdotal experience. I know three mature women who play, 2 of which are grand-parents and one of which could be. ...

LOL

Of course it's the reverse of anecdotal experience. That was my (deliberately ironic) point. I originally wrote that paragraph using the psychotic 13 year old male as the example, but at least one person was offended by that generalization in my OP, so I reversed it, only to offend you.

/sigh

People "stop reading" when hit with a generally truthful example and "choke" when presented with a less common one. Truth sucks, indeed.