Curse

Nokomis · Jun 07, 2005, 01:43 AM // 01:43

It would be nice if players in GW had a teamwork rating. Some indicator of how often that person completes a mission with groups, for example (thus giving a lower rating to people who quit in the middle). It would have to be simple, based on very concrete actions.

There have been times I have wished we could grade our teammates, lol, but the same pigs I would flunk would flunk me in revenge no matter how I played the game so what would be the point? It would create a huge mess.

But a teamwork rating based on actually sticking with the group you go out with would be useful. Something simple like 1--7 stars and you start with four stars but can go up or down depending on your choices during missions. It would tell other players at least who they absolutely should avoid, and it would give good team players an advantage when groups are forming because having seven stars would mean something.

Just a thought. You know that saying about how a woman has to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince? In GW you have to go on missions with dozens of ugly toads to find just a few fun players. So I was trying to think of something that would cut down on a little of that.

--Nokomis (I never should have gone on a mission with three players who had SATAN in their names...)

Aaaaagh · Jun 07, 2005, 01:46 AM // 01:46

Nokomis, we might have been grouped the other day when you were talking about this, and no, I wasnt the @ss who left. I agree with you totally, something like this would be extremely helpful

Some people are sure to argue that it wouldnt be fair because the people who suffer from disconnects would get a lower score. To that I say -- so what. If they get that many disconnects I dont want them in my party. Yes, I realize Im a jerk.

DarrenJasper · Jun 07, 2005, 01:48 AM // 01:48

Way too much room for abuse.

relientK_fan · Jun 07, 2005, 01:49 AM // 01:49

You do realize then the bad players would stop playing, thus cutting profit down for Anet and NCSoft. If they want to keep a majority of customers, this won't be implemented.

Nokomis · Jun 07, 2005, 01:56 AM // 01:56

I know disconnects happen to nice people, but the net result for the group is the same as if a player just leaves on purpose. So I don't think you are a jerk for saying disconnects should count against a player.

It shouldn't be TOO easy to go up or down a star, though. The rating system would be mostly for weeding out the total jerks who screw people over on a daily basis, not the people who have occassional disconnects or have to flip out of a mission once in awhile for a valid reason.

--Nokomis

Nokomis · Jun 07, 2005, 01:58 AM // 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrenJasper

Way too much room for abuse.

Can you explain what you mean? I am NOT talking about allowing players to rate each other. How would it be open to abuse if it was based simply on something concrete like not dropping out of missions?

--Nokomis

Nokomis · Jun 07, 2005, 02:01 AM // 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by relientK_fan

You do realize then the bad players would stop playing, thus cutting profit down for Anet and NCSoft. If they want to keep a majority of customers, this won't be implemented.

Maybe they could have a PURGATORY server where only people with one star could play. lol

It would be like a Guild Wars Prison, with all the bad guys locked up so they can only screw over each other.

Eww.

--Nokomis

Caco-Cola · Jun 07, 2005, 02:02 AM // 02:02

Quote:

You do realize then the bad players would stop playing, thus cutting profit down for Anet and NCSoft. If they want to keep a majority of customers, this won't be implemented.

How's that?

This isn't a regular MMO. Anet has the 50 bucks from every player. We're not paying monthly so they have no incentive to keep us longer.

They could just totally ruin the game so that no one plays. They get their money, we get the shaft, we can't do anything about it.

Drakron · Jun 07, 2005, 02:03 AM // 02:03

There is no monthy fee, if the bad players stop playing they already got the money from such players.

Of course the abuse of such system is huge, some people log off mid mission because its simply have to, others map move when they realize the party is dead and the party leader is not doing anything or that someone for some reason decided to stop playing but the character is still on and we cannot move as long that person is alive.

Aaaaagh · Jun 07, 2005, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caco-Cola

How's that?

This isn't a regular MMO. Anet has the 50 bucks from every player. We're not paying monthly so they have no incentive to keep us longer.

They could just totally ruin the game so that no one plays. They get their money, we get the shaft, we can't do anything about it.

Second time tonight I have had to disagree with you Cola =( .

They do need to worry about keeping us. I can only think of two (but Im not too bright), but they are both pretty big reasons. 1) We have friends, not all of them play--yet. 2) Expansions, fiddy bucks a piece. I know I have already planned on dumping another 100-150 on this game.

Caco-Cola · Jun 07, 2005, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Quote:

Second time tonight I have had to disagree with you Cola =( .

I'm not a very agreeable person.

But seriously unless the expansions are spaced out in 5 month intervals (actually it probably comes down to 3 month intervals with todays rates. $15 a month/50 to tell how many months would be equivalent to a standard P2P game +1 month for the free month) I'm not gonna pay $50 for an expansion.

Especially one that just jazzes up the music a bit.

Aaaaagh · Jun 07, 2005, 02:29 AM // 02:29

The expansions are supposed to come out approximately every 6 months. Also, you will not be required to buy the expansions to play. The way they made it sound they wont 'unbalance' expansions to a degree where you would not be competitive without them. Not sure I believe that last line, but we will see.

As for paying for expanions, I say bring 'em on. I'll gladly pay 50 bucks for the hours of enjoyment I get out of this game. But thats just me, I understand other people have different priorties.

DarrenJasper · Jun 07, 2005, 03:13 AM // 03:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nokomis

Can you explain what you mean? I am NOT talking about allowing players to rate each other. How would it be open to abuse if it was based simply on something concrete like not dropping out of missions?

Okay I should have read your original post more carefully. But I still have to come out against this...

Say I join a PUG and after only a few groups of mobs discover these guys are completely hopeless. The only thing I can expect in the mission is continual wipeouts, people bitching at each other, and all of them finally quitting in frustration before the end. You're saying I should be forced to waste my time babysitting these nooblets or be penalized for it?

As I've said before in threads on this topic, I should have the right to quit out of any group I please, at any time, for any reason, without getting a little sign tacked to me that says "NOT A TEAM PLAYER!!" Sorry.

Winterclaw · Jun 07, 2005, 04:30 AM // 04:30

Here's how to make it work: you can only use it while you are in a party with someone (or if they leave during a mission) and any answers beyond the standard deviation or two wouldn't be used in the calculation until they become more "standard".

EDIT: Maybe the votes people with low teamwork ratings wouldn't count. Also the ability to leave a short message on anyone after you vote on them would be okay, but that's a stretch.

Schorny · Jun 07, 2005, 09:02 AM // 09:02

What if my guilde makes many runs through an easy mission just to increase our teamrating? It would be so easy to abuse - you just need many people...

And the rating won't say much, because someone that is a good team player, may most of the time play alone or with his friends - so he got a bad rating but is a superior team player. And the other way round: someone that does a lot of missions and is a total dumbass would have a good rating (because he played a lot of missions with a lot of people...)

doesn't make sense to me

Nokomis · Jun 07, 2005, 01:46 PM // 13:46

You all make good points.

It just seems like there should be some way to meet new people in a game without having to wade through dozens of real losers to find a few good players.

Someone did a thread earlier talking about the social limitations in the game and maybe that is part of the problem. There is no way to get any idea of the kind of person you are joining up with until the party you are in blows up mid-mission. In most life situations you get a feel for a person by talking with them and watching their behavior, but in GW you don't get much chance to do that.

Oh well, it was just a thought. I think it was the buyer/seller ratings on ebay that made me think of it.

--Nokomis