REPUTATION SYSTEM

Indoril_Nerevar

"Wah Wahh Toxicity! Scams! Potatos! Dungeon Potatoes! Elitests! Idiot Groups and Idiots and Trolls and more Idiots! Bad idea you suck! Wahh! Im Getting My Friends Wahh"!

(Thats what most of us sound like)

If You Do Not Support This, Than Do Not Support This

Everyone complaining about the person across from them. Alright? Fine. But if not, you can agree that we are atleast paranoid about who or what they are. Yeeaah there we gooo

Here is my suggestion and it is really quite simple. It's just a matter of actually creating this system as a Developer with, obviously, some modifications and their own personal features

Earn or Lose Points based on your group/player activity and actions in game.

Grants players a better understanding of who they play with, socialize and interact with and (maybe) who they are trading.

Offers rewards and titles, new achievements, and more interesting junk based on your points/reputation.

Players will have a symbol alongside there name based on there Reputation Rank. Are they Goodhearted? A Troll? Charitable? Evil? Theives? How about a bit of both?


This is an MMORPG. An open world concept of online gameplay. It's time to start making Titles and Ranks that actually mean something for the Community - everyone. Not divided mission accomplishers. This is a crucial, daily and consistent concern that has significantly impacted our community. Our little society needs a bit more "security".

It's time that you ACCEPT the fact that you can not filter out every scammer, every troll or every clown or loser you may dislike. You can not control other player behaviour but they control their own just like you.

It's time to OWN it. Own what you are. Don't like it? Do some community work, make me like you again

VaranisArano

If we must have one, I'd prefer a more roleplay oriented system similar to Oblivion's Fame/Infamy.

I'm not really sure what a reputation system for group activities is really going to accomplish, as it has a great chance of being inaccurate and misleading, vulnerable to manipulation by the same trolls its supposed to help identify, and also rather problematic for brand new players who haven't had time to acquire a reputation. Besides, ZOS doesn't allow naming and shaming of players on the forums for trolling or scamming - they aren't going to develop one to do so in game.

rpa

A system-wide social credit score for each citizen, like the Social Credit System?

Indoril_Nerevar

@VaranisArano

Than Vote for it being done properly or Suggestions instead of assuming they will grant other players the choice to depict anothers reputation!

Other players can't do that. Boom I solved that problem. You cant just say that it will be easily abused - as equally as I can not say it won't. Provide reinforcing material to express how this may be possible. We are discussing theory. Scratchboard projects if anything.

Nice name, by the way

Indoril_Nerevar

rpa wrote: »

A system-wide social credit score for each citizen, like the Social Credit System?

Yeah sure hahaha

Indoril_Nerevar

Naming and Shaming

To simplify the opposite direction on the matter:

We do not do this with The Reputation System. We have ranks and titles in game and guilds. We have a medieval time frame game based on fantasy, dragons and blood shed; theivery, murder, deciet, love, kindness, war and ROLEPLAY and more

It is time to ACCEPT what you are. WHO you choose to BE.


Using titles such as Dirty Old Hag, Peasant, Troll, Theif, Murderer, Goodhearted, Charitable, Trustworthy, Unpredictable is comical, fun and yet can define someone as mentioned in a Roleplay theme that is also highly affective in regards to Social Reputation

Hamish999

Biased poll. (snip)
Anyway to your suggestion. Hell no!

(edited for baiting and flaming)

VaranisArano

Indoril_Nerevar wrote: »

VaranisArano

Than Vote for it being done properly instead of assuming they will grant other players the choice to depict anothers reputation.

Other players cant do that. Boom I solved your problem.

"It being done properly" is going to mean different things to different players. You haven't described your desired group content reputation system very well.

So players can't vote. Now who does? ZOS? ZOS doesn't do naming and shaming, so they aren't going to go labeling players as scammers or trolls or toxic in game. All disciplinary stuff like that is private, as it should be. Furthermore, ZOS doesn't monitor that stuff in real time, so they don't often catch stuff like abusive and racist chat or scamming unless players report it. They definitely don't deal with comparatively minor issues I'd still want to know about for group content like "this player habitually tries to fake tank Vet Dungeons they can't handle." With the change you describe, the group content reputation system seems so limited as to hardly be more than what we already have - titles, achievements, and rewards for the content you do in game that you can show off if you want to.

If its based off of the quests you do, that's pretty much Oblivion's Fame/Infamy system, which is driven by roleplay and with Knights of the Nine, let players reset their Infamy score. Its not really the judgment system you seem to be looking for, though it could work for access to rewards/titles/achievements.

The roleplay aspect of your system seems workable as an extension of what we already have in game. My Silencer could gain a high Infamy and the rewards that go with that, while my Hero of the Pact would collect high Fame and those rewards.

Your social system for group content on the other hand, needs some serious fleshing out to make it workable. As you've described it, I don't see it doing want you say you want it to on a practical level.

I'm not voting in favor of it "done properly" unless I actually know what that means, and we're all voting on the same thing instead of our own fractious visions.

Indoril_Nerevar

VaranisArano wrote: »

Indoril_Nerevar wrote: »

VaranisArano

Than Vote for it being done properly instead of assuming they will grant other players the choice to depict anothers reputation.

Other players cant do that. Boom I solved your problem.

"It being done properly" is going to mean different things to different players. You haven't described your desired group content reputation system very well.

So players can't vote. Now who does? ZOS? ZOS doesn't do naming and shaming, so they aren't going to go labeling players as scammers or trolls or toxic in game. All disciplinary stuff like that is private, as it should be. Furthermore, ZOS doesn't monitor that stuff in real time, so they don't often catch stuff like abusive and racist chat or scamming unless players report it. They definitely don't deal with comparatively minor issues I'd still want to know about for group content like "this player habitually tries to fake tank Vet Dungeons they can't handle." With the change you describe, the group content reputation system seems so limited as to hardly be more than what we already have - titles, achievements, and rewards for the content you do in game that you can show off if you want to.

If its based off of the quests you do, that's pretty much Oblivion's Fame/Infamy system, which is driven by roleplay and with Knights of the Nine, let players reset their Infamy score. Its not really the judgment system you seem to be looking for, though it could work for access to rewards/titles/achievements.

The roleplay aspect of your system seems workable as an extension of what we already have in game. My Silencer could gain a high Infamy and the rewards that go with that, while my Hero of the Pact would collect high Fame and those rewards.

Your social system for group content on the other hand, needs some serious fleshing out to make it workable. As you've described it, I don't see it doing want you say you want it to on a practical level.

I'm not voting in favor of it "done properly" unless I actually know what that means, and we're all voting on the same thing instead of our own fractious visions.

Than dont vote

And I wouldnt expect them to use harsh names either! Thank you! Very enlightening Suggestions. . . .

srfrogg23

No. No. And, no.

People have a perfectly good ignore button. We don't need a Big Brother style automated "trust level" system.

If you need help understanding why, go ask WoW players about the tyranny of an abused robotic report system.

rpa

Well think about great possibilities. Simply combining player social behaviour data with real identity and spending would be pretty valuable commodity at least in jurisdictions where selling it to third parties is not illegal.

Edit: assuming Zenimax does not already do it...

Pauls

No.

Indoril_Nerevar

rpa wrote: »

Well think about great possibilities. Simply combining player social behaviour data with real identity and spending would be pretty valuable commodity at least in jurisdictions where selling it to third parties is not illegal.

Haha I know but I kind of figured you were joking around about that! :P

SpacemanSpiff1

Your poll is bad.

Any kind of rating system that players have input in will be abused.

Sylvermynx

No vote for NO. Bad poll. I personally hate this sort of pigeonholing of people on forums as well as in games. So yeah, that's a no from me.

Nemesis7884

why waist everyones time with a loaded biased poll that cant represent public opinion?

If you enjoy rating your neighbours that much....maybe move to china

Indoril_Nerevar

srfrogg23 wrote: »

No. No. And, no.

People have a perfectly good ignore button. We don't need a Big Brother style automated "trust level" system.

If you need help understanding why, go ask WoW players about the tyranny of an abused robotic report system.

Absolutely! You shouldn't rely on A Big Brother Trust System. It's a good thing we have a mind of our own, let alone something to help us feel a bit more secure about who we play with despite whatever we think of who we play with

rpa

Indoril_Nerevar wrote: »

rpa wrote: »

Well think about great possibilities. Simply combining player social behaviour data with real identity and spending would be pretty valuable commodity at least in jurisdictions where selling it to third parties is not illegal.

Haha I know but I kind of figured you were joking around about that! :P

Actually I'm not joking. I'm not from USA where that kind of data coollection is a normal thing.

VaranisArano

Indoril_Nerevar wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Indoril_Nerevar wrote: »

VaranisArano

Than Vote for it being done properly instead of assuming they will grant other players the choice to depict anothers reputation.

Other players cant do that. Boom I solved your problem.

"It being done properly" is going to mean different things to different players. You haven't described your desired group content reputation system very well.

So players can't vote. Now who does? ZOS? ZOS doesn't do naming and shaming, so they aren't going to go labeling players as scammers or trolls or toxic in game. All disciplinary stuff like that is private, as it should be. Furthermore, ZOS doesn't monitor that stuff in real time, so they don't often catch stuff like abusive and racist chat or scamming unless players report it. They definitely don't deal with comparatively minor issues I'd still want to know about for group content like "this player habitually tries to fake tank Vet Dungeons they can't handle." With the change you describe, the group content reputation system seems so limited as to hardly be more than what we already have - titles, achievements, and rewards for the content you do in game that you can show off if you want to.

If its based off of the quests you do, that's pretty much Oblivion's Fame/Infamy system, which is driven by roleplay and with Knights of the Nine, let players reset their Infamy score. Its not really the judgment system you seem to be looking for, though it could work for access to rewards/titles/achievements.

The roleplay aspect of your system seems workable as an extension of what we already have in game. My Silencer could gain a high Infamy and the rewards that go with that, while my Hero of the Pact would collect high Fame and those rewards.

Your social system for group content on the other hand, needs some serious fleshing out to make it workable. As you've described it, I don't see it doing want you say you want it to on a practical level.

I'm not voting in favor of it "done properly" unless I actually know what that means, and we're all voting on the same thing instead of our own fractious visions.

Than dont vote

And I wouldnt expect them to use harsh names either! Thank you! Very enlightening Suggestions. . . .

As purely roleplay titles, I could see ZOS letting players choose to use some harsh names, such as if they unlocked with increasing Infamy.

We have a few of those in game:
The Merciless
Master Thief
Scoundrel
Silencer
Executioner
Assassin

The joke title I have always wanted is "N'wah".

5cript

Are we all going to become chinese citizens?

Indoril_Nerevar

Okay ..uhh guys.. some of you guys I mean..don't get so emotional. I really don't have time to be a therapist and re-analyze each twisted, silly remark. It's a suggestion. Its open. It needs work. There is public commenting. Its the number one problem in the game; "toxicity" as you all put it.

Carry on

@Nemesis7884
Idk if this is a metaphor but since when was China neighhbouring Canada? OH WAIT REPUTATION SYSTEM WOULD HELP ME KNOW THAT GUY WAS OR WOULD BE TROLLING OR ANTAGONIZING ME

kojou

This has the potential for abuse if it can be player influenced. Whats to stop some guild from bullying a player they don't like by giving that player a bad reputation. I won't support anything that can be influenced by players because this is the internet and there are always trolls and toxic people and their friends.

I would support something that was based on in game decisions. Like if you repeatedly choose the "NPC Dies" option in quest lines you get a "Cold Hearted" achievement that comes with a title.

Indoril_Nerevar

VaranisArano wrote: »

Indoril_Nerevar wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Indoril_Nerevar wrote: »

VaranisArano

Than Vote for it being done properly instead of assuming they will grant other players the choice to depict anothers reputation.

Other players cant do that. Boom I solved your problem.

"It being done properly" is going to mean different things to different players. You haven't described your desired group content reputation system very well.

So players can't vote. Now who does? ZOS? ZOS doesn't do naming and shaming, so they aren't going to go labeling players as scammers or trolls or toxic in game. All disciplinary stuff like that is private, as it should be. Furthermore, ZOS doesn't monitor that stuff in real time, so they don't often catch stuff like abusive and racist chat or scamming unless players report it. They definitely don't deal with comparatively minor issues I'd still want to know about for group content like "this player habitually tries to fake tank Vet Dungeons they can't handle." With the change you describe, the group content reputation system seems so limited as to hardly be more than what we already have - titles, achievements, and rewards for the content you do in game that you can show off if you want to.

If its based off of the quests you do, that's pretty much Oblivion's Fame/Infamy system, which is driven by roleplay and with Knights of the Nine, let players reset their Infamy score. Its not really the judgment system you seem to be looking for, though it could work for access to rewards/titles/achievements.

The roleplay aspect of your system seems workable as an extension of what we already have in game. My Silencer could gain a high Infamy and the rewards that go with that, while my Hero of the Pact would collect high Fame and those rewards.

Your social system for group content on the other hand, needs some serious fleshing out to make it workable. As you've described it, I don't see it doing want you say you want it to on a practical level.

I'm not voting in favor of it "done properly" unless I actually know what that means, and we're all voting on the same thing instead of our own fractious visions.

Than dont vote

And I wouldnt expect them to use harsh names either! Thank you! Very enlightening Suggestions. . . .

As purely roleplay titles, I could see ZOS letting players choose to use some harsh names, such as if they unlocked with increasing Infamy.

We have a few of those in game:
The Merciless
Master Thief
Scoundrel
Silencer
Executioner
Assassin

The joke title I have always wanted is "N'wah".

Pure gold. Thank you.

Indoril_Nerevar

kojou wrote: »

This has the potential for abuse if it can be player influenced. Whats to stop some guild from bullying a player they don't like by giving that player a bad reputation. I won't support anything that can be influenced by players because this is the internet and there are always trolls and toxic people and their friends.

I would support something that was based on in game decisions. Like if you repeatedly choose the "NPC Dies" option in quest lines you get a "Cold Hearted" achievement that comes with a title.

Very well said. No player influences!

Kel

Hamish999 wrote: »

Biased poll. (snip)
Anyway to your suggestion. Hell no!

(edited for flaming and baiting)

Have to agree.
Where's the no option?

Biased polls by thier nature cannot be taken seriously. If you want realistic feedback, try making a non-biased poll that doesn't just prop up your ideas, even if you personally believe it's in the best interest of the game.

JKorr

No. Especially if players are involved it should be, oh hell no.

Way too much potential for abuse, harassment, trolling, and general crap behavior.

Not to mention labeling players for playing game content they paid for is, at the very least, counterproductive. Someone really enjoys the Thieves' guild quests, and Dark Brotherhood assassinations so they'll get "titles" that say they like robbery and butchery. If other players react to those "titles", it will really provide incentive for people to do that content, won't it?

Oblivion isn't a good example. In a single player game, it doesn't really matter whether you decided your current playthrough will make Attila the Hun look like Mr. Rogers or not. Nothing you do affects anyone else.

Indoril_Nerevar

Common Misconception:

Roleplaying & Playing an Online Video Game are The Same Thing

but

Roleplaying as a Thief and Acting as a Thief is IRRELEVANT to, wether or not you are; Roleplaying or Socializing, because:

Of the behaviour. Acting out. You are still doing it, regardless of right or wrong or pretend or practice.

You are still DOING IT and this means all that matters is how you act or play - wether its real, fake, or by "role" you can NOT be rude but, well, you can! There are consequences! Not bannable though! Personalities are nothing more and nothing less. Other players can not determine your reputation.

So, just because I can say right now

"I don't like you."

I can always say "I was just kidding, I was roleplaying." but that doesnt make it acceptable

ZOS_FalcoYamaoka

Greetings,

We've removed some threads due to baiting and bashing other members. Please keep the discussions civil and constructive.

Indoril_Nerevar

ZOS_FelipeF wrote: »

Greetings,

We've removed some threads due to baiting and bashing other members. Please keep the discussions civil and constructive.

Kel wrote: »

Hamish999 wrote: »

Biased poll. (snip)
Anyway to your suggestion. Hell no!

(edited for flaming and baiting)

Have to agree.
Where's the no option?

Biased polls by thier nature cannot be taken seriously. If you want realistic feedback, try making a non-biased poll that doesn't just prop up your ideas, even if you personally believe it's in the best interest of the game.

Sorry about that.

If you feel no need to support this than there is no need to support this; which is the equivalent, in fact more, to having no votes. Let's put this matter to rest and may I remind you that you have all the rights to comment your opinions publicly and that they bump the Thread each time.

furiouslog

A player-based system like this would get rigorously abused, and would be full of retaliatory actions. Guilds would end up being internally solicited to downgrade players that a single person had a negative interaction with, tyrannizing large groups. I can't imagine what would happen in PvP, particularly given the racism/sexism/naming&shaming that already takes place within the confines of the system.

Game decisions influencing the environment are interesting, though - getting titles/rewards based on a pattern of certain kinds of choices would be fun, and NPC reactions to a habitual set of heartless decisions would be fun (e.g. goody two shoes players get bright/light dyes for certain achievements, evil toons receive dark/bloody dyes for choosing alternative actions).

I also find it weird that I've repeatedly pick pocketed and murdered citizens for motif drops in Morrowind, but Vivec is totally cool with that and treats me like a hero. On the other hand, Sithis demanded it. What're ya gonna do.

Indoril_Nerevar

kojou wrote: »

This has the potential for abuse if it can be player influenced. Whats to stop some guild from bullying a player they don't like by giving that player a bad reputation. I won't support anything that can be influenced by players because this is the internet and there are always trolls and toxic people and their friends.

I would support something that was based on in game decisions. Like if you repeatedly choose the "NPC Dies" option in quest lines you get a "Cold Hearted" achievement that comes with a title.

The goal is to have zero player influence on the matter.