Rating System

I dont know if it is possible, but it would be a really good idea to have some kind of rating system Implemented.

There are so many failed games because of n00b comms and n00b players.

What i am suggesting is a system such as...

There being a "Main Empires Rating Server"

Players can then "rate" once per game a comm, or another player.

So Im playing on Vipers server and i am a squad leader and i have a player on my team acting like a .... Jackass...

I can then type !rate Jackass 1

It then sends a msg to the game sever letting it know i think jackass, is a jack ass, then sends that to the main rating empires server.

The Rating empires server could easly be the same server which host the listings for empires servers being hosted.

This would work the same for the comm, sept you only can rate the comm at the end of the game.

If the comm is a grief-er or a n00b, you can "!rate comm 1 - 10"


I really feel this would be a good idea. I am a programmer, but i do it just for a hobby, so i know setting something up like this wouldnt be a big deal.

Do the Devs of Empires feel the same way tho?

I would really like to see a rating feature be implemented.

Then we wouldnt have to wonder if the comm we are voting for is a n00b, or the players in our squads are not jackasses.

I hope saying jackass is not considered cursing. If it is my bad.

Maybe have a Single Character Rating next to a players name in the player list, a Circle with a 1 - 10 average rating for that player.

So you press tab and you see all the players, and next to each player is a rating from 1 - 10. This would also help prevent stacking in some ways.

Another thought, when you rate a player, it stores in the main empire server that "Pica Delphon" (me) rated "so-n-so" as a 3. But if i re rate the player as a 6 then that rating from me changes to a 6. That way if a player was a jackass at first and i rate him as a 3, but then he improves and becomes a good team player, the rating from me changes to 6.


Thats about all i have to say. Yes i didnt format this thread correctly, pros and cons. Its just im typing fast and i want to get back to the game. If anyone has any negative comments that i didnt format this correctly with pros and cons, ect. I can come back and edit later.

Really hope the devs will implement this.

*hugs*

 

A global commander rating system?

To much potential for abuse.

Playerbase rating systems in general are typically not accurate and have huge potential for abuse.

 

The problem with player-reviews is that it can be abused.

*hugs*

 

Im kind of curious on how you believe it can be abused ?

Im sure there plenty of room for abuse in any system of course.

There is always ways to prevent abuse to some extent of course.....

 

Fairly obvious. Go in game, new commander wants to get experience. Joins match, becomes comm. Team bitches at comm for trying to get his bearings. Comm tries his best and puts up a decent effort but still loses. Comm has learned from mistake. Unfortunately, the whole team decides it'd be a wonderful idea to rate train the comm 1. New comm gets a terrible rating, never gets the chance to become comm again because everyone sees this rating and avoids him like the plague.

It's pretty straightforward.

 

Which means that if this get implemented in a couple of months when all the good comms no longer play then the residue is composed of low rated comms from the past that never get voted in.

 

G4TC Empires Main Server

parachute|fastDL|carjack|falldmg|voteTricksterToUnlockModels

do not want

no offence

 

Okay that is a good example of how it could be abused, But that dosent mean this cannot have a work around.

Let me toss a few ideas out here.

The way this system could be abused is if a n00b comm plays a map and fails. Then everyone rates that player as crap, and then the n00b comm never gets voted back in.

But with the system im proposing that wont happen. Your Overall player rating would not be limited to just commanding, you will be rated as a player and a comm, not either or.

So a n00b comes along and trys to comm and he gets a bad rating the first time, because he accidentally drove the comm into that blue stuff that looks like water.

He will get a bad rating yes. However!

If he has interest in empires, he will keep playing as a player himself. If he proves him self through a couple of months as being a good player, his rating will go up.

Then once his rating goes up some, he will get another chance as a commander.

There will of course need to be 2 ratings to prevent abuse. A User Rating system, where users can type !rate player 1 - 10. Then a second rating system where the game server it gives a player a rating from 1 - 10 depending on how well that player did that game.

So when someone votes a player for comm, there rating could have many values, but 2 values at the top being the value other players have giving him and the value the server has giving him.

Kinda like our american government where no branch of government has too much power.

Which brings me to another idea, Trusted Admins / Devs can also be able to give players ratings them selfs.

So when a player in empires wants to be comm there will be 3 numbers that judge that person.

What Other Players Think of this person,
What the Admins / Devs think of this Person,
And what the server has rated this person for his / her performance.

So there would be 3 separate checks and balances to prevent abuse such as what you are talking about.

I think this would be the best way to go.

Any player at any point during the game can type in !Rate PlayerName 1-10 to rate a player.

When you rate a player, there is only one Value store for you to that player.

If i rate Delete as a Number 2, and then decide to change his rating to a 4, it removes that value of 2 and sets it to a 4. So thers never more then one value store from any player.

This whole system of course relys on a Account ID. If the servers do not receive account ID's and not Nick Names, the whole system falls apart hehe.

Can anyone find any problems with this system that ive just wrote about, where abuse could still happen. To some degree theres always going to be some abuse. But having 3 systems like this, limits that abuse.

But of cours a admin / dev could easily come along, by pass all that and give someone a bad or good rating. But thats unavoidable and we shouldn't back out on a good rating system solely based on that.


To further extend what im saying.


Even if the admins and the players never give a player a "Rating" the server will always keep track of that players stats. Even if he has a 9 rating in both admins and players, his server track record should still hold some weight.

It is of course up to the admins and players to rate players.

The rating server at the same time could keep track of how long been playing, how many games played, how many bans, and other such useful information.

This would be a great system to help us select good players for comms.

I believe it can work if setup correctly. The only real way it can be abuses is if a Trusted Admin or Dev has access to the server, and starts changing player values. Which that person shouldnt be trusted in the first place!

 

Players won't bother to rate everyone on their team at the end of the game, they don't even have enough time. Even if they do, its hard for them to keep track of every single player on their team and their performance.

Its incredibly easy to create your own server and farm points or exploit someone else's points down.

 

Of course, but as i have explained through my posts.

#1 even if players dont rate other players, there is still a server rating.

If your playing and you see another person doing a good job on your team, you can rate them when you get the chance. People who do good, there names stick in your mind, i know that first hand. When im a Squad Leader and i see someone who is doing a good job there name sticks with me.

#2 Not with my system.... In my system

Each "Steam Player ID" has a record.

My name in game is pica delphon.... Lets say i rate you Fricken Hamster as a 5.

If i try to rate you again as a 3, the server checks your ID, sees that my ID has already ranked you as a 5 and changes it to a 3. So at no point can i rate you more then once. My rating for you will always and only be 1 number, i can not rate you multiple times.

This would prevent what you just replied.

 

This has already been discussed.

Too much potential for abuse / misuse (see the various player stats experiments).

 

Okay then how can it be abused.

Am i am sorry if i am discussing a old matter. But i dont think it has be discussed fully. Because i know all too well how to have a rating system with the best security measure to prevent any such abuse.

So please explain to me what can be abused, taken into account what i have already posted?

 

People have always remembered those who do bad more than those who shine. In reality what happens is if one player makes a simple mistake such as taking your vehicle when he saw it was abandoned, the victim will not only rate the alleged hijacker the lowest possible rating, he will also influence others to do the same, resulting in unfair ratings.

As so aptly demonstrated in fairly recent events, Empires does have enemies. It is extremely easy to exploit this system with any server and a list of steamids.

 

Then that person shouldn't have stolen a vehicle without making sure no body owned it first. The rating system works

It can also equally be said that over time people forget about the mistakes someone has made, specially if that person improves and becomes a better team player.

Him stealing that Tank without making damned sure it was no one elses, will ensure he wont be taking a tank again without making sure its a tank not wanted by anyone else.


Every game has enemys, so that means the devs should crawl into a corner and cower and not make the game the best it could be because of some jackasses?

Murr

 

There are situations where taking the tank is the right move, such as using it to destroy and enemy or moving it away from harm (the player's fault for leaving the tank in a dangerous position).
Your response is a example of the myopic stance most pubs have.
Regardless, most players follow the shoot first ask later philosophy, meaning without clarifying the situation, they will immediately vote a 1 even if a situation is their fault.
Most pubs are either incredibly stupid or arrogant. If a game is not going their way, they will blame it on their commander instead of taking responsibility for their own shortcomings. The same is true on the opposite ends. Many a times players will have a ephemeral sense of self worth being carried by a squad of competent players. They may be doing absolutely nothing to help their team, but they may think themselves and their teammates positively if they are winning.
Popular opinion is hugely influenced by the way the game is going.

The devs should not implement something so easily exploited. With the proper instruction, anyone can boost their own rating or decrease the rating of others with a modified server and a list of steamids.

Yes this suggestion and many like it have been suggested multiple times, each time being shot down for the same reasons.

 

If you look at other rating systems (Ex: Xbox Live), you will see that most people only rate for BAD things. No one wants to waste their time writing a good review report on an individual player (and when people bother, it is usually means people agree to give each other high marks). A rating system would create fail expectations. Even if people were to ignore the person's bad record over time, it would just mean that the rating system lost its purpose.

The best rating system is experience playing with those players. We have a decent size community that can recognize potential in players. An official system will only be used as a reason for people to stroke their e-peens.

 

A++++ would rate again

 

In my opinion the only way to rate player is per time played.

Could look like this:
0 - 20 hours (Trainee)
20 - 100 hours (Experienced)
100+ hours (Veteran)