|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
   |
Posted - 2015.06.23 07:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Downvoting seems like it might have potential to be abused. By alts, for example.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 15:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Talos Vagheitan wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Downvoting seems like it might have potential to be abused. By alts, for example. Or by "honour-bombing".
I appreciate that the idea is to solve a problem, but the potential negativity here could turn into one more thing which frustrates players. A single match might net a merc -30 honour should an entire squad decide to single him out and burn him. If I invested time working toward a high honour ranking, then got I honour-bombed for reasons beyond my ability to influence or control, I'd be pretty frustrated.
TL;DR: Downvoting affords too much influence over the disposition of other players, methinks. A proposition which potentially adds to player frustration is potentially bad for headcounts. There will always be a 'potential to be abused' I encourage you to re read the OP. I've covered pretty much all the ways this could be abused, and the checks and.balances required. - Must in the same game, on the same team. - Must have a good honour rating yourself to be able to down vote - can only down vote someone once, ever. Doing this to too many people downgrades you, to the point you can no longer down vote.
Reread the OP per your request.
Hypothetical:
Aeon values his hard-earned Honour Ranking. I see Aeon in game, and it occurs to me that it'd be funny to push his buttons and see him go ballistic. I convince everyone in my squad to take the -5 hit to "Honour Bomb" Aeon. For no reason other than to be arseholes. We impact Aeon's ranking by -30. We recover our individual losses within 6 matches. It will take Aeon 30. We see Aeon the next day and we do it again. Aeon explodes on the Forums. People think its funny, so they do the same thing. Aeon's Honour Rank is perpetually negative, through no fault of his own.
PS: I wouldn't do this, but I don't think it unreasonable to anticipate that others might.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 16:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
@ Llast
I like the idea. Perhaps even restrict it to Pubs and opposing players. Earn Honour points by impressing the enemy or by completing consecutive matches. Lose Honour by backing out of matches.
Still need to account for bypassing Honour deductions by going idle / AFK.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 00:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
Thokk Nightshade wrote:Why worry about the whole "voting" mechanism in the first place?
I strongly dislike the mechanic, but I think I understand what Talos is shooting for. The point of downvoting is to encourage players to police for AFK. Should leaving battle return a negative effect, the rates of AFK would very likely increase.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 00:18:00 -
[5] - Quote
Talos Vagheitan wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Talos Vagheitan wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Downvoting seems like it might have potential to be abused. By alts, for example. Or by "honour-bombing".
I appreciate that the idea is to solve a problem, but the potential negativity here could turn into one more thing which frustrates players. A single match might net a merc -30 honour should an entire squad decide to single him out and burn him. If I invested time working toward a high honour ranking, then got I honour-bombed for reasons beyond my ability to influence or control, I'd be pretty frustrated.
TL;DR: Downvoting affords too much influence over the disposition of other players, methinks. A proposition which potentially adds to player frustration is potentially bad for headcounts. There will always be a 'potential to be abused' I encourage you to re read the OP. I've covered pretty much all the ways this could be abused, and the checks and.balances required. - Must in the same game, on the same team. - Must have a good honour rating yourself to be able to down vote - can only down vote someone once, ever. Doing this to too many people downgrades you, to the point you can no longer down vote. I've reread the OP per your request. Hypothetical: Aeon values his hard-earned Honour Ranking. I see Aeon in game on our side, and it occurs to me that it'd be funny to push his buttons and see him go ballistic. I convince everyone in my squad to take the -5 hit to "Honour Bomb" Aeon. Giggling, we impact Aeon's ranking by -30. We recover our individual losses the same day. It will take Aeon a week to recover. We see Aeon the next day and we do it again. Aeon explodes on the Forums. People think its funny, so they do the same thing. Aeon's Honour Rank is perpetually negative, through no fault of his own. PS: I wouldn't do this, but I don't think it unreasonable to anticipate that others might. I agree that most (perhaps all) systems are subject to potential abuse, but not all systems facilitate spiteful interactions like this. PPS: Not saying that your idea is bad, Talos. I'm suggesting that we stress test it and consider different ways in which it might be misused. I specifically say in the OP that you would be unable to down vote the same person twice, even in different battles. Your evil plan would not work. Also, if you are part of an evil squad to try to go around honour bombing people, then you will damage your own standing to the point where you can can no longer vote. Alts cannot vote either unless they get up to +30 or so. Making Alt bombing a major pain. I've really covered the abusable bases here.
I concede that I missed the "one shot" restriction, but my hypothetical evil plan still worked well enough. I hit Aeon for -30 for no good reason whatsoever, and it will take him lots of time and effort to recover from the blow. If he flames on the Forums about it, there's a very good chance that others will do the same. For no good reason whatsoever.
The system as proposed is neat, but it also creates new problems and new sources of player frustration. If asked for an opinion, I'd propose we remove the human element altogether.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 02:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Talos Vagheitan wrote:
On a different note: While we debate the potential of abuse, are there any other objections you'd have to this idea?
Voting withheld, I think a system like this could work very well, provided it was paired with changes directed at the reasons behind folks leaving matches. If possible, we should try to understand and treat the cause in addition to treating the symptoms.
Think Rattati has something similar on Trello ... digging ... here.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 19:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
DJINN Jecture wrote:The idea of changing the way fights are joined (via discovery rather than lobby que) would remove the issue altogether, people may leave the battle but running as far away as you can get is different than fleeing back to the MQ, see Talos's other thread that I hijacked for more details on Open World.
Poked Cross with a similar idea last week ...
spitballing ...
* Underway matches are listed under Special Contract, as was observed during the Anomaly Event.
* Provided slots are available, players can elect to accept a contract to join either side of an underway battle.
* The current "Security Status" is displayed for each contract; the lower the security, the higher the contract risk.
* High-Risk Contracts pay an increased EOM premium; Low-Risk Contracts pay a decreased premium.
* Security Status is a function of Mu disparity, headcount disparity and match progress.
* Extremely low security contracts may pay a "suicide bonus" or "savior bonus" depending upon match outcome.
* Contracts displayed in orange indicate that a corpmate is known to be fighting in the affected battle.
... / spitballing
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 01:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
Talos Vagheitan wrote:In the meantime, it might help to record it as a loss when players leave a match.
I know some KD farmers leave battle when they die to preserve their stats
I believe Mu calculation weighs W/L Ratio. If backer-outers are only looking to play the easy fights, giving them an "L" when they back out would effectively be the same as giving them what they want. IIRC, Rattati said something to this effect back when Mu was originally introduced.
Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
13
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 20:48:00 -
[9] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Mercenaries have no need of honour, pay them well enough and they'll do just about anything.
^ Therein lies the solution.
CPM Sgt Kirk - On Community
|
|
|
| |
|