Player Ranking of Gameplay Experience on Servers
Sarisel
.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::. Join Date: 2003-07-30 Member: 18557Members, Constellation
.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::. Join Date: 2003-07-30 Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">from "Towards a Cohesive Matchmaking System"</div>The main idea is to give players an option to rank their gaming experience at a particular server. There are several times where the opportunity for ranking can be presented:
1. At the end of each round (per round basis).
2. At the end of each map (per map basis).
3. Upon disconnecting from a server, in the main game window (per server basis).
4. Upon quitting to the main menu (per session basis).
Different options will have different consequences on how the server will be ranked. For example, for option 4, will you remember what happened in a particular server 2 hours ago?
The general gist of the idea is as follows:
<!--quoteo(post=1675669:date=Apr 12 2008, 10:25 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 12 2008, 10:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675669"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--sizeo:2--><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->In addition to reserved slot servers and server icons, why not let server info be more customizable? The admin can fill out a short survey that defines his idea of what his server should be like. For example, he can rate his server from 1-5 for the importance of socialization, teamwork, fair play, etc - subjective criteria, right? But it does give a player a general idea of what the expectations in a server might be.
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->
What if each unique steam_id gives the player an opportunity to rate their game experience (from 1-5) in that server for a particular day? In the end, we can have something like e-bay's seller ratings, showing a chart that indicates the % ratio of people voting in a particular range and the average. Then, players who are browsing through their server list can filter for servers that meet a certain rating requirement.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So far, the following point has been brought up about abuse:
<!--quoteo(post=1675716:date=Apr 13 2008, 01:30 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 13 2008, 01:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675716"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Votes are an interesting idea, but open to possible abuse with regards to people voting negatives as a form of protest/harassment. A big problem for servers targeting a specific section of the community, all the moreso if that section is vastly outnumbered (perhaps a group of friends, or a top tier server).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that based on the overall number of unique players who visit a particular server in a day (if we're going to allow one vote per steam_id per day), the abusers will be a minority. Actually, people who vote negatives as a form of protest are desirable since it shows dislike of a server. For example, the servers which have bad admins who abuse their players will get voted down consistently and can get filtered off. I think that's the biggest use for this idea: filtering out really crap servers with crap admins. Other servers will be rated either really good if people really like them or, most likely, average because people are apathetic.
If we establish a graphical summary of the votes, we could identify how many <i>unique steam_ids</i> are voting consistently in the low range for the server's ranking. This will show whether it is just a small group of players that are trying to harass a server. If the group of players is consistently doing this and the server ops feel that their ranking are unjustified, perhaps we could have an appeal system through UWE where the players' voting abilities could be revoked if they cannot justify their rating of the server?
1. At the end of each round (per round basis).
2. At the end of each map (per map basis).
3. Upon disconnecting from a server, in the main game window (per server basis).
4. Upon quitting to the main menu (per session basis).
Different options will have different consequences on how the server will be ranked. For example, for option 4, will you remember what happened in a particular server 2 hours ago?
The general gist of the idea is as follows:
<!--quoteo(post=1675669:date=Apr 12 2008, 10:25 PM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 12 2008, 10:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675669"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--sizeo:2--><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->In addition to reserved slot servers and server icons, why not let server info be more customizable? The admin can fill out a short survey that defines his idea of what his server should be like. For example, he can rate his server from 1-5 for the importance of socialization, teamwork, fair play, etc - subjective criteria, right? But it does give a player a general idea of what the expectations in a server might be.
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->
What if each unique steam_id gives the player an opportunity to rate their game experience (from 1-5) in that server for a particular day? In the end, we can have something like e-bay's seller ratings, showing a chart that indicates the % ratio of people voting in a particular range and the average. Then, players who are browsing through their server list can filter for servers that meet a certain rating requirement.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So far, the following point has been brought up about abuse:
<!--quoteo(post=1675716:date=Apr 13 2008, 01:30 PM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 13 2008, 01:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1675716"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Votes are an interesting idea, but open to possible abuse with regards to people voting negatives as a form of protest/harassment. A big problem for servers targeting a specific section of the community, all the moreso if that section is vastly outnumbered (perhaps a group of friends, or a top tier server).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that based on the overall number of unique players who visit a particular server in a day (if we're going to allow one vote per steam_id per day), the abusers will be a minority. Actually, people who vote negatives as a form of protest are desirable since it shows dislike of a server. For example, the servers which have bad admins who abuse their players will get voted down consistently and can get filtered off. I think that's the biggest use for this idea: filtering out really crap servers with crap admins. Other servers will be rated either really good if people really like them or, most likely, average because people are apathetic.
If we establish a graphical summary of the votes, we could identify how many <i>unique steam_ids</i> are voting consistently in the low range for the server's ranking. This will show whether it is just a small group of players that are trying to harass a server. If the group of players is consistently doing this and the server ops feel that their ranking are unjustified, perhaps we could have an appeal system through UWE where the players' voting abilities could be revoked if they cannot justify their rating of the server?
Comments
While I agree that, on average, the abuse will be minimal I must also point out that if two servers have a "disagreement" you will quickly see mass voterigging. This of course can spill over onto other servers and even just related communities.
The "voting system" is something probably best addressed at the global community level - that is, by having a community manager point out the "good places to play" based on submissions from players. A bit of extra work for someone, but at least keeps things consistent.
If there are going to be server wars, then there would still be a notable group of individuals belonging to either side that would be involved in negative voting. It's a little bizarre to consider this kind of event - although the possibility sounds pretty cool (imagine server ops and swarms of community members buying a massive number of accounts and then using those to vote down an enemy server - so much fuss over a computer game). I think such wars could still be identified by virtue of IP addresses that link a group of steam_IDs to a particular person and also by linking steam_IDs to particular server members. There would still be the need for an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes - but I don't think these will take away very much from the main purpose of the voting system (to identify really bad servers and filter them off).
We've already had community managers, and they've been nice people. Since they would need to be an employee (or at least volunteer serf) of UWE then you can be fairly certain Flay and co. are going to keep a tight eye on him.
Besides, its easier to track the ethics of ONE person than the entire community of players.
Linking IP addressess to steam_IDs wouldn't help. To counter abuse, you have to block someone from voting. To block someone from voting, you skew the results of a voting system. Server wars are most certainly NOT cool, because its extremely detrimental to the casual players and the community at large.
Anyone with a poorly ranked server is going to call abuse and that only means too much time wasted investigating said claims, or letting them clutter up the forums. Stick one person in charge of telling you the "cool places to game" and you only have that one person to worry about.
How can one person provide an appropriate commentary about the "cool places to play" considering that "cool" is such a subjective term that varies between people? If anything, such a person would be well-suited to rank down servers that are downright abusive or poorly admined. But as for telling everyone the cool places to play - well, I'm not too sure about that.
Re: voting and server wars
1. I think server wars will be rare.
2. It isn't very difficult to identify computers that are used in server wars - the voting abilities of these computers would be suspended. I honestly doubt that people involved in server wars will be a majority of the NS2 player-base, so the server ranking system would not be significantly skewed by their lack of vote participation.
3. It should not be difficult to see which claims of "vote abuse" are legit, just by looking at the distribution of the votes. If the majority of unique players who visit a server over several weeks vote it down after playing (and especially if they never visit again), then it is very likely to be a crap server.
Id like to see some sort of server review system so servers can be encouraged to have active and relatively fair admins but a voting system maynot be the best way of doing it. If there is a voting system it should detial aspects of the server such as - admins - presence/fairness, etc. Players - attitude, ect. Map selection, and possibly some other stats. And id like to able to view a server stats window when im browsing servers. If i could see average game length time, kills per min, and all sorts of other stats it may help me to select a server that im going to like. The UWE team have already mentioned they are going to split servers in to vanilla and modified. And others have suggest a player skill ranking system that could be detailed in such a window. I think the contents of such a window would have to be considered more carefully than i have as some stats may be damaging to servers and the game as a whole and probs shouldnt be displayed.
Id prefer to see a variety of very active servers. ATM i often have a choice of 2 servers that i like to play on and arnt completely full and sometimes there arnt any servers i like that i can get a place on. Id like to be able to come online, and have a choice of 4 or more servers that i like to play on, and that have a decent number of players on them with out being full.