we need a new "reputation" measure besides "rank"

[malric]

This is why I think you should not see 'general' statistics. You should see them wheighted based on your relation with the voters.

This will not be an absolute system, as such a system can't exist. But a relative system would still have it's merits.

[BaNa]

Anything that relies on votes is basically making Tired a moderator.

+1 :) smurf accounts and abuse of them would soar. And I don't know if you people noticed but you can make custom groups and stuff in the lobby, i have one called "good people", one called "friendly noobs", ect. I guess if we had more than 1000 or 10000 regular users, and a lot of them idiots, then some sort of way to say "this guy ragequits" would be useful, yes. Why not make labels then? But at that point, I would rather make private rooms where the good guys come to play than try to sort it out in the big public.

[Nemo]

is dat sum wulfram you speeketh of?

Yes.

That said, a single standing +1 or 0 or -1, changeable at any time, probably wouldn't be too bad. Of course you'll get "+15s only allowed in my game!!!!!!" but c'est la vie. people will try to feel like part of a special club no matter what.

[picard]

The problem with this kind of system is in essence it is divisive, which leads to break up of community and new blood is usually the first casualty and therfor you get stagnation of whats left of group and ultimately death of Spring.
Its been said before who hasnt at sometime broken the first law of good gaming" Thou shalt not Quiteth from game".
We have all done it, or some other similar gross infraction, people are people they good days and bad days sometimes they are on form other times not. You win some you lose some.
I am all for anything that prevents smurfing since, I believe there are those who use there smurf nick 2nd or 3rd choice, to hide behind when they are having a bad day and just dont care whos game they are going to wreck.
If it was possible to prevent smurfing then, the one and only nick you have, would have to be looked after and people would be more afraid of getting a bad rep. Because people do remember names.

[TradeMark]

i wouldnt want to see negative votes from a noobs i pwn and then they claim im a cheater: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13123

[malric]

i wouldnt want to see negative votes from a noobs i pwn and then they claim im a cheater: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13123

Such a thing (claiming you cheat in a game you didn't even hosted) would instantly give him bad votes for anyone sane.

About the previous post: the community can also die if you have to many quitters, guys that claim people are cheeter etc. And still - I do not think this is a problem with the variation I proposed. At first you wouldn't see any votes. As I told already you should see the votes of the people you voted. So if you like someone you would see he likes others (with some coefficient or something). Then it would be easiear even for noobs to find the nice people.

[Ugla]

What about some sort of XBox Live style 5 star ranking system, where you need maybe 10 votes to gain or loose a star? However people could change their votes if the player changed their attitude.

If someone had no stars you would probably have a good idea what was going to happen if they played. Maybe block more than one vote on 1 player from the same IP with this system?

The only vulnerability I can see with this is people who have 0/1 stars making a new account =\.

[Boirunner]

Sometimes I wonder what horrible experiences you guys must make playing Spring. I don't play as much as I used to, but almost everybody I meet and play with is friendly, fair and and fun.

[LordMatt]

Sometimes I wonder what horrible experiences you guys must make playing Spring. I don't play as much as I used to, but almost everybody I meet and play with is friendly, fair and and fun.

+1

[[XIII]Roxas]

"A bloody fate awaits you, and the rest of your incompetent bretherin."

This idea will not work. You see, if someone with -1000 score can still vote, what will stop him from down-voting everyone whom nega-voted him?

This is akin to the concept of communism, except even more absurd. As long as humans have the urge to out-do eachother, nothing of this sort can work successfully.

Oh, and XHC plus WarC cannot triumph if The Org. aligns with LCC.

[Boirunner]

The votes of a negatively voted person would not count anything, for exactly that reason. The more positively a person is rated, the more his votes count.

This idea is indeed like communism: It's not very good, but most people who hate it don't have the slightest idea how it even works.

[SwiftSpear]

Once again. Any reputation system is impossible to have run in a good way, so it won't happen.

[SinbadEV]

Ok... I think its a bad idea but it could work this way...

If you + vote someone then anyone they plus voted gets +1 to their score on your personal view of them, if you - vote someone then people who have + voted you will see those people with a negative score... if you - vote someone their votes are ignores so:

You, Player1, Player2, Player3, Player4, Player5, Player6, Player7, and Player8 are the entirety of the community.

You +Vote 1, 2 and -Vote 4, 5,
Player1 +Votes 4, 5, 6 and -Votes 2, 8
Player2 +Votes 3,6 and -Votes 1, 8
Player4 +Votes 1,2, and -Votes 3, 8
Player7 -Votes You and +Votes 8
Player8 -Votes You, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and +Votes 7 (7 and 8 are buddies and/or smurfs)

You See:
1 0 (your vote is "canceled out" by 2, and)
2 0 (your vote is "canceled out" by 1)
3 +
4 +
5 +
6 ++
7 0
8 --

[SwiftSpear]

Relativist... That would work, but it would make client an expensive program for people's PCs, and would add a sick amount of net traffic to what's currently a very simple system. Also, it really doesn't solve the problem here, which is grievers, it just makes the grape vine a little larger.

[malric]

If the information is kept on the server I do not see why the client would have that much to do. The propagation should probably be limited to 1-2 levels.

So, all it will have to do is:
- get the info when a new player logs in (this means read the votes related to that person from the persons you voted)
- update the info when you vote someone

Because this doesn't need to be realtime, it could be done just when a persons logs in... (so not each time someone votes - you will see that the next time you log in)

This might get out of control if you recompute the votes based on all the community, or if the community would be like 100.000 - but I doubt this is the case.

[I2:Isaacment_Day]

the only reason people want a reputation system instead of a ranking system is that 60% of forum goers barely play spring at all, and the other 39% are terrible at it.

[Lolsquad_Steven]

Clearly you've never vsed them, they're really good, shame that not many mods compliment their playing style.

[malric]

the only reason people want a reputation system instead of a ranking system is that 60% of forum goers barely play spring at all, and the other 39% are terrible at it.

Hmmm that would be a good idea! Associate with the profile of the forums the time you played spring. (probably should be done per mode, and something like:played in last 3 months and total).

[Dragon45]

i like most forumgoers 'bitch a lot' playstyle. really helps.

[Neddie]

i like most forumgoers 'bitch a lot' playstyle. really helps.

Especially when it goes with weak-porc.