I get it, the last thing you want is a peer based, totally out of your hands system you can’t work around.
BTW - I was merely pointing out your hypocritical stance that a Rep score was pointless and unnecessary where as you believe an XP score is a necessary and ultimate motivator.
It’s called pen and paper.
Wow you should go on the road with those lulz.
I suggested a system similar to that where you hold a single opinion of the player. Thumbs up, Thumbs down or Neutral. You can only have one opinion of a player (to prevent padding) but you can change it as often as you like. I also threw in a bit about you only casting an opinion for players you played, again to prevent padding and exploiting.
I guess, in the context of this thread you could allow a recasting at the end of each map to trigger awards/rep etc but again it would still only be one vote on the persistent scale.
My thread was talking about an alternate point system, one that expands purely from teamwork based type of actions. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t mind rewarding someone for helping me or others on my team.
I feel the same and get most satisfaction from having a good game. Sometimes there are people who make that game good. Might be someone swapping teams, being a good sport about a TK or just doing a great job on the other side. Having a way of recognising that would be fantastic.
Yes because peer based systems can’t be worked around at all, it would be impossible for say, one guy and his clan to make his victim totally miserable.
We’ve been through this before in the other thread so let not derail this one too by repeating the same empty objections.
[QUOTE=SockDog;214323]I suggested a system similar to that where you hold a single opinion of the player. Thumbs up, Thumbs down or Neutral. You can only have one opinion of a player (to prevent padding) but you can change it as often as you like. I also threw in a bit about you only casting an opinion for players you played, again to prevent padding and exploiting.
I guess, in the context of this thread you could allow a recasting at the end of each map to trigger awards/rep etc but again it would still only be one vote on the persistent scale.
I feel the same and get most satisfaction from having a good game. Sometimes there are people who make that game good. Might be someone swapping teams, being a good sport about a TK or just doing a great job on the other side. Having a way of recognising that would be fantastic.[/QUOTE]
Ya, its a cool idea and all, but highly abusable. It has to be done in a way that is strict when it comes to who you rep and why. Someones opinion about another can be highly jaded, but actions speak louder than words, is what I am saying.
Well, I just scrapped like 2-3 essays on incooperating the elo system with reputation. I came to the conclusion that it contains false ideas of adequacy. For example, someone is a really good player who feels comfortable being supportive in his own way. The idea of a system that tells this person he is playing wrong, is wrong itself. Maybe someone supports his team in ways that cannot be calculated by numbers. Whatever it may be, a competitive reputation system will not and does not work.
Instead these rep points I mentioned earlier in the topic, should just be incooperated into a regular xp system. When in battle no one cares who is doing what, they just want/want to help when its need it.
imo, the only way a rep system could work is if the game could tell if you were helping or hindering the team, a + beside your name if you’re on objective and helping or - if you’re hill or crate humping from the back
It does not necessarily work if you rely upon numbers and formulas but you already have competitive reputation systems, they’re friendlists or just friends. The question is can you attach an interface in game to compliment what you already do out of game and offline? I think you can.
What I’m stunned by is the fear of having a group of people form an opinion about you in a game. When in real life this happens all the time. I said it wasn’t a popular idea so I’m not surprised this thread has been sunk too. Guess everyone likes their anonymity.
Hm what was your last response to this ‘empty objection’?
Nobody has the right to stick a reputation that you permanently carry with you in real life.
For a theoretical discussion that has zero impact on Brink’s development I’ll leave this here. There just isn’t much more to add by taking part another circular argument with you and one we’ve had once already.
The original thread is linked in the second post. Go knock yourself out and read it over and over.
