#Player Toxicity

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

nimble brook
#

An imperfect solution is better than no solution. The following also worked to improve the toxicity in (the infamous FPS pvp genre game) "Dawngate."

Secondly, treating symptoms of player toxicity won't work. You can have muting, or kickbans, or report griefers/trolls, or make it so dumb game-losing mistakes hurt the team less. Those all address symptoms.

Encouraging players themselves to be less toxic is dealing with root cause.

Have a toxicity rating system. It doesn't affect the gameplay, nor chevrons, nor OS. None of the bullshit "oh your exp is faster, or your OS updates faster now u play better".

1, Players start at 16, the minimum is zero, the maximum is 32.
2, Each vote to kickban you, you lose one point.
3, Players must manually vote you +1, for you to gain 1 point, per player that votes you. GAINING A BETTER NOT-TOXIC REPUTATION SHOULD BE DIFFICULT AND TIME-CONSUMING.

The key thing is, lobbies can filter for toxicity, the same way they have minimum chevron limits, or min/max OS limits. The toxicity rating should not include ANYTHING ELSE. Playing with people with similar bad toxic ratings in itself is the punishment, and the point is for people to never want that again, so they won't be toxic, so they can play with others who are NOT toxic. Just like shadowbanning into cheater-only lobbies.

A suggestion/refinement for this I have is, private games and unranked games cannot affect the toxicity rating. It might be worth undoing this specific change a year later based on player feedback.

An ideal improvement is an actual randomized ranked matchmaking, and only toxicity votes from there matter (preventing the system being gamed by multiple accounts, or friend-voting, an account only able to vote 1 other account once is a stop-gap if there are no limits on account-creation since BAR is a free game).

Please suggest improvements.

nimble brook
safe spade
#

Most exploitable system ever:
Either call a million votes on a player to make him hit 0 points
OR
Tell your mates to +1 you

nimble brook
nimble brook
sudden anvil
safe spade
#

Not the only one... We get one of these every 1-2 months

sudden anvil
#

If someone makes an actually foolproof version of this. They should write a scientific paper about it, patent it, sell it to every company in the world. Maybe win Nobel Peace Prize while at it

olive sparrow
#

this game does not have the player count to do that, lobby wait times would be a nightmare

sinful pelican
#

You can't control toxicity 100% but I feel this community up holds its integrity well.

Only thing I can add to this conversation, is the rep system from dark and darker was a good way to identify bad players / teammates. Didn't removed toxicity but made it clear the person was an ass.

Bad player got too many down votes your name becomes red and your teammate can teamkill you for free in Dark and darker.

Don't encourage the teamkilling idea to BAR but it at least people can visually see the color of the player's name if they misbehave.

safe spade
#

If you avoid them they are red in lobby

sinful pelican
#

Like mute them?

safe spade
# sinful pelican Like mute them?

Similar... The balancer tries to keep avoided players in the enemy team and also if too many players have someone avoided he can't play (this might have been disabled btw)

ebon crow
# sudden anvil If someone makes an actually foolproof version of this. They should write a scie...

It was done. Many times over actually. Basically a rolling reputation model based on your recent conduct. So only 30 most recent games or 2 weeks of time are influencing your rating, older actions decay which gives opportunity to recover. Second of all, bad faith reports or commends have to be filetered out. Decreasing rating per kickban is a big no-no, people may get kickbanned for not conduct related reasons like having a player bugged or sometimes "just cause". We all seen votes to kickban someone votes first and then asks "why?" The impact is limited per game, you don't loose more per multiple reports or gain more per multiple commends, but multiple independant reports\commends (aka from people not on a friendlist with each other) is a metric to determine a high quality report\commend. Other metrics usually include a keyword detection for swears and slurs in chat, the history of the reported - how often the reported player is being reported and the history of the reporter - weather or not the reporter is spamming reports. And, of course, the moderators are going to have a direct control over someone's score and would lower it alongside their regular moderation. Other things besides players directly rating each other positively and negatively and moderators actions can influence the score. Those usually include small negative for abandoning the game in progress, small positive for just finishing a whole game normally. High score can also have a little reward like a special color or a symbol next to the players nickname. Sort of like getting a sticker in kindergarden)
Because not only bad conduct must be punished, but good cnduct must be reward, even if only symbolically.
The score is usually kept secret and then used during matchmaking by the algorythm to match people with similar conduct scores behind other metrics. Making this score open and having lobbies filter by conduct score may introduce new issues.

jaunty wasp
ebon crow
split portal
safe spade
foggy ibex
split portal
# foggy ibex Which of his 2 points are you refuting, the balancer tries to respect avoids, or...

Sniperbusher mentionend above that this avoided players are red in the lobby, i think he still mistaken them with blocking, blocking player's showed up in red for me. I also just think that its just crazy that avoided user's restrict this players from playing a match, even if that's the case in the past, which i think that its good that it is fixed now. For what is the blocklist feature there? From my understanding this blocklist has absolute no effect at all at the moment and i don't know why.

safe spade
split portal
# safe spade Avoided are red-ish... And wdym in the second part?

I just mentioned that Player's on our blocklist aren't blocked today (banned to join my lobby or at least to join as player), but it is ironic that Avoided Player's was doing exactly this in the past. Im just wondering why the blocklist even exist today, when this feature isn't working anyways.

safe spade
fluid musk
# nimble brook An imperfect solution is better than no solution. The following also worked to i...

No.
This is a request that has been shot down multiple times.
Here's Ptaq's statement: #1398094234346717254 message

Kickbans

Beyond the reasons (:O) to not have a social credit system in general. Having the score be tied to kickbans is a terrible way to implement this.

Kickbans aren't up to appeal. Are we going to moderate someone for making a bad vote on a kickban?
Players aren't going to watch the replay before voting. They're not going to have a nicely paced and organized discussion before voting.
Kickban votes are volatile and are often not fully thought out.

Furthermore, kickbans are used for many reasons beyond toxicity. Some examples are:

  • Played bad
  • Played too good
  • Commied to hard
  • People are trying to convert the lobby into a private one
  • Someone crashed and the game can't start until they are kickbaned
  • Someone lagged out, isn't responding, and needs to be kickbaned so they can be taken

Tying reputation to social kickbans also has innate exploitability. A group of players that don't like someone else in particular, can kickban them and lock them out of other lobbies.

Why a social credit system is a bad idea

PvP games like Dawngate have such a different structure that their solutions are too applicable to BAR.
Bar does not have random matchmaking. And Bar has a small player base, further divided into smaller tribes.

Isolating the most toxic players into their own group just causes more toxicity to fester and grow.
Then what happens when someone sets up a lobby without a min reputation? All the toxic players who couldn't join other lobbies now are* all in one.*
Bar's player base is already small, and can be hard to find a match at higher os and worse timezones. We don't need to make it harder.

#

.

Trying to measure human behavior a famous example of an observer effect.
People see their rating drop, they won't think "ahh, that was bad, I was wrong, I need to do better"
They will instead immediately try to work around the system.
Put on a fake overly friendly face for a few games. So they can be toxic in the next one.

This doesn't encourage reform, or help protect others from toxic players. In causes people to gameafiy their reputation like Os

willow burrow
#

They have something like this in China actually - “social credit score”

I rly appreciate how your game example for this wonderful proposed feature died in beta

willow burrow
verbal linden
#

when my brown player has the audacity to lose lane

willow burrow