Jump to content
Tartantyco

A new form of Community Building

Recommended Posts

This suggestion is an amalgamation of several other suggestions I've made previously(Subscription-based Ranking System, Arm Patches/Badges, Squad UI), along with some new suggestions, all combined to propose a vastly different form of community building than we see in other games today. The various components are perfectly functional on their own, but I think that the more are implemented, the stronger the effect is.

 

There has been a lot of discussion on this forum about how we're going to promote a healthy community that embraces the values of teamwork and communication that the game requires, and how we should disincentivize negative gameplay behavior that has the potential to severely damage the game experience of a game of this scale. Various ranking systems, mandated microphone use, XP systems, and many other things have been suggested.However, I think that a better way would be to focus attention more on the cause rather than the effects. The main reason why people can be selfish assholes on the internet is simply because they can get away with it. Anonymity and a lack of consequences means that you can act like an ass one day, and the next you're just another handle in a sea of handles. To get things in games, you grind or you throw money at something, and very rarely will your actual behavior have any effect on your progress. The stats gods are blind, and a kill is a kill.

 

What we have to do is remove the advantages of anonymity, and provide rewards that do depend on behavior. Where the community is the arbiter of value, and to do that we need to empower the community.

 

Community-driven Awards System: This system will allow players, clans, and communities to create and distribute their own awards that can signify competence within specific or general roles, achievements, and recognition. A player/clan/community will acquire the ability(1) to create a reward, be they medals/ribbons, badges, or something else. They can then provide a visual design, a title, and a text description of what it signifies. For instance, a ribbon:

 

6Eu4mUw.png

 

uPyMOtr.png

 

The award design must then be cleared to avoid offensive or infringing content, but once that is done the player/clan/community can then distribute it freely. If it is distributed to a player, and that player chooses to accept it, the award will show up in-game in their publicly accessible profile. The issuer can at any time withdraw the reward. At this point, the community takes over. The awards themselves are to have no inherent value, it instead coming entirely from the reputability of those awards, based on the behavior of those granted the awards.

 

1: Both to avoid spam, and to provide the developers with an additional source of income, individual award licenses can be purchased as DLC. It would also provide more utility for the system currently being implemented to distribute arm patches.

 

What would this be used for? Well, my example shows one use. If the Squad developers want to organize a community driven training program, they would then be able to provide those who complete it with awards showing this. Clans and communities could do the same with their own in-house training programs. In this way, they could help communicate competence to other players. Tournaments could provide participants, winners, and losers with trophies signifying their involvement and achievements. They could be used to signify people who utilize certain gameplay styles, to connect more loosely organized groups, commemorate specific events, and so on.

 

In a greater sense, they would provide players with something to strive for that they can't anonymously grind their way to by racking up kills, playing 1337sniper, or building useless FOBs in the middle of nowhere. Players must instead gain the recognition of their peers, and maintain their standing to keep their awards. The awards could build a mythos within the game where battles, events, and people are immortalized and shared through them. Two random players on a server may notice that they both participated in the same tournament on the same side, or the opposite side. Some awards may grow to become so wanted that those who have them are considered elite, while others may show that they play the game in a certain way.

 

As those who distribute these awards have to pay for individual licenses, they are incentivized to keep their awards reputable. Nobody wants to pay to distribute a medal that nobody wants. This means that giving players awards regardless of competence serves to devalue your own awards.

 

(There is potentially a need to provide a system that filters, categorizes, and ranks awards in some manner, but for now I'm just keeping it as a manually operated system)

 

Subscription-based Reputation System: This is an older suggestion of mine that has the same community-driven foundation as the above awards system. As statistically based ranking systems are inherently flawed and vulnerable to manipulation, the idea was to create a system that does not have the same vulnerabilities and more accurately reflects the opinions of individual players.

 

Basically, you can "subscribe" to, or "tag", individual players that you had a good time playing with, felt were competent, or thought had a playstyle or play philosophy similar to yours, in the game. In this way you can easily identify the players you've previously enjoyed playing with before. For the purposes of this explanation, players you tag are colored a neutral green, showing that they are recommended players. In this way you create you personal network of players you want to play with. Every player who tags other players creates their own network.

 

However, when you tag someone you don't just add them to your network, but you also subscribe to their network, meaning that you also get their player recommendations. If you tag one person, he shows up as a neutral green to you, while those he's subscribed to show up as a faint green to you. As you continue to tag people, the people they've tagged will begin to overlap, and those people who are tagged multiple times by individual players you've tagged will show up as a stronger and stronger green depending on how strong the overlap is.

 

The point of this system is to provide players with a rapidly expanding network of recommended players that is based on their personal preference, that doesn't create exclusive cliques, and is decentralized so that it is unaffected by attempts at manipulation.

 

(Read more in the original post)

 

Community-promoting Squad UI: The impetus behind this is similar to that of the awards system, to prominently display symbols that allows players to identify and associate other players with specific values and behaviors, as well as to inspire a desire to belong. The idea is that the arm patches/badges players are able to wear in-game are also shown in the Squad UI:

 

vkdPiTB.png

 

The point of this is two-fold. Firstly, we want community structures to be visible to everyone playing the game. Seeing that a lot of players have these badges(UI icons of selected arm patches), and seeing that players from this or that community are doing well or providing you with a good gameplay experience creates both a positive association with them, but also instill a desire to be part of it. It is also a good way for communities to brand and promote themselves in a non-invasive manner that is far superior to clan tags that more often than not only become noise. Players also get a sense of accomplishment from being able to display these things prominently. Secondly, it creates a sense of accountability. Not only are community members motivated to behave in a manner that positively reflects upon their community, but other players are more able to make associations with those communities and hold them accountable for their behavior.

 

(A potential addition here, and another source of income for the developers would be Reserved Squad Names. If a player/Clan/Community wishes to reserve particularly unique squad names for their own use, they could do so.)

Edited by Tartantyco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very impressive Tartantyco, I can see you spent quite some time thinking this through.  I like your ideas and have provided some feedback below (my comments in red)

 

 

This suggestion is an amalgamation of several other suggestions I've made previously(Subscription-based Ranking System, Arm Patches/Badges, Squad UI), along with some new suggestions, all combined to propose a vastly different form of community building than we see in other games today. The various components are perfectly functional on their own, but I think that the more are implemented, the stronger the effect is.

 

There has been a lot of discussion on this forum about how we're going to promote a healthy community that embraces the values of teamwork and communication that the game requires, and how we should disincentivize negative gameplay behavior that has the potential to severely damage the game experience of a game of this scale. Various ranking systems, mandated microphone use, XP systems, and many other things have been suggested.However, I think that a better way would be to focus attention more on the cause rather than the effects. The main reason why people can be selfish assholes on the internet is simply because they can get away with it. Anonymity and a lack of consequences means that you can act like an ass one day, and the next you're just another handle in a sea of handles. To get things in games, you grind or you throw money at something, and very rarely will your actual behavior have any effect on your progress. The stats gods are blind, and a kill is a kill.

 

What we have to do is remove the advantages of anonymity, and provide rewards that do depend on behavior. Where the community is the arbiter of value, and to do that we need to empower the community.

 

Community-driven Awards System: This system will allow players, clans, and communities to create and distribute their own awards that can signify competence within specific or general roles, achievements, and recognition. A player/clan/community will acquire the ability(1) to create a reward, be they medals/ribbons, badges, or something else. They can then provide a visual design, a title, and a text description of what it signifies. For instance, a ribbon:

 

6Eu4mUw.png

 

The award design must then be cleared to avoid offensive or infringing content, but once that is done the player/clan/community can then distribute it freely. If it is distributed to a player, and that player chooses to accept it, the award will show up in-game in their publicly accessible profile. The issuer can at any time withdraw the reward. At this point, the community takes over. The awards themselves are to have no inherent value, it instead coming entirely from the reputability of those awards, based on the behavior of those granted the awards.

 

1: Both to avoid spam, and to provide the developers with an additional source of income, individual award licenses can be purchased as DLC. It would also provide more utility for the system currently being implemented to distribute arm patches.

 

What would this be used for? Well, my example shows one use. If the Squad developers want to organize a community driven training program, they would then be able to provide those who complete it with awards showing this. Clans and communities could do the same with their own in-house training programs. In this way, they could help communicate competence to other players. Tournaments could provide participants, winners, and losers with trophies signifying their involvement and achievements. They could be used to signify people who utilize certain gameplay styles, to connect more loosely organized groups, commemorate specific events, and so on.

 

In a greater sense, they would provide players with something to strive for that they can't anonymously grind their way to by racking up kills, playing 1337sniper, or building useless FOBs in the middle of nowhere. Players must instead gain the recognition of their peers, and maintain their standing to keep their awards. The awards could build a mythos within the game where battles, events, and people are immortalized and shared through them. Two random players on a server may notice that they both participated in the same tournament on the same side, or the opposite side. Some awards may grow to become so wanted that those who have them are considered elite, while others may show that they play the game in a certain way.

 

As those who distribute these awards have to pay for individual licenses, they are incentivized to keep their awards reputable. Nobody wants to pay to distribute a medal that nobody wants. This means that giving players awards regardless of competence serves to devalue your own awards.

 

(There is potentially a need to provide a system that filters, categorizes, and ranks awards in some manner, but for now I'm just keeping it as a manually operated system)

 

Overall I like the concept.  My only concern would be that it could lead to elitism where large clans and those with money self-promote their members and friends.  What about Johnny Gamer who is a great team player but isn't part of a clan or has a lot of online friends? Assuming  the issuers were altruistic, Johnny Gamer would be recognized for his accomplishments over clan members who may have contributed less in a battle. Unfortunately altruism is a rare commodity these days.  Still, I'm curious about it enough that I'd be interested in trying it out and seeing how things go.  If the devs have the option to remove the system should things go sour, I say let's give it a shot.

 

Subscription-based Reputation System: This is an older suggestion of mine that has the same community-driven foundation as the above awards system. As statistically based ranking systems are inherently flawed and vulnerable to manipulation, the idea was to create a system that does not have the same vulnerabilities and more accurately reflects the opinions of individual players.

 

Basically, you can "subscribe" to, or "tag", individual players that you had a good time playing with, felt were competent, or thought had a playstyle or play philosophy similar to yours, in the game. In this way you can easily identify the players you've previously enjoyed playing with before. For the purposes of this explanation, players you tag are colored a neutral green, showing that they are recommended players. In this way you create you personal network of players you want to play with. Every player who tags other players creates their own network.

 

However, when you tag someone you don't just add them to your network, but you also subscribe to their network, meaning that you also get their player recommendations. If you tag one person, he shows up as a neutral green to you, while those he's subscribed to show up as a faint green to you. As you continue to tag people, the people they've tagged will begin to overlap, and those people who are tagged multiple times by individual players you've tagged will show up as a stronger and stronger green depending on how strong the overlap is.

 

The point of this system is to provide players with a rapidly expanding network of recommended players that is based on their personal preference, that doesn't create exclusive cliques, and is decentralized so that it is unaffected by attempts at manipulation.

 

(Read more in the original post)

 

I like this idea even more.  Would the tag be binary? Either you like playing with someone or you don't? Would there be a scale such as 4 out of 5 stars, much like online shopping reviews (e.g. Newegg or Amazon)? I guess the latter could get out of hand as well. Would others see how you tagged someone? For example, would everyone be able to easily identify the asshole players?

 

Community-promoting Squad UI: The impetus behind this is similar to that of the awards system, to prominently display symbols that allows players to identify and associate other players with specific values and behaviors, as well as to inspire a desire to belong. The idea is that the arm patches/badges players are able to wear in-game are also shown in the Squad UI:

 

vkdPiTB.png

 

The point of this is two-fold. Firstly, we want community structures to be visible to everyone playing the game. Seeing that a lot of players have these badges(UI icons of selected arm patches), and seeing that players from this or that community are doing well or providing you with a good gameplay experience creates both a positive association with them, but also instill a desire to be part of it. It is also a good way for communities to brand and promote themselves in a non-invasive manner that is far superior to clan tags that more often than not only become noise. Players also get a sense of accomplishment from being able to display these things prominently. Secondly, it creates a sense of accountability. Not only are community members motivated to behave in a manner that positively reflects upon their community, but other players are more able to make associations with those communities and hold them accountable for their behavior.

 

(A potential addition here, and another source of income for the developers would be Reserved Squad Names. If a player/Clan/Community wishes to reserve particularly unique squad names for their own use, they could do so.)

 

I kinda like it. Seems a bit similar to the "Platoon" concept in BF4 where members of that platoon can all wear the same insignia in game.

 

Could this lead to elitism where only those in large clans would have awards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm personally not interested in faux military unit tomfoolery, but if it didn't impact on my ability to use kit, or be SL or commander I wouldn't be averse to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Overall I like the concept.  My only concern would be that it could lead to elitism where large clans and those with money self-promote their members and friends.  What about Johnny Gamer who is a great team player but isn't part of a clan or has a lot of online friends? Assuming  the issuers were altruistic, Johnny Gamer would be recognized for his accomplishments over clan members who may have contributed less in a battle. Unfortunately altruism is a rare commodity these days.  Still, I'm curious about it enough that I'd be interested in trying it out and seeing how things go.  If the devs have the option to remove the system should things go sour, I say let's give it a shot.

 

 

Well, this is why awards should have no inherent value. If someone is promoting their own members and friends, what value are those awards perceived to have? To have any value, awards will have to gain recognition, and awards that are given out indiscriminately would be worthless. Neither do the people who issue and are issued awards gain anything through these awards, so having a lot of awards is of little value unless those awards have standing within or without the community.

 

Equally, value does not have to be the same for everybody. There would probably not be a single hierarchy of awards, and different awards would be valued by different clans, communities and players. Some awards would simply have practical value in showing that someone is competent at this or that according to a certain issuer, while others would simply be ornamental in that they show that you participated in certain events.

 

Many of these would inherently be limited to specific clans and communities because they only have relevance or function within them, maybe by denoting rank within those clans or communities. Others could be issued by clans or communities, but also/only issued to players outside the clan/community, for instance awards that denote accomplishments. As an example, a person playing a transport helicopter pilot who provided a team with crucial support during a match on a community server might be issued an award for excellence in support aviation or something in recognition of his accomplishment. The value of that award would drop significantly if it was just granted willy-nilly to everyone in the clan/community, and so they are unlikely to do so. Communities have an incentive in being able to identify the capabilities of the players on their servers, and so throwing awards around does nothing but dilute that function of the awards.

 

Finally, part of the function of this is to strengthen community activity, and so people who are active in clans and communities will necessarily have more awards than Johnny Gamer. The idea is to see if Johnny Gamer participates more within a community, or joins one, as a consequence.

 

I like this idea even more.  Would the tag be binary? Either you like playing with someone or you don't? Would there be a scale such as 4 out of 5 stars, much like online shopping reviews (e.g. Newegg or Amazon)? I guess the latter could get out of hand as well. Would others see how you tagged someone? For example, would everyone be able to easily identify the asshole players?

 

 

In the original thread I have options for scaled ranking and negative ranking, as well. Your tags would not be visible to others except by subscribing to you.

 

I'm personally not interested in faux military unit tomfoolery, but if it didn't impact on my ability to use kit, or be SL or commander I wouldn't be averse to it. 

 

 

No part of this would in any way (directly) affect your ability to use or access kits or roles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Tartantyco!
I like the way you're thinking these ideas through and putting them up.

Can't see no reason why these ideas shouldn't be at least tested. I hope we'll see this stuff implemented in some way in the future, would be very interesting to see how the concept will work in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Subscription-based Reputation System: This is an older suggestion of mine that has the same community-driven foundation as the above awards system. As statistically based ranking systems are inherently flawed and vulnerable to manipulation, the idea was to create a system that does not have the same vulnerabilities and more accurately reflects the opinions of individual players.

 

Basically, you can "subscribe" to, or "tag", individual players that you had a good time playing with, felt were competent, or thought had a playstyle or play philosophy similar to yours, in the game. In this way you can easily identify the players you've previously enjoyed playing with before. For the purposes of this explanation, players you tag are colored a neutral green, showing that they are recommended players. In this way you create you personal network of players you want to play with. Every player who tags other players creates their own network.

 

However, when you tag someone you don't just add them to your network, but you also subscribe to their network, meaning that you also get their player recommendations. If you tag one person, he shows up as a neutral green to you, while those he's subscribed to show up as a faint green to you. As you continue to tag people, the people they've tagged will begin to overlap, and those people who are tagged multiple times by individual players you've tagged will show up as a stronger and stronger green depending on how strong the overlap is.

 

The point of this system is to provide players with a rapidly expanding network of recommended players that is based on their personal preference, that doesn't create exclusive cliques, and is decentralized so that it is unaffected by attempts at manipulation.

 

I really like this part. it would be perfect for me.

 

The rest not so much. Especially anything that involves DLCs or stuff that give Clans/Communities too much of elitism, which will come strong enough on its own.

As someone already pointed out: The regular guy who is a great teamplayer but not in a clan isnt really looked after there. Clans would abuse the system, or in their ignorance just think they are the best anyway.

I dont know why or how but a clan tag miraculously makes players the best very fast in their mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone already pointed out: The regular guy who is a great teamplayer but not in a clan isnt really looked after there. Clans would abuse the system, or in their ignorance just think they are the best anyway.

I dont know why or how but a clan tag miraculously makes players the best very fast in their mind.

 

How would the system be abused? How would 'regular guys' not be "looked after" by the system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like this part. it would be perfect for me.

 

The rest not so much. Especially anything that involves DLCs or stuff that give Clans/Communities too much of elitism, which will come strong enough on its own.

As someone already pointed out: The regular guy who is a great teamplayer but not in a clan isnt really looked after there. Clans would abuse the system, or in their ignorance just think they are the best anyway.

I dont know why or how but a clan tag miraculously makes players the best very fast in their mind.

 

There's nothing wrong with a little clan elitism, it's part of being a clan member and representing who you stand with. I'd take clan elitism over individual elitism any day of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the self devaluation of useless badges, is the "approval" mechanism your primary filter against a market flooded with meaningless badges? EDIT: I understand cost and "logic of investing into something of worth" are there as well, but I also dont underestimate the quantity of kids with disposable income, interest in "badges", and no sense of appropriate value.
 

As a compliment to this idea, rather than allowing a mishmash of ribbon images to be constructed using who knows what utility, an online editor could be created that took a ribbon and divided it into 32 sections that could then be colored as desired, and then the arrangement could be rendered into a common aesthetic form. Alternately they could remain numerical values since that might be easier to synchronize to accounts than sending around .pngs.
 

On a similar note, I made a suggestion some time back regarding the use of Ribbons as "participant" awards.

 

Example:

The TG clan wants to host a World Conquest operation for Squad. The creation of a new badge costs $300 for TG, but they can offset their cost through donations, or participation fees. They create a new badge for the "2016 TG Combined Arms Event" where everyone that participates gets a badge. This would show for years to come, and it becomes ideally, one of many means of estimating a players experience in the game.

 

While this would pad certain people's ego, it would say something about the history of their involvement in the game.

 

All in all, I think this is an interesting idea. Your mutual player rating system is very interesting. I was initially a bit skeptical, but as time has passed, it makes a bit more sense to me. I am concerned however that there would quickly grow very large groups of green-named players, in the event that you "like" someone who is a "Like-Spammer." This devalues the utility, so there would either need to be a numerical limit to how many people you can "like" at a time (maybe the last 10?)  or there needs to be an online editor where you could prune the heavy branches out of your "Like" tree. Last 10 would make sense however, since people's playstyles are dynamic, you may not like who they liked a year ago. It would limit the growth to your like tree very well.

 

Lastly, I must compliment you on your consistent and well thought out approach to posting. I feel well burdened with ideas to contribute, but struggle to organize them as well as you seem to, so kudos.

Edited by unfrail
First |P Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aside from the self devaluation of useless badges, is the "approval" mechanism your primary filter against a market flooded with meaningless badges? EDIT: I understand cost and "logic of investing into something of worth" are there as well, but I also dont underestimate the quantity of kids with disposable income, interest in "badges", and no sense of appropriate value.

 

 

Well, I think the underlying structure simply means that any spam or 'flooding' is practically impossible. So, some well-off kid wastes a load of money on a bunch of awards, now what? Is he going to sit around issuing awards to everyone they come across? Will all those people accept these awards? What does the kid get out of this? Does anyone find awards given out to everyone by some kid to be of any value? In addition, there isn't anywhere to flood. There's no hub where you go to 'shop' for available awards. The only way to get the awards is by personally being issued them, and the only way to see them is by checking someone's profile. It doesn't matter if there exists 100 awards or 100,000,000 awards, you're never really exposed to them.

 

A categorization mechanism(Participation awards, training awards, clan ranks, etc.), along with the ability for players to select a top 10 of awards that they want to be listed first in their profile(The others accessible through collapsed menus) should do much to make players themselves self-regulate. You don't want awards of value to be lost in a deluge of useless awards, so you moderate the amount you have, and you want to have the awards you value the most at the top, so you select those for your top 10. That way, any valueless awards spammed by well-off kids that you've accepted will simply be relegated to a practically invisible dustbin of no consequence.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of these awards would be extremely localized, and of little value outside of small groups. Clans that have a variety of awards for completed courses, ranks, participation, accomplishments, etc. There will be a lot of awards going around, but they won't in any way affect those who aren't involved in those small groups. Only a few will rise above the rest to be near-universally recognized, such as massive tournaments, any official Squad awards, certain groups and events that have made considerable impact. Aside from those, most others will have their own, more 'regional', influences.

 

All in all, I think this is an interesting idea. Your mutual player rating system is very interesting. I was initially a bit skeptical, but as time has passed, it makes a bit more sense to me. I am concerned however that there would quickly grow very large groups of green-named players, in the event that you "like" someone who is a "Like-Spammer." This devalues the utility, so there would either need to be a numerical limit to how many people you can "like" at a time (maybe the last 10?)  or there needs to be an online editor where you could prune the heavy branches out of your "Like" tree. Last 10 would make sense however, since people's playstyles are dynamic, you may not like who they liked a year ago. It would limit the growth to your like tree very well.

 

 

Well, this is why initial indirect 'tags' are very faint. It takes a lot of overlapping 'tags' from those you've directly subscribed to for a recommendation to really show up. While the faint highlights would be visible from the start, and this could easily make everyone appear faintly highlighted after you've tagged a few people, that would simply work to make the overlapping 'tags' more valuable.

 

I think it has been suggested that if you don't play with someone you've tagged for a while(Weeks, months, something like that), then the tag disappears. This would serve to 'refresh' your network from time to time to avoid excessive accumulation eventually leading to all green players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Subscription-based Reputation System for the following reasons:

  • It reminds me of players I enjoyed playing with, particularly if I don't see them often and won't remember their names
  • It will automatically highlight like-minded players I haven't even played with (assuming those guys I subscribed to, subscribed to similar other dudes)
  • In excatly the same way it will also warn me of bad dudes, even if I haven't played with them before

I would like to see this kind of system to be extended. I have in mind the following: the score could also be used to calculate a general reputation that would be visible to everybody. If many people subscribe to you and give you high ratings, you global/general reputate goes up. I think this would also be a useful general indication of a player's reputation and would not require being subscribed to particular other guys.

However, all of this needs to go further. Marking the good and bad dudes is only the first step. What useful thing can I do with that information? What's the point to know I am on a bad server (or bad team, or bad squad) if I don't have the tools to quickly and easily find the good servers/teams/squads/players. Yes, I could just manually change the squad/team/server, but that's not enough in my opinion. I would like to have tools to quickly see where my "favourite" players are and which servers are populated by most of my favourite players. The importance of the player's reputation applies not only for my squad or my team. If there are douchebag on the opposite team, the match will still suck. Hence, I would like to see a ranked list of the best servers with the highest number of my favourite players. It should also show me which teams on those servers score higher (i.e. have more favourite players than other), and also show which squads score highest in those teams. This way I could automatically find THE "BEST" squad available at the moment, like an "auto deploy now" function. But with this kind of system I would also want to see a "list view" with all the names of those favourite players on those servers, as I might remember some of the names and be particuarly inclined/attracted to some of those players and prefer them over the "highest scoring squad".

Additional useful statistics in such a "list view" of the best servers/teams/squads/players would be:

  • How often did I play with this person (e.g. in the same squad/team/server)
  • When was the last time that I played with this person

The Subscription-based Reputation System could also be combined with a global reputation and even with some reward/ribbon-based system, leading to a system similar to some of the ranking systems like in Starcraft 2 that try to match you with equally skilled opponents and team mates.

To be honest, most of these ideas here, particularly the more difficult ones (i.e. difficult to develop = high development effort), are only worthwhile to be put into place if we are able to grow a community with thousands of players online day in and day out, 24/7, in all regions of the world (a good ping is also important, not just the ranking/reputate of the players on the server). If Squad remains a niche game with only a core community of a lower hundreds of players online at any time, those features are much less useful/needed and will not justify the effort they would require to develop. It will be enough to go to specific clan servers or just look up your Steam friends list (you automatically become Steam friends with those you repeatedly played with and enjoyed the company of - thank god for the "Steam Friend List"). Nice-to-have features like those we discuss here really need to justify their development effort and will only come into play much much later down the road (i.e. 2017 and beyond).

Nevertheless great OP and inspiration, Tartantyco - many thanks! :D. Lots of ideas and thoughts coming to my mind (and keeping me from sleep :blink: - already past 2.00am in the morning).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm personally not interested in faux military unit tomfoolery, but if it didn't impact on my ability to use kit, or be SL or commander I wouldn't be averse to it. 

 

. . . and it did not impact on me in any way if i chose not to chase medals, or position on the Leaderboard . . ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see this kind of system to be extended. I have in mind the following: the score could also be used to calculate a general reputation that would be visible to everybody. If many people subscribe to you and give you high ratings, you global/general reputate goes up. I think this would also be a useful general indication of a player's reputation and would not require being subscribed to particular other guys.

 

That would go against the entire intent of the system. If a general reputation is generated based how many people are subscribed to you, then people will benefit from being subscribed to and start to game the system. Clans, communities, and the like could easily conspire to tag each other so that they're all highly rated, while players who are not active in a clan or community will not be able to accumulate the same amount of subscriptions.

 

The system must stay decentralized, or it will be worthwhile for players to manipulate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the self devaluation of useless badges, is the "approval" mechanism your primary filter against a market flooded with meaningless badges? EDIT: I understand cost and "logic of investing into something of worth" are there as well, but I also dont underestimate the quantity of kids with disposable income, interest in "badges", and no sense of appropriate value.

 

As a compliment to this idea, rather than allowing a mishmash of ribbon images to be constructed using who knows what utility, an online editor could be created that took a ribbon and divided it into 32 sections that could then be colored as desired, and then the arrangement could be rendered into a common aesthetic form. Alternately they could remain numerical values since that might be easier to synchronize to accounts than sending around .pngs.

 

On a similar note, I made a suggestion some time back regarding the use of Ribbons as "participant" awards.

 

Example:

The TG clan wants to host a World Conquest operation for Squad. The creation of a new badge costs $300 for TG, but they can offset their cost through donations, or participation fees. They create a new badge for the "2016 TG Combined Arms Event" where everyone that participates gets a badge. This would show for years to come, and it becomes ideally, one of many means of estimating a players experience in the game.

 

While this would pad certain people's ego, it would say something about the history of their involvement in the game.

 

All in all, I think this is an interesting idea. Your mutual player rating system is very interesting. I was initially a bit skeptical, but as time has passed, it makes a bit more sense to me. I am concerned however that there would quickly grow very large groups of green-named players, in the event that you "like" someone who is a "Like-Spammer." This devalues the utility, so there would either need to be a numerical limit to how many people you can "like" at a time (maybe the last 10?)  or there needs to be an online editor where you could prune the heavy branches out of your "Like" tree. Last 10 would make sense however, since people's playstyles are dynamic, you may not like who they liked a year ago. It would limit the growth to your like tree very well.

 

Lastly, I must compliment you on your consistent and well thought out approach to posting. I feel well burdened with ideas to contribute, but struggle to organize them as well as you seem to, so kudos.

 

This is a great additional delineation to a solid concept. Player networking and a regulated, respectable ribbon system (the need for the regulation and respect go hand in hand) are both efforts that can solidify and grow the community atmosphere - something that the devs have mentioned desiring several times. This would need some thought, and probably shouldn't be implemented until full release (or at least Early Access, unless there's a ribbon for being a supporter too), so that even the latest joiners on the Squad bandwagon can feel like they have an equal "fresh start" to network and earn their reputation as a quality, experienced member of the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an addition to the community-driven awards system: If a player's profile displays a certain amount of awards by default(With the rest being accessible in a sub-menu or dropdown), let's say 9 awards, and the players themselves are allowed to choose which of their awards that they want to have displayed in those 9 slots, that would do a lot to facilitate player-driven ranking of the awards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the awards community based system, but the easy thing to do is make them accessible and viewable by community members only, so when Johnny A gets a new reward only the people in the community see that.

It also means the approval process is not required, however it won't be difficult to setup a rewards system based off statistical data which automates the process, this allows for customisation but allows for more freedom.

It also allows for the clan to put ranks in place if they want based on say kills or w/e.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the awards community based system, but the easy thing to do is make them accessible and viewable by community members only, so when Johnny A gets a new reward only the people in the community see that.

It also means the approval process is not required, however it won't be difficult to setup a rewards system based off statistical data which automates the process, this allows for customisation but allows for more freedom.

It also allows for the clan to put ranks in place if they want based on say kills or w/e.

 

That would go against the point of the system. The point is to foster and build communities, not create isolated and insular ones. People should be randomly checking other people's profiles and going "Ohh, what's this award for?". They should be recognizing awards and arm patches and start associating those with good and bad players, thereby giving value and prestige to those awards and arm patches. For instance, if someone has the "1337 Squad Leader" award, but isn't a very good squad leader, people won't give that award much credence. If every player has the "Elite Sniper" award, that won't be seen as having any value. As players associate a clan or community with good gameplay, as they want to have those awards and arm patches, and as they have to gain the approval of actual people to get them(instead of grinding stats), and risk losing them if they misbehave, they have a far greater incentive to behave properly and engage more with communities. They may have to take training courses to get awards, play in tournaments, participate actively in clans and communities, and so on.

 

The monetary cost and approval process is important to restricting the quantity of these awards. If people are allowed to create the awards at will, the quantity created would likely balloon, making it difficult to recognize them in a sea of awards. If people don't have to invest anything in the awards, they would also have far less of an incentive to care about what value other people see in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would go against the point of the system. The point is to foster and build communities, not create isolated and insular ones. People should be randomly checking other people's profiles and going "Ohh, what's this award for?". They should be recognizing awards and arm patches and start associating those with good and bad players, thereby giving value and prestige to those awards and arm patches. For instance, if someone has the "1337 Squad Leader" award, but isn't a very good squad leader, people won't give that award much credence. If every player has the "Elite Sniper" award, that won't be seen as having any value. As players associate a clan or community with good gameplay, as they want to have those awards and arm patches, and as they have to gain the approval of actual people to get them(instead of grinding stats), and risk losing them if they misbehave, they have a far greater incentive to behave properly and engage more with communities. They may have to take training courses to get awards, play in tournaments, participate actively in clans and communities, and so on.

The monetary cost and approval process is important to restricting the quantity of these awards. If people are allowed to create the awards at will, the quantity created would likely balloon, making it difficult to recognize them in a sea of awards. If people don't have to invest anything in the awards, they would also have far less of an incentive to care about what value other people see in them.

I agree that there should be some form of universal voting system whereby players thumb up good players, I disagree with the thumbs down feature i.e bad players otherwise you are giving something for someone to strive to.

The one thing I am not understanding is the subscription? People pay to have their work in squad? Or the players pay to be able to get awards? Or something else?

Also if the award is based around players giving the award and not being earned by say kills or revives etc. How do you differentiate between a popular player and a good player?

I like the ideas of medals, ribbons etc but these should be statistical for reinforced gameplay, something to earn such as running 5000 miles or reviving 500 players.

Then there should be a separate system for others to judge you by, probably like a system where you vote for man of the match or something.

And the person gets rewards for having a high vote such as having their name at the top of the score board.

Having something where you can actually lose it because a group of trolls can vote it out will hurt gameplay in terms of reflection of players, imagine a community who dislikes a player because of interpersonal problems can actually affect that persons gameplay because of a dispute I could care less about.

But now every Tom, dick and harry will think he's crap because he's not got a high score.

It will also mean players who are new but maybe not inexperienced need to go through some ritual even though they are just learning systems, and players who are weekend warriors will also be affected if anything is socially or mechanically locked off.

It needs much more thought or at least explaining, from my eyes I see a promising system which would be great but needs more info probably simplified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid you've severely misread my suggestion, Dale. The Community-Based Awards System and the Subscription-Based Reputation System are two completely different and separate things.

 

The Subscription-Based Reputation System is based on a series of individual and independent overlapping networks that are created by subscribing to players, which also doubles as "liking" or "upvoting" them. Basically, If you and I play in a squad together, and if I like playing with you, or your attitude towards the game, or whatever, I will subscribe to you. In-game, this means that you will show up in a shade of green on the scoreboard or somewhere like that. This makes it easy for me to identify players I liked playing with earlier, and this is how I make my network. However, in addition to "liking" you, I also subscribe to your network, and as you and I subscribe to more people we like, any people who overlap in our networks will be highlighted by an ever brighter shade of green. So:

 

I've subscribed to Dale, Penguin, and Grey. They are all subscribed to many other people. A few overlap:

DALE:        1,3,6,7,9

PENGUIN: 1,2,6

GREY:       1,2,3,5,9

 

As you see here, all of them are subscribed to player 1. That means he will show up as a pretty bright shade of green in my scoreboard. Only Grey is subscribed to player 5, so his shade of green is barely visible. Both Dale and Penguin are subscribed to player 6, so he shows up as a slightly stronger shade of green than player 5. Dale, Penguin, and Grey all show up as bright green to me as I've personally subscribed to them. In practice it would of course take more overlap to get a bright green, and there would be a wider range of shades, but this is basically how it works. This way you get a rapidly expanding network of recommended players without having to play with a lot of people, and it's pretty hard to game since you have to wreck your own network to do so, and a single network won't have to much influence on the total.

 

 

As for the Community-Based Awards System, the entire point is to not depend on statistics(Hence "community-based), as they are completely useless at telling you anything about the player beyond the stats themselves. So the idea of involving statistics in any way is completely counter to the intent of the system. The system basically works like this:

 

You are hosting a Squad tournament and you want some awards, medals, ribbons, etc., to give to the participants. You create your artwork(Like the ribbon in the OP) and purchase licenses to distribute these awards. Let's say $5 for 5 awards, as an example. The artwork is checked to ensure that it's not just some images of penises or the WB logo or whatever, and if it checks out it is approved. You can now distribute these awards to anyone you see fit, in any quantity you want. It does not cost anything at all from there on. Whoever you choose to distribute it to may choose not to accept it, and you can remove the awards at any time.

 

Your suggestion of having players vote for the "man of the match" would only result in a lot of clan members and friend groups constantly being voted "man of the match" and getting all the medals. All of that, and the troll stuff, is stuff that my suggestion is actively trying to avoid. Stats tell you nothing without context and are easily gamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's just a quick profile mockup:

 

uPyMOtr.png

 

This kind of profile should be accessible in-game during a match. The full profile would show more stats and a full list of awards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read this as it was linked elsewhere today and I think it needs to live again. Great ideas and for those who don't like, surely we could agree on stats and 'medals' for wins vs. losses as they wouldn't change the game-play in any way; just needs a team lock down after 2-3 minutes to avoid jumping across for the win etc.  

Edited by Chris Tud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×