Another possibility would be to add diminishing returns to karma grants. So for example, the first time I grant you karma, it gives you +5 points. When I grant you more later, it gives +3, and later again +1 until I can no longer grant karma.
Also, inflation would be pretty easy to detect I think… it’s simple pattern recognition. Sites like Hacker News (a tech-oriented Reddit clone) and Product Hunt (site where startups show off their new stuff) already employ such detection and mitigation mechanisms (circle-voters’ votes get nullified) and they work quite well.
It would serve to highlight both exceptional players and players who aren’t as good on a technical level but are good team players and are well liked by their teammates. The best players would earn scores far higher than what anybody could glean from their buddies alone.
It also sets the tone. The system would be inherently associated with positivity (“dude you’re an awesome tank, let me give you some karma”) instead of becoming a tool to enact players’ vengeance and spite. The game should avoid empowering players to lash out at each other as much as reasonably possible.
I dont see how there is any difference between positive only marks and negative marks
People will be judged regardless. Negative marks? Cant join. No marks? Cant join. No matter how positive you try to make your judgements they will be used against players and they will be excluded on the basis of others opinions
The only way this works is if the marks are 100% not seen by anyone. And if thats the case they may as well not exist. I dont know why people need to judge others so badly
Well think of it like this. If you know how many m+ someone has done for the season, and you have their karma, you can plot where they are on a population bell curve which would describe how desirable they are.
So someone who is 2 standard deviations below the median is very undesirable, those who are 1 standard deviation below the median is undesirable, those at the median are average, those 1 standard deviation above the median are desirable and those 2 standard deviations above the median are very desirable.
You don’t explicitly need a way to reflect negative experiences.
That said, I think people don’t like being evaluated, so I don’t think this would be very popular and to a large degree it would end up being a popularity contest instead of an objective measurement of proficiency (like reddit, basically).
And this is why i dont want it. It promotes exclusion based solely on the opinions of others
RIO is a cold calculated program. It shows no favorites and has no emotion. This awful Karma system is founded on the generosity of the WoW playerbase and they can be set off by the most minor of grievances
I personally don’t see a need for judgement either, but you see constant calls for some kind of system to “filter out the baddies” in the undying quest for further efficiency. To me the real problem is the necessity of such ruthless efficiency – I think it’s an indicator of other issues with the game – but others don’t seem to see it that way.
Yep, and by excluding a negative rating option, you remove the possibility of people frivolously doling out negative karma for stupid and selfish reasons, potentially wrecking a person’s reputation for no good reason. Under a system where only positive karma can be given, would-be troublemakers would instead have no impact whatsoever.
I almost never see people asking for more. Normally players are asking for less. They ask for things like RIO to be removed.
Again this solves nothing. Instead of looking at negative grades people would look for the absence of grades. They would take a lower number of positive marks as bad and judge them based on that. This means if you are a new player you arent getting into groups based on this system
If you take into account the number of dungeons run (as I suggested earlier) it doesn’t punish new players. Your score ends up being boiled down to a karma per dungeon average.
I still don’t think it’s very good, but the specific concern that new players are overly punished isn’t necessarily the case.
You’re right, but it instead brings other problems such as people trying to cheat the system, which sustains the carry market. I don’t think there is such a thing as a people scoring system that doesn’t come with some kind of nasty drawback.
Rio’s primary advantage is it’s entirely factual, and when they’ve been asked to add features to help pugging via things like karma, they’ve resisted and have only wanted to include objective data.
Certainly the means of their scoring is subjective (how valuable a key level is relative to a lower key, how valuable making the timer is, etc) but it’s all fairly transparent and based on facts as best as they can determine (eg: working within the limitations of the m+ ladder).
Again your inclusion into groups would be judged on the emotional opinion of others vs your actual skill
In what world is that a good metric? A person can be perfectly polite and nice and if they dont do everything the way their group demands they could be met with unhealthy marks and not be allowed in groups. This isnt a healthy option for the game
Which would still exist with karma. Gold buys a lot of things. Like i said RIO isnt perfect, but at least its unbiased
you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about if you think IO is affected by carries
just that sentence shows a complete lack of understanding of the system
lcarried runs are making the top 500 of a servers time, with a DPS being carried? such a time probably wouldn’t be on the boards for long even if it was tracked.
edit: you have two completed m+ runs on record, according to blizzard; what do you think you know of IO or the m+ system with this experience?
do you think you have enough success or experience with the system to be throwing out ideas?
Guys, this thread is about letting people into harder content and/or get rid of the power/monopoly that trolls/elitists have over content, ALA Wildstar’s death.
I never said that buying carries was effective, merely that people would try to cheat the system by buying carries. Those who don’t understand raider.io would be predisposed to thinking it could be cheated.
I have done more M+ on my warrior than on my mage (I find melee easier to manage in M+), but don’t do M+ a whole lot anyway simply because I find the affixes more frustrating than fun.
Either way, I’m not looking to pick a fight, and I feel I’m entitled to my opinion that any kind of rating system is going to be flawed by nature. I’m not saying to do away with rating systems, only to acknowledge that no such system may exist without flaws.
The problem is getting in. Sure, it’s easier to get Normal Raid Gear with sprinkles of Heroic thrown here and there (Every Darkshore/Ivus), but what good does that do when the power/monopoly that elitists/trolls have over content is present if you want it faster?
By the by, Vaulty, a YouTuber, was downvoted for saying “Make your own group”. Making your own group gets you so far, in other words.