i've been thinking about how hard it is to organize a well tuned group, with people who KNOW what their doing and how experienced they are, and that i think a sort of ranking system to determine how well you are in a party should be introduced. example of this.
Person A, say a War, has just hit level 15 after soloing hard in Theine, and decides its time to get a party. Person A heads out to the Dunes and puts up his party flag.
Person B, also level 15, has just run into a problem with his party. His War has just left. so now he needs to replace him. but *gasp*, theres so many wars to choose from, how does he know who will make a good tank and who is worthy of partying?
simple.
introduce a party rating system, where members of a party that you've played with get to annotate how well you play as a party member, juding on your skill chain experience, communication skills and general presence (being nice and a total jerk)
back to our scenario. Person B looks up for a War, and finds 502354928 wars available. now with this system, he can filter out who are the "Bad" players, and keep the "Decent" or "Good" players. since Player A is new to the game and therefore hasnt partied yet, he could have a "Trainie" rank. judging on how he plays, the party will either bump him up or bring him down in rank.
now i know there are some people that feel that this system may be a bad idea, i myself see a way this system can be abused (a group of people inviting a random person and ranking them low for kicks) but if done right, this system could be helpful.
i look foward to hearing some feedback from you guys. :)
·Theme
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XI
- General Discussion
- Party Ranking system?
Party Ranking system?Follow
Never ever ever trust the opinion of other players ever.
People will get a kick out of rating everyone else down for giggles.
If players were rated on a 1-10 scale, your average score for players would hover around 2.5. There would be a cluster of players around 2.5, a cluster around 7.5 (the people in large LS's full of people who were given a pearl at lvl 1 for no reason, people who don't know each other, but rate each other up anyway, just because they're in the same LS), and nothing you could trust.
People suck. Never forget this. ;)
Edited, Thu Jan 29 13:51:40 2004 by Sprits
People will get a kick out of rating everyone else down for giggles.
If players were rated on a 1-10 scale, your average score for players would hover around 2.5. There would be a cluster of players around 2.5, a cluster around 7.5 (the people in large LS's full of people who were given a pearl at lvl 1 for no reason, people who don't know each other, but rate each other up anyway, just because they're in the same LS), and nothing you could trust.
People suck. Never forget this. ;)
Edited, Thu Jan 29 13:51:40 2004 by Sprits
So you saying all the great players in 1 group? Deny the players that aren't so familiar with themselves the chance to learn from experienced players in the group?
I /sea inv and if I see someoen in my level.. I invite him.. not are you this are you that how good are you. I invite him to start a group.. If there's no white mage.. Then we do without one. Downtime longer.. but wth? It's better than sitting and doing nothing.
I think ppl should stop picking pickey with who and what :P Try a challange!
I /sea inv and if I see someoen in my level.. I invite him.. not are you this are you that how good are you. I invite him to start a group.. If there's no white mage.. Then we do without one. Downtime longer.. but wth? It's better than sitting and doing nothing.
I think ppl should stop picking pickey with who and what :P Try a challange!
Two problems I can see with this...
1) As Spirits so eloquently put it, and I wholeheartedly agree.. People suck. A rating system won't really work with the large number of immature players.
2) It will be harder for those new people to learn the skills they need to learn to get rated up if all they have available to party with are other 'trainees'. Granted, some people catch on faster than others, but it's better to tolerate a 'trainee' for the period of their learning curve and help them along than to just throw them to the wolves so to speak. Give the ones slower to catch on a little break as long as they're trying. If someone absolutely refuses to learn, boot them straight away.
1) As Spirits so eloquently put it, and I wholeheartedly agree.. People suck. A rating system won't really work with the large number of immature players.
2) It will be harder for those new people to learn the skills they need to learn to get rated up if all they have available to party with are other 'trainees'. Granted, some people catch on faster than others, but it's better to tolerate a 'trainee' for the period of their learning curve and help them along than to just throw them to the wolves so to speak. Give the ones slower to catch on a little break as long as they're trying. If someone absolutely refuses to learn, boot them straight away.
Samus taught us that a girl doesn't need brains to be successful. Brains are giant, evil and vulnerable to missiles.
Aside from what's already been said. People have different playing styles, and that WAR that sucks in your group might be perfect for another.
I think a ranking system would be cool, in theory....but like what everyone else has said, people would rank others down just for the hell of it.
So I guess we'll just have to use the game's ranking system. I'd rather take someone lvl 30 that's at achieved rank 3 than someone still at rank 1. It's a small indication that the person has spent a bit more time in the game and has done something other than lvling up.
I think a ranking system would be cool, in theory....but like what everyone else has said, people would rank others down just for the hell of it.
So I guess we'll just have to use the game's ranking system. I'd rather take someone lvl 30 that's at achieved rank 3 than someone still at rank 1. It's a small indication that the person has spent a bit more time in the game and has done something other than lvling up.
You ever have one of your posts rated down and don't know why?
Exactly. Case in point, this is a bad idea.
Exactly. Case in point, this is a bad idea.
Post rated down :) - joke
Actually, over a long period of time this might work, because most people do rate fairly (I know it's suprising, but that's how statistical analysis works most of the time). So this might work.
Howevever, there is already a system based on word of the mouth. At least on my server, people have reputations. Like there is such a thing as "pull a Rushian" among players of my level, etc.
Rushian lvl57 Paladin
Bismarck
Actually, over a long period of time this might work, because most people do rate fairly (I know it's suprising, but that's how statistical analysis works most of the time). So this might work.
Howevever, there is already a system based on word of the mouth. At least on my server, people have reputations. Like there is such a thing as "pull a Rushian" among players of my level, etc.
Rushian lvl57 Paladin
Bismarck
I think that the word of mouth system works great. I say "don't party with D***n, he bolts at the first sign of trouble" and I've effectively harmed his reputation for the people I'm talking to.
An in game system would be unfair and inaccurate. People simply cannot be called upon to be fair when there is no consequence to themselves. I give to you as an example, hotornot.com. There are some pictures of truly gorgeous people on this site, but some snot nosed kid who thinks it's funny will go in and rate everyone a 1 for 15 minutes. Likewise, you'll see some terribly unattractive people with scores in the six range.
Now look at eBay's feedback system. When you're forced to put your name with a comment, it's a little more accurate, since the person you've rated can also rate you. So if Squeenix was going to implement something like this, there would have to be a restrictive measure, such as you can only rate someone once per each time you party with them.
Which is all just a bit too complicated to be bothered with, in my opinion.
An in game system would be unfair and inaccurate. People simply cannot be called upon to be fair when there is no consequence to themselves. I give to you as an example, hotornot.com. There are some pictures of truly gorgeous people on this site, but some snot nosed kid who thinks it's funny will go in and rate everyone a 1 for 15 minutes. Likewise, you'll see some terribly unattractive people with scores in the six range.
Now look at eBay's feedback system. When you're forced to put your name with a comment, it's a little more accurate, since the person you've rated can also rate you. So if Squeenix was going to implement something like this, there would have to be a restrictive measure, such as you can only rate someone once per each time you party with them.
Which is all just a bit too complicated to be bothered with, in my opinion.
1) i did mention the problem with abuse, but i feel square may be able to do something with this sort of system.
2)there wouldnt be a need to follow this system, personally i think i'd be nice to just have a little notifcation on who's good to party with and who to stay away from.
still, bordem and bad parties do this to a guy.
2)there wouldnt be a need to follow this system, personally i think i'd be nice to just have a little notifcation on who's good to party with and who to stay away from.
still, bordem and bad parties do this to a guy.
maybe a simpler and more accurate system would simply show a little number next to the player's name showing how many blists he is on; say i do a /sea whm 12-15 (which is what i normally do) and there are 5 whm available who are not PTing (ok that would never happen ^^); if some1 looks like a good invite but then u c they are on 15 blists, its like, umm, well, ***** him lol
Recent Visitors: 383
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (383)
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XI
- General Discussion
- Party Ranking system?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC