Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: [suggestion/solution] Report System - Reward good gameplay & behavior instead

  1. #1
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    9

    [suggestion/solution] Report System - Reward good gameplay & behavior instead

    The core fundamental flaw with the present system is that it's open to abuse, even when some say it only affects a small userbase. I do not have to explain that people do spend their reports on players that don't abuse their ability nor feed. Valve has enough tools to acknowledge the impossible to deny fact that this hole exists and that people do use the report more than the reason it was intended for, irregardless of behavior score. I am aware that it's less abused when bs is 10k, but at any less, the snowball effect is greater. In other words, abuse is greater.
    The current model does nothing to encourage people to do well, but rather discourage people from doing bad, which have different ramifications. The latter brews hatred, in turn toxicity, as people tend to have the inclination to blame and inflict hurt upon others. With power granted to everyone this process can become habitual. Before games even begin, people would already begin talking about reporting. It gets so bad one would report based on hero choice. As indeed, drafts are important, but poor hero choices should have consequences on the player who makes poor choices than the rest of the team. Games can turn out very positive even with bad hero choices with good performance. MMR should thus be weighted on the performance of the player/party than distributed across his entire team. The worst offense in this game is having intentions in sabotaging the game, which is to say: Throwing, ability abuse and similar. Methods and algorithms should detect this and appropriate action should be taken. Having bad games should not result in reports ever, but that's not to say they shouldn't lose anything. To simplify, offenders need to be more accurately flagged. Having 3 categories at present is senseless as nearly everyone would tick all 3. Reports should be based on the greatest offense than multiple. More on this later.

    A positive environment would first require a system that encourages such. When players have something precious on the line, it would only be natural for them to want to perform.

    EXPLAINING THE PROBLEM [not important to read, unless you want a clear explanation]:

    1. Irregardless of the userbase that gets reported, the room for abuse is still there.
    2. Are statistics correct? It may be so that a small userbase is affected. It's also unclear if their data gathered to say that only a small quantity of players are misbehaving includes inactive players across the years. It's unclear whether data gathered includes unranked games and also fun mode-players. Thus can we accurately conclude that minority of players are ACTUALLY a problem or are problematic players of a greater percentage than statistically expressed.
    3. As statistically gathered -- Majority players are lower tier, below 4k MMR. I would imagine lower tier players to play the game far more casually, much like playing casual sports without feeling too bothered whether the game would result in victory or defeat. Chances of players in this tier bothering to do a report is less than that in higher tier games. In sports, you will find a certain class of players who enjoy a good game of challenge, but not to a pro level, yet not exactly casual either. In our game, I'd consider them players that are 4K and above.
    4. The population of higher tier players makes up for the minority of the whole. Higher tier players for what they are, would naturally try harder to win -- with their own means. Each have their own playstyle and philosophy of the game if you'd like. And there is no absolute strategy/means in winning, but that's what makes up the beauty of this game, diversity. But the beauty of it is also in part responsible for the tragic state of the game.

    Players fail to comprehend a simple fact -- that every game, there will be a loser. There are many, too many moving variables that'd ultimately result in a team's victory or defeat. Certainly, an accumulation of many. How's it right to report one or another or many simply based on playstyle or outcome of a game? But as long as people believe the outcome of a game is based on a singular player, or otherwise hatred of a player, reports will be spent. Righteous beliefs are the very delusion that infests in majority of players. That is not to say that there aren't at all singular elements that'd affect the outcome of games. I've seen obvious bad 10th picks. Example, a sniper against 5 mobile heroes like spec and storm. Or AM against an already chosen PA + magnus to name a few.
    Pro players also lose games all the time, and when they do, they don't gain as much money as they'd want to. You don't see them reporting each other so that they'd go into some LP for PROs. They just form new teams or join other teams until they find the right chemistry. Each team do have their own playstyle and drafts too to add. There's no one right way to play the game.

    PROPOSING A SOLUTION [this will need to be gradually detailed, hopefully in detail over time]:

    Abandoning games -- I propose 80% loss towards the offender and his party and a 20% minimal MMR loss for the victim party of the same team.
    Feeders -- Code can be written to detect deaths/minute ; last user of courier who clicked towards an enemy. It may be difficult to cover all bases, but at least if we can filter out majority of problems, it would at least be a start. Such report should be unlocked when algorithm matches the conditions.
    Ability abuse -- Tiny toss needs the ability to be disabled and when player disables the ability and is close to a creep, also close to tiny, tiny would not be allowed to toss the other unit as well. The disadvantage should be set on the potential offender and not a random victim. When teammate gets tossed and killed, the player should be given a quick ability and prompt whether to block such from happening as well as unlocking ability abuse report. If other players on the team report the same player for the same reason, the player should be penalized significant MMR in MMR games or be prevented from using the same hero in unranked games. In the case of ability draft, these games should be considered casual games and not be counted in.
    Warding own camp -- In majority games, you'd not want to ward your own camp. There certainly are exceptions. But when one wards their own camp, it should unlock the ability to report ward abuse. Same goes to enemies picking up wards belonging to the other team. Also, for camp-wards, teammates should have the ability to deny the ward even if at full hp. It's not perfect, but should sort most issues.
    Non-cooperative -- Not helping, intentionally letting game end -- detected by base being destroyed, while player is not doing any hero damage or building damage. This is rather controversial but we can probably fine-tune this to a working concept.
    Communication abuse -- (ill rewrite this later) Censor repeated offenders (and include a censor icon over the user) so that each player has the ability to know and uncensor the offender so that game communications can continue. By muting a player entirely is actually putting the rest of the team at a great setback.
    Rewarding the least preferred activities -- I believe that when rewards are on the line, such as their own MMR, players would naturally try to do better. If there's a 1 MMR reward (to be extreme) per obs ward purchased, you'd naturally find more support players. To the point that, even core players would begin buying their own wards. Obviously 1 MMR would be prone to abuse in that sense and plenty tweaking on top of conditions would be required to make such work. But let's make a start at least.
    Rewarding good play -- I believe that when hero damage & building damage also equates to MMR, you'd find AM's picked less, a hero that often leads to dreadful games in most cases. So if one were to pick AM, they'd better be sure it's going to work out.
    Rewarding sacrifice and risk -- Give bonus mmr for picking People don't like picking early. Often leads to gold being lost. Quite simple really, grant bonus mmr for early pickers and none for late pickers.
    Rewarding less preferred roles / making core players more responsible -- Expanding on the above -- before you talk about being counter-picked, one must not forget that they would still need to perform well in order to gain more mmr/lose less mmr. It'd especially be factored more drastically towards pos1/2 players. As there's always an excess of delusional pos1/2 players, now they'd need to think twice before picking up these roles.

    I believe since the last update there might already be implementation of such rewards though nothing of sufficient descriptive.


    I'll slowly be writing+editing+improving this post gradually as it's really a long topic. I've not read everything I've written myself, expect errors, but I'd edit and improve over time. Please join in and share if we can detail this to reach a working model.
    Last edited by biatche; 09-25-2019 at 06:06 PM.

  2. #2
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24
    I couldn't agree more. A positive reinforcement instead of negative is physiology 101, this is how you get people to want to do better. A system of punishment is only going to cause player to be more overly upset with the game as well as other players. How is it that the Dota team at Valve have not figured this out yet?

  3. #3
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    74
    OP use "Enter" after each point so it doesn't look like a wall of text.

  4. #4
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    9
    I'm not very pleased with my writeup/formatting, but I intend to improve it over the next couple of days.

    It's at least pleasing to know there's at least one in agreement to motivate me to complete the full writeup.
    Last edited by biatche; 09-26-2019 at 08:24 PM.

  5. #5
    I would like to add to this...I've just been put into low priority due to multiple reports at picking phase (as discussed by the OP) and also presumably because some players didn't like my performance? To be punished with low priority when I did absolutely nothing wrong but play the ranked matchmaking system is ridiculous and very disheartening to say the least. I muted all toxic players, commended the behaviour of good players and even requested not to be matched with the toxic players again. However, as aluded to by the OP, the snowball effect caused by a couple of initial reports is insane...you get put with one other toxic player, they then report you because they have the option to irrespective of my behaviour. The next game becomes even more toxic and so on...it's extremely poor that everyone has the ability to report without legitimate evidence that you have done something wrong. I'm just shy of 3k mmr support and was trying to calibrate my core mmr but with one game remaining I know have a low priority pool to climb out of. Surely you can do better Valve??? If I mute toxic players and you can see that I am not spamming any chat commands, and instead trying to actually enjoy the game and improve, then why punish me?? I'm considering moving away from the game because right now there is no where near enough done to support players who want to actually enjoy the game.

  6. #6
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    74
    Hey OP i did a little fixing for your 1st post :

    The core fundamental flaw with the present system is that it's open to abuse, even when some say it only affects a small user base. I do not have to explain that people do spend their reports on players that don't abuse their ability nor feed. Valve has enough tools to acknowledge the impossible to deny fact that this hole exists and that people do use the report more than the reason it was intended for, irregardless of behavior score. I am aware that it's less abused when bs is 10k, but at any less, the snowball effect is greater. In other words, abuse is greater.

    The current model does nothing to encourage people to do well, but rather discourage people from doing bad, which have different ramifications. The latter brews hatred, in turn toxicity, as people tend to have the inclination to blame and inflict hurt upon others. With power granted to everyone this process can become habitual. Before games even begin, people would already begin talking about reporting. It gets so bad one would report based on hero choice. As indeed, drafts are important, but poor hero choices should have consequences on the player who makes poor choices than the rest of the team. Games can turn out very positive even with bad hero choices with good performance. MMR should thus be weighted on the performance of the player/party than distributed across his entire team. The worst offense in this game is having intentions in sabotaging the game, which is to say: Throwing, ability abuse and similar. Methods and algorithms should detect this and appropriate action should be taken. Having bad games should not result in reports ever, but that's not to say they shouldn't lose anything. To simplify, offenders need to be more accurately flagged. Having 3 categories at present is senseless as nearly everyone would tick all 3. Reports should be based on the greatest offense than multiple. More on this later.

    A positive environment would first require a system that encourages such. When players have something precious on the line, it would only be natural for them to want to perform.

    EXPLAINING THE PROBLEM [not important to read, unless you want a clear explanation]:

    1. Irregardless of the user base that gets reported, the room for abuse is still there.
    2. Are Statistics Correct? It may be so that a small user base is affected. It's also unclear if their data gathered to say that only a small quantity of players are misbehaving includes inactive players across the years. It's unclear whether data gathered includes unranked games and also fun mode-players. Thus can we accurately conclude that minority of players are ACTUALLY a problem or are problematic players of a greater percentage than statistically expressed.
    3. As Statistically Gathered -- Majority players are lower tier, below 4k MMR. I would imagine lower tier players to play the game far more casually, much like playing casual sports without feeling too bothered whether the game would result in victory or defeat. Chances of players in this tier bothering to do a report is less than that in higher tier games. In sports, you will find a certain class of players who enjoy a good game of challenge, but not to a pro level, yet not exactly casual either. In our game, I'd consider them players that are 4K and above.
    4. The population of higher tier players makes up for the minority of the whole. Higher tier players for what they are, would naturally try harder to win -- with their own means. Each have their own play style and philosophy of the game if you'd like. And there is no absolute strategy/means in winning, but that's what makes up the beauty of this game, diversity. But the beauty of it is also in part responsible for the tragic state of the game.

    Players fail to comprehend a simple fact -- that every game, there will be a loser. There are many, too many moving variables that'd ultimately result in a team's victory or defeat. Certainly, an accumulation of many. How's it right to report one or another or many simply based on play style or outcome of a game? But as long as people believe the outcome of a game is based on a singular player, or otherwise hatred of a player, reports will be spent. Righteous beliefs are the very delusion that infests in majority of players. That is not to say that there aren't at all singular elements that'd affect the outcome of games. I've seen obvious bad 10th picks. Example, a sniper against 5 mobile heroes like spec and storm. Or AM against an already chosen PA + magnus to name a few.
    Pro players also lose games all the time, and when they do, they don't gain as much money as they'd want to. You don't see them reporting each other so that they'd go into some LP for PROs. They just form new teams or join other teams until they find the right chemistry. Each team do have their own play style and drafts too to add. There's no one right way to play the game.

    PROPOSING A SOLUTION [this will need to be gradually detailed, hopefully in detail over time]:

    Game Abandonment
    I propose 80% loss towards the offender and his party and a 20% minimal MMR loss for the victim party of the same team.

    Intentional Feeding
    Code can be written to detect deaths/minute ; last user of courier who clicked towards an enemy. It may be difficult to cover all bases, but at least if we can filter out majority of problems, it would at least be a start. Such report should be unlocked when algorithm matches the conditions.

    Ability Abuse
    Tiny toss needs the ability to be disabled and when player disables the ability and is close to a creep, also close to tiny, tiny would not be allowed to toss the other unit as well. The disadvantage should be set on the potential offender and not a random victim. When teammate gets tossed and killed, the player should be given a quick ability and prompt whether to block such from happening as well as unlocking ability abuse report. If other players on the team report the same player for the same reason, the player should be penalized significant MMR in MMR games or be prevented from using the same hero in unranked games. In the case of ability draft, these games should be considered casual games and not be counted in.

    Camp Blocking
    In majority games, you'd not want to ward your own camp. There certainly are exceptions. But when one wards their own camp, it should unlock the ability to report ward abuse. Same goes to enemies picking up wards belonging to the other team. Also, for camp-wards, teammates should have the ability to deny the ward even if at full hp. It's not perfect, but should sort most issues.

    No Co-operation
    Not helping, intentionally letting game end -- detected by base being destroyed, while player is not doing any hero damage or building damage. This is rather controversial but we can probably fine-tune this to a working concept.

    Communication Abuse
    (ill rewrite this later) Censor repeated offenders (and include a censor icon over the user) so that each player has the ability to know and uncensor the offender so that game communications can continue. By muting a player entirely is actually putting the rest of the team at a great setback.

    Rewarding 1 : Ward Purchase
    I believe that when rewards are on the line, such as their own MMR, players would naturally try to do better. If there's a 1 MMR reward (to be extreme) per obs ward purchased, you'd naturally find more support players. To the point that, even core players would begin buying their own wards. Obviously 1 MMR would be prone to abuse in that sense and plenty tweaking on top of conditions would be required to make such work. But let's make a start at least.

    Rewarding 2 : Good Play
    I believe that when hero damage & building damage also equates to MMR, you'd find AM's picked less, a hero that often leads to dreadful games in most cases. So if one were to pick AM, they'd better be sure it's going to work out.

    Rewarding 3 : Fast Pick = High Reward
    Give bonus mmr for picking People don't like picking early. Often leads to gold being lost. Quite simple really, grant bonus mmr for early pickers and none for late pickers. Rewarding less preferred roles / making core players more responsible -- Expanding on the above -- before you talk about being counter-picked, one must not forget that they would still need to perform well in order to gain more mmr/lose less mmr. It'd especially be factored more drastically towards pos1/2 players. As there's always an excess of delusional pos1/2 players, now they'd need to think twice before picking up these roles.

    I believe since the last update there might already be implementation of such rewards though nothing of sufficient descriptive.


    I'll slowly be writing+editing+improving this post gradually as it's really a long topic. I've not read everything I've written myself, expect errors, but I'd edit and improve over time. Please join in and share if we can detail this to reach a working model.
    Last edited by Ajaxs99; 09-28-2019 at 02:26 PM.

  7. #7

  8. #8
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    9
    yes, what you did was exactly what i had in mind. thanks

    i do have some new ideas to push out too. what i figured was

    mmr scoring should be two-part. one is performance based. players need to be indexed and have a relative performance rating given to them. the other should be vote-based

    so at the end of every game, users will be given a base +/- mmr. in order to account in their performance mmr, they need to 'like' or upvote at least 2 players on their team, and optionally the enemy. (i havent given downvoting enough thought yet). to make it simpler to understand, say mike does 2x more than jenny, and jenny does 2x more than player C,D,E. in other words, mike does 4x more than the rest, we apply some math (mine isnt good enough)

    mike
    4/(4+(4+2+1) = 0.364

    jenny
    2/(2+(4+2+1) = 0.22

    c,d,e
    1/(1+(4+2+1) = 0.11

    in a winning game: if normally each player gets 25 mmr. we set the base mmr to 15 instead that each player gets. there would be 5 players * 10 mmr additional mmr for grasp = 50. after voting, the performance mmr he gets for himself would be:

    mike:
    0.363 * (10*5) = 18.15

    jenny:
    0.22 * (10*5) = 11

    c,d,e each:
    0.11 * (50) = 5.5

    and then, players are granted voting based bonus mmr (in the case of party games, ill need to give it more thought). these aren't award winning formulas, but based on the little experience i had when i maintained a custom game in dota2. moving on

    everyone appreciates mike. he really did do great, after all, to have such an insanely high performance index of 4, his veno had 20 kills and 0 deaths. did the most damage, did most building damage, was present in almost every fight. had highest networth, and also slowed enemies for the longest duration. on top of that, he did that so as pos3. he did so much damage and networth WITHOUT high creep kills compared to the rest of his team. on top of that, he did a few solo kills. he also absorbed a fair amount of damage and healed, all accounting to his performance. if anything, he should have an even higher perf rating. no brainer hes the best performer. mike hates player E. kept quiet about it though.
    jenny did great as well for a pos4. had 10 kills and 5 deaths. jenny had the longest stun duration. jenny used force staff on teammates 30 times when hp was low. jenny was the first to initiate in every war, granting her small points each time. jenny warded the most as well, as pos5 didnt do great. her wards had a total vision time of 30 minutes of vision time, granting sight over enemies. jenny also had additional invisible vision of enemies by use of dust and sentries and eventually gem. but jenny flamed her team much. shes very toxic and even threatened to throw. her team doesnt like her.
    c picked am, didnt do much until the final war which the team won because of him. mike recognized it and didnt want to vote for E the idiot or jenny the flamer nor D the toxic.
    D is salty and hates his team. he didnt vote anyone. pure toxic and emo.
    E didnt play well. but he is very well mannered and apologized for his errors and continued his best to try and eventually bought glimmer which saved his mates a few times.

    post vote results:
    mike votes: jenny&c
    jenny votes: mike&e
    c votes: mike&e
    d didnt vote
    e votes: mike&jenny

    mike: 3
    jenny: 2
    c: 1
    d: 0
    e: 2

    bonus mmrs are based on the number of votes. we could factor it by 1/2 if its too much. ive no idea.

    so end game:
    mike: 15+18.15+3=36 (arguably too much.. i dont know yet. tweaking is needed surely)
    jenny: 15+11+2=28
    c: 15+5.5+1=21.5
    d: 15=15 (thats what you get for being bitter, you simply hurt yourself)
    e: 15+5.5+2=22.5

    the math will be similar in losing games. just use your imagination.

    So based on what you see above, players are encouraged to play better and behave better. i gtg, might need to edit this too. u get the idea.
    Last edited by biatche; 09-28-2019 at 07:20 PM.

  9. #9
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    9
    so ive covered in greater depth of what i had in mind in terms of rewards

    next is to simulate how a proper report system would work

    sorry i tend to be lazy to format immediately but ill get to that soon

  10. #10
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    9
    also, with such a reward system, people would stop trying to rely on their teammates so much and start trying to do more than less. at present, if a player performs or not, it matters not as everyone gets the same amount of mmr. its largely responsible for the blaming attitude. sometimes when the blaming isnt enough, they'd just reach the report button. which is the issue at present...

    now at least everyone has every reason to not talk crap to each other.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •