Results 1 to 10 of 16

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

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    [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.

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