Slashdot Mirror
Xbox One Reputation System Penalizes Gamers Who Behave Badly
New submitter DroidJason1 writes: "Microsoft has added new 'player reputation scores' to each Xbox Live member's Gamercard. The scores are represented by icons consisting of the colors green, yellow, and red. The more hours you play fairly online without being reported as abusive by other players, the better your reputation will be. Good players are given a green color, while those that 'need work' are yellow and those that need to be avoided are red. Microsoft says, 'If players do not heed warnings and continue to have a negative impact on other players and the Xbox Live community, they will begin to experience penalties. For example, people with an “Avoid Me” rating will have reduced matchmaking pairings and may be unable to use certain privileges such as Twitch broadcasting.' They add that the system will adjust for false reports."
A new form of teen bullying, giving bad scores to the classmate you do not like...
And not to mention anyone who beats you in-game is CLEARLY cheating.
Have you seen any alternatives to moderation/meta-moderation schemes that exclude this? It seems like the only real alternatives to actual dilligent curation (which works but is labor intensive) is either living with bullying and chilling effects ala reddit or accepting that the SNR is higher from trolls ala 4chan.
How do you overcome this for an automated service? Is this like asking "How do you cure cancer?"
-1
(just because I can...)
No sig today...
I agree, they're completely pointless and I'd mod you up if I had points...
Worst. Signature. Ever.
They just added karma to xbox accounts?
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
There is absolutely no way that soar losers will totally abuse this.
Also, there is no way that people will get upset buying an expensive gaming system, and subsequently being unable to play with the 'green' accounts because of some highly subjective moderation system.
Also: I get the feeling that European English speaking people swear a lot more than in the USA, and I wonder if this will be reflected in the moderation.
I too %*&!#$! wonder if this will be *(@&#$&%@ reflected in the @$&!%(#!%$&! moderation.
Increase and decrease the value of reports, depending on metadata:
+ Person has been reported by others
+ reporter is an ally
-- reporter is an opponent
-- reporter reports often (multiple players every game)
+/- whatever else they can think of based on a LOT of experience
Remember: they are not going to block players or anything like that. It's probably mostly feedback to the player self that their behavior is not appreciated by the community.
-1 irrelevant.
No sig today...
You mean I can't join a game of Counter Strike: Source, team flash someone for 27 rounds until an admin shows up, then quit, change my name, rejoin and repeat? What's the point of playing then?
Good players will get ganged up on by the fricking kiddies and smeared. It's why I refuse to play any public multi player stuff anymore.
Last time I did any of that was back when Modern Warfare was released. 2 friends of mine and I were utterly owning maps by using real tactics. all three of us were hit with complaints by the kiddies that want to be tubers or camper.
I only do private games with friends anymore, tired of the utter scum that is the public gaming crowd on Xbox.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
XBox has long been known as the most potent example of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Adding a bit of accountability for being a horrible person is overdue.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
When I read the headline, I was kind of hoping the XBone reputation system was going to give little electroshocks to kids when they act out in front of company, pick on their sister or don't lift the toilet seat.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's actually extremely easy to tell the difference between a good player and a cheater. It's just hard to tell the difference between two good players, one of which is cheating. A bad player who scores highly thanks to cheats is very easy to spot.
You've also got lame players who aren't cheating. Campers in a first-person shooter and the like.
This is fascinating. I run a website that applies a user reputation system to Usenet - a medium notorius for flame-wars (it's where the words 'troll' and 'flame' come from, after all) - so I'm aware of some of the theory, but it seems games have gone further than forums.
The algorithm I use is much simpler, the 'trust' metric is identical to the user Karma, presuming that users who act sensibly will also moderate sensibly. It works very well and filters out >95% of flames and trolls.
To those who ask how to stop reporting being abused, it's actually simple:
* weight reports by the number of reports. If a user only reports one other person per thousand the reports carry more weight than if they report every other user.
* as you said, have a 'trust' factor that weights the reports. In the case of my site, this is just their Karma score - if they get reported a lot as an arse, they are more likely to be an arse in the way they themselves report.
* Make reporting really easy. The more data you have from legit users, the more your algorithm can work on.
Moderated Usenet
Yeah, I think I would have bought a new console, too. Not a Microsoft one, though.
I prefer to just do not play online.
So how should someone go about finding other players in the same city who are willing to play offline multiplayer with him? The offline multiplayer scene in the 1990s relied on after-school play dates, but the kids who did that have since grown up.
It is all well and good to give users com controls to their com features but trying to enforce a reputation system like this is just another tool for bad guys to behave like bad guys. If a group of 4 bullies wants to make someone's day miserable, they form up and join a game and focus on one player using all tools available where a reputation system like this is just the thing they need: One player getting 4 warnings is more serious than 4 different players getting warnings from one player.
What they and successful systems do instead is establish a "trust relation". If you are matched in a team with some complete stranger, then neither of you have "trust" and neither should do "trusted" actions with each other. If you form a party, you automatically trust them more than a stranger and access more "trusted" features. If another player is in your "friends" list and formed a party with you then you have a high level of "trust" with that player and should be allowed a lot of "trusted" features with them.
There does need to be moderation tools and they should be as automatic as possible but "reputation" systems seem to be built upon a flawed premise that complete strangers can judge each other fairly when it turns out there is little reason to trust what either have them have to say about the other.
Shooting people, even in-game, naturally counts as antisocial behavior. In order to keep a positive rating, you need to all sit around the battlefield and sing Kumba-Ya. You can expect a Mario-clone as MS's next big hit.
I wouldn't think so, as Super Mario Bros. is insanely violent. Goombas were living peacefully until the Toads invaded. Goombas hired Koopa Troop to freeze the invaders in blocks and detain the princess of the Toads who has the antidote. Terrorist Mario squashes the innocent Goombas.
For nonviolent gaming, you need to look at something more similar to The Sims or Animal Crossing or Harvest Moon. Microsoft tried that under the name Viva Pinata.
In this context, arbitrarily modding down a post and then being modded up to +5 insightful becomes insightful in the process, because it's a demonstration of how easy it is to abuse a reputation system, and the article is about--wait--reputation systems.
In short: Whoosh.
Should have saved this for April 1st to go with "Dice holdings apologizes for beta and promises to deploy IPv6"
"The system also adjusts for false reports from people that might intentionally report someone of greater skill or for other griefing purposes."
Well then nothing to worry about. I suppose this system also implements RFC3514 on every game packet to ensure fair play.
Whoever designed this system has never been on the internet apparently or played a game. I'm amazing at MW3. According to everyone I play with, I'm clearly cheating. In realtiy I am not. This system is bullshit.
Then find a counterstrategy to camping. Or is camping so dominant that the game is broken?
Those who zoom in on and follow me while I'm behind a wall, only to shoot as soon as I get to a window/corner (wallhack)
I'm not familiar with the mechanics of Call of Duty series, but I did read an article long ago about people being wrongly accused of wallhacking because they tracked the opponent by listening for footsteps and then attacked as soon as the opponent stepped out of concealment. Does COD make a sound when opponents move?
People will more likely report problem people than the gamers who quietly participate and cause no problems. And, simple disputes can cause negative reports. However, I would like to see some crowdsourced attempts in other games to flag players for typical trolling; racism, griefing, TKing, and suspected hacking. Admins should *definitely* have the ability to flag people as known problem children and I'd love to see these flags pop up on player names when I log in.
In games like Battlefield griefers have been able to rule the roost uncontested for far too long.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
especially since you often get matched with people who don't speak english
That's not a "griefing" issue as much as "matchmaking UI needs a language preference" issue.
Where do the revenue to sustain the gaming industry come from? Mostly from people overloaded with testosterone, with an urge feel the thrill of killing, maiming and engaging in wanton destruction.
I thought it came from people with more money than sense pumping virtual quarters into Candy Crush Saga.
I'm amazing at MW3.
MechWarrior 3 or Modern Warfare 3? :-p
Do you remember the shit you said as a kid? Kids are now interacting with adults. Their physical bodies which face threat in the real world if such things are said have been removed and replaced by the appearance of grizzled soldiers. Thus removing the instinctive tolerance we have towards the biting, pulling, poking and verbal abuse of our young, and enabling their already vitriolic comments to become more so. This, combined with the illusion of maturity in swearing like "adults" this, adds multiplier coefficients to the GIFT equation.
However, no one can offend you. You have to take offense yourself. You are the only one responsible for the shit in your head. You have the power to mute voice chat. Party chat is a far superior cross-game feature anyway, which even prevents those in close proximity in game from hearing you.
We now have the ability for children to potentially interact on adult levels without many of the instinctual impulses which help us infantalize them. We should encourage this development, not censor it. As with the Internet: Do not enact restrictions on content; Practice self censorship if you must -- You can disable voice chat for your kids' accounts if you desire.
This being the first generation of the Information Age growing up with an instantaneous world wide communication medium, of course there will be an adjustment period; The same has followed every major technological advancement. However note that suppression of technology has never worked: If you tried to penalize others for over use of fire or stone tools in the stone age they would rightly stone you and burn the remains. Good luck with that in the Information Age, flamers. Humans are a stubborn race, they only learn things the hard way.
Good thing real life is cotton ball soft squishy and fair. I can hardly wait for millenials to demand reputations systems at work.
Yes, I understand it is a simplification.
As soon as you have a separate 'trust' factor, you have to start rating the moderation i.e. have meta-moderation.
This is more complex, which can put off users getting involved. So since the simpler algorithm works for me, I'll stick to it for now.
The problem with using neural nets is you may get 'overfitting' to the initial moderators prejudices, leading to an amplified filter bubble
Moderated Usenet
regional matchmaking subforums [are] pretty essential
Thanks for reminding me about those.
since netcode for a lot of fighting games still is really terrible.
There's the GGPO method: delay the player's input by 4 frames (or about three-fourths of ping time) before feeding it to game logic, dead-reckon opponent's input for a few frames if net latency exceeds that, roll back and replay any frames that were mispredicted. But the limits of that remain noticeable, as fighting games in general are so reflex-driven that even the speed of light imposes an often unacceptable lower bound on input latency.