Skip Navigation
53 comments

  • They can't. There is nothing they can realistically do. Players like that will always exist.

    EDIT: I see some people suggesting some wild solutions. Let me offer my opinions on them:

    Someone suggests allowing players to block other players so they never get matched with them again

    This is not healthy for a game with matchmaking to allow players direct control over its matching system like this. In a PvP game this would especially be a problem, but it has problems in PvE games as well. In this situation, meta players would just block other non-meta players, effectively lowering the matching pool to two different queues in a single large pool. In this scenario, it would be more efficient for the matchmaking system to just have two separated queues, which brings me to the next point.

    Someone suggests having a toggle for players to pick between basically "Competitve/Meta Only" and "Casual/Social"

    This would not be helpful either, because players will ignore these tags. They will queue into Social, and then procede to play like its Competitve. This is already a major problem in basically every other online game on the market. And its also one that realistically cannot be solved because it relies on trusting the player to behave, which is impossible.

    Someone suggests to apply a penalty to a player if they have a certain amount of kicks within a short time period

    While this is perhaps the best option, it still has its issues. There may be genuine cases where a player is repeatedly matched with disruptive or AFK players and chooses to kick in those cases. Those players should not be penalized. Sure, the number may be statustucally small or even insignificant, but as a PvE game its important that no legitimate player is penalized, or forced to play with disruptive players for fear of being penalized.

    Someone likely has suggested or will suggest a system where players can report a player and after a certain amount of reports then the account is flagged/etc.

    Mass reporting. Mass reporting is why these kinds of tactics aren't great.

    In the end, gamers can be simplified into two categories: Math Bois and Explorer Bois. Its very difficult for the two to get along because the way they derive fun is opposite to each other.

    • Math Bois: They like when number get bigger. They will avoid anything that isnt peak optimally efficient. They're the players that play only meta playstyles because it is the peak, most mathematically efficient way to play. To them, its fun when the numbers are as big as possible and they're able to abuse and exploit systems in a game to make the numbers bigger. These are the kinds of players to play hundreds of hours in games like League of Legends.
    • Explorer Bois: They like to explore. Usually, these players will take actions they know are mathematically inefficient, but it might take them to a more interesting location, or they may be able to play a build that is uncommon/new. Sometimes they will purposely avoid meta items or playstyles simply on principle that they are meta. These players tend to not care much at all about numbers, but rather derive fun from trying new things or new ways to play. These are the kinds of players to spend hundreds of hours in games like Skyrim, and will usually have the entire map explored.

  • Rainbow 6: Siege has been making massive strides in the realm of reducing community toxicity. The player reputation system lets players report toxic players, griefers, and cheaters which lowers their reputation. At the end of each match, players can commend their teammates (and the entire other team) for specific positive characteristics. Players with low reputations get sanctions, and players with high reputations receive bonuses that increase chances for in-game rewards, and occasionally receive thank-you gifts for being positive influences in the community, like alpha packs (loot crates). It’s a solid system and I immediately noticed not just a decrease in toxicity but an increase in positivity when these systems were implemented.

    In theory, you could start match people with low reputations together, and people with high reputations together.

    • As someone who will never play these games ( not my thing), how is this implemented? I would assume that expecting users to rate other players would be burdensome and wouldn’t have the legs to work over a long period of time.

      I truly like the idea, as the toxicity in online gaming is a primary reason I will never play these games, but I also wouldn’t want to personally rate the folks I play with every match either. Just lazy. But if it was easy and streamlined I wouldn’t mind it.

      Just curious on how it all works I guess.

      • Dota 2 and overwatch does something similar, it's simply a quick click after the match above the players name.

        Overwatch rewards you with battle pass exp and a symbol showing how many times you've been commended

        Dota 2 simply shows you've had less then X amount reports and your behaviour score after X amount of matches

      • The commendation screen is shown for an unskippable amount of time (unless you quit the match) at the end of the match, before the post-match summary which is when you’d see the scoreboard, level progress, and battle pass progress. The commendation screen shows you the player cards of all 4 of your teammates, each with 3 buttons representing the different commendations you can give someone - one for being a good teammate, one for being a leader and helping coordinate your team’s actions, and one for dedication to the match. You can commend each player once per day, and for a given match you can give 2 commendations. Picture 4 columns with 3 rows. When you click a single row for a given column, that column is greyed out so you can’t commend that player again. When you click a second commendation, all of the buttons are greyed out. For the opposing team, you’re given a single button prompt: “was the opposing team fair/well-sporting? Press F5 for yes, F6 for no”

        All in all, for commendations the game asks players to click 2 buttons and press 1 key. It’s extremely intuitive and if you’re stuck on the screen for 10 seconds, you might as well engage with it.

        Anything that negatively affects a player’s reputation is done ad-hoc. If someone’s teamkilling or destroying their own team’s gadgets or intentionally making it difficult for their own team to win or using slurs or something, it’s up to individual players in the match to pull up the scoreboard at will, select their name and hit the report button. Otherwise, the game also automatically reduces a player’s reputation for actions the devs have deemed disreputable, like friendly fire, teamkilling and destroying team gadgets.

        It’s an extremely easy system to engage with, and I’m really looking forward to when they start implementing more rewards for high-reputation players.

    • They got rid of the weekly renown grind and then gave like 1/10th of it back if you act nice. Stellar.

      • I’m confused. What “weekly Renown grind” are you talking about? And no, you don’t get Renown for having a good reputation. But yes, rewarding players for being friendly is absolutely a good thing.

  • I would love to relay some of my positive experiences with Rainbow 6: Siege's reputation system to him... if he didn't just prompt for input on Xitter...

53 comments