Player's Profile Rating System To Stop Stupid Behaviour On Public Servers?

[infiltrator_2k 29]

If there's one thing that ruins Arma and its gameplay for the majority of online players it's muppets joining a server and doing stupid sh*t. When I say "stupid sh*t" there's so much "stupid sh*t" that's routinely done in Arma MP it would take me a whole day to compile a list. Only the other day did I have someone spawn as a pilot on my dedicated server and decide to park all the choppers on top of the hangers so they'd be inaccessible to other players. Sure, I booted and banned him. But what got me thinking was to create a way of preventing this type of stupid childish behaviour.

Everyone knows that in the real world discipline in the armed forces is extremely rigorous as a breakdown in discipline can of course ultimately cost lives in both training and on the battlefield. But with no other repercussions other than a server/BEC ban in the virtual world, many Arma 3 players don't seem to be bothered, or are too ignorant to understand how the banning systems works. So they go around a map doing "stupid sh*t to the frustration and detriment of other players' gameplay.

Now, with that said, how could BIS potentially put a stop to this nonsense on public servers? Well, I was wondering if BIS would be prepared to implement some kind of rating system. For example: if someone does the infamous team kill, an idea would be to be given an option to raise a 'vote' in order to deduct a 'point' from that offending player's playing rating. Likewise, if a pilot transports a group of players vote to award a point. Granted, it could be open to abuse by vindictive players, but I believe such a rating system would overall represent a true reflection of a player's behaviour and mentality.

So let's say BIS implemented a rating system... admins would then be able to apply a threshold to prevent any player who did not come within the given parameter from joining. If BIS are able to log your hours played and other information they should be more than to log other numerous information such as a player's public rating. Personally I cannot see any downsides to this, but there will of course be people who are sceptical and perhaps some who will be able to spot potential flaws in such a system, so I'd like to hear people's views and opinions on this.

The question is: if a player is made consciously aware that their stupid behaviour has the potential to drastically limit their choice of public servers - and/or even place a temporary ban - will it change their behaviour for the better? If the answer is yes then it's a no-brainer to whether or not BIS should implement such a rating system. Even if the answer is no it's still a no-brainer, as the offending player simply won't have the opportunity to misbehave on servers who don't tolerate their crap.

IMO it will be competiveness, persona and consequences that will be the driving force to what makes such a system successful.

Thoughts?

[Jackal326 1181]

For once I actually agree with you Infiltrator. I don't play on public servers for exactly this reason; there are simply too many muppets out there that play MP just to troll. It would be a nice feature to see implemented.

[kbbw123 115]

I must stay no matter how annoying they are if i need to have a laugh i always just watch my public servers and fall laughing on the ground because of the stupidety of the public players. so to have a very good laugh they are quite usefull. for the missions.... meh not quite as much except as cannon fotter..... and well the teamkillers......... i always wonder if they have a functiunal brain....

Idea sounds good though although it might be a problem if someone TK's accidently and a ton of people start voting him up that list than it might be bad because innocent people get punished over it.

but overall i think its just trollers gonna troll no matter what...

[vegeta897 13]

I'd like the idea if it wasn't vulnerable to abuse. If it's a server wide vote, joining servers with a small amount of people could easily result in trolling the person joining by rating them down for the hell of it.

You mention abuse in the other direction, but don't say at all how to prevent that. That's a huge problem that you're just brushing off. Your rating system is totally meaningless if people can just gain and lose points for no reason. User-controlled rating systems really can never be fully trusted. Look at reddit for proof. People can get downvoted for simply having the wrong opinion, no matter how useful it is for discussion. The difference here is that being downvoted on reddit isn't that big of a deal (the effect is limited to the post itself), but when admins start kicking people immediately just because they join with a low rating, we're now preventing people that could be totally innocent (or turned a new leaf) from playing, and that is something that should be avoided at all costs. Better 10 guilty run free than an innocent punished.

It all seems like very little benefit at major risk, and not to mention taking away BI's manpower from more important tasks.

[brightcandle 114]

This is why there are so many private communities playing Arma 3. The trolls stay on the public servers, never get into communities and ultimately roll around messing up the public games and servers without mods banning them. Even if they do get banned there are enough servers to be doing daft stuff for a long time. A rating system based on the bans from servers might be more interesting, someone that has banned from two different servers for example we probably don't want, whereas 1 ban is probably too low a threshold. Have bans time out over a short period of time. Now its not quite so player driven but its based on more evidence and server impact.

[Sari 18]

Heres a thought to hopefully prevent Teamkillers - log the built in player rating system (ie the one that turns friendly AI on you if you TK) to an public accessible external database:

Idiot player joins server, idiot player teamkills for the hell of it, idiot player's rating drops below negative value so friendly AI will open fire. Idiot player leaves, server logs idiot player's rating to DB.

Idiot player joins another server, server retrieves and sets idiot players rating. All AI on new server continues to target idiot player. Idiot player is confused and goes back to Dayz.

[teesquar 10]

This is why there are so many private communities playing Arma 3. The trolls stay on the public servers, never get into communities and ultimately roll around messing up the public games and servers without mods banning them. Even if they do get banned there are enough servers to be doing daft stuff for a long time. A rating system based on the bans from servers might be more interesting, someone that has banned from two different servers for example we probably don't want, whereas 1 ban is probably too low a threshold. Have bans time out over a short period of time. Now its not quite so player driven but its based on more evidence and server impact.

New to Arma, but a long time MP participant in other games/sims. The problem will always be there regardless of the venue. You can even chart some of the issues by when "school is out" and the kiddies log on.

I do like your idea of tying the number of bans to a rating system with a time factor.

[devilslayersbane 28]

I think that only opening the vote to when a players score is negative (i.e. they've killed friendly and neutral vehicles). Would be a good way to help sort out the people who do so accidentally as opposed to doing so on purpose.

[Jackal326 1181]

I think that only opening the vote to when a players score is negative (i.e. they've killed friendly and neutral vehicles). Would be a good way to help sort out the people who do so accidentally as opposed to doing so on purpose.

This is a valid point. The game does handle "friendly fire" in a strange way, in that you can be a pilot of a chopper, get shot down by enemy fire, but anyone who dies in the helicopter as a result of the crash is credited as a friendly kill to the pilot. A voting system could help prevent any unjust punishment. However, as Infiltrator said this could be open to abuse (but most things are in this game).

[Llano 11]

Heres a thought to hopefully prevent Teamkillers - log the built in player rating system (ie the one that turns friendly AI on you if you TK) to an public accessible external database:

Idiot player joins server, idiot player teamkills for the hell of it, idiot player's rating drops below negative value so friendly AI will open fire. Idiot player leaves, server logs idiot player's rating to DB.

Idiot player joins another server, server retrieves and sets idiot players rating. All AI on new server continues to target idiot player. Idiot player is confused and goes back to Dayz.

This.

A public database that everyone can access where you store all players and some kind of reputation points would be pretty easy to create. Then you could have some ingame menu where players could rate other players and it gets stored in the database.

[roshnak 41]

How about instead of this terrible idea server admins pay attention and enforce the rules on their servers?

This is a video game. Sometimes people feel like screwing around and they shouldn't be blacklisted for that, even if it is frustrating.

Heres a thought to hopefully prevent Teamkillers - log the built in player rating system (ie the one that turns friendly AI on you if you TK) to an public accessible external database:

Idiot player joins server, idiot player teamkills for the hell of it, idiot player's rating drops below negative value so friendly AI will open fire. Idiot player leaves, server logs idiot player's rating to DB.

Idiot player joins another server, server retrieves and sets idiot players rating. All AI on new server continues to target idiot player. Idiot player is confused and goes back to Dayz.

This is a sandbox game and there are numerous reasons a player might incur a negative score that do not involve teamkilling or griefing.

Edited February 19, 2015 by roshnak

[Llano 11]

How about instead of this terrible idea server admins pay attention and enforce the rules on their servers?

This is a video game. Sometimes people feel like screwing around and they shouldn't be blacklisted for that, even if it is frustrating.

Huh? So you are saying that screwing around, aka griefing should be okey? If they do not follow the rules on the particular server, why wouldn't you be allowed to blacklist them?

And a admin can't be active 24/7.

This is a sandbox game and there are numerous reasons a player might incur a negative score that do not involve teamkilling or griefing.

It's better to let players rate other players.

[roshnak 41]

Huh? So you are saying that screwing around, aka griefing should be okey? If they do not follow the rules on the particular server, why wouldn't you be allowed to blacklist them?

And a admin can't be active 24/7.

Are you saying that you have never broken the rules in a server before? Never teamkilled someone on purpose or accident? You've never had fun at someone else's expense in a video game? Never done anything that would get you downrated in the proposed system at all? I don't care if people get banned from a server by an admin for breaking the rules. I think it's a stupid idea to create a permanent record that follows players from server to server.

[Llano 11]

Are you saying that you have never broken the rules in a server before? Never teamkilled someone on purpose or accident? You've never had fun at someone else's expense in a video game? Never done anything that would get you downrated in the proposed system at all? I don't care if people get banned from a server by an admin for breaking the rules. I think it's a stupid idea to create a permanent record that follows players from server to server.

Ofcourse i have. But we have to see the difference between doing it a few times, and doing it all the time. I'm not saying that if you grief one time you should get banned from the server. Therefore it has to be some sort of a system that can satisfy the players in both way.

Wouldn't it be possible to imply this when it comes to hackers too? They ruin gameplay too, surely some poeple just do it a few times for fun. If you hack on a server in Arma 3, Battleeye will instant-ban you and that ban will carry on to Dayz, Arma 2 etc too.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

1. Recruit non-idiots to make the stay of idiots brief.

2. Get together with like-minded admins and share bans lists, use with #1.

3. The issue you mentioned, re parking helicopters somewhere inaccessible ...

This is something a scripted solution can sort out. ;)

In fact I did just that for a vehicle management system, to prevent exactly this issue of trolling by hiding/placing vehicles in inaccessible places. Works a charm and I don't need to waste my time policing the server to prevent issues like this. The SQF does it for me.

- Check if vehicle is empty.

- Check if it's inside the normal respawn/abandonment distance

- Check if there's a player within a few meters.

- Check if it's on the ground (isTouchingGround or (getPos vehicle select 2)) // This check only necessary if its very close to spawn usually

If its empty, is inside the normal abandonment radius (IE close to its spawn point in the 'blind spot' of the abandonment check), is no player within a few meters, and isn't on the ground ... Then delete and/or reset it.

example:

_v = objNull; 		//-- the vehicle object
_sp = [0,0,0];		//-- the vehicles spawn position
_d = 0;				//-- max distance to check from spawn position (outside this radius, the normal abandonment checks work)

if ((_v distance _sp) < _d) then {
if ((count (crew _v)) isEqualTo 0) then {
	if ((({(_x distance _v) < 10)} count (playableUnits + switchableUnits)) isEqualTo 0) then {
		/* reset */
	};
};
};

^ Result = Troll will have to find some other way to acquire jollies. There are many ways, but depending on the scenario you run, there will usually be a small handful (say 5) of issues that take up the bulk of admin/mods time. Then start shaving the problem away slowly with SQF scripts. Not perfect by any stretch, but it is an extra layer of protection from MPCDs (MP contracted diseases).

* I use the isTouchingGround check at the end, and then acquire the last pilot of the vehicle. If its in good health (canMove) and is parked off the ground near its spawn, the player gets a 'point' added to their infraction database. After a few infractions, they're no longer able to fly a helicopter on the server.

Edited February 20, 2015 by MDCCLXXVI

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

The fact that any numpty can run an Arma 3 server means most of the ideas in this thread are utterly useless. There are no official servers so what might be trolling on one server is passed as reasonably acceptable on another.

Player ranking systems are open to so much abuse, particularly in servers that are run as "old boys clubs" that it would almost irrelevant.

Unfortunately the only way to truley prevent griefing on public servers is to have a stable of trusty admins or incorporate kicking scripts that remove a player from the server based on their score.

[das attorney 858]

Unfortunately the only way to truley prevent griefing on public servers is to have a stable of trusty admins or incorporate kicking scripts that remove a player from the server based on their score.

+1 for admins.

Until we build a computer that is capable of judgement, then brain mk1 is always better than any dog brain scripts.

Also, no way for public ban based on behaviour. Server owners are welcome to share bans (like Samatra servers etc) but public ban way too open for abuse for all the reasons given by previous posters

[infiltrator_2k 29]

Guys, think 'algorithm' appose to the simplistic value of negative or positive. BIS could developed a sophisticated rating system that like a script only acts when certain conditions have been met. Even if a player has been sanctioned by the Rating System, everyone deserves a second chance, so let the player redeem themselves with positive teamplay in order to improve their rating - thus gaining access to more servers. BIS could make a player's rating visibly in-game, so it's represents either a badge of honour, or a badge of shame.

The problem with the current system is malicious and childish players believe they can hop in and out of public servers and wreak havoc with impunity and relative anonymity.

[das attorney 858]

You should spend 5 minutes looking on the Unknown Cheats forums and then re-evaluate algorithm/auto-rating idea.

A hacker with undetected private hack can spoof all of this and easily do things like setowner their bullets to you or anyone else on the server that they choose (just for example).

Any rating system is garbage if the info fed into it is crap. For a rating system to succeed, you would need to guarantee that info fed into it is good info (which it won't be).

[infiltrator_2k 29]

You should spend 5 minutes looking on the Unknown Cheats forums and then re-evaluate algorithm/auto-rating idea.

A hacker with undetected private hack can spoof all of this and easily do things like setowner their bullets to you or anyone else on the server that they choose (just for example).

Any rating system is garbage if the info fed into it is crap. For a rating system to succeed, you would need to guarantee that info fed into it is good info (which it won't be).

So, the short story is 'Battleye' isn't fit for purpose. Let's not beat around the bush here.

[roshnak 41]

So, the short story is 'Battleye' isn't fit for purpose. Let's not beat around the bush here.

What does Battleye have to do with anything? I thought this thread was about whether players should be blacklisted from the community for behaviors that you don't approve of that don't involve cheating.

But, yeah, what anti-cheat system hasn't been able to be bypassed?

Edited February 20, 2015 by roshnak

[infiltrator_2k 29]

What does Battleye have to do with anything? I thought this thread was about whether players should be blacklisted from the community for behaviors that you don't approve of that don't involve cheating.

But, yeah, what anti-cheat system hasn't been able to be bypassed?

What Das was pointing out is that hacks could potentially corrupt a player's rating system by creating a false-positive.

[Defunkt 431]

If I buy a car I'd be pretty pissed if the dealer or manufacturer took it upon themselves to cease or limit the use of that car because they didn't happen to like the way I drive. It's not BIS' place to police the use of the game or implement 'expected play' policies globally, leave that to the proper authorities (i.e. server-ops).

[roshnak 41]

What Das was pointing out is that hacks could potentially corrupt a player's rating system by creating a false-positive.

Right, and no anti-cheat system is foolproof, so whether or not Battleye is fit for the purpose isn't the right question to ask, since no anti-cheat is.

And a rating system is potentially corruptible and open to abuse by any number of things. And this whole system would serve what purpose, exactly? Making it so you don't have to be annoyed by people who aren't playing the game the way you want them to?

There are already systems in place for dealing with players that are breaking the rules. Those systems could easily be improved without creating a permanent record of a player's behavior that follows them from server to server.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

Right, and no anti-cheat system is foolproof, so whether or not Battleye is fit for the purpose isn't the right question to ask, since no anti-cheat is.

And a rating system is potentially corruptible and open to abuse by any number of things. And this whole system would serve what purpose, exactly? Making it so you don't have to be annoyed by people who aren't playing the game the way you want them to?

There are already systems in place for dealing with players that are breaking the rules. Those systems could easily be improved without creating a permanent record of a player's behavior that follows them from server to server.

So, the question is would it be fair for BIS to implement a system where a player's publically 'voted on' behaviour would incur a time limited sanction for their malicious/disruptive behaviour that would limit/restrict the offending player from joining certain public servers, who's admins have set a point system threshold to who or whom they do not deem suitable to join their server.

The bottom line is if BE can accurately hand out life time bans, then a profile rating system can be implemented and potentially hand out temporary sanctions based on an algorithm against players depending on the severity of their behaviour. At the end of the day, if you're not doing stupid sh*t then there would be nothing to fear.