Implementing a karma system behind existing matchmaking
So my idea is NOT about replacing the entire matchmaking system itself. Merely adding this behind the current matchmaking as a separate feature. If you notice any flaws in this then feel free to let me know, I've had a few thoughts about some things that could potentially be abused.
What does Karma do?
Every player will start off with a neutral karma level on their account. Showing bad sportsmanship will cause people to downvote you in the post game chat whilst being a good sport about the game will cause people to upvote you. Your karma will change depending on your behavior and choice of gameplay.
Having positive karma will result in higher priority lobbies when you queue up and it will match you against other players who also have positive karma. Whilst having negative karma will put you in lower priority queue which means that you'll have to wait longer for a lobby. Additionally, it will have you play against people with equally negative karma.
What is the point in having a karma system in DBD?
I think a karma system is something this community needs. It discourages people from being "toxic" and rewards people for appropriately playing the game and being friendly. As an incentive, you get additional BP for voting in the post game chat. Many people are discouraged from playing killer as they do not want to be bullied/ endure toxic gameplay from survivors side. The same goes for survivors, playing against killers that tunnel and face camp takes away the ability to play the game to its full extent.
So what you're saying is I should be put in low priority queue because I face camped a survivor who constantly t-bagged me?
No, the amount of negative/positive karma you would need to be placed in low/high-priority queues is substantial. A few up/downvotes is not going to make or break your karma.
What about SWF, won't they have more votes?
No, people that group up in a premade lobby will be granted one vote, this prevents the feature from being abused. If there is a person that is a part of a SWF group and has a lot of negative karma, this will affect how the group is matched up. The group will be placed in a low-priority queue to prevent loopholes.
Okay so I had negative karma but I'm now reformed. Does this mean that I can never get positive karma again?
No, karma will occasionally get reset to give people a chance to change their behavior.
Okay well there are things I don't consider toxic while others do, how do we come to an agreement?
I suggest BHVR makes another survey and lets the community decide what is considered toxic and what is not. Letting the community decide would allow BHVR to get a clear idea of what the majority of the playerbase considers toxic gameplay.
Has the karma system worked on other games?
Yes, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is a game that implemented something called trust-factor. This is a karma system which lets the toxic/griefers play with each other whilst people who are nicer towards each other get to play together. I've played CS:GO for 4k+ hours and I've seen the impact of Trust Factor. There is also a a third-party service of Counter-Strike which is called ESEA and they use a karma system where people who DC or behave poorly get punished in some or other form.
Read more about Trust Factor: https://steamshared.com/guide/Increase-Trustfactor
This feature does not account for the size of the player base:
Keep in mind that this feature is an addition to the already existing/newly added matchmaking system and thereby meaning that if there are not enough players active at any given point, the primary matchmaking system takes over and the different karma levels overlap each other. Which means that the chance of a player with a negative karma rating being matched with a player that has a positive karma rating is increased.
In Conclusion:
If BHVR collects enough data from the survey, they can even change the upvote/downvote option in the post game chat to allow people to pick options rather than type something in, and later have it be manually reviewed. The karma system can all be automated. You want to punish someone who frequently DCs? Just give that person negative karma. If it happened a few times then it's not a problem, however, if it's a frequent thing then the negative karma will stack up. And I also suggest that BHVR keeps the karma system hidden and keeps the survey stats to themselves to prevent this system from being abused similar to how Counter-Strike: Global Offensive has it.
What I've written so far isn't perfect. I'm sure there are flaws. This community is filled with both toxic and amazing people, I've seen this firsthand. I've played this game for almost one year, 2k+ hours, devotion 11, I play both killer and survivor equally so I'm not siding with either role.
This feature is a way of filtering through and separating the toxic players from the non-toxic players. In the end being obnoxious is a choice that a person makes and they should face the consequences that come along with that choice, otherwise changing their behavior is always an option.
Comments
-
Its a great posting, i do not agree with everything, but you delivered some solution.
I like the way things are in GTA On Line, for instance. Players who DC a lot are marked as "bad players", and therefore he will get matches and servers with others "bad players". Meaning, the "good players" plays with other "good players", whom do not DC. Its heaven.
I think if they start with this base data, should already be an advantage. This data can be get from dedicated servers, with no need of players subjective feedbacks. And it can adress a serious problem in DBD: DCing.
So, who DC as survivors a lot plays with whom DC as killer a lot. So then punish thenselves for being unsportmanlike: when succeed as killer, survivors DC; when suceed as survivor, the killer DC. And let the DCers play amongst thenselves, if any match gets to the end at all. LOL
1 -
Not a bad idea at all. If DBD wants the community to take the matchmaking even remotely seriously, a system like this would have to be in place. Not to mention a system like this can punish griefers, sandbaggers, and the likes more effectively than the system we have right now. Albiet, almost anything is better than the post match rating system we have now. However, matchmaking being fixed is priority 1 imo. A karma system should only come after.
1 -
This system would be used most often in retribution. The asymmetrical nature of the game would make this even more common. Toxic killers and survivors are an issue, but I much prefer to remove their tools than start a social credit system.
0 -
This would just brigade the killer with bad karma from salty survivors. Just take the number of survivors who dc on a killer and thats just the lower end for the number that would report the killer for bad karma.
And you want the community to decide on what is "toxic". Yes, lets hand over the game development to 13 year olds.
0 -
The community has always decided on what's toxic and what isn't. That's how it works. The culture of sportsmanship in a game is defined by its players, not its rules.
0 -
Because the survivors in the community tend to incorrectly define focusing as tunneling and deem it toxic. They call camping if you even step on the map. Unsportsmanlike conduct is decided by the ones regulating the game, not the community.
0 -
Sportsmanship is a cultural concept. It is defined by the people who form that culture, based on collective values.
I'll admit I'm at a loss for how to explain it beyond that, though, so feel free to look it up for yourself.
0 -
It may be a cultural concept but when applied to a game with a regulatory body it is determined by said regulatory body, i.e. BHVR. The regulatory body may be influenced by the communities perception of what is toxic, but the regulatory body makes the decision on what is toxic and how to handle it.
0 -
As a Killer, you can forget about positive karma, since survivors will downvote you regardless of how you played.
1 -
It's the other way around. Most cultures have a regulatory body of some sort, but the regulatory body doesn't define the culture. The government of a country doesn't define that country's culture. It influences it, but ultimately the people are the ones that define it. Many Australians, for example, value sportsmanship very highly and view it as a quintessential part of what it means to be Australian because they have been brought up in that mindset, not because the government tells them that they should.
0 -
The government has nothing to do with sportsmanship, the regulatory body that governs the game does. People may view something as unsportsmanlike conduct, but ultimately within the game it is decided by the governing body or the individuals assigned by the governing body to decide, i.e. refs, if something is unsportsmanlike and what penalties to give. You dont have some random fan throwing a coach out of the game for unsportsmanlike conduct, the ref decides and throws him out depending on the rules for the game established by the governing body.
0 -
What will stop griefers/salty players (of which there are A LOT of in this game) from dishing out bad karma to good players purely on the grounds of them being simply good and screwing them over?
2 -
I think you're missing the point of what sportsmanship is. Bad sportsmanship isn't just about breaking the rules, and it isn't necessarily something you punish people for. You can be a bad sportsman even when you're not playing the game. Tennis players don't get punished by the referee if they throw a tantrum and break their racket after a bad match, but that's bad sportsmanship all the same because they're being a sore loser. Sportsmanship is about common perception, not about playing by a game's rules, and that's why it cannot be defined solely by the governing body who makes the rules.
Like I said earlier, it's clear that you and I have different definitions of the concept and aren't going to agree on it any time soon. But I would advise you to look further into it yourself... or just ask an Australian.
0 -
@Peanits @not_Queen please take a look at this and give us your thoughts UwU
Post edited by epicassassin on0 -
ppl would just downvote for no reason to troll
0 -
I'll get right on that.
3 -
This content has been removed.
