Suggestion: Upvoting/Downvoting Tags?

[Cassie.4685]

I think it would be great to have some kind of reputation score for commander tags, especially in places like WvW when there are a bunch running around and you're wondering which one to follow, if they all had some sort of score associated with their tag based on how many 'upvotes' or positive recommendations they got. I've seen some really great/helpful tags and I'd love to be able to help them in return or let others know how helpful this person is/has been in the community, and similarly I've seen a few (not many) really clueless tags that have led people astray, and having some kind of reputation score next to your tag when it is on I think would be a neat idea, to either let the community know that you are well known positive influence or if you are a less competent commander.

There would of course be ways that I could imagine people may abuse this system, but you can say the same about everything online these days.

Please let me know if this idea has already been raised, (I did a quick search but could not find anything) or if this is the wrong place.

[Vavume.8065]

We don't need a system like this, it would be meaningless, all you have to do is join a tag and discover for yourself how good, bad or average they are, which you can figure out very quickly.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

it’s been suggested before for commanders and mentors and maybe for players and the consensus comment it that it would be easy to game. Guilds could mass upvote/downvote someone and people with multiple accounts could do so also.

 

Just imagine the score if you got voted by one guild with a hundred guild members, some of whom have multiple accounts that also vote. The reputation score would be meaningless.

 

Edit: in WvW this could be used to push out commanders big guilds have a beef with regardless of how good they are. Just downvote them until they give up and stop tagging,

[Arioch.6507]

It would be great if it would work, as noted above, it will not.

 

[Danikat.8537]

In addition to the issues raised above I'm not sure a simple score is all that useful because you don't know what they did to earn it. Maybe they're great at leading the North lane in Dragon's Stand and always get positive votes as a result. Doesn't mean they know anything about commanding in WvW or Silverwastes or running a bounty train in PoF.

 

Even if you split it by game mode it's still ambiguous. Leading a 'havoc squad' (or whatever other servers call small roaming groups) in Borderlands is very different to being the main commander in Eternal Battlegrounds. Or even leading the large zerg in the Battlegrounds. So again there's no guarantee a commander with a high score knows what they're doing, or is doing what you want to do. (Apart from ideally a good commander will only agree to lead when they know what they're doing.)

 

Reviews would be better, since that allows for more fine detail - you get to find out not just whether other people think they're good but what they're good at and why the person liked it. They might love that the commander was really strict about who was allowed in the squad and what role they filled and made sure everyone was on Teamspeak and you might consider those all reasons to avoid them. I'm also not sure there's a sensible way to separate a commander feedback system from the 'name & shame' policy - I'm sure some people would see it as opening any player with a tag up to public abuse. And does anyone really want to sit and read reviews of the commander when they could just join in and see how it goes?

 

My advice, as someone who has been in both good and bad squads and as a new commander (I've had the tag a week and used it 3 times for short events) would be simply to talk to them and their squad. If you enter WvW and see several commander tags ask in Map chat what they're doing and which one you should join. If you're not sure what they're doing or why ask them. If you think there's a better way to do it then tell them. Keep it polite of course, but I don't think there's any harm in asking.

 

(I'd also add that IMO the commander doesn't necessarily need to be the leader of the group. I've been in several squads where the commander was literally just acting as a map marker, either because the only person with a tag didn't know the event or because they needed to focus on staying alive in the heart of the action, and someone else, or several people, were giving instructions and coordinating the group. I think there's a lot of benefits to doing it that way, including the fact that it tends to get people talking to each other.)

[Game of Bones.8975]

It could end up like Yelp, people with a grudge would up-vote or down-vote a PC for no real reason.

 

I think I would rather see an up or down vote for the mentor or leader before a person leaves the group or the event is completed. If the person likes the bounty chain, give them an up-vote; if they leave too many behind, give them a down-vote.

 

People are glad when someone organizes a good team and will be glad to give praise where praise is due.

[Skynet.7201]

Is it that difficult to figure out who to follow or not follow?

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Skynet.7201" said:

> Is it that difficult to figure out who to follow or not follow?

 

If you play a lot, then it's not hard to figure out who is fun, who is serious, who is effective, who is just mean. If you don't play a lot, then, yeah, it's difficult. Mind you, I don't think that ANet can develop a "meter" to measure any of that, given that Netflix & Amazon can barely figure out what movies their patrons like, using multi-million dollar algorithms and millions of data points.

 

If OP wants to find out who is worth following, then the best way is the same: ask people you respect for who they like. And why.

[Lexi.1398]

nah.

 

it would be far too easy for people to induce high/low rep to just to troll- i for one would rather people hate me for my own mistakes and not cus i stepped on someone or others superiority complex giving commands : P

 

additionally as raised above, it doesn't really say anything towards their competence if they got all their reputation for something they're not commanding.

 

best way to find out how good the commander is in open world is directly ask them if they'll explain the event, i dont wvw enough to suggest anything for wvw comms tho. (who i feel for /salutes zerg leaders)(also i can't imagine how rage inducing it would be for wvw comms leading zergs to get low rep cus the zerg didn't listen to them even though the commander is a wvw pro xD)

 

oh yeah- and on the note ov wvw- often multiple tags = different purpose, so following a tag based on rep isn't gonna get you anywhere if you're not following the tag with the purpose you want. eg. a set up i used to see sometimes was one big zerg tag and one much smaller tag who captures and defends objectives while zerg fights the other zerg.

 

in the end, it'll be a meaningless number which brings nothing but misery to ppl with low rep.