Feel free to discuss ideas about the Reputation system, known to some users as the "karma system", although "reputation" is what we'll be calling it on AG3.
The Reputation System may not be present at AG3 launch, but is a high priority post-launch. It will allow other users to participate in ranking your community involvement, to a degree.
We're still open to ideas on it, so feel free to share your thoughts and ideas, and ask any questions.
So you just be like a super troll and get lots of bad karma :O
First of all, you shouldn't be trolling, and the Reputation system is supposed to discourage such actions. Also, cormyn said that Reputation would not start with down-votes, but that may be added later on.
i like the fact that there won't be any down-votes to start with, as it stops people from 'trolling' and also like what was said very early on in this topic is that it will stop discouraging new game developers. which would be a tragedy.
from what i have heard, it will be abit like the facebook 'like' system where you can like someones effort if they are helpful or choose not to if you don't feel that they deserve it.
only one thing that seems unclear to me is when a forum topic has been created. If you were to then give it a reputation point, are you rating the user doing it, or the thread alone?
just a personal recommendation for you guys who are making it, i would say that the amount of reputation points should be displayed clearly to be viewed, but there shouldd not be the names of people that gave it to them to keep it, not private but not to public either. but like you said about when you hover other someones name their reputation points are shown. if you click on the reputation points number, a list of all the people who gave it reputation could come up.
If you were to then give it a reputation point, are you rating the user doing it, or the thread alone?
The user. Although the idea of giving a forum thread 'reputation' is interesting as well. It will depend on what our forum engine would be capable of. Maybe add a comment about this in the forum thread so we can discuss it there.
i would say that the amount of reputation points should be displayed clearly to be viewed, but there shouldd not be the names of people that gave it to them to keep it, not private but not to public either
Well, we may opt to send the user a note saying "brp47 just 'liked' your post" so they get alerted of a Reputation boost. I'm not sure we'd want to list anyone publicly or privately for every comment -- that adds up to a LOT of database activity. Even to see who the top 'voters' are when clicking on the user's Reputation, that's a lot of extra work. We'd probably just show a score.
We might also cap the score at a certain level, like 0/5 stars or something. Someone close to 5 stars has great reputation.
We might also cap the score at a certain level, like 0/5 stars or something. Someone close to 5 stars has great reputation.
Is this for posts or the user's total reputation? Either way, that seems a little low, just having 5 stars. I have a nifty idea to employ it like we do AG2 sub-ranks--wood, iron, and gold stars (considering if you guys decide to keep the AG2 rank system or not). It would be a total of 15 stars for maximum, and every 5 stars would show up as a higher marker. It can also go in half steps too if you want, like the rating system for games. It would seem more consistent with other features to me.
Just a user's reputation right now. We've only just had the idea of doing it for an entire thread within the forum, and we'd have to see how easy it'd be to modify the forum engine to accommodate us on this idea.
I doubt we'd get into 'rank' names for the levels though, and as I said, to keep it simple, it might just be a 5-star rating.
for example, we might do a logarithmic scale for the reputation, where the first star needs 10 votes, the second star needs 100 votes, etc. (multiples of 10). Well, multiples of 10 would be a lot, but you see what I mean.
for example, we might do a logarithmic scale for the reputation, where the first star needs 10 votes, the second star needs 100 votes, etc. (multiples of 10). Well, multiples of 10 would be a lot, but you see what I mean.
Just an opinion/question on the system - rather than a suggestion. I think this idea would be brilliant to implement. It's like the reputations own personally ranking system.
Would the 'star' system be only for quality of posts: when they get voted up, rather than the amount someone posts? & Will there be anything for the amount someone does post, or still just the number like we have now?
I imagine we'll always have stats on how many things you post. The star system would be some visual representation of your Reputation, but Larry/Ron may have other ideas how to visually display it for users.
Bronze/ 25+ Forum posts Silver/ 250+ Forum posts Gold/ 500+ Forum posts
*Thumbs up should be incorporated, like system used in YouTube. **You must get all 5 stars of one color before moving to next. **Fix this system as you may please.
The reputation has nothing to do with games being played, that would be achievements. It is purely community based (Game comments and forum posts)
There will be a "like" feature as such with a dislike feature maybe being introducted after launch.
The bronze/silver/gild stars on forum posts is a good idea although you'd need to really increase them numbers as there's people here with 10,000+ forum posts.
