Reputation System
|
Cory Bauhaus
Valued Member
Join date: 9 Aug 2004
Posts: 52
|
08-16-2004 14:19
From: someone Originally posted by eltee Statosky the basic problem with this system is it would tend to over-reward 'exploiters' who use SL's rules to their advantage without regard to social or SL wide harm they are doing (such as people who markup land to extrodinary prices)
At the same time it would under-reward some of the most important people in SL who do alot of the really hard work programming and designing for little material reward.
Not that the system couldn't work with a more materialistic online game (naming no names) but SL, where the true currency is creativity and skill, simply isn't wholly compatable with the idea that money = game reputation You say whuffie wouldn't work, but you don't provide any explanation as to why you think it would over-reward exploiters or under-reward deserving others. Would you care to shed a little light on your justification? The whole point of whuffie is that a good reputation is directly translated into wealth, which gives those with a good rep the ability to buy land and goodies and thus do valuable and creative things, which improves the experience for everyone. It also gives highly regarded people the ability to transfer that regard/wealth to others they think are deserving, in the form of a gift/rating - several other posters commented they wanted the ratings by highly-regarded users to count more than those from griefers, and this accounts for that.
|
Huns Valen
Don't PM me here.
Join date: 3 May 2003
Posts: 2,749
|
Re: whuffie
08-24-2004 04:31
From: someone Originally posted by Cory Bauhaus And you wouldn't pay money for someone's crafts unless you thought they were either a good at building or running a business. what exactly do you mean here? sounds like "oh that's a cool gadget and I'm going to gank it and you will get nothing"
|
Chase Rutherford
Oldbie Conspirator
Join date: 6 Sep 2003
Posts: 126
|
08-24-2004 06:23
Eliminate ratings. Double our stipends.
|
eltee Statosky
Luskie
Join date: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 1,258
|
Re: Re: whuffie
08-24-2004 06:50
From: someone Originally posted by Cory Bauhaus You say whuffie wouldn't work, but you don't provide any explanation as to why you think it would over-reward exploiters or under-reward deserving others. Would you care to shed a little light on your justification?
The whole point of whuffie is that a good reputation is directly translated into wealth, which gives those with a good rep the ability to buy land and goodies and thus do valuable and creative things, which improves the experience for everyone. It also gives highly regarded people the ability to transfer that regard/wealth to others they think are deserving, in the form of a gift/rating - several other posters commented they wanted the ratings by highly-regarded users to count more than those from griefers, and this accounts for that. aah i think i may have mis-interpreted that into thinking money would be your reputation rather than yer reputation would be money.... i'm still hesitant to tie in reputation in *ANY* way with material reward simply because thats why the current system doesn't work. As soon as you tie in a rating system with a reward system you are going to have a large number of people who are going to make it their business to exploit it for 'material gain'. Its one thing on slash where there really isn't any cashmoney involved in bumping a thread for bein funny.. its another thing entirely when people's bonus/stipend (and their pocketbook through GOM) are tied to it
_____________________
wash, rinse, repeat
|
Bosozoku Kato
insurrectionist midget
Join date: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 452
|
08-24-2004 07:29
From: someone Originally posted by Chase Rutherford Eliminate ratings. Double our stipends. Doubling the stipend is pointless. Once free-money income influences that FUBAR the economy are removed ( Rating Bonus) the econ will adjust and eventually balance (it'll take a while, regardless if the stipend amount is changed, because of all the FALSE money that's been injected into the economy). GOM/IGN cash is another matter and most likely beyond Linden's control. That fubars the economy too, but nothing like the GAME giving away FREE cash to exploiters/gamers. At least those fools using GOM are paying real money for fake money. SL gives fake money to players for FREE, which in turn can be converted to REAL money. Stupidiest economy I've ever seen, and I'm no econ expert -- but I'm wise enough to know that the current in-game system is p a t h e t i c. Boso
|
Bosozoku Kato
insurrectionist midget
Join date: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 452
|
08-24-2004 07:40
From: someone Originally posted by Strife Onizuka which brings me to an idea not directed at anyone in particular. If you don't like the rating system as it is now send back your bonus; pay Philip Linden the bonus amount and send an IM with it. If you are truely commited to getting it changed then this should be easy to do. Personally, once they do remove rating bonuses (eta: Q4 2007) I'd be happy if they'd debit everyone (myself included) for all rating bonuses paid-out since day one. One can dream. Boso
|
Wraith Jensen
I can walk thru walls....
Join date: 8 Aug 2004
Posts: 130
|
08-24-2004 08:34
From: someone Originally posted by Kasandra Morgan My suggestion would be that avatars get a certain amount of rate points each week to rate each other with, that way when you give one to someone it really means something cause you have a finite amount. Okay, this is the best idea I've heard yet. I would change it ever so slightly, though... Perhaps start at a minimum amount (like 5) and increase that based on your OWN ratings. This gives people with higher ratings, who are theoretically more "famous", a bit more clout. I know "not fair to the new guy", but the whole point is, this is supposed to be a popularity contest. If you like someone, you rate tyem. If you don't, you don't. And While I do usually reciprocate, I don't think people should be expected to reciprocate a rating. In other words, you shouldn't feel like you have to return a rating cause someone rated you. With all that said, I LIKE the rating system. I don't want to see it go away. Maybe tweaked a little, but I love it! I got another small bonus today because of ratings, and I think it's awesome that the fact that people show their appreciation for what I'm doing turns in to real L$. (If you don't know what I mean, you can look me up when I'm on-line. I've been making Buzz Lightyear-related costumes and accessories, as well as some other just cute stuff. A snowman that took me 5 minutes to build actually got more rates than the Buzz outfit that took 4 hours and still isn't done.) Here's my idea 1. Limit ratings given out to 5 a week plus some extra number based on the users's aggregate positive ratings. Maybe 1/10 of his total positives. This gives incentive and more power to people with high positives. 2. For every negative rating a person person has, reduce their rating limit by one. Since it's unlikely that a neg-rater will get many positives, and a triple neg will almost certainly cause a reciprocal response, people who triple-neg on alt accounts will quickly lose their power to do so. In other words, once you receive 5 total negs with no positives, you can't give any ratings any more. That should be a way to discourage giving negs without any consequence. 3. Roll ratings off after time... maybe 30 days. This means a person will have to continue to work to keep their ratings up. It also means we can re-rate someone who comes up with new and interesting ideas. This includes the above-mentioned negs. 4. Allow you to click on the "you've been rated" notification. Maybe have it pop up at the top, like the Linden dialogs or script dialogs. Clicking that dialog should allow you to rate the other person without having to hunt them down. 5. No demo accounts to any active SL subscriber. There's no reason to give a demo account to anybody that's currently actually in the world. I would use the CC# and CC billing address as confirmation. (Not just the CC#, but use the address too). This will help prevent someone from creating a new account just to harass other people. However, if they pay the $10 for a lifetime account, then they have the same rights as any other Lifetime member, including the right to be a prick (and yes, there is a difference between being a prick and violating the TOS).
|
Huns Valen
Don't PM me here.
Join date: 3 May 2003
Posts: 2,749
|
08-24-2004 23:18
I think the ratings system should be represented by about five whiteboards full of UML diagrams and maybe some calculus thrown in.
|
Selador Cellardoor
Registered User
Join date: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,082
|
08-25-2004 03:23
Wraith,
Some interesting ideas there. I don't agree with all of them, for example, a 30-day rolling system of ratings would mean that people who didn't get into sl much would spend most of the time with no ratings at all. But I hope that when this thread is looked at, some time will be spent considering these.
|
Kris Ritter
paradoxical embolism
Join date: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 6,627
|
08-25-2004 05:24
From: someone Originally posted by Chase Rutherford Eliminate ratings. Double our stipends. Eliminate ratings. Eliminate stipend. Eliminate Linden Dollars. Oh. And eliminate trolls.
|
Khamon Fate
fategardens.net
Join date: 21 Nov 2003
Posts: 4,177
|
08-25-2004 07:26
From: someone Originally posted by Lordfly Digeridoo Here's an idea.
Does everyone remember the forgotten little page in our profiles, that say "I am good at:" followed by several checkboxes? "I am good at building, textures, socializing, organizing"
What if that was decided by your peers?
A person could right click on your avatar (or your profile), and go to 'rate', and get a selection of choices. "This person is a good:" followed by a list of choices. They would get to choose ONE thing the person is good at. They would then click their choice, and be done with it.
Then, if another person bebopped by and checked out the rated person's profile, they would see something like:
"208 people think this person is a good builder" "156 people think this person is a good texturer" "24 people think this person is a good socializer"
This would also give someone wandering by a good idea of what a person likes to do. If 208 people think this guy's a nifty builder, then by God, he must be at least competent.
No negative ratings... if someone thinks you're lousy at building, obviously they're not going to vote for you.
This would remove most of the point of rating parties because a) you can't negative rate, and b) you can only choose one category, and if you're REALLY gonna mine, you're going to get inflated social rankings only.
Furthermore, perhaps a log of messages given with a rating.. like "Avatar Average has rated you a good builder: Hey d00d, joo are l33t" shown in a log file under his ratings. Maybe a temporary thing.
We need to make the numbers mean something.
LF THIS is a good idea. a very very good idea.
_____________________
Visit the Fate Gardens Website @ fategardens.net
|
Khamon Fate
fategardens.net
Join date: 21 Nov 2003
Posts: 4,177
|
08-25-2004 07:28
From: someone Originally posted by Lordfly Digeridoo Here's an idea.
Does everyone remember the forgotten little page in our profiles, that say "I am good at:" followed by several checkboxes? "I am good at building, textures, socializing, organizing"
What if that was decided by your peers?
A person could right click on your avatar (or your profile), and go to 'rate', and get a selection of choices. "This person is a good:" followed by a list of choices. They would get to choose ONE thing the person is good at. They would then click their choice, and be done with it.
Then, if another person bebopped by and checked out the rated person's profile, they would see something like:
"208 people think this person is a good builder" "156 people think this person is a good texturer" "24 people think this person is a good socializer"
This would also give someone wandering by a good idea of what a person likes to do. If 208 people think this guy's a nifty builder, then by God, he must be at least competent.
No negative ratings... if someone thinks you're lousy at building, obviously they're not going to vote for you.
This would remove most of the point of rating parties because a) you can't negative rate, and b) you can only choose one category, and if you're REALLY gonna mine, you're going to get inflated social rankings only.
Furthermore, perhaps a log of messages given with a rating.. like "Avatar Average has rated you a good builder: Hey d00d, joo are l33t" shown in a log file under his ratings. Maybe a temporary thing.
We need to make the numbers mean something.
LF did i mention that this is the best idea i've hread in a long long time on these forums? oh i did didn't i. this is an excellent idea!
_____________________
Visit the Fate Gardens Website @ fategardens.net
|
jester Knox
Sculpter of Water
Join date: 22 Apr 2004
Posts: 204
|
08-25-2004 09:13
i agree that the rate system is flawed. however i disagree with the many people that say ratings should no longer be connected with the weekly stipend. i have a basic account. that gets me a base stipend of all of L$50 a week. that dosnt go very far. it took me months to get used to the fact that i had to save for a while to get more than the very basic items. and its only recently that i have gotten good enough at building things (fountains if you are interested) that i can earn a reasonable income on my own with out worrying about the weekly stipend. i never went out of my way to get ratings but in my first 3 months or so i spent allot of time at free money events and raffles, both to try to win and because i knew people would rate me (justified or not). i also have to say that i really like lordfly digeridoo's idea.
|
Jon Morgan
Senior Member
Join date: 28 May 2004
Posts: 174
|
Keep the same, but add a public feedback listing
08-31-2004 02:28
I'd like the rating system to be the same, but allow a textbox entry for public comments on this user, sort of like the ratings/reviews system of products at Amazon.com except you're rating players instead of products.
This is a social game. Ratings are important. Your success and your reputation should be much one and the same. What better way to go about this in a community-like fashion than to allow a public feedback database per player?
|
Neil Protagonist
FX Monkey
Join date: 11 Jul 2003
Posts: 346
|
09-03-2004 21:45
Great ideas all around. Nice to see the community really coming out for this. These have all been said before for the most part so if I dont elaborate thats why, I dont wish to argue or say anyone is wrong or debase any ideas, I am merely stating which boat I sit in on which points. Ratings: I like the idea of dumping them wholesale, or going with a system like LF suggested in his first post. Only I would modify it to state a range of numbers vs actual number. Maybe associate a given range with a word, few = 0-20, some = 21-40, lots = 41-81 and so on. Of course, no negs, or if there is a neg setup then have it be subtracted from your number. Stipend: I like the idea of basing it on age, but in the tiered sense, 0-3mo group etc. Personally I am ok with the stipend being cut out if you make X amount each given month. If I make 30k in a month what does 1k stipend matter unless I am just a greedy bastard. If the rating system remains in place I am all for limits on rating though I say x amount per month not per day, the reason I say this is I personally do not go out but a few times a month to explore and I do a lot of rating on those days, mostly to builds I happen to see, but a rating limit of X per day would mean that most people would not recieve ratings for what I think of as good. I would not mind seeing voting come back, I rather liked that system, it let me know how many people visited and cared for my build in a given day. I am not in favor of the leader board in any way shape or form. It doesnt really serve much of a purpose, however there are those that like it so if you decide to keep it, make it optional for those who want no part of it. The problem with ratings is hermits get none. I dont come to SL to socialize, I come because I control my own little imaginary world that just so happens to come with some cool people who drop by from time to time. I dont mind socialization but I dont seek it out nor do I think anyone should not gain because they happen to have reclusive habits. I am reclusive IRL, I am reclusive ISL. But this shouldnt effect my stipend unless a stipend is meant to be given on account of how much of a social butterfly you are. In which case I demand a hermit bonus that is dolled out to people based on how much time they dont spend around other people. The only system that cannot be gamed is one that doesnt exist. Remove ratings:Remove gaming of the system. Thank you lindens for taking an ACTIVE interest in what we think. In that vein I would like to see some lindens sharing thier thoughts, you all have more data in some cases than we do and being on the inside does give you more information to work from, what are your ideas? What do you think of the current systems failings? Obviously you agree that it is in some way flawed, how is it failing in YOUR eyes?
_____________________
" Control the things you can control, maggot. Let everything else take a flying f**k at you, and if you must go down, go down with your guns blazing." -Cort Need fire? Visit my FX Store in Bisque(232, 4 Sick-N-WrongLike Anime? Visit Nakama!
|
Cory Bauhaus
Valued Member
Join date: 9 Aug 2004
Posts: 52
|
09-04-2004 10:15
From: someone Originally posted by Neil Protagonist The problem with ratings is hermits get none. I dont come to SL to socialize, I come because I control my own little imaginary world that just so happens to come with some cool people who drop by from time to time. I dont mind socialization but I dont seek it out nor do I think anyone should not gain because they happen to have reclusive habits. I am reclusive IRL, I am reclusive ISL. But this shouldnt effect my stipend unless a stipend is meant to be given on account of how much of a social butterfly you are. In which case I demand a hermit bonus that is dolled out to people based on how much time they dont spend around other people. Ratings serve two main purposes. One, they let strangers in SL know how highly they should regard you when they first meet you (this is sort of borked though because of how people game the system). Second, but more important, the rating-based bonus gives Linden Labs a way to motivate residents to do things that make SL a more enjoyable experience for other residents - the same is true about dwell, etc. LL is giving you a little bonus because you've increased the value of SL to other customers, and thus indirectly made them more money. Think about how boring SL would be if there was no one doing cool stuff there. The bonuses are there to encourage the cool stuff, not to encourage hermits who don't add anything that would draw others to spend money on SL, except perhaps to leave other would-be hermits alone so they can enjoy their solitude 
|
Garth FairChang
~ Mr FairChang ~
Join date: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 275
|
Feedback from the Lindens?
09-04-2004 11:15
So many good ideas. As asked for.
How about a Linden point of view on them?
Maybe some comments like:
Idea X is wonderfull but unpractical and this is why.
We might be coming up with a really fair way to work this but it may never happen as it can't be done with what we have. How about giving us some clues as to what is possible?
Feedback is a great idea, Can WE have some too?
_____________________
Garth FairChang ~Cheeky Brit~ ' Have a nice day  ' http://www.fairchang.com
|
Selador Cellardoor
Registered User
Join date: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,082
|
09-04-2004 11:43
OK. I don't think the idea of a ratings system is a bad one. I think the present system could be retained, and would work very well, provided the following changes were made:-
1. Ratings cannot be given unless you have been an sl resident for a period of not less than six months.
2. To give a rating will cost $L100
These two changes IMO would completely change the system for the better, and make cheating very difficult.
|
Mac Beach
Linux/OS X User
Join date: 22 Mar 2002
Posts: 458
|
09-04-2004 11:54
From: someone Originally posted by Cory Bauhaus Ratings serve two main purposes. One, they let strangers in SL know how highly they should regard you when they first meet you (this is sort of borked though because of how people game the system). Second, but more important, the rating-based bonus gives Linden Labs a way to motivate residents to do things that make SL a more enjoyable experience for other residents - the same is true about dwell, etc. LL is giving you a little bonus because you've increased the value of SL to other customers, and thus indirectly made them more money. Think about how boring SL would be if there was no one doing cool stuff there. The bonuses are there to encourage the cool stuff, not to encourage hermits who don't add anything that would draw others to spend money on SL, except perhaps to leave other would-be hermits alone so they can enjoy their solitude I don't disagree with anything you said, but to put in into perspective: What is the incentive that millions of people have for creating personal web pages or blogs that few ever read? The Internet would still be the exclusive domain of universities and government contractors if it were not for the pure joy that people have in creating things that can be shared with the world. Whether the world actually partakes of the creation is of little consequence to many Internet creators. I've always disputed the relative importance of "connectedness" to SL's success (surprise!). But to anyone up to the thought experiment: Place reality distortion helmet on your head at this time. Imagine SL being run like Amway. You could only join through an existing member. LL would still handle the credit card processing etc., but each member would collect real money commissions based on the number of people in their little pyramid. There would be a much stronger, and much more direct incentive to keep others interested in SL under such a scheme. People at the top of the chain could actually make a comfortable living just finding ways to convince people to sign up and stay signed up. People lower in the chain would at least pay for their own membership and earn some spare change. People at the bottom as they learned the ropes would fund the whole thing. And as you suggest, people not interested in social networking wouldn't have much "business" using SL at all. There would be no in-world incentives. People would jump at the chance to provide land, training, and other perks to their "clients", in an effort to turn each client into a sales rep working for them. Amway has all the details worked out for what happens when someone in the middle leaves the program, how you work your way up the network, etc. Please remove your reality distortion helmets at this time. *back from throwing up*. I always get queasy on these rides. Anyway, I'd like to see SL more and more resemble the Internet model, with LL (for now) being the only source for "hosting". Like the early Internet, there is a need for the pioneers to provide "structure", which almost serves as a demo of the products capabilities. Later there will hopefully be a large network of interconnected service providers (hosting companies) with the software providing a seemless way to get from one place to another (I'm sure the LL's have a plan for this right?). If it ever gets to this point there will be a lot of ways to use SL. Some may involve social networking, others may not. There may be "free" hosting with strings attached, bargain hosting with fewer strings, and premium hosting with all the bells and whistles. For the time being, LL is providing all of these levels of involvement (or trying to). Not an easy job. 3D-VR should eventually become just an extension to the existing Internet. No "standard" for that exists yet. Maybe SL could become that standard, and LL could be the 3D equivalent of Network Solutions (Verisign). It will need a delicate touch. ActiveWorlds tried it and botched it bad. Others will too, until someone gets it right. I'd say LL has a nice head start at the moment. Let the experiments continue.
|
Philip Linden
Founder, Linden Lab
Join date: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 428
|
09-13-2004 20:51
Some thoughts:
Doctorow's "whuffie" idea is something that we at LL think sounds very interesting.
Having a limit on the number of people you can rate pos/neg always sounded too hard to make easy to understand in a UI, but having a tab similar to the profile top picks seems like a cool idea that might solve that. You could have a fixed number of people you could rate and then adding someone meant you needed to remove someone else.
Ezhar's link to a ratio list (pos/neg) of users is interesting reading. Regarding concerns about excess rate partying causing inflation - the current system doesn't work that way. Instead, a fixed pool of L$ are given out daily - with those with higher relative rankings getting more. What sort of measurable (not voted/given) stats do folks think would be useful to understand/evaluate others? Inotherwards, if you could run any sort of statistical query on data collected in SL, what query would you use to evaluate people? So for example "lines of chat spoken with others per online hour" or similar.
|
Kito Kim
Registered User
Join date: 12 Feb 2004
Posts: 5
|
09-14-2004 00:55
From: someone Originally posted by Philip Linden So for example "lines of chat spoken with others per online hour" or similar. Well I hope your example is just that! I rarely speak to anyone in SL. I'm usually quietly building or scripting in empty sims. My lines of text per online hour would be like 0.001. What is this fixation with having to evaluate people? I don't want to evaluate and I don't want to be evaluated, thanks. So I do hope that whatever you finally come up with can be opted out of for those of us that really, really don't care. SL may be a competition or popularity contest to many. But not to all. Don't discriminate against those who don't give two hoots about leaderboards or being evaluated / rated. And if you really have to evaluate, make sure it isnt unfairly biased against particular kinds of players. Why SHOULD I be penalised because I'm not here to socialize? If you start applying evaluations of criteria to people - especially if it links to finances in any shape or form, then you are saying that you wish them to behave in a particular way according to your expectations, rather than live their Second Lives the way they want to. At which point I may as well go play TSO 
|
Cory Bauhaus
Valued Member
Join date: 9 Aug 2004
Posts: 52
|
09-14-2004 01:03
From: someone Originally posted by Kito Kim Well I hope your example is just that! I rarely speak to anyone in SL. I'm usually quietly building or scripting in empty sims. My lines of text per online hour would be like 0.001.
...
And if you really have to evaluate, make sure it isnt unfairly biased against particular kinds of players. Why SHOULD I be penalised because I'm not here to socialize? If you start applying evaluations of criteria to people - especially if it links to finances in any shape or form, then you are saying that you wish them to behave in a particular way according to your expectations, rather than live their Second Lives the way they want to. At which point I may as well go play TSO Yes, that's exactly what they are saying. See my comment above. The whole point of bonuses based on ratings is an incentive for you to behave in a way that makes the game more fun for others and thus earns the Lindens more money. If you stay at home as a hermit building you won't be penalized at all, you just won't receive the incentive bonus. Unless you build a lot of cool stuff and people rate it up and you get a rating bonus for that.
|
eltee Statosky
Luskie
Join date: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 1,258
|
09-14-2004 06:03
well speaking purely statistically i suppose some 'useful' information might be the sim(s) the player spends most of their time in. And/Or the sim they consider home.
So people could see my home is lusk, and i spend most of my time between lusk and perry.
another potentially quasi-informative metric might be the average 'hours per day' online. That way you could know if yer talking to someone who's only on occasionally or is a rather hard-core player.
_____________________
wash, rinse, repeat
|
Tito Gomez
Mi Vida Loca
Join date: 1 Aug 2004
Posts: 921
|
09-14-2004 08:58
My humble suggestion:
1. Get rid of the ratings incentive payment.
2. Jack up the ratings cost to $10 (or whatever), but have the $10 go to the person being rated as an incentive for the receiver to be nice, productive, creative, or cool looking. It is also an incentive for the rater to be pickier as of who he/she/it rates.
3. Make positive ratings anonymous. This would take care of feeling obligated to rate back simply because someone rated you positively (eg. ratings parties or nasty people with good ratings simply because they give out many positives).
4. Negative ratings. $20 (or whatever) to negatively rate and $10 away from the person being negatively rated. It all goes into a pool and all funds collected are raffled off among all SL residents on a weekly basis.
5. Make negative ratings anonymous also. Sure, it will hurt that someone just cost you $10, but at least you will have the knowledge they had to pay $20 for the privilege. Being anonymous would take care of negative rating wars.
The whole purpose would be to make it economically advantageous for people to be nice and productive members of society, with a penalty for being less than nice.
tito Rated-R
|
Tiger Crossing
The Prim Maker
Join date: 18 Aug 2003
Posts: 1,560
|
09-14-2004 18:23
Not stopping to catch up on what I've missed in this thread... Sorta busy at the moment. But I had an idea and wanted to commit it to pixels before I forgot. Pardon if it mirrors someone else's idea. (Great minds think alike.)
New concept replaces ratings, call it what you like. I'll call it "Renown" for the moment.
You get a few Renown Vouchers each day. 1 for Basic memebers (if you connect), 2 for Premium members (connect or no), none for trials.
You can spend your Renown Vouchers by assigning them to other people in much the same way that you would rate them now. It costs no money, and the Renown Vouchers can only be applied positively. When you do this, the Voucher becomes a Renown Point for that person. You can give more than one Renown Point to a single person by spending multiple Vouchers, but each one beyond the first costs twice as many Vouchers as you've given points. So if you want to add a fourth point to a close friend, it'll cost 6 vouchers (2 times the 3 you've already given). You can tag each one with any/all of the usual rating categories as you give it. [Might want to put a maximum cap on the number of Points you can give to a single person... Might not.]
When someone gives you Renown Points, you get more Vouchers at 2 for one. It takes two people to use a Renoun Voucher on you (or one person using multiple Vouchers to give you two points) to give you a new Voucher to spend. So the more you get, the more you can give, but with a loss of power to prevent gaming.
There has to be a UI list of all the people you have given vouchers to, sorted by name or date given. You can retract renown you have given to others from this menu. You need to withdraw 2 Renown Points to get one new Voucher (regardless of how many vouchers you spent to give them those Points). The number of Vouchers you have would be a floating point number so you can see 0.5 if you only have half of one.
If people withdraw the Renown they have given to you, you lose the extra Vouchers that provided. This means your remaining Vouchers number may go negative.
The balance here comes from the 2-to-1 penalties for withdrawing Renown that has been previously given, the 1-for-2 bonus for recieving new Renoun, and the increasing cost of focusing on a single friend. Gaming the system becomes a process of diminishing returns.
Looking at someone's Renown score, you see it as split between the type categories, as a total number, and as the number of contributing individuals (which makes mutual apreciation societies quite visible).
[The following idea is bad. I'm leaving it here to refute it.] As an extra drain of Vouchers, you might turn your unused ones in for L$ at a low rate of exchange, minimum 10 vouchers at a time. Probably just a couple of L$ each. [This coupling to the ecconomy is a bad idea, complicating and giving some forced value on the Vouchers. I'm against this idea.]
> Give a renown point to: Echo Omega
"You have given Echo Omega 1 Renown Point already. This will cost you 2 of your remaining 11 Renown Vouchers. Continue? (Yes)(No)"
> Yes
You have 9 Renown Vouchers remaining.
> Withdraw 1 renown point from Griefer Omega.
"Your point has been withdrawn. You have one additional half of a Voucher for a total of 9.5."
_____________________
~ Tiger Crossing ~ (Nonsanity)
|