This is an idea for a personal rating/performance system for duties (Dungeons, Trials, Raids) to make content more fun to replay and more engaging.
CONCERNS & SOLUTIONS:
• 1. Players asking for screenshots of your ratings to prove your skills.
○Solution: With an alphabetical rating system (A, B, C etc.), make the lowest rating encompass the majority of players (60-70%). Such a wide range makes it impossible to discern someone's exact skill below the top-rated players.
This seems to be the biggest concern for people and could be completely solved using this method. If you want to be really careful and make everybody feel good about themselves you can make A the lowest rank, with S, S+ and S++ as higher tiers. This makes sure nobody gets their feelings hurt because 60-70% of players will get an A rank. Then the more serious players who want to be able to measure their performance for high-end raids, or even just players looking for a challenge, have the opportunity to measure their own performance and have an actual basis for improvement.
• 2. Some players may not want to care about performance.
○ Solution: Make the system disabled by default and completely optional.
• 3. Ratings can cause players to be harassed for low performance.
○ Solution: Make the system personal only, no way to see any other party members ratings.
• 4. Rating criteria differs depending on role.
○ Solution: Rate players with different criteria depending on their role.
KEY POINTS:
• System would use alphabetical ratings (C, B, A, S, S+).
• System disabled by default. (Enabled either through a side quest or simply via a menu option).
• Rating would be personal only, no way to see other party members ratings. (This is to avoid people being harassed for low performance)
• The system would not be available during your first run of a duty. (Avoids any pressure during your first run when you are taking in the story)
• Rating criteria would differ based on role. (DPS roles main criteria would be DPS, Tank would mainly be Damage taken and mitigated, Healers main criteria would be health restored)
• Party finder groups would not be rated based on completion time (This avoids new or less experienced players being harassed for under-performance).
• Pre-formed parties can attain a higher rating level based on completion time.
BENEFITS:
• Makes content more fun to replay.
• Makes replaying content more engaging.
• Helps people to gauge their performance.
• Encourages improvement.
• Appeases some of the desires of some players who want to use parsing plugins.
*I will update this post based on the discussion and ideas shared within this thread, so please feel free to give your opinions and ideas. If you like this idea please give this post a thumbs up, and hopefully it can be noticed by the dev team.
The next sections will be quite long and will be posted below as they will detail the specifics of the system.
Implement a personal rating/performance system
Printable View
-
05-26-2021, 03:30 PMRushRivieraImplement a personal rating/performance system
-
05-26-2021, 03:31 PMRushRivieraSpecifics part 1
THE NEED:
An important aspect of gameplay within FFXIV is the ability for new players to find parties for dungeons, trials, and raids. This allows newer players to be able to fully enjoy all the content of the game smoothly. Some of the ways FFXIV achieves this is through the duty roulette system, Relic quest requirements, Tomestone attainment, and other systems. The problem is that re-running old content can become monotonous and bland after multiple runs, and after some time it is done more out of necessity than for enjoyment.
This system would give more incentive to players for re-playing old content and would make it both more enjoyable and more engaging, whilst also encouraging those players who choose to use the system to learn more about their job and improve in their role.
THE SYSTEM:
My proposal would be for a letter rating system (A, B, C, etc.). An important aspect of the system would be to reward and challenge both hardcore and casual players. This means the top tiers would need to be difficult to obtain to make them feel prestigious, whilst also making the lower tiers of ratings feel fun and enjoyable for casual players and not feel like a penalty. For this reason I propose the following rating tiers: C, B, A, S, S+.
The thresholds for each tier can be determined by looking at the average data for each dungeon, with the B rating being assigned to a threshold that encompasses the majority of players. The reason for this is because a rating of B encourages improvement (and replayability) whilst also not sounding harsh or punishing. The rating of A should be achievable by casual players with a moderate amount of effort and concentration, which ensures that this system feels rewarding for casual players. The ranks S and S+ would be catered to the more hardcore players and would be much more difficult to achieve. This ensures that hardcore players also feel challenged and rewarded from this system. Lastly the rating of C should be reserved for particularly poor performance much below the average, this would serve as an indicator for those who are not playing their job correctly and want to improve (the assumption that they want to improve is based on the fact that they would have manually enabled this rating system to begin with.)
THRESHOLDS:
This is just an example of how the threshold could be set to achieve the goals set out above. Threshold criteria would be different for each role and would be based on the average performance metrics of the top x number of players.
S+: Top 5%
S: Top 15%
A: Top 40%
B: Top 100%
C: Outliers falling far below the average (The rating of C is basically a polite warning that you are doing something wrong)
*The reason for B encompassing the performance level of 60% of players is to prevent the possibility of players asking other players what their ratings are, or demanding to see screenshots of ratings to prove their skill. This prevents the possibility of players getting kicked from parties based on their rank (as a rank of B could be given to anyone from the lowest-performing players to the top 41% of players). This could of course be adjusted to be more or less broad as required.
This is just an example and it could be adjusted for different duties or depending on feedback.
RATING CRITERIA:
The criteria for ratings can be different for each role and can be based on a players individual totals at the end of a dungeon/trial/raid.
DPS roles can have their criteria based on their total damage output at the end of the duty + the effectiveness of their buffs. Damage output thresholds would be set accordingly for each duty.
Tank roles can have their criteria based mainly on damage taken + damage mitigated, whilst also taking into account their damage output and losing points for total damage taken by other party members.
Healer roles can have their criteria based on both their total healing and their damage output. The key is to find the right balance so as to reward healers for playing their roles both when they are spending most of their time healing a party that is taking lots of damage, and when they are spending more time dealing damage due to the tank effectively holding aggro and using defensive abilities. -
05-26-2021, 03:32 PMRushRivieraSpecifics part 2
FORMULAS:
These are just example formulas to show how this system could be effectively calculated. These formulas are not intended to be accurate as I do not have access to the data and so it would be up to the dev team to find the exact values.
Values and thresholds could be differentiated between Jobs if necessary to ensure the ratings fall into the thresholds set out in the "THRESHOLDS" section above.
• DPS: Personal Damage Output + Party Damage Output due to buffs.
• Tanks: Damage Taken + (Damage Mitigated x 1.2 *Gives bonus for effective use of defensive abilities) + Damage Output - Party Damage Taken *Rewards tanks who effectively hold aggro.
• Healers: Total Healing + Damage Mitigated from defensive buffs + Damage Output.
All values would be taken from the totals at the end of the duty. FFXIV already records individual values in the chat log. I am unsure if FFXIV already records values for damage mitigated, and values from buffs.
IMPLEMENTATION:
The system could be implemented so that your rating is shown either after defeating the last boss of the duty or after leaving the instance. Showing the rating after leaving the instance avoids the possibility of any players asking their party members what their rating was further reducing any possibility of harassment.
The system could also show your personal high scores and the date attained for each duty, this could be your top score, top 3, top 5 etc. Depending on the memory requirements for storing high scores on the server. Alternatively the high scores could be saved locally if there is any concern about the data requirements of saving high scores on the server.
The rating screen should clearly show the criteria for your role, and clearly explain that the rating is personal only. (Again this removes any possibility of players being harassed for poor performance. Showing rating criteria will help people to understand what they can do to improve. (Exact formulas don't need to be shown, just something like "Criteria: Total Damage, Total Buffs".))
The system should be disabled by default so that it has no effect on anyone who is not interested in this type of system. It could be enabled via the menu, or better yet, through a side quest unlock. Unlocking through a side quest also gives the added benefit of an opportunity to clearly and thoroughly explain the system to players. Further details and the method for disabling the system can be explained via the active help system.
Thanks for reading. If you have any thoughts, concerns or ideas feel free to leave a reply and share your thoughts. I will update this post based on the discussion. -
05-26-2021, 04:02 PMVelKallor
"We want screenshots of all your runs, prove you can play, anything less than a B rating and we will kick you"
Bet on it.
What defines a "casual'?Quote:
The rating of A should be achievable by casual players with a moderate amount of effort and concentration, which ensures that this system feels rewarding for casual players.
-
05-26-2021, 05:08 PMAdeaciaThis right here. It may only be personal, but people WILL demand screenshots. It's not possible for something like this to even exist without causing it to be used to exclude people. Never underestimate the lengths players will go to.Quote:
Originally Posted by VelKallor
-
05-26-2021, 05:24 PMReiMakotoPeople have a right to exclude you from their parties if they are forming a PF. Honestly something like this, especially if it was tuned around or less that SSS dummy level DPS would be healthy to inform people that they actually need to press their buttons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adeacia
-
05-26-2021, 06:15 PMAdeaciaPeople can exclude you from PF yes, but not based on information such as this. That is one of the reasons there is no ingame tool for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReiMakoto
-
05-26-2021, 07:13 PMRushRivieraI can't tell if you're being so serious here so I'll just pretend you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by VelKallor
First thing is, many, many people don't take screenshots at all in this game. If someone asks for screenshots of runs you can literally say "I don't take screenshots of my runs".
Second thing is, for this to work you are assuming the majority of parties are filled with people who have used the duty finder while already in a party that makes up the majority of the overall party limit for that duty. If instead, it's just 1 person in a party of random people that is demanding screenshots from everyone, that person will be the one that most likely gets kicked.
Third thing is, to do this you would need to get someone else to first agree to upload their screenshots, then actually navigate to the upload site, log in, search for the screenshots of their runs and upload them, copy the link into chat for the other player/s to copy that link, paste it into their browsers to then go through and check each screenshot. Why would someone go to that level of effort instead of just installing a parsing plugin that is already available???
TL;DR
Why would anyone do this when it is much quicker and easier to just use the parsing plugins already available? Also, I'm pretty sure demanding that someone shares their private screenshots is a breach of the TOS, so again they would just use the already available parsing plugins and kick someone without saying anything. -
05-26-2021, 08:37 PMRushRivieraEven if we disregard all the things in my previous post above. This can be accounted for simply by making sure the majority of players fall into a B rating. Meaning that only the lowest 5 or 10% would be rated C, and to get an A you need to reach the top 40% to 30%. This means 50% to 65% of players will fall into a B rating. Such a wide range within B means that knowing someone is a B rating doesn't give you much specific info. Nobody is going to keep kicking party members until they eventually find someone who is in the top 30%, and if they do it's very easy to find and flag that kind of behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adeacia
And if you're playing with someone who falls into the bottom 5% I'm pretty sure that will be painfully obvious without even needing a rating system.
Edit: Actually I've added this into the concerns section of the first post. -
06-04-2021, 02:31 AMWalkerged
I wish this kind of thinking would stay in Online fighting games and first person shooters where the main point of the games is a competition. FFXIV is supposed to be a PVE environment where we're all working together toward a common goal, the exact opposite of a competition.
-
06-04-2021, 03:13 AMDzianQuote:
Originally Posted by RushRiviera
So you want a rating system but, you want everyone to get an "A or "B""?
What your asking for is essentially a medal for finishing in last place...
If you make it impossible to discern one from another because you want a grade to cover such a wide range of players, what purpose does it then serve?
If 60% of the player base get an "B" what use is that? You could be right down in the 3rd Percentile and get an "B" Great job. Well done..
That player could then do some research and improve drastically to the point where they are maybe in the 58th Percentile but They'd still only get an "B".
WTF???? The exact same grade!!!
Doesn't exactly do this does it?
When players could improve significantly and still get shafted with the exact same grade.Quote:
Originally Posted by RushRiviera
So once again what purpose does it serve?
The reality is that in that situation Players would just treat that "A" like an "F". And anything less than an "S+++++" would be basically seen as crap.
You want a grading system, but you want it to lie to you and tell you you're good.
The problem with these is the better the dps are the worse grades the tank and healer will get. In a good party where that pull dies fast the tank woun't get any points for damage taken or damage mitigated. not only that but the healer wont get any points for healing because there's no damage to heal when everything is already dead...Where in a terrible party where the things are dying very slowely the tank will take a prolonged beating and thus get an amazing rank. so will the healer...Quote:
Originally Posted by RushRiviera
-
06-04-2021, 07:59 PMLariaKirin
Absolutely pointless. We already have a better solution that is much more in-depth than a trivial letter rating.
-
06-04-2021, 09:54 PMStriderShinryu
As I've said elsewhere, I'm all for a system like this. I do feel that the grading should probably be a little tougher than in the OP and I feel an integral aspect of a system like this is to add tangible ways that the player could improve their performance alongside a letter grade. It doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, anything extremely specific but just make it clear why they got the grade they did. If a tank takes a lot of unnecessary damage, remind them to use their cooldowns. If a DPS has a DoT that can be maintained indefinitely, remind them of that, etc. Heck, even for healers you can make a note if they're healing too much and encourage them to DPS more often instead of overhealing.
-
06-05-2021, 03:58 AMValfreyja
Okay, there is nothing really good about this idea at all.
Doesn't matter what you call the lowest rank, it's still lowest.
Right, optional. And if players demand you use it? You get locked out of parties for not.Quote:
Make the system disabled by default and completely optional.
Again, you offer a solution, but you previously already stated what is going to happen. People in PFs are going to demand screenshots for "proven" skills. And if the skills aren't good enough, the player gets kicked.Quote:
Make the system personal only, no way to see any other party members ratings.
No, it adds stress if your rating is low and you start losing out on PF content because of elitist jerks.Quote:
• Makes content more fun to replay.
By helping other players judge you and tell you that you aren't good enough for their group.Quote:
• Encourages improvement.
The incentive is already there. It's called adventurer in need bonuses, tomestone bonuses, stellaclusters, etc.Quote:
This system would give more incentive to players for re-playing old content
You really haven't put as much thought into this as you should have.Quote:
DPS roles can have their criteria based on their total damage output at the end of the duty + the effectiveness of their buffs. Damage output thresholds would be set accordingly for each duty.
Tank roles can have their criteria based mainly on damage taken + damage mitigated, whilst also taking into account their damage output and losing points for total damage taken by other party members.
Healer roles can have their criteria based on both their total healing and their damage output. The key is to find the right balance so as to reward healers for playing their roles both when they are spending most of their time healing a party that is taking lots of damage, and when they are spending more time dealing damage due to the tank effectively holding aggro and using defensive abilities.
Tanks: Their rating is lost because the party taken damage. Does this take into account party members stepping into AoEs and getting hit? You realize this can be a way to torch a tanks ratings by deliberately taking damage, right? So lots of opportunities for grudges.
Healers: Your system for this is again bad. In dungeons, most of the time the tank will pull large groups and sure they hold aggro, but you are backwards in this because when the tank is holding aggro for a large number of enemies, it requires almost constantly healing to keep them alive from taking many hits repeatedly.
DPS: So you want to shame them for either not understanding what rotations to use. Or else force everyone to play exactly the same with the exact same rotations of damage and buffing themselves, or the group. Or else they are seen as weak and undesirable in a group.
Sorry, but this idea, frankly, has no business being in XIV. There is just no way this won't negatively affect the community. -
06-05-2021, 05:57 PMShurrikhanIf the conventional XIV solution is for every party to be blinded and just keep rolling the dice until they get a sufficient ratio of carries to leeches, I think we have bigger problems to worry about than some parties excluding those who are unprepared for the given content.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adeacia
Moreover, there's only one real goalpost for party requirements: enough likely performance to make up for the number of grossly unprepared players likely to slip through the requirements and soon cause the run to disband, wasting everyone's time. At present, this is done through prior clear checks (Oh no! It's so exclusive that players who haven't cleared can be optionally barred from farm runs) and ilvl (which is far less meritocratic, and provides far less climbable barriers to content access, than a more correlative metric like a well-thought, contextualized measure of performance).
The only people who'd be more excluded as a result of switching from tangentials like excessive ilvl requirements to a more meritocratic basis of expectations would be those who (1) can afford to deck out in new crafted gear but (2) lack the skill to put it to use reasonably expectable from that ilvl.
That's not to say that the system suggested here is nearly ideal -- it's not -- but when the status quo is to bloat your ilvl requirements and just keep reforming until you get a party of actually prepared people, for a change... the bar's pretty damn low and more than worth replacing. -
06-06-2021, 05:57 AMGruntler
You have that system, using the only metrics that matter.
If your expert dungeons tend to be longer than 20 minutes in pf, you're lagging behind.
If you regularly see ex dungeons shorter than 15 minutes in pf, you're not.
When an in-game metric exists, you can use it.
With all due respect, that's the job you sign up for with a red icon. While obviously there should be forgiveness for people learning how the game works...Quote:
Originally Posted by Valfreyja
https://i.imgur.com/Yp21NTL.png
...you really can't argue the game isn't telling you what is expected of you.