well, when you guys put it like that I can see how it can be abused. I dont suppose you guys have any ideas on how to prevent abusing it? And dont just say "dont use this system"
Well, two ideas come to mind:
1) Only positive rating possible. E.g. You can say "Would fly agian with this guy". Nothing more, nothing less. So your rating can never go down, and if you fly a lot of team missions, you'll eventually probably grow in rating. But maybe not. A low rating wouldn't tell you whether you found a griefer - it could just be someone that's not teaming up a lot, and he may be perfectly fine.
There is still some abusal potential in the form of elitism - people not grouping with anyone that doesn't have at least a certain minimum rating. That would mean noobs never get a chance to play with such "elitist" players. (But maybe even that's good - it doesn't mean no one will play with them, it just means people that would probably berate people for bad play don't play with people that may play badly due to lack of experience and turn them off from ever trying again.)
2) you have a choice to rate, one of 3 attributes of the player positively, or choose not to vote at all.
Fairness (e.g. no loot-stealing, uses heals on allies or draws aggro)
Communication (e.g. knows what the team needs to do and communicates it in an agreeable manner, either leading the team or following the team lead admirable)
Build (e.g. player has a solid build and can use it, even if otherwise "shy" and not leading the team)
You can also choose not to vote at all. By forcing people to pick between 3 desirable attributes, they can never really downrate someone,but you still get usable information out of a players rating. So a player with 250 Fairness votes, 500 Communication Votes and 30 Build votes indicates someone that really knows the mission and works well with others, even though he may fly oddball or weak builds otherwise. He also doesn't steal loot and helps others.
I agree with most of the previous posters on why this is a bad idea and would just like to add this. The idea seems based on the presumption that other players in this game owe you (or anyone else) anything other than simple, common courtesy. We're not ACTUALLY in Starfleet, you dig? We're playing a game. And I come here to play to please me... if my play style doesn't please someone else... go away from me and leave me be. How I play the game, aside from common courtesy, is between me and the folks who own the game... noone else (unless I conjure it does :p).
Ebay has a feedback system that mostly works. If for some reason it was ever thought to be used. The sums of money involved on Ebay are certainly substantial to those involved so the there can be incentive to try to game the system to gain an advantage. So they have set up systems to catch the most glaring methods.
At its simplest it is a two way rating system. Everyone should be aware that not only are they rating, they are being rated. And everyone can view each others ratings in detail. Everyone can respond to any rating that they receive, or follow up on any rating that they give. As all this is transparent, any user is able to see if a small group is trying to manipulate ratings.
Such a system not only works it actually serves to improve the groups using it. It's a basic part of human society. It isn't something new. Its just a different medium.
This is likely to become the norm in the near future. More people by far want to be part of society than want to be apart from it. This is just a method of allowing people access to some of the same social tools online as they do in face to face interactions.
This wouldn't work and would be a bad idea even if it could be made to work. I said this someplace else: No matter how well something works it can always be improved upon until it ceases to function completely.t
As I see it, there are two fundamental problems which are destroying western civilization:
* People who want to make their own personal taste the law of the land.
* The idea that you can legislate away all inconvenience.
Ok thanks for the feedback, I understand my idea is flawed but I still think with some tweaks that some people have already suggested it could still be a useful addition. Everyone keeps saying it will be abused and while it might I have faith that it wount be. In case it is however their are plenty of techniques that can be implemented to prevent it, like what MustrumRidcully said, only allow players to rate up. Though I have to say that I find everyones lack of faith in the community disturbing. Xbox Live has a player rating system and I never see it abused, and Xbox Live is the worst online community out their.
Also some people are saying that this will force people to play differently, thats not the issue I am addressing. I have no problem with the way people play. This is to get people to work together, you can still play how you want but with everyone else. This is just an attempt to stop people from joining an STF (which is designed to force you to work together) and then just run off and do what you want. I have no problems with wanting to go solo, but then dont join a team based mission. I have been in many STFs were even if it was on normal one guy who was not paying attention would cause everyone to fail that mission. And im not even talking about detailed instructions, just simple things like going right when everyone tells you to go left.