{[Request/Suggestion]}- Enhanced Party Control, Freedom of Choice and Reporting Improvements

Looking at the current "trending" topics on forums, we can all agree that it's often peppered with complaints about other players and the dissatisfaction of people about their experiences relating to co-op modes.In particular this is prevalent in the PvP where people are unhappy to be matched with certain players based on previous interactions..I could have put this in "PvP" only but in reality, this suggestions can be implemented game-wide if deemed suitable.ANet, please put more resources into revising the matching and reporting systems.Let's start with reporting.

The current version is outdated and in dire need of a review. The issues with the present reporting system:

• unlimited reporting
• limited categories
• lack of description input text box
• lack of feedback (even if it's automated)

I can only imagine how difficult it is to sift through a mountain of often spammed reports based only on a drop-down menu description so why not improve the system and make things easier for moderators as well as better for players. I don't like to compare GW2 to other games but in this case, other titles seem to have a better grasp over what works for this feature.

Revised (suggested) version:

• players have a limited number of reports per time period (week/month) - let's say 20 for example.
• in addition to a drop-down selection, have a limited-character text-box for a description.
• when reports are investigated, the original player receives and automated message with either positive feedback that the report has been dealt with or that the report was found to be invalid...Now moving onto blocking and the related party control: (this is more PvP related)Blocking works perfectly fine but the issues arise when the random match-making places you on the same team as a player you have blocked.The thing is, I don't bock many people but the ones I do, I wouldn't want to play with; this may be for a number of reasons - perhaps they were toxic, or difficult to co-operate with, maybe they intentionally tried to sabotage your efforts or you simply don't like their playstyle. I feel that nobody should be forced to put up with this if they've made the choice to block someone..The "new" (suggested) version:
• players can block a limited number of people at any one time (20? 30?)
• blocks expires in 14/28 days
• if either player has the other blocked, neither can be on the same team when matched through pvp MM
• blocked players can appear on opposing teams as this has nothing to do with co-op play..

Additional implementation in PVEIf you have a player on your block list, they cannot join your party in PvE (and vice versa) until the block is removed. This will help tackle any minor issues in other game modes like FotM where disruptive people chose to continuously join your group and remove/rename your LFG...I completely understand the are probably ways which players may find to manipulate the system, so for anyone with suggestions of what flaws there might be and how to address them- please contribute.

@MarshallLaw.9260 said:

• players have a limited number of reports per time period (week/month) - let's say 20 for example.

so if I get spammed by 20 gold sellers in a week/month say, I can't report them and that one guy who's botting? bit ridiculous, don't you think? I do agree that there needs to be room for more info in reporting, but limiting a player's ability to report things isn't really the way to go.

@nottsgman.8206 said:

@"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

• players have a limited number of reports per time period (week/month) - let's say 20 for example.

There is probably the need for a refund-style system where-by any "positive" report which is found to be appropriate and required action is refunded. E.g. if the flagged gold seller is removed - you have your report point back.

Disagree with the "Blocks" expiring, Ive had people on my blocklist for a long time and i want to keep them there forever as long as the game is alive, and if i want to add someone to the blocklist i shouldnt have to remove somebody else, period.

And the "Unlimited" reporting, is sadly a necessity of having gold sellers and bots in the game(And if i remember correctly at one point in time there was a limit on the amount of reports you could do in a day, 3 i believe, and they got rid of that for good reasons.), they arent as common as they used to be thankfully, but i like to be able to report them when i see them. Ontop of that if anet doesnt think the report is punishable they wont punish the person being reported, so what harm does it do to have unlimited reports?

@Dante.1763 said:Ontop of that if anet doesnt think the report is punishable they wont punish the person being reported, so what harm does it do to have unlimited reports?

The aim of this proposition is to refine reporting to a point where it's more manageable and perhaps we will see a more effective system. At present, I feel there are more reports being put in than are warranted. I am personally guilty of doing this is the past where I've had poor PvP matches due to idle or uncooperative players and have sent 2-3 reports for the same person. I also often see others tilt during games and rant about reporting everyone so I imagine that's what they do.Basically, they way I see it is that people are free to spam reports so some do. This seems to result in in influx which takes a while to resolve.

I'm not aware of how many gold sellers there are out there but I get a PM 2-3 times per month at most. I appreciate others may have a different experience.

@MarshallLaw.9260 said:

@Dante.1763 said:Ontop of that if anet doesnt think the report is punishable they wont punish the person being reported, so what harm does it do to have unlimited reports?

Its quite a bit more if you hang out in LA, i get 1-2 if im sitting near the trading post for longer than 10 minutes(on some days not every day).I also doubt that the people ranting during matches actually take the time to report(at least the majority) its like calling someone a hacker or a noob they use it to express their rage. Im sure some do report but they get ignored.

when it comes to reporting though instead of limiting the number of reports id like to see it mandatory that you give very specific details about what was actually going on, so that way, if a persons selling gold for example and you want to report them for that you have to give specifics about what they said. For bots youd have to tell exactly what they were doing(example would be teleporting from node to node.), when and so on. Because right now you can just send in empty reports with no substance, making it mandatory to give details would probably reduce the number of false reports.

@"MarshallLaw.9260" said:Looking at the current "trending" topics on forums, we can all agree that it's often peppered with complaints about other players and the dissatisfaction of people about their experiences relating to co-op modes.

Keep in mind that forum activity is not reflective of overall player experience: only the very most dedicated players, or those with a big problem, make it to the forums. Most players don't even know, or care, that they exist.

The current version is outdated and in dire need of a review. The issues with the present reporting system:

• unlimited reporting

This is not an issue, and I'm unclear why you think that it is, unless your goal is to strongly discourage players ever reporting anything. The moment you make it a "limited" resource, people will avoid reporting things because "what if I need it tomorrow?!", that being human nature: we are extremely loss averse.

• limited categories
• lack of description input text box

These are not actually a bad thing; the free text input generally doesn't add value, since the situation is evaluated on the basis of evidence available to the CS person, and not the claims made by the reporter. (It also tends to encourage ... unpleasant commentary, from an unpleasant subset of people, making life much worse for the person having to read the content.)

By providing a constrained range of choices it becomes easier for players to report things, instead of agonizing over the difference between otherwise similar issues.

• lack of feedback (even if it's automated)

You will never, ever get individual feedback on reports in any game, for a variety of reasons, mostly around the general awfulness of people who try and abuse these systems.

I can only imagine how difficult it is to sift through a mountain of often spammed reports based only on a drop-down menu description so why not improve the system and make things easier for moderators as well as better for players.

It is trivial for a system to automatically bucket these reports, and condense them. Think "player Kitten Kittener has 37 name reports", not "work through 37 individual emails" here.

The "new" (suggested) version:

• players can block a limited number of people at any one time (20? 30?)

Again, if you want to go down this path, this limit isn't an effective way to make it work. Why do you think this is a good thing?

• blocks expires in 14/28 days

I can't speak for everyone, but I can say that anyone I block is ... unlikely to change their ways in two or three weeks, given they have almost certainly received bans in multiple places for their extremist views. (For example, using racial slurs that are unambiguously and uniformly considered that way.)

I completely understand the are probably ways which players may find to manipulate the system, so for anyone with suggestions of what flaws there might be and how to address them- please contribute.

Eh, this is the least thing to be concerned about. Any system is abusable.

These seem to have been thought up with a PvP perspective, and maybe PvP blocks should be changed. But from a PvE point of view I think I disagree strongly with almost all of these. Once again, all my opinions are based on a PvE point of view.

I kinda agree with is temporary blocks. These would be useful in addition to permanent blocks. They'd be good for gold sellers, but really nothing else, IMO. Anyone I block, I never want to see chat from again. A temporary block works on gold sellers because those accounts get eliminated. I would never want to give up permanent blocks.

Limited number of blocks per unit of time/severely limited block list total - Absolutely not. There are times when I feel the need to block many people at the same time. And the only entries I take out of my block list are gold sellers. I have a huge block list. And I want it to stay that way.

In PvE a blocked person cannot join one's party or squad.- I do like this idea, and feel it should have been this way from the beginning.

All my PvE opinions opions aside, it might be worthwhile for Anet to take a look at PvP blocking, and make some changes.

@"SlippyCheeze.5483"

The reporting system is loosely based on the one implemented in DOTA2 which does have all the "requested" features.

• there is a limit on reports to prevent spamming.
• there is a text box to assist the reader in ascertaining what has gone wrong and what to potentially look for.
• there is a feedback and refund system where-by a report found to be valid and dealt with, will result in the original "reporter" being sent an automated message as well as refunded their "report point".

I recognize that cross-game comparison isn't the most valid argument, but this is a system which worked and could have some potential on GW2.