Jump to content

Prioritize In Game Reports reviewed by location


Malden86

Recommended Posts

  • Suggestion Name: Prioritize In Game Reports reviewed by location
  • Suggestion Description: Allow Game Moderators to review the in-game reports from a specific zone within the map, prioritizing (or excluding) certain zones from where the reports originate.
  • Any example images: No.
  • Why should it be added?: Assigning a GM to just review in game reports from a certain location rather them globally, would create a more practical and efficient in game report system. There are certain zones within the map that produce a massive amount of reports (lets say Calais/Duisburg or Belgium), while others more remote have a low amount of reports. The fact the a GM could be assigned to review in game reports just from the UK, or Italy, or any other zone within the map, would allow for a more efficient distribution of the GM attention to the whole map, as certain zones produce huge amounts of reports that can not be dealt by GM. This would re-direct the efforts of GM to the whole map, by distributing them to review reports effectively.

 

----

 

NOTE: I do not know how the in game report works or if my suggestion is feasible. I assume GM have a global list of in game reports to deal. Due to the fact that congested zones produce massive amounts of those reports, that leaves the system congested itself. If more than one GM are online, they could be distributed in the map to look just at in game reports for those zones. That would increase the response from the GM within areas that are not congested, rather than having an in-game report from Italy waiting in line with thousands made in Calais. By having a local GM that is just receiving reports for that given zone, with would fast track the review of that report.

 

I am not sure if I was clear with my suggestion, and I apologize for the long text or if the idea is just silly, as I do not know exactly how the system works.

 

Many thanks

 

 

 

Te90AGT.png k8GwANi.png 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This suggestion has been opened for Discussion

Please note that we mainly work on a FIFO system (First In, First Out) no matter what the source of the report is. You have provided an interesting concept, however we do not have enough admins for this at the moment. However, I'm not going to decline it.

  • Thanks 1

Current Status: status.png

Waddle On!                    

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think this suggestion will not make processing of reports more efficient.

 

Against the background of the small amount of available TMP team members, a priorizating of reports of a certain area will inevitably lead to a neglect of reports from another area. If a player submitted a report before another players report, priorizating the latter would be an unequal treatment of the former.

The FIFO system on the contrary is equally fair for all.

  • True Story 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we had a lot more IGM, ok, but with the current staff this is not really a good idea.

However, another option would be to "stack" report comming for a small area in little time, as they are probably linked to the same accident => what happen need to be watch only by one admin, and severals report could be dealed with at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a location tag on reports, it means admins can focus on one busy area (i.e: Calais - Duisburg) and take any reports from there. As suggested above, I feel that using location to determine wether there is a major blockage / accident is also a good plan, as it would alert admins to a more significant issue, that needs dealing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good evening!

 

Thanks @Penguin for allowing the discussion.

 

- - - -

I would like to go a bit further regarding this suggestion.

 

The concept that I am suggesting will allow the GMs online to focus on reports from a specific area. They can therefore choose which area to monitor, or even to continue with the same system already implement (FIFO).

Lets imagine we have 5 GMs online from 18h00 to 19h00. They could spread their attention to all areas of the map, rather them review the reports via FIFO (which I assume is a "first come, first serve basis"? not sure). One could be checking the reports from the UK, the other from Scandinavia, other from Italy and so on. The purpose of this is to allow a report from the UK or Poland to have a fair chance of being seen by a GM, as areas like Calais-Duisburg have the monopoly of the GMs attention.

 

In my opinion that decentralizes the system, allowing a fair and faster response to every corner of the map. I know that there are not enough GMs, but even if there is only 1 at the time, they can choose to see reports just from a certain area.

 

The reason for this suggestion, is to turn the in game report more efficient to all the players, as it is being currently strangled by Calais and Duisburg massive production of these reports. 

 

I do believe this would be a positive change to TruckersMP. :)

Te90AGT.png k8GwANi.png 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/01/2018 at 1:30 PM, Joao Rodrigues said:


I think this suggestion will not make processing of reports more efficient.

 

Against the background of the small amount of available TMP team members, a priorizating of reports of a certain area will inevitably lead to a neglect of reports from another area. If a player submitted a report before another players report, priorizating the latter would be an unequal treatment of the former.

The FIFO system on the contrary is equally fair for all.

 

@Joao Rodrigues, at this moment with the amount of in game reports made (mainly from the nonsense in Calais - Duisburg), reports away from that area are being "neglected" as well. The GMs attention is monopolized by the absurd amount of reports from that area, which is not fair to users that drive in remote areas of the map.

 

I do agree with the FIFO system as well, but due to the phenomenon that occurs in Calais-Duisburg, that system becomes obsolete and inefficient to all of us. 

Te90AGT.png k8GwANi.png 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the FIFO system. An admin focusing on or neglecting Calais-Duisburg won't help a situation. If they focus on it, it takes longer for someone who reported earlier to get their report done, and if they neglect it, those C-D trolls won't get banned for a while. I don't see the problem with the FIFO system, and since we don't have statistics on how efficient it is and whether it is less or more efficient than this system, you're basically trying to fix something that isn't broken.

 

-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Landark said:

 

@Joao Rodrigues, at this moment with the amount of in game reports made (mainly from the nonsense in Calais - Duisburg), reports away from that area are being "neglected" as well. The GMs attention is monopolized by the absurd amount of reports from that area, which is not fair to users that drive in remote areas of the map.

 

I do agree with the FIFO system as well, but due to the phenomenon that occurs in Calais-Duisburg, that system becomes obsolete and inefficient to all of us. 


I understand that one could argue, that the high amount of reports from the Calais - Duisburg area looks like it pushes other reports to the end of the stack.

 

However, a neglect is a deliberated choice. Conversely, the order of the report stack is determined by their entry only.
And this stays true even if the percentage amount of reports of Duisburg - Calais is likely be higher than from other areas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.