PDA

View Full Version : USER INTERFACE Voting ingame



Crusader_bin
30th Dec 2013, 16:48
Hello!

I was thinking about sveral systems in the game lately. And I think that many of them could use the idea of voting.

To be more precise:

1) Vote kick. As old as the world itself. If someone is AFK, spouts nonsense on chat and trolls instead of playing? A golden feature.

2) Next map vote. Does it needs to be explained? :) It's always pure fun in itself. Could actually happen inside the lobby.

3) Scramble teams. Sometimes the games are just no fun at all. Sometimes you end up in party with your teammates, and would like to fight them instead, not farm the other team. Golden feature as well.

4) Surrender. Yep. Game is fun. But sometimes, match can be straight broken or basically "done" after the first half. With the gold-award system for skill/kills beeing non-existant, even the bets players in the game, but still in the loosing team - gets almost no benefits in beeing in such a game at all. Surrendering should remove the gold earned by points OR the standard +50 gold (for nothing). Depends on how it will be fine tuned later.

Post your suggestions! Maybe you think there are more opportunities to vote? Or maybe you feel it's not such a great idea at all? Elaborate either way :)

hirukaru
30th Dec 2013, 16:53
I voted yes,

But abuse is always there so have to put this in the calculation.
(Report button: abuse of voting system)
Auto send: last game information.

Crusader_bin
30th Dec 2013, 17:02
I agree 100%.
Surrendering probably should not be possible if all players are in parties or meybe even not before first round ends.
The sole reason would be to save some stats, be fair to other players (rage quits upsets others a lot!) and perchaps retain chance to drop or get 1/4 gold?

All I was thinking about with that one was fair play really :)

Tube_Reaver
30th Dec 2013, 18:37
Hi

Your poll should have more options than just yes/no, as I am for and against some of the suggestions.

1) Vote kick - No, it is a terrible feature, simply because it will be abused. No matter how much you warn players, they'll always try and abuse it. Frankly a system to report a player at the end of the game is a much better system, sure it takes longer for the desired overall effect, however the abuse of it is far far less. (An example is FF14, it just recently added a vote kick function, and it has been abused from day one of the function's release.)

2) Map vote - Yes. I am sure this will make it in anyway.

3) Scramble teams - Depends. What if I am partying up with a friend with the intent of playing on the same side, and the rest of the players all vote to scramble. We would have to leave and re-queue. I believe once the lobby system works, you can say pick team 1, and your friend picks team 2 before actually getting in queue.

4) Surrender - Depends, I mean tbh it only works in games like LoL because the matches can take a long time. However the matches don't last too long in Nosgoth, at least doesn't feel that way.

Now I know some matches become pointless, so in my opinion here is a system:
So let's say round 1 ends with 40-10, now in round 2 once team A (who scored 40 previously) get 11 kills, the game should end with them as the victor, because well, they won, so why drag the match on? I personally feel this is better received than a surrender option, without the annoyance of that ONE player who demands his team surrenders or afks/feeds/trolls etc.

Have a happy new year.

Crusader_bin
30th Dec 2013, 18:50
I somewhat agree with you. And somewhat not :)

I never saw a game (Say, Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament?) where kicking was abused yet. As you need the majority (both teams need to be in favor!) Why I would want to help other team win by kicking, say, our best team player?

Scramble teams might be one thing against team stacking, and again - if majority feels it is needed, it would scramble. Often it is set up, that ALL players or ALL PLAYERS - 1, has to agree to that. If set to 100% agree ratio, than it would just turn into a harmless, yet functional feature that could save the whole match, if EVERYONE agrees. No? :)

Surrender. Well. Your system seems nice. It's certainly something in-between. But I think matches often take too long, but that's considering that our play-time is limited, so it feels more as a waste of time. Your system might not even be needed, if the loosing team could rack up score to get some real gold award or fight for Most Valued Player reward.
Actually, I find it hard to believe that game doesn't say who is the MVP for each team. And stuff like that - the actuall skill - should be more rewarded than the actuall 50 gold for doing nothing at all.
Still. Just plainly admitting, that "Hey! Ok, you guys are better, we don't stand a chance" would just be better for the morale than enduring few more roudns, than rage quitting. Which saddens the abandoned teammates even more.

edit: PS. any ideas what to add to the pool? I just made it generall. wether any kind of voting is ok, or just useless. You think it deserves to be more detailed?

Tube_Reaver
30th Dec 2013, 19:18
Trust me, vote kicking is abused in many games, and it is very frustrating, especially since you get kicked for no valid reason.
I recall in ME3 multiplayer (a co-op mode), where one jealous player would initiate a vote kick on the player who scored the highest in the last game. :lol:

I am not saying everyone will abuse it, but it is just a system that can be easily abused, especially if you end up in a team with the majority of the players are in a party/friends.

As for Scramble teams, it is nice to have I agree, just needs to be set to a very large majority vote.

The problem with Surrender is that it drops morale, and some players will immediately go for the surrender if they feel the game is lost, even though there is still a big chance to claim victory. I just feel that the matches don't last that long, especially if it is that one-sided to warrant a surrender anyway.


As for what to add to the poll, maybe a third option of "yes to some, no to others" or something along those lines.

RainaAudron
30th Dec 2013, 23:22
I think vote to kick should be part of it. It can be abused yes, but it is kinda essential to have it in an online game. If the majority of players is fine and there is just one who is causing trouble or is afk, then should all other players leave the game just because of that one player? As crusader said, you need the majority to vote for it, so I do not see a problem. Or would you rather force yourself into a game where you´re unwanted if they already invited their friend and you got there first? I think a vote kick is understandable in that sense.

GenFeelGood
30th Dec 2013, 23:27
1)Yes on team scramble if the teams are one sided, as they often are in this game, with a team of mostly new players vs of mostly experienced players, ending in a slaughter that has the new players saying they are done with the game.

2)Definite yes on map vote

3)Surrender sounds like it would be complicated, it might only have to be available after a period of time in game or once a big enough lead was made. As for afk I would prefer something along the lines of the players being removed from the game in order to be replaced, but only if there is no activity from them for a period of time and just to keep the opposing team from getting the kills. Not sure what the penalty for surrender should be or if there even should be one. Again, it seems a little complicated.

4)As for vote kick, I'm not sure about this one.I would see it being abused in the game, but I don't have a lot experience with this abuse though, I gotta concede that, only time it happened to me was in the Halo team death match. I'm still on the fence about this one.

lucinvampire
31st Dec 2013, 00:09
I agree and disagree with some of these features so am not going to vote...I think some will definitely be abused so would not like to see them - such as player booting...others - such as map voting would be nice.

RainaAudron
31st Dec 2013, 00:16
The thing is why would you want to play with players who would vote kick you and do not want you on their team...

Oroibahazopi
31st Dec 2013, 01:40
1, 2 and 4 are something I would expect to see without having to ask at launch.

3 is better solved with proper lobby functionality which is on the horizon if I understand dev speak correctly.

Crusader_bin
31st Dec 2013, 11:08
I don't seem to be able to add anything to the pool anymore (or didn't find out how?), but than again, your posts are way more important here anyway :)
After reading them, maybe surrendering should be reserved for situations, where mathematically speaking the other team has already won, like Tube_Reaver has said. Sometimes matches CAN be fun, even if you loose (just, not that often ;) . I see that it is debatable, whether it should be possible earlier or not.

Tube_Reaver
31st Dec 2013, 11:55
I think vote to kick should be part of it. It can be abused yes, but it is kinda essential to have it in an online game. If the majority of players is fine and there is just one who is causing trouble or is afk, then should all other players leave the game just because of that one player? As crusader said, you need the majority to vote for it, so I do not see a problem. Or would you rather force yourself into a game where you´re unwanted if they already invited their friend and you got there first? I think a vote kick is understandable in that sense.

I understand vote kick is a nice option to have, and I am not against the idea of it, but I am against it purely because of how much it can/will be abused. Now if the community were just everyone in Alpha, then I am sure it won't be abused, however I can't say the same when a huge influx of players will come with closed/open beta and launch.

Now as to your example of a player causing trouble/afking/trolling/feeding, yes vote kick would be nice to have as that is the perfect scenario for vote kick, and why you would use it. However let me state some of the worst case scenarios/reasons that are even in co-op games where there is no pvp and it is team-based, vote kicks are initiated for "silly" reasons such as:
- That player has too high ping... vote to kick
- That player is playing so bad and we are losing because of him/her... vote to kick
- That player is going in solo instead of team-play... vote to kick

The above reasons are simply not enough to kick someone. Some people will have net issues or live far away and the closest server still nets them 200+, should they not be allowed to play?
We all have our bad days and fail at a match, so also not a valid reason.
Not playing in a team properly? Bad idea, but still not good enough a reason to kick someone.

- That player is stealing my kills!!... vote to kick!
Sadly this actually happens in pvp and co-op games.

As to your second reason about joining a game where it is 2-3 friends waiting for their last friend? Well why not set up the lobby first with everyone invited then queue up for match making? (when party-forming/lobby is fixed, currently it's a bit wonky I know)

Now for some reason if 3 people queue up and hope that they end up with their friend as he queues up at the same time, but someone else joins well they can kindly ask the person to leave. If that person doesn't, then tough. They should all form a party and queue up properly.


The thing is why would you want to play with players who would vote kick you and do not want you on their team...

The reasons above become much worse when it is 3 friends in the game. They will abuse the feature because they know they are the majority.
No one wants to play with players who want to vote kick him/her. However should the lone player be kicked mid-game or near the end simply because the feature is there and he ended up with some "mean" players?

Crusader_bin
31st Dec 2013, 12:04
Your logic is based on the ability to kick with 3 votes. On 8 player server it would make sense with 5 to 6 votes (7 as an extreme value). Whole team could not kick someone from their group for weak play, as the opposing team wouldn't actually want to do that most likely. In Mass Effect 3 I did not see a sucessfull vote kick - ever, and I played each day for a long time :) Usually to kick AFK whole friendly team has to vote, and even more, opposing team has to do a favor and vote as well. In F2P - trust me, some would really like free kills instead, but almost always there is one "good guy" that'll vote.

Tube_Reaver
31st Dec 2013, 12:47
Your logic is based on the ability to kick with 3 votes. On 8 player server it would make sense with 5 to 6 votes (7 as an extreme value). Whole team could not kick someone from their group for weak play, as the opposing team wouldn't actually want to do that most likely. In Mass Effect 3 I did not see a sucessfull vote kick - ever, and I played each day for a long time :) Usually to kick AFK whole friendly team has to vote, and even more, opposing team has to do a favor and vote as well. In F2P - trust me, some would really like free kills instead, but almost always there is one "good guy" that'll vote.

So you want the vote kick feature to require both teams? Could work out better, but at the same time, could fall flat. Why would the enemy team want to help you get rid of the "weak link" or rather why not kick the person and make it 4v3 for a while? Yes sportsmanship and all, but as I said, when a bigger influx of players come through... don't know about it really.

As for ME3, you were lucky then, I've played the co-op since release for well over a year or two (I honestly can't recall, it was till sometime after they stopped patching and updating the multiplayer) and it was pretty frequent. There were plenty of lobbies with people getting kicked before and after the first game for the above reasons I mentioned (I didn't even mention the whole "don't like his gear/set up, vote kick" second person sees the X and thinks hmm must be valid, vote to kick, and the third person would follow.) Also there were quite a few forum posts about the issue with vote kicking.


Again, I know it would be a good option to have, and I definitely wish some games had it sometimes because there are always going to be players who want to ruin the game for others.
However it needs to be added with another feature where players can be reported, whether it be for afk/trolling/feeding, or even to report vote kick abuse cases. If vote kick is put in as is, with no real penalty for abusing it, then it will be abused.

Crusader_bin
31st Dec 2013, 13:21
Ahh, in ME3 of course in lobby people with starting gear an characters were kicked on max difficulty matches where they could not stand wave 1 :) which was ok in my eyes! Sometimes they waited for their friends as well, and if it's on lobby stage it was fine by me. Ingame though, no kicks.

And yes, sportsmanship is key. Other team HAS to participate in voting, no other way around it. Look how it works most of the time in counter-strike. Wheny you say that someone is afk, almost always other ppl help. Not always of course. Sometimes they do want cheap kills... Better that than no feature at all :)

lucinvampire
31st Dec 2013, 13:24
Tube - i agree with everything you have said in both your posts reference the kick feature... I can think of a lot more petty reasons why it could be abused too. I think like said there should be a reporting option for trolls etc. Maybe the kick feature requires options so you only can use it in certain situations.

Tube_Reaver
31st Dec 2013, 13:42
Ahh, in ME3 of course in lobby people with starting gear an characters were kicked on max difficulty matches where they could not stand wave 1 :) which was ok in my eyes! Sometimes they waited for their friends as well, and if it's on lobby stage it was fine by me. Ingame though, no kicks.

And yes, sportsmanship is key. Other team HAS to participate in voting, no other way around it. Look how it works most of the time in counter-strike. Wheny you say that someone is afk, almost always other ppl help. Not always of course. Sometimes they do want cheap kills... Better that than no feature at all :)

Kicking someone in the lobby for having low gear when in a gold or plat game is one thing, but kicking someone with high gear but with class or setup that isn't "meta" or is not approved of simply "because", is not ok.
Also iirc you can't kick in-game only in the lobby. (don't quote me on this, been a few months since I last played)

Again sportmanship is key yes, but you can't rely on it for such a key feature, especially when/if ranked or ladder queues are implemented. People would prefer the easy win over being sportsman-like.


Tube - i agree with everything you have said in both your posts reference the kick feature... I can think of a lot more petty reasons why it could be abused too. I think like said there should be a reporting option for trolls etc. Maybe the kick feature requires options so you only can use it in certain situations.

Agreed, a report feature is a must, but it won't mean much to some. As I said previously, FF14 just implemented a vote kick feature, and when you press the "vote kick" option a warning pops up that if you abuse the feature you will be punished, and Square Enix are known to lay down the law with such things. Even then people are already abusing it and kicking players.

Crusader_bin
31st Dec 2013, 15:29
You can kick inside game in ME3 :D
A lot of people didn't knew that, so kicking ingame was a rarity even with AFKs. That option was in since the beginning, but burried inside the menus.

Plus, all lobbies are created by hosts. That does indeed give them some right to controll THEIR games! Host was a one-person ruler! Everyone can create their games there. In Nosgoth we have dedicated servers only. Something that should not be compared :)

Can't comment on FF14 thing, as I only played briefly during beta. Expansion fixed the game mostly, but still nowhere near a good MMO for me.

Tube_Reaver
31st Dec 2013, 15:58
You can kick inside game in ME3 :D
A lot of people didn't knew that, so kicking ingame was a rarity even with AFKs. That option was in since the beginning, but burried inside the menus.

Plus, all lobbies are created by hosts. That does indeed give them some right to controll THEIR games! Host was a one-person ruler! Everyone can create their games there. In Nosgoth we have dedicated servers only. Something that should not be compared :)

Can't comment on FF14 thing, as I only played briefly during beta. Expansion fixed the game mostly, but still nowhere near a good MMO for me.

In regards to the host, the only control they had was to set up the map, enemy, and difficulty. It wasn't always the host who initiated the kick, in fact most of the times it was another player.
My point is that it can still be abused, I can compare it to Nosgoth because we are comparing the feature of vote kicking, not the ability to be the host server of the game. :D

EDIT you are right about kicking in-game, I just recalled a few times when people would start a vote kick, and the little X signs would pop up

Hugbringer
31st Dec 2013, 20:54
1) Vote kick. As old as the world itself. If someone is AFK, spouts nonsense on chat and trolls instead of playing? A golden feature.

2) Next map vote. Does it needs to be explained? :) It's always pure fun in itself. Could actually happen inside the lobby.

3) Scramble teams. Sometimes the games are just no fun at all. Sometimes you end up in party with your teammates, and would like to fight them instead, not farm the other team. Golden feature as well.

4) Surrender. Yep. Game is fun. But sometimes, match can be straight broken or basically "done" after the first half. With the gold-award system for skill/kills beeing non-existant, even the bets players in the game, but still in the loosing team - gets almost no benefits in beeing in such a game at all. Surrendering should remove the gold earned by points OR the standard +50 gold (for nothing). Depends on how it will be fine tuned later.

1) Vote Kick, in my opinion won't ever end well. As soon as you start hoping that the 'Gaming Masses' will use something like this responsibly, it doesn't seem like it will end well. The vocal minority getting a hold of this feature because they've deemed you 'unworthy' will just vote-kick people due to snap 'meta' judgements "Oh, you're a sentinel...Kick!" Employing some sort of 'Time-Out' feature would be okay....for example, providing a 2 minute idle 'auto-kick' that was built into the game. I think the Mass Effect Multiplayer did this, if you were idle for a wave during the match you were removed and replaced.

2) Map vote, sure, doesn't inherently bother me. Likely rub some people the wrong way because they might not 'like' a map, but no worse than people not like playing against 'Team Reaver' or some other excuse to be upset.

3) Team management seems like it'll be solved in short order when the lobby is further developed. Would be nice if there was some sort of 'Lobby Creation' host like there was in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer. Kinda funny how endless hours playing that game can be somewhat useful :)

4) Surrender, though I see the point of it and people wanting to be time efficient, I don't agree with this one after some thought. For the most part you should be hopping into a game expecting it to take a set period of time. That's the time it takes, win or lose. Whether you win 80-15 or lose 59-62, you've probably spent about 15-20 minutes in the game regardless, baring any major 'roll-over and die' games. Playing against better players is how you get better, it sucks for awhile, but eventually it does start getting better.

hirukaru
2nd Jan 2014, 07:20
@Tube,

I totally agree with your statements about why vote kicking will be abused.
But for the afk part is is easy.

Script:
Calculate non moving time/distance
If distance is less then 10 steps then continue calculating non moving time
If non moving time is >5 min
then Vote kick enabled.

Something like that can solve the kick for AFK issue.
Next to that kicking should not be used in my eyes

Abuse etc. should be reported with a report player key (After and in game)

@hug
I dont like auto kick features, this to the fact that sometimes you might have to run somewhere.
If you tell your team this and they agree its oké the auto kick should not jump in to kick you anyway.

Tube_Reaver
2nd Jan 2014, 12:47
@Tube,

I totally agree with your statements about why vote kicking will be abused.
But for the afk part is is easy.

Script:
Calculate non moving time/distance
If distance is less then 10 steps then continue calculating non moving time
If non moving time is >5 min
then Vote kick enabled.

Something like that can solve the kick for AFK issue.
Next to that kicking should not be used in my eyes

Abuse etc. should be reported with a report player key (After and in game)

@hug
I dont like auto kick features, this to the fact that sometimes you might have to run somewhere.
If you tell your team this and they agree its oké the auto kick should not jump in to kick you anyway.

Well imho if you need to afk for longer than 3-5 mins, then you should just tell your party, apologise and whatnot and just leave (but should still get some points/gold etc).

Remember the rounds are fairly short (again imo), and 3 mins or more is a long time to be away from the game, effectively leaving your team in a 4v3 situation. In that time someone else could have joined and balanced things out.

The auto-kick feature is good enough imo, it's not the best solution maybe, but it's better than nothing, and much better than a vote kick feature.

jestdoit
2nd Jan 2014, 13:27
Scramble teams would help the alpha immensely. It's hard enough to get the players you want in the same game, and when you do, the teams end up stuck with whoever joined on you first. Then everyone leaves after one match because most games are lopsided stacks. Organizing a room of skilled players for extended play shouldn't be a battle against the matchmaking system , particularly in alpha when you want players to do controlled testing/scrims to figure out things that are truly broken. Scramble and next map voting would cut out hours of downtime.

RainaAudron
2nd Jan 2014, 14:40
I still do not agree - if you have an abusive player on your team, then there is nothing you can do about it currently, giving you no choice than to leave yourself instead and if the majority of players was nice, then why should you pay for that one player and have to start a match over... Not to mention the abusive player can stalk you and join your match again if you happen to have free space... I have encountered these situations before in L4D2 and thank goodness it has vote kick. I was only kicked like once or twice because I was playing public game and they had a friend incoming, so I don´t really care if that happens.

Syst3mzero
3rd Jan 2014, 04:34
Now I know some matches become pointless, so in my opinion here is a system:
So let's say round 1 ends with 40-10, now in round 2 once team A (who scored 40 previously) get 11 kills, the game should end with them as the victor, because well, they won, so why drag the match on? I personally feel this is better received than a surrender option, without the annoyance of that ONE player who demands his team surrenders or afks/feeds/trolls etc.


Your system? cheeky, you could give me the credit since I was the one who proposed it in my thread.

http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/showthread.php?t=8642

Tube_Reaver
3rd Jan 2014, 10:49
Your system? cheeky, you could give me the credit since I was the one who proposed it in my thread.

http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/showthread.php?t=8642

I never said it was my system, I merely said "in my opinion here is a system (which can be applied)"


Now I know some matches become pointless, so in my opinion here is a system:
So let's say round 1 ends with 40-10, now in round 2 once team A (who scored 40 previously) get 11 kills, the game should end with them as the victor, because well, they won, so why drag the match on? I personally feel this is better received than a surrender option, without the annoyance of that ONE player who demands his team surrenders or afks/feeds/trolls etc.

FlashTitan
12th Jan 2014, 15:34
I think an option to kick players out of matches for griefing should be added to the game and an option to report players who go afk during matches. Too many times during a match have I had people either give up and just let the enemy team kill them or rage quit half through a match just because they aren't doing so well. Being able to kick out players who afk or feed during matches will help the game greatly in keeping matches a bit balanced. Also being able to report those players will help Psyonix know which players are actually taking matches seriously and those that are just there to make the game miserable for others.

OpferderSeele
12th Jan 2014, 20:29
I don't think this game should have a vote to kick option because people will always abuse such a system. However, a report at the end of the match option should definitely be implemented. I think that is a much better solution that could get trolls and afkers punished rather than an option that could be abused by others simply because they don't want you on their team because you are not part of their friend circle or some such nonsense.

RainaAudron
12th Jan 2014, 21:12
Agreed with FlashTitan.

LOFO1993
12th Jan 2014, 23:25
My take on the matter:

1) This is a tough one. Maybe yes if it needs AT LEAST 6 votes out of 8 people, NO if it needs just the majority. Probably not necessary anyway. Still, the game needs some system to auto-kick idle players.

2) Yes, definitely. But could be excessive if a "free mode" where you can customize your game, invite whoever you want and even set up teams but give no gold or whatever were made. I'd like that one more instead.

3) No, no way. It just needs a decent match-making system. It would be abused a lot by good players to end up all together and have easy wins on the newbies. Not fair at all, much better to adjust things automatically, or even just have teams created randomly. Again, a free mode with teams setting would solve the issue.

4) It is not a stupid thing, but I think it would be a bit excessive. It would take away the focus on the game itself in my opinion, and people would begin making pressure one another to just give up or declare others' victory. I can see this working and being fair only if 100% of the players need to vote yes, but it's such a remote chance I don't really think it's necessary.


So, overall, my answer to the poll is no.

Razaiim
13th Jan 2014, 16:42
I have no desire to see any kind of vote-kick during the match, as it is too easily abused. Once a meta-game develops, anyone who does not strictly fall into it will frequently get booted for simply attempting a different play-style. I have already seen players acting in an aggressive and hurtful manner... and do not want to see this proceed in the life-time of the game.