vote kick should be for team only
Amb
Join Date: 2012-11-09 Member: 168647Members, Reinforced - Supporter
Join Date: 2012-11-09 Member: 168647Members, Reinforced - Supporter
A kick vote is usually cast to kick either an abusive player or an AFKer, players from the opposite team don't usually vote yes and here's why:
1. They don't know if the players is being abusive or not since they can't see/hear their team chat, so they usually vote no or don't vote at all (which counts as a no).
2. Players don't want to vote kick AFKers on the opposite team because it benefits them, I have heard people say this many times "Don't vote yes, let them be stuck with AFKers, it's better for us."
1. They don't know if the players is being abusive or not since they can't see/hear their team chat, so they usually vote no or don't vote at all (which counts as a no).
2. Players don't want to vote kick AFKers on the opposite team because it benefits them, I have heard people say this many times "Don't vote yes, let them be stuck with AFKers, it's better for us."
Comments
I must frequent different servers, 1000 plus hours, never once heard that.
That would certainly help with the map voting where most people don't vote because they just don't care or even know which map is which.
I agree with the OP that kickvoting should be teambased. The only time the opponent team has a reason to kick is when they suspect hacking, but that is far too open to abuse not to mention the fact that they are simply wrong 99% of the time.
Don't forget that people like to abuse this in terms of "let's try to kick the best player(s) of the other team because we are loosing"
it's the same, not voting counts as veto, which is why it's so hard to get a vote going 99% of the time.
Like I said:
You should be able to votekick a hacker. However, it is much more common to abuse the votekick by claiming that a good player is hacking in order to have them removed. If this were the only reason to use the votekick feature it would be a strong argument to remove votekick entirely due to too much abuse. In fact many servers in many games disable the feature for this very reason.
If someone is hacking there should be other options to deal with the situation, and votekick is a fairly poor option to begin with since they can simply come right back anyway.
no = nay vote
abstain = no vote. That way when its 10 yea to 2 nay votes (83% pass) the vote will still pass even when you didn't get the 75% you need if you count then entire server rather than 75% of the votes (IIRC KKG server is 75%)
Either they don't care or else they do care and it's just as likely they missed their chance to vote "yes" as "no". Either way they would count neutral.
Indeed, when we go to the polls, say 65% of people turn out to vote - do we say "bummer, 35% of the seats in parliament will have to be empty" No, we count the 65% as 100% and scale results from there.
Not true. We have vote kick completely disabled. So, it can't be used on my 7 servers at all. It was abused to much. Have no intentions of turning it on regardless of any changes. There is always at least 2 admins on each server, and afk kicker is set to kick afk players.
If there is an issue, and you need an afk player kicked, we have a TeamSpeak3 channel open to reach an admin right away. ts55.gamespeak.com:9502
An exception to this would allowing both teams to vote on kicking Spectators and people in the Ready Room, otherwise I agree completely. Kicking people in the ready room is needed because not every server runs a kick afk script, and the ability to kick spectators is needed otherwise trolls would just go spectate and spam chat messages and just taunt that you can't kick them.
You must indeed, as it is quite common on many public servers I play on. I've seen this happen too often: Ready room gets randomized, five minutes into a game there's still a skulk or marine at spawn not moving with 0 0 0 on the scoreboard, you call a kick vote and announce that the player is AFK and then face 3+ No votes.
PS: Oh I see, I probably didn't vote (away), so it counts as a No.
Makes me wonder though if it would make it easier to abuse kicks within team. I've played more than a few games where a couple trolls on same team will repeatedly start votes to kick their own comm or players simply to troll. Less needed votes seems like it's make it easier for trolls to sway greens inti f1'ing. But I guess trolling is a whole separate issue anyways.
That couldn't be easier. When the trolls cast a vote, everyone vote no, and then start a new vote to kick the trolls and everyone vote yes.
Then because you're not counting them.. And because the two trolls convinced only 1 other person to vote kick that comm.. (or if no one else votes at all) They win every time.
Servers have been disabling the vote kick, as mentioned, for the abuse and griefing that occurs. Consider that thoroughly when you advocate for making it exponentially easier to do so.
Requiring half the amount of people to convince than currently, combined with not counting non votes is just clearing the way for non administrated servers (the only time votes are needed) to be trolled further.
If it weren't for these trolls (which obviously occur) I'd be on board.. But that's not the case
Can't kick the guys sitting in the ready room because of kick disabled
The whole point of having a vote kick system is to get rid of the unwanted player such as the trolls and I'm sure the majority of people in this thread agrees that the system is broken and needs to be fixed.
So I don't see why this would be an issue.
From my experience 2 or 3 people is plenty to shut down a vote on even the largest servers because there are always some AFKs and some people that don't vote
I don't play many other games so I couldn't compare it with what they use?