Not voting is more of an "I don't care" option. Seeing how it usually takes a significant amount of positive votes for anything to pass, I'd say it acts more like a "No" anyway.
While not significant, I do have a small suggestion. Seeing how you can now rebind the voting keys it would be nice if the vote system took the key prompts from your config instead of being the static F1, F2 text.I rebound my keys and keep forgetting what they are when a vote comes up
While not significant, I do have a small suggestion. Seeing how you can now rebind the voting keys it would be nice if the vote system took the key prompts from your config instead of being the static F1, F2 text.I rebound my keys and keep forgetting what they are when a vote comes up
did you rebind those keys via the "bind" console command? Because I did rebind it via the options menu and I get prompted with my rebinded keys on every vote.
While not significant, I do have a small suggestion. Seeing how you can now rebind the voting keys it would be nice if the vote system took the key prompts from your config instead of being the static F1, F2 text.I rebound my keys and keep forgetting what they are when a vote comes up
did you rebind those keys via the "bind" console command? Because I did rebind it via the options menu and I get prompted with my rebinded keys on every vote.
If I recall, I used the options menu. Ill rebind them again just to make sure and see if the prompts display properly.
I like how @amb keeps persisting that the only reason votes don't occur are because people don't care
Not that they view non voting as a no already, or that they may be rookies who don't even see it.
I am beginning to think he just wants to be able to change the map whenever he wants to with his vote being the only one casted, regardless of consequences to the rest of the game for everyone else. Why else would he continue to dismiss these points and carry on?
Also do you have to be a douche to everyone who responds to you? Are you really incapable of civil discourse? or do you have to attempt to ridicule and curse at every person
If they view not voting as a no already, they can be expected to make the shift to actually voting no. Pressing F2 once in a 30-second window is not an inconvenience.
If they're rookies who don't see the vote, I don't think it's fair to assume that they would have voted no if they had seen it.
So I would say that it's fair for Amb to dismiss those arguments. Neither of them is particularly strong. It's also not fair to jump to the conclusion that he wants to be the only voter, nothing in any of his posts suggests that. I do agree that he shouldn't be such a **** to everyone, though. @Amb you're much more likely to get traction for this idea if you treat those who oppose you with respect.
If they're rookies who don't see the vote, I don't think it's fair to assume that they would have voted no if they had seen it.
Wait, is there some kind of system in place that doesn't display votes for rookie players that I'm not aware of, or have we gotten so jaded by rookie confusion that we now assume that it requires hundreds of hours in game to notice and read a giant straightforward yes/no prompt on the screen?
If they're rookies who don't see the vote, I don't think it's fair to assume that they would have voted no if they had seen it.
Wait, is there some kind of system in place that doesn't display votes for rookie players that I'm not aware of, or have we gotten so jaded by rookie confusion that we now assume that it requires hundreds of hour in game to notice and read a giant straightforward yes/no prompt on the screen?
I agree with you, assuming that rookies won't be able to understand a straightforward voting system is fairly ludicrous. However, that was the argument IronHorse presented, so I decided to address it in the same terms. The argument is weak even if we assume that rookies are so clueless that they cannot interact with a simple yes/no voting box.
If they view not voting as a no already, they can be expected to make the shift to actually voting no. Pressing F2 once in a 30-second window is not an inconvenience.
If they're rookies who don't see the vote, I don't think it's fair to assume that they would have voted no if they had seen it.
So very this. Why should ambivalence be given the same weight as an actual vote?
Forgive me if I'm missing your point @Ironhorse, but are you suggesting that changing from 'not voted = no' to 'not voted = not counted' should not be done because then people who don't vote currently would have to actually bother to vote?
I don't think kick votes should be team only, though, but they do need a higher threshold than map change votes.
@amoral it's not cynical that the opposing team doesn't want to kick the AFKer: it's due to the respawn queue. Regardless of the arguments for or against the respawn queue, no-one wants to be caught in it (and no-one wants to join the losing team, especially not now in the light of hive stats). That AFKer often helps to mitigate the slow-down in ability to finish off a game that's already been won long ago caused by people F4ing from the losing team.
I'm sure there are better ways that whole thing can be dealt with. I just see hive stats as only negatively affecting it, though: you can't force people to play and once a game is already lost, many don't just want to sit around for the next 10-20 minutes waiting for the 'lose' message. I guess that comes down to learn2concede...
Imagine a scenario:
Team 1 on the verge of victory. With Team 1 so focused on the game and not paying any mind to the vote-menu, Team 2 puts a vote to restart match to grief the opposing team of their winning moment.
Vote gets passed since no one on Team 1, hypothetically speaking, didn't vote on it and they are robbed of their winning victory due to a resetted match.
If they're rookies who don't see the vote, I don't think it's fair to assume that they would have voted no if they had seen it.
Wait, is there some kind of system in place that doesn't display votes for rookie players that I'm not aware of, or have we gotten so jaded by rookie confusion that we now assume that it requires hundreds of hours in game to notice and read a giant straightforward yes/no prompt on the screen?
Well, we are talking about pubs here. People that play on those servers may not have mastered the techniques necessary for reading the text, processing the information given, then finding and selecting their voting keys in such a short time frame. Heck, at least half the time I see a vote started, I see someone type F 1 in all chat and then complain that their vote didn't go through.
Imagine a scenario:
Team 1 on the verge of victory. With Team 1 so focused on the game and not paying any mind to the vote-menu, Team 2 puts a vote to restart match to grief the opposing team of their winning moment.
Vote gets passed since no one on Team 1, hypothetically speaking, didn't vote on it and they are robbed of their winning victory due to a resetted match.
It isnt hard to get ppl to press F1if your vote has a point. (and they agree)
Not voting = no = you only succeed with your vote if more than 50% (or a more specific percentage) of the entire server püopulation voted yes. It has been like that for ages, in pretty much every game.
Whatever, you can force me to vote no - but I want something for that:
After the added disclaimer next to the active vote that explains this uncommon voting system of not voting = doesnt count as a vote*, and dealing with the possible problem of ppl starting and finishing votes before everybody has finished loading a map change.
If more than 50% of voters that participated, voted NO, the player is not allowed to start a vote again for x minutes, possibly also lowering the percentage required to kick him for that amount of time. (to even then trolling potential is a lot higher than the old system, since its quite a bit easier succeed)
___________
So far the only thing that might be worth adding in my opinion is maybe a team only voting option for certain things like kicking a player in your team.
Sadly i feel it would also be a bit too abusable for public, so it would only like to see that in tournament mode. (once there is matchmaking i would say that is actually a must)
* if i understand it correctly - with that system a vote would succeed if only 1 person voted yes and nobody voted no, no matter how big the server population is?
Forgive me if I'm missing your point @Ironhorse, but are you suggesting that changing from 'not voted = no' to 'not voted = not counted' should not be done because then people who don't vote currently would have to actually bother to vote?
I don't think kick votes should be team only, though, but they do need a higher threshold than map change votes.
@amoral it's not cynical that the opposing team doesn't want to kick the AFKer: it's due to the respawn queue. Regardless of the arguments for or against the respawn queue, no-one wants to be caught in it (and no-one wants to join the losing team, especially not now in the light of hive stats). That AFKer often helps to mitigate the slow-down in ability to finish off a game that's already been won long ago caused by people F4ing from the losing team.
I'm sure there are better ways that whole thing can be dealt with. I just see hive stats as only negatively affecting it, though: you can't force people to play and once a game is already lost, many don't just want to sit around for the next 10-20 minutes waiting for the 'lose' message. I guess that comes down to learn2concede...
wasn't in this thread I don't think, but someone was implying that the opposing team often colluded to vote no to weaken the team with the afk by forcing them to play a player down.. ftw. and that is cynical. granted afk no vote to avoid team balance is a plausible rationale, but that wasn't what the other side was arguing and it wasn't what I was calling cynical.
Imagine a scenario:
Team 1 on the verge of victory. With Team 1 so focused on the game and not paying any mind to the vote-menu, Team 2 puts a vote to restart match to grief the opposing team of their winning moment.
Vote gets passed since no one on Team 1, hypothetically speaking, didn't vote on it and they are robbed of their winning victory due to a resetted match.
It isn't hard to press F2.
it also isn't hard to find your x button, but my Mic must not be working, because voting to eject a comm that timed out is a Sisyphean task apparently.
Why should ambivalence be given the same weight as an actual vote?
Because UWE are all democrats and they are living out their fantasy in NS2. In their perfect little dream world, all the African American voted for their non-African American democrat candidate by staying home doing absolutely nothing.
It isnt hard to get ppl to press F1if your vote has a point. (and they agree)
Not voting = no = you only succeed with your vote if more than 50% (or a more specific percentage) of the entire server püopulation voted yes. It has been like that for ages, in pretty much every game.
Whatever, you can force me to vote no - but I want something for that:
After the added disclaimer next to the active vote that explains this uncommon voting system of not voting = doesnt count as a vote*, and dealing with the possible problem of ppl starting and finishing votes before everybody has finished loading a map change.
If more than 50% of voters that participated, voted NO, the player is not allowed to start a vote again for x minutes, possibly also lowering the percentage required to kick him for that amount of time. (to even then trolling potential is a lot higher than the old system, since its quite a bit easier succeed)
___________
So far the only thing that might be worth adding in my opinion is maybe a team only voting option for certain things like kicking a player in your team.
Sadly i feel it would also be a bit too abusable for public, so it would only like to see that in tournament mode. (once there is matchmaking i would say that is actually a must)
* if i understand it correctly - with that system a vote would succeed if only 1 person voted yes and nobody voted no, no matter how big the server population is?
Maybe we have just had drastically different experiences with gaming, but I haven't ever come across another game where not voting counts as a "no." It's always been a simple majority of the people who actually voted. Coming to NS2 it was odd seeing 10-2 votes that failed.
As for the issue with voting before people load into the map, that's an entirely separate issue that needs to be addressed, but there's no reason to hold onto an imperfect voting system because it deals with another problem. For example, what about having votes that are created when people are loading in last longer, so that everyone has a chance to see them? Or you could set a minimum number of voters that is required to get a vote to pass - that would also solve your concern about a 1-0 vote winning, although I think if everyone on the server is ambivalent besides one person why not let that person get what they want?
Maybe we have just had drastically different experiences with gaming, but I haven't ever come across another game where not voting counts as a "no." It's always been a simple majority of the people who actually voted. Coming to NS2 it was odd seeing 10-2 votes that failed.
HAHAHAHAHAHA xD
You think 10-2 vote failed is bad? Check out 16:0 vote failed on a 24p server because the douche bag admin set minimum vote to 17.
Well we had a game last night with 3 afks on our team, and it took 3 rounds to remove them.
Even after stating "Okay Mr.X is AFK so I will be voting a kick, please press F1"
Good amount of F1s... VOTE FAIL.
Rage!
In most games, if players are not voting, the vote is either thrown out and the total votes are counted, or the votes are counted as a "no". It is safer to say "no" to something if a player is AFK or in game, but doesn't care about voting.
I've seen many games use both, but it shouldn't be so controversial a topic.
We can just use current total votes as a means of fixing the issue. The way I see it is that if player chooses not to vote, then if they come back and complain, the complaint is irrelevant until next vote. The same goes with other players who simply choose not to vote.
Should have a list of the nick names of who didn't vote
That way we can all thrust our anger to them if the vote fails.
There's this one lousy dude called "Steel Mule". He's 300% against excluding ppl who dont vote and he never votes himself thus causing majority of in game votes to fail. I really hate that d-bag.
AurOn2COOKIES! FREEDOM, AND BISCUITS!AustraliaJoin Date: 2012-01-13Member: 140224Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Forum staff
...and you know this how? With your magic amb knows everything Skills? no. you cannot prove that statement.
List of people who didn't vote would be nice!
If you don't want to vote, then you should have no impact on the result of the vote. Current voting is rather dumb when a vote is something like 8-1 and fails.
how is this different to the current system? (besides that yes_votes variable? (which may exist in some form in NS2 too, as all lua code theoretically can be changed by an admin ))
- A 10:2 vote passes on a 10v10 server
- No more misleading "no" votes
- Only one button to press
- Psychological positive effect (e.g. count-down for "yes" votes to pass, animate ppl to vote). Psychological effects have great inpact.
I'm also fine with just counting those that actually voted (4:1 passes). But it also opens way to abuse.
No It wouldn't, you would need more than 50% with 10 yes votes on a 20 slot server it would fail.
As far as I know, admins can decide which ratio these votes needs to pass, so you can configure the present voting system to pass at 51% yes votes, so a 11:whatever can pass.
a different configuration isn't a different system...
Comments
While not significant, I do have a small suggestion. Seeing how you can now rebind the voting keys it would be nice if the vote system took the key prompts from your config instead of being the static F1, F2 text.I rebound my keys and keep forgetting what they are when a vote comes up
did you rebind those keys via the "bind" console command? Because I did rebind it via the options menu and I get prompted with my rebinded keys on every vote.
If I recall, I used the options menu. Ill rebind them again just to make sure and see if the prompts display properly.
If they view not voting as a no already, they can be expected to make the shift to actually voting no. Pressing F2 once in a 30-second window is not an inconvenience.
If they're rookies who don't see the vote, I don't think it's fair to assume that they would have voted no if they had seen it.
So I would say that it's fair for Amb to dismiss those arguments. Neither of them is particularly strong. It's also not fair to jump to the conclusion that he wants to be the only voter, nothing in any of his posts suggests that. I do agree that he shouldn't be such a **** to everyone, though. @Amb you're much more likely to get traction for this idea if you treat those who oppose you with respect.
Wait, is there some kind of system in place that doesn't display votes for rookie players that I'm not aware of, or have we gotten so jaded by rookie confusion that we now assume that it requires hundreds of hours in game to notice and read a giant straightforward yes/no prompt on the screen?
I agree with you, assuming that rookies won't be able to understand a straightforward voting system is fairly ludicrous. However, that was the argument IronHorse presented, so I decided to address it in the same terms. The argument is weak even if we assume that rookies are so clueless that they cannot interact with a simple yes/no voting box.
So very this. Why should ambivalence be given the same weight as an actual vote?
I don't think kick votes should be team only, though, but they do need a higher threshold than map change votes.
@amoral it's not cynical that the opposing team doesn't want to kick the AFKer: it's due to the respawn queue. Regardless of the arguments for or against the respawn queue, no-one wants to be caught in it (and no-one wants to join the losing team, especially not now in the light of hive stats). That AFKer often helps to mitigate the slow-down in ability to finish off a game that's already been won long ago caused by people F4ing from the losing team.
I'm sure there are better ways that whole thing can be dealt with. I just see hive stats as only negatively affecting it, though: you can't force people to play and once a game is already lost, many don't just want to sit around for the next 10-20 minutes waiting for the 'lose' message. I guess that comes down to learn2concede...
Imagine a scenario:
Team 1 on the verge of victory. With Team 1 so focused on the game and not paying any mind to the vote-menu, Team 2 puts a vote to restart match to grief the opposing team of their winning moment.
Vote gets passed since no one on Team 1, hypothetically speaking, didn't vote on it and they are robbed of their winning victory due to a resetted match.
Well, we are talking about pubs here. People that play on those servers may not have mastered the techniques necessary for reading the text, processing the information given, then finding and selecting their voting keys in such a short time frame. Heck, at least half the time I see a vote started, I see someone type F 1 in all chat and then complain that their vote didn't go through.
It isn't hard to press F2.
Not voting = no = you only succeed with your vote if more than 50% (or a more specific percentage) of the entire server püopulation voted yes.
It has been like that for ages, in pretty much every game.
Whatever, you can force me to vote no - but I want something for that:
After the added disclaimer next to the active vote that explains this uncommon voting system of not voting = doesnt count as a vote*, and dealing with the possible problem of ppl starting and finishing votes before everybody has finished loading a map change.
If more than 50% of voters that participated, voted NO, the player is not allowed to start a vote again for x minutes, possibly also lowering the percentage required to kick him for that amount of time. (to even then trolling potential is a lot higher than the old system, since its quite a bit easier succeed)
___________
So far the only thing that might be worth adding in my opinion is maybe a team only voting option for certain things like kicking a player in your team.
Sadly i feel it would also be a bit too abusable for public, so it would only like to see that in tournament mode. (once there is matchmaking i would say that is actually a must)
* if i understand it correctly - with that system a vote would succeed if only 1 person voted yes and nobody voted no, no matter how big the server population is?
wasn't in this thread I don't think, but someone was implying that the opposing team often colluded to vote no to weaken the team with the afk by forcing them to play a player down.. ftw. and that is cynical. granted afk no vote to avoid team balance is a plausible rationale, but that wasn't what the other side was arguing and it wasn't what I was calling cynical.
it also isn't hard to find your x button, but my Mic must not be working, because voting to eject a comm that timed out is a Sisyphean task apparently.
Because UWE are all democrats and they are living out their fantasy in NS2. In their perfect little dream world, all the African American voted for their non-African American democrat candidate by staying home doing absolutely nothing.
Maybe we have just had drastically different experiences with gaming, but I haven't ever come across another game where not voting counts as a "no." It's always been a simple majority of the people who actually voted. Coming to NS2 it was odd seeing 10-2 votes that failed.
As for the issue with voting before people load into the map, that's an entirely separate issue that needs to be addressed, but there's no reason to hold onto an imperfect voting system because it deals with another problem. For example, what about having votes that are created when people are loading in last longer, so that everyone has a chance to see them? Or you could set a minimum number of voters that is required to get a vote to pass - that would also solve your concern about a 1-0 vote winning, although I think if everyone on the server is ambivalent besides one person why not let that person get what they want?
HAHAHAHAHAHA xD
You think 10-2 vote failed is bad? Check out 16:0 vote failed on a 24p server because the douche bag admin set minimum vote to 17.
Even after stating "Okay Mr.X is AFK so I will be voting a kick, please press F1"
Good amount of F1s... VOTE FAIL.
Rage!
I've seen many games use both, but it shouldn't be so controversial a topic.
We can just use current total votes as a means of fixing the issue. The way I see it is that if player chooses not to vote, then if they come back and complain, the complaint is irrelevant until next vote. The same goes with other players who simply choose not to vote.
That way we can all thrust our anger to them if the vote fails.
There's this one lousy dude called "Steel Mule". He's 300% against excluding ppl who dont vote and he never votes himself thus causing majority of in game votes to fail. I really hate that d-bag.
List of people who didn't vote would be nice!
- No more misleading "no" votes
- Only one button to press
- Psychological positive effect (e.g. count-down for "yes" votes to pass, animate ppl to vote). Psychological effects have great inpact.
I'm also fine with just counting those that actually voted (4:1 passes). But it also opens way to abuse.
As far as I know, admins can decide which ratio these votes needs to pass, so you can configure the present voting system to pass at 51% yes votes, so a 11:whatever can pass.
a different configuration isn't a different system...
Thats true. And I like this.
if predicate true, vote passes