Yep, all my brain parsed was "Syntax Error" so the vote failed nevertheless
On Topic: I am strictly against a 50% pass! 51% is fine. But non majority should never pass. If the voting system got changed so that non voters don't count, a 51% of voters only, is fine too. But a 10:10 vote (and nothing else is a 10:2 vote currently) have to fail!
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
Its clear what happens if you implement a system where only 1 or 2 votes out of a 24 player server are able to change the map, kick players or reset rounds etc. Well, its clear to most users in here..
But what i think some of you aren't considering is that if you address this by creating a requisite like 50% of all players must vote first before votes are even accounted for, you have just allowed the same system to exist : Players can vote NO by non action, whether intentional or not.
So this goal some of you have with fixing this issue only exists in a vacuum... at best, you can only address the fringe cases where its a high ratio like when 10:1 fails on a 20 player server. (which, i am in favor of fixing) Purely by implementing a hidden and uncommunicated system where a % of total votes must occur first.
But no matter what you will still have players voting NO by non action (again, whether intentional or not) to a certain threshold.
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.
That racism and politics are not allowed on these forums.
I don't see the problem with "grief voting". If you think players might end up in a situation where they don't have time to vote, simply make the vote last longer. Lets say all votes last 60 seconds or until 80% of the players have voted. If you don't have the time to press a single key during 60 seconds, you shouldn't be playing NS2. Also add in a sound cue to wake up players so engrossed in their game that they don't see the vote. Simple bleep would suffice, course a "It's time to VO VO VO VOTE" would be better.
Just do it like voting in sourcemod. Minimum player % required for any vote to pass, lets say default of 60%.
While at it, add in an option to disallow certain votes when an admin is online and you got yourself a pretty solid system. Course you could do more like "min players required before voting" and "cooldown after vote" but that stuff really isn't needed.
Absentee voting should never count as a NO vote as nothing gets done this way. The above system works great in source. NS2 voting system is rather obscure and people feel cheated when they see 7 - 1 vote failing.
You don't know whether the map vote is something you'll like? Vote no. Not voting is simply a lack of paying attention to the vote, rarely do people not vote in games because they don't know what to vote for. Voting in games is hardly thinking material, versus lets say presidential elections. Right now some players simply don't notice the vote, just like some people don't read chat while playing games. Easily over-come by the above suggestion.
The eject/concede voting is pretty good as is. It can be hard to get a vote through at times so a little reminder every 60s showcasing the vote (EJECT/CONCEDE) along with the amount of votes so far would help towards awareness. Simply cram this in the same location as current "yes" votes. I believe this is in chat.
Also add in a sound cue to wake up players so engrossed in their game that they don't see the vote. Simple bleep would suffice, course a "It's time to VO VO VO VOTE" would be better.
So repeatedly calling the same vote over and over gets much more annoying than it is right now...
Just do it like voting in sourcemod. Minimum player % required for any vote to pass, lets say default of 60%.
While at it, add in an option to disallow certain votes when an admin is online and you got yourself a pretty solid system. Course you could do more like "min players required before voting" and "cooldown after vote" but that stuff really isn't needed.
This would even encourage "no"-voters to not vote at all. because if they don't vote they count together with the non-voters to fail the vote. (example (yes:no:didn't vote): 7:5:3 would pass but 7:0:8 would fail.)
The eject/concede voting is pretty good as is. It can be hard to get a vote through at times so a little reminder every 60s showcasing the vote (EJECT/CONCEDE) along with the amount of votes so far would help towards awareness. Simply cram this in the same location as current "yes" votes. I believe this is in chat.
The eject vote is basically like the normal vote. But Non-Voters and No-Voters don't get separated. But Non-Voters still get counted as a "No"...
The above system works great in source. NS2 voting system is rather obscure and people feel cheated when they see 7 - 1 vote failing.
I think the main problem we have, is a mental one on the side of the vote caller. They don't see the number of non-voters, they only see a high number of "yes". If every non-voter would be shown as "no" until they vote "yes", nobody would see a problem.
Its clear what happens if you implement a system where only 1 or 2 votes out of a 24 player server are able to change the map, kick players or reset rounds etc. Well, its clear to most users in here..
But what i think some of you aren't considering is that if you address this by creating a requisite like 50% of all players must vote first before votes are even accounted for, you have just allowed the same system to exist : Players can vote NO by non action, whether intentional or not.
So this goal some of you have with fixing this issue only exists in a vacuum... at best, you can only address the fringe cases where its a high ratio like when 10:1 fails on a 20 player server. (which, i am in favor of fixing) Purely by implementing a hidden and uncommunicated system where a % of total votes must occur first.
But no matter what you will still have players voting NO by non action (again, whether intentional or not) to a certain threshold.
I already provided a neat solution by stating that sometimes I don't know if I want to change a map or not, so sometimes I don't vote. If that is the case then why not have a third option - something like "undecided". That way you get get enough votes, allowing the 3 yes to beat the 1 no.
We all know that in a 24 man server, 10 people voting yes and 0 voting no just doesn't sound right. If 14 people did not vote, why not? Either they didn't care enough about the result, they did not know (how does this happen?!?!?!?! I don't care if you're rookie - if you're illiterate I don't know how you got the game working), or either independent of, or in combination with, option 2 (in which you know of the vote but are not knowledgeable of the different - a la perhaps a change to a map you've not seen before), they are largely indifferent. Can we count the third option as a "no"? Arguably we could, but with a simple third option as I already suggested...
I already provided a neat solution by stating that sometimes I don't know if I want to change a map or not, so sometimes I don't vote. If that is the case then why not have a third option - something like "undecided". That way you get get enough votes, allowing the 3 yes to beat the 1 no.
But then we would have 4 "states". Yes, no, undecided and "not yet voted".
How get a "not yet voted" counted? Still as "no"? If yes, I think I like the idea. But I think I like the idea of only "yes" votes (like the eject / concede vote right now) much more, because it is more simple and more intuitive to most people. Especially if the threshold the votes need are displayed like they are at the eject votes.
Its clear what happens if you implement a system where only 1 or 2 votes out of a 24 player server are able to change the map, kick players or reset rounds etc. Well, its clear to most users in here..
But what i think some of you aren't considering is that if you address this by creating a requisite like 50% of all players must vote first before votes are even accounted for, you have just allowed the same system to exist : Players can vote NO by non action, whether intentional or not.
So this goal some of you have with fixing this issue only exists in a vacuum... at best, you can only address the fringe cases where its a high ratio like when 10:1 fails on a 20 player server. (which, i am in favor of fixing) Purely by implementing a hidden and uncommunicated system where a % of total votes must occur first.
But no matter what you will still have players voting NO by non action (again, whether intentional or not) to a certain threshold.
you won't find the sweet spot. there's no way to discount apathetic voters and protect against aggressively trolling teams and hackers all with one system. I prefer to err on the side of caution and just set a certain percentage of yes votes. 50 percent. maybe make it rolling if you want. an abstain counts as 3/5ths. as a nod to our troubled history. yay, racism, if it was good enough for our Congress it's good enough for me. then limit the votes to each person can call a vote with a cooldown of 5 minutes. so, for a 20 man game where you want to kick a hacker, and nobody on his team besides him wants to keep him, you need 8 people to vote yes. also make it a 5 minute ban if you're kicked by vote. I'd say adjust the percentage if you want but 3/5ths should definitely stay.
Its clear what happens if you implement a system where only 1 or 2 votes out of a 24 player server are able to change the map, kick players or reset rounds etc. Well, its clear to most users in here..
But what i think some of you aren't considering is that if you address this by creating a requisite like 50% of all players must vote first before votes are even accounted for, you have just allowed the same system to exist : Players can vote NO by non action, whether intentional or not.
So this goal some of you have with fixing this issue only exists in a vacuum... at best, you can only address the fringe cases where its a high ratio like when 10:1 fails on a 20 player server. (which, i am in favor of fixing) Purely by implementing a hidden and uncommunicated system where a % of total votes must occur first.
But no matter what you will still have players voting NO by non action (again, whether intentional or not) to a certain threshold.
you won't find the sweet spot. there's no way to discount apathetic voters and protect against aggressively trolling teams and hackers all with one system. I prefer to err on the side of caution and just set a certain percentage of yes votes. 50 percent. maybe make it rolling if you want. an abstain counts as 3/5ths. as a nod to our troubled history. yay, racism, if it was good enough for our Congress it's good enough for me. then limit the votes to each person can call a vote with a cooldown of 5 minutes. so, for a 20 man game where you want to kick a hacker, and nobody on his team besides him wants to keep him, you need 8 people to vote yes. also make it a 5 minute ban if you're kicked by vote. I'd say adjust the percentage if you want but 3/5ths should definitely stay.
I find 60% for a kickvote a little bit low. Kicking should be hard or it will be abused. (I didn't see a Hacker in months, but I saw many kickvotes because of false hacker accusations of good player (And AFK people should be addressed with an automatic system, like mentioned before in this thread))
So repeatedly calling the same vote over and over gets much more annoying than it is right now...
Add in a cooldown if you must. I never had any issues with amxx or sourcemod with the sounds. Those examples do have a cooldown in place after a failed vote so it's hard to say for certain. I suppose a cooldown should be put in place to prevent that.
This would even encourage "no"-voters to not vote at all. because if they don't vote they count together with the non-voters to fail the vote. (example (yes:no:didn't vote): 7:5:3 would pass but 7:0:8 would fail.)
Most players won't think this way and ultimately that's what counts. You're making a system that works in 99% of the cases, trolling or bypassing a system will always be possible. What matters is that its a better system then what we got right now.
No bullet proof voting is possible, this is why heavy admined servers will simply disable voting all together.
The eject vote is basically like the normal vote. But Non-Voters and No-Voters don't get separated. But Non-Voters still get counted as a "No"...
Well aware of this, simply stating this does not need changing as eject or conceding shouldn't be made too easy. Frankly the vote system I've suggested would work fine for this as well. It doesn't require much effort to vote yes or no rather then "opt in".
I think the main problem we have, is a mental one on the side of the vote caller. They don't see the number of non-voters, they only see a high number of "yes". If every non-voter would be shown as "no" until they vote "yes", nobody would see a problem.
I wouldn't really call it a mental problem. People simply forget to vote or can't vote due to being AFK. Those people shouldn't count as a no vote.
You'll find that most games with a proper voting system uses the "min %" required option as this is simply the best solution anyone has come up with. Voting is already inherently flawed and open for abuse. There are some exceptions to the % rule, like L4D2 voting but that has more to do with small numbers then anything else.
It can be hard to get communication going in games these days, hence forcing people to at least vote for something wouldn't hurt.
If people are unwilling to communicate their desires to the team then their vote shouldn't count.
I find 60% for a kickvote a little bit low. Kicking should be hard or it will be abused. (I didn't see a Hacker in months, but I saw many kickvotes because of false hacker accusations of good player (And AFK people should be addressed with an automatic system, like mentioned before in this thread))
I've had a few kick votes against me in the past but I've never had one succeed. If over 50% of the players want you gone then it seems reasonable enough to let the vote pass. While kicking good players is bad sportsmanship, one might argue that roflstomping them is as well.
I find vote kicking players based on skill to be quite distasteful but that's one of the inherent flaws of voting. Good active servers won't have vote kicking enabled and will simply handle it with admins or "ban appeal" on their forums.
Its clear what happens if you implement a system where only 1 or 2 votes out of a 24 player server are able to change the map, kick players or reset rounds etc. Well, its clear to most users in here..
But what i think some of you aren't considering is that if you address this by creating a requisite like 50% of all players must vote first before votes are even accounted for, you have just allowed the same system to exist : Players can vote NO by non action, whether intentional or not.
So this goal some of you have with fixing this issue only exists in a vacuum... at best, you can only address the fringe cases where its a high ratio like when 10:1 fails on a 20 player server. (which, i am in favor of fixing) Purely by implementing a hidden and uncommunicated system where a % of total votes must occur first.
But no matter what you will still have players voting NO by non action (again, whether intentional or not) to a certain threshold.
Who cares if it's not perfect - it's still an improvement on what we currently have. Barely any proposed changes are completely perfect by design - if you can address these fringe cases then they should be.
Also, I would put in a 3rd "Don't Care" voting option. This would be for people who expressly want their apathy or ambivalence counted. Voting for "Don't Care" would do nothing apart from increase the number of people counted towards the total number of votes (for the minimum). Thus, if we're using a 50% total minimum, a vote will pass on a 24 player server if 12 people vote 'Don't Care' and one person votes "yes" (although this is an extreme example, I think it's still fair it should work this way).
Tbh, I'm also in favour of a low minimum vote number. Like 25% as opposed to 50%. If people don't want to vote, that's their problem. The only reason that a non-action 'no' is still an issue is because total players is even considered at all.
Also, voting needs to be possible from inside the command station. (EDIT: wait I think it might be, could just be confusing it with concede)
As for voting, non-votes should have a third weight when calculating the success/cancel conditions. This will keep very small groups of voters from running the show, and this protection erodes once more are interested in the outcome.
As for voting, non-votes should have a third weight when calculating the success/cancel conditions. This will keep very small groups of voters from running the show, and this protection erodes once more are interested in the outcome.
How does one run the show with a public vote? You could simply disagree and vote no.
As long as there's ample time to vote and the vote has enough attention drawn to it then nobody could be rigging anything.
New idea: If a map vote fails for a particular map directly preceding a map change, the next map won't be that map
I disagree, simply because right now a successful map vote changes the map instantly . I have no desire to switch map mid-game and thus would vote "no". This doesn't mean I don't like to play that map. Your idea is logical but has a few loopholes that ultimately its probably easier to go for a simple "next map vote".
The next map would ideally be a vote rather then a pre-determined mapcycle. Along with the option to block the recent map from being voted on for X amount of maps.
I always find map voting to be a double edged blade. People quickly find a favorite map and before long you'll be playing the same map over and over. Probably not likely to occur in NS2 as all maps are quite similar as is. Also made considerably harder by blocking a map for a few cycles.
I personally like the current system of no voting for map, its nice to play a game for once where I actually get to play all the maps. Course you do have map voting as is but its incredibly limited and practically never goes through. If there be a rock the vote system you'd probably see a lot more map switches.
New idea: If a map vote fails for a particular map directly preceding a map change, the next map won't be that map
I disagree, simply because right now a successful map vote changes the map instantly . I have no desire to switch map mid-game and thus would vote "no". This doesn't mean I don't like to play that map. Your idea is logical but has a few loopholes that ultimately its probably easier to go for a simple "next map vote".
The next map would ideally be a vote rather then a pre-determined mapcycle. Along with the option to block the recent map from being voted on for X amount of maps.
I always find map voting to be a double edged blade. People quickly find a favorite map and before long you'll be playing the same map over and over. Probably not likely to occur in NS2 as all maps are quite similar as is. Also made considerably harder by blocking a map for a few cycles.
I personally like the current system of no voting for map, its nice to play a game for once where I actually get to play all the maps. Course you do have map voting as is but its incredibly limited and practically never goes through. If there be a rock the vote system you'd probably see a lot more map switches.
Sorry I should have explained that better - I mean after the end of a round when everybody's back in the ready room, seconds before the map is scheduled to change. So not mid round.
If the vote finishes before the round is ended then that map isn't excluded. But if it ends after the game is over then you won't end up switching to that map straight after the vote for it fails.
Who cares if it's not perfect - it's still an improvement on what we currently have. Barely any proposed changes are completely perfect by design - if you can address these fringe cases then they should be.
I completely agree and feel it should be implemented.. but people who are voting in this thread are not voting for this imperfect system.. they are voting for a system that only exists in a vacuum.
Your post clearly demonstrates this:
Tbh, I'm also in favour of a low minimum vote number. Like 25% as opposed to 50%. If people don't want to vote, that's their problem. The only reason that a non-action 'no' is still an issue is because total players is even considered at all.
You still aren't accounting for new players who do not see the vote in all the chaos, and are assuming everyone sees that option and chooses not to vote.
I can attest that this is not the case, and so can the developers after we have watched thousands upon thousands of new players not even notice the giant orange flashing icon in the center of their screen that says press B to evolve. Haven't you wondered why rookies sit on 100 pres?
You cannot discount these new oblivious players, their experience in their beginning hours are important, and not counting their inaction would allow for the minority participation and will to control their experience in potentially negative and abusive ways. (hell, voting is disabled on many community servers for this reason alone, already, with the current difficult to succeed system) It would be poor design, and i cannot think of one game that operates this way.
I also think if you address said edge cases that were previously mentioned, people would cease to have a problem with the system, and threads like these would not exist.
Who cares if it's not perfect - it's still an improvement on what we currently have. Barely any proposed changes are completely perfect by design - if you can address these fringe cases then they should be.
I completely agree and feel it should be implemented.. but people who are voting in this thread are not voting for this imperfect system.. they are voting for a system that only exists in a vacuum.
Your post clearly demonstrates this:
Tbh, I'm also in favour of a low minimum vote number. Like 25% as opposed to 50%. If people don't want to vote, that's their problem. The only reason that a non-action 'no' is still an issue is because total players is even considered at all.
You still aren't accounting for new players who do not see the vote in all the chaos, and are assuming everyone sees that option and chooses not to vote.
I can attest that this is not the case, and so can the developers after we have watched thousands upon thousands of new players not even notice the giant orange flashing icon in the center of their screen that says press B to evolve. Haven't you wondered why rookies sit on 100 pres?
You cannot discount these new oblivious players, their experience in their beginning hours are important, and not counting their inaction would allow for the minority participation and will to control their experience in potentially negative and abusive ways. (hell, voting is disabled on many community servers for this reason alone, already, with the current difficult to succeed system) It would be poor design, and i cannot think of one game that operates this way.
I also think if you address said edge cases that were previously mentioned, people would cease to have a problem with the system, and threads like these would not exist.
sometimes I'll float 100 pres because skulking is just more fun.
You still aren't accounting for new players who do not see the vote in all the chaos, and are assuming everyone sees that option and chooses not to vote.
I can attest that this is not the case, and so can the developers after we have watched thousands upon thousands of new players not even notice the giant orange flashing icon in the center of their screen that says press B to evolve. Haven't you wondered why rookies sit on 100 pres?
You cannot discount these new oblivious players, their experience in their beginning hours are important, and not counting their inaction would allow for the minority participation and will to control their experience in potentially negative and abusive ways. (hell, voting is disabled on many community servers for this reason alone, already, with the current difficult to succeed system) It would be poor design, and i cannot think of one game that operates this way.
I also think if you address said edge cases that were previously mentioned, people would cease to have a problem with the system, and threads like these would not exist.
I had considered scenarios where people don't vote not because they didn't want to but because they hadn't seen the vote. I just didn't mention it in the text because whilst it's good to cover everything, my post probably would have been far too verbose if I had. I understand that "If people don't want to vote, that's their problem" suggests that I think that apathy is the only reason that a player might not participate in a vote, but I don't.
As for new players - I think actually having to participate in votes to have an effect on their outcome is actually a good way for them to learn how to vote and to notice when a vote is being cast.
You're right that if edge cases were addressed then nobody would have a problem with the current system. However, the current system does not address these edge cases. The proposed system, with the addition of a minimum vote requirement, does, and protects against extreme scenarios where a significant subsection of the server doesn't vote.
Anyway, another thing to consider if this change ever happens is the effect of players still joining a server. Often randomize readyroom votes are done at the very start of a map directly after a map change. When you hold tab it appears that more people have loaded than those who actually have. As a result a lot of randomize votes seem to fail if cast too quickly (which is an issue in itself as if you wait too long then the teams start to become populated). It may be unfair to discount the people who don't vote in this scenario - as they never get the opportunity to (i.e. if half of the team is still loading, a vote shouldn't pass under the proposed changes even if they pass the minimum and have a majority, as the loaders never get the chance to vote no). Also, if a player is afk during the vote, their vote should not be counted (and treated the same as the proposed 'don't care' option in my previous post).
Another thing - spectator and readyroom votes should not count towards 'reset game' votes. Also, spectator votes should not count towards 'randomize readyroom' votes.
it's like, wait, I have 100 p-res? should i spend it?... lerk, but i just played lerk, fade, but it's not really that fun... and onos is too slow... plus now we have xenocide to troll with... skulk it is.
Another thing - spectator and readyroom votes should not count towards 'reset game' votes. Also, spectator votes should not count towards 'randomize readyroom' votes.
you seem to be promoting a change that would have the sole distinctive feature of being the more efficient at placing afkers onto teams.
hrm, i was kinda tired when i wrote that... but not counting spectators and people in the ready room for a vote only serves the purpose of increasing the number of AFKers that end up actually in the game. a problem that people are specifically bitching about as justification for upending the voting system for in the first place.
Readyroomers could still vote for (or against) a random readyroom. Whilst extra information on who's afk is good (although usually it's completely ignored when afks are pointed out), it's doubtful that it will come from spectators as they are watching the game, not the readyroom. I don't believe discluding specs from random votes will lead to more afks being put into teams except in extremely rare cases.
The reason for this proposed change is to prevent the deciding vote coming from somebody who has no business voting on the outcome in the first place. Reset votes need to be up to the people actually playing, and it's unfair that a vote should fail or pass in part due to a readyroomer or spec (could be trolling, could be afk, could simply be apathetic to voting due to the fact it doesn't effect them). Likewise, randomize votes need to be up to the people already playing or joining, and thus a spectator should have no influence.
Comments
Yep, all my brain parsed was "Syntax Error" so the vote failed nevertheless
On Topic: I am strictly against a 50% pass! 51% is fine. But non majority should never pass. If the voting system got changed so that non voters don't count, a 51% of voters only, is fine too. But a 10:10 vote (and nothing else is a 10:2 vote currently) have to fail!
But what i think some of you aren't considering is that if you address this by creating a requisite like 50% of all players must vote first before votes are even accounted for, you have just allowed the same system to exist : Players can vote NO by non action, whether intentional or not.
So this goal some of you have with fixing this issue only exists in a vacuum... at best, you can only address the fringe cases where its a high ratio like when 10:1 fails on a 20 player server. (which, i am in favor of fixing) Purely by implementing a hidden and uncommunicated system where a % of total votes must occur first.
But no matter what you will still have players voting NO by non action (again, whether intentional or not) to a certain threshold.
That racism and politics are not allowed on these forums.
Just do it like voting in sourcemod. Minimum player % required for any vote to pass, lets say default of 60%.
While at it, add in an option to disallow certain votes when an admin is online and you got yourself a pretty solid system. Course you could do more like "min players required before voting" and "cooldown after vote" but that stuff really isn't needed.
Absentee voting should never count as a NO vote as nothing gets done this way. The above system works great in source. NS2 voting system is rather obscure and people feel cheated when they see 7 - 1 vote failing.
You don't know whether the map vote is something you'll like? Vote no. Not voting is simply a lack of paying attention to the vote, rarely do people not vote in games because they don't know what to vote for. Voting in games is hardly thinking material, versus lets say presidential elections. Right now some players simply don't notice the vote, just like some people don't read chat while playing games. Easily over-come by the above suggestion.
The eject/concede voting is pretty good as is. It can be hard to get a vote through at times so a little reminder every 60s showcasing the vote (EJECT/CONCEDE) along with the amount of votes so far would help towards awareness. Simply cram this in the same location as current "yes" votes. I believe this is in chat.
This would even encourage "no"-voters to not vote at all. because if they don't vote they count together with the non-voters to fail the vote. (example (yes:no:didn't vote): 7:5:3 would pass but 7:0:8 would fail.)
The eject vote is basically like the normal vote. But Non-Voters and No-Voters don't get separated. But Non-Voters still get counted as a "No"...
I think the main problem we have, is a mental one on the side of the vote caller. They don't see the number of non-voters, they only see a high number of "yes". If every non-voter would be shown as "no" until they vote "yes", nobody would see a problem.
I already provided a neat solution by stating that sometimes I don't know if I want to change a map or not, so sometimes I don't vote. If that is the case then why not have a third option - something like "undecided". That way you get get enough votes, allowing the 3 yes to beat the 1 no.
We all know that in a 24 man server, 10 people voting yes and 0 voting no just doesn't sound right. If 14 people did not vote, why not? Either they didn't care enough about the result, they did not know (how does this happen?!?!?!?! I don't care if you're rookie - if you're illiterate I don't know how you got the game working), or either independent of, or in combination with, option 2 (in which you know of the vote but are not knowledgeable of the different - a la perhaps a change to a map you've not seen before), they are largely indifferent. Can we count the third option as a "no"? Arguably we could, but with a simple third option as I already suggested...
How get a "not yet voted" counted? Still as "no"? If yes, I think I like the idea. But I think I like the idea of only "yes" votes (like the eject / concede vote right now) much more, because it is more simple and more intuitive to most people. Especially if the threshold the votes need are displayed like they are at the eject votes.
you won't find the sweet spot. there's no way to discount apathetic voters and protect against aggressively trolling teams and hackers all with one system. I prefer to err on the side of caution and just set a certain percentage of yes votes. 50 percent. maybe make it rolling if you want. an abstain counts as 3/5ths. as a nod to our troubled history. yay, racism, if it was good enough for our Congress it's good enough for me. then limit the votes to each person can call a vote with a cooldown of 5 minutes. so, for a 20 man game where you want to kick a hacker, and nobody on his team besides him wants to keep him, you need 8 people to vote yes. also make it a 5 minute ban if you're kicked by vote. I'd say adjust the percentage if you want but 3/5ths should definitely stay.
I find 60% for a kickvote a little bit low. Kicking should be hard or it will be abused. (I didn't see a Hacker in months, but I saw many kickvotes because of false hacker accusations of good player (And AFK people should be addressed with an automatic system, like mentioned before in this thread))
For a Mapvote 60% should be enough, though.
Add in a cooldown if you must. I never had any issues with amxx or sourcemod with the sounds. Those examples do have a cooldown in place after a failed vote so it's hard to say for certain. I suppose a cooldown should be put in place to prevent that.
Most players won't think this way and ultimately that's what counts. You're making a system that works in 99% of the cases, trolling or bypassing a system will always be possible. What matters is that its a better system then what we got right now.
No bullet proof voting is possible, this is why heavy admined servers will simply disable voting all together.
Well aware of this, simply stating this does not need changing as eject or conceding shouldn't be made too easy. Frankly the vote system I've suggested would work fine for this as well. It doesn't require much effort to vote yes or no rather then "opt in".
I wouldn't really call it a mental problem. People simply forget to vote or can't vote due to being AFK. Those people shouldn't count as a no vote.
You'll find that most games with a proper voting system uses the "min %" required option as this is simply the best solution anyone has come up with. Voting is already inherently flawed and open for abuse. There are some exceptions to the % rule, like L4D2 voting but that has more to do with small numbers then anything else.
It can be hard to get communication going in games these days, hence forcing people to at least vote for something wouldn't hurt.
If people are unwilling to communicate their desires to the team then their vote shouldn't count.
I've had a few kick votes against me in the past but I've never had one succeed. If over 50% of the players want you gone then it seems reasonable enough to let the vote pass. While kicking good players is bad sportsmanship, one might argue that roflstomping them is as well.
I find vote kicking players based on skill to be quite distasteful but that's one of the inherent flaws of voting. Good active servers won't have vote kicking enabled and will simply handle it with admins or "ban appeal" on their forums.
Who cares if it's not perfect - it's still an improvement on what we currently have. Barely any proposed changes are completely perfect by design - if you can address these fringe cases then they should be.
Also, I would put in a 3rd "Don't Care" voting option. This would be for people who expressly want their apathy or ambivalence counted. Voting for "Don't Care" would do nothing apart from increase the number of people counted towards the total number of votes (for the minimum). Thus, if we're using a 50% total minimum, a vote will pass on a 24 player server if 12 people vote 'Don't Care' and one person votes "yes" (although this is an extreme example, I think it's still fair it should work this way).
Tbh, I'm also in favour of a low minimum vote number. Like 25% as opposed to 50%. If people don't want to vote, that's their problem. The only reason that a non-action 'no' is still an issue is because total players is even considered at all.
Also, voting needs to be possible from inside the command station. (EDIT: wait I think it might be, could just be confusing it with concede)
No it hasn't.
As for voting, non-votes should have a third weight when calculating the success/cancel conditions. This will keep very small groups of voters from running the show, and this protection erodes once more are interested in the outcome.
How does one run the show with a public vote? You could simply disagree and vote no.
As long as there's ample time to vote and the vote has enough attention drawn to it then nobody could be rigging anything.
I disagree, simply because right now a successful map vote changes the map instantly . I have no desire to switch map mid-game and thus would vote "no". This doesn't mean I don't like to play that map. Your idea is logical but has a few loopholes that ultimately its probably easier to go for a simple "next map vote".
The next map would ideally be a vote rather then a pre-determined mapcycle. Along with the option to block the recent map from being voted on for X amount of maps.
I always find map voting to be a double edged blade. People quickly find a favorite map and before long you'll be playing the same map over and over. Probably not likely to occur in NS2 as all maps are quite similar as is. Also made considerably harder by blocking a map for a few cycles.
I personally like the current system of no voting for map, its nice to play a game for once where I actually get to play all the maps. Course you do have map voting as is but its incredibly limited and practically never goes through. If there be a rock the vote system you'd probably see a lot more map switches.
big difference
Sorry I should have explained that better - I mean after the end of a round when everybody's back in the ready room, seconds before the map is scheduled to change. So not mid round.
If the vote finishes before the round is ended then that map isn't excluded. But if it ends after the game is over then you won't end up switching to that map straight after the vote for it fails.
i like this, so many times i think i've dodged docking, only for it to appear as the next map in the rotation and troll me.
Meeeeeee tooooooo
Your post clearly demonstrates this:
You still aren't accounting for new players who do not see the vote in all the chaos, and are assuming everyone sees that option and chooses not to vote.
I can attest that this is not the case, and so can the developers after we have watched thousands upon thousands of new players not even notice the giant orange flashing icon in the center of their screen that says press B to evolve. Haven't you wondered why rookies sit on 100 pres?
You cannot discount these new oblivious players, their experience in their beginning hours are important, and not counting their inaction would allow for the minority participation and will to control their experience in potentially negative and abusive ways. (hell, voting is disabled on many community servers for this reason alone, already, with the current difficult to succeed system) It would be poor design, and i cannot think of one game that operates this way.
I also think if you address said edge cases that were previously mentioned, people would cease to have a problem with the system, and threads like these would not exist.
I had considered scenarios where people don't vote not because they didn't want to but because they hadn't seen the vote. I just didn't mention it in the text because whilst it's good to cover everything, my post probably would have been far too verbose if I had. I understand that "If people don't want to vote, that's their problem" suggests that I think that apathy is the only reason that a player might not participate in a vote, but I don't.
As for new players - I think actually having to participate in votes to have an effect on their outcome is actually a good way for them to learn how to vote and to notice when a vote is being cast.
You're right that if edge cases were addressed then nobody would have a problem with the current system. However, the current system does not address these edge cases. The proposed system, with the addition of a minimum vote requirement, does, and protects against extreme scenarios where a significant subsection of the server doesn't vote.
Anyway, another thing to consider if this change ever happens is the effect of players still joining a server. Often randomize readyroom votes are done at the very start of a map directly after a map change. When you hold tab it appears that more people have loaded than those who actually have. As a result a lot of randomize votes seem to fail if cast too quickly (which is an issue in itself as if you wait too long then the teams start to become populated). It may be unfair to discount the people who don't vote in this scenario - as they never get the opportunity to (i.e. if half of the team is still loading, a vote shouldn't pass under the proposed changes even if they pass the minimum and have a majority, as the loaders never get the chance to vote no). Also, if a player is afk during the vote, their vote should not be counted (and treated the same as the proposed 'don't care' option in my previous post).
Another thing - spectator and readyroom votes should not count towards 'reset game' votes. Also, spectator votes should not count towards 'randomize readyroom' votes.
it's like, wait, I have 100 p-res? should i spend it?... lerk, but i just played lerk, fade, but it's not really that fun... and onos is too slow... plus now we have xenocide to troll with... skulk it is.
you seem to be promoting a change that would have the sole distinctive feature of being the more efficient at placing afkers onto teams.
hrm, i was kinda tired when i wrote that... but not counting spectators and people in the ready room for a vote only serves the purpose of increasing the number of AFKers that end up actually in the game. a problem that people are specifically bitching about as justification for upending the voting system for in the first place.
The reason for this proposed change is to prevent the deciding vote coming from somebody who has no business voting on the outcome in the first place. Reset votes need to be up to the people actually playing, and it's unfair that a vote should fail or pass in part due to a readyroomer or spec (could be trolling, could be afk, could simply be apathetic to voting due to the fact it doesn't effect them). Likewise, randomize votes need to be up to the people already playing or joining, and thus a spectator should have no influence.