how about we just make the vote prompt more prominent and timely.
don't change anything yet, in terms of ratios, but make it so that it's much harder to miss.
5 minute voting period with the current prompt slightly smaller and more out of the way. as soon as a person enters the spawn queue, throw up a prompt center screen that goes away as soon as the person votes yes or no, or no-opinion. if you don't die in the 5 minute period, last 10 seconds throw up the prompt center screen anyway. if the person notices the original prompt and votes, no center screen prompt comes up.
people keep saying it's apathy and it's similar to national elections... but it's really not. Typically everybody has an opinion, and the only barrier to voting in this situation is hitting a key. The barrier to political voting is, registration, queuing, hitting multiple buttons, travel time. people don't vote for many reasons in real elections, but how many people wouldn't vote if the vote came to them?
how about we just make the vote prompt more prominent and timely.
don't change anything yet, in terms of ratios, but make it so that it's much harder to miss.
5 minute voting period with the current prompt slightly smaller and more out of the way. as soon as a person enters the spawn queue, throw up a prompt center screen that goes away as soon as the person votes yes or no, or no-opinion. if you don't die in the 5 minute period, last 10 seconds throw up the prompt center screen anyway. if the person notices the original prompt and votes, no center screen prompt comes up.
people keep saying it's apathy and it's similar to national elections... but it's really not. Typically everybody has an opinion, and the only barrier to voting in this situation is hitting a key. The barrier to political voting is, registration, queuing, hitting multiple buttons, travel time. people don't vote for many reasons in real elections, but how many people wouldn't vote if the vote came to them?
As long as "No Opinion" has no weight in the vote and the prompt screen remains until they vote I fully agree.
how about we just make the vote prompt more prominent and timely.
don't change anything yet, in terms of ratios, but make it so that it's much harder to miss.
5 minute voting period with the current prompt slightly smaller and more out of the way. as soon as a person enters the spawn queue, throw up a prompt center screen that goes away as soon as the person votes yes or no, or no-opinion. if you don't die in the 5 minute period, last 10 seconds throw up the prompt center screen anyway. if the person notices the original prompt and votes, no center screen prompt comes up.
people keep saying it's apathy and it's similar to national elections... but it's really not. Typically everybody has an opinion, and the only barrier to voting in this situation is hitting a key. The barrier to political voting is, registration, queuing, hitting multiple buttons, travel time. people don't vote for many reasons in real elections, but how many people wouldn't vote if the vote came to them?
As long as "No Opinion" has no weight in the vote and the prompt screen remains until they vote I fully agree.
i'd say, in that situation make "no opinion" weightless, and have the prompt screen last as long as they're spawning. after they spawn it disappears until the next time they spawn. if they don't vote still after the center screen prompt in the last 10 seconds, then make their vote "no opinion" as well.
I'd say people will vote one way or the other or the other, just to avoid a fat popup in the 10 second period.
Crap you're right. One would hope that if the vote is set at 8 already there would be enough other people voting yes to send it over the edge (although I , but yeah you're right it might actually discourage voting no if sheer apathy is more effective in rewarding those who would vote no with a vote that doesn't pass. Although, remember that afkers are discluded, maybe even comms, + specs/rr for certain votes, so that kindof makes it a bit less of an issue. However, it is still a legitimate problem - so I guess maybe it isn't the way to go. Despite the fact that apathy is already in favour even moreso in the current system than what I've proposed, it does create that strange phenomenon you pointed out where voting no can sometimes be a bad thing for people who want a no vote to go through. I'm too tired to contemplate the math, as it may only effect edge cases, but such a phenomenon is probably unacceptable to include in any voting system.
Anyway, in light of that my vote is either for:
1) not voting =/= no. If more yes's than no's than the vote passes (well, make this a server option so you can set it to 3/5 or whatever). No total minimum vote enforcement. Also add the mentioned newbie-friendly devices (e.g. audio cues, lengthened vote times, flashing vote boxes) for new players to make it fairer on those who are still learning.
or
2) Add those measures I listed in my previous post (apart from #1) to the regular voting system. Non votes still mean no. But disclude: afkers, commanders if they dont vote, specs/rr from votes that don't concern them, and add a "don't care" option.
I kinda wish the devs would just sack up and implement 1), as that is my preference, but there's simply too many Helen Lovejoys out there against it sticking up for the rights of people who can't even be bothered pressing a key in a 30 second timeframe.
Seriously, if somebody wants to be apathetic, let them effect the vote in an apathetic way and discount them completely. I'm not sure the point of sticking up for people not voting if they're completely apathetic about the vote in the first place. Why fight for the right for their vote to be counted as a no when they simply don't want to or don't care to vote? Who says they wanted their vote counted as a no? They certainly didn't. On the subject of fairness (what this is primarily being criticized for), this is quite frankly, unfair. Sorry for more tv-references but thought this was semi-relevant:
The addition of adding newbie-friendly stuff hopefully mitigates the "not knowing how to vote" issue. Hell, even make new players votes automatically be no if they don't vote, but let everybody elses apathy count and not just be another no.
Anyway, I doubt (1) will ever happen due to the amount of naysayers (although the poll would suggest there's far more in favour), so (2) would be a nice way to mitigate the issues with the current system.
If they have to learn to be a better Fade by getting burned by shottys why is it such a travesty that they have to learn to vote by not getting their way because they overlooked a vote?
Huh?? Are you advocating for poorly implemented game design and mechanics now because some already exist?? (skill barrier and skill curve) How does that even..?
The point I am trying to make here is that it is a whole hell of a lot harder to learn to play Fade effectively than it is to learn how to vote. However, somehow the voting system is what is going to cause a new player damage? Getting repeatedly ganked as a Fade is infinitely more frustrating than not getting your way in a vote you ignored/missed/chose not to participate in; and it is immeasurable easier to learn to vote.
There is much resistance to any changes to the Fade, and probably rightfully so. I was never a good Fade but it does walk a knifes edge in it's balance (make it too much "easier" to play and it will be ridiculously overpowered). But the learning curve to voting is much more forgiving.
If they have to learn to be a better Fade by getting burned by shottys why is it such a travesty that they have to learn to vote by not getting their way because they overlooked a vote?
Huh?? Are you advocating for poorly implemented game design and mechanics now because some already exist?? (skill barrier and skill curve) How does that even..?
The point I am trying to make here is that it is a whole hell of a lot harder to learn to play Fade effectively than it is to learn how to vote. However, somehow the voting system is what is going to cause a new player damage? Getting repeatedly ganked as a Fade is infinitely more frustrating than not getting your way in a vote you ignored/missed/chose not to participate in; and it is immeasurable easier to learn to vote.
There is much resistance to any changes to the Fade, and probably rightfully so. I was never a good Fade but it does walk a knifes edge in it's balance (make it too much "easier" to play and it will be ridiculously overpowered). But the learning curve to voting is much more forgiving.
well it's a curve that neither me nor currently apparently have mastered. neither of us are new, and there are times that we'll miss votes starting or altogether, and we're not alone. make it "mandatory" to vote and all your and my complaints go away. "penalize" them with a massive pita popup if they don't vote in a timely manner, or don't die enough, and you will see more people vote.
If they have to learn to be a better Fade by getting burned by shottys why is it such a travesty that they have to learn to vote by not getting their way because they overlooked a vote?
Huh?? Are you advocating for poorly implemented game design and mechanics now because some already exist?? (skill barrier and skill curve) How does that even..?
The point I am trying to make here is that it is a whole hell of a lot harder to learn to play Fade effectively than it is to learn how to vote. However, somehow the voting system is what is going to cause a new player damage? Getting repeatedly ganked as a Fade is infinitely more frustrating than not getting your way in a vote you ignored/missed/chose not to participate in; and it is immeasurable easier to learn to vote.
There is much resistance to any changes to the Fade, and probably rightfully so. I was never a good Fade but it does walk a knifes edge in it's balance (make it too much "easier" to play and it will be ridiculously overpowered). But the learning curve to voting is much more forgiving.
well it's a curve that neither me nor currently apparently have mastered. neither of us are new, and there are times that we'll miss votes starting or altogether, and we're not alone. make it "mandatory" to vote and all your and my complaints go away. "penalize" them with a massive pita popup if they don't vote in a timely manner, or don't die enough, and you will see more people vote.
I've missed votes too. And upgrades as an alien. But I have no one to blame but myself for that; and don't think the game needs to protect me from my tunnel vision. I need to be more aware, bottom line.
If they have to learn to be a better Fade by getting burned by shottys why is it such a travesty that they have to learn to vote by not getting their way because they overlooked a vote?
Huh?? Are you advocating for poorly implemented game design and mechanics now because some already exist?? (skill barrier and skill curve) How does that even..?
The point I am trying to make here is that it is a whole hell of a lot harder to learn to play Fade effectively than it is to learn how to vote. However, somehow the voting system is what is going to cause a new player damage? Getting repeatedly ganked as a Fade is infinitely more frustrating than not getting your way in a vote you ignored/missed/chose not to participate in; and it is immeasurable easier to learn to vote.
There is much resistance to any changes to the Fade, and probably rightfully so. I was never a good Fade but it does walk a knifes edge in it's balance (make it too much "easier" to play and it will be ridiculously overpowered). But the learning curve to voting is much more forgiving.
well it's a curve that neither me nor currently apparently have mastered. neither of us are new, and there are times that we'll miss votes starting or altogether, and we're not alone. make it "mandatory" to vote and all your and my complaints go away. "penalize" them with a massive pita popup if they don't vote in a timely manner, or don't die enough, and you will see more people vote.
I've missed votes too. And upgrades as an alien. But I have no one to blame but myself for that; and don't think the game needs to protect me from my tunnel vision. I need to be more aware, bottom line.
it's also not the games job to do it's best to hide information from me. i don't feel as if i missed as many things in other games as i do in this one. it could be a UI issue, which includes sound, or not. for example. I've rarely missed lvl ups in enemy territory, they had a nice satisfying promotion sound. sometimes, when you can't take your eyes off the screen, a sound cue is the best way to get through to someone.
make it "mandatory" to vote and all your and my complaints go away. "penalize" them with a massive pita popup if they don't vote in a timely manner, or don't die enough, and you will see more people vote.
Please don't make votes more annoying as they are now. I don't want to see all those repetitive reset and kickvotes or map votes while a game is running. I want them to fail as silent as possible. I can not be the only one who is annoyed if the opposing team votes for reset after a single lose of extractor or a bad com. The only reason for a reset vote I can think of right now, is a troll Commander or an AFK/Leaving Commander in the first minutes. But there is no need to reset a game which runs for more than 8 minutes. Map Votes midgame are even worse, because there is absolutely no reason for a mapchange once a game has started.
Randomize votes rarely fail currently. Except if there are to many AFKs, but frankly who wants all those AFKs in his team? (And getting rid of AFK Players should be an automatic issue not a manual)
2) Add those measures I listed in my previous post (apart from #1) to the regular voting system. Non votes still mean no. But disclude: afkers, commanders if they dont vote, specs/rr from votes that don't concern them, and add a "don't care" option.
Why disclude commanders?
My favorite solution is still to get rid of the "No" vote at all. And just let people vote "yes" if they want the change, if not enough people want the change we keep the status quo.
This would simplify the voting system a little bit, while every other suggestion makes it more complex. And I am (mostly) in favor of the simplest system.
make it "mandatory" to vote and all your and my complaints go away. "penalize" them with a massive pita popup if they don't vote in a timely manner, or don't die enough, and you will see more people vote.
Please don't make votes more annoying as they are now. I don't want to see all those repetitive reset and kickvotes or map votes while a game is running. I want them to fail as silent as possible. I can not be the only one who is annoyed if the opposing team votes for reset after a single lose of extractor or a bad com. The only reason for a reset vote I can think of right now, is a troll Commander or an AFK/Leaving Commander in the first minutes. But there is no need to reset a game which runs for more than 8 minutes. Map Votes midgame are even worse, because there is absolutely no reason for a mapchange once a game has started.
Randomize votes rarely fail currently. Except if there are to many AFKs, but frankly who wants all those AFKs in his team? (And getting rid of AFK Players should be an automatic issue not a manual)
2) Add those measures I listed in my previous post (apart from #1) to the regular voting system. Non votes still mean no. But disclude: afkers, commanders if they dont vote, specs/rr from votes that don't concern them, and add a "don't care" option.
Why disclude commanders?
My favorite solution is still to get rid of the "No" vote at all. And just let people vote "yes" if they want the change, if not enough people want the change we keep the status quo.
This would simplify the voting system a little bit, while every other suggestion makes it more complex. And I am (mostly) in favor of the simplest system.
it would be less annoying on your screen, more annoying while you're dead and not annoying at all if you vote in a timely fashion... what else are you doing while you're dead? vote and go back to checking your command map. hell, remove the popup in the last 10 seconds, just keep the central popup for spawn queue, should be good enough. don't die? we won't bother you, vote in your own time. die? hey, look something to do for the 9 seconds it takes to respawn.
i'd also push for a limit on the frequency individuals can call votes. to limit spam, cuz that annoys me too.
I counted 15 passes and also saw the gorilla. I also never miss a giant vote popup. Maybe this is an issue that affects some people more than others, I'm willing to accept that. But even if we posit that some people don't see the vote, why are we assuming that they would have voted "no" if they have seen it? If anything, it's more exploitative to vote for them than it is to simply not count them. Also, I think the potential for abuse with the voting system is not nearly as high as some have made it out to be.
But even if we posit that some people don't see the vote, why are we assuming that they would have voted "no" if they have seen it?
The current voting system don't assume that non-voters would vote no. The current voting system assumes that non-voters don't want the change, so it keeps the status quo if not enough people clearly state that they want a change.
A vote in NS2 isn't the same as a presidential election, where there has to be a change to A or B after the vote. (The current Presidents period of office ends with the elections. So technical there would be a change from "No President" to Obama if he gets reelected). While in NS2 we don't have to vote for e.g. a certain map in order to play at all. The current map would go on even without the vote. So it is fair to assume, that if not a majority of players want a change it is better to keep the status quo. (Sorry if this gets a little bit unclear, too. It is hard to express this in english.)
But even if we posit that some people don't see the vote, why are we assuming that they would have voted "no" if they have seen it?
The current voting system don't assume that non-voters would vote no. The current voting system assumes that non-voters don't want the change, so it keeps the status quo if not enough people clearly state that they want a change.
A vote in NS2 isn't the same as a presidential election, where there has to be a change to A or B after the vote. (The current Presidents period of office ends with the elections. So technical there would be a change from "No President" to Obama if he gets reelected). While in NS2 we don't have to vote for e.g. a certain map in order to play at all. The current map would go on even without the vote. So it is fair to assume, that if not a majority of players want a change it is better to keep the status quo. (Sorry if this gets a little bit unclear, too. It is hard to express this in english.)
no, you got it in one. it's a more conservative stance, great change requires great action.
Okay, so if it is not an issue of seeing the vote, we have an majority of people who don't agree with the vote caller. Because if they see the vote and agree with it, they definatly would have voted "yes". Nobody sees a vote and thinks: "Yes, this might be a good idea. But meh, voting is so exhausting I don't wanna press this key..."
My bad, poor use of words there. The whole point I'm trying to make is that people don't see the vote. What I meant is that I find it doubtful that people are unable to vote due to being in combat. Assuming the vote is lengthy enough.
As mentioned before. This wouldn't be a fair system, because it would punish the both disagrees for voting. If they haven't voted it would be 8:0, so it wouldn't hit the 50% minimum vote requirement and fails.
People don't think that way. You might but ultimately most that vote won't. This has never been a problem on amxx or sourcemod so its a small edge case scenario. Also not voting has the risk of your vote not counting at all, resulting in the vote going through at the last second.
The only way this would be a problem is if you'd deliberately be controlling the game with a bunch of friends in which case I can think of far easier ways to fuck about.
Lets say there's a kickvote and 5 people vote yes, since you don't want this person kicked you end up not voting at all. You're basically gambling that nobody else is gonna vote, making the vote fail. However since there is a considerable lack of "no votes", players who spot the vote are inclined to vote "yes". Simply because everyone else seems to be doing this and nobody is questioning the vote by voting "no".
We could go on in great lengths about this but there will always be edge cases. Doesn't necessarily make it unworthy of implementing.
how about we just make the vote prompt more prominent and timely.
don't change anything yet, in terms of ratios, but make it so that it's much harder to miss.
I think we got a winner. Keep the current voting system as is but make the vote last longer + audio cue. There's plenty more you could do to improve upon but this seems the easiest solution with minimal effort required from UWE.
Please don't make votes more annoying as they are now. I don't want to see all those repetitive reset and kickvotes or map votes while a game is running. I want them to fail as silent as possible. I can not be the only one who is annoyed if the opposing team votes for reset after a single lose of extractor or a bad com.
There's no reason the voting has to stay in your screen. The only downside would be a single audio cue and is that really so bad?
If you simply make the vote go away after having voted then voting would be even less intrusive then it is right now.
But even if we posit that some people don't see the vote, why are we assuming that they would have voted "no" if they have seen it?
The current voting system don't assume that non-voters would vote no. The current voting system assumes that non-voters don't want the change, so it keeps the status quo if not enough people clearly state that they want a change.
Whilst I agree that this is what the current system does, not wanting the change is exactly the same thing as voting no because that's what voting no is effectively doing. Not voting should mean that you're apathetic or ambivalent to change happening, not that you expressedly don't want it. That's what the no vote is for. If you don't want the change, then vote that you don't want it.
Having said that, if they aren't giving us the not voting =/= no system like the majority of the poll wants (maybe it's not democratic enough for UWE cause it's just the majority of the people who voted, not the majority of total forum subscribers, or people who bought the game, or the majority of the entire world or known universe) - then they do need to change it to what you suggested (unless they consider adding a "don't care" option as per my suggestion). Because no votes don't mean shit if you weren't going to vote otherwise and generate the same effect, so may as well remove it entirely. It is communicated more effectively how the current voting system works if you have a simple vote counter of "yes" votes and display either the total players in the server next to it or how many votes are needed for the vote to pass (either how many remaining or total number of votes needed). If you're voting for something or not at all, it's obvious how the system works - you need the majority of the server to vote yes. If you add in a no to the mix, then the assumption is that it works a different way (i.e. that you actually need to vote no if you disagree with the vote).
Anyway, going back to newbies now - here's something else to consider: A newbie see's a completely unapposed 8-0 vote on a 20 player server - a vote that he wants to go through. However, he's not going to vote because he already thinks the vote will pass. I've seen plenty of new players confused that the voting system doesn't work this way and they probably just assume it's broken rather than arbitrarily deciding to count their and other players non-action as a no. This probably happens more than you think and likely counts for a significant chunk of the raw data that's telling you that newbies vote a lot less.
I was just spitballing ideas when that came up, but the reasoning for it is: commanders can (sometimes, especially marine comm) be far too involved to vote at all if they're in the middle of a high-octane scenario. Commanders would only be discluded if they didn't vote at all thus a 10 v 9 vote on a 20 player server with 1 comm not voting would yield a 'yes' vote percentage of 10/19, not 10/20. My suggestions for afks and "don't care" work the same way, as with spec/rr being discluded from certain votes.
Commanders could still vote yes or no if they choose to/have the time to. But if they don't it would then be registered like a "don't care" rather than strictly as a "no".
For afks: if they're literally not there for the entirity of a vote, then it shouldn't be registered as a no. For don't cares, same thing. If they've specifically expressed that yes is fine for them as well as no then that is the logical way to treat them even under the current system where not placing a vote is a no (as it removes newbies and people who miss the vote from the equation - as with afks). I don't care as much that the comm condition should be added too.
But even if we posit that some people don't see the vote, why are we assuming that they would have voted "no" if they have seen it? If anything, it's more exploitative to vote for them than it is to simply not count them. Also, I think the potential for abuse with the voting system is not nearly as high as some have made it out to be.
No its not??
Exploitative actions would be spamming kick votes, reset votes, and map changes. Assuming that they are either blind or too lazy to vote No is exploitative how exactly??
I consider those who try to kick players for fun for over 30 minutes as being the exploitative ones, not the users who attempt to prevent this.
(also, "not counting them" = votes more likely to pass, aka voting Yes)
The voting system has been disabled on many U.S. community servers for a reason.
Anyone who has not seen voting wars with players attempting to kick each other for X reason or even just for lulz, would understandably not understand why servers disable it, or why protections are in place at all. So if you haven't had this pleasant experience consider yourself lucky and try to understand that on non administrated servers this does in fact take place.
Something that bothers me with the mindset applied to the counter arguments provided here, this isn't coddling.. lets be clear here: this is not allowing griefing. Griefing that can and does already occur with the difficult to pass system.
If the majority wanted to vote yes for a map change, then they would.
If you don't believe users are blind to the vote, then you should accept the fact that all those nonvotes are their willful decision to vote no.
If you believe users are blind to the vote but feel that its not a good enough reason, and will not accept the reasons server owners give for disabling voting, then you need only to begin running your theory on a rookie server to prove what occurs in an un-administered environment when 1 unopposed vote equals a kick or map change.
But even if we posit that some people don't see the vote, why are we assuming that they would have voted "no" if they have seen it? If anything, it's more exploitative to vote for them than it is to simply not count them. Also, I think the potential for abuse with the voting system is not nearly as high as some have made it out to be.
No its not??
Exploitative actions would be spamming kick votes, reset votes, and map changes. Assuming that they are either blind or too lazy to vote No is exploitative how exactly??
I consider those who try to kick players for fun for over 30 minutes as being the exploitative ones, not the users who attempt to prevent this.
(also, "not counting them" = votes more likely to pass, aka voting Yes)
The voting system has been disabled on many U.S. community servers for a reason.
Anyone who has not seen voting wars with players attempting to kick each other for X reason or even just for lulz, would understandably not understand why servers disable it, or why protections are in place at all. So if you haven't had this pleasant experience consider yourself lucky and try to understand that on non administrated servers this does in fact take place.
Something that bothers me with the mindset applied to the counter arguments provided here, this isn't coddling.. lets be clear here: this is not allowing griefing. Griefing that can and does already occur with the difficult to pass system.
If the majority wanted to vote yes for a map change, then they would.
If you don't believe users are blind to the vote, then you should accept the fact that all those nonvotes are their willful decision to vote no.
If you believe users are blind to the vote but feel that its not a good enough reason, and will not accept the reasons server owners give for disabling voting, then you need only to begin running your theory on a rookie server to prove what occurs in an un-administered environment when 1 unopposed vote equals a kick or map change.
"Assuming that they are either blind or too lazy to vote No is exploitative how exactly" - it's exploitative because you're assuming that the vote is no (it's right there in the text: 'too lazy to vote No' - instead of 'too lazy to vote'). Have you stopped to consider if they're too lazy to vote YES intead?:
"If the majority wanted to vote yes for a map change, then they would." - Well I suppose you have contemplated it. Interesting how you don't apply the same argument for no votes? This is the hypocrisy inherent in the current voting system.
A lot of the problem is one of perception - the 'no' vote existing at all leads you to believe that the vote works a way it doesn't (i.e. having to vote no). If it only tallies 'yes' votes and shows the amount remaining then it's obvious it isn't a yes vs no thing and instead enforcing a majority vote. The current system makes you believe it will operate a different way and thus compromises how fair people perceive it is.
Also, in almost 1500 hours of play I've never once seen the current system abused, certainly not against a rookie - so I think the idea that vote griefing is a significant problem is largely all in your head. Whereas, countless times I have seen griefers able to remain on the server because of votes that don't go through due to the multitude of issues the current system has with getting votes to pass on it. So as long as you're worried about griefers, I think you're worried for the wrong reasons.
edit:
"nonvotes are their willful decision to vote no" - again. Once again it's you saying that, not the individual. You're assuming his/her vote is no on behalf of him/her. It would be ok if there was no 'no' vote to speak of, as non-action would be the only way a no vote could be submitted and in such a scenario it would be unfair to assume the vote is yes (as it would go against the general principle that where not voting at all is the intended method in which to register disapproval). However, opening up the option to vote no or not at all makes it almost impossible to know the voters likely intentions (and thus shouldn't be presumed on their behalf).
600+ hours here and I've yet to see voting be abused like that. I've had people try to vote-kick me once or twice for "cheating" but those votes always fell through because more people voted no then yes. Never once was the vote repeated after it fell through.
I do believe there is a noticeable difference in behavior between EU and USA. Not trying to start a flame war here but a lot of issues I've seen regarding reserved slots, flaming on players and so on simply don't happen on EU servers. At least not enough to be any sort of real problem. Could be due to different languages as there's a lot less chatter on EU servers.
I don't really have much need for voting in general. I am however baffled when I see an AFK kick vote come up with 7 yes, 1 no and see it fail due to lack of "votes".
I believe some people are simply a lot less aware of whats going on then others. Just like some commanders never notice chat cause they are putting their attention elsewhere.
600+ hours here and I've yet to see voting be abused like that. I've had people try to vote-kick me once or twice for "cheating" but those votes always fell through because more people voted no then yes. Never once was the vote repeated after it fell through.
I do believe there is a noticeable difference in behavior between EU and USA. Not trying to start a flame war here but a lot of issues I've seen regarding reserved slots, flaming on players and so on simply don't happen on EU servers. At least not enough to be any sort of real problem. Could be due to different languages as there's a lot less chatter on EU servers.
I don't really have much need for voting in general. I am however baffled when I see an AFK kick vote come up with 7 yes, 1 no and see it fail due to lack of "votes".
I believe some people are simply a lot less aware of whats going on then others. Just like some commanders never notice chat cause they are putting their attention elsewhere.
i've called votes on people i thought were afk but ended up not. i'm glad that the votes ended up failing, even though they would have succeeded under proposed systems. i'm seen vote kick wars, which would have ended with the wrong person getting kicked. i've seen the wrong person kicked. i'm glad the european servers are pristine wilderness untouched by sin. but there be trolls under these bridges.
it's exploitative because you're assuming that the vote is no
By that circular logic, any assumption or method would be exploitative.
(its circular btw, because you are saying "its exploitative because they're voting No" when i am asking you how exactly voting No is exploitative.. Notice how i gave examples for how when voting Yes?)
"If the majority wanted to vote yes for a map change, then they would." - Interesting how you don't apply the same argument for no votes? This is the hypocrisy inherent in the current voting system.
I don't apply the same argument for non votes because the system is designed such that Non votes and No votes are both counted against Yes votes? And if you argue that Non votes - the result of NON ACTION - would somehow equate to WILLFUL ACTION that results in the form of Yes votes, know that it is entirely illogical and by definition contradictory.
I hope you understand what i just wrote and how you simply cannot apply the argument for non votes and that its already occurring for No votes... watch:
"If the majority wanted to vote yes for a map change, then they would."
"If the majority wanted to vote no to stop a map change, then they need not vote, or vote no."
And if you want to argue that oblivious players are not accounted for in the above argument then you should consider the fact that the whole call for change in the voting implementation was NOT to count such non voters, right?
...Do you see the problem here?
Non voters are either counted or not counted. There is no other option. They either obstruct a vote from passing - or aid in it.
To aid in it allows for greater opportunity for griefing through spamming disruptive votes, which already occurs at a less frequent rate due to said No votes and Non votes!
Also, @d0ped0g , like I just said in my previous post... I see which country you are from and I do not find it surprising that in your time playing NS2 you haven't experienced this. I have, and so have many others, to include multiple US server operators who have disabled it as well as UWE staff. Your lack of experiencing this due to your region does not mean it does not happen in ours.
This all being said, I do not know why we are still discussing this and why we aren't passed it already?
Its a system that would never be implemented, and more importantly a better system has already been suggested and I believe taken into serious consideration:
"Not counting Non Votes once X percentage of players on the server have voted. "
This takes care of BOTH issues: Griefing and edge cases of 10:1 failing.
So why are we discussing further? Purely for academic purposes?
it's exploitative because you're assuming that the vote is no
By that circular logic, any assumption or method would be exploitative.
(its circular btw, because you are saying "its exploitative because they're voting No" when i am asking you how exactly voting No is exploitative.. Notice how i gave examples for how when voting Yes?)
"If the majority wanted to vote yes for a map change, then they would." - Interesting how you don't apply the same argument for no votes? This is the hypocrisy inherent in the current voting system.
I don't apply the same argument for non votes because the system is designed such that Non votes and No votes are both counted against Yes votes? And if you argue that Non votes - the result of NON ACTION - would somehow equate to WILLFUL ACTION that results in the form of Yes votes, know that it is entirely illogical and by definition contradictory.
I hope you understand what i just wrote and how you simply cannot apply the argument for non votes and that its already occurring for No votes... watch:
"If the majority wanted to vote yes for a map change, then they would."
"If the majority wanted to vote no to stop a map change, then they need not vote, or vote no."
And if you want to argue that oblivious players are not accounted for in the above argument then you should consider the fact that the whole call for change in the voting implementation was NOT to count such non voters, right?
...Do you see the problem here?
Non voters are either counted or not counted. There is no other option. They either obstruct a vote from passing - or aid in it.
To aid in it allows for greater opportunity for griefing through spamming disruptive votes, which already occurs at a less frequent rate due to said No votes and Non votes!
Also, @d0ped0g , like I just said in my previous post... I see which country you are from and I do not find it surprising that in your time playing NS2 you haven't experienced this. I have, and so have many others, to include multiple US server operators who have disabled it as well as UWE staff. Your lack of experiencing this due to your region does not mean it does not happen in ours.
This all being said, I do not know why we are still discussing this and why we aren't passed it already?
Its a system that would never be implemented, and more importantly a better system has already been suggested and I believe taken into serious consideration:
"Not counting Non Votes once X percentage of players on the server have voted. "
This takes care of BOTH issues: Griefing and edge cases of 10:1 failing.
So why are we discussing further? Purely for academic purposes?
@ironhorse tell them to throw it center screen when people die, that would make me happy. with whatever other changes they're considering.
This discussion is still going? Voters should decide the server action. If someone doesn't notice a vote countdown for 15 seconds that's too bad. Why should an oblivious (aka doesn't see the vote) or indifferent (abstained) player have a say? Would that oblivious player even care what the next map is?
Moreover did everyone lose their voice? Use your mic to ask for votes...
The ratio can be set by the server admin but regardless it should only count active votes (yes, no). no third state, no second pool.
I just saw a change map vote fail with a 11:1 yes:no count.
Also, @d0ped0g , like I just said in my previous post... I see which country you are from and I do not find it surprising that in your time playing NS2 you haven't experienced this. I have, and so have many others, to include multiple US server operators who have disabled it as well as UWE staff. Your lack of experiencing this due to your region does not mean it does not happen in ours.
Well we have greifers too, maybe in lesser numbers. So the idea that vote greifing specifically (as opposed to other forms of greifing) is somehow a regional phenomenon seems like a bit of a bizarre concept to entertain.
This all being said, I do not know why we are still discussing this and why we aren't passed it already?
Its a system that would never be implemented, and more importantly a better system has already been suggested and I believe taken into serious consideration:
"Not counting Non Votes once X percentage of players on the server have voted. "
This takes care of BOTH issues: Griefing and edge cases of 10:1 failing.
So why are we discussing further? Purely for academic purposes?
Personally I'm still discussing it because it has been pointed out that saidvoting system is flawed. Unless you're setting the vote percentage to be low, it is in the no voters best interests simply not to vote and force the vote to be disqualified. Votes that would be no on the old system will stay no. However, some votes that should be yes will fail due to exploiting the flaws in having a minimum vote requirement.
Example already given: 8 votes yes vs 2 on a 20 player server. 10 players afk/inattentive/oblivious/apathetic (i.e. the non-voters). 10 players passes a 50% total vote requirement. 8 votes beats 2 so the vote will pass. However, if those non-voter were to instead opt to not vote, then the vote will not pass. I assume your 10:1 edge case is for a 22 player server. If said voter doesn't vote than it will not pass assuming you're using 50%, as otherwise it wouldn't be considered an 'edge' case).
Personally, if this system goes through I would tell other non-voters simply not to vote for votes I particularly don't want to go through, and I suspect other will too once people catch onto it. That would be kinda shitty cause those would-be yes voters that arguably have the majority really need a system that will guarantee the vote.
If it's set down to like 25% maybe it'll only effect edge cases, but I imagine based on the dialogue in this thread that it would be more like 50% which would leave it vulnerable to exploitation for no voters who don't really have the majority. Therefore no, it's not a better system. It's not even a better system then what we have currently.
"If the majority wanted to vote yes for a map change, then they would." - Interesting how you don't apply the same argument for no votes? This is the hypocrisy inherent in the current voting system.
I don't apply the same argument for non votes because the system is designed such that Non votes and No votes are both counted against Yes votes? And if you argue that Non votes - the result of NON ACTION - would somehow equate to WILLFUL ACTION that results in the form of Yes votes, know that it is entirely illogical and by definition contradictory.
I understand that the system is desined to preserve the status quo, and I accept that that's the way it works even if I disagree that in principle it is a fair system. I do not believe that non-action equates to willful action. Nowhere am I arguing that not voting should eventuate in a yes vote, which is a much more appropriate comparison. In fact, it is the current system that equates non-action to a willfill action. A willful action to stop a vote going through. Sure, the result of a vote not going through is exactly nothing. No change. But the willful action is to one to specifically prevent change from occurring. The desire to carry out said action is currently being assumed on the part of the voter. And there's no reason that said vote should either be 'yes' or 'no' apart from an inherent bias towards preserving the status quo over enacting change (which albeit, is probably by design, is still a bias, and thus not all that fair to the yes voters).
A purely democratic yes vs no system however, assumes non-action to be exactly that: non-action. It does so by disregarding the vote completely, as it should be.
What if not voting either was counted as its own group, or still as a no, but if this not voted group wins out, or in the latter case the not voted makes up the majority of the no votes, then the vote doesn't count at all, so there is no delay period before someone can do the same kind of vote again. That way a majority of the server still needs to vote yes, but trying to accomplish anything with a vote isn't penalized by afk players, or players who aren't paying attention so much. My main frustration with the system has been that only half the server votes, and then the other half finally figures out what the vote was about, but we all have to wait until a new vote can be started. Although I am not entirely sure how the revote system works, if the delay is based on a type of vote, or the player who cast the vote. The latter case just means more people on the server need to know how to start votes, whereas the former can't really be helped without a rework of the system.
Personally I'm still discussing it because it has been pointed out that saidvoting system is flawed. Unless you're setting the vote percentage to be low, it is in the no voters best interests simply not to vote and force the vote to be disqualified. Votes that would be no on the old system will stay no. However, some votes that should be yes will fail due to exploiting the flaws in having a minimum vote requirement.
With the proposed system, you would only have to have 50% of the players vote in any favor, Yes or No.
Meaning if 4 vote Yes, and 2 vote No... the other 6 non voters are no longer counted and the vote would pass.
Isn't satiating those 4/12 minority who want change exactly what you want?
which would leave it vulnerable to exploitation for no voters who don't really have the majority. Therefore no, it's not a better system. It's not even a better system then what we have currently.
Until you can spell out exactly HOW non voting or voting no, can lead to what any reasonable admin would consider "exploitation", (something that would get you punished, typically) I am going to assume you are confused about that word and the intended design of this system.
With the proposed system, you would only have to have 50% of the players vote in any favor, Yes or No.
Meaning if 4 vote Yes, and 2 vote No... the other 6 non voters are no longer counted and the vote would pass.
Isn't satiating those 4/12 minority who want change exactly what you want?
If people choose to abstain, why do we have to assume they are opposed to the change? If they have a strong opinion, one way or the other they should vote. Why aren't we assuming that the 6 non voters really have no preference and wouldn't care one way or the other about the proposed change and therefore allow the 4:2 vote to pass because the people who obviously have the strong preference have demonstrated so?
What vote-able topic is so damaging to a player that they simply cannot afford to miss out on a vote and therefore learn to vote in the future?
That would be kinda shitty cause those would-be yes voters that arguably have the majority really need a system that will guarantee the vote.
But they dont!!
If they truly "have the majority" and that was good enough for everyone, we wouldn't be having this conversation!
Technically, the "no" voters don't have the majority either, yet they get their way because we choose to see a non action (not voting) as an action (voting no) and give them their way.
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
@mmz_torak
Amoral is right.
Every single of the sentences you wrote have already been replied to and have multiple rebuttals in this thread.
Here are just a few:
1) Because to not assume they are opposed means to assume they are in favor, because that is the end result of not counting them, and
2) Counting them in favor allows for griefing of the system / 1 vote to constantly change things
3) Preference to vote is assuming all users saw it, which is not the case as shown previously in this thread
4) No one is debating who has the majority if the vote did not pass, but you cannot claim that if the majority of the server actively desires change, that it would not occur.
Comments
don't change anything yet, in terms of ratios, but make it so that it's much harder to miss.
5 minute voting period with the current prompt slightly smaller and more out of the way. as soon as a person enters the spawn queue, throw up a prompt center screen that goes away as soon as the person votes yes or no, or no-opinion. if you don't die in the 5 minute period, last 10 seconds throw up the prompt center screen anyway. if the person notices the original prompt and votes, no center screen prompt comes up.
people keep saying it's apathy and it's similar to national elections... but it's really not. Typically everybody has an opinion, and the only barrier to voting in this situation is hitting a key. The barrier to political voting is, registration, queuing, hitting multiple buttons, travel time. people don't vote for many reasons in real elections, but how many people wouldn't vote if the vote came to them?
As long as "No Opinion" has no weight in the vote and the prompt screen remains until they vote I fully agree.
i'd say, in that situation make "no opinion" weightless, and have the prompt screen last as long as they're spawning. after they spawn it disappears until the next time they spawn. if they don't vote still after the center screen prompt in the last 10 seconds, then make their vote "no opinion" as well.
I'd say people will vote one way or the other or the other, just to avoid a fat popup in the 10 second period.
Anyway, in light of that my vote is either for:
1) not voting =/= no. If more yes's than no's than the vote passes (well, make this a server option so you can set it to 3/5 or whatever). No total minimum vote enforcement. Also add the mentioned newbie-friendly devices (e.g. audio cues, lengthened vote times, flashing vote boxes) for new players to make it fairer on those who are still learning.
or
2) Add those measures I listed in my previous post (apart from #1) to the regular voting system. Non votes still mean no. But disclude: afkers, commanders if they dont vote, specs/rr from votes that don't concern them, and add a "don't care" option.
I kinda wish the devs would just sack up and implement 1), as that is my preference, but there's simply too many Helen Lovejoys out there against it sticking up for the rights of people who can't even be bothered pressing a key in a 30 second timeframe.
Seriously, if somebody wants to be apathetic, let them effect the vote in an apathetic way and discount them completely. I'm not sure the point of sticking up for people not voting if they're completely apathetic about the vote in the first place. Why fight for the right for their vote to be counted as a no when they simply don't want to or don't care to vote? Who says they wanted their vote counted as a no? They certainly didn't. On the subject of fairness (what this is primarily being criticized for), this is quite frankly, unfair. Sorry for more tv-references but thought this was semi-relevant:
The addition of adding newbie-friendly stuff hopefully mitigates the "not knowing how to vote" issue. Hell, even make new players votes automatically be no if they don't vote, but let everybody elses apathy count and not just be another no.
Anyway, I doubt (1) will ever happen due to the amount of naysayers (although the poll would suggest there's far more in favour), so (2) would be a nice way to mitigate the issues with the current system.
The point I am trying to make here is that it is a whole hell of a lot harder to learn to play Fade effectively than it is to learn how to vote. However, somehow the voting system is what is going to cause a new player damage? Getting repeatedly ganked as a Fade is infinitely more frustrating than not getting your way in a vote you ignored/missed/chose not to participate in; and it is immeasurable easier to learn to vote.
There is much resistance to any changes to the Fade, and probably rightfully so. I was never a good Fade but it does walk a knifes edge in it's balance (make it too much "easier" to play and it will be ridiculously overpowered). But the learning curve to voting is much more forgiving.
well it's a curve that neither me nor currently apparently have mastered. neither of us are new, and there are times that we'll miss votes starting or altogether, and we're not alone. make it "mandatory" to vote and all your and my complaints go away. "penalize" them with a massive pita popup if they don't vote in a timely manner, or don't die enough, and you will see more people vote.
I've missed votes too. And upgrades as an alien. But I have no one to blame but myself for that; and don't think the game needs to protect me from my tunnel vision. I need to be more aware, bottom line.
it's also not the games job to do it's best to hide information from me. i don't feel as if i missed as many things in other games as i do in this one. it could be a UI issue, which includes sound, or not. for example. I've rarely missed lvl ups in enemy territory, they had a nice satisfying promotion sound. sometimes, when you can't take your eyes off the screen, a sound cue is the best way to get through to someone.
Please don't make votes more annoying as they are now. I don't want to see all those repetitive reset and kickvotes or map votes while a game is running. I want them to fail as silent as possible. I can not be the only one who is annoyed if the opposing team votes for reset after a single lose of extractor or a bad com. The only reason for a reset vote I can think of right now, is a troll Commander or an AFK/Leaving Commander in the first minutes. But there is no need to reset a game which runs for more than 8 minutes. Map Votes midgame are even worse, because there is absolutely no reason for a mapchange once a game has started.
Randomize votes rarely fail currently. Except if there are to many AFKs, but frankly who wants all those AFKs in his team? (And getting rid of AFK Players should be an automatic issue not a manual)
Why disclude commanders?
My favorite solution is still to get rid of the "No" vote at all. And just let people vote "yes" if they want the change, if not enough people want the change we keep the status quo.
This would simplify the voting system a little bit, while every other suggestion makes it more complex. And I am (mostly) in favor of the simplest system.
it would be less annoying on your screen, more annoying while you're dead and not annoying at all if you vote in a timely fashion... what else are you doing while you're dead? vote and go back to checking your command map. hell, remove the popup in the last 10 seconds, just keep the central popup for spawn queue, should be good enough. don't die? we won't bother you, vote in your own time. die? hey, look something to do for the 9 seconds it takes to respawn.
i'd also push for a limit on the frequency individuals can call votes. to limit spam, cuz that annoys me too.
A vote in NS2 isn't the same as a presidential election, where there has to be a change to A or B after the vote. (The current Presidents period of office ends with the elections. So technical there would be a change from "No President" to Obama if he gets reelected). While in NS2 we don't have to vote for e.g. a certain map in order to play at all. The current map would go on even without the vote. So it is fair to assume, that if not a majority of players want a change it is better to keep the status quo. (Sorry if this gets a little bit unclear, too. It is hard to express this in english.)
no, you got it in one. it's a more conservative stance, great change requires great action.
My bad, poor use of words there. The whole point I'm trying to make is that people don't see the vote. What I meant is that I find it doubtful that people are unable to vote due to being in combat. Assuming the vote is lengthy enough.
People don't think that way. You might but ultimately most that vote won't. This has never been a problem on amxx or sourcemod so its a small edge case scenario. Also not voting has the risk of your vote not counting at all, resulting in the vote going through at the last second.
The only way this would be a problem is if you'd deliberately be controlling the game with a bunch of friends in which case I can think of far easier ways to fuck about.
Lets say there's a kickvote and 5 people vote yes, since you don't want this person kicked you end up not voting at all. You're basically gambling that nobody else is gonna vote, making the vote fail. However since there is a considerable lack of "no votes", players who spot the vote are inclined to vote "yes". Simply because everyone else seems to be doing this and nobody is questioning the vote by voting "no".
We could go on in great lengths about this but there will always be edge cases. Doesn't necessarily make it unworthy of implementing.
I think we got a winner. Keep the current voting system as is but make the vote last longer + audio cue. There's plenty more you could do to improve upon but this seems the easiest solution with minimal effort required from UWE.
There's no reason the voting has to stay in your screen. The only downside would be a single audio cue and is that really so bad?
If you simply make the vote go away after having voted then voting would be even less intrusive then it is right now.
Whilst I agree that this is what the current system does, not wanting the change is exactly the same thing as voting no because that's what voting no is effectively doing. Not voting should mean that you're apathetic or ambivalent to change happening, not that you expressedly don't want it. That's what the no vote is for. If you don't want the change, then vote that you don't want it.
Having said that, if they aren't giving us the not voting =/= no system like the majority of the poll wants (maybe it's not democratic enough for UWE cause it's just the majority of the people who voted, not the majority of total forum subscribers, or people who bought the game, or the majority of the entire world or known universe) - then they do need to change it to what you suggested (unless they consider adding a "don't care" option as per my suggestion). Because no votes don't mean shit if you weren't going to vote otherwise and generate the same effect, so may as well remove it entirely. It is communicated more effectively how the current voting system works if you have a simple vote counter of "yes" votes and display either the total players in the server next to it or how many votes are needed for the vote to pass (either how many remaining or total number of votes needed). If you're voting for something or not at all, it's obvious how the system works - you need the majority of the server to vote yes. If you add in a no to the mix, then the assumption is that it works a different way (i.e. that you actually need to vote no if you disagree with the vote).
Anyway, going back to newbies now - here's something else to consider: A newbie see's a completely unapposed 8-0 vote on a 20 player server - a vote that he wants to go through. However, he's not going to vote because he already thinks the vote will pass. I've seen plenty of new players confused that the voting system doesn't work this way and they probably just assume it's broken rather than arbitrarily deciding to count their and other players non-action as a no. This probably happens more than you think and likely counts for a significant chunk of the raw data that's telling you that newbies vote a lot less.
I was just spitballing ideas when that came up, but the reasoning for it is: commanders can (sometimes, especially marine comm) be far too involved to vote at all if they're in the middle of a high-octane scenario. Commanders would only be discluded if they didn't vote at all thus a 10 v 9 vote on a 20 player server with 1 comm not voting would yield a 'yes' vote percentage of 10/19, not 10/20. My suggestions for afks and "don't care" work the same way, as with spec/rr being discluded from certain votes.
Commanders could still vote yes or no if they choose to/have the time to. But if they don't it would then be registered like a "don't care" rather than strictly as a "no".
For afks: if they're literally not there for the entirity of a vote, then it shouldn't be registered as a no. For don't cares, same thing. If they've specifically expressed that yes is fine for them as well as no then that is the logical way to treat them even under the current system where not placing a vote is a no (as it removes newbies and people who miss the vote from the equation - as with afks). I don't care as much that the comm condition should be added too.
Exploitative actions would be spamming kick votes, reset votes, and map changes. Assuming that they are either blind or too lazy to vote No is exploitative how exactly??
I consider those who try to kick players for fun for over 30 minutes as being the exploitative ones, not the users who attempt to prevent this.
(also, "not counting them" = votes more likely to pass, aka voting Yes)
The voting system has been disabled on many U.S. community servers for a reason.
Anyone who has not seen voting wars with players attempting to kick each other for X reason or even just for lulz, would understandably not understand why servers disable it, or why protections are in place at all. So if you haven't had this pleasant experience consider yourself lucky and try to understand that on non administrated servers this does in fact take place.
Something that bothers me with the mindset applied to the counter arguments provided here, this isn't coddling.. lets be clear here: this is not allowing griefing. Griefing that can and does already occur with the difficult to pass system.
If the majority wanted to vote yes for a map change, then they would.
If you don't believe users are blind to the vote, then you should accept the fact that all those nonvotes are their willful decision to vote no.
If you believe users are blind to the vote but feel that its not a good enough reason, and will not accept the reasons server owners give for disabling voting, then you need only to begin running your theory on a rookie server to prove what occurs in an un-administered environment when 1 unopposed vote equals a kick or map change.
"If the majority wanted to vote yes for a map change, then they would." - Well I suppose you have contemplated it. Interesting how you don't apply the same argument for no votes? This is the hypocrisy inherent in the current voting system.
A lot of the problem is one of perception - the 'no' vote existing at all leads you to believe that the vote works a way it doesn't (i.e. having to vote no). If it only tallies 'yes' votes and shows the amount remaining then it's obvious it isn't a yes vs no thing and instead enforcing a majority vote. The current system makes you believe it will operate a different way and thus compromises how fair people perceive it is.
Also, in almost 1500 hours of play I've never once seen the current system abused, certainly not against a rookie - so I think the idea that vote griefing is a significant problem is largely all in your head. Whereas, countless times I have seen griefers able to remain on the server because of votes that don't go through due to the multitude of issues the current system has with getting votes to pass on it. So as long as you're worried about griefers, I think you're worried for the wrong reasons.
edit:
"nonvotes are their willful decision to vote no" - again. Once again it's you saying that, not the individual. You're assuming his/her vote is no on behalf of him/her. It would be ok if there was no 'no' vote to speak of, as non-action would be the only way a no vote could be submitted and in such a scenario it would be unfair to assume the vote is yes (as it would go against the general principle that where not voting at all is the intended method in which to register disapproval). However, opening up the option to vote no or not at all makes it almost impossible to know the voters likely intentions (and thus shouldn't be presumed on their behalf).
I do believe there is a noticeable difference in behavior between EU and USA. Not trying to start a flame war here but a lot of issues I've seen regarding reserved slots, flaming on players and so on simply don't happen on EU servers. At least not enough to be any sort of real problem. Could be due to different languages as there's a lot less chatter on EU servers.
I don't really have much need for voting in general. I am however baffled when I see an AFK kick vote come up with 7 yes, 1 no and see it fail due to lack of "votes".
I believe some people are simply a lot less aware of whats going on then others. Just like some commanders never notice chat cause they are putting their attention elsewhere.
i've called votes on people i thought were afk but ended up not. i'm glad that the votes ended up failing, even though they would have succeeded under proposed systems. i'm seen vote kick wars, which would have ended with the wrong person getting kicked. i've seen the wrong person kicked. i'm glad the european servers are pristine wilderness untouched by sin. but there be trolls under these bridges.
(its circular btw, because you are saying "its exploitative because they're voting No" when i am asking you how exactly voting No is exploitative.. Notice how i gave examples for how when voting Yes?)
I don't apply the same argument for non votes because the system is designed such that Non votes and No votes are both counted against Yes votes? And if you argue that Non votes - the result of NON ACTION - would somehow equate to WILLFUL ACTION that results in the form of Yes votes, know that it is entirely illogical and by definition contradictory.
I hope you understand what i just wrote and how you simply cannot apply the argument for non votes and that its already occurring for No votes... watch:
"If the majority wanted to vote yes for a map change, then they would."
"If the majority wanted to vote no to stop a map change, then they need not vote, or vote no."
And if you want to argue that oblivious players are not accounted for in the above argument then you should consider the fact that the whole call for change in the voting implementation was NOT to count such non voters, right?
...Do you see the problem here?
Non voters are either counted or not counted. There is no other option. They either obstruct a vote from passing - or aid in it.
To aid in it allows for greater opportunity for griefing through spamming disruptive votes, which already occurs at a less frequent rate due to said No votes and Non votes!
Also, @d0ped0g , like I just said in my previous post... I see which country you are from and I do not find it surprising that in your time playing NS2 you haven't experienced this. I have, and so have many others, to include multiple US server operators who have disabled it as well as UWE staff. Your lack of experiencing this due to your region does not mean it does not happen in ours.
This all being said, I do not know why we are still discussing this and why we aren't passed it already?
Its a system that would never be implemented, and more importantly a better system has already been suggested and I believe taken into serious consideration:
"Not counting Non Votes once X percentage of players on the server have voted. "
This takes care of BOTH issues: Griefing and edge cases of 10:1 failing.
So why are we discussing further? Purely for academic purposes?
@ironhorse tell them to throw it center screen when people die, that would make me happy. with whatever other changes they're considering.
Voters should decide the server action. If someone doesn't notice a vote countdown for 15 seconds that's too bad. Why should an oblivious (aka doesn't see the vote) or indifferent (abstained) player have a say? Would that oblivious player even care what the next map is?
Moreover did everyone lose their voice? Use your mic to ask for votes...
The ratio can be set by the server admin but regardless it should only count active votes (yes, no). no third state, no second pool.
I just saw a change map vote fail with a 11:1 yes:no count.
Personally I'm still discussing it because it has been pointed out that saidvoting system is flawed. Unless you're setting the vote percentage to be low, it is in the no voters best interests simply not to vote and force the vote to be disqualified. Votes that would be no on the old system will stay no. However, some votes that should be yes will fail due to exploiting the flaws in having a minimum vote requirement.
Example already given: 8 votes yes vs 2 on a 20 player server. 10 players afk/inattentive/oblivious/apathetic (i.e. the non-voters). 10 players passes a 50% total vote requirement. 8 votes beats 2 so the vote will pass. However, if those non-voter were to instead opt to not vote, then the vote will not pass. I assume your 10:1 edge case is for a 22 player server. If said voter doesn't vote than it will not pass assuming you're using 50%, as otherwise it wouldn't be considered an 'edge' case).
Personally, if this system goes through I would tell other non-voters simply not to vote for votes I particularly don't want to go through, and I suspect other will too once people catch onto it. That would be kinda shitty cause those would-be yes voters that arguably have the majority really need a system that will guarantee the vote.
If it's set down to like 25% maybe it'll only effect edge cases, but I imagine based on the dialogue in this thread that it would be more like 50% which would leave it vulnerable to exploitation for no voters who don't really have the majority. Therefore no, it's not a better system. It's not even a better system then what we have currently.
I understand that the system is desined to preserve the status quo, and I accept that that's the way it works even if I disagree that in principle it is a fair system. I do not believe that non-action equates to willful action. Nowhere am I arguing that not voting should eventuate in a yes vote, which is a much more appropriate comparison. In fact, it is the current system that equates non-action to a willfill action. A willful action to stop a vote going through. Sure, the result of a vote not going through is exactly nothing. No change. But the willful action is to one to specifically prevent change from occurring. The desire to carry out said action is currently being assumed on the part of the voter. And there's no reason that said vote should either be 'yes' or 'no' apart from an inherent bias towards preserving the status quo over enacting change (which albeit, is probably by design, is still a bias, and thus not all that fair to the yes voters).
A purely democratic yes vs no system however, assumes non-action to be exactly that: non-action. It does so by disregarding the vote completely, as it should be.
Meaning if 4 vote Yes, and 2 vote No... the other 6 non voters are no longer counted and the vote would pass.
Isn't satiating those 4/12 minority who want change exactly what you want?
But they dont!!
If they truly "have the majority" and that was good enough for everyone, we wouldn't be having this conversation!
Until you can spell out exactly HOW non voting or voting no, can lead to what any reasonable admin would consider "exploitation", (something that would get you punished, typically) I am going to assume you are confused about that word and the intended design of this system.
If people choose to abstain, why do we have to assume they are opposed to the change? If they have a strong opinion, one way or the other they should vote. Why aren't we assuming that the 6 non voters really have no preference and wouldn't care one way or the other about the proposed change and therefore allow the 4:2 vote to pass because the people who obviously have the strong preference have demonstrated so?
What vote-able topic is so damaging to a player that they simply cannot afford to miss out on a vote and therefore learn to vote in the future?
Technically, the "no" voters don't have the majority either, yet they get their way because we choose to see a non action (not voting) as an action (voting no) and give them their way.
Amoral is right.
Every single of the sentences you wrote have already been replied to and have multiple rebuttals in this thread.
Here are just a few:
1) Because to not assume they are opposed means to assume they are in favor, because that is the end result of not counting them, and
2) Counting them in favor allows for griefing of the system / 1 vote to constantly change things
3) Preference to vote is assuming all users saw it, which is not the case as shown previously in this thread
4) No one is debating who has the majority if the vote did not pass, but you cannot claim that if the majority of the server actively desires change, that it would not occur.