Player's Moderation: Kick2

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

Nice.

If we were kicked from a battle, would we be able to rejoin the next game?

We will probably leave that decision to the game designers/developers , but my choice would be no. But I'm not as forgiving as some.

[figher007 0]

too much tables for me . color burning my eyes. i dont understand so im kinda neutral here

[VOSEE 8]

we ned this!

[r_Damn_Slow0 12,476]

Only read OP, not comments.  Nice read.  I don't support the idea, yet, but I support the discussion.  Nice to see some good constructive elements coming from players of the community teaming up towards 1 single goal :)  

 

↓ My critics below ↓  BEWARE !!!  Wall of text ahead ↓

 

 

 

 

Visibility of votes status of oneself by pressing tab - STRONGLY AGAINST !!

 

Visibility of votes status of other teammates - STRONGLY AGAINST

 

Consider the "co-multing" phenomenon when 2 intentional saboteurs join 1 team to "clever mult".  They shouldn't be able to see or monitor the vote status of their acolyte/s.  Else if they suspect, or cleverly calculate their odds of being in a probation period or simply not being in the safe zone, they will use clever tactics to increase their ppm, which will result in ON and OFF periods of intense activity just to dope their kick2 stats.

 

Doing the above doesn't necessarily mean that they are being productive in the team during their stats boosting period.  They could simply go on a killing spree in a short time to get away from the unsafe zone by just kill stealing while gathering crystals and letting the opponent team run in front of their nose with the flag and cheer him/her up as s/he passes along

 

Also consider the "10 pts in 2 minutes" rule.  I would hope it would take into account the fact that on the final scoretable points get deducted for self-destructs nowadays.  But that's trivial.  Consider the scenario:

 

Player A is a clever and selfless team player and wants to give his team the best chance at capping and winning a tough tough game.  He decides to selectively aim for healthy / newly spawned enemies, thus damaging them but not killing them.

 

On his team, a total noob, player B, does just the opposite, not really helping his team, not caring about the flag, not attacking, nor defending, but just looking around and capping on points by killing weakened enemies all the while hiding away or collecting crystals or intentionally bumping into allied tanks for sabotage etc ...

 

B will look like an angel on the kick2 chart, while A will unjustly become the man to kick.  B could not just be a noob, but an intentional clever saboteur as well.

 

Therefore it would be best to not just focus and work merely on the game score points.  Instead a better approach would be to work on damage being dealt on the enemy + healing done on allies + relative displacement (not distance) covered with flag and other relevant parameters should be included in the mix as well to complement the system rather than just basing score points and points per minute.

 

 

Also, equally important, if not more, the proposed idea hasn't yet properly addressed the issue of abuse of the system enough when subject to the best case scenarios.  What happens when there is a full team of honest players and all of them are doing their best ?  Kick2 table will still have players above and below average due to the nature of the game and same goes for ppm.  I can get a sense of why the 55% rule is in there, but I think there should be more thought put into that.

 

And what about the best battle-buddies ?  Those fellas who sacrifice their play/fun for the team's win by mining around the base or getting their fat obese "chicken mama" lay her huge bum on the flag spot keeping it warm for the ideal hatching temperature while looking around, on the alert, ready to go "chicken mama crazy" and peck on all strangers coming too close with her pointy long freezing beak.  (I just realised Freeze-Mammoths are a freak of nature)

Their stats on the chart won't reflect their real contribution to the team and thus they can become subject to kick by others above, specially in the ending moments of the game, say last 10 minutes, just to rid them from the final scoretable in order to get more crystals from the battle fund.

 

 

PS:  Might want to revise the jargon used in the OP, and make each term very explicit and easy to understand.  Also for instance I find "probation period" to be a more adequate substitution to "improvement notice".

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Only read OP, not comments.  Nice read.  I don't support the idea, yet, but I support the discussion.  Nice to see some good constructive elements coming from players of the community teaming up towards 1 single goal :)

Well that was interesting and it also made me laugh too - fat chicken mamas?

 

Consider the "co-multing" phenomenon when 2 intentional saboteurs join 1 team to "clever mult".  They shouldn't be able to see or monitor the vote status of their acolyte/s.  Else if they suspect, or cleverly calculate their odds of being in a probation period or simply not being in the safe zone, they will use clever tactics to increase their ppm, which will result in ON and OFF periods of intense activity just to dope their kick2 stats.

Well at least we're making them raise their game and intelligence levels! With Kick2, mults will now have to come out and at least do something whereas before they could just sit or hide somewhere. You've raised a great point about not being able to see or monitor the vote status but there are pros and cons. A player is far less likely to vote for someone if he thinks he is alone doing it.

• How about that we only get to see a player's vote status after they have already accumulated half of what is needed to put them on probation? This would give a player less time to plan but give others confidence to vote.

• Or, how about that we get to see a player's vote status after we have ourselves voted.

I suppose there are those who would use chat to shout, "Only one more vote required", etc... This is certainly something to think about.

 

Consider the scenario

Selfless Player A will have to be a little selfish from time to time. He is unlikely not score at all but you're right, he could find himself to be a target for kicking. But this is where the 55% comes in. This is a sufficient amount of protection for this type of player. It's great if you're above average or even just average. It's okay to be below average. But being extremely below average (i.e. under the 55%), is unreasonable and is arguably multish beaviour. All I can say is, be selfish from time to time, stop picking on all the fat mamas and start picking off the skinny ones.  I'd also say that if you are peforming these selfless deeds then you are more likely to be with friends that not. Those friends will understand what you're doing and not vote for you. If after all that you are still totally selfless and found yourself kicked from battle, then we need to commission a medal for those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

 

B could not just be a noob, but an intentional clever saboteur as well.

Well, as I said, now they are having to think for a living. If we can get shut of the 'not so clever' ones first then that would be a start.

 

Therefore it would be best to not just focus and work merely on the game score points.  Instead a better approach would be to work on damage being dealt on the enemy + healing done on allies + relative displacement (not distance) covered with flag and other relevant parameters should be included in the mix as well to complement the system rather than just basing score points and points per minute.

Now you're entering new territory and no doubt bring a whole host of new problematic scenarios for us to consider. I think the more factors we can work off, the more we can form an opinion of how much a player is contributing. Maybe these things you suggest are possible now, maybe we need to wait for Unity, I don't know.  I do know what  I've suggested is possible and can be put into practice relatively easily.

 

What happens when there is a full team of honest players and all of them are doing their best ?  Kick2 table will still have players above and below average due to the nature of the game and same goes for ppm.  I can get a sense of why the 55% rule is in there, but I think there should be more thought put into that.

This is where the crux of the matter is isn't it.  It's one thing about being honest and it's another thing to be competitive. I think in this game you can't be both honest and uncompetitive because if you're not competing and you're staying in a battle regardless then you're playing dishonestly.

 

Where do we draw that line?

 

This line is the 55% figure. Various tests I have done suggest it's ok to start there and if a tougher environment is needed we can raise it. If it's too tough then we can lower it. I think this flexibility is simple and effective.

 

And what about the best battle-buddies ?

Well it's time for the bbb's to start adapting. Think of it as sacrificing some of your freedoms to stay safe from terrorism. This would be good for gameplay anyway. Keeping the flag warm is so last year!

 

Thanks for this feedback. Hope others respond to what you have said too because this is how ideas are formed and suggestions made better. Please come back on what I said and pick me up on anything I might not have understood first time. Cheers.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

Thanks for all that. It took a while. And thanks for the warning.  No doubt @AbsoluteZero is off playing in his spread sheets and crunching numbers. I haven't talked with him yet. You mentioned all the other stats and perimeters that we could consider, but with out knowing what can and can not be done, it is a little hard for us to factor these in. Do you have any contact with one of the game designers or developers? I think we are at the point where some feedback or information from them would really help to develop this further. Maybe you could even set up a skype call for discussion on this. PM us if this is even something you can do.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Consider the "co-multing" phenomenon when 2 intentional saboteurs join 1 team to "clever mult". They shouldn't be able to see or monitor the vote status of their acolyte/s. Else if they suspect, or cleverly calculate their odds of being in a probation period or simply not being in the safe zone, they will use clever tactics to increase their ppm, which will result in ON and OFF periods of intense activity just to dope their kick2 stats.

• How about that we only get to see a player's vote status after they have already accumulated half of what is needed to put them on probation? This would give a player less time to plan but give others confidence to vote.

• Or, how about that we get to see a player's vote status after we have ourselves voted.

I suppose there are those who would use chat to shout, "Only one more vote required", etc... This is certainly something to think about.

 

And if 2 players join to one team to 'clever mult', one or the other will know when voting can commence for their friend because the vote icon will become visible for themselves to vote. This would then serve as indication for one at least to get a move on and join the battle and earn some points in the time allowed.

 

My two bullet points above; the second is no good as it stands because we already have the ability to remove our vote after casting it so mult 2 could vote for mult 1 and vice versa to check on their statuses only to remove them later.

 

So I think I will take the ability to remove our votes away and go with the 2nd bullet point for now although this might change again.

 

We've already established that no system will be perfect but we can make it harder for them.

 

There is one more point I will have to add and that is about stopping a player leaving and rejoining.

 

I have been voted for. Can I leave and rejoin the battle?

You can rejoin a battle if you left it with a clean record.

You are not allowed to rejoin a battle If you left it while you were eligible to receive votes or you were in your probationary period.

 

I have been kicked. Can I rejoin the battle?

No, not even if you ask nicely!

[fahim_the_boss 1,519]

Got tired of mults :# , also what about those miners?

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

I agree "raiding" itself is not against the rules, but when they use mults then there are rules being broken. "deliberate inaction"

 

I do have an idea.

• use the friends system
• while in the score "pop-up" you could hover over a players name and all of that players friends are highlighted.

It would only be useful to make you aware of the fact something funny is going on. There are no rules that say you can't join a battle on the opposite side as your friend, but in a high stakes battles it really doesn't make sense to, unless you are planing on sabotage. If you indeed find mults on your side that are friends with most of the players on the other side, then you can video and report, or use /vote.

I took this from my "campaign" topic. Can we do anything with this?

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Can we do anything with this?

I posted this idea in April. It should be realised but I doubt it ever will be.

 

 

 

I want to know how many friends each player has in the battle list by displaying the number in brackets next to their names.

 

eg, There might be a player on the red side who is friends with (1) other player on the red side but friends with (6) on the blue side.

You would quickly learn who is friends with whom and you will also know by way of their scores that they are not trying.

Mults are a massive negative in this game and I'm sick of them. This needs to be implemented to deter rule-breaking.

 

eg/ (not implying anything here - I've just put the numbers on at random)

 

 

 

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

I posted this idea in April. It should be realised but I doubt it ever will be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did not see that. I think it may be a useful tool. Now we just need to convince them. LOL Time to revive it.

The only thing that may be an issue is that people may not want others see who their friends are.

If tanki feels we should not have access to that info, at least the mods should. It would certainly help paint a clearer picture as to what is going on.

[biswa134 2]

 

the system should be able to check the movement of clans who get in together and do continuous drugging, some system needs to be implemented which prevents such unfairness on non druggers, weapon activity can be taken into account to prevent such things its like the damage you  do and the time your weapon remains inactive (they wont show up in total score) but have an effect on eligible voters 

again time played and total score should be put into consideration so that clans which get in and drug aren't able to kick fair players out.

when the last system was there a m2 tanker nearly always got kick when drug war started no matter how much he drugged and he turned out a loser  at the end because he wasnt able to get any fund because he got kicked.

Again a player should be given a chance after he is kicked too like he cant enter the battle until it is over he can enter it again when the battle restarts he should be given the freedom to join other side too.

the thing should be like the kicked player cant get in until the battle lasts in his side but he is free to join other side

if he gets kicked from both sides then he cant go in anywhere but all restriction apply until a battle lasts.

new beginning of battle shouldn't have any effect  of previous kick.

there shoud be a score limit like 1000 for example  above which the kick system gets disabled for a player nobody can cast a vote against them.

the limit can be decided so that clans dont take unfair advantage of the system .

the system needs to be effective enough to deal the sabotages and crystal  collecting but should be fair enough for the players who dont drug constantly 

 

[olfen 2]

Yes it's sometimes hard to tell exactly what a person is doing in-game.  We had one player recently that was just raiding but he was doing it in a Stadium _team_ death match to 999, 4 kills - 122 deaths so yeah.... (we lost by 22 kills, so one of our 10 players accounted for better than 12% of our kills) not exactly helping the team and doing it in a wasp/smoky so he was an extremely easy kill running out to the middle.  Obviously the wasp was for the speed to grab a box.   We could all see him, he'd hide, wait for crystals to drop and dash out to get killed over and over, only taking a shot if absolutely necessary to grab a crystal box and he was Major rank so yeah... really being an annoying person who should clearly know what he was doing during a team death match or perhaps it was just sabotage but the person was actively playing the tank, just not playing the team death match the rest of us were playing.  So he wasn't a mult just sitting there doing nothing taking up a space to prevent an active player from getting in, but he was obviously not helping the team at all in a death match battle.  Deliberate sabotage... no, he never got in anyone's way, never pushed anybody off just hide, grabbed crystal and died a lot to help the other team because his focus was raiding for boxes.  Clearly wasn't a good experience for us since he wasn't playing the team death match we were all playing.  While any system can be abused, if you're going to have a MMO type game, you need enforcement mechanisms to catch the trolls, raiders, mults that make game play difficult to others.  There are not enough moderators to police all the games so some type of automated mechanism that allows players to vote out those that are not playing the same game as the rest is needed.  Should this person have been kicked?  Debatable I guess, he was actively playing but ultimately I'd say he should have been kicked, if he wanted to raid, do it in a death match where no one else cares about your kill/loss ratio, not a team death match where your individual activities do hurt others and their game play.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

SNIPPED

 He/she is a classic crystal grabber, and a very selfish person. The "KICK2 System" would have taken care of that person for sure. 

 

Well he was in violation of the rules.

 

 2.1.4. Achieving experience points by deliberate inaction or help from the other team's players in 'Capture the Flag' or 'Control Points' or 'Team Deathmatch' modes or from opponents in 'Deathmatch' mode (so-called power-leveling);

 

2.1.8. Any acts or omissions aimed at creating obstructions for the team where the User is a member, including in CTF, TDM and CP modes, fighting against the team of which you are a member, doing harm to/ destruction of an ally's tank, fighting in interests of the opponent’s team, as well as the conspiracy with the enemy, sabotage;

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

We had one player

4 kills - 122 deaths

We could all see him, he'd hide, wait for crystals to drop and dash out to get killed over and over,

so he wasn't a mult just sitting there doing nothing taking up a space

Deliberate sabotage... no, he never got in anyone's way,

Don't make excuses for this player. He was a violator and Kick2 would have had him out the game and made space for someone who wanted to compete. You would have won.

 

As you say, he should have went into a DM where his actions, or lack of them, would not have cost anybody else.

[lordmostafa 3,821]

You have a good concept and a good idea, well done.

 

But I can only say, that if this was approved, it will take a quite big amount of time to develop, adjust the parameters and test it, and the Dev's already have alot of work ahead, and in fact, Hazel haven't responded yet, which makes someone worry, I mean it is 8 pages now, and he haven't said anything.

 

Tho the idea in general looks very promising.  

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

You have a good concept and a good idea, well done.

 

But I can only say, that if this was approved, it will take a quite big amount of time to develop, adjust the parameters and test it, and the Dev's already have alot of work ahead, and in fact, Hazel haven't responded yet, which makes someone worry, I mean it is 8 pages now, and he haven't said anything.

 

Tho the idea in general looks very promising.  

Thanks.

[lordmostafa 3,821]

Thanks.

;)

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

You have a good concept and a good idea, well done.

 

But I can only say, that if this was approved, it will take a quite big amount of time to develop, adjust the parameters and test it, and the Dev's already have alot of work ahead, and in fact, Hazel haven't responded yet, which makes someone worry, I mean it is 8 pages now, and he haven't said anything.

 

Tho the idea in general looks very promising.  

We kind of expect nothing to happen until after the Unity version is released. In some ways this is a good thing it is giving the community a chance to discuss this and fine tune the idea before the Devs get involved. It will be harder to dismiss an idea that is growing in popularity everyday it is up here.

[olfen 2]

Don't make excuses for this player. He was a violator and Kick2 would have had him out the game and made space for someone who wanted to compete. You would have won.

 

As you say, he should have went into a DM where his actions, or lack of them, would not have cost anybody else.

lol, true.  I do try to separate between the two types of offenses though.  Those that just aren't playing the game at hand, CP, CTF, TDM and they're out grabbing boxes or in a corner with a friend trying to do parkour in the middle of a TDM match, sigh..., versus those that actually and directly engage in sabotage against the team that their playing with on.  The pushing tanks off ledges, deliberately blocking ramps to prevent pursuit, etc... which I see as more of an outright banning offense than just someone you want to have kicked.  I'll spend 5 minutes recording someone to have them banned for direct sabotage, since they'll likely get more than a day ban for it.  Unfortunately it's just not worth it spending 5 minutes in a game recording someone just gathering crystals, or a mult just sitting there idle getting killed over and over since _if_ they get a ban and that's not always sure since just one or two kills in an hour will prevent them from being banned it seems, it's never more than a one day ban so it's just not worth the time investment since it doesn't even inconvenience them.  If bans added up to longer outages more quickly so you rapidly went to weeks or month long bans then it might be worth it for the effort involved.  I agree a kick system is still needed though to more rapidly handle the people that are just not playing the game and to immediately address those involved in direct sabotage (however we as players should still be recording and reporting to get banned the actual direct saboteurs).

[smokemypole 7]

Good job guys. Totally agree with mults ruining so many games these days and needs sorting.

My couple of points or ideas are:

1) I like the suggestion that instead of ppm being used that it's damage/healing per minute that you are achieving is used. I think it will be a good improvement to your well thought system.

2) I'm a little worried about the "time to improve". Can see mults using it to just keep themselves in the game.

3) The "time to improve" should be eliminated if you have received votes and you have a friend and/or someone with the same IP address in the op.

4) It might be a little too harsh, but what if anyone who is the mults friend/same IP address is also kicked?  Imagine you are one of the top scorers in a epic battle and one of your friends decides to mult for you. Suddenly he and you are both kicked - you sure as hell wouldn't be happy with them!

5) The system should also look at repeat offenders. If you are getting kicked out of too many games then bans should be placed and eventually a total ban.

6) I do worry about a mammy sitting on the home flag with mines getting kicked. Sure sometimes he might not get many kills/points because the op are struggling to get through and could be considered not a good team player. But have been in heaps of games when the tide has suddenly changed and the op have tried to storm your base. Suddenly that guy has become super valuable.

 

I know its impossible to come up with the perfect system, and your idea is a vast improvement on the current vote system (which hardly ever works). Good luck with getting Tanki to implement something based on your work.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Thanks for this. I appreciate the feedback.

 

1) I like the suggestion that instead of ppm being used that it's damage/healing per minute that you are achieving is used. I think it will be a good improvement to your well thought system.

Although this method of damage/healing sounds appealing, there are a couple of reasons why I didn't go with it.
There is the supply bias. It's already biased in favour of those using supplies and basing it on damage/healing will definitely be detrimental to those who don't have many. At least the way it is now, players who don't have a lot supplies can be clever and steal kills. Then there are those turrets that can damage multiple enemies - nobody will use smoky, everyone will have firebird, freeze and funder! The other things is, I know that what I'm suggesting exists in the current framework. Score is already monitored for each player and ultimately, score is what this system works off.
 

2) I'm a little worried about the "time to improve". Can see mults using it to just keep themselves in the game.

It's primarily there to help players get back in the game and it's a second chance. If mults use it to keep themselves in the game, then at least they're scoring points now and are no longer mults. It forces them to participate and compete. It also forces them to think and be clever. My guess is most are too lazy for this. Remember I've made this flexible. 55% is just a guideline and it doesn't have to be the same for score and ppm. Maybe it can be increased for ppm work-rate, say 60% and leave it at 55% for score. A happy medium can be found with a little testing.
 
But maybe there is merit in allowing a certain number of probationary periods a player can have. Any ideas? 3 strikes and you're out type of thing?
 

3) The "time to improve" should be eliminated if you have received votes and you have a friend and/or someone with the same IP address in the op.
4) It might be a little too harsh, but what if anyone who is the mults friend/same IP address is also kicked?  Imagine you are one of the top scorers in a epic battle and one of your friends decides to mult for you. Suddenly he and you are both kicked - you sure as hell wouldn't be happy with them!
5) The system should also look at repeat offenders. If you are getting kicked out of too many games then bans should be placed and eventually a total ban.

I think these are a bit harsh. In the case of 5 there are those who suffer lag or fatal errors and such which might cost them in the battles but it sounds even harsher to punish them further.
 

6) I do worry about a mammy sitting on the home flag with mines getting kicked. Sure sometimes he might not get many kills/points because the op are struggling to get through and could be considered not a good team player. But have been in heaps of games when the tide has suddenly changed and the op have tried to storm your base. Suddenly that guy has become super valuable.

I'm not scoring much but I'm of value to my team
If you are guarding your clutch of mines in a strategic part of a map, camping, sniping or flag-sitting and you find yourself not scoring much then you might find yourself at the mercy of your teammates. They will either value what you are doing and not vote for you or they will find it pointless and you'll get voted for. If they don't appreciate your selfless act then be selfish!

I'd also say that if you are peforming these selfless deeds then you are more likely to be with friends than not. Those friends will understand what you're doing and not vote for you. If after all that you are still totally selfless and found yourself kicked from battle, then we need to commission a medal for those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

I don't know what else to add to what's already been said.

 

I know its impossible to come up with the perfect system, and your idea is a vast improvement on the current vote system (which hardly ever works). Good luck with getting Tanki to implement something based on your work.

 

It's a vast improvement on the old team-kick which was somehow commissioned and as you say, a whole lot better than /vote.

On a side note, mods find it hard to enforce the /vote because there are too many battles to police. Kick2 will surely help alleviate some of that work.

 

Thanks

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

- Added to original post
 

How many times can I be put on probation?

3 strikes and you're out. You are allowed to come back from probation twice. There won't be a third time!

 

[LiquidGold 1,370]

also how about if you get removed from battle say two or three times in one day you cant play again that day but its not recorded like other rule breaks are on your karma

[Pallidium 17]

Awesome. Totes support your effort to this.

I, myself, have never had too much of a problem with mults a saboteurs, but it's apparently a larger issue at higher ranks(?)

 

I find auto-kick to be unreliable and human controlled mechanics to be easily corruptible. Obviously, with the auto-kick feature it would pretty easy to get into some gray areas on weather someone was kicked unjustly by the computer due to an uncontrollable scenario. Nice to see theses being addressed.

The timer is a great idea. But what if they make a battle less than that of the grace period + kick time? They can then go around the entire kick system by setting up mults on the other team and just winning several small games instead of one large game. Just by making the game shrter than the time in which it takes to actually remove a mult or bad player or ...anyone. Just thought it was worth noting (if it wasn't already).

 

The idea of beneficial kicks(crystal wise) is also a good idea. So that every crystal that was added to the fund due to that players actions gets put off the fund.

 

 

Good luck with your efforts!