Player's Moderation: Kick2

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

Maybe people should start sending PM's to the developers requesting them to add this feature. Or would that be pushing it a little too far?

[applications 993]

i agree but there should be an option for kicking people not in a mode such as XP and there using thunder

or fire and wasp and there using rail something like that

[GoldRock 6,165]

Just seen this topic after scrolling through this section for the first time in ages. I think it's a fantastic idea, proposed with great detail and made very clear. The only thing I would raise is the example probation time of 4 minutes, and the number of times you can be on probation. In my view, this should be stricter - or this system could easily be exploited.

 

Imagine a mult being called to the game on purpose, who knows about this kick system. He won't play properly, will be put on probation and so will begin to play properly for the 4th minute of probation. This means he isn't taken out of the battle. He stops playing properly, is voted again, and begins to play properly for the 4the minute of probation, so he isn't kicked. Then, everyone has to vote for him once more for him to finally be kicked. This would take around 10 minutes (8 minutes for the player on probation, and 2 more minutes factored in for having to vote that player past the probation threshold three times over), whereas the player would only have had to play properly for a couple of those minutes. This leniency in the system is surely a flaw, as the other team could be well in the lead after 10 minutes, or arguably even after 4 minutes, if it was just a regular old mult not exploiting the system!

 

Therefore, reducing the probation time to 2 minutes, and kicking a player when he is put on probation for the second time, should tackle this problem effectively. It would mean that someone exploiting the system to mult could effectively only stay in for 2 minutes plus the time it takes to vote him once more (so around 3 minutes), whereas an ordinary mult would be out of the battle after 2 minutes tops. This would surely be much more beneficial for the players on a team, who would really need the mult to be replaced as soon as possible to avoid a significant loss.

 

Anyways, great idea, and keep up the good work! ^_^

 

Maybe people should start sending PM's to the developers requesting them to add this feature. Or would that be pushing it a little too far?

I think I will, at least, see if I can bring this topic to the attention of Mr. Kirov, and attempt to obtain his thoughts on such an idea. That's no guarantee that anything will come of doing so - the most common reason for ideas remaining ideas is that they could not be developed or programmed in an efficient way - but it'd surely be better than nothing!

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

The only thing I would raise is the example probation time of 4 minutes, and the number of times you can be on probation. In my view, this should be stricter - or this system could easily be exploited.

 

Imagine a mult being called to the game on purpose, who knows about this kick system. He won't play properly, will be put on probation and so will begin to play properly for the 4th minute of probation. This means he isn't taken out of the battle.

 

Hi, thanks for the vote of confidence. It's much appreciated.

 

On your point of being easily being exploited, I'm not sure your scenario is viable but I get the point.

Playing properly for the last minute of probation would not ensure you stay in the game.

Player A would have dropped below the safe zones for both score and ppm to be eligible to receive enough votes to be put on probation. Unless he has a spreadsheet with him and someone is inputting everyone's scores, he's not going to know exactly how much he has to do in order to get back into the safe zone.  But let's say he does just enough to come off probation, I would say then he's done enough to warrant a place back in the team! Maybe it's not the probation that needs tweaking.

 

The 'Safe Score' and 'Safe ppm' values, (see spreadsheet), are taken into consideration when players start to vote for one another. These are currently set to 55% of the average scores and average ppms of the other players on your team, (not including you). If a tougher regime is needed, 55% can be raised.

 

The main reason for the probation was to give players who are 'trying but failing', adequate chances to stay in the game because this was one of the main concerns stressed during feedback. The downside is that what goes for honest failures also goes for dishonest mults. It's a fine line.

 

The variables to consider here are

• 55% safe score
• 55% safe ppm
• 2 probations allowed (3rd time your out)
• 4 mins probation time to get back into a safe zone

Any of which can be tweaked to make a tougher or easier environment.

 

And then there is the system vote which would facilitate kicking

• If a player has not scored 10 pts in their first 2 minutes of a battle then they are automatically issued a system-vote.
• If a player has not scored 10 pts in their last 4 minutes of play, (including a paused battle and spending time in the garage), then they are automatically issued a system-vote.

I'm not saying your feedback is wrong and I'm right. 

These variables can be changed and testing would be needed to find the right balance but I think we've struck upon the right format wouldn't you say.

 

I think I will add a note of clarification about the variables used in this suggestion.

Maybe I'll put an asterisk by them saying they're not set in stone. What you think?

 

Cheers,

AZ

[trombone_ftw 734]

Who should I send a PM to about this? I have some things to say .-.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Who should I send a PM to about this? I have some things to say .-.

Me if you like.

[trombone_ftw 734]

I mean staff

[GoldRock 6,165]

@@AbsoluteZero: Thanks for the response, I can see where you're coming from there. If anything, however, to make things more strict, you could change the number of probations before being kicked from three to two - because I would sympathise more with those on the team who are playing properly, rather than feeling sorry for a dishonest mult or even for a player who is trying but failing. In XP battles, for example, there is often a general 'de facto' etiquette rule that you don't enter a battle which you know you'd be outskilled in. Otherwise, people will tell you to leave for 'multing', and rightly so in my view. All in all, I'd sympathise with making such a system stricter on these grounds.

 

But yes, adding asterisks in to indicate that those are example figures which are not set in stone is a good idea. Keep up the good work! :)

 

I mean staff

is the one monitoring this section, you could send a PM off to him if you like.

[trombone_ftw 734]

@@AbsoluteZero: Thanks for the response, I can see where you're coming from there. If anything, however, to make things more strict, you could change the number of probations before being kicked from three to two - because I would sympathise more with those on the team who are playing properly, rather than feeling sorry for a dishonest mult or even for a player who is trying but failing. In XP battles, for example, there is often a general 'de facto' etiquette rule that you don't enter a battle which you know you'd be outskilled in. Otherwise, people will tell you to leave for 'multing', and rightly so in my view. All in all, I'd sympathise with making such a system stricter on these grounds.

 

But yes, adding asterisks in to indicate that those are example figures which are not set in stone is a good idea. Keep up the good work! :)

 

 

is the one monitoring this section, you could send a PM off to him if you like.

A lot of the time, those people that are "trying but failing" are M0s that join M2 battles or M1s that join M3 battles, and those people deserve to be kicked out too. So, agreed!

[AbsoluteAlphaZero 2,027]

Maybe people should start sending PM's to the developers requesting them to add this feature. Or would that be pushing it a little too far?

I agree, we need to do that!! Il do it right NOW (HAZEL-RAH HERE I COME :))

 

Edit: Done

[Vicelard 69]

Bravo, good job, the fight against cheaters must mobilize all honest players !!!

[Warhammer_TO 181]

good, but it only seems to work against mults and inactive players. How can you vote against people using 3rd Party Software? I know this would be difficult because you would always get noobs who report mammoths who won't die and other noobs who report people who are doing parkour. There could be some system where once a certain number of votes against a player are reached, the system targets that player with increased intensity on the anti-cheat system for that player. The system will also look for odd aspects about a tank such as increased damage, speed, or health. The system will also check the data going between each player's computer and the server checking for third party software that is sending false information to the server. This will work against jump hacks, gold box hacks, and the rare EXP hack (actually this could just be an improved anti-cheat system, it works against most cheats that I can think of). Instead of solely improving the anti-cheat system though, we need to give the players freedom for a little self-moderation. I think this would work best if, as previously mentioned, the anti-cheat system will be active, but in a sort of passive state, because we all hate it when we're doing parkour and we get kicked because some "foul play" was discovered. A hyperactive anti-cheat system leads to this. So yeah, the anti-cheat system would be in a passive state but would become active if (1) it is commanded to target a player by mods (2) it finds a hint of a third-party software/malware (3) <team amount / 2> = negative vote count towards a player.

 

Hope this helps! :)

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

How can you vote against people using 3rd Party Software?

Use /vote.

If nobody comes to the rescue, record and report the violation.

 

Kick2 is not constructed with hackers in mind.

While I am 100% sure there are sophisticated tweaks out there that give players an undetectable amount of additional protection and damage capability, this system cannot be used against them.

 

By far the biggest problem I have encountered since the rank of Brigadier are mults & saboteurs.

Kick2 addresses that problem.

[Warhammer_TO 181]

Use /vote.

If nobody comes to the rescue, record and report the violation.

 

Kick2 is not constructed with hackers in mind.

While I am 100% sure there are sophisticated tweaks out there that give players an undetectable amount of additional protection and damage capability, this system cannot be used against them.

 

By far the biggest problem I have encountered since the rank of Brigadier are mults & saboteurs.

Kick2 addresses that problem.

ok, yeah maybe i should make my own topic about an improved anti-cheat system ;)

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

ok, yeah maybe i should make my own topic about an improved anti-cheat system ;)

Sounds good. I'd be interested in that.

[AbsoluteAlphaZero 2,027]

ok, yeah maybe i should make my own topic about an improved anti-cheat system ;)

It would be nice :)

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

  Thanks for 100 +1's guys. :D

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

  Thanks for 100 +1's guys. :D

Well, I guess now we try for 200. I only see 88 on the first post, but I see if your not counting the 12 downvotes,  there are 100 "upvotes".  ;)  If I remember correctly, a few of the original "downvoters" have changed their minds so it is actually higher.

[RustyNail 1,538]

I think 100+ is already enough for TO Devs to start considering a try..................................... 

[chally22 1]

 defo  from me

[Canadian_Bandit 81]

Tanki let do this all ready   ;)  :D

[AbsoluteAlphaZero 2,027]

Tanki let do this all ready   ;)  :D

yea :)

[trombone_ftw 734]

Devs, this would be a far better thing to spend your time on than predictable drops...

[akhmatova 2]

First off, the point system doesn't always measure team value. As others have noted, there are many things that can win a Flag that do not get any appoints attached, such as

 

1. sacrificing yourself to blow up mines

2. pushing enemies off

3. blocking enemies pass through a tight passage

4. sniper defense of flag only, can shut down all enemy flag capture but scores few points

5. freeze mammoth defense of flag - you freeze opponent so your team can kill. can stop all enemy flag captures, but scores few points

6. sniper sitting on choke point - shutting down a travel route for enemy flag capture, may score few points

7. laying a mine field then retreating to a safer location to avoid dying and your mine field disappearing

 

and there are many other examples.

 

 

The problem with this idea is not only that it is bad for a game, it is a bad thing to teach children who are playing this game.

 

In society, we have to learn to work with all kinds of people at all different levels of skill and experience. Part of life is learning how to do that.

 

In society you will also find that some of the most valuable and important people do not score well on "point charts" created by systems to measure success artificially.

 

A better solution would just be to make the "allowable ranks" into a battle more narrow. I see many battles set up that allow WO5 into the same battle with Generallissimo - which has some problems. But you can stop that from happening without making a 'kick' system. Just make the rank-range more narrow.

 

Not to say that Mults are not a problem, but this solution of "kick out the weak" is a bad thing to teach kids. They will start to see life like this, and then adopt it into their school environments.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Not to say that Mults are not a problem, but this solution of "kick out the weak" is a bad thing to teach kids.

You certainly have not been paying attention. The weak are allowed to flourish with this system. If you had given it some time to sink in, you would understand that it is those who are virtually indistinguishable from mults that are weeded out.

 

I have defined multish behaviour to be below 55% of the team averages. Where would you set it or don't you understand the principle? Generalisimos can also be mults!