Player's Moderation: Kick2

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

I would have if I knew you were going to act childishly!

Don't confuse me defending the suggestion with childishness.  When you come out and say the suggestion, "will fail", and then give short-sighted examples of why, don't expect me to pretend they have merit - they don't!

 

 

You seem to be looking at things from a narrow perspective without considering all possible scenarios.

I've covered ALL the scenarios thanks and for all situations. The idea is simple, based ultimately from score and time in battle. It's as fair as it gets.

 

This idea has evolved as others have contributed to it. Any short-comings were picked up by the community long ago. There is no situation from flag sitting, mine laying, sniping, camping, just healing, etc, etc... that has not already been discussed. 

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

If Tanki takes anything from any of these ideas, it will help. 
 
@PuncherTank , I do like some of your other ideas, but remember every idea has short comings that people will learn to exploit, but adding ways to protect a few special cases, only makes more ways for it to be exploited.  I also believe you misunderstood the response from @AbsoluteZero. He/we have had to respond to these special case scenarios before, have discussed them at great length, and feel we have come up with what is the safest for all players with the least chance of abuse. His response to you comes from a place of utter frustration with the fact this idea is now the highest liked topic in the forum, has been posted for just over 11 months, multing is one of the biggest issues in the game, and still not 1 single response from a developer or attempt to solve the problem.
 
This idea is designed with the greater good in mind. Could the "miner" find himself in danger of getting kicked? Maybe, if the enemy never reaches those mines, but in that case why stay and mine an area that doesn't need that kind of defense. The "miner" would simply be wasting time on a useless tactic and getting nothing for it and if some selfish team mates decided to kick you, you wouldn't be getting anything from the battle anyway. If what the miner was doing was truly valuable to the team why would they kick that player anyway?
Don't forget

Will the kick be instant?
No. A player who receives the required number of kick-votes will then be notified and put on probation and will get 4 minutes*** in which to improve. If at any time he finds himself in a state of safety in terms of Score or Work-Rate then he will be taken off probation and the kick-votes against him will be dropped. *** 4 minutes is an example time.

So ultimately, "Mr. or Mrs. Miner" would be responsible for getting kicked because they had more them enough time to change their own strategy to increase their own score and/or work rate.

 

 WOW, what a crazy concept, people actually having to take responsibility for their own actions.

[kayitsiz 621]

If Tanki takes anything from any of these ideas, it will help. 

 

@PuncherTank , I do like some of your other ideas, but remember every idea has short comings that people will learn to exploit, but adding ways to protect a few special cases, only makes more ways for it to be exploited.  I also believe you misunderstood the response from @AbsoluteZero. He/we have had to respond to these special case scenarios before, have discussed them at great length, and feel we have come up with what is the safest for all players with the least chance of abuse. His response to you comes from a place of utter frustration with the fact this idea is now the highest liked topic in the forum, has been posted for just over 11 months, multing is one of the biggest issues in the game, and still not 1 single response from a developer or attempt to solve the problem.

 

This idea is designed with the greater good in mind. Could the "miner" find himself in danger of getting kicked? Maybe, if the enemy never reaches those mines, but in that case why stay and mine an area that doesn't need that kind of defense. The "miner" would simply be wasting time on a useless tactic and getting nothing for it and if some selfish team mates decided to kick you, you wouldn't be getting anything from the battle anyway. If what the miner was doing was truly valuable to the team why would they kick that player anyway?

Don't forget

So ultimately, "Mr. or Mrs. Miner" would be responsible for getting kicked because they had more them enough time to change their own strategy to increase their own score and/or work rate.

 

 WOW, what a crazy concept, people actually having to take responsibility for their own actions.

If jobs are done by people, you will always face fails.

Sacfiricing something to general beneficion.. enough of that...

 

If the kick system will also delete the experience I gained in the battle, okay :)

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

If the kick system will also delete the experience I gained in the battle

which would be nil, zip, nada, nothing anyway! You being a self confessed mult an all.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

I also believe you misunderstood the response from @AbsoluteZero.

You don't start off with, "I'll give you two examples in CTF mode where the suggested system will fail", and expect tea and biscuits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

But with regard to measuring a players contribution in battle - we don't need to invent various, new scoring mechanisms when there is already one in place, i.e., Experience Points. 

 

 

I'm not scoring much but I'm of value to my team

This is probably the biggest concern received from players but less so since update 294 where you can score for contributing to a kill. 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. Bear in mind, when you perform these tasks, you are more often than not playing with friends that won't vote for you. Ultimately, if you think you're not scoring enough and you are running the risk of receiving votes, change strategies for a while to be safe and resume your selfless duties when circumstances permit!

[dfoofnik 341]

If you're the main reason why your side is losing, (or why the other side is gaining ground), then I say leave or be pushed and go find a battle that is more suited to your skill and equipment levels.

 

You can say it, but it is not Tanki policy.

Scores cannot tell you if a player is trying hard and contributing. How do you know players are going to vote strictly on best strategy to win? And how do you guarantee that the next joiner is not going to be just as weak? Or if there is NO NEW JOINER, you have hobbled yourself with a numerical disadvantage?

I think the only fair way is to allow team members to vote off players (non-players) who have nothing or practically nothing. That would be fair, and I think Tanki would agree.

[dfoofnik 341]

 

How do you know if a certain player might be doing a great job wounding, just not killing enemies??? We don't count non-simultaneous damage. Or perhaps his skill is evading, causing enemies to have to hunt him down instead of shooting his teammates???

 

Can I quote myself?

THREE PLAYERS wanted me out of their Polygon battle. Personally, I think they wanted a friend to join. But be that as it may, I was performing 55% less than any of them. BUT (and as PeeWee says, it's a big butt) I was actually doing THREE THINGS for the team that no one else was:

1) One shot-one kill, finishing and wounding - but I was very easily seen and killed

2) Drawing a lot of attention away from the pit - can't shoot in while they're shooting me

3) Keeping the enemy off balance by killing mostly the key power players - on their way to the pit, or shooting into it

That was my intention for the whole battle: no Vulcans or Twins would control the map.

 

I joined late, so if they wanted someone they knew was better, they had their chance to invite them. Their previous player was a mult who left. According to the chat, none of them were complaining about him. :huh:

[kayitsiz 621]

Can I quote myself?

THREE PLAYERS wanted me out of their Polygon battle. Personally, I think they wanted a friend to join. But be that as it may, I was performing 55% less than any of them. BUT (and as PeeWee says, it's a big butt) I was actually doing THREE THINGS for the team that no one else was:

1) One shot-one kill, finishing and wounding - but I was very easily seen and killed

2) Drawing a lot of attention away from the pit - can't shoot in while they're shooting me

3) Keeping the enemy off balance by killing mostly the key power players - on their way to the pit, or shooting into it

 

I joined late, so if they wanted someone they knew was better, they had their chance to invite them. Their previous player was a mult who left.

The best is fight against that with changing economy model(just like daily missions, or some other points I say),

or stopping ethical and economical discussions(unfortunately this idea shoould have started with an ethical and economical discussion, which we are trying to add it on 42. page!), any other idea and find solutions ourselves.

 

Even If I play bad, I don't think battle "owners" should kick me, as we think that they can play however good or bad they can play and use every legal but considerable unfair ways(or not) to change the situation.

 

Playing good is a right, playing bad is a right.

 

 

Planned sabotages are something different. But ıf you consider using every tactic in-game, moreover if you consider using some external programs legal; haw can you consider sabotaging as something wrong?

 

Tanki Online has too wide rules than it should be..  :unsure: So, we can't solve any problem on the battlefield. 

Don't forget that all of us are cheaters( I explained that) and even these players are worthy for both the community  and the company.

 

 

Hackers and social fishers are bigger threats, clans and friends are more annoying, druggers cause even mroe discuss

But we consider mult as a problem itself, this is something wrong  :(

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Scores cannot tell you if a player is trying hard and contributing. How do you know players are going to vote strictly on best strategy to win? And how do you guarantee that the next joiner is not going to be just as weak? Or if there is NO NEW JOINER, you have hobbled yourself with a numerical disadvantage?

You're right, scores can't tell you if a player is hard but they can tell you if they're contributing adequately or not. If you turn up to a m4 drug war wearing a m0 wasp and m0 smoky in green paint, you can be trying until the cows come home but you'll be viewed as saboteur.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

How do you know if a certain player might be doing a great job wounding, just not killing enemies???

The score will tell you. Remember update 294?

[kayitsiz 621]

The score will tell you. Remember update 294?

If you wound them, they can use heal drop or isida may heal them.

This takes enemies time and resources, but gives zero point. 

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

If you wound them, they can use heal drop or isida may heal them.

This takes enemies time and resources, but gives zero point. 

Of course. Nothing wrong with that.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

If you wound them, they can use heal drop or isida may heal them.

This takes enemies time and resources, but gives zero point. 

EDIT...7/26/2015 ..... I misread what you said. You are correct if that person heals then no one gets points. I assumed you meant if someone else got credit for the kill you received nothing.

 

 

Incorrect, you do get points for partial kills or "wounding". There are lots of ways to earn points and never destroy any tanks. I have seen my self have a very bad D/L ratio but still have a high score because I have been dealing a lot of damage but just not getting the final kill. And don't forget you get points for for carrying a flag even if you loose it and someone else caps it. Plus you can get extra points from destroying someone carrying a flag and returning it.

[PuncherTank 37]

I did not say it's a complete failure, neither was I trying to play tug-of-war with AbsoluteZero. I was giving my opinion based on my experience and trying to improve the formula, and I provided reasoning for my thoughts. He started getting all defensive/offensive responding with: imaginary problems, short-sighted, my system is well thought-out, go somewhere else, etc.

I still believe that in many scenarios the suggested system in its current form would fail (not looking for tea and biscuits!)

You can generally measure "contribution" in TDM by scores, however, in CTF contribution involves more than just high scores. A weak player in CTF who is trying to defend/attack should not be kicked out, while a strong player who does not help defend/attack deserves to be kicked out! This is where the system would fail!

I do not support the concept of only considering scores as a measurement of contribution in CTF and CP modes. I was trying to factor other performance indicators into the formula, but still my suggested system would also fail in certain scenarios.

I cannot list all possible situations where the system would fail, but they are more than just a few exceptions.

Here's a scenario I've seen many times:

Two teams are playing a long CTF battle, after two hours of play most players on the losing side leave and only two remain, then a drug clan joins in their place and you know what they do! Within an hour or two the Score and Work Rate of those two poor guys can easily go below 55% of the team's average and they may get kicked out empty-handed after hours of play. You can't blame them for not being able to keep up with teammates who have maxed out equipment and 10k of each supply. If someone must be kicked out here I'd say it should be the "top-scoring" raiders not the two players who have been there from the start.

This scenario is common in long battles, and I've seen this many times (not hypothesizing) where players drop from the top of the score board to the bottom shortly after a clan joins their side. Clan members also often try to harass the loners and push them to leave so that their other friends can join.

Weak players are part of this game, so if they're gonna be kicked out from almost every battle they join you might as well ask them to leave the game altogether.

Basing the voting system on scores alone would grant buyers more power against free players, especially with the huge power edge buyers currently get from supplies.

[kayitsiz 621]

Incorrect, you do get points for partial kills or "wounding". There are lots of ways to earn points and never destroy any tanks. I have seen my self have a very bad D/L ratio but still have a high score because I have been dealing a lot of damage but just not getting the final kill. And don't forget you get points for for carrying a flag even if you loose it and someone else caps it. Plus you can get extra points from destroying someone carrying a flag and returning it.

It has to be destroyed to get point by you!  -_- 

But this still helps your team.  :) 

 

Whichever system you do, what you forget is that you will have to deal with human faults.

The best is resisting human faults... 

This system kills the main point of the game, which is (as I said) wide rules..  ^_^

 

Almost everyone can join if there is a space, and play however good he wants and you deal with that.  ^_^

 

If you have decided you decide your desicion with your movements, leave team battles and play DM.

Suggesting new one player modes would also work great against this problem. 

 

 

 

We can add lot's of points which can make mults acceptable. If we add that system, this works for an elitist group.

 

Even if you say "%55, %40" etc... 

I have seen lots of generallissimo players who doesn't care any crystals, so doesn't care winning or losing. They are just trying their best even if they will lose clearly or not. They don't complain about anythink because they are happy. ^_^  That's the solution against every problem: happy players.  ^_^  

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

 A weak player in CTF who is trying to defend/attack should not be kicked out, while a strong player who does not help defend/attack deserves to be kicked out! This is where the system would fail!

Well I believe you're talking about something else entirely.

". a strong player who does not help defend/attack ."

 

If he's not scoring then yes, kick him, but if he is scoring heavily you have to leave him alone. Just because you're not on the same wavelength or he's not on a strategy you like, kicking him would be an abuse and totally unacceptable.

 

 

Weak players are part of this game, so if they're gonna be kicked out from almost every battle they join you might as well ask them to leave the game altogether.

You've misrepresented what I have said.  Weak players are fine and are allowed under this system. It's the ones that are considered unsafe in terms of score and work-rate that are mult-like that can be voted for. 

 

 

Basing the voting system on scores alone would grant buyers more power against free players, especially with the huge power edge buyers currently get from supplies.

This system is designed to weed out mult-like players that plague this game. It's not designed to even the playing field between buyers and non-buyers, nor can it make everyone play to the strategy you want them to.

 

There of course might be the odd extreme scenario where an injustice can take place BUT, tanki have provided a wide variety of battles types, durations, rank limits, etc, and the onus is on the player to make wise choices. If they make an unwise choice, say a Brigadier joining a ctf supply battle with no time limit, where Generalissimos are allowed then they have to also accept the consequences of that choice and learn from the experience.

 

It's simple,  play to your strengths, join battles for your skill level, avoid joining battles where you can be beaten to a pulp or raided and you should be fine.

 

 

Choice...

A game plagued with Mults and Sabotage

or

The occasional injustice because of an unwise battle selection.

 

I know which one I'd choose.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

It has to be destroyed to get point by you!  -_- 

So your problem is with supplies? Please take that to a different topic. This topic is about a kick system.

[kayitsiz 621]

So your problem is with supplies? Please take that to a different topic. This topic is about a kick system.

My problem is about someone thinks that he is a fairer player, which is a pure inanity! 

 

Everythink is about this problem, and we can't seperate them.

Do you offer playable game for every player in the game? No. Should we solve that? Yes. Then solve that!  Do you offer any security in-game? No! Should we solve that? No because this is the main point of the game. Then should we do something about that? Maybe just offering variety...

 

Then, are there a point in putting a kick system to every battle? No, no and NO!

This system can be great with pro-pass or with just TDM mode. Or, we should be able to put it off(but with lots of other options)

 

I've agreed drugging, I can agree other types of abusings.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

It has to be destroyed to get point by you!  -_- 

But this still helps your team.  :) 

I misread what you said. You are correct, if that person heals then no one gets points. I assumed you meant if someone else got credit for the kill you received nothing. I added an edit to that post. 

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

There have been many idea suggested on how to solve the issue of mults and saboteurs but they have been created as separate topics. 

 

@kayitsiz I don't disagree with all your points but I'm not sure they have anything to do with a kick system. I think they have more to do with making other changes to the game, ones that don't involve rules or systems that can prevent you from doing what ever you want. Unfortunately, I think there is an issue with a language barrier.

 

 

@PuncherTank This idea for a kick system is nothing more than an idea to help deter players from joining battles and doing absolutely nothing. It was designed using data we know they collect. Your adjustment to the formula, as good as it may be, requires a whole new set of parameters to be monitored. We can only assume they actually have other data parameters that they monitor and could use those to make a KICK system that is even "fairer". This whole idea was simply to show that even a simple system would have a big impact on the "mults" issue.

 

I do understand your concerns, but unless you run the numbers in a simulator, it is difficult to see what happens. We did do a lot of simulated sets of numbers using spread sheets and it shows that it is actually very easy to stay in the safe zone, even for weak players. Weak players with adequate skills and proper equipment for the battle they join will have very little trouble staying in the safe zone. If they can't compete then maybe they are in the wrong battle for them. Maybe they have joined a battle out of their league and it would be in everyone's best interest,including the weak player's, that they join a battle better suited for their skill and or equipment level.

 

I'm not sure there is any system that could prevent the raid you mention. In my opinion, some of the tactics used to raid are against the rules but raiding itself, even tough it is completely unfair, unfortunately, is not against the rules. Now changing the way players get payed their reward might be an option but that is an idea for another topic.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

My problem is about someone thinks that he is a fairer player, which is a pure inanity!  This coming from an admitted dishonest player doesn't mean much.

 

Everythink is about this problem, and we can't seperate them.

Do you offer playable game for every player in the game? No. YES, that is why we have such a large selection of battle types, maps, rank levels and choices of equipment. Should we solve that? Yes. Then solve that! Do you offer any security in-game? No! Should we solve that? No because this is the main point of the game. Then should we do something about that? Maybe just offering variety...

 

Then, are there a point in putting a kick system to every battle? No, no and NO! YES, it offers the security you just mentioned above.

This system can be great with pro-pass or with just TDM mode. Or, we should be able to put it off(but with lots of other options)

 

I've agreed drugging, I can agree other types of abusings.

You really have no real good reasons for continuing to argue other then you have a problem with people that want to control you and other like you. After all your comments, I still don't understand what your idea of a better Tanki would be. Maybe it is one with no rules or limits and free crystals for everyone. 

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

but raiding itself, even tough it is completely unfair, unfortunately, is not against the rules. Now changing the way players get payed their reward might be an option but that is an idea for another topic.

Just submitted this.

It's a way of slowing down the progress and scores of druggers which obviously applies to raiding.

[PuncherTank 37]

Choice...

A game plagued with Mults and Sabotage

or

The occasional injustice because of an unwise battle selection.

 

You can never get rid of multing in this game. It just comes with the package!

 

Mults are spread across a wide range of player types, so you'd find mults within weak players, average players and even top scorers. Your system would put a significant percentage of players in a vulnerable position because you presume that a player with a Score and Work Rate below 55% of the average is more likely to be a mult/saboteur, which is not necessarily true.

 

I'm usually an above-average player (in terms of score) and when I'm bored or ticked off I can be the biggest mult in the game! I have blocked teammates, pinned them, pushed them off edges, flipped them, paused the game and waited for gold, you name it! I tend to do that every now and then. Why? I don't know maybe I have some mental problems, but sometimes I just enjoy it! And you won't be able to kick me out with your system anyway.

 

Actually, I believe most mults in the game are "occasional" mults, meaning at certain times they might be bored or upset about something and they take it out on their teammates or just sit and wait for gold, but most of the time they'd be decent players.

 

Kicking mults out of a battle won't make them disappear, they'll just find another one.

 

So, how would you deal with mults like me?

[RustyNail 1,538]

...

I think I know what you mean and in the beginning I had the same objections and agrued with the guys here, having in mind all those little kids that are not good players comparing themselves with other skilfull players.

But, I changed my mind as soon as I realised what 50% of the average performance means.

Man, it's really low, lower than the occassional misfit. Apart from a conscious saboteur (a mult) it would take something like that example with M0 joining a battle of M2s or M3s...

Think, this system actually measures three factors.

One, the kills,

Two the overall performance (flags taken / delivered, team mates healed, etc)

Three, the attitude. Actively engaging to opponents will be generally appreciated, even if no actual result come from this. For example, I usually have my railgun and have a D/L ratio above 1. When I take my smoky, and because I rarely use supplies, my D/L ration falls below 1, because I wount enemies but seldom manage to do the killing myself. However, I notice that I get a friendly behaviour from my team mates, even better than what I get using my railgun. Why? Because they see my effort and they appreciate it.

 

So I believe you overreact just like I used to do. Right attitude, but miscalculated estimation.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

You can never get rid of multing in this game. It just comes with the package!

 

Mults are spread across a wide range of player types, so you'd find mults within weak players, average players and even top scorers. Your system would put a significant percentage of players in a vulnerable position because you presume that a player with a Score and Work Rate below 55% of the average is more likely to be a mult/saboteur, which is not necessarily true.

 

I'm usually an above-average player (in terms of score) and when I'm bored or ticked off I can be the biggest mult in the game! I have blocked teammates, pinned them, pushed them off edges, flipped them, paused the game and waited for gold, you name it! I tend to do that every now and then. Why? I don't know maybe I have some mental problems, but sometimes I just enjoy it! And you won't be able to kick me out with your system anyway.

 

Actually, I believe most mults in the game are "occasional" mults, meaning at certain times they might be bored or upset about something and they take it out on their teammates or just sit and wait for gold, but most of the time they'd be decent players.

 

Kicking mults out of a battle won't make them disappear, they'll just find another one.

 

So, how would you deal with mults like me?

So you admit you're a mult? Nuff said.