Player's Moderation: Kick2

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

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!

Well I guess they could do that, but if you end up in one of these short battles you can just leave. Your losses would not be that great. If players learn to recognize that mults are being used and leave, you take the power away from the cheaters. Leaving the probation period in is a fairer option.

---

"Making a Difference One Report at a Time"

[dragonite7 20]

I think its a great idea ;)  but how about, if you could, add the crystals per minuite a players earns, if the number is too high while the ppm are low it should be safe to assume he's crystal camping and thus sabotaging, so if that variable could be measured, you should be able to kick those with a high cry per min who also have low ppm, i must admit however i didnt read all of it so excuse me if you already said that idea  :P 

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

I think its a great idea ;)  but how about, if you could, add the crystals per minuite a players earns, if the number is too high while the ppm are low it should be safe to assume he's crystal camping and thus sabotaging, so if that variable could be measured, you should be able to kick those with a high cry per min who also have low ppm, i must admit however i didnt read all of it so excuse me if you already said that idea  :P

This is interesting and tbh, I didn't even think about it. I'll give it some thought today but my initial reaction is that the kick2 system caters for crystal grabbers already.

Players who enter just to take advantage of falling crystals will find they won't last long.

 

There is no reason why someone can't be taking all the crystals and competing.

Just taking boxes means you won't be competing and therefore you will be kicked before long.

I'll think about this more today. Cheers.

[mouser77 9]

Nice thought on crystal grabbers. I agree thst in my experience folks that are there just for crystals will have few points and a very low D/L. So the Kick2 concept will catch them fairly soon.

 

mine, mines, more mines

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

t in my experience folks that are there just for crystals will have few points and a very low D/L. So the Kick2 concept will catch them fairly soon.

Yes it will and the good thing is they get an opportunity to prove that they can compete in the battle before being kicked.

Crystal grabbers and mults are a serious problem and it's only getting worse.

[rambobear11 21]

kinda confused but kool

[naca7 143]

Wow! This is a great idea!

[RustyNail 1,538]

AbsoluteZero  To start with, congratulations, it's really quite a hard effort to come up with this mechanism for kicking out non co-working players. It must have required many hours of calculating and thinking, and rebuilding the whole system.

It is absolutely important to me that you understand how I appriciate your time and effords towards a more fair game play. I feel the same wrath against mults and saboteurs that ruin a whole team's play just for some more crystals. I totally want them out of the game.

BUT...

I cannot agree with this system. I have some objections on an ethical or even philosophical level.

I feel that such a severe attitude is somehow contrary to the idea of a GAME.

It's kinda the difference between sports and championship. Yes, the purpose is noble. But, as you put it reffering to terrorism, we have to put aside some liberties in order to strike terrorism. I will abide political discussion, but isn't a little bit "much" to apply military law to 13yo kids? Don't forget, in this GAME this is the average age of players..... So trying to make all players comply to a high rate of performance when we are talking about 13 yo kids more or less is too much.

Trying to save the game you will ruin it from another aspect.

Don't get me wrong, I said I totally respect your time and effort, but maybe such a mechanism would be more suitable for some kind of PRO battle, where a certain degree of championship is expected, while in plain battles it's really all about sports.

Furthermore, I tend to think that parkourists in DM or TDM, or crystall grabbers  should dealed with on another level, that of game modes.

 

All the above are well meant and I maybe wrong but that is my sincere thought. I hope that someting usefull might come out of it.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

kinda confused but kool

It basically uses the average scores and average work rates of the other players on your team to find benchmarks to which you can be judged against. If you drop too far below these values then you can be voted for by your team.  It's some reading I know but it has to cater for a lot of scenarios and questions.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Thanks for your feedback and I appreciate it

 

BUT...

 

I feel that such a severe attitude is somehow contrary to the idea of a GAME.

 

There is nothing severe about this. If anything it is far too lenient. You can get to be well below the average of your teammates and still take part. Only when you get ridiculously below average can you get voted for and even then you get opportunities to stay.

 

 

. So trying to make all players comply to a high rate of performance when we are talking about 13 yo kids more or less is too much.

High rate? 55% of the average is an extremely tolerant rate but as I said, this is flexible to allow for an easier or tougher environment.

 

Thanks again for commenting. Feel free to add anything you like.

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

I can appreciate some of the different views most recently stated and still want to stamp out the abuses that are so abundant and varied..  Perhaps the % of average ought to vary depending on Rank.  It might tentatively be expected that for the higher  Ranks, that the level of competitive spirit increases compared with the lower Ranks.  Therefor the attainment of % of average might be set higher.  Is that a correct general assumption and would that be appropriate?

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

I can appreciate some of the different views most recently stated and still want to stamp out the abuses that are so abundant and varied..  Perhaps the % of average ought to vary depending on Rank.  It might tentatively be expected that for the higher  Ranks, that the level of competitive spirit increases compared with the lower Ranks.  Therefor the attainment of % of average might be set higher.  Is that a correct general assumption and would that be appropriate?

Thanks for thinking of this. It's something I never considered. There maybe something to this suggestion but I have reservations.

I would have to think about it unless you would like to give examples on how it would benefit the current system.

Here are some quick thoughts.

 

Some kind of level based formula to determine the %age levels for each player.

Instead of having a blanket 55% for each player whatever their rank, we could have a personalised one depending on rank.

 

We would need to be extremely careful though because this is how mults spoil games by bringing alt accounts to one side to allow the other side to take the advantage. Making it too low will only allow other potential areas of abuse to surface. Also, why should a colonel who has more room for error, have more scope for voting than a commander?

 

It does sound appealing but I'm not sure how it can be beneficial to all who play.

You'd have to provide me with examples on how it can be made to work. As I say, I'll keep thinking of ways to see if this is viable.

Cheers.

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

Thanks for thinking of this. It's something I never considered. There maybe something to this suggestion but I have reservations.

I would have to think about it unless you would like to give examples on how it would benefit the current system.

Here are some quick thoughts.

 

Some kind of level based formula to determine the %age levels for each player.

Instead of having a blanket 55% for each player whatever their rank, we could have a personalised one depending on rank.

 

We would need to be extremely careful though because this is how mults spoil games by bringing alt accounts to one side to allow the other side to take the advantage. Making it too low will only allow other potential areas of abuse to surface. Also, why should a colonel who has more room for error, have more scope for voting than a commander?

 

It does sound appealing but I'm not sure how it can be beneficial to all who play.

You'd have to provide me with examples on how it can be made to work. As I say, I'll keep thinking of ways to see if this is viable.

Cheers.

I feel that new junior players are just exploring Tanki, they most probably have undeveloped control , methodology or any planning .  To them it will be suck and see, a little bewildering , exciting, surprising and so on, a bit of discovery.  It takes a while, a few Ranks up to start to be competent, but still their will be lots of skills and devious types of battlefield strategy that will only come with time.  I do not feel that necessarily a Generalissimo is any more skilled than say a fist time Captain, however the experience of many thousand of games give the higher ranking player something to fall back on.  The ability to perhaps second guess what a player might do, to read the game faster.  Also the most adamant players appear to be the highest ranking.  A linear appraisal of 50% across the board might not treat all players the same because juniors will not even have tried many or even any different hulls, turrets and so on to find what suits their style of play if indeed they have yet developed  a style.  It is enough for the most junior just to play.  Then as they rank up they are developing, still not fully switched on  but some will have a better idea, yet they will be competing with very experience multiple account holders who may have a similar rank.  These multiple account holders not only have vast experience and guile to assist, they know what equipment to have, the importance of micro upgrades and so on.  They will also perhaps have supporting fellow Tanki players whom they regularly play with, although I do not, being a lone player.  I can not give exact examples, it is more just an understanding.   Perhaps players  just starting should have very much more leeway and this gradually decreases until its 50% as you suggest.  It could be up to discussion if you feel merit in this, as to what cut off point,or how sliding the scale might be and what ratio of type of formula to apply.  

 

Perhaps if the game set up, Rank adjustment is modified to something along the lines of what I suggested then together Tanki should start to improve.  The multing and other bad play will be weeded out and players of huge difference in rank not meet.  Their will be less acrimony, everyone at both ends of the rank scale will be far happier.  

 

By the way, I posted my thoughts on Game set up concerning Rank Range.  It has received little notice and no comment!   I do not know if even the title is the best choice or really what to call the post.  The content might not be succinct , perhaps people do not know what I am on about.  I would very much appreciate you commenting in the post    Your thoughts would be welcome.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

It could be up to discussion if you feel merit in this, as to what cut off point,or how sliding the scale might be and what ratio of type of formula to apply.

I can't see a way to fairly implement a sliding scale for different ranks in battle. I do think that I have already gave the lesser ranks consideration as they're allowed to be below average and still not receive votes. You have to remember, wo5's etc can choose play battles where wo5 is the top rank whereas generalisimos don't have that luxury should wo5's decide to join their battle.

 

There are lots of reasons why other players will have an advantage over others. They might have more disposable income to spend on supplies and better kits for example. If a player who is playing for free sides with such players then they might find themselves bottom of the scoreboard but you have to remember that being bottom doesn't always get you votes.

 

I feel this kick2 system is robust enough to pass the test as it currently stands but that's not to say it can't be improved further by adding to or subtracting from it. We should all keep thinking up ways to make it better. If you can demonstrate how sliding scales would work fairly then I'd definitely give it a lot more thought.

 

By the way, I posted my thoughts on Game set up concerning Rank Range.  It has received little notice and no comment!   I do not know if even the title is the best choice or really what to call the post.  The content might not be succinct , perhaps people do not know what I am on about.  I would very much appreciate you commenting in the post    Your thoughts would be welcome.

I'll go give it a read.

[sam6232 2]

use less GERNOLISMON are ver rich why will they want crystals and for poor players or lower that gernolismons can just leave the battle 

[RustyNail 1,538]

Dude, the more I play (and think of your method) the more I tend to agree with you.

However, my doubts regarding lower ranks remain, because it's more important for me not to kick out an innocent player than to let a mult play.

What I say implies that I can't really estimate the accuracy of your mechanism, so I 'd love to give it a try on e tester map / server...

If it really works and can distinquish well meaning players from mults, then I 'm with you with all my heart.

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

Reading through this, I do not believe that their very much empathy for the lower ranks.  That might not be an unnatural position, a large percentage of people tend to see things only from their own position, their own point of view, not seeing the wider picture.  I can appreciate the huge amount of effort gone into this, and a real genuine desire, to try to formulate out bad players, mults, crystal harvesters, et, al from the game, that is very good, commendable in fact.  Their is a steely, forceful determination to push through with plans, tending to concentrate only on the positive aspects.  I have an uneasy feeling of a confusions of aims.  On the one hand, trying to get rid of the bad guys, while on the other hand, trying to reinforce the game from the perspective of the Master Rank, a tendency to be intolerant and dismissive of lesser success, no matter what the reason might be. A lack of distinction between the multing bad guy and the chap who just is not quite good enough, or perhaps cannot afford a 100,000 crystal cash of supplies.  I think that I remember some reference to shaft players and a slight sneer cast in that direction, with some suggestion about them having to buy another weapon if it did not quite fit in or measure up.  A bit of an elitist position, perhaps.  

 

One asks ones self, is this aim only to remove bad play, or does it also have yet an another, a second purpose, to enhance and ensure success only for a certain superior playing style, to enforce that hedonistic desire, at the expense of all else.  After all,  one does not want some less well equipped  player getting in the way of perpetual winning and a huge crystal fest of the Clan or Professional Mercenary.

[RustyNail 1,538]

Reading through this, I do not believe that their very much empathy for the lower ranks.  That might not be an unnatural position, a large percentage of people tend to see things only from their own position, their own point of view, not seeing the wider picture.  I can appreciate the huge amount of effort gone into this, and a real genuine desire, to try to formulate out bad players, mults, crystal harvesters, et, al from the game, that is very good, commendable in fact.  Their is a steely, forceful determination to push through with plans, tending to concentrate only on the positive aspects.  I have an uneasy feeling of a confusions of aims.  On the one hand, trying to get rid of the bad guys, while on the other hand, trying to reinforce the game from the perspective of the Master Rank, a tendency to be intolerant and dismissive of lesser success, no matter what the reason might be. A lack of distinction between the multing bad guy and the chap who just is not quite good enough, or perhaps cannot afford a 1,000 crystal cash of supplies.  I think that I remember some reference to shaft players and a slight sneer cast in that direction, with some suggestion about them having to buy another weapon if it did not quite fit in or measure up.  A bit of an elitist position, perhaps.  

 

One asks ones self, is this aim only to remove bad play, or does it also have yet an another, a second purpose, to enhance and ensure success only for a certain superior playing style, to enforce that hedonistic desire, at the expense of all else.  After all,  one does not want some less well equipped  player getting in the way of perpetual winning and a huge crystal fest of the Clan or Professional Mercenary.

It's more or less my concerns, as I wrote at the start of this post. But Absolute Zero said that it doesn't do that, it only removes the "bad guys" from a battile. That's why a test would be just fine...

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Reading through this, I do not believe that their very much empathy for the lower ranks.

Well I had the idea long before I reached generalisimo.

One thing I noticed on my journey to generalismo level 30 is that the number of mults you encounter are proportional to your level. I see more at this level than I ever did at yours. When you get here you will know this too. I can spend an hour sometimes more searching for honest battles. I jump from server to server trying to get in a game only to see 3 players on the losing side all with 0-20pts, even after 15 minutes of me waiting. It's a shocking state of affairs!

 

The question of lower ranks seems to be of most concern so I'll address it for you.

 

If you are of a 3rd Lt. say, you have to ask yourself why would you want to join a battle where field marshals roam. What would you possibly get out of it if you are not even half the strength or power as your teammates. And don't you think that they would be a little bit upset with you for your lack of consideration. They will be battling hard against like for like opponents only for you to enter a gun fight with a pea shooter! It's extremely inconsiderate. The same would apply to WO1's playing with Brigadiers.

 

But this system doesn't demand that you fight to the same level as the rest of your team. It says you can be well below average and still not receive votes. This seems to be lost on you. This is the 55% figure I refer to. Remember that it's flexible. RustyNail is right to suggest it would need testing to find the right value but I've played with the spreadsheets and 55% seems to be a happy and more than fair medium.

 

Knowing that this system is in place should make players ask themselves the question before entering - Can I be effective at this level? If the answer is no then don't join it. If you join it knowing that you're worse than useless then you're inconsiderate and deserve to be voted for. If you can compete to a standard then great.

 

Would you be happier if I added a line in the suggestion that states kick2 would be disabled below the rank of master sergeant? This way, recruits and privates don't get booted and they have a chance to save up supplies and get better equipment.

[lordmostafa 3,821]

This topic just keeps getting better and better, keep it up guys, you are doing a fantastic job here, I only hope this gets implemented, I would want to see what Hazel thinks about this, tho he still haven't replied, anyways, keep up!!! I love this system.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

However, my doubts regarding lower ranks remain, because it's more important for me not to kick out an innocent player than to let a mult play.

Define innocent?

If you enter a battle that you know you're going to be rubbish in then you're not innocent.

 

You're a brigadier. If a couple of sergent majors entered your side when you were 40 - 10 up in a 50 ctf battle you'd hope that they would be competitive wouldn't you. If they were trying but the sucked so bad in their m0 wasps and m0 smokies and green paint, I doubt you'd be saying they were innocent. Oh look, these players suck but they're trying so I won't vote for them. So what if we lose 40 - 50. The battlefund was only 20,000 and I'm more than happy with my 200 crystal reward. Thanks sergent majors for helping!

 

And then you woke up! :D

[lordmostafa 3,821]

Sadly, I reached my quota of positive votes.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

This topic just keeps getting better and better, keep it up guys, you are doing a fantastic job here, I only hope this gets implemented, I would want to see what Hazel thinks about this, tho he still haven't replied, anyways, keep up!!! I love this system.

Thanks. Hazel is aware of this topic. Even if it doesn't get implemented, discussing it throws up ideas and solutions for devs to look at when they work on whatever will replace team-kick. We're all doing everyone a service by working on it here. Keep all feedback and concerns coming.

 

 

Sadly, I reached my quota of positive votes.

There's always tomorrow! :)

[lordmostafa 3,821]

Thanks. Hazel is aware of this topic. Even if it doesn't get implemented, discussing it throws up ideas and solutions for devs to look at when they work on whatever will replace team-kick. We're all doing everyone a service by working on it here. Keep all feedback and concerns coming.

 

There's always tomorrow! :)

Great! I hope some of  your ideas get in ;)

I will give it another read, to see what's new.

[RustyNail 1,538]

"It says you can be well below average and still not receive votes. This seems to be lost on you."

 

No, it's not lost. Just, as I said, I can't really estimate what measure of a player's effort is this 55% you say. That's why I say, let's give it a try.

 

My concerns are of another nature, whether it's better to keep the game "loose" or make it "tide", speaking of performance.. And this is not a mathematical problem but a question as to "what kind of game do I want to make?" (and concerns the devs mostly). So it doesn't have a "true" or "false" value.

 

I can tell you this as well; (since everyone judges from everyone's experience) I used to play with higher ranks than mine (and still do lol). I wanted it for practice. Honestly, only when pussing myself to the extremes do I improve and become better.

Was I square to the generalissimos and marshalls I played with and against? Mostly not. They beat me up most of the time. So my scores where not the best. Was I a weak ring to my team's chain? Maybe. But I played honestly and I tried hard.

I see what you mean, players that stay still or hide most of the time (or just are too noobs to escape the enemy shot)... big difference between what I described and this... But, still I can't not think that maybe, other players would like to try to play harder than their rank, just to learn. I wouldn't want them kicked out due to a lack of performance. Do I make my point clear? (I 'm not that fluent with english after all) :)