In large teams there are issues with games not being resigned fast enough (despite preemptive attempts by some). Often, the more players there are in the game, the less likely that it'll end in a resign, and probably will require a complete annihilation of a team. The cause of this is people AFKing and not voting, despite having given up already and resigned. Here's my proposed solution: 1) In all !voteresign votes, count all people that have already !resign-ed or left the game as a !vote 1 by default. 2) Count all AFK people (those that have been concluded AFK ingame and had their units transferred to allies, but are still 'playing') that don't cast a vote in time as a default !vote 1
+7 / -3
|
I would prefer to see resigned or AFK players simply not getting a vote at all, and requiring half of the active players to vote for a resign. In particular resigned, spectating players voting one way or the other is a lot like spec-cheating, even though in most (but not all) cases the game is decided already.
+4 / -0
|
This issue is enormous. I've not been in a big teams game that resolved by resignation in ages. It's frustrating, and it's causing a lot of discontent.
+5 / -0
|
|
|
|
|
So the vote threshold for large games is too high?
+0 / -3
|
No. Resigning is the main issue here, not general voting (e.g. for starting the game or quitting due to random issues). It helps if you read.
+0 / -1
|
quote:
I can see that being a problem if in a team of 10, 8 people have resigned but there's still 1 or 2 noobs/trolls preventing the game from ending - which is really the most common manifestation of the issue here. |
The 8 people should have !voteresigned while they were still in the game, in that case. It might require a bit of a culture shift for players to realise that once they have unilaterally resigned they no longer have any say over what their teammates do, but I think that shift is both desirable and long overdue.
+0 / -0
|
Oops, I meant resign vote threshold. People who have left the game should not get to vote on resigning, let alone be a automatic vote for resigning. They left and they are now spectators. The remaining players should be able to get on with the game. This is currently a bit unrealistic because people tend to resign before voting. Hopefully they would not do that. Another solution is to let them vote (or count them as voting yes) for a short time after they resign. Perhaps there could even be an automatic resign vote like this if two or more players resign at once.
+0 / -0
|
The reason I am against automatic resign votes as opposed to my suggestion is that this game (and others like it) would never have worked out the way it did under the proposed system, and despite his team-mates ragequitting and bitching like little girls   [Vak]Jaronidas fully deserved this win: http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/342379Next reason: Suppose a 3v3 is being played and one player on the first team crashes at the start. The first team nevertheless begins to win the game, but a hypothetical player on the first team loses his com, ragequits, and calls a resign vote. The resign vote is instantly successful despite the lone remaining actual player (who might well still be winning the game) not being in favour of it. I consider a game being resigned when the active players don't want to resign to be a far worse failure case and abuse case than a game not being resigned when the spectators want the game to be over. Simply requiring a majority of the active and non-resigned players to be in favour of a resignation, and the associated culture shift of calling a resign vote only when you are still a player, would fix both cases.
+3 / -0
|
There are very few games where nearly everyone in your team resigns (due to losing, not the game taking hours) and you still end up winning (I honestly don't remember being in one for a long, long time). The majority games now end up having 1.1k elo players left playing since they're still new and everything's fun for them and/or they haven't found the resign button yet. With any voteresign mechanic you will have some games being resigned that could've been won, but it definitely outweighs waiting for the cleanup crew to mop up. If you have to wait for the game to end to play a new one (which you currently do), not counting votes of resigned players is undesirable imo.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Next reason: Suppose a 3v3 is being played and one player on the first team crashes at the start. The first team nevertheless begins to win the game, but a hypothetical player on the first team loses his com, ragequits, and calls a resign vote. The resign vote is instantly successful despite the lone remaining actual player (who might well still be winning the game) not being in favour of it.
|
This could be easily prevented by simply ignoring people that left/resigned after a reasonable amount of time passes (5+mins).
+0 / -0
|
Voteresign is not a problem with voteresign, but with the small community. We only have enough people to have one room running. This means that to get the next game going, the current game needs to end to recycle the people back into the pool. Voteresign is the only way to force the people to be recycled (short of actually finishing the game), which is why there is demand for it to be easily enforcable. A large community would allow people to hop right into the next game because there would always be one being set up.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Voteresign is not a problem with voteresign, but with the small community.
|
That's true, but even so, the current situation - where you need the majority vote of all players: both active and resigned - is not good regardless of the size of the community. For the status quo though (one room running) my solution's probably best.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
There are very few games where nearly everyone in your team resigns (due to losing, not the game taking hours) and you still end up winning (I honestly don't remember being in one for a long, long time).
The majority games now end up having 1.1k elo players left playing since they're still new and everything's fun for them and/or they haven't found the resign button yet.
With any voteresign mechanic you will have some games being resigned that could've been won, but it definitely outweighs waiting for the cleanup crew to mop up.
If you have to wait for the game to end to play a new one (which you currently do), not counting votes of resigned players is undesirable imo. |
You and I appear to weight things differently. I think your weighting is bad (in particular, it is highly motivated by your personal desire for gratification rather than the enjoyment of all players) but that is merely my opinion I suppose. It is true that your solution will result in games being over as quickly as possible but I do not think that on its own is a good metric. I find players on my own team resigning and then still getting to have a say in the game of any kind to be unpleasant and unreasonable. I do not think it is unreasonable to require that if you want your team to resign the game, you must remain part of your team rather than just giving up yourself. My solution retains the property that players who have quit the game and gone AFK does not stop their team resigning, which I think is the actual problem.
+1 / -1
|
To clarify: I believe it is rare for the newby 1.1k players to be a majority of the players from a team (currently playing or resigned) who are not AFK. The problem with those players not resigning at the end of the game typically arises in my experience when enough players have gone AFK that the remainder cannot !voteresign normally, and must resign individually at the end of the game - at which point the newbies who don't or won't resign stall everything up. Simply not counting the votes of the departed players would resolve this issue since the remaining experienced players could just !voteresign, instead of having to resign individually. (If all of the experienced players ragequit a game before !voteresign-ing and then the newbies play on anyway and hold everything up, I think that's just karma.)
+0 / -0
|
quote:
You and I appear to weight things differently. I think your weighting is bad (in particular, it is highly motivated by your personal desire for gratification rather than the enjoyment of all players) but that is merely my opinion I suppose.
|
wtf quote:
I do not think it is unreasonable to require that if you want your team to resign the game, you must remain part of your team rather than just giving up yourself.
|
That's just semantics. People who are calling !voteresign or voting 1 on it have pretty much resigned already and aren't playing their 100% if at all.
+0 / -0
|
Alright,   gajop. What are the actual advantages of your proposed system over mine? So far as I can see, they both fix a problem with the current system, but mine does so without introducing new abuses on the other side.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
(If all of the experienced players ragequit a game before !voteresign-ing and then the newbies play on anyway and hold everything up, I think that's just karma.)
|
Experienced players usually quit sooner because they can tell when a game is over.. based on experience. The newbies aren't "holding everything up", they're just dying a slow death since it takes time to kill everything.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Experienced players usually quit sooner because they can tell when a game is over.. based on experience.
The newbies aren't "holding everything up", they're just dying a slow death since it takes time to kill everything. |
My point being that the experienced players could and should !voteresign in that situation. If the newbies are a majority from the beginning of the game, then playing it out is a legitimate learning experience for them.
+0 / -0
|
