1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hey Guest, is it this your first time on the forums?

    Visit the Beginner's Box

    Introduce yourself, read some of the ins and outs of the community, access to useful links and information.

    Dismiss Notice

Surrender Vote Discussion

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by PUNK123, Sep 14, 2016.

?

How to solve the surrender vote?

  1. Nothing is wrong with it right now.

  2. Make the vote pass only if there are two more players voting in favor than against

  3. Have a percentage needed to pass around 70-80%

  4. Make the vote out of total available voters

  5. All these ideas dont fix the issue(tell us in the thread your thoughts)

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,273
    So....

    Admins i have another issue with how you respond to things. If an enemy team has the flag and is running it back why is the surrender vote allowed to next map. Like seriously why, we disallowed nextmap votes when the enemy was trying to cap the flag i dont understand the difference here. Until, or if ever, the kag devs fix the % needed to pass a surrender vote i feel like a team should have the chance to cap the flag if an admin is there. I feel like the surrender vote is needed to stop shitters from refusing to cap the flag when the admin isnt there, but when they are i feel like you shouldnt be allowed to cast a surrender vote after you lose. ATM im more salty that my almost amazing cap, before the surrender vote nextmapped, was cut off by a teammate thinking it would be hilarious to teamkill the guy who ran 40+ blocks to try to beat the clock. That said i feel like this is an important thing to bring up. I cant exactly access your blocked off areas so itd be nice if one of you guys, if any of you agree with what i said, posts this there and have that discussion.
     
  2. Potatobird

    Potatobird Bison Rider Forum Moderator Mapping Moderator Tester Official Server Admin

    Messages:
    775
    I was on your team so I was unable to cancel the surrender vote. I do agree that it's strange to see 5v4 votes pass, when just under half the team wants to keep going. Part of the reason nextmap votes are cancelled if a team is actually trying to cap is to avoid the weird double-nextmap shuffle, which I don't think would happen for a surrender vote.

    And frankly as long as one team has clearly won, I don't think whether the flag is physically capped or not is important enough to be an administrative concern. I would have gladly cancelled the vote and let you cap if I could. But I also don't think it would have been a big deal if I hadn't cancelled it, were I able to.

    In regards to the spike, the game's outcome had already been decided. I think you're right in that he did do it because he thought it would be funny, not because he expected you to get upset about it. When a teamkill has no bearing at all on a match at all because it was done after the game, I'm not gonna let a guy get votekicked for that. People teamkill each other and blow up there own bases after the match has been decided pretty much every single game.
     
    an_obamanation likes this.
  3. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,273
    When it is literally just used to stop the other team from capping it is trolling. You cant give up after you have already lost your flag and it "not being an administrative concern" is correct it is a developer concern that they havent fixed so im holding admins responsible to moderate it.
    It was a keg. In endgame, running over 40 blocks, i wouldnt have got caught by a spike. Frankly i dont care what is funny or not i care about my fun and he completely ruined it. Also i dont think it is your place to judge whether a votekick is justified, if a teamkill legitimately happened and the person did it with the mens reas. I explained it well enough ingame so i assumed i could drop it but i guess not: generally i dont get irritated by teamkilling in endgame but when someone does it with very very very limited time to cap(and only teamkills the flag carrier) i feel like there is no justification. I literally ran across the entire map to try to beat a bs vote and you expect me to be a fine with a "for the lolz" teamkill when it was obvious he was trying to stop me from capping before the time was over. I understand he thought it was all in good fun but the mens reas is still there, he did something specifically towards me to stop me from having fun. In the future realise it isnt your place to decide the validity of a kick when the action being voted on happened(and it also happened with the guilty mind).
     
  4. Blue_Tiger

    Blue_Tiger Bison Rider Tester

    Messages:
    899
    are you really whining because you couldnt capture a flag?
     
    daskew87 likes this.
  5. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,273
    Have you really spent the last several pages "whining" because you cant say nigger? Atleast i am justified in my thought process while you cant make any argument other than "but youre treating the black people as lesser". The surrender votes ingame right now are total bullshit and theyre being used to stop players from capping the flag when they win. I can be annoyed by abuse and want it stopped cant I? I can try to beat an abusive vote without being subjected to a trolling tk cant I? This is an obvious thing from my perspective but if you want to trivialize it as whine that's in your power to do.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2016
  6. Geti

    Geti Please avoid PMing me (poke a mod instead) THD Team Administrator Global Moderator

    Messages:
    3,730
    Fwiw this is actually quite normal in some other games whereever the outcome is seen as a foregone conclusion.

    Starcraft has this happen basically every game rather than forcing players to finish off every single building; it helps a lot with loser fatigue and lets you get through games in a shorter time.

    The TK sounds annoying but I think the surrender when beaten is at worst the lesser of two evils - I'd much rather people use that out and the victors get a bit salty than have half the losing team ragequit (leading to some of the "winning" team getting autobalanced and getting even more salty).
     
    norill likes this.
  7. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,273
    After you have already lost the *flag*. I understand the needs for the surrender vote(enemy refusing to cap, strong stalemate youre on the losing end of, and just a team not wanting to get raped),but that has nothing to do with this criticism. The enemy ingame is using the surrender vote to stop the other team from capping. It is a dick move and not an attempt to "stop rqs" or "end the game quickly". Again the real issue is the passing % for surrender, which if it isnt gonna get fixed, forces admins to moderate this bogus abuse of the voting system.
    People ragequit after a long game eitherway. I really dont think the entire enemy team is gonna quit just because the enemy was allowed to cap the flag they spent over a 1/2 an hour getting(and it only taking 15 seconds). Even if they do quit, why would we honestly want *those* players there who are such sore losers that their egos wont allow the enemy to cap/who try to abuse a votekick to stop the enemy from capping. I understand how it is right now is the lesser of two evils, but the actual solution to this is fixing the surrender vote.
     
  8. Potatobird

    Potatobird Bison Rider Forum Moderator Mapping Moderator Tester Official Server Admin

    Messages:
    775
    Well I don't really see a good "fix" to that, the game can't automatically judge the intent of the surrender vote.
     
  9. Geti

    Geti Please avoid PMing me (poke a mod instead) THD Team Administrator Global Moderator

    Messages:
    3,730
    You haven't actually suggested a fix here, you've just said "fix it" several times. It's currently a majority surrender. What would a more appropriate percentage be, and why?

    Alternatively; the current vote percentage is calculated based on those who actually voted - should it use the maximum possible votes (all the "dont care" votes) instead?

    Can we get a separate discussion about this instead of you just pretending to be the persecuted voice of reason without actually suggesting solutions or enacting meaningful discussion? Thanks in advance.
     
    an_obamanation likes this.
  10. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,273
    I did in my previous post incase you have selective blindness
    Seems obvious to me. So much so that i made a thread about this issue months ago.
    What the fuck is this then? Obviously the point is it needs to be raised, but i was requesting we have admins be able to moderate this now because the development doesnt seem to want to fix this issue(based off of no response in months).
    What?
    We have as already quoted. Though this is the best place for the point to officially be brought up atleast.


    But yea love that snark. Totally my fault that i make threads trying to discuss things months ago and you find it so unimportant that you do nothing for the longest time(see how idiotic it is to assume someone's action's/motives?).

    Honestly, how can you expect me to feel like i can have a meaningful discussion when i pm you about a topic, because i dont have any avenue to talk to actual official server admins except maybe pinging every single one, and you basically tell me to fuck off because you dont have time for it. Can you stop making appeal to motives/ridicule and actually have an honest discussion of what im talking about?

    [not counting misspells and other crap]EDIT2: A point that i assumed was obvious but i havent made yet: the problem with the vote is that one team can pass it with just their team's majority. It completely cuts off the past dynamic where the enemy had to fully want the next map(because they needed a majority of everyone for next map). I think a general fix to it will be to make it harder to pass a surrender It it obvious to me that s0mewhere between 70-80% would stop some bull votes while still allowing teams that are getting walloped to throw in the towel. Again all things talked about before either in that thread or with my discussion with others. I think a big issue of this back and forth i have with people is that i talk and talk to people and get no where because they just dont care. It happened with specific people in the past and has happened with some people i am discussing with here. So i just keep to myself with these issues until i hit the tipping point and then you get the full flood of my stance/view/ect.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
  11. Potatobird

    Potatobird Bison Rider Forum Moderator Mapping Moderator Tester Official Server Admin

    Messages:
    775
    Best solution is to require at least two more yes votes, so things like 5v4 wouldn't pass. No weird arbitrary percentages necessary.

    But that would do nothing to fix what you were actually complaining about:
    When one of the most valid uses of the surrender vote is to prevent teams from showboating with the flag forever, there's really no way to prevent that "issue". Making it require a little more than a majority is an idea that I support, but what if they have 100% yes votes to surrender after losing the flag? It is literally impossible for the voting system to determine whether a team is actually going to capture the flag or not. That's what I meant.

    And like come on, you win either way. It is not a dick move to want to move on to the next game a little faster. This is so blown out of proportion.

    re: "separate discussion", he probably didn't mean pm, see his forum title
     
    an_obamanation likes this.
  12. Geti

    Geti Please avoid PMing me (poke a mod instead) THD Team Administrator Global Moderator

    Messages:
    3,730
    This is the "Official KAG Servers" thread, not the "Punk123's Personal Pet Peeves" thread.

    The "here" in my quote was referring to your post above. You mentioned "fixing the surrender vote" twice, and moderation once, as a back stop to it actually being fixed. The bulk of your posts about it have been expressly complaining about the lack of a fix as opposed to any sort of drive for moderation.

    My point about a separate thread (that, looking at it, I've responded to earnestly anyway) is that discussion about non-official-KAG-server-stuff should not be in this thread. That's the whole point of threaded discussion, so you can keep discussion about one thing in one place. If you feel something hasn't been reasonably addressed, by all means do what everyone else does and bump that thread so it gets another look. Don't spread the discussion across multiple places because you "think it's not getting listened to".

    As for moderating it - there's already a seclev for that (vote_cancel), it looks like the rendering doesn't show it up if you couldn't vote in the decision though; I'll change that now. The vote code is (relatively) clean and I'm happy to make changes to it when I have time, we just need some sort of reasonable consensus, or a clear bug.


    PMing me directly is a crap use of my time, because it requires me to pull time out of my day to respond to your specific concerns in a place noone else sees or gets any benefit from. There are more folks on this forum than just yourself, and your particular "long form" approach to Q+A is not something I'm always willing to engage with. As you can see from the length of this post, directly responding to the scattergun points you make takes a lot of time. We can't be everywhere, I've got more to do in my day than placate you, and often times someone else will know the answer anyway. A public forum is a better place for it.

    (sidenote @Potatobird - he's talking about an exchange we had recently when he mentions PMs)

    "I don't have an avenue" isn't true, here is the general discussion forum where you can discuss just about anything, but the thread we're in now is (ironically, given the off-topic slant of it) a fine place to raise concerns and discussion about official admin behaviour.

    No, that's not your fault. You talk of needing a thick skin but seem to read every post as if it's made to personally inflict as much of a personal slight as possible. Your fault is that you assume malice at every corner. We're not out to get you.



    Furthermore, since there seems to be some confusion about how tasks are handled - we have a todo list of tasks, some of them have a developer assigned. Some of them dont. Most of them dont have a due date.

    This list is rarely shrinking, and low priority tasks "sink" on that list. Some tasks (such as this voting stuff) don't even make it onto the list as there's no clear action to take. We have a lot more on our plates than just servicing the immediate wants of each KAG player - MM is busy with butcher launch stuff at the moment, Furai and jrgp are busy with all the backend migration, maintenance and upgrade work. The only intern working on KAG at the moment is Cameron, and he's strictly limited to APIClient work.

    I'm the only one spending any time at all on the game side of KAG at the moment, and I've got another project eating most of my work hours. Progress is slow, and prioritising the (currently 66) active tasks (some with sub-tasks) isn't always trivial.
     
    an_obamanation likes this.
  13. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,273
    [EDIT2:nvm i just derped again thinking i deleted something]
    Please please please stop mis-representing my point. The issue is how easy this abuse can be done, not that it is possible to happen. I understand people will abuse the system but you can atleast make it harder and more fair for everyone involved. A large majority of a team should be needed for them to surrender.
    Great to know that big issues are too hard to fix and "small" issues are too insignificant to care about. Honestly i am upset over the abuse of a votekick and another team trolling with it. How can you possible be against me wanting that fixed?

    stop misrepresenting points. The thread already exists as i pointed out. Stop mixing and mashing what i said while ignoring context.
    Appeal to ridicule. Please stop arguing so terribly. This is a thread where i brought up an issue i have with moderation because i cant contact official server admins many other ways.
    I guess this doesnt exist then in your mind geti? Or are you just throwing crap at the wall hoping it sticks?
    Of course. I would prefer a fix to messed up problem but if that cant happen I think this needs to be moderated. Simple train of thought that you want to pretend is me just trying to bring up a complaint about surrender vote % with the pretense of talking about moderation.

    This is a different discussion. I would obviously prefer for the % to be fixed but if that wont happen, and based off of the past several months it wont, then i am requesting this gets talked about as something to moderate. This may have something similar to it but it something needed to be talked about. For instance if i wanted to go super duper saltmaster about bugs i would bring up them here for moderation. Not because i am spreading the issue around threads, but because if the bugs arent being fixed then maybe they need to be moderated. I dont agree with alot of people pertaining to bugs but this metaphor should help you understand this situation.
    Respectable enough thought. That doesnt mean admins will feel it is worth moderating or something to moderate which is why i brought it up.

    Fair enough but remember you are the person who said I am acting like a silent persecution victim. Also a little help, if you dont nitpick things that ive already discussed youd have alot less to respond to, and if you cut out the appeal to motives/ridicule i would leave much shorter rants.

    It is a slight regardless and I can respond to it and point out how idiotic it is without losing my shit. I generally like to let myself be annoyed, it makes venting easier and more precise. Again youre taking my opinions out of context, i think you can do, say, and act how you want without needing to care about my feelings(generally and within reason of course) and i can respond in kind. That is how i feel this fancy ol' thing called discussion is best used. Um as for that last part, you and i both know why i assume malice(because there usually is malice blatantly shown behind closed doors(hidden threads)). I generally dont get how you can make this argument, you are saying that I cant get mad at you insulting my motives or ridiculing what i post. I can get annoyed at insults, that doesnt mean i want the insults b& though.
    Again my good sir, context. I have no avenue to discuss with admins but here because it is somewhere where i am generally given a response. The only other place real admin issues are discussed is in that forum i cant view. Just putting it in general makes no sense to me because it involves admin "protocol"

    Good to know though it doesnt concern me because i both cant see it and it doesnt affect the issues i have.

    This just makes my point of admins moderating surrender votes that much more valid so thankyou.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
  14. Blue_Tiger

    Blue_Tiger Bison Rider Tester

    Messages:
    899
    Since when is surrendering abuse? If your team doesn't think it can win and doesn't wanna play anymore then it has every right to surrender. I don't even think a surrender vote should be cancelled - ever.

    Also, why do you feel the need to write such insane essays every post. Your whole argument can be summarised easily:

    -I wanted to capture a flag, enemy surrendered before I could.
    -please make it so surrender votes take more % so it's even harder to get a surrender vote to pass
    -if not, admins should cancel "abusive" surrender votes

    Not everyone has all the time in the world to read your rants.
     
  15. Potatobird

    Potatobird Bison Rider Forum Moderator Mapping Moderator Tester Official Server Admin

    Messages:
    775
    The enemy team was not surrendering specifically to troll you. They just surrendered, because they had lost. That isn't abuse. I find it hard to believe that a team has ever surrendered specifically because they thought it would make the enemy mad due to them not getting to cap.

    And another thing, nobody was intentionally misrepresenting your point. It was just unclear. When you explain what you actually meant, you don't also need to tack on an angry remark about how we're trying to manipulate the argument or whatever, we're seriously not.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
  16. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,273
    Yea it is just a coincidence that votes happen when the enemy is running back the flag. I think you have a very very optimistic view of the world and you're using that to justify players being so impatient that they cant wait 15 seconds for the formality of the other team capping. Oh also good to know the issues doesnt ever happen because you dont believe it happens. Generally speaking, even if i gave you the point that they surrender to end the game quickly(after the flag is lost), you still have to wait for the vote to pass and the extra 5 or so seconds( i dont know i never timed it) for the map to actually skip. Is it really that important that you wait 10 more seconds for the team to officially cap? I just think it is idiotic to surrender after you have lost, and i dont think there is any viable argument for doing it(except "but the 10 seconds might cause a rq"). If someone cant wait 10 seconds then i dont see how you could possible expect them to stay the server much at all. Hell two respawns and those players will be dropping like flys. Your point is mainly this: "your argument is just so unimportant", so ill respond in kind: your argument that it saves 10 seconds is just trivial. See how un-conducive to discussion that is. People will see both our points as valid, but it doesnt solve which side is right or wrong. I dont understand what is so controversial about wanting teams to actually cap the flag in ctf. Even though i havent been arguing that and my real issue is that people are able to abuse such a stupid vote, why do you find the idea of someone wanting to cap a flag in ctf so pointless?
    Yea so now we have someone just here to troll. I dont suppose anyone wants to deal with this actual "off-topic" person?
    Couple things. No one said it was intentional and my point was clear in context. Again you can assume the tone i have with you when i write, if it makes you feel better, but that isnt my real tone. I did not get angry at you in the slightest, i was only annoyed with geti because he actually said both wrong and insulting things.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
  17. toothgrinderx

    toothgrinderx Horde Gibber Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    93
    I think we can all at least agree that @PUNK123 would make a good politician, even if his stances and points are unfounded or wrong sometimes you bet your ass he can support them, stick to his guns, and dismantle your counter argument with a malicious precision.

    In all seriousness yes surrender vote passing requirement should be upped a little, but it is indeed a small small issue. In my last week of play I've seen only 3-5 surrenders and they were legitimate. Even so it is something that could be fixed pretty easily, and I'm sure Geti would do it too, if everyone could shut the hell up arguing over which solution is appropriate.

    I support what potatobird said, change it so that it requires 2 more yes votes than no votes to pass, either get on board with this idea or stop talking because not supporting this perfectly good fix is just prolonging the implementation of how it is now. I'm sure if everyone can just be united about this being the change we want, Geti will have no problem doing this for us. When he has a spare moment, of course.

    But obviously this isn't the thread to keep talking about it, maybe bump the old thread and we can vote on this or just make a new one stating the proposed fix, but be clear that people either support the ONE ACCEPTABLE IDEA, or they think it's fine as is. It's ridiculous how much doesn't get done because all these idiots sit and nitpick every idea and then present their own much more perfect one, why would Geti or any other of the team want to change anything only to hear everyone cry and bitch about it here? Start being unified about things or you should expect nothing to be done.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
  18. Geti

    Geti Please avoid PMing me (poke a mod instead) THD Team Administrator Global Moderator

    Messages:
    3,730
    You're right, it's not a coincidence at all - it's them conceding the loss to your cap. You still get the victory trumpets. You still beat them. I understand wanting to cap the flag, but when you still get the flag, get the victory, and go onto the next map it's hard to agree that its "abuse that needs moderating". Sounds like you're complaining that you won the game.

    It doesn't, it just makes you write long winded, rambling posts where your point gets lost amongst the vitriol.

    To my understanding (and I checked the post beforehand) that only applies to feedback about the official servers and their administration - not general feedback about the entire game.

    We're not in a formal debate, I'm not "disproving" any of your "arguments". I'm stating my opinion that you're treating this thread like your personal dumping ground. You're veering ever closer to the venerated argument from fallacy fallacy if you lean on these kinds of "arguments" in any real debate, fwiw.

    He's right that your posts tend to get longer and longer as you get into a discussion. It's honestly exhausting to be on the receiving end of.

    I said you're acting "like the persecuted voice of reason" - and I maintain that position. I'll explain this a bit more as you seem to think I mean it as a slight, and you seem honestly confused when people don't agree with you. I mean it as a criticism of your approach to reporting/suggesting/criticising/arguing.
    • You make incredibly long posts, which fatigues everyone reading them.
    • You report issues in a very informal way, like everyone knows what you're talking about - they don't. You get annoyed or write more incredibly long posts when they "misconstrue" your point, as if they're doing it intentionally.
    • You mix complaints with suggestions with arguments with sarcasm, which makes it very hard to follow what you're actually talking about, and what you want. It reads as constant griping, furthering the perception of you feeling persecuted.
    • You respond to any snarkiness in kind, but then insert a little bit at the end about "see how annoying that is?" "see how this muddies the discussion". You achieve your apparent goal here - it's very annoying and it muddies the discussion. It doesn't help anyone.
    • You rarely if ever "concede" that you might be wrong/in the minority about something. This hugely discourages trying to work out any differences with you.
    • When someone criticises your tone or clarity or long posts, instead of addressing those issues, you say that that's their problem, not yours, and maintain that you're still right. This further discourages discussion.
    These are (in my perception) recurring behaviours in your posts - in short, you act as though you're the one sane person in an asylum and if only you explain your position (again) (in extremely long and ranty detail), then they'll all see!

    It seems that you care a lot, and that's great - but the way you communicate that could use some work.

    Almost every "known" problem is either hard to fix or contentious. Some of them just drop off the list. Contention can only be solved by discussion. Hard to fix can only be overcome by a very strong need for something to be dealt with. Something dropping off the list can only be fixed by it being brought to our attention.

    Long rants and some of your other behaviours aren't very helpful for any of those - they discourage discussion, make it look like a personal issue rather than a community one, and get ignored because tl;dr.

    I'm not claiming that I'm perfect at communicating either, but, well, there it is.
     
    an_obamanation, daskew87 and Solaris like this.
  19. Auburn

    Auburn Prepare Yourself! Forum Moderator Staff Alumni Donator Tester
    1. SharSharShar - [SHARK]

    Messages:
    734
    I moved all these posts from the OKS thread to here to avoid cluttering that thread. Feel free to carry on.
     
    Geti and Blue_Tiger like this.
  20. daskew87

    daskew87 Legendary corpse humper Donator

    Messages:
    447
    Hey geti I just looked at this thread.

    It does feel a bit strange when the game is wisped away by just over 25% of the people in the server. I feel like when I am on the winning team, that something has been robbed from me and it doesnt feel like a proper victory. And very annoyed when I was on the losing and I didn't want it to end, along with close to half the team. :>:(:

    I think with such a serious power, as ending the game and skipping on the map, that a higher percentage should be required. Cos it can mean, again just over 25% of the people in the server can ruin the game for nearly 75%.

    Maybe 70% of the team should be the number? Not over 50%.

    The surrender option I think is a clever new addition because sometimes games are just painful for one side but they keep hanging on and everyone knows its redicilous. But in those special cases I would bet 70%+ of people would vote yes to surrender.

    Either that OR temporarily turn all of the losing side into princesses during the victory music ::D:

    :smug:
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
    epsilon, Blue_Tiger, SJD360 and 2 others like this.