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:
    1,233
    Yea that's totally what im saying. You seem to dislike when i get agitated with you but can you atleast concede that some of the things you say are disrespectful towards my opinion/argument.
    I call bullcrap because the entire message, in every one of my posts, had me quoting each separate part i was talking about. Maybe long-winded but not rambling.

    Ive already made a point about this that i guess you dont remember. Ill take a deep breathe and tell you to go look for it before you come to the conclusion that i was off-topic. I explained it and i shouldnt have to do that twice.

    So appeal to ridicule is perfectly fine in "non-formal" debates? I guess i could just not say fallacy and say that youre insulting a person and not the idea. Would that be better?
    That has zero to do with what i said and the point was made elsewhere anyway. I mean at a second glance i guess it could be an explanation that he wasnt trolling but to be honest based off of my past experience with this individual he doesnt deserve the benefit of the doubt.
    • As explained countless times if people stopped trying to nitpick an issue that i already defended then i wouldnt restate the entire thing again. Even in this post you decided to say you feel the rules mean something different but didnt elaborate as to why my "buggy game mechanics" metaphor didnt fit this situation.
    • No, not in my first post. I made it very clear and hit on all my points. The "gripping" is usually from people "misunderstanding" things that are in the thread or comment they responded to. I generally dont enjoy talking to people who wont read the whole post. They tend to come out with a rubuttal to something i already explained and it gets quite tiresome on my end.
    • Read bullet 2 plus I dont think my posts are that hard to read and an example would be nice. It could be that im a baddie or it could be that the other person doesnt have the effort to read my entire post before a response(has happened several time and leads to the "persecuted victim" problem).
    • Good then maybe we can both stop the snark.
    • Do you ever do that? I cant remember a time where you have ever and youve been outspoken here much longer than i have.
    • Addressing the issue of my tone i usually tell people that i can be annoyed just like they can. That is my response and it probably can be summed up as "you're the one with the problem m8". Hence why bullet 4 exists. I guess you can say it is my fault for clarity but that doesnt mean you're right. For instance when i was told about issues with my argument i pointed out where i addressed them(like when, for instance, you said i had not given a fix when infact i did both in this thread and months ago).
    Your perceptions indeed. That behavior is also representative of someone who is trying to re-explain all his points to people who arent reading/or addressing them. Atleast that is my pov.

    Maybe, i dont pretend to be skilled at much of anything
    Yes, which is why i wanted to talk about admins moderating these votes. Generally i dont find saving the game 10-15 seconds worth removing capping from ctf and i dont see that as a controversial thought. I didnt come here to demand the devs fix things because ive made my peace with what will actually get done, but i feel like if we have admins, and at this moment you guys are talking about protocol, then maybe this could be a good thing to discuss.

    Neither is people cherrypicking quotes of mine or sharing their opinions on the rules without telling me how my explanation was faulty.

    Ditto.
    The argument wasnt about which solution was appropriate(to be frank id be happy with any of them).


    Blame auburn for not turning it into a thread quicker:rektlord:

    I dont think i made that point and i just assumed it would convey. Guess that was a slight error on my part.

    This would be by far the best ending i must admit. Though princess geti's or else someone would call sexism.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2016
    icemusher likes this.
  2. makmoud98

    makmoud98 You are already DEAD Forum Moderator Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    586
    Some issues I have with the vote system:
    1. Most people don't vote and don't care. This is especially an issue for surrender and next map votes
    2. Next map and surrender votes should automatically cancel when the map changes
    3. Admins should not be able to cancel surrender votes
    1. There needs to be a way to somehow force people to vote or something that will make more people vote. I'm sure you guys can think of lots of ideas for it, but I'll share mine.
    Now I don't know if this should apply to all kinds of votes (maybe just next map and surrender), but the idea is that votes should not have a timer and instead only pass when X% of people have voted. Players can still close the box and it will count as an 'I don't care' vote. The issue lies with those who ignore the box completely until the vote finally ends.
    Another solution to this could be to just make the vote box more intrusive and annoying, but that could lead to more people simply clicking the box to ignore it.
    I don't know, but I feel that something needs to be done about it and would love to hear your thoughts on it.

    2. I believe this is simply a glitch that everyone knew about, but no one formally reported. It basically causes the map to skip once after the end of a game, and again after the first 5 to 10 seconds or so of the next one. I don't really know why it is still not fixed, but nevertheless it needs to be dealt with considering it should be relatively easy to fix. Which brings me to my next point.

    3. I think the only reason admins should ever cancel surrender votes is if someone just capped the flag or something and they don't what the next map or surrender vote the skip the map again (which I explained in the previous paragraph).
    I believe the heart of our argument is the question: "Do players really care if the enemy surrenders right before capturing a flag?" I think at least 90% of people don't care. I can't be sure though, it just seems like that from my perspective. I don't think capturing the flag is the only way to satisfaction in victory. I mean, it's not like you didn't win if they surrendered.

    Those are my thoughts on this discussion, but I'm sure there are some flaws to my logic. Anyway, maybe we should start a vote on the question somewhere.
     
  3. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,233
    I could get behind this if, and only if, there were changes to surrender votes. The percentage is too low to be un-moderated. Though i think this is more of a protocol thing and not ability-wise(as i feel that someone like [redacted] who just spams surrender votes should be stopped/punish because he literally does it everygame).

    I think it depends on how much it happens to be honest. If it barely affects you and happens 1 in every 1o games then i can see how you wouldnt care but if it were to happen at a much higher rate that would be an issue in your mind right? Generally i feel like rising it will lower the ammount of surrenders which would make it manageable for me(for instance i hate falsevotekicks but they happen every blue moon against me. If it somehow got worse because it passed more often then i would be adamant about it being a bad thing).

    Not really any flaws just different ways to look at the issue.
     
    makmoud98 likes this.
  4. Potatobird

    Potatobird Bison Rider Forum Moderator Tester Official Server Admin

    Messages:
    768
    It might be very close to 100%. Even punk, for example - like, I'm still not sure if I'm getting this right, but the reason punk seems to care even though he actually doesn't care about capturing the flag specifically is because he thinks the people passing the vote think he cares about capturing the flag, and are doing it to annoy him, which annoys him because he thinks they're doing it to annoy him.

    I can't really say what their motives are with any more certainty than he can, though.
     
    Blue_Tiger and an_obamanation like this.
  5. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,233
    I think i can add a poll because i apparently own this thread.
    Does it really matter what annoys me about this situation. I mean it can certainly be trivialized if you compare it to a more pressing issue but i think there are two things about this that you cant deny: surrendering after the flag is lost makes no sense(and 10-15 seconds really doesnt cause much ragequits) AND that this action is obviously irritating to atleast one person.

    ill see about adding a poll now.
     
  6. UnnamedPlayer

    UnnamedPlayer Arsenist Administrator Global Moderator Tester
    1. MOLEing Over Large Estates - [MOLE]

    Messages:
    752
    I've seen a lot of people hold on to the flag so that they can continue wrecking the enemy team. When an admin isn't there to tell people to cap it, surrender votes are an easy way to move on to another game and I've yet to see them abused. They rarely even pass as of now.

    I don't oppose making it out of total team voters though.
     
    norill and Blue_Tiger like this.
  7. Turtlebutt

    Turtlebutt Arsonist Tester

    Messages:
    60
    Maybe make votes end before map ends, except the kick votes.
     
    PUNK123 likes this.
  8. jimmyzoudcba

    jimmyzoudcba Ballista Bolt Thrower Tester

    Messages:
    274
    hmm. DK; surrender vote that i usually encounter is just kinda; off. It's like it always happens when we don't need it (maybe tower lost, minor disadvantage, kegged a bit etc.)
    Guess i have no part here, but i think 2 or more would be pretty good, or even like 70%
     
    PUNK123 likes this.
  9. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,233
    I'm done arguing how often it happens. It is useless and conjecture(kinda like what im gonna do next though...). If we raise it i feel like those obvious abuses of power by the winning team would easily get 2 more than the against vote/ over 70%. That is my opinion, i am not against justified surrender votes, i just feel that 26% of people shouldnt be deciding that the game is over(and it makes it much easier to pass surrender votes at the time after the game is already over).
     
  10. Geti

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

    Messages:
    3,730
    Kinda annoyed that this thread isn't merged with the other surrender discussion but I guess they're distinct.

    This is the biggest thing we disagree with here, I think. I don't see this as a problem. When everyone's already saying "gg" in chat why does it matter if they actually cap or not?

    I'll look at what I can do about this now.


    Re: 70% required - how about I change (all votes) to be based on possible voters next build instead of just those who voted? I think the "requires 2 more" suggested rule works, but it gets closer and closer to 100% consensus at smaller team counts, and while that could be a good thing, it's historically been very hard to get everyone to vote.

    That's why I'm pretty apprehensive about raising the raw percentage as well. Maybe the community has changed though.
     
  11. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,233
    Also there's the rule where you can only have one suggestion per suggestion and ideas thread
    I am annoyed when capping is removed at the end of the game in favor of saving 5-10 seconds. Whether it is a large enough issue to warrant you caring is up to you. I do not personally care about capping the flag myself but i genuinely want Capture the Flag to end with, well, a Flag Capture. Simple as that, any other discussion will lead to alot of conjectures(what is the motive of the person making the vote(optimistic view of them vs pessimistic)who really cares about this issues(afew in this thread and we cant really measure who gives a crap about it ingame)does this really have the potential to be a real issue, ect).
    Each vote kicks happens differently. If it is a griefing kick usually people(with a brain) will only vote if they witness it. I dont want to be given a general concession when the real issue in my mind is surrender votekicks(i find the others generally work out fairly because votekicks rely on people seeing the issue and literally everyone votes on nextmaps votes).

    the community is non-existent, atm im just hoping for things to be idiot-proofed.
     
  12. Geti

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

    Messages:
    3,730
    Next map votes are in violation of this too, then. I genuinely just want games to have a fair outcome with the winning team properly identified, ideally without too much attrition. I don't mind a team "gging out" when they enemy team has made off with their flag and their base is in tatters.



    I've gone with the "count actual percent instead of just who voted" in the next build as it's the easiest to understand change, and added a count of how many people were able to vote to the passed/failed print-out.

    I know that this is not the majority voted option, I'm just not sure that the 2-more rule is a good one and the 70-80% rule does nothing to change the unanimous-low-turnout votes (2 guys vote out of 10 on the team, vote passes) with the current system and lets a stubborn minority stave off surrender for a long time.

    The change I've made means that it's at least actually "25% of people deciding to end the game", instead of "potentially one or two players voting and noone bothering to stop them".

    Admins are also able to cancel surrender votes even on the other team - though I'd encourage them to be wary of overriding a team's wishes without thinking about it too much.



    Happy for the discussion to continue, please win me over.
     
    Blue_Tiger and makmoud98 like this.
  13. Hospitalizer

    Hospitalizer Shopkeep Stealer

    Messages:
    57
    Surrender is the worst thing ever you yellow belly no good dog's, think of your builders Leting their good works go to waste. Spend all that time building up infrastructure only to have some rando grief vote it all away:potato:
     
  14. Potatobird

    Potatobird Bison Rider Forum Moderator Tester Official Server Admin

    Messages:
    768
    Yeah I think voting out of the total makes sense. Some people probably won't care, but if a team wants to next map, at least the majority of that team needs to care in order for that to happen.
     
  15. ShnitzelKiller

    ShnitzelKiller Bison Rider

    Messages:
    590
    For the record, the double nextmap thing happens with surrender votes too. Don't know why you would think it's any difference. I have lost during build time because a surrender vote carried over.
    --- Double Post Merged, Sep 22, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 22, 2016 ---
    After reading this thread, I will say that crazy shit happens in KAG. I've seen the "winning" team suddenly lose because the enemy tunneled and suddenly blocked all entrances, stole the flag, trapped the flag carrier and killed him, and won (or started the six-hour flag swap stalemate game), which might provide an incentive to actually see the capture through, to really validate your sense of victory.
     
    PUNK123 likes this.
  16. PUNK123

    PUNK123 Hella wRangler Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    1,233
    The real contentious part is whether or not this is for all votes. Im pretty skeptical about everyone voting on kick votes because i generally only see full participation in nextmap/surrender votes.

    If the enemy team is about to cap i see zero reason to surrender. Just seems unsportsman-like and stopping the enemy team from the cap(which is generally associated with good feeling after a hour or two long game).
     
  17. ParaLogia

    ParaLogia tired Administrator Global Moderator Forum Moderator Tester Official Server Admin

    Messages:
    1,133
    I'm like 86% sure that enemy surrender votes don't appear for me (as an admin). I see that a vote started from chat, but the box doesn't appear for me. (EDIT: I just tested, and now I'm 99.99% sure).

    On the discussion:
    I agree with making surrender votes harder to pass. (By forcing a total majority.)

    I disagree with disabling surrender while flags are taken, because people hold on to flags for various reasons, as previously mentioned. Also sometimes both teams will have enemy flags kept in deep underground catapults.

    A small change I would consider is increasing the post-victory time after a surrender vote, so that the winners have more time to prepare their end-game griefs. Celebrating with a collapse is a time-honored tradition. And yes, this is a serious suggestion.
     
  18. Geti

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

    Messages:
    3,730
    I mentioned above and in some other topic - this is fixed and you can now cancel them, though it needs testing for "fun new bugs" of course.

    I'd happily consider just upping the post-game time a fair bit in all cases. It could honestly do with more fanfare than the current (miniscule) "X team won" text - maybe something around the map size/position.

    It's for all votes, sadly. Same thing applies with technically only needing noone to "stop" a votekick for it to pass - I'd rather it require a majority. In all cases the "required percentage" is now calculated based on the number of people who were allowed to vote on it - meaning apathy results in no action.

    Fixed next build, as said elsewhere. Not sure why it wasn't done earlier. Doesn't affect votekicks.
     
  19. toothgrinderx

    toothgrinderx Horde Gibber Staff Alumni Tester

    Messages:
    93
    Not optimistic about all types of votes considering non voters, but we'll see how it works.
     
  20. Hospitalizer

    Hospitalizer Shopkeep Stealer

    Messages:
    57
    9 time's out of 10 its griefing by the usual suspects. vote starter always quits befor the next round
     
    daskew87 likes this.