Well I got anothe feedback :wink:
I dont care kicking People, who feed, when they play really. I like that kicking is restricted
BUT!!!
I lost the last 2 games, because "-afkai" command. One player started the game and were afk for 20minutes! that means 20 minutes light tank with fireball and 2:20 stats against sake_iguanolla what means autowin because overfeed by AI hock:
When he switch AI off the message Player was AFk (0 Minutes) appears, what its not true... we couldnt kick him and lost with usually equal teams :cry:
Another game I lost because 2 other players in my team went afk and afterwards the 0 minutes away message appears. Pls stop that and make "-afkai" count as the 5minutes away time. Please :roll:
Or I loose maybe with good stats other games because AI´s play the game. Last time a thunder tank AI between 3vs2 Titans ...
Random Player
- noob, nobody, medium, pro - we will see what happens ^^
Gammagulp Wrote:Well I got anothe feedback :wink:
I dont care kicking People, who feed, when they play really. I like that kicking is restricted
BUT!!!
I lost the last 2 games, because "-afkai" command. One player started the game and were afk for 20minutes! that means 20 minutes light tank with fireball and 2:20 stats against sake_iguanolla what means autowin because overfeed by AI hock:
When he switch AI off the message Player was AFk (0 Minutes) appears, what its not true... we couldnt kick him and lost with usually equal teams :cry:
Another game I lost because 2 other players in my team went afk and afterwards the 0 minutes away message appears. Pls stop that and make "-afkai" count as the 5minutes away time. Please :roll:
Or I loose maybe with good stats other games because AI´s play the game. Last time a thunder tank AI between 3vs2 Titans ...
I argee with this. "-afkai" should definitely counted as afk as well. So if someone is not back after 5min after used "-afkai", the team should be able to kick him. This is obviously needed.
this should be the ultimate proof: purple was afk the first 5 minutes then just came and took my lane whilst insulting me as i told him to leave. then later he runs into the enemy base and lets himself be killed as he says "for fun" he also claims to have done this in other game with 1-67 score in the end. lightblue player also said hes always doing this. please ban him. y i know he will just make another account and continue but nevertheless -.-
Ok so the old problem was that people were "abusing" the vote kick. In order to address that, we need to be more specific about what abuse is. I'll cite some examples I've seen:
1. Two teammates are fighting, and one or both of them repeatedly tries to kick the other. So basically they initiate the -kick command a couple dozen times until we kick them or they succeed. Solution: Each player can only initiate a vote once per game. Whether or not the victim gets kicked, the player that requested it is no longer able to initiate a vote kick.
2. One team kicks a feeder, say 0-8 early game, and then the other team kicks someone for balance that isn't doing so badly, like a 1-4 record. Solution: Have a kill/death ratio requirement to kick someone. This came up in a different thread. Maybe something like >5 deaths, or >1 death per 2 minutes, or < 1/4 kill/death ratio.
There are many ways to ruin a game without feeding, such as TP'ing out of a CP defense, or wasting gold buying and selling things and just not helping. Some players don't feed, but just flame and QQ in all chat in a way that makes everyone miserable. Maybe we could have it so that if they are feeding, then a majority vote will kick them. If they are not feeding (but maybe ruining in some other way), then a unanimous vote is needed by all players in the game.
Quote:2. One team kicks a feeder, say 0-8 early game, and then the other team kicks someone for balance that isn't doing so badly, like a 1-4 record. Solution: Have a kill/death ratio requirement to kick someone. This came up in a different thread. Maybe something like >5 deaths, or >1 death per 2 minutes, or < 1/4 kill/death ratio.
In any case it will be time based, best solution i can think of is something like x kill within last y minuntes but that wont work for game start.
Quote:1. Two teammates are fighting, and one or both of them repeatedly tries to kick the other. So basically they initiate the -kick command a couple dozen times until we kick them or they succeed. Solution: Each player can only initiate a vote once per game. Whether or not the victim gets kicked, the player that requested it is no longer able to initiate a vote kick.
Sounds not so bad but may lock someone in game, perhabs something similar one kickvote initiation per 5minutes per player?hock:
Quote:See? A solution-oriented post!
Would like to see more of them not just QQ or demanding posts
Marvin Wrote:The first ten million years were the worst and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million years I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline
toyboatt Wrote:2. One team kicks a feeder, say 0-8 early game, and then the other team kicks someone for balance that isn't doing so badly, like a 1-4 record. Solution: Have a kill/death ratio requirement to kick someone. This came up in a different thread. Maybe something like >5 deaths, or >1 death per 2 minutes, or < 1/4 kill/death ratio.See? A solution-oriented post!
I doubt its as easy as saying 0-8 is a feeder, there's a lot more to consider like tank value, maybe he's spawning creeps or destroyed the base. Perhaps he's just suicided into creeps or several other reasons like a long grind for a new tank or whatnot.
Just consider having a time limit where kicks cannot be initiated. Everyone knows the impact of kicking someone during the first 5-10 minutes of the game, its basically a free win in the league right now.
SC2: Equiem (Charcode 990), whisper me if you wish to practise some 1vs1 or grab some achievements
Repeat while playing: "There is no such thing as luck in Btanks" - Now watch yourself improve tenfold
I have suggested several times to make multiple levels of league bots based on players rank, but I don't see discussion going to this direction (which I don't know why). I think this is a good idea, and an easier solution instead of discussing -kick.
There are 4 types of players can ruin a game:
1. AFK (or afkai, or leaver, or dc)
2. Flamer (who insult other people)
3. Anti-game behavior (feed on purpose, block teammates/creeps, bomb own tower/base etc.)
4. Noob
Actually all 4 cases are not easy to be detected by machine, or to speak, not easy to set rules for trigger a kick. You cannot say 0/10 is not feed on purpose and 0/20 is feed on purpose. Only case 1 is easier to detect, but if someone is just sitting in the base and click mouse once a while, it is still an afk, but cannot be detected.
Then people saying to give the majority "-kick" command back, so the players can take immediate action to stop the game being ruined. Indeed, with -kick it is better to deal with case 1~3. Many people think case 4 should be also kicked, which i disagree (although i dislike noob player).
But -kick has obvious side effects too. It can be easily abused. For example many people have been through games they need to type "-no" every minute to stop 2 people fighting each other. Also, maybe beginner players (sometimes even good players) are kicked, just because they die at the beginning or other stupid reasons.
So now we are in a situation that we want to have -kick, but we don't want to -kick too much. It results in a disscusion that how to we set the -kick threshold. This is not easy, appearently.
To jump out of the discussion of having or not having -kick, i suggest to make multiple level of league bot. For example,
1. Quality bot (everyone can join, like it is now).
2. League normal bot (10+ games, 80%+ stay, like it is now).
3. League advanced bot (50+ games, 90% stay, and points bigger than 15xx)
The points limit is refreshed regulaly to make sure there are always like 3000 players are qualified to enter. (this is easy to check, because you can just check the point of the 3000th player in the database). We can even make a league bot pro, where only 2000 or 1000 players can join.
Normally only good players can enter high level bot, for the players who ruined a game (which also lose points), they lose points and cannot enter the high level bot. So with higher level bot, it stops the game being ruined even before the game starts.
Someone may say, if we set limit only to top 3000 player, the bot is filled slow, I don't want to wait etc. But consider a ruined game normally cost you at least half a hour (and then you get angry and keep playing another one), why don't you spend more time to wait for a good game? And eventually, if more and more people plays seriously, it is not necessarily the high level bot will filled slow, because everyone knows that's the place to have a good game.
With the multiple level bot, there is something else we can do, instead of just ban forever, we can reset (decrease) the points to lower down a player, so that they cannot ruined a game in the higher level bots.
In fact the game is only ruined by bad players, like the 4 cases I listed above. If there is a way we can tell who is good or bad (isn't it the reason we make rank?), why don't we use it to help making better games?
But ofc, this assumes the ranking system working well, which is another topic I would like to discuss later (I think the point difference should be bigger than now within the team).
olivercamel Wrote:To jump out of the discussion of having or not having -kick, i suggest to make multiple level of league bot. For example,
1. Quality bot (everyone can join, like it is now).
2. League normal bot (10+ games, 80%+ stay, like it is now).
3. League advanced bot (50+ games, 90% stay, and points bigger than 15xx)
The points limit is refreshed regulaly to make sure there are always like 3000 players are qualified to enter. (this is easy to check, because you can just check the point of the 3000th player in the database). We can even make a league bot pro, where only 2000 or 1000 players can join.
Normally only good players can enter high level bot, for the players who ruined a game (which also lose points), they lose points and cannot enter the high level bot. So with higher level bot, it stops the game being ruined even before the game starts.
Someone may say, if we set limit only to top 3000 player, the bot is filled slow, I don't want to wait etc. But consider a ruined game normally cost you at least half a hour (and then you get angry and keep playing another one), why don't you spend more time to wait for a good game? And eventually, if more and more people plays seriously, it is not necessarily the high level bot will filled slow, because everyone knows that's the place to have a good game.
With the multiple level bot, there is something else we can do, instead of just ban forever, we can reset (decrease) the points to lower down a player, so that they cannot ruined a game in the higher level bots.
+1
thats sounds to me like a good solution to handle bad/ruined games!
I hope it is not that diff. to implement :?:
Der Vorteil an der Klugheit ist, dass man sich dumm stellen kann.
Andersherum ist dies schon erheblich schwieriger.
When we define a good requirement for the "premium" bot we can do this. Maybe a point-requirement of 1525 points is enough to assure much better games. I'll think about an implementation.
After playing in a game where a player deliberately kills himself at every opportunity and unable to kick is a little frustrating :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
For the next 1/2 hour your playing for nothing while they feed the other team to the point where they are medium tier tanks within 4 minutes. Even the other team was wanting to kick him!
All arguments made concerning balancing through bots etc. are valid and need to be evaluated, I don't think anybody disagrees.
For the time being, I am convinced that the old votekick system was creating less problems than the new one does. Please bring it back and then let's discuss the above mentioned questions, the enormous amount of negative feedback IMHO proves that not being able to kick is a greater problem to people than the other way around.
hock: 
