Digital Paint Discussion Board
Development => Bugs, Feature Requests, and Feedback => Official Feature Votes => Topic started by: webhead on January 05, 2008, 08:39:17 PM
-
2: Warsow-like voting system, or maybe even one that's better - webhead, KoreMagna
add plz. ;)
-
What do you mean by Warsow-like?
-
Indeed, please elaborate. Is this for vote kicking? Voting on settings? What?
-
probably for all of them. i too would like to see this implemented. i think sk89q was already working on something like this. instead of kicking, it may be better to have a mute <player> vote. with all the young new players that come into the game, the kick vote could be exploited for someones pleasure. and maybe a change map vote, but only in the beginning or at the end of a map. this would rule out constant map changes during a game. settings are fine the way they are. i don't see where that would help too much.
-
You can already ignore a player individually (not that I've tried it), although a mute would still be cool.
-
probably for all of them.
yup, pretty much. i know there was a feature request for voting on server settings, but this covers more than just that.
as far as server settings, i think they could be voted on, but how about making the settings change only for the duration of the map, and then for the next map they'd reset to what an admin had set them at before?
this also includes what jitspoe called "votenextmap", or voting to trigger the current map to end and either take votes or just go to the next map, depending on whether the server has map voting enabled or not.
instead of kicking, it may be better to have a mute <player> vote. with all the young new players that come into the game, the kick vote could be exploited for someones pleasure.
exploited? how do you mean? i'm not sure i'm getting that.
and maybe a change map vote, but only in the beginning or at the end of a map. this would rule out constant map changes during a game.
what do you mean by constant map changes?
-
but this covers more than just that.
Well, try to keep your feature requests more specific.
-
i still dont get this one! What is their voting system like? :P
-
Well, try to keep your feature requests more specific.
will do. i was just copying and pasting the ones I came up with on the old list, and no one commented on it then, unfortunately. This way seems to be a LOT better, especially because ... look how many responses i got now.
-
Im guessing this voting system is like the one I made a vote for in the 2007 thread isnt it? Except they are not customizable.
-
You're talking about this:
7: Configurable voting system for server settings - Cobo, Apocalypse, KiLo, y00tz, SkateR, T3RR0R15T, Chef-Killer
I'm not sure exactly what that means. What about it would be configurable/customizable?
-
The server could set up a config to execute a specific command (such as change a map, kick a player, change the gravity, etc.) when a player voted for it. It wouldn't be locked down to any specific settings. Server admins could set up votes for any server setting.
-
ok so it looks like this idea will include voting for any server setting to be temporarily changed, votenextmap, and voting to mute a player.
about the player muting: maybe a muted player should be shown an error message of some sort when they try to say something... "Error: Cannot send message - you have been muted." or something like that. that way they don't think people are hearing them. oh also, the player that's being voted on shouldn't be able to vote. how about just not even notifying him of the vote unless it passes.
-
oh also, the player that's being voted on shouldn't be able to vote. how about just not even notifying him of the vote unless it passes.
That wouldnt be the best idea.
What if you are playing against only one person and they vote mute you?
-
hmm... well then i'd be muted, unless i'm missing something.
although ... anyone who would vote mute me, i probably would have already muted them. so in that case it wouldn't really matter.
besides, i guess i could just reconnect if i wanted to.
-
hmm... well then i'd be muted, unless i'm missing something.
although ... anyone who would vote mute me, i probably would have already muted them. so in that case it wouldn't really matter.
besides, i guess i could just reconnect if i wanted to.
But why go though all the trouble. You should just be able to vote if someone wants to mute you.
-
what would be the point of that? nobody would vote to mute themselves.
how about this, add an automatic "no" vote for the person being voted on. that would fix the 1v1 situation.
-
exploited? how do you mean? i'm not sure i'm getting that.
maybe exploited was a bad word. what i meant was, by having a vote kick, it would mean there would be constant votes for kicks from 12 yr old kids that just want to laugh or have fun. instead of using it to kick hackers/cheaters or idle players.
what do you mean by constant map changes?
i don't know if you have ever played while people are constantly voting to change maps. sometimes i see people that just join up in the middle of a game and vote to change a map. by only allowing the voting in the beginning and ending of maps, it would force people to finish the map once it starts.
-
There would probably be a max votes per person.
i don't know if you have ever played while people are constantly voting to change maps. sometimes i see people that just join up in the middle of a game and vote to change a map. by only allowing the voting in the beginning and ending of maps, it would force people to finish the map once it starts.
That is pretty annoying.
-
oh also, the player that's being voted on shouldn't be able to vote. how about just not even notifying him of the vote unless it passes.
i think they should be able to vote, i mean it does deal with them. they should be able to vote yes or no.
hmm... well then i'd be muted, unless i'm missing something.
although ... anyone who would vote mute me, i probably would have already muted them. so in that case it wouldn't really matter.
besides, i guess i could just reconnect if i wanted to.
if you have been vote muted, you shouldn't be able to call a vote until you reconnect or are voted to be unmuted. that way it eliminates alot of back and forth votes.
But why go though all the trouble. You should just be able to vote if someone wants to mute you.
yes, you should.
what would be the point of that? nobody would vote to mute themselves.
how about this, add an automatic "no" vote for the person being voted on. that would fix the 1v1 situation.
just let them vote. it's the right way.
-
one more thing, muting someone should only mute them in the public talking. not in the team talk, since that could be abused in matches were a team has more members. If a team wants someone to be muted on their team talk it should be done thorugh something like a teamvote.
-
maybe exploited was a bad word. what i meant was, by having a vote kick, it would mean there would be constant votes for kicks from 12 yr old kids that just want to laugh or have fun. instead of using it to kick hackers/cheaters or idle players.
yah, but unless enough people vote for the kick, nothing will happen. so yah, you'd see a bunch of vote requests, i suppose ... but that could happen with voting to mute a player, too - or any other type of vote for that matter.
i don't know if you have ever played while people are constantly voting to change maps. sometimes i see people that just join up in the middle of a game and vote to change a map. by only allowing the voting in the beginning and ending of maps, it would force people to finish the map once it starts.
hmm, i guess i haven't. i didn't know map voting in the middle of a game would make anything happen.
just let them vote. it's the right way.
ok, that's fine then.
one more thing, muting someone should only mute them in the public talking. not in the team talk, since that could be abused in matches were a team has more members. If a team wants someone to be muted on their team talk it should be done thorugh something like a teamvote.
completely beat me to it - i was thinking the same stuff.
-
yah, but unless enough people vote for the kick, nothing will happen. so yah, you'd see a bunch of vote requests, i suppose ... but that could happen with voting to mute a player, too - or any other type of vote for that matter.
hmm, i guess i haven't. i didn't know map voting in the middle of a game would make anything happen.
You do know that the conventional way of passing a vote is if more than half of the votes made is positive do you?
-
yah, that's exactly my point. what did you think i was saying?
-
yah, but unless enough people vote for the kick, nothing will happen.
You made it seem like if no one votes no and a few people vote yes, the vote still wont happen.
-
ah gotcha. actually you're correct, that's kinda what i was thinking.
maybe for a vote request to be enacted, first it could check whether a majority (over 50%) of the players in the game voted on the issue, then if a majority of those who voted chose the 'yes' option. then and only then would anything happen.
does that sound reasonable or not?
-
ah gotcha. actually you're correct, that's kinda what i was thinking.
maybe for a vote request to be enacted, first it could check whether a majority (over 50%) of the players in the game voted on the issue, then if a majority of those who voted chose the 'yes' option. then and only then would anything happen.
does that sound reasonable or not?
... no
You do know that the conventional way of passing a vote is if more than half of the votes made is positive do you?
We dont need to figure out how to do new stuff for things where an implied standard is already there.
-
well then. i guess you didn't see the reason behind what i described. so let me explain.
it would prevent situations where there are say 16 players on a server, one person says some stuff that gets about 3 of the others really inflamed, one of them starts a mute vote, and it passes by a majority among those who voted on it - but the remaining players that didn't vote just abstained cuz they didn't care about muting the guy. in this case, should the guy still get muted since a majority didn't care?
-
http://dplogin.com/dplogin/featurevote/vote.php?id=10061
-1 - I liked cobo's idea for a configurable voting system better.
-
yeh, maybe. but of course what i'm arguing about now is how the voting code should work.
-
in warsow, the amount of votes it takes to pass is dependent on the amount of players. i am not sure of how it figures it out, but let's say there is 15 players it would say something like 6 yes votes needed to pass or something.
-
There's like 20 different votes you can make in warsow. Some of them are:
Lock/unlock teams
Change map
Restart map
Kick
Mute
Enable/Disable warmup
Warmup time
Gametype (ctf, tdm, duel, ffa, clan arena)
Timelimit
There's a main cvar that enables/disables voting, then for each different type of vote there's a cvar to disable that particular vote. i.e. g_disable_vote_kick, g_disable_vote_mute. Things like gametype let admins specify which gametypes are available to be voted. i.e. g_votable_gametypes "tdm ctf".
There's also a g_vote_percent which lets you specify what percentage is required for any vote to pass. That would be the percentage of the entire server, so you end up with things like 16 players on a server, 8 vote yes, 0 vote no, 8 don't vote and vote fails.
If you're a player, you vote by: /callvote map wdm1 or /callvote warmup 0. Doing just a /callvote timelimit shows the current setting, and if applicable it will list all of the available options. It's not perfect and gets abused on pub servers, but for private servers it's good because you don't have to give out rcon passwords to anyone that wants to change maps or switch from tdm to ctf. Also, there's only one vote ever happening at once. The votes each last 30s or so.