Enhanced Player Voting System (for "Skill Balance")
Sarisel
.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::. Join Date: 2003-07-30 Member: 18557Members, Constellation
.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::. Join Date: 2003-07-30 Member: 18557Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Towards a Cohesive Matchmaking System</div>I am hoping that NS2 will foster a competitive scene that will keep the best players busy at getting even better and pushing the game to its limits. However, I am also aware that some skilled or semi-skilled players do enjoy ruining the fun of others - although they might not see it that way. This comes in the form of prohibitive skill gaps between players in a server. I believe that an enhanced voting system can settle most of these problems when administrators are not around.
Voting in NS was mostly custom-made to select maps, with some deviations later on to include player kicking. This will need to be improved and regulated by a live server-side stat checker if it is to serve to handle prohibitive skill differences in NS2.
First, I present three types of undesirable cases that might occur:
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Case I:<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
A player joins a server whose mean skill level is far below his own. First of all, how do we define "far below"? This will need to be determined in part by the server (in order to avoid abuse) and mostly by the players (who will have the chance to vote). We won't know for sure how to define skill until NS2 comes out and we play it for a bit. For now, let's assume that some distinction will exist and that there will be room for huge skill differences.
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Case II:<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
A group of highly skilled players join a server whose mean skill is far below their own. This causes problems regardless of whether or not these skilled players stack teams, since half of the server will in theory not be having fun (assuming that the relatively low-skilled players will keep dying at the hands of the highly-skilled players).
In this case, voting will be difficult unless the players who were connected first have more say in voting (esp. in a 50:50 split). Even if this was made possible, the low-skill players would need some incentive to collectively agree to vote off the "intruders", since the low-skill players may be on separate teams and thus feel divided.
This case can also be reversed if a group of low skilled players join a server whose mean skill is far above their own.
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Case III:<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
A player joins a server whose mean skill level is far above his own. The rest of the "high-skill" players could vote the low-skill player off if there is a problem with his presence. Again, some kind of server-side control might be necessary to prevent abuse.
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Properties of the Voting System<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The voting system should work together with a live server stat monitoring system.
When players feel that a particular player is undesirable in the server, they may enter a voting menu where they have the option to "mark" a player as undesirable or disruptive. This mark would be assigned to the steam_id, so disconnecting does not allow the marked player to get rid of the mark. Also, one mark per player per voter steam_id.
A single mark would last for as long as the voting player is connected to the server. Once a threshold number of marks is reached, the server checks some statistical conditions to see if a player is "disruptive". For the sake of discussion, let's say that the stat of primary concern and relevance is "K:D versus mean team K:D". If the player's K:D considered to be too high/low (this could be set automatically or by the server's administrator), the marks are considered reasonable and the disruptive player is removed from the server for a set amount of time.
Some problems that I think need to be addressed with this system:
1. Promoting voting - I'm sure that it won't be a problem for really disgruntled players, but a lot of players just don't care. Perhaps an alternative to this would be to make every vote count as an appeal to the stat system. However, why should a minority determine whether another player gets to play on a server?
2. Dealing with case II, where there is a dispute between two large groups in a server. Even if one entire group is found to be in the wrong somehow, then the server could lose half of its population at a given time. I am at a bit of a loss as to how to prevent a "King's club" case II scenario without active administration.
Some possible refinements:
1. Introduce the voting menu after each round in the waiting room. A summary of the P:K:D of each player will be listed along with the option to vote against them.
2. Those players who have been playing on the server will have their votes counted for more than the newly connected players. This would serve to discourage server invasions.
Final thoughts:
I don't think that this system would get into too much trouble in most cases if the live server stat-checker can moderate who is eligible to "get the boot". There are however some possibility of nasty scenarios where servers might be taken over by groups of coordinated players.
Voting in NS was mostly custom-made to select maps, with some deviations later on to include player kicking. This will need to be improved and regulated by a live server-side stat checker if it is to serve to handle prohibitive skill differences in NS2.
First, I present three types of undesirable cases that might occur:
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Case I:<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
A player joins a server whose mean skill level is far below his own. First of all, how do we define "far below"? This will need to be determined in part by the server (in order to avoid abuse) and mostly by the players (who will have the chance to vote). We won't know for sure how to define skill until NS2 comes out and we play it for a bit. For now, let's assume that some distinction will exist and that there will be room for huge skill differences.
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Case II:<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
A group of highly skilled players join a server whose mean skill is far below their own. This causes problems regardless of whether or not these skilled players stack teams, since half of the server will in theory not be having fun (assuming that the relatively low-skilled players will keep dying at the hands of the highly-skilled players).
In this case, voting will be difficult unless the players who were connected first have more say in voting (esp. in a 50:50 split). Even if this was made possible, the low-skill players would need some incentive to collectively agree to vote off the "intruders", since the low-skill players may be on separate teams and thus feel divided.
This case can also be reversed if a group of low skilled players join a server whose mean skill is far above their own.
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Case III:<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
A player joins a server whose mean skill level is far above his own. The rest of the "high-skill" players could vote the low-skill player off if there is a problem with his presence. Again, some kind of server-side control might be necessary to prevent abuse.
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->Properties of the Voting System<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The voting system should work together with a live server stat monitoring system.
When players feel that a particular player is undesirable in the server, they may enter a voting menu where they have the option to "mark" a player as undesirable or disruptive. This mark would be assigned to the steam_id, so disconnecting does not allow the marked player to get rid of the mark. Also, one mark per player per voter steam_id.
A single mark would last for as long as the voting player is connected to the server. Once a threshold number of marks is reached, the server checks some statistical conditions to see if a player is "disruptive". For the sake of discussion, let's say that the stat of primary concern and relevance is "K:D versus mean team K:D". If the player's K:D considered to be too high/low (this could be set automatically or by the server's administrator), the marks are considered reasonable and the disruptive player is removed from the server for a set amount of time.
Some problems that I think need to be addressed with this system:
1. Promoting voting - I'm sure that it won't be a problem for really disgruntled players, but a lot of players just don't care. Perhaps an alternative to this would be to make every vote count as an appeal to the stat system. However, why should a minority determine whether another player gets to play on a server?
2. Dealing with case II, where there is a dispute between two large groups in a server. Even if one entire group is found to be in the wrong somehow, then the server could lose half of its population at a given time. I am at a bit of a loss as to how to prevent a "King's club" case II scenario without active administration.
Some possible refinements:
1. Introduce the voting menu after each round in the waiting room. A summary of the P:K:D of each player will be listed along with the option to vote against them.
2. Those players who have been playing on the server will have their votes counted for more than the newly connected players. This would serve to discourage server invasions.
Final thoughts:
I don't think that this system would get into too much trouble in most cases if the live server stat-checker can moderate who is eligible to "get the boot". There are however some possibility of nasty scenarios where servers might be taken over by groups of coordinated players.
Comments
Okay - but this is mostly about controlling instances where players join games where they are out of place in terms of ability to frag others.
A group of clanmates here refers to players from a clan who are much more skilled than the natives of a particular server that the clanmates are visiting.
A group of good clanmates playing together do not have to stack. They could evenly distribute themselves between the two teams and yet completely dominate those players of the server (on either team) who are not as skilled as they are. In essence, these clanmates would be "stealing the show".
Cute idea.
Mine wanted to use statistical aggregation and weights to lock players out of places where they didn't belong, but your system is far worse - it relies on human beings having common sense, common decency, and common courtesy, and not following the herd instinct, while competing in an often frustrating situation with complete anonymity over the internet.
Also, I wouldn't compare this system to ranked servers. In ranked servers, players would still have the chance of performing well enough to ruin the fun for others and, without admins or a voting system, this problem would not be resolved.
Furthermore, with regards to stacking, you may find that some "clans" purposefully stack because its a great way to relax from a league game.
Well if there are no/few other checks and balances and if the player is truly prohibitively skilled for his environment and isn't leaving because he's a bully, then this makes sense - games should be fun, at the end of the day.
On the off-chance that we're still arguing about matchmaking, and you're talking about players who are playing above their stats, then your argument is not valid because you're patently ignoring all competitive elements of the game in favor of giving players an easy victory, so I'll assume that's not what you meant.
<!--quoteo(post=1676259:date=Apr 19 2008, 10:47 AM:name=Sarisel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarisel @ Apr 19 2008, 10:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676259"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, I wouldn't compare this system to ranked servers. In ranked servers, players would still have the chance of performing well enough to ruin the fun for others and, without admins or a voting system, this problem would not be resolved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Players who are performing well above their statistical merit deserve to be rewarded with victory or at least a greatly enhanced side of the game. If that hurts some feelings, that's unfortunate, but completely fair.
That's a good point. I will say that voting somebody off for being a tool should be set up differently than voting off somebody for being too good. Perhaps the latter could be initiated with fewer votes but be less likely to succeed since there is a stat system to check against abuse.
<!--quoteo(post=1676293:date=Apr 20 2008, 06:34 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ Apr 20 2008, 06:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676293"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Furthermore, with regards to stacking, you may find that some "clans" purposefully stack because its a great way to relax from a league game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes - and on a ethical note they shouldn't do this at the expense of everybody else in a casual server. They should be doing this in a competitive server. Different people have different ideas about what is fun and relaxing. Unfortunately, if an entire clan were to arrive and stack (like in Case II) then voting the entire clan off would be awkward unless more weight were given to the non-clan voters who were playing well before the clan members joined.
<!--quoteo(post=1676318:date=Apr 20 2008, 11:27 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 20 2008, 11:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On the off-chance that we're still arguing about matchmaking, and you're talking about players who are playing above their stats, then your argument is not valid because you're patently ignoring all competitive elements of the game in favor of giving players an easy victory, so I'll assume that's not what you meant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about players who play <b>well above</b> their stats - i.e. dominating. That's what the server stat system would be watching for, ideally. We can agree that there comes a certain point where a player should not be in the server based on their performance, right?
<!--quoteo(post=1676318:date=Apr 20 2008, 11:27 AM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Apr 20 2008, 11:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Players who are performing well above their statistical merit deserve to be rewarded with victory or at least a greatly enhanced side of the game. If that hurts some feelings, that's unfortunate, but completely fair.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By that reasoning, we should just throw out the entire ranked server idea and prevent voting because players should be allowed to destroy servers and frustrate casual players. I'm sure this isn't what you meant, but that's exactly how the post came off sounding.
Unfortunately, if the problems outweight the potential benefits then it would be the only course of action.
It'd be nice if people could be trusted with voting and a global ranking system, but I personally just don't think it would be feasible for a game of NS' complexity and relatively small market share. With the likes of Battlefield and Halo you have exponentially more servers and players than NS, which means oddities won't screw things up too badly. However, with comparatively few NS servers, you'll find the little screwups can have big impact.
Its unfortunate and not ideal, but there you have it.
Yes, I'd like NS2 to be huge, but I think it's unwise to gamble on a global ranking/voting system that requires sheer numbers to keep it in check.
With some tweaking, voting would work just fine to prevent skilled players from preying on unskilled servers. If someone is being "skill kicked", the voting would require a server stat check prior to being considered valid. If valid, the player could be informed that he is ruining the fun for others and would be encouraged to find a server that can give him more of a challenge. Yes - this won't work all the time, such as when an entire clan just happens to join a server. But it will prevent a lot of griefing caused by small groups of individuals.
- If you don't want star players to be targeted, just set a higher limit for the stat check (server-side).
- If you don't want to kick players in the middle of rounds, just have the kick be executed when the round is over.
- If you're concerned about players being apathetic, have it so that the vote can be initiated by 2-3 players.
- If you're concerned about abuse, have it so that there is a window where players can vote to object against the kicking of the targeted player.
The whole idea is that there is an acceptable range for deviation from the norm. At a certain point, the deviation of a player's skill may be too great.
...
- If you don't want star players to be targeted, just set a higher limit for the stat check (server-side).
- If you don't want to kick players in the middle of rounds, just have the kick be executed when the round is over.
- If you're concerned about players being apathetic, have it so that the vote can be initiated by 2-3 players.
- If you're concerned about abuse, have it so that there is a window where players can vote to object against the kicking of the targeted player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But see, here's the problem, a poor Marine team will always look to kick the best enemy Fade. A skill check of said Fade will, naturally, reveal said Fade player to have a certain level of skill. Effectively, you're punishing legitimate skilled players. To counter each point you raise -
Higher limit only enables the opportunity for larger skill differences in griefing.
A kick has to kick as soon as the vote ends - otherwise someone being a tool at game-start is going to be there alllllllllll the way through.
Requiring X players to start a vote will make little difference, as a one person vote rarely succeeds.
Players on the winning side will generally vote to support their star player, regardless of how overskilled they are.
Even a friendly message "encouraging" the player to leave will just be ignored by people griefing, and only be a cause of dispute to a legitimate player.
I just don't think skill can be balanced this way, and I have very little confidence in the possibility of being able to "check for skill" without discriminating against "older" players.
Also, perhaps I should clarify about the voting: The vote to skill-kick (let's call it that) could be initiated by 2-3 players, which would be enough for the server to check against stats and kick/ban.
This only leads to an unfair bias against the poor Fade player, who would normally be held in check by upgraded Marines. The Marines would keep trying to skill-kick him (a horrendously biased term) and failing, because he is of the same "skill level" (but appears better because they have no upgrades). This leads to very angry players, arguably more angry than they would be under the current status quo.
This is interesting, because this is headed into a stat system similar to what Radix was suggesting - except here the regulation powers are handed to the server's players.
Servers vary widely in skill, and you can get a situation where the extremes meet, through no fault of their own. Players should not be encouraged, directly or indirectly, to rush to kick players who are doing a little better than the others.
Servers vary widely in skill, and you can get a situation where the extremes meet, through no fault of their own. Players should not be encouraged, directly or indirectly, to rush to kick players who are doing <b>a little better</b> than the others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"<b>Prohibitive</b> gaps in skill".
People shouldn't be getting skill kicked because someone on the other side made a boo boo. Using that logic, games would run forever because screwup = advantage = seeming skill stack = kick those responsible = balanced = screwup and so on, ad infinitum.
Let me clarify - players should always have a kickvote, but it should <b>never</b> be an endorsed or implied skillkick. If skillkicking became accepted, the community would face a substantial crisis.
And why exactly would skill-kicking imply a crisis in the game community? It's not kicking over a slight difference that we're talking about. Don't you think that there will be a limit (say, a player performing with a 4-5x higher K:D, adjusted for tech levels, than the average) where a skill-kick would be quite reasonable?
Not to mention endgame, when you can have an HA train mowing through one-hive skulks. Unless you have some sort of complicated corollary (If you've had three hives and lose two then kills are no longer tracked for the purpose of balance, or something).
Then we have the issue of very very clever players, who are Fading in, swiping everyone once or twice, and Fading out to let the skulks make the kill. He's not slaughtering people, but he's helping them to be slaughtered. Is he being disruptive, or is he playing for the team?
As to skill kicking, I feel that it is divisive because many could take it to mean that high skilled or low skilled players are not welcome. Green comm? Kick him. Uber fade? Kick him.
I consider that to be quite different to kicking on the basis of disruption. A disruptive player would be one that is perhaps slaughtering people single handed, or is refusing to follow the Comm's orders, etc etc. Its not a skill issue, its when a person is being a prat.
Bear in mind that the great amount of skill kicks are going to involve booting aliens. I mean, its fairly unheard of for a marine player to be kicked because of his Uber Skillz. That's going to lead to a lot of dislike for marine players, accusations of them hiding behind the "Skill Kick".
If the focus was kept on disruptive play, then players of all skill levels needn't feel worried about being kicked out a server for playing well.
Okay, but you don't need a system that fits everything perfectly. There are <b>BAD</b> ratios and then there are adequate ratios. I think that not all tech is equally important and, in fact, many times different combinations of tech make very little difference on the end result of a frag versus a death. The question is: will these combinations lead to major statistical discrepancies in the K:D ratios that identify players that are way out of their league?
<!--quoteo(post=1677493:date=May 3 2008, 05:44 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 3 2008, 05:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677493"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not to mention endgame, when you can have an HA train mowing through one-hive skulks. Unless you have some sort of complicated corollary (If you've had three hives and lose two then kills are no longer tracked for the purpose of balance, or something).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you have several marines together, their frag points could be diluted so that they are not worth as much. If there is only 1 hive while marines have HA, alien tech is pretty much destroyed and frags would be worth very little. It's not <i>that</i> complicated.
<!--quoteo(post=1677493:date=May 3 2008, 05:44 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 3 2008, 05:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677493"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then we have the issue of very very clever players, who are Fading in, swiping everyone once or twice, and Fading out to let the skulks make the kill. He's not slaughtering people, but he's helping them to be slaughtered. Is he being disruptive, or is he playing for the team?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IMO, the players who really disrupt servers are those that slaughter independently of others. It's all about the thrill of having a huge K:D ratio and having the opposing team crying about it.
<!--quoteo(post=1677493:date=May 3 2008, 05:44 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 3 2008, 05:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677493"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As to skill kicking, I feel that it is divisive because many could take it to mean that high skilled or low skilled players are not welcome. Green comm? Kick him. Uber fade? Kick him.
I consider that to be quite different to kicking on the basis of disruption. A disruptive player would be one that is perhaps slaughtering people single handed, or is refusing to follow the Comm's orders, etc etc. Its not a skill issue, its when a person is being a prat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, I think I sort of understand where you are coming from here. At the same time, I think that the players on servers should determine the acceptable range of skill. Perhaps your definition of a "uber fade" or a "green comm" differs from mine? I think that players who are overly skilled or underskilled should seek servers that are appropriate to their levels of ability. In your definitions, I would call the green comm and the uber fade prats if they were ruining the game. However, I think there is no easy way to kick them out without enhancing the voting system.
<!--quoteo(post=1677493:date=May 3 2008, 05:44 AM:name=Necrosis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Necrosis @ May 3 2008, 05:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1677493"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bear in mind that the great amount of skill kicks are going to involve booting aliens. I mean, its fairly unheard of for a marine player to be kicked because of his Uber Skillz. That's going to lead to a lot of dislike for marine players, accusations of them hiding behind the "Skill Kick".
If the focus was kept on disruptive play, then players of all skill levels needn't feel worried about being kicked out a server for playing well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the contrary, most competitive players get skill-banned for aimboting as marines. And I think I have been targeting disruptive skill differences since the beginning.
With regards to the endgame, how does one decide when to dilute the frag points? Is it diluted based on hives? Obviously not, because that would be problematic regarding the early game. If it based on groups, then it would impact on coordinated squadplay. Which then leads back to number of hives vs marine tech, and again you need to decide how much certain combinations will affect how skill is being determined. It still involves a bit of complex statkeeping.
The problem with Fades is that high K:D is almost part and parcel of being a Fade. Indeed, there are situations where gorge players make little DC or MC nests and actively encourage the Fades to run "solo" while they focus on making Hives. My example of the swipe'n'run Fade is just showing that a very high skilled fade player could effectively "blend in" by doing lots of damage but not making any kills.
You could of course suggest that "damage dealt" is recorded instead of kills, but medspam would make a mockery of that stat.
I agree that players should determine the "on the fly" level of "skill", but at the same time they should not be encourage (directly or indirectly) to boot people for showing any sign of competence or incompetence.
A green comm on a green server isn't going to much that is relative to a better server. There is always that breakthrough event when someone commands for the first time at the appropriate level on their server. Commanding styles also differ greatly, and it should not be a situation where players are kicking Comms because they made the "wrong choice".
I agree that compartively higher skilled players should try to keep to appropriate servers, but what happens if a league level player wants to kick back and chill with friends? He's still going to be mowing people down, albeit at a more relaxed pace, but that is not the same a purposefully disruptive player who is acting in his own best interests rather than his team.
I have seen very good Fade players turn gorge, drop a hive or chambers, and go back to Fade without any complaint. They still have a huge K:D, but they're playing cooperatively. Entirely different to the Fade that has a huge K:D and is not playing cooperatively.
My point is that it's hard to tell the difference between these two, if you are on the receiving end. Trickier still if the Fade is offering to drop the hive but a permagorge is telling him specifically not to drop it.
Ultimately, as you yourself say, there is no easy way to kick them without enhancing the voting system. I think we differ on our concept of how enhanced it would need to be. While we agree that disruptive players should be booted, I am primarily concerned that some forms of disruptive play are very hard to distinguish from team play, if you are only seeing one side of it.