I just don't see how being new makes you any less likely to see a big voting box
Because people are so overwhelmed by all the new input they get. Of course that don't happen to all of them in this excess, but some of them don't even see a marine straight infront of them.
Many veterans have undergone months of training to see big popups.
As stupid as it sounds. Yes you have months of training of seeing what is going on on your screen.
Just think of how many times you see threats and opportunities other players don't see, even if they have the same informations. Thats basically the same thing, just in a more advanced state.
I just don't see how being new makes you any less likely to see a big voting box
Because people are so overwhelmed by all the new input they get. Of course that don't happen to all of them in this excess, but some of them don't even see a marine straight infront of them.
Many veterans have undergone months of training to see big popups.
As stupid as it sounds. Yes you have months of training of seeing what is going on on your screen.
Just think of how many times you see threats and opportunities other players don't see, even if they have the same informations. Thats basically the same thing, just in a more advanced state.
Threats and opportunities require understanding of the game though. A voting box just requires eyes.
Yes, it's easier to recognize if you haven't seen it before but to even suggest this is an issue is bizarre considering how already obvious the voting box is. If the stats indicate that people under a certain number or hours really has a strong correlation with not voting then what's the alternative? Outfitting everybody's computer with ns2 with a bullhorn or steam whistle that sounds every time a vote is cast? Quite frankly the voting box is visible enough and to make allowances for people who don't see it is odd. Perhaps this game should all be in braille instead if the sense of sight is too much for some people.
Anyway, simple solution to the problem of people not voting:
I just don't see how being new makes you any less likely to see a big voting box
Because people are so overwhelmed by all the new input they get. Of course that don't happen to all of them in this excess, but some of them don't even see a marine straight infront of them.
Many veterans have undergone months of training to see big popups.
As stupid as it sounds. Yes you have months of training of seeing what is going on on your screen.
Just think of how many times you see threats and opportunities other players don't see, even if they have the same informations. Thats basically the same thing, just in a more advanced state.
Threats and opportunities require understanding of the game though. A voting box just requires eyes.
Yes, it's easier to recognize if you haven't seen it before but to even suggest this is an issue is bizarre considering how already obvious the voting box is. If the stats indicate that people under a certain number or hours really has a strong correlation with not voting then what's the alternative? Outfitting everybody's computer with ns2 with a bullhorn or steam whistle that sounds every time a vote is cast? Quite frankly the voting box is visible enough and to make allowances for people who don't see it is odd. Perhaps this game should all be in braille instead if the sense of sight is too much for some people.
Anyway, simple solution to the problem of people not voting:
i'd like you to think back to when you first started any game... at all. and figuring out what was important, what to look at, what to respond to. it doesn't help that the vote box is situated right above the chat box, or that its far from center.
Also rookies have more things to worry about than veterans. They need to learn the maps, they need to get used to mechanics and buttons, they need to learn the map names, for those all-important map-votes (some might abstain even if they're engaged simply because the map names don't click for them immediately). They are doing all these things, and you want them to also follow and read the chat box? can you really expect them to know why this person or that is being kicked?
my point being, there are many reasons why rookies might not vote, and not all of them involve not seeing an "obvious" popup. and not seeing the popup is pretty justified too if skulks are jumping out at you around every corner.
Whilst I don't think all newbies will see it immediately the first time the voting box comes up, as soon as they notice it once, then they don't have to again because subsequent votes become obvious as soon as they appear. Votes tend to happen most games, and I doubt that it will take an exorbitant amount of votes for it to be noticed eventually. Whilst new players have a lot to learn - this isn't something that takes hours and hours of gameplay to notice and understand.
As I said in a previous post, actually having to participate in a vote would incentivize use and cause those who don't know how to vote to learn quickly. Also, it's more fair that the minority population that doesn't even know a vote is going on should be discluded from effecting the outcome than effectively deciding for them that their vote is going to be a 'no'. The former is logical and fair. The latter is practically automated vote manipulation (ok, a bit of an exaggeration).
As I said in a previous post, actually having to participate in a vote would incentivize use and cause those who don't know how to vote to learn quickly.
You're assuming they will understand why the map changed right when they were fighting for their life, when in fact they will not.. they will just stand back, surprised.. and probably not even bother to type or use a mic to inquire why (because they probably don't even know how) once they enter the next ready room.
I know i can't convince you of this, but you really put too much stock in what a new player sees. UWE has seen a large enough sample size to know.
Will they eventually see it? Of course... but when? After they have a bad experience or before? And will they connect the dots?
Its best to err on the side of safety and presume the worst.
Again though.. all this is really moot to discuss, because once edge cases are taken care of, whats really left to complain about from any veteran?
That 2 votes weren't able to reset the round?
I bet that's not what irks people when it comes to the implementation of voting in NS2...
You're assuming they will understand why the map changed right when they were fighting for their life, when in fact they will not.. they will just stand back, surprised.. and probably not even bother to type or use a mic to inquire why (because they probably don't even know how) once they enter the next ready room.
Well map changes are fairly obvious if they come mid-round. One would hope that if people are legitimately confused they would at least be inquisitive enough at least ask "what the hell just happened?!". Text and voice chat are pretty standard for fps games so I'm not sure why the significant learning curve to work out how to do it should even be considered? Perhaps you're right though, maybe they won't even bother to ask. It's odd to make allowances for people if they're completely apathetic about it anyway?
I know i can't convince you of this, but you really put too much stock in what a new player sees. UWE has seen a large enough sample size to know.
Will they eventually see it? Of course... but when? After they have a bad experience or before? And will they connect the dots?
Its best to err on the side of safety and presume the worst.
If it is legitimately a problem, then perhaps a solution would be to simply make the voting box flash, or enlarge it significantly (or even bring back the old Uraguayan flag), for players who have not participated in a vote once. And then once they have voted a single time, the standard voting box will apply. If there's a problem getting in the way of having a better voting system, it doesn't have to stay a problem - although I guess UWE only has so much resources to put into NS2 now, but one would hope that this is a simple change.
Again though.. all this is really moot to discuss, because once edge cases are taken care of, whats really left to complain about from any veteran?
That 2 votes weren't able to reset the round?
I bet that's not what irks people when it comes to the implementation of voting in NS2...
Exactly. Continued discussion on votebox visibility is moot if edge cases are already being taken care of. I'm in favour of a minimum vote requirement so not trying to convince otherwise.
I do think, however, that 2 votes should reset a round if enough people vote "Don't Care" (as per my previous suggestion) that the minimum vote requirement is satisfied. A simple 2-0 vote in a full server under the current 2-party system shouldn't though.
Will they eventually see it? Of course... but when? After they have a bad experience or before? And will they connect the dots?
Can't this be said of most game mechanics in most games?
Your average gamer doesn't even take a minute to read instruction manuals ever and learns most game mechanics in a trail by fire. Why do they need special treatment for voting?
Will they eventually see it? Of course... but when? After they have a bad experience or before? And will they connect the dots?
Can't this be said of most game mechanics in most games?
Your average gamer doesn't even take a minute to read instruction manuals ever and learns most game mechanics in a trail by fire. Why do they need special treatment for voting?
trial by fire is the only way to learn a game. the quickest way to know if you'll need something, is to be killed by it. like, even though i'm extremely tempted to rebind jump to mouse2, i have no idea if aiming down sights or alt-fire actually should be on it instead or if jump is actually any good in the game. so wait and see.
I know i can't convince you of this, but you really put too much stock in what a new player sees. UWE has seen a large enough sample size to know.
Will they eventually see it? Of course... but when? After they have a bad experience or before? And will they connect the dots?
Its best to err on the side of safety and presume the worst.
Even vet players don't see shit. I get very focused while playing and NEVER see popups on my screen. I often completely miss votes that take place if they are during the game, I'll often see the result and have no idea what the vote was about. Same goes with the big letters that say carapace upgrade available or whatever I NEVER see those. I wish I did but 99% of the time I do not see any of those messages.
I know i can't convince you of this, but you really put too much stock in what a new player sees. UWE has seen a large enough sample size to know.
Will they eventually see it? Of course... but when? After they have a bad experience or before? And will they connect the dots?
Its best to err on the side of safety and presume the worst.
Even vet players don't see shit. I get very focused while playing and NEVER see popups on my screen. I often completely miss votes that take place if they are during the game, I'll often see the result and have no idea what the vote was about. Same goes with the big letters that say carapace upgrade available or whatever I NEVER see those. I wish I did but 99% of the time I do not see any of those messages.
it's called attention blindness, like the classic case of
the miss rate is roughly 50%. the more focused, the less likely you are to notice things. I used to call out finished upgrades, just so i catch any stragglers. Because attention blindness is a thing.
I don't think anyone denies attention blindness affecting players. What I find ludicrous is allowing apathy to sway voting. I get that people might not see a vote in progress. But what I don't get is equating a "non" vote to no. I see this as a case of "protecting" new players from themselves while enabling griefers freer reign to ruin games because they are protected by a blanket of apathy or ignorance.
AFKers should be kicked as should griefers. Admins are not always present to do this.
Lost games should be terminated. "New" players who can't even figure out how to vote surely don't know the game is lost. The same can be said for bad commanders not knowing the game is over or that they are ruining the game.
A new player's game can be ruined just as easily by going Fade and getting their ass handed to them by a couple of guys with shotguns; where is the built in protection for this? There is none but the School of hard knocks. So when the map gets changed or the round conceded and the new player says "WTF?" they get told there was a vote, you chose not to vote. Vote next time. Just like they learn not to engage 2-3 marines with shotguns by getting spanked a couple of times.
Personally If I were new to the game I would more likely rage from getting repeatedly killed as a Fade by shotgunners than because of a vote I overlooked.
I don't think anyone denies attention blindness affecting players. What I find ludicrous is allowing apathy to sway voting. I get that people might not see a vote in progress. But what I don't get is equating a "non" vote to no. I see this as a case of "protecting" new players from themselves while enabling griefers freer reign to ruin games because they are protected by a blanket of apathy or ignorance.
AFKers should be kicked as should griefers. Admins are not always present to do this.
Lost games should be terminated. "New" players who can't even figure out how to vote surely don't know the game is lost. The same can be said for bad commanders not knowing the game is over or that they are ruining the game.
A new player's game can be ruined just as easily by going Fade and getting their ass handed to them by a couple of guys with shotguns; where is the built in protection for this? There is none but the School of hard knocks. So when the map gets changed or the round conceded and the new player says "WTF?" they get told there was a vote, you chose not to vote. Vote next time. Just like they learn not to engage 2-3 marines with shotguns by getting spanked a couple of times.
Personally If I were new to the game I would more likely rage from getting repeatedly killed as a Fade by shotgunners than because of a vote I overlooked.
i think that's exactly what you were doing actually. what people are arguing is that for some people so focused on the game, the vote is legimately missed. It isn't apathy, they're not saying "i don't care" they're saying "what was that now?" The argument is also being made that this disproportionately affects newer players, because they most likely have more on their plate stealing their attention than veteran players do.
Incidentally, Griefers, Hackers and Spammers aren't protected by this "apathy" vote if you will... because you know, their whole purpose is to disrupt the game and gain attention. Similarly, if AFKers aren't affecting the game enough to be noticed, then... what's your problem with them again? again, it shouldn't be easy to abuse. and the solution should be as elegant as you can make it, and it should be consistent. zeroing out the apathy vote, then setting a lower limit to vote success is neither elegant nor consistent. it's also not robust against abuse, though it might be easier to pass... but at what cost?
We are acting here like there is some massive damage done to players by the voting system. If they have to learn to be a better Fade by getting burned by shottys why is it such a travesty that they have to learn to vote by not getting their way because they overlooked a vote?
We are acting here like there is some massive damage done to players by the voting system. If they have to learn to be a better Fade by getting burned by shottys why is it such a travesty that they have to learn to vote by not getting their way because they overlooked a vote?
so, what's the damage of keeping the current system? just be more convincing and i'm sure you'll get your way all the time.
We are acting here like there is some massive damage done to players by the voting system. If they have to learn to be a better Fade by getting burned by shottys why is it such a travesty that they have to learn to vote by not getting their way because they overlooked a vote?
so, what's the damage of keeping the current system? just be more convincing and i'm sure you'll get your way all the time.
Because a system where a non vote is counted as a no vote is not a fair vote. Why assume that a person who "can't figure out how to vote" would automatically vote no?
I don't think anyone denies attention blindness affecting players. What I find ludicrous is allowing apathy to sway voting. I get that people might not see a vote in progress. But what I don't get is equating a "non" vote to no. I see this as a case of "protecting" new players from themselves while enabling griefers freer reign to ruin games because they are protected by a blanket of apathy or ignorance.
AFKers should be kicked as should griefers. Admins are not always present to do this.
Lost games should be terminated. "New" players who can't even figure out how to vote surely don't know the game is lost. The same can be said for bad commanders not knowing the game is over or that they are ruining the game.
A new player's game can be ruined just as easily by going Fade and getting their ass handed to them by a couple of guys with shotguns; where is the built in protection for this? There is none but the School of hard knocks. So when the map gets changed or the round conceded and the new player says "WTF?" they get told there was a vote, you chose not to vote. Vote next time. Just like they learn not to engage 2-3 marines with shotguns by getting spanked a couple of times.
Personally If I were new to the game I would more likely rage from getting repeatedly killed as a Fade by shotgunners than because of a vote I overlooked.
So much in this post to address..
The current system does not enable griefers. Intentionally choosing to not vote is the same as voting no - by design - and therefore is not remotely abusing the system or "greifing"??
AFKers are kicked automatically by default, if a server changes this setting then it's their fault for doing so and not having an admin around to address it
New players don't need to end games immediately. They can play and practice to their hearts content, the win is not as important to them as the experience they gain. This being said, i almost exclusively frequent rookie and official servers, and can attest that this is not a problem... rounds end when rounds end and there's zero sense of "lost games should be terminated" from said players.. they just enjoy themselves. A strange contrast to your typical vet who wants to restart the round to a game where his team has the advantage.
Getting pub stomped or the potential for it is no excuse to make griefing 10 times easier?? X_X How does one wrong justify the inclusion of another, exactly? Also the "built in protection" you ask about is Hive and Sabot, systems UWE have been working on for months.
If they have to learn to be a better Fade by getting burned by shottys why is it such a travesty that they have to learn to vote by not getting their way because they overlooked a vote?
Huh?? Are you advocating for poorly implemented game design and mechanics now because some already exist?? (skill barrier and skill curve) How does that even..?
Simply put more awareness towards a vote + longer duration before the vote ends and you shouldn't have any issues spotting it.
All this jazz about not noticing a vote cause you're dodging skulks or because you're new to the game seem highly over exaggerated.
I don't know what to say but if you got a whole minute to vote, a pop up on your screen, some sound alert and you still somehow "miss" it then you deserve everything that's coming for you.
A simple voting system that works better then what we got right now isn't rocket science. AMXX and sourcemod been doing it for years in a similar way and I've never once heard of anyone feeling cheated cause they missed the vote. It's all about creating awareness and having the vote last long enough.
I reckon the vote lasts long enough, although I've played enough to notice the vote quickly anyway. However, if that is also an issue for newbies you could have a condition that lengthens the vote if the server contains a player who has played under x hours (UWE would have the data to know what 'x' should be). Personally, I don't want voteboxes clogging up the screen for too long if it's midgame, so that would give us the best of both worlds.
So with:
1) not voting not (strictly) meaning no, with the addition of a minimum vote requirement for votes to pass - such that if the yes/no requirement is 50% and the minimum vote requirement is 50% then on a 20 player server if 8 people vote yes and 2 people vote no because both requirements are satisfied then the vote passes (even though 8 people is less than half of 20). It would be nice if these are server options (i.e. what the yes/no and minimum total vote requirement percentage is) so that server operators can deam what requirement is 'fair'. Obviously UWE has control over their own official servers.
2) possible "Don't Care" option to expressedly want their apathy to be counted - negates votes from the minimum vote requirement (see my previous post for detailed description)
3) newbie-friendly devices like flashing/enlarged voteboxes for first time voters, and extended voting times for servers with new players
4) afkers being discluded from minimum vote requirement
5) commanders possibly being discluded from minimum vote requirement if they don't vote (i'm just pitching this now - under the reasoning that commanders might be more involved than field units especially in high octane scenarios)
6) readyroomers and specs being discluded from votes that they arguably shouldn't be involved in (i.e. spectator can't vote on randomize readyroom and both spec+rr can't vote for reset games) - this also effects minimum vote requirement
7) possibly discluding the opposing team (maybe +spec+rr) from kick player votes. I cbf rereading the debate on that so I dunno where people landed on that. Again, this would effect the minimum vote requirement.
Anyway, I'd say the above is a pretty good system. Covers a lot of bases. Lemme know if I've missed anything cause I don't think I've really read the entire thread so there could be some other ideas out there.
Some of your suggestions are nice but really I'd keep it simple, the more hidden layers you add the more confusing it gets. If you're worried that 1 minute might make the vote last too long then simply make the vote end when everyone has voted.
The pop up also doesn't have to be there the whole time. After you've voted it can easily close down and show the results when the vote has ended. Waiting one minute cause someone refuses to vote really isn't so bad if the pop-up isn't in the way.
Voting will probably go a lot quicker the moment you add in an audio cue. It's really not uncommon for players to not see anything but the center when playing games. As baffling as it might seem to some of us who always multi task. Some people are simply not very good at it.
AFK kick should be enabled on the official servers but the overall afk kick time should be increased. Not sure what it's on right now but last I checked going to the loo and grabbing a drink when the map ended results in me getting kicked.
5-6 minutes seems like a nice idle time. 3 minutes is too short, most of the time the round hasn't even started by then.
Simply put more awareness towards a vote + longer duration before the vote ends and you shouldn't have any issues spotting it.
All this jazz about not noticing a vote cause you're dodging skulks or because you're new to the game seem highly over exaggerated.
I don't know what to say but if you got a whole minute to vote, a pop up on your screen, some sound alert and you still somehow "miss" it then you deserve everything that's coming for you.
A simple voting system that works better then what we got right now isn't rocket science. AMXX and sourcemod been doing it for years in a similar way and I've never once heard of anyone feeling cheated cause they missed the vote. It's all about creating awareness and having the vote last long enough.
I watched the vid after you asked so I'm afraid I couldn't say. But I'm the kind of player who has his map open 50% of the time and relays information back the comm before he knows it.
In games like battlefield I'll be watching the minimap for people every few sec.
I've been server admin on a few heavy duty servers so watching the chat while playing was daily business for me.
Attention span is different for people. While others watch tv and notice nothing around them while I still see any movement from the corner of my eyes.
But lets go back to the gorilla example. Change the vid to have an audio cue "LOOK GORILLA" and I'd dare wager that anyone who isn't deaf would instantly notice it.
I watched the vid after you asked so I'm afraid I couldn't say. But I'm the kind of player who has his map open 50% of the time and relays information back the comm before he knows it.
In games like battlefield I'll be watching the minimap for people every few sec.
I've been server admin on a few heavy duty servers so watching the chat while playing was daily business for me.
Attention span is different for people. While others watch tv and notice nothing around them while I still see any movement from the corner of my eyes.
But lets go back to the gorilla example. Change the vid to have an audio cue "LOOK GORILLA" and I'd dare wager that anyone who isn't deaf would instantly notice it.
when I get really focused on a game, I'll agree to near anything you ask me. the sensory inputs get processed, but they just don't register. change the voice to saying "hey look gorilla" in Korean, and I think it might approximate what rookies currently deal.with. nothing is familiar.
Simply put more awareness towards a vote + longer duration before the vote ends and you shouldn't have any issues spotting it.
All this jazz about not noticing a vote cause you're dodging skulks or because you're new to the game seem highly over exaggerated.
Okay, so if it is not an issue of seeing the vote, we have an majority of people who don't agree with the vote caller. Because if they see the vote and agree with it, they definatly would have voted "yes". Nobody sees a vote and thinks: "Yes, this might be a good idea. But meh, voting is so exhausting I don't wanna press this key..."
1) not voting not (strictly) meaning no, with the addition of a minimum vote requirement for votes to pass - such that if the yes/no requirement is 50% and the minimum vote requirement is 50% then on a 20 player server if 8 people vote yes and 2 people vote no because both requirements are satisfied then the vote passes (even though 8 people is less than half of 20). It would be nice if these are server options (i.e. what the yes/no and minimum total vote requirement percentage is) so that server operators can deam what requirement is 'fair'. Obviously UWE has control over their own official servers.
As mentioned before. This wouldn't be a fair system, because it would punish the both disagrees for voting. If they haven't voted it would be 8:0, so it wouldn't hit the 50% minimum vote requirement and fails.
Simply put more awareness towards a vote + longer duration before the vote ends and you shouldn't have any issues spotting it.
All this jazz about not noticing a vote cause you're dodging skulks or because you're new to the game seem highly over exaggerated.
Okay, so if it is not an issue of seeing the vote, we have an majority of people who don't agree with the vote caller. Because if they see the vote and agree with it, they definatly would have voted "yes". Nobody sees a vote and thinks: "Yes, this might be a good idea. But meh, voting is so exhausting I don't wanna press this key..."
1) not voting not (strictly) meaning no, with the addition of a minimum vote requirement for votes to pass - such that if the yes/no requirement is 50% and the minimum vote requirement is 50% then on a 20 player server if 8 people vote yes and 2 people vote no because both requirements are satisfied then the vote passes (even though 8 people is less than half of 20). It would be nice if these are server options (i.e. what the yes/no and minimum total vote requirement percentage is) so that server operators can deam what requirement is 'fair'. Obviously UWE has control over their own official servers.
As mentioned before. This wouldn't be a fair system, because it would punish the both disagrees for voting. If they haven't voted it would be 8:0, so it wouldn't hit the 50% minimum vote requirement and fails.
I can't understand your english (namely "punish the both disagrees for voting") and therefore your rebuttal.
The minimum vote requirement is for total votes. If it's 8:2, then 10 people have voted - half of the people in the server - thus satisfying the requirement if it's set to 50%. And the vote passes because 8 is more than 2. It absolutely is a fair system. More people are voting yes than no. If a president gets elected because he receives more votes than his opponent, but not more than half the country voted for him (due to not voting or 3rd party candidates) is that not fair?
Some of your suggestions are nice but really I'd keep it simple, the more hidden layers you add the more confusing it gets. If you're worried that 1 minute might make the vote last too long then simply make the vote end when everyone has voted.
The pop up also doesn't have to be there the whole time. After you've voted it can easily close down and show the results when the vote has ended. Waiting one minute cause someone refuses to vote really isn't so bad if the pop-up isn't in the way.
Voting will probably go a lot quicker the moment you add in an audio cue. It's really not uncommon for players to not see anything but the center when playing games. As baffling as it might seem to some of us who always multi task. Some people are simply not very good at it.
AFK kick should be enabled on the official servers but the overall afk kick time should be increased. Not sure what it's on right now but last I checked going to the loo and grabbing a drink when the map ended results in me getting kicked.
5-6 minutes seems like a nice idle time. 3 minutes is too short, most of the time the round hasn't even started by then.
Personally, I would be happy with having not voting =/= no and keeping the yes vs no purely democratic and up to the people who do vote. I'm not arguing for that though because there are too many people who believe it's 'unfair'.
Simply put more awareness towards a vote + longer duration before the vote ends and you shouldn't have any issues spotting it.
All this jazz about not noticing a vote cause you're dodging skulks or because you're new to the game seem highly over exaggerated.
Okay, so if it is not an issue of seeing the vote, we have an majority of people who don't agree with the vote caller. Because if they see the vote and agree with it, they definatly would have voted "yes". Nobody sees a vote and thinks: "Yes, this might be a good idea. But meh, voting is so exhausting I don't wanna press this key..."
1) not voting not (strictly) meaning no, with the addition of a minimum vote requirement for votes to pass - such that if the yes/no requirement is 50% and the minimum vote requirement is 50% then on a 20 player server if 8 people vote yes and 2 people vote no because both requirements are satisfied then the vote passes (even though 8 people is less than half of 20). It would be nice if these are server options (i.e. what the yes/no and minimum total vote requirement percentage is) so that server operators can deam what requirement is 'fair'. Obviously UWE has control over their own official servers.
As mentioned before. This wouldn't be a fair system, because it would punish the both disagrees for voting. If they haven't voted it would be 8:0, so it wouldn't hit the 50% minimum vote requirement and fails.
I can't understand your english (namely "punish the both disagrees for voting") and therefore your rebuttal.
The minimum vote requirement is for total votes. If it's 8:2, then 10 people have voted - half of the people in the server - thus satisfying the requirement if it's set to 50%. And the vote passes because 8 is more than 2. It absolutely is a fair system. More people are voting yes than no. If a president gets elected because he receives more votes than his opponent, but not more than half the country voted for him (due to not voting or 3rd party candidates) is that not fair?
Okay, sorry, I am not a native speaker, I try it in another way.
In your example we have 20 players, 10 voted "yes", 2 voted "no", 8 didn't vote at all. In your system the vote would pass. But If the 2 voters who voted "no" wouldn't had voted at all the vote wouldn't have passed. So the 2 who actually voted gets punished by voting at all. (Of course if you argue that exactly 50% should be enough, we could modify the example: Should a 9:3 on a full 20 Slot Server pass?)
Comments
Because people are so overwhelmed by all the new input they get. Of course that don't happen to all of them in this excess, but some of them don't even see a marine straight infront of them.
As stupid as it sounds. Yes you have months of training of seeing what is going on on your screen.
Just think of how many times you see threats and opportunities other players don't see, even if they have the same informations. Thats basically the same thing, just in a more advanced state.
Threats and opportunities require understanding of the game though. A voting box just requires eyes.
Yes, it's easier to recognize if you haven't seen it before but to even suggest this is an issue is bizarre considering how already obvious the voting box is. If the stats indicate that people under a certain number or hours really has a strong correlation with not voting then what's the alternative? Outfitting everybody's computer with ns2 with a bullhorn or steam whistle that sounds every time a vote is cast? Quite frankly the voting box is visible enough and to make allowances for people who don't see it is odd. Perhaps this game should all be in braille instead if the sense of sight is too much for some people.
Anyway, simple solution to the problem of people not voting:
i'd like you to think back to when you first started any game... at all. and figuring out what was important, what to look at, what to respond to. it doesn't help that the vote box is situated right above the chat box, or that its far from center.
Also rookies have more things to worry about than veterans. They need to learn the maps, they need to get used to mechanics and buttons, they need to learn the map names, for those all-important map-votes (some might abstain even if they're engaged simply because the map names don't click for them immediately). They are doing all these things, and you want them to also follow and read the chat box? can you really expect them to know why this person or that is being kicked?
my point being, there are many reasons why rookies might not vote, and not all of them involve not seeing an "obvious" popup. and not seeing the popup is pretty justified too if skulks are jumping out at you around every corner.
As I said in a previous post, actually having to participate in a vote would incentivize use and cause those who don't know how to vote to learn quickly. Also, it's more fair that the minority population that doesn't even know a vote is going on should be discluded from effecting the outcome than effectively deciding for them that their vote is going to be a 'no'. The former is logical and fair. The latter is practically automated vote manipulation (ok, a bit of an exaggeration).
I know i can't convince you of this, but you really put too much stock in what a new player sees. UWE has seen a large enough sample size to know.
Will they eventually see it? Of course... but when? After they have a bad experience or before? And will they connect the dots?
Its best to err on the side of safety and presume the worst.
Again though.. all this is really moot to discuss, because once edge cases are taken care of, whats really left to complain about from any veteran?
That 2 votes weren't able to reset the round?
I bet that's not what irks people when it comes to the implementation of voting in NS2...
Well map changes are fairly obvious if they come mid-round. One would hope that if people are legitimately confused they would at least be inquisitive enough at least ask "what the hell just happened?!". Text and voice chat are pretty standard for fps games so I'm not sure why the significant learning curve to work out how to do it should even be considered? Perhaps you're right though, maybe they won't even bother to ask. It's odd to make allowances for people if they're completely apathetic about it anyway?
If it is legitimately a problem, then perhaps a solution would be to simply make the voting box flash, or enlarge it significantly (or even bring back the old Uraguayan flag), for players who have not participated in a vote once. And then once they have voted a single time, the standard voting box will apply. If there's a problem getting in the way of having a better voting system, it doesn't have to stay a problem - although I guess UWE only has so much resources to put into NS2 now, but one would hope that this is a simple change.
Exactly. Continued discussion on votebox visibility is moot if edge cases are already being taken care of. I'm in favour of a minimum vote requirement so not trying to convince otherwise.
I do think, however, that 2 votes should reset a round if enough people vote "Don't Care" (as per my previous suggestion) that the minimum vote requirement is satisfied. A simple 2-0 vote in a full server under the current 2-party system shouldn't though.
Speaking of adding a 3rd option:
Can't this be said of most game mechanics in most games?
Your average gamer doesn't even take a minute to read instruction manuals ever and learns most game mechanics in a trail by fire. Why do they need special treatment for voting?
Because it would be incredibly easy to abuse / exclusively prey on those who decided not to read the manual, that's why.
trial by fire is the only way to learn a game. the quickest way to know if you'll need something, is to be killed by it. like, even though i'm extremely tempted to rebind jump to mouse2, i have no idea if aiming down sights or alt-fire actually should be on it instead or if jump is actually any good in the game. so wait and see.
Even vet players don't see shit. I get very focused while playing and NEVER see popups on my screen. I often completely miss votes that take place if they are during the game, I'll often see the result and have no idea what the vote was about. Same goes with the big letters that say carapace upgrade available or whatever I NEVER see those. I wish I did but 99% of the time I do not see any of those messages.
it's called attention blindness, like the classic case of
the miss rate is roughly 50%. the more focused, the less likely you are to notice things. I used to call out finished upgrades, just so i catch any stragglers. Because attention blindness is a thing.
I forgot about that video
How do i awesome you more??
AFKers should be kicked as should griefers. Admins are not always present to do this.
Lost games should be terminated. "New" players who can't even figure out how to vote surely don't know the game is lost. The same can be said for bad commanders not knowing the game is over or that they are ruining the game.
A new player's game can be ruined just as easily by going Fade and getting their ass handed to them by a couple of guys with shotguns; where is the built in protection for this? There is none but the School of hard knocks. So when the map gets changed or the round conceded and the new player says "WTF?" they get told there was a vote, you chose not to vote. Vote next time. Just like they learn not to engage 2-3 marines with shotguns by getting spanked a couple of times.
Personally If I were new to the game I would more likely rage from getting repeatedly killed as a Fade by shotgunners than because of a vote I overlooked.
i think that's exactly what you were doing actually. what people are arguing is that for some people so focused on the game, the vote is legimately missed. It isn't apathy, they're not saying "i don't care" they're saying "what was that now?" The argument is also being made that this disproportionately affects newer players, because they most likely have more on their plate stealing their attention than veteran players do.
Incidentally, Griefers, Hackers and Spammers aren't protected by this "apathy" vote if you will... because you know, their whole purpose is to disrupt the game and gain attention. Similarly, if AFKers aren't affecting the game enough to be noticed, then... what's your problem with them again? again, it shouldn't be easy to abuse. and the solution should be as elegant as you can make it, and it should be consistent. zeroing out the apathy vote, then setting a lower limit to vote success is neither elegant nor consistent. it's also not robust against abuse, though it might be easier to pass... but at what cost?
The cost of missing a single vote?
We are acting here like there is some massive damage done to players by the voting system. If they have to learn to be a better Fade by getting burned by shottys why is it such a travesty that they have to learn to vote by not getting their way because they overlooked a vote?
so, what's the damage of keeping the current system? just be more convincing and i'm sure you'll get your way all the time.
Because a system where a non vote is counted as a no vote is not a fair vote. Why assume that a person who "can't figure out how to vote" would automatically vote no?
- The current system does not enable griefers. Intentionally choosing to not vote is the same as voting no - by design - and therefore is not remotely abusing the system or "greifing"??
- AFKers are kicked automatically by default, if a server changes this setting then it's their fault for doing so and not having an admin around to address it
- New players don't need to end games immediately. They can play and practice to their hearts content, the win is not as important to them as the experience they gain. This being said, i almost exclusively frequent rookie and official servers, and can attest that this is not a problem... rounds end when rounds end and there's zero sense of "lost games should be terminated" from said players.. they just enjoy themselves. A strange contrast to your typical vet who wants to restart the round to a game where his team has the advantage.
- Getting pub stomped or the potential for it is no excuse to make griefing 10 times easier?? X_X How does one wrong justify the inclusion of another, exactly? Also the "built in protection" you ask about is Hive and Sabot, systems UWE have been working on for months.
Huh?? Are you advocating for poorly implemented game design and mechanics now because some already exist?? (skill barrier and skill curve) How does that even..?All this jazz about not noticing a vote cause you're dodging skulks or because you're new to the game seem highly over exaggerated.
I don't know what to say but if you got a whole minute to vote, a pop up on your screen, some sound alert and you still somehow "miss" it then you deserve everything that's coming for you.
A simple voting system that works better then what we got right now isn't rocket science. AMXX and sourcemod been doing it for years in a similar way and I've never once heard of anyone feeling cheated cause they missed the vote. It's all about creating awareness and having the vote last long enough.
So with:
1) not voting not (strictly) meaning no, with the addition of a minimum vote requirement for votes to pass - such that if the yes/no requirement is 50% and the minimum vote requirement is 50% then on a 20 player server if 8 people vote yes and 2 people vote no because both requirements are satisfied then the vote passes (even though 8 people is less than half of 20). It would be nice if these are server options (i.e. what the yes/no and minimum total vote requirement percentage is) so that server operators can deam what requirement is 'fair'. Obviously UWE has control over their own official servers.
2) possible "Don't Care" option to expressedly want their apathy to be counted - negates votes from the minimum vote requirement (see my previous post for detailed description)
3) newbie-friendly devices like flashing/enlarged voteboxes for first time voters, and extended voting times for servers with new players
4) afkers being discluded from minimum vote requirement
5) commanders possibly being discluded from minimum vote requirement if they don't vote (i'm just pitching this now - under the reasoning that commanders might be more involved than field units especially in high octane scenarios)
6) readyroomers and specs being discluded from votes that they arguably shouldn't be involved in (i.e. spectator can't vote on randomize readyroom and both spec+rr can't vote for reset games) - this also effects minimum vote requirement
7) possibly discluding the opposing team (maybe +spec+rr) from kick player votes. I cbf rereading the debate on that so I dunno where people landed on that. Again, this would effect the minimum vote requirement.
Anyway, I'd say the above is a pretty good system. Covers a lot of bases. Lemme know if I've missed anything cause I don't think I've really read the entire thread so there could be some other ideas out there.
The pop up also doesn't have to be there the whole time. After you've voted it can easily close down and show the results when the vote has ended. Waiting one minute cause someone refuses to vote really isn't so bad if the pop-up isn't in the way.
Voting will probably go a lot quicker the moment you add in an audio cue. It's really not uncommon for players to not see anything but the center when playing games. As baffling as it might seem to some of us who always multi task. Some people are simply not very good at it.
AFK kick should be enabled on the official servers but the overall afk kick time should be increased. Not sure what it's on right now but last I checked going to the loo and grabbing a drink when the map ended results in me getting kicked.
5-6 minutes seems like a nice idle time. 3 minutes is too short, most of the time the round hasn't even started by then.
did you notice the gorilla?
In games like battlefield I'll be watching the minimap for people every few sec.
I've been server admin on a few heavy duty servers so watching the chat while playing was daily business for me.
Attention span is different for people. While others watch tv and notice nothing around them while I still see any movement from the corner of my eyes.
But lets go back to the gorilla example. Change the vid to have an audio cue "LOOK GORILLA" and I'd dare wager that anyone who isn't deaf would instantly notice it.
when I get really focused on a game, I'll agree to near anything you ask me. the sensory inputs get processed, but they just don't register. change the voice to saying "hey look gorilla" in Korean, and I think it might approximate what rookies currently deal.with. nothing is familiar.
As mentioned before. This wouldn't be a fair system, because it would punish the both disagrees for voting. If they haven't voted it would be 8:0, so it wouldn't hit the 50% minimum vote requirement and fails.
I can't understand your english (namely "punish the both disagrees for voting") and therefore your rebuttal.
The minimum vote requirement is for total votes. If it's 8:2, then 10 people have voted - half of the people in the server - thus satisfying the requirement if it's set to 50%. And the vote passes because 8 is more than 2. It absolutely is a fair system. More people are voting yes than no. If a president gets elected because he receives more votes than his opponent, but not more than half the country voted for him (due to not voting or 3rd party candidates) is that not fair?
Personally, I would be happy with having not voting =/= no and keeping the yes vs no purely democratic and up to the people who do vote. I'm not arguing for that though because there are too many people who believe it's 'unfair'.
Okay, sorry, I am not a native speaker, I try it in another way.
In your example we have 20 players, 10 voted "yes", 2 voted "no", 8 didn't vote at all. In your system the vote would pass. But If the 2 voters who voted "no" wouldn't had voted at all the vote wouldn't have passed. So the 2 who actually voted gets punished by voting at all. (Of course if you argue that exactly 50% should be enough, we could modify the example: Should a 9:3 on a full 20 Slot Server pass?)