Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,651
# 61
03-04-2013, 07:31 AM
I still think that a system that is based on a vote, and requires all other players to vote "yes" to kick someone, is pretty abuse proof, unless all four of them are trolls in a five man STF.
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10
# 62
03-04-2013, 07:32 AM
I can guarantee it will be abused. It's one of the more "fun" features in WoW. On a bad run, group members will try to kick each other repeatedly. It's annoying.
Career Officer
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 953
# 63
03-04-2013, 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpalelena View Post
I still think that a system that is based on a vote, and requires all other players to vote "yes" to kick someone, is pretty abuse proof, unless all four of them are trolls in a five man STF.
Considering that one can create a public team of 4 then queue as a team in the public queues it would be very very easy to sit there all day in public queues and trolling the poor souls unlucky enough to join the Public PVE you are in with your 3 other troll mates.

Believe me the amount of lulz on offer in such a simplistic system would be too tempting for many also, if you require 4 all it takes is 2 AFK'rs to break the vote systems usage.

If there is to be a voting solution it will have to be novel, original and contain ingenuity I've not seen from Cryptic as of yet.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 53
# 64
03-04-2013, 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpalelena View Post
I still think that a system that is based on a vote, and requires all other players to vote "yes" to kick someone, is pretty abuse proof, unless all four of them are trolls in a five man STF.
Depends on how you define "abuse" and whether it can be accidental. If everyone just votes "yes" without a thought, then all it takes is one person to initiate the vote in order to abuse the system.

I can't say how often it happens (in fact, anything I or anyone else says is anecdotal since we don't have access to any logs or other hard data), but most of the vote-kicks I've seen only make sense to me if I assume this is what's happening.
____________________

The gorilla formerly known as Kolikos
Lieutenant
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 44
# 65
03-04-2013, 09:09 AM
/bind lulzkey send "Team" $targetplayer is AFK! $$ vote_kick $targetplayer
Cpt Dennis J. 'Denny' Kidd of the USS Emden, NCC-96415
Starfleet Privateer and Ginger Menace
'Yarr.'
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 536
# 66
03-04-2013, 10:13 AM
Make it a 3 vote system, but instead of kicking the player out it classifies them as a enemy and all players may attack them over and over again until they agree to play nice or quit and endure a leaver penalty.
Just say no to ARC
Career Officer
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 953
# 67
03-04-2013, 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tancrediiv View Post
Make it a 3 vote system, but instead of kicking the player out it classifies them as a enemy and all players may attack them over and over again until they agree to play nice or quit and endure a leaver penalty.
Tancredi IV? hehe a suitably Norman name for a suitably Norman solution :p

But once again this just invites grief on a goonswarm scale.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 867
# 68
03-04-2013, 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealted View Post
One word. Goonswarm.

To explain, there are players out there who will happily skew any player-behavior-based game mechanic they can, especially if it results in sweet, delicious tears. Anything based on calculating norms and standard deviations of player activity would be ripe for such attention - all the more so if it's left on autopilot.

The metaguild Goonswarm is just the most infamous example, but there's no shortage of people who will gladly get together just to muck up the works of any hypothesis-testing, statistical analysis program.

Naturally, you could layer on conditions to "fix" each special case as the goons sniff it out. But, of course, that means human oversight to even detect the problem. Plus, once you're playing defense like that, it's worth asking if your system is actually worth defending, or if it shouldn't be scrapped altogether.

In fact, it's always worth asking if there isn't a simpler, more direct, less tamper-prone system that does the job well enough. Naturally, that requires the programmer(s) to keep in mind what the job actually is...
The central limit theorem proves that they would fail. No warnings or bans would go into an effect until you reached a reasonable p-value and it would be easy to simply code a small subroutine to discount the votes of anyone who "reports" players more than one or two standard deviations from the mean within a certain period. That would stop a bunch of people from say, clogging up the queues all day and reporting every player they team with.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 867
# 69
03-04-2013, 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealted View Post
Depends on how you define "abuse" and whether it can be accidental. If everyone just votes "yes" without a thought, then all it takes is one person to initiate the vote in order to abuse the system.

I can't say how often it happens (in fact, anything I or anyone else says is anecdotal since we don't have access to any logs or other hard data), but most of the vote-kicks I've seen only make sense to me if I assume this is what's happening.
That is why I think any vote to kick routine, if it is implemented, should be 100% blinded. Everyone on the team must vote to kick and everyone on the team must initiate the vote themselves through the drop-down menu.

I still prefer my solution to vote-to-kick, as it would prevent four players from teaming and kicking another player near the end of the mission for the "lolz".
Career Officer
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 953
# 70
03-04-2013, 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalspock View Post
The central limit theorem proves that they would fail. No warnings or bans would go into an effect until you reached a reasonable p-value and it would be easy to simply code a small subroutine to discount the votes of anyone who "reports" players more than one or two standard deviations from the mean within a certain period. That would stop a bunch of people from say, clogging up the queues all day and reporting every player they team with.
It proves nothing as it does not work accurately with human beings as variables. Especially when they can have multiple accounts and alts, this is not the simple solution you think it is, applying statistical systems to human beings has always been flawed in practice when it often seems perfect in theory.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:48 PM.