voting New Voting Proposal

[Schism_989]

Quote

wat? I know what it is but how is this any relevant to MP?. 

Movement Prediction is used by people who know that Movement prediction scews up combat, and generally makes combat easier against people who don't have it disabled. Movement Prediction is only relevant in MP as far as I'm concerned.

Quote

I never said anything about permanently banning players; only keeping them out for a short time depending on the amount of times they were kicked and how many votes were in place. 

You are saying something about permanently banning players indirectly. If they were kicked enough, you do realize your strategy would ban them, right? If someone is kicked enough with your strategy, innocent players and griefers alike would be banned permanently, which causes issues. 

 

[Arlesienne]

The system will never get rid of all its flaws, but requiring a percentage of the entire server while rounding up would make it better.

[Schism_989]

2 hours ago, Arlesienne said:

The system will never get rid of all its flaws, but requiring a percentage of the entire server while rounding up would make it better.

It'd make it better in some ways, but percentages would be flawed if a so called group came on. But as I look into it, you rarely see groups of griefers, so if you negate the disadvantages I've listed, it doesn't sound bad. But I take in consideration the flaws and benefits. Now, I'm actually going to think about this more, see if I can get your perspective. Yes, this could help more than unanimous, and it bypasses the 3 player count. So it could be helpful.

But due to what I've seen, and what I know of the disadvantages, I'll have to disagree due to worse problems that may rise.

[Arlesienne]

17 minutes ago, Schism_989 said:

It'd make it better in some ways, but percentages would be flawed if a so called group came on. But as I look into it, you rarely see groups of griefers, so if you negate the disadvantages I've listed, it doesn't sound bad. But I take in consideration the flaws and benefits. Now, I'm actually going to think about this more, see if I can get your perspective. Yes, this could help more than unanimous, and it bypasses the 3 player count. So it could be helpful.

But due to what I've seen, and what I know of the disadvantages, I'll have to disagree due to worse problems that may rise.

Oh, I have no doubt my proposal is not perfect (far from that). It is just a bit better than two players and one griefer. Groups will always be a problem, but the frequency of them appearing is not that great.

Generally, I believe servers should always have an admin on. I take responsibility for my players and if there are problems, I have to man up and solve them.

[Schism_989]

1 hour ago, Arlesienne said:

Oh, I have no doubt my proposal is not perfect (far from that). It is just a bit better than two players and one griefer. Groups will always be a problem, but the frequency of them appearing is not that great.

Generally, I believe servers should always have an admin on. I take responsibility for my players and if there are problems, I have to man up and solve them.

Or they should at least have a contact admin setting.

[Arlesienne]

13 minutes ago, Schism_989 said:

Or they should at least have a contact admin setting.

Good idea!

[RoastedCarrots]

the new voting system has a flaw where you're the only one on the server, and its winter, and you want it to reset, you cannot vote to reset the server. i think that it should be allowed if you only have one vote but you are the only person on the server.

[GuyNamedChris]

4 minutes ago, mikesmullin said:

the new voting system has a flaw where you're the only one on the server, and its winter, and you want it to reset, you cannot vote to reset the server. i think that it should be allowed if you only have one vote but you are the only person on the server.

That's exactly what we're avoiding: Some trashbag joining an empty well-developed server to reset it with his one vote...

[RoastedCarrots]

Well maybe consider an exception for Survival mode servers then

[GuyNamedChris]

5 minutes ago, mikesmullin said:

Well maybe consider an exception for Survival mode servers then

Same difference:

>Empty server Day 100

>Trashbag has joined the game

>Trashbag has called a vote to reset the world

>Trashbag has successfully griefed an entire server with just a few button presses

That's why there's a minimum of 3 votes required to pass a vote

[BirdyMurakami]

3 hours ago, Chris1488 said:

Same difference:

>Empty server Day 100

>Trashbag has joined the game

>Trashbag has called a vote to reset the world

>Trashbag has successfully griefed an entire server with just a few button presses

That's why there's a minimum of 3 votes required to pass a vote

My solution that SHOULD be able to help: prevent players from being able to vote if they just joined. They must have survived for a certain amount of days, let's say 3-10, in order to initiate votes. Griefers, trolls, or "trashbags" could get discouraged quickly and will just leave. 

[RoastedCarrots]

Survival servers reset frequently under normal circumstances. The case you've outlined makes perfect sense for an Endless or Wilderness server, but in Survival i suggest it would be more productive to let an admin disable voting for reset if their intention is to allow the server to be persistent when nobody else is playing. 

I'll add that since the vote system was added I've seen multiple times where griefers join in groups. You get 3 willows joining instead of 1 now. I've also seen griefers (or bored ghosts) call for votes that fail repeatedly. To help, I recommend the voting system levy a time limit on how long you must wait to call for your next vote if one fails.

[BirdyMurakami]

By the way, I will just restate this. It does not matter how common (or uncommon) or how often we may see groups of people who look to make others miserable. Any number is lethal. 

If you are worried that there would be more groups forming up with this new voting system then how about grouping with friends yourself? It doesn't even have to be with someone close; just ask random people who you like to come play with you. (After all, the multiplayer version of Don't Starve is about playing with people you like, right?) As long as you have those numbers on your side, you wouldn't have to worry about getting kicked by the others. 

^ This is an example of why the unanimous system we have does not work. If someone abstains or if just one person votes no (possibly a fellow griefer), then there's no way the majority of players who just simply want to play wouldn't be able to save themselves. 

 

17 hours ago, Schism_989 said:

You are saying something about permanently banning players indirectly. If they were kicked enough, you do realize your strategy would ban them, right? If someone is kicked enough with your strategy, innocent players and griefers alike would be banned permanently, which causes issues. 

I will just repeat myself one more time in bold print: I said nothing about permanently banning players. Let me make this as clear as possible to you. If someone were to be permanently banned, they would have to report to an admin on what has happened AND, depending on the admin, if there's evidence that can go along with it. The system I have in mind does not permanently ban players, it only kicks and prevents them from joining for a short while. The maximum ban time could just simply be stated in the settings (maybe 10 minutes, 2 hours? that's up to you).

I will agree that abuse COULD still happen with these new method. Would it fix everything? Of course not. But is it a better solution? Well I think so. There isn't a perfect solution. But what we have right now isn't working very well. 

 

[Schism_989]

5 hours ago, BirdyMurakami said:

By the way, I will just restate this. It does not matter how common (or uncommon) or how often we may see groups of people who look to make others miserable. Any number is lethal. 

If you are worried that there would be more groups forming up with this new voting system then how about grouping with friends yourself? It doesn't even have to be with someone close; just ask random people who you like to come play with you. (After all, the multiplayer version of Don't Starve is about playing with people you like, right?) As long as you have those numbers on your side, you wouldn't have to worry about getting kicked by the others. 

^ This is an example of why the unanimous system we have does not work. If someone abstains or if just one person votes no (possibly a fellow griefer), then there's no way the majority of players who just simply want to play wouldn't be able to save themselves. 

 

I will just repeat myself one more time in bold print: I said nothing about permanently banning players. Let me make this as clear as possible to you. If someone were to be permanently banned, they would have to report to an admin on what has happened AND, depending on the admin, if there's evidence that can go along with it. The system I have in mind does not permanently ban players, it only kicks and prevents them from joining for a short while. The maximum ban time could just simply be stated in the settings (maybe 10 minutes, 2 hours? that's up to you).

I will agree that abuse COULD still happen with these new method. Would it fix everything? Of course not. But is it a better solution? Well I think so. There isn't a perfect solution. But what we have right now isn't working very well.

I understand, it could work, right now, I'm starting to see how it could help, but I'm just saying, what if someone gets kicked enough? This system you described would eventually ban someone from a server permanently if someone is stubborn enough (and there's a lot of people like that here). I also thing the system is doing fine from my perspective. I have found no problems with it whatsoever. Also take in note I have only seen two griefers (one a few months ago, one just yesterday) so take my idea of "this doesn't happen often" with a grain of salt.

Though I can assure you, Klei probably didn't implement percentage votes in for a very good reason. Either that, or they aren't looking at these problems yet because they're working on something else (like SW and DST for PS4).

[Sciuridae]

I feel like the voting is fine as it is, is that just me? 

[Schism_989]

 

1 minute ago, Sciuridae said:

I feel like the voting is fine as it is, is that just me? 

I'm sure there's a lot of people who'd agree.

[Sciuridae]

And compared to other games, DST vote system is actually useful, you can actually votekick someone without it taking 20 tries. 

I think there's a lot of things that need to change in DST, but the voting is fine. That's just me tho.

[Arlesienne]

One recollection of an otherwise lovely session. I was called away (family matters, I had to take care of one significant person). Having a hosted server rather than a dedi, I asked if they wanted to have it running while I am away or temporarily shut. Everybody voted for the former, so I explicitly stated Player X is in charge now and left the premises. About half an hour later, I return to hear everyone but one random as ghosts wailing for me to come back: one Webber guy is eating everything up (on my servers, Willows are rare, I have never had anything maliciously burnt, but if a griefer comes, out of vanillas, it is Wendy or Webber; no idea why, suggestions welcome). I check the log, the storage, the accusations are honest. A kick to drop their items quickly (Drop Stuff on Kick), then a ban. Then wholesale blood sacrifice for telltales (with 111 health). Giddy Up! lives on to take on the moslings.

It proves some safety measures are sorely needed, but do not ask for the golden key. An admin at all times is what I pursue. The ability to EASILY appoint admins should be implemented.

[Schism_989]

2 hours ago, Arlesienne said:

One recollection of an otherwise lovely session. I was called away (family matters, I had to take care of one significant person). Having a hosted server rather than a dedi, I asked if they wanted to have it running while I am away or temporarily shut. Everybody voted for the former, so I explicitly stated Player X is in charge now and left the premises. About half an hour later, I return to hear everyone but one random as ghosts wailing for me to come back: one Webber guy is eating everything up (on my servers, Willows are rare, I have never had anything maliciously burnt, but if a griefer comes, out of vanillas, it is Wendy or Webber; no idea why, suggestions welcome). I check the log, the storage, the accusations are honest. A kick to drop their items quickly (Drop Stuff on Kick), then a ban. Then wholesale blood sacrifice for telltales (with 111 health). Giddy Up! lives on to take on the moslings.

It proves some safety measures are sorely needed, but do not ask for the golden key. An admin at all times is what I pursue. The ability to EASILY appoint admins should be implemented.

Yes, which is why I suggested a call admin button where people can list a link to some way to contact the admins, or an easier way to make trusted friends administrators.

[Schism_989]

16 hours ago, mikesmullin said:

the new voting system has a flaw where you're the only one on the server, and its winter, and you want it to reset, you cannot vote to reset the server. i think that it should be allowed if you only have one vote but you are the only person on the server.

Dickbong joins the game

Dickbong: This seems like a good server.

Dickbong called a vote to reset server

Yes (1)

No (0)

Server reseting

Server reset

Dickbong leaves the game

16 hours ago, mikesmullin said:

the new voting system has a flaw where you're the only one on the server, and its winter, and you want it to reset, you cannot vote to reset the server. i think that it should be allowed if you only have one vote but you are the only person on the server.

Dickbong joins the game

Dickbong: This seems like a good server.

Dickbong called a vote to reset server

Yes (1)

No (0)

Server reseting

Server reset

Dickbong leaves the game

[Diezen]

Yeah I think I'm not going to play on any Klei Official servers until this gets addressed. Can't roll back multiple days, they can easily burn things just before morning so the rollback has no effect. Random players that join and don't vote preventing kicks, like those who just afk in the menu. 

Seriously, had a Willow enter a server 8+ times burning our base periodically. Couldn't roll back when there were only two of us earlier when another willow burned down a secondary base. Eventually we couldn't even rollback to fix it, and he would just leave during the votekick and rejoin later. If he was kicked, guess what. He would rejoin. Again. And again. Every time with a different name that's a variation of those who are currently playing, including slurs. I really do wish there was a hidden counter that would just perma ban after the player reaches a threshold of structures burnt a day... something that isn't feasible playing normally aside from constant griefing. 

Hard to have 'fun' on cooperative servers with these issues constantly.