Vote to regen world needs FIXED

[Chillaxin]

Hello! I have over 300 hours played of this wonderful game and came to the forums to beg for a solution to one of your recent changes.

On many servers i've been on, the vote to regenerate world has been passed unjustly. I see dead players who manage to rob the alive players of all their fun. I see new players on their day 1 force their vote upon a player who has been surviving for weeks and they get their way. If those players want to start new, they should have to either wait for the alive players or find another server. It is completely unjust for the survivors to have to instantly give up their fun and start all over.

Also if they get out-voted, they just spam the vote buttons until they pass or switch their votes to kick people who vote against them. This is definitely allowed greifing. 

Here is a picture example of my friends and I surviving and having fun until the vote-nation came...

[Kitty Cat Meow]

It's heartbreaking that stuff like this keeps happening, Something needs to be done about it, Leaving it as is would be similar to leaving an infected wound to fester.

I have a few solutions for this, they're probably not "silver bullets" but I think they'll stop most of these scenarios:

 

Solutions to "ghost army" and "noob apocalypse" scenarios:

Spoiler

• Dead players + players with less than 5 days survived should not be able to start or participate in world reset votes.
• Dead players should not be able to start votekicks or participate in them,
• If a player is revived, they should not be able to start a votekick or world reset vote for 8 minutes (or 1 in-game day), This is to prevent a griefer team from all reviving at the same touchstone at the same time to vote somebody off then reset the world, This may sound stupid, but I've seen crazy amounts of coordination coming from people with destructive intent.

 

 

General security measures and idiot-proofing:

Spoiler

• World reset votes should only pass when 100% of the votes are "yes".
• If a votekick succeeds or if a world reset vote fails, world reset votes are blocked for ~12 minutes, This is to prevent the "boot the players out then win the vote" trick, It also prevents world reset vote spamming, Although this may sound extreme, world resets are big things that people need to contemplate, They're not something to be tossed around.

 

If all else fails, the world reset option could be removed, It's a minor convenience with serious risks, in my opinion.

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

11 hours ago, Billiscool said:

It's heartbreaking that stuff like this keeps happening, Something needs to be done about it, Leaving it as is would be similar to leaving an infected wound to fester.

I have a few solutions for this, they're probably not "silver bullets" but I think they'll stop most of these scenarios:

 

Solutions to "ghost army" and "noob apocalypse" scenarios:

  Hide contents

• Dead players + players with less than 5 days survived should not be able to start or participate in world reset votes.
• Dead players should not be able to start votekicks or participate in them,
• If a player is revived, they should not be able to start a votekick or world reset vote for 8 minutes (or 1 in-game day), This is to prevent a griefer team from all reviving at the same touchstone at the same time to vote somebody off then reset the world, This may sound stupid, but I've seen crazy amounts of coordination coming from people with destructive intent.

 

 

General security measures and idiot-proofing:

  Hide contents

• World reset votes should only pass when 100% of the votes are "yes".
• If a votekick succeeds or if a world reset vote fails, world reset votes are blocked for ~12 minutes, This is to prevent the "boot the players out then win the vote" trick, It also prevents world reset vote spamming, Although this may sound extreme, world resets are big things that people need to contemplate, They're not something to be tossed around.

 

If all else fails, the world reset option could be removed, It's a minor convenience with serious risks, in my opinion.

/\ That and I think that players' vote power should increase over time. Like, if you can vote after day 5, then after like every 10 days from then, your vote would increase by another point, until day 45, when you have the power of 5 vote points. After that it would not increase. And perhaps the vote-kick delay would be like a day when you're at day 5 and it would too decrease over time until the delay if like half a minute or no delay at all.

And I would certainly agree on having 100% votes on regenerating the world. And having at least 3 players on the server too to pass this, I'd say. And of course a delay in when the regeneration of the world can be passed.

Edit: OH and how about if players can't participate in votes that are done on them (vote-kick wise)?

[StarvedKasad]

I suggest add a big timer to the vote button.The vote spammers are getting out of hand...

[TheKingDedede]

On 8/15/2016 at 7:04 PM, Billiscool said:

World reset votes should only pass when 100% of the votes are "yes".

That seems a bit too high if you were to play on a public server. I'd rather the vote pass when the percentage was slightly lower, like around 85% or 90%. My thought process being that when a world has truly gone bad and other players want to reset, you could also have trolls arguing to say no and keep the world in a bad state. I think I worded that poorly, but I still think the vote pass rate should be slightly lower than 100%.

[Diezen]

It would be nice to be able to see who is calling the votes too, so that the person vote spamming kicks or regens can be seen. (Which also will help with the situation of the person playing innocent as well, causing some bickering between players).

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

On 8/18/2016 at 4:31 AM, TheKingDedede said:

That seems a bit too high if you were to play on a public server. I'd rather the vote pass when the percentage was slightly lower, like around 85% or 90%. My thought process being that when a world has truly gone bad and other players want to reset, you could also have trolls arguing to say no and keep the world in a bad state. I think I worded that poorly, but I still think the vote pass rate should be slightly lower than 100%.

The trolls could be kicked out, if they're refusing... Although I don't think that regenning a world should be an option other than it being initiated when everybody is dead. Then again, I don't have too much reason for it, this is based on my some-what feeling-based opinion (everyone: "*gasp* you make opinions too? ")

[AlternateMew]

8 minutes ago, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

The trolls could be kicked out, if they're refusing... Although I don't think that regenning a world should be an option other than it being initiated when everybody is dead. Then again, I don't have too much reason for it, this is based on my some-what feeling-based opinion (everyone: "*gasp* you make opinions too? ")

I agree with you on this one.

If everyone wants the world to be regenerated, then they can organize to all die and force a regen. Regenning a world that at least one person is still thriving in and enjoying feels like a scummy move.

And uh, I might get yelled at for even suggesting this, but... if literally one person is the only one surviving and the rest want a reset, well... there's always peer pressure. Via haunting. Everything. ^{Please don't hate me.}

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

2 hours ago, AlternateMew said:

I agree with you on this one.

If everyone wants the world to be regenerated, then they can organize to all die and force a regen. Regenning a world that at least one person is still thriving in and enjoying feels like a scummy move.

And uh, I might get yelled at for even suggesting this, but... if literally one person is the only one surviving and the rest want a reset, well... there's always peer pressure. Via haunting. Everything. ^{Please don't hate me.}

Hmm, I think world-regen is something we all need to have deep thoughts about to come to some good solution... This might take a while, but having something in that would hold it all together better for now might be a good idea... Then again a "temporary" solution might become permanenet and because we fail to notice it, we stop thinking about it and nobody cares about it being addressed anymore... I am at a loss :~

[froggle_bunwich]

They should do something that who ever is doing that actions such as voting for kick or voting to regenerate they should say who or which player made that vote.

[AlternateMew]

19 minutes ago, froggle_bunwich said:

They should do something that who ever is doing that actions such as voting for kick or voting to regenerate they should say who or which player made that vote.

What do others feel about the pros and cons of this?

On one hand, people spamming regen and kick votes can't hide behind a veil of innocence.

On the other hand, it could lead to harassment over just a failed vote if the group mentality is against the one. Especially when someone is kicked, they'll know exactly who started the vote to kick them. Potentially resulting in bitter feelings that manifest in negative ways.

Personally I feel the pros can outweigh the cons, but perhaps a workaround? Specifically, don't reveal who started the vote to kick someone to the player who's being voted against. That way if they're kicked successfully, they don't know who started it. If they're not kicked and a troll is on the loose, everyone else now knows who the culprit is and can act accordingly.

[froggle_bunwich]

14 hours ago, AlternateMew said:

What do others feel about the pros and cons of this?

On one hand, people spamming regen and kick votes can't hide behind a veil of innocence.

On the other hand, it could lead to harassment over just a failed vote if the group mentality is against the one. Especially when someone is kicked, they'll know exactly who started the vote to kick them. Potentially resulting in bitter feelings that manifest in negative ways.

Personally I feel the pros can outweigh the cons, but perhaps a workaround? Specifically, don't reveal who started the vote to kick someone to the player who's being voted against. That way if they're kicked successfully, they don't know who started it. If they're not kicked and a troll is on the loose, everyone else now knows who the culprit is and can act accordingly.

Well if they find out X username is a troll and he is voting for kicking then people know to kick him if he keeps doing it. So with my idea it should prevent trolls from being able to troll the game as he will get kicked if he tries to troll. One vote for a real reason shouldnt make people mad at them and harass them such as kicking someone for constantly stealing stuff over and over.

[froggle_bunwich]

What they could have though is that once someone decides to vote for kick or regenerating world etc, once the vote ends you cant do another again for every player. Say about maybe one game day nobody is allowed to make votes.

[Gospel87]

I have well over 1,5k hours in DST. I've been mostly playing on the Hound Hoggles, Slurtle Slime and Spiders and Such official servers (London&Amsterdam before that).

 

I am yet to see a single Survival game where the Regenerate vote was used properly. I mean, if you can even guess the purpose of this voting option. However, what I did see was numerous great wolrds being ruined by Regenerating. I mean, some people only come by to a server to start 2-3 votings and perhaps "get lucky" and then they leave. All you need then is for 2-3 more people to not know what they're doing and boom - say goodbye to your 40+ day base.

 

This is why I think Regenerate World should be removed, at least from the official servers. 

 

I am now at a point where I can't really enjoy the game. Back in the day I remember we used to deal with ghosts breaking structures and draining sanity and we couldn't do anything about it. Then, when I've finally learned how to deal with even 4-5 ghosts there is this new disaster. I'm seriously thinking about quitting and I've been told by people that they will quit as well until the situation is resolved. Please do not recomend me to play with my friends on our own servers. Neither me nor my friends have the option to make a server where the experience would be enjoyable.

[sereal]

I think the voting system needs to be fixed. There was a suggestion somewhere else which suggested that players should not have the power to vote unless they are older than a certain amout of days. Lately there have by groups of griefers going around the public servers and voting to regen new world, and then kicking players out. After that they leave so players cannot join the world again

[Brain]

This just happened to me, same guys. It is a BOT, it will do that 24x7 and ruin THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.

I'm so frustrated! How come Klei is SOOOO naive??

Klei PLEASE REMOVE votes altogether or turn t into a moderator-only command.

 

 

[FTR]

I am starting to think someone does it on purpose after it happened to him, to force developers to do something about it. Perhaps it's good thing..

My experience is always the same, either griefers doing this to ruin people fun or new day1 players joining day 30+ world and demanding to regenerate world. It's not fair and not cool.

Seeing late game public servers is rare these days.

[ScootyPuffJr]

@Gospel87 I've "only" got ~230 hours of DST and I've seen world regen used properly literally one time.  Once.  I was on an official server with a bunch of newer players and someone triggered a summer trap like right before the day rolled over (so rollback wouldn't fix it).  The majority of players died very quickly and only like two of us were remotely able to survive so we reset the server rather than revive people and have them die over and over and over.  I should also mention this was less than 10 days passed on the server.

Every other time it's been used as a trolling method or a selfish means for people to start on a fresh Autumn server instead of dealing with having joined a server mid-winter.

Considering you can force a regen by having everyone off themselves, the vote option seems far too open to abuse.  As others have said, there probably should be some sort of restriction on starting a vote to regen the world until you've survived a certain number of days on the server.  Maybe this could scale up based on the the highest number of days anyone on the current server has survived.

[AlternateMew]

@ScootyPuffJr This exactly.

Even in that situation where it was used correctly, it still sounds like the regen world vote wasn't even nessacary. It's ridiculously easy to die in Don't Starve to force a regen. The regen world vote doesn't have any real reason to exist.

In my opinion, the seniority mechanic would be good for vote-kick.

The regen ought be removed entirely. There is no worse form griefing than destroying the entire world in seconds, and that's exactly what it does.

 

[Stonetribe]

Yikes, this is really becoming an issue huh?  Makes me glad that I only play with people I know. I hope something is done about it soon though.