Don't Vote to Kick ... Vote to Play

ussfury

I see many threads suggesting a "vote to kick" functionality, be it a straight up vote to kick, or a reporting feature or accrued "bad player" tokens.

The most elegant and least "trollable" option I've seen suggested is that if a player is AFK, he can be flagged as AFK by another player and then the AFKer gains no benefits from the mission until they engage the enemy (or participate somehow though healing, extending shields, etc.). Then the flag is cleared and they can gain rewards.

This means people going AFK on purpose aren't able to soak up rewards and real players can at least give them a kick in the pants to get them moving without actually losing a person off the team.

Things to think about (read: ways it can be abused/gamed):

1. A player constantly spamming another player (who is playing) as inactive.
Perhaps a cooldown timer or set it to a multi-person vote.

2. An AFKer leaving the inactive flag on, then stepping in at the very last minute to take some potshots at the enemy before final mission rewards are given.
Perhaps if the flag is on for too long, it cannot be cleared. Or you can't clear the flag once the mission is nearing it's completion, be it a timer or entering a final boss battle.

Thoughts?

trellabor

ussfury wrote: »

I see many threads suggesting a "vote to kick" functionality, be it a straight up vote to kick, or a reporting feature or accrued "bad player" tokens.

The most elegant and least "trollable" option I've seen suggested is that if a player is AFK, he can be flagged as AFK by another player and then the AFKer gains no benefits from the mission until they engage the enemy (or participate somehow though healing, extending shields, etc.). Then the flag is cleared and they can gain rewards.

This means people going AFK on purpose aren't able to soak up rewards and real players can at least give them a kick in the pants to get them moving without actually losing a person off the team.

Things to think about (read: ways it can be abused/gamed):

1. A player constantly spamming another player (who is playing) as inactive.
Perhaps a cooldown timer or set it to a multi-person vote.

2. An AFKer leaving the inactive flag on, then stepping in at the very last minute to take some potshots at the enemy before final mission rewards are given.
Perhaps if the flag is on for too long, it cannot be cleared. Or you can't clear the flag once the mission is nearing it's completion, be it a timer or entering a final boss battle.

Thoughts?

I've seen a lot of this too, and I think you've got an interesting take on it. I feel that using any type of 'if/then' system just leaves too much margin for error and is still highly exploitable. I've said this elsewhere but IMO the entire grouping/teaming system needs a revamp and it needs to be a group started by the group leader for which players apply to join it and once the group is formed you enter. I'm in favor of the kick system under some kind of criteria like that, but a kick system won't work without other changes as it sits.

rustiswordz

That is an excellent idea. In another online game i play (World of Tanks) you actually get fined for non participation. In STO terms you probably lose 20000ec, 10dill, not much but the fact is you gain no benefit from sitting there for the whole match letting your teammates do all the work.

To avoid the fine you have to start helping in the match or leave altogether. Then you get no fine.

It hasn't stopped leechers but its cut leeching down 90%

areikou

ussfury wrote: »

2. An AFKer leaving the inactive flag on, then stepping in at the very last minute to take some potshots at the enemy before final mission rewards are given.
Perhaps if the flag is on for too long, it cannot be cleared. Or you can't clear the flag once the mission is nearing it's completion, be it a timer or entering a final boss battle.

The correct way to do this would be if the timer is on for more than 50% of the time, you can still remove it, but you get no reward. That means that the AFKer has to at least help half of the time.

squatsauce

Player-based flagging is abuseable. Mechanical solutions are exploitable. A combination of the two seems to be the next option. Maybe players flagging someone as "afk" triggers the server to check to see if the potentially offending player has been maneuvering for the past minute or so. If not, it boots him. Your take on player-based flagging is good, though. I like it.

ddesjardins

I have a much simpler method: ignore them.

When I encounter a player I would not like to play with again (leecher, whiner, Starfleet dental), I add his or her full name to my text file and ignore them.

When I invite people to the private STF's I create, generally I don't see them so they stop being an issue. This is the easiest method I find to solving the problem.

When I ask to join a private STF, I do a quick scan of the names. If I recognize someone I don't like, I quickly excuse myself without making an issue out of it.

There are plenty of players in the game to have fun with.


My Two Bits

Admiral thrax

drudgy

I would take it a step further actually. Instead of having to have them shoot x or heal x etc, it would be nice if the system kept track of objectives per character, and if you avoided 75% of the mission objectives, then you wouldn't get any rewards. Similar to how it keeps track of participation in Fleet events.

I would also like for there to be an AFK flag or if you right click on the players name, and have a "Report as AFK". If the player receives enough AFK flags they don't get rewards or some sort of action is taken against them such as being removed from the event and put on a 1 hour timer like the STF's.

It's a sticky situation to be in, trying to control the participation on the map, and i'm sure people would do it just to be trolls, but I think a simple majority would be enough, so no one person can boot another from the event. Granted if you ran into a group of trolls... then there's really nothing you could do about it.

pyryck

How about YOU create a list of players that YOU WILL play with and then only play with those players?

You don't punish anyone else nor do you get punished by anyone else.

You don't abuse a system and you don't get abused by a system.

romuzarii

You know what... I sully support a vote to kick system. You know why? Because I have faith in my fellow man not to abuse it. And if that means someone once in awhile gets kicked from a group because they're a bully to everyone and everyone knows them and decides to boot him, well then, that's justice I would say, and a good internet elitist bully deterrent if you ask me.

I rather enjoy carrying a group of lesser players because it reassures me my work has paid off. On the other hand, I would love nothing more than to boot a loud mouth disruptive elitist that expects a PUG group to have 4 other elitists in it. I suspect the vast majority of players think the same thing as I. But I am amazed there isn't already a kick function. It's one of the most basic features in MMOs. Groups have leaders. Even STO has group leaders. And group leaders always have the option to kick people from the group. Except in STO.


To further ease the minds of those that consistently speak of kick abuse, I have played this one MMO for nearly 10 years. In all that time no one has ever complained to the devs about kick abuse. I have never seen the subject even brought up. Ever. EXCEPT when it involved PUGs, was a conspiracy to kick if needed, involved end game content, and people would kick a person so that they would get the reward and not the person they kicked. So it only became a problem when rewards were on the line through a loot system where you had loot in a pool and people rolled to win it. For STO that is not an issue whatsoever so I ask, with my experience with the other game which has been one of the most successful MMOs ever so plenty of people around playing it, do YOU, whoever YOU may be, really still believe that the apocalypse will come if Cryptic implemented a vote to kick feature or group leader kick feature? Really now, because history ain't there to support your fears, and STO definitely isn't geared to motivate abuse of a kick feature.

Abuse is always at a minimum, and like it or not it's never a reason not to have kick functionality. STO is designed in such a way that it doesn't need a kick function, yet it does need a kick function, if only to put disruptive players in their place. I'm sorry, I truly am, but your apocalypse fears are not justified whomever you may be.....unless YOU happen to be a leecher of STO. In that case I'd be scared ****less.