ENT Gaming

I think we need to fix the VK system so that it doesn't require the entire ENEMY team to !yes it

In all the other dota bots it's your own team that decides if someone is game ruining on your team

And if the votekick is abusive then bans can be issued, but the way it is now just fails. You can refuse to kick and just play stupid and act like you didn't know which i see pretty much everyone do. Then if you submit them for refusing to kick a ruiner it's usually denied or they get maybe 1 day ban

I suggest we make it so instead of needing the entire enemy team to !yes it, it's just the team who is having their game ruined that decides.

For example last game we had a 600 elo player who farmed woods the entire game, ended 0-8-2 after 45 mins.
No one would kick him on the enemy team, so it was 4v5 the entire game and ruined it. Everyone on our team !yes'd it because he clearly refused to help. And when I submitted him they just said he's noob because he had 500-600 ELO and its denied. And the guy was laughing at ENT saying he wants to get very low ELO and they wont ban him. So maybe we shouldn't make it so you can have sub 500 elo troll accounts like fmaaa, yendal, b.e.a.s.t, mexican_wisp, etc

@hazardous Please consider making these changes, a lot of problems would be fixed. other than that i enjoy most ENT games a lot ty ^^

Highly against, and I'm positive the mods are against this as well, since it'll make it exceedingly easy to abuse the vk system.

How would it make it easy to abuse the VK system if it requires the entire team to pass the vote? And if it is abused then bans would be issued

Your example to support this change is actually funny - https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11029818

Considering 0 votekicks were initiated, and it took 40 mins for you to ask rexxar to help (Mb he could have used his brain and help earlier) but you get the point - At least if you're gonna use something to support a change, make sure you're not lying and bullshitting your way through.

Anyways, +1 - woulnd't hurt anyone having only the team voting on it, since the reports for votekick abuse can still be posted (may it be for unwarranted votekicks, or for the votekicks, followed by !ff) + it can help solve a lot of the bad games that occur

Thanks for the support Zeratul, I agree 100%. It would save a lot of head aches and game ruiners being able to secretly troll on their 500 ELO accounts. But you found the wrong game but almost as bad. 1-9-3 at 50 mins and refusing to co-operate is totally acceptable typical ent game lol

Vaylen wrote:Thanks Zeratul, that is a different game but almost as bad. I just knew no one would vote on the other team. After 50 mins he refused to co-operate or participate in any fights. Basically gave them a free win... typical ent game lol

Vaylen wrote:For example last game

That game linked is ur your last game so ...

EDIT:

Where do you find the time?
Sent: Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:05 pm
From: Vaylen
Recipient: Zeratul

Hey man I was wondering I see you on these forums like all day every day, where do you find the time?

You aren't even a mod but you constantly reply and post dozens of reviews and even stalk people's games...

do you have nothing else in your life?

1/10 (Just not giving you 0, cause you know how to write at least)

PS: Coming from the guy who has multiple forum accounts (such as Vaylen, Tyler11, Godrik, and god knows what else), you're definitely the one to talk about being on the forum; Anyways, i still support the suggestion (despite OP lack of manners), and gonna move on - since OP has personality disorder

@zeratul Everyone already knows I got multiple accs, but the reason is because I have a lot of fans like you who stalk me. You got nothing better do I guess. I am always surprised by your harassment because the second i come on forums you are there replying to me... i've already ignored you on forum accs and in-game but you still manage to find me somehow... you are next level stalker.

Anyway you found the wrong game and made false accusations so please stop replying to me constantly i have you on ignore for a reason. This is just a suggestion for ENT not to argue with a random troll

@vaylen provide the game link to the game you referenced.

So this is about a different game with a different always jungling, feeding, beastmaster-picking 600 elo teammate? How many of those games have you had lately?

So you have a suggestion and as soon as people take an interest in it (or even support it) they are harassing you, even though you are the one PMing them without any content
Back to topic: I can imagine this is not the first time this has been suggested. Mods will undoubtfully point to the high abuse risk like Zeratul did. I concur with that in general. Right now everyone except the potentially kicked player has to vote !yes? At most it might be an argument to reduce the required vote count by one. Then again, no rule adjustment will solve the issue of game ruiners for good. Neither will it be easier for the mods to try and judge whether a player intentionally ruined or performed badly. And they certainly put a lot of time into it.
I do think the recurrence of this topic shows that the current VK system is not flawless. But to this day I've never seen another proposal than lowering the bar for a VK. The problem is obvious: We can't come up with a better solution. Which might just mean that there isn't one... Future will tell!

My personal suggestion as a random person who plays on the ENT bots is that bans or at a minimum warnings need to be issued to players who do not votekick (at the first votekick, not the second or third, as long as the votekick has been justified to the opposing team e.g. 'he is afk' or 'he farms woods all game and doesn't team play'). It might mean more work for the mods as the amount of bans will surely increase but it also means that opposing players lose the incentive to play dumb until they have solidified an insurmountable lead in the game.

attacdemarco wrote:My personal suggestion as a random person who plays on the ENT bots is that bans or at a minimum warnings need to be issued to players who do not votekick (at the first votekick, not the second or third, as long as the votekick has been justified to the opposing team e.g. 'he is afk' or 'he farms woods all game and doesn't team play'). It might mean more work for the mods as the amount of bans will surely increase but it also means that opposing players lose the incentive to play dumb until they have solidified an insurmountable lead in the game.

This is already what's being done. Of course, it doesn't do anything about the game you're currently playing while dealing with a problem teammate that the enemy team won't help votekick. You can just get whoever is at fault banned after the game was already thoroughly ruined.

Well, the problem with that "enforcement" on votekicks, is that sometimes is not so easy, or clear to the opposing team to why they should kick (As ally, you can see/confirm exactly what is going on; As enemy, you depend on what you can see on the map, and what your enemies tell you) and yes, sometimes 2-4 mins to kick someone is more than enough to have the game result closed for the team with the gameruiner: Not only will you be "stressed" having to make blind people see what's going on, but also ruin any possible momentum your team might have.

So honestly, having a votekick system (similar to OHS), where only the team votes are required to votekick someone, is the ideal solution for now: It wont solve all problems (as sometimes, even your allies are blind, and wont vote, or have the language barrier), but it will solve most of the reported cases imo.

Regarding abuses, votekicks are still bannable if the command is abused to votekick incorrectly (may it be misjudgment on feeding, gameruining, votekick to force draw, votekick to force forfeit, etc. - It will always come down to the moderator's insight/perception of the violated rule, and that one, i'm pretty sure the moderators are more than able to conclude whether the votekick was abusive or not);Also knowing this community, as most do, abusive votekicks will be reported (by the player who was votekicked incorrectly, or by the enemy team, who notices it)

@beerlord any thoughts on this? I 100% agree with Zeratul, change the VK system so it's just your team that !yes's it, since they can clearly see what's going on and make a team decision. It won't be abused IMO, they have the same thing on OHS. just saves a lot of headaches. It's hard for admins to understand the issue because they can instantly !kick throwers. It's pretty annoying when you gotta explain to the other team just so they can refuse to !yes it. Like Forreports refused to kick a thrower the other day even when his own team told him to !yes it lol lucky i was on a smurf acc. ENT is the best already but if they can fix the VK system it will be perfect imo

Sylvanas wrote:This is already what's being done. Of course, it doesn't do anything about the game you're currently playing while dealing with a problem teammate that the enemy team won't help votekick. You can just get whoever is at fault banned after the game was already thoroughly ruined.

I agree I just think there needs to be a few tweaks as to how it is enforced because as it stands I don't think it is enforced strictly, if at all.

Maybe something like if all players on affected team, excluding the votekicked player, vote to kick then the opposing team is obligated to vote yes unless they have a clear reason not to (e.g. AFK claim is clearly bogus or opposing team does not justify why they are votekicking with the rule said player is breaking). If the opposing team does not vote to kick in this circumstance then they get banned no exceptions unless the votekick command was abused in this instance. If it turns out that the votekick command was abused then the votekicking team get punished; the opposing team is off the hook for any penalties. That way you remove the ability for uncooperative players to make excuses to vote and ensure that cooperative players are not afraid to be duped by opposing players and then get banned as a result.

But then again, this essentially is the same system as only needing players on the affected team to votekick a game ruiner. As a result, I think that would be the option that would make the most sense as it is simpler, despite abuse potential.