ENT VK system doesn't work

[BeerLord]

It's hard for admins to understand the issue because they can instantly !kick throwers.

You keep repeating this and its just silly. We rarely use in game privileges, and usually only as a last resort. We do this for a reason. I am trolled far more than most because I rarely play on an alias, so I understand this problem very well thank you.

My thought on this relates to who is defining a game ruiner. You have consistently shown you have poor judgement on this, and I am loathe to tweak any system that makes it easier for you to kick someone.

Imposing a penalty on the first votekick with the caveats expressed above is essentially what we do now. We have to evaluate a) whether the game play is actually kick-worthy, b) whether the reasons are clearly communicated to the opposing players, c) whether the game play occurring at the time of the vote is preventing players from distracting their attention from the game, d) whether the reporting party is generally trustworthy ie known to opposing players to lie or exaggerate, and e) whether or not this is just mob rule - said team decides one player is the fall guy and votes to kick him.

I dont believe the amount of mod work will change. Instead of issuing bans for failure to votekick, there will be more for votekick abuse. Probably even out in the long run. But I object to this because I think more innocents will get kicked. This I believe should be avoided.

[Sylvanas]

It's hard for admins to understand the issue because they can instantly !kick throwers.

You keep repeating this and its just silly. We rarely use in game privileges, and usually only as a last resort. We do this for a reason. I am trolled far more than most because I rarely play on an alias, so I understand this problem very well thank you.

My thought on this relates to who is defining a game ruiner. You have consistently shown you have poor judgement on this, and I am loathe to tweak any system that makes it easier for you to kick someone.

Imposing a penalty on the first votekick with the caveats expressed above is essentially what we do now. We have to evaluate a) whether the game play is actually kick-worthy, b) whether the reasons are clearly communicated to the opposing players, c) whether the game play occurring at the time of the vote is preventing players from distracting their attention from the game, d) whether the reporting party is generally trustworthy ie known to opposing players to lie or exaggerate, and e) whether or not this is just mob rule - said team decides one player is the fall guy and votes to kick him.

I dont believe the amount of mod work will change. Instead of issuing bans for failure to votekick, there will be more for votekick abuse. Probably even out in the long run. But I object to this because I think more innocents will get kicked. This I believe should be avoided.

You think people are more likely to commit bannable offenses when they see you and recognize you? I mean I haven't experienced it myself, but I don't feel like they would be more likely to pull that shit knowing they'll instantly get kicked and banned.

Isn't it really pessimistic to think a 4/5 team vote to kick an offending teammate would get widely abused? This almost implies the average team is willing to unanimously agree on kicking one of their own for any or no reason by default. Many votekicks fail to pass because of the player's own teammates as it is, keeping it in the team still shifts the responsibility towards those who are most informed and concerned about whatever is happening. Abuse will always exist in some shape or form, but putting those who know best in charge really might be the best way to go about it.

[Vaylen]

@beerlord You make fair points. But I disagree and I find it hard to believe people game ruin if they see you in the game under your "Beerlord" acc, since most know you are a admin. If you played under a smurf acc 100% of the time and saw how many times people refuse to kick people clearly trolling you would be surprised. I'm not saying it's very common, but it happens. And if the ppl are submitted on the forums for refusing to kick, the mods have to work overtime to figure out the enemy's perspective to see if they knew what was going on. (This never works, enemy team usually just plays stupid and refuses to kick unless it's blatantly obvious repeated feeding). I really disagree that the VK would be abused.

But let's say for example the VK was abused and it was just a new guy game ruining unintentionally. (Although I think this would be rare, because it still would require the entire rest of the team to make a collective decision to kick the accused game ruiner and risk being banned for abusing it)

So if it was abused, and a player who was just new was having a horrible game and not co-operating was kicked, even though that's abusive, wouldn't that be doing them a favor? It would mean they don't have to suffer in a game they are unintentionally ruining. And you don't receive a ban for being kicked from a game if I remember correctly.

They would have the past game where they were unintentionally ruining to learn what they could, and they can join the next game and have a fresh start with no ban since they were kicked. And if it truly was an abusive kick and they were co-operating then they can submit on the forums. (This would save new players a lot of headaches of having to play a game where for example they are 0-8-2 farming creeps for 45 mins, they can just get kicked and start a new game with no ban. And learn faster because they can take what they learned from the previous game)

And if they are kicked for throwing and it's obviously intentional then we can submit them on the forums after the game and the ban duration is decided there usually

Hope you can understand what i'm trying to say, this is assuming you don't get banned for being kicked which i'm pretty sure is the case. Bans usually have to be issued by admins themselves, and any obvious abuse or game ruin will be submitted on the forums after the game is over. But people are less likely to waste time submitting people if they can just kick the troll early and still have a fun game and at least have a chance to win

This would actually mean LESS work for the mods in the long run because these intentional game throwers who play dumb and refuse to co-operate aren't going to actually submit people for kicking them when they know deep down they ruined it on purpose and refused to co-operate. And vice versa.

Also I don't agree with the "they don't trust you" excuse. Since i have my clan mates who agree with me and have the same problems with the enemy team refusing to kick. I also go on new name accounts a lot and have the same problem.

I think we should give it a try for a week or so and see if it really is that badly abused then it can be reverted, but I honestly believe it would only help improve quality of games and prevent obvious game ruiners/I.P dodgers (the biggest problem on ent) from being able to repeatedly ruin without being kicked.

[Vaylen]

I know that's a lot to read but i can write super fast and just giving my thoughts it would be nice to fix this problem with this simple fix of just having it be a team decision. Since you got the 1-2 trolls who repeatedly i.p dodge to game ruin, and the enemy team can just refuse to !yes it by saying they don't know whats going on. And they rarely receive bans because of their perspective they can't see whats going on

[Astros]

The pros outweigh the cons. There are far too many games where trying to get 9/9 players to kick someone is difficult and a total waste of keyboard strokes.

1) Players should not be allowed to kick someone for being new to the game unless that new player refuses to take advice and becomes a major liability for his team. If the new player is actively trying to learn and accepting of advice, they should not be kicked.

2) This would clear up ban requests. As it is, only about 3-4 moderators are even working on them and they know who they are. A votekick to remove a player usually constitutes reviewing a replay and at times, it simply isn't worth the effort as something may be trivial. Moderators would have fewer ban requests to handle and maybe those who haven't even reviewed a ban request for months would feel a bit more compelled to handle a few of them.

3) I'm not sure how !votekick would work if you simply restrict it to those on a team but if it becomes complicated, simply reducing the required amount of players needed to kick someone would be a decent approach. A perfect scenario would be all teammates must agree to votekick and three on the opposing team must vote yes. (Which would be 7/9 players instead of I think 9/9 needed for a 5v5 game). I disagree that four teammates is enough to kick someone on their team. If four friends are playing the game and simply want to kick a teammate for no reason, the best way to try and prevent that is by needing three more on the opposing team to kick them. Of course, the player being kicked unfairly would be able to submit a ban request if it does get passed. The underlying issue of this is predicated on the amount of players needed to successfully votekick someone from a game and I think that number is four teammates and three opposing players.

4) Players who are maliciously votekicked would be able to submit those who do so but I think it is much more difficult to kick someone who is legitimately playing the game vs someone who is ruining a game. Unless you are not a douche and flaming your teammates, your teammates are likely not going to kick you. There may be more ban requests for invalid votekicks being passed but if four teammates all want you gone in the game, you are doing something wrong anyways.

5) Likely encourages those who are game-ruiners/refuses to listen to their teammates to start listening. Players who game-ruin usually know that they won't get kicked as long as they show some level of teamwork. By reducing the amount required to kick them, you are no longer enabling them to test how far they can troll.

6) Beerlord, you may be trolled more often but I think the majority know enough in that you are able to ban them and by default, are more willing to not and break any tangible rules.

7) To prevent votekick abuse and spamming, I think players should each only be allowed two votekicks per game. This way, they must only use it when they seem fit and are limited in the amount of attempts they can use. If each player has two votekick attempts and there is a game-ruiner, there would be 18 available attempts to kick a player but since each only have two, they must use them carefully. Giving players an unlimited amount of opportunities to !votekick someone leads them to think that it is always available to them even when a player may not deserve a kick. Often times, a team will refuse to votekick someone simply because the person starting the votekick has been unreasonable with their prior votekicks. If a player hasn't been kicked after numerous votekick attempts and they are legitimately breaking the rule, likely, they won't be kicked unless it is too late anyways.

There is more to add but I do believe the # of players required to votekick a game-ruiner should be lowered.

[Vaylen]

Yes Astros that makes perfect sense and I highly value your opinion as you are one of the best players on ent, agree with all your points. I think we should give it a trial run to start and it can always be changed back if it really is abused which it won't be. I really think it will only help make ENT perfect and solve all the problems. It will also prevent I.P Dodging repeated game ruiners from being able to troll so easily and save time for MODs who have to struggle to decide who knowningly game ruined and who knowingly refused to kick.

[ShinraCorp]

I support removing opposing team votes on VK. Ruiners can appear on one team; yet, the other team may refuse to kick... IMO they should have no say in the matter

[blazeitup]

Ofcourse they should have a say in the matter.

LTD Scenario:

Team 1 has slot1 being a tk, but decide to keep him on to feed slot2 the rounds 1-6 and then they decide to kick him. I wouldn't kick that, they made their choice.


Another scenario is one that occurs often in the early morning (europe), 3 players go into a team and just troll bad, after a while they think because you try to guide them how to improve etc they just wanna get rid of your talking and decide to kick you. You end up with a ban even tho you didn't break any rules...


The system is fine as it is. Its the punishment for not writing !yes that is a problem. (Atleast its fine in LTD)

[Astros]

I support removing opposing team votes on VK. Ruiners can appear on one team; yet, the other team may refuse to kick... IMO they should have no say in the matter

Other team would also be able to judge whether or not a player on the opposing team has actually been helping his team as well. Players can be illogical and often blame teammates for no apparent reason. You don't know how many times I've been yelled at by teammates for being a kser or "playing for K/D" when they stupidly ran into a 5v1 and expected me to fight.

[BeerLord]

Of course I dont get trolled by people doing the obvious game ruining, but that isnt really what we are talking about here. If someone item destroys or intentionally feeds or is afk those are cut and dry cases, and if they aren't kicked, players that dont vote are always banned when submitted. Players that troll me are subtle, game ruining without being obvious about it. My point with that is that Im not using in game kick privileges in those cases so I am just as powerless as you all. This happens quite often, so again Im well aware of the frustrations being expressed here.

We are talking about the subtle cases, when there is doubt and a need to convince opposing players. Im not being pessimistic here sylvanas, Im merely acknowledging the votekick cases where the entire team votes and it is abusive and results in bans. "widely abused" is your term not mine. Removing a player from the game has considerable effect as we are all aware (leaver gold and exp). We already have evidence that this is abused (many players wrongly refuse to vote because of this), so on the flip side I dont think it unreasonable to see potential for abuse from 4 team-mates looking for an advantage.

[Vaylen]

If it was a team decision to kick a team-mate it wouldn't be abused that much IMO, and if it was abused in the rare situation you are doing the new player a favor. You are giving them a way out and a chance to learn in a new game rather than stay in the game they are unintentionally feeding/throwing enough to get kicked as i explained earlier. Plus there is no ban for being kicked anyway.

And if an abusive VK is started, the player being VK'd can easily explain how it's abusive and then submit. Meaning the entire team is risking a ban if they don't explain why they are VKing in team chat. (As opposed to having to beg the enemy team to !yes it just so they can refuse) The pros far outweigh the cons here as Astros explained perfectly in all his points

That's exactly what the only big problem on ENT is.... When someone afk's and farms all game refusing to co-operate (game ruin) with no explanation or communication to the team, the enemy team will refuse to pass the vote and pretend they didn't know what was happening. It absolutely should not be the enemy team that decides, of course they are going to refuse to !yes it because it's a free win. Even Forreports who is a 1400 ELO player refused to kick even after his own team told him he had to !yes it. If in the rare chance they get submitted they can play stupid to avoid the 1-2 day ban. It also is very hard for admins to understand the player's perspective unless they are in the game with them watching from the start. (This would save MODs a lot of time)

I think at the least we should do a trial run, because i have dozens of clan mates who all have had the same problems before so it's not just me wanting to abuse kick on everyone who isn't playing great. It's for those special occasions of people trolling with no co-operation over a long game that the entire team agrees to !yes it and are risking a ban if they don't explain why they are VKing.

[Sylvanas]

4 players kicking their teammate without good cause is obviously going to happen, just as players needing to be kicked not being kicked under current system is also happening. I just don't think it would be as bad as you may think. Whenever games start going badly, there's often a single, extremely loud person that will put all the blame on whoever is currently doing worst and then potentially votekicking. All it would take then is one level headed teammate to keep that from happening; I think most teams have that. Sometimes the real cause of invalid votekicks being passed lies in the other team. Many of them just kind of follow the flow when in doubt. They just don't know/care and maybe they really shouldn't be involved in the first place.

The gold "advantage" of playing 4v5 isn't really an advantage for the most part. Certain heroes benefit more from it than others, but overall the best team is 5 players with regular gold each doing their part. I don't think people getting rid of a player just for the gold "advantage" would be an issue, especially considering how easy those bans would be to process. 4v5 is only a huge advantage from the pretended point of view of loud, annoying people who are currently losing as the team of 5 and who are looking for an excuse. I think most people realize this.

[Vaylen]

Yes exactly Sylvanas, to abuse VK someone just to get gold advantage makes no sense and is an instant easy ban for admins.

[Astros]

Of course I dont get trolled by people doing the obvious game ruining, but that isnt really what we are talking about here. If someone item destroys or intentionally feeds or is afk those are cut and dry cases, and if they aren't kicked, players that dont vote are always banned when submitted. Players that troll me are subtle, game ruining without being obvious about it. My point with that is that Im not using in game kick privileges in those cases so I am just as powerless as you all. This happens quite often, so again Im well aware of the frustrations being expressed here.

We are talking about the subtle cases, when there is doubt and a need to convince opposing players. Im not being pessimistic here sylvanas, Im merely acknowledging the votekick cases where the entire team votes and it is abusive and results in bans. "widely abused" is your term not mine. Removing a player from the game has considerable effect as we are all aware (leaver gold and exp). We already have evidence that this is abused (many players wrongly refuse to vote because of this), so on the flip side I dont think it unreasonable to see potential for abuse from 4 team-mates looking for an advantage.

There's a difference between reviewing ban requests of cases in which someone is compelled enough to report someone compared to playing a game with a game-ruiner who doesn't get reported. It is more likely that a player chooses not to report a player than to report them. By reporting someone, the result of that game is already decided. By giving a team an opportunity to kick someone who is refusing to work with the team, you have a chance to win the game and the person who was kicked could still be banned if a severe case of game-ruining can be proven. Usually, it is a teammate who carries these traits: Refuses to listen, does not reply back, does their own thing and suicides/feeds. It's not always possible to get someone like this kicked if the requirement is 9/9 players having to vote. Why should four players (who I am assuming, someone has been trying to help him) be put at a severe disadvantage and lose because one player isn't getting kicked?

To summarize, I particularly don't mind the system being the way it is currently but I do feel like it could be improved to where seven players should be enough to kick a player and that each player only gets two attempts at votekicking a player. Players who refuse to votekick can still be banned if the vote does not pass and players who are a victim of votekick abuse should also be able to report those who have wrongly kicked them. Teammates should always try and help one another if the player(s) is playing poorly but the player playing poorly has a responsibility to try and listen to teammates. I don't know of many cases in which a team will kick a player for their gold unless that player is refusing to help or listen but as a safeguard, that is why I think three other players on the opposing team should also have a vote. There are more than enough games being played in which someone is not getting kicked and because the majority do not want to take time off their day to report someone, it is not something that is reviewed. From personal experience, it's not worth my or your time to review and spend a collective time of 20+ minutes to get someone banned these days. I believe King.Kar used to troll some players and purposely screw the game but when he gets reported, he simply creates a new name under a new IP and does it again. Having the ability to remove a game-ruiner from the game and still have a chance to win is necessary.

[Vaylen]

Having the ability to remove a game-ruiner from the game and still have a chance to win is necessary.

Yes honestly even if it was just 4-5 votes (the 4 other players from your team) that make a team decision i expect very little abuse because it would be easier to be banned if you just abused it for no reason. And if you kick someone who is blatantly refusing to co-operate and zero communication then that should be kickable. You receive no bans when you are !kicked from game. It's up to you submitting on forums and the duration is decided by admins depending on the effect your actions had on the game etc. If you abuse the VK system then it's a clear-cut ban for admins it will save a lot of time. And the person VK'd can explain it's abusive and then submit.

This change will lead to way better quality games and less I.P dodgers repeatedly throwing. It will also mean less work for MODs having to understand the enemy's point of view when VK. Of course 90% of ENT games are great but that 10% with game ruiners usually has the enemy team refusing to kick.