The votekick system in Aloha, doesn’t work. No one is ever being kicked out, no matter how obvious they cheats. That’s a fact, and we must not accept this. Therefore i think to start a “think tank” thread to find a possible solution to this problem.
There are mostly three different reasons for a votekick being started:
-Aimbot, esp, no recoil etc.
My suggestion is to split the votekick command in to these three categories. Like Votemute, Votedisbuild and the normal votekick. The votemute and votedisbuild, doesn’t need as many votes to be activated, since they do not kick out the player, just disable them from being rude and griefing. The normal votekick is harder to solve. If the number of needed votes is lowered, I guess too many innocent players gets kicked out, and that should be avoided. One solution could be that the votes from trusted players counted more, maybe two or three votes. In my opinion, the trusted players can normally divide cheaters from experienced player, and therefore should be able to take that responsibility.
I love the idea and the thought of you mentioning this. Personally I’ve almost never come to see someone actually get kicked from a vote kick, only when there are barely any people on and they are my friends who know they are hacking or doing annoying things. I’ve always wanted trusted to have more of a responsibility so I love that part you mentioned about the extra votes. I noticed you mentioned spam which usually hides votekicks, which I see often. I think votekicks shouldn’t be in chat but somewhere more visible on the screen. Eddy mentioned votekick spam. This relates to the responsibility part. trusted should be able to have 1 votekick cancel per 24 hours. That means they can cancel 1 useless votekick that is getting a lot of votes. People should also have a limit on how many votekicks they could do per a certain time span. Maybe I can work on a script that involves you to not make votekicks unless the reason is, Greifing, hacking, etc… It wouldn’t be that hard. I see some people who slowly but spam like spam in swears, maybe swears or certain words should be bleeped out. Or have warnings if they do so continuously. The hacking part, admins usually handle people who cheat, but when I’m on there are so many cheaters for me to keep up with no admins on. I agree votekicking and everything around those terms in general should be fixed in a way, but for now admins are still figuring out how they can do something like that. I mean, I always go under aliases and get Boom, 4 head shots in a row, accused of hacking, log in and the votekick cancels. Unluckily for me, they keep kicking me even though they know I’m trusted. For some people it’s hard to know if others hack, in this case random votekicks or false accusations occur. If someone kicks someone for the person thinking the other guy was hacking, the votekick person would get votekicked for false votekick, even though it was a legit thought. Back to the votekick part of placing it somewhere on the screen where it’s more visible, it can be set to show. “Kick this player? [Ign]” Yes or No when you die, when it says insert coin. I get you might think about campers and they won’t die while the votekick is active, so my thought is to have it count down on top of your screen flashing. My ideas aren’t that great, but they can be a start to something. Hope it helped.
I think having separate votekicks is a good idea, but players don’t really vote that much for reasons like, they’re too lazy or they don’t know how to vote (yes this happens).
I would love the /votedisbuild to be implied, especially in babel because of the griefers building and blocking the stairs, but I see that disable build will not have no effect in non-build servers like arena, idk i think there are different commands in different servers.
Trusted players handling responsibilities? sure, but there’s a possibility that they might abuse the weighted votes.
leave the votekick cancels to the admins, sometimes you can misjudge a votekick. still 1 votekick isn’t a big problem, trusted players need responsibilities too.
With regards to votedisbuild (or votenobuild, which I think may be easier on the eye), such a vote should be limited to the team-members of the offender. Otherwise the opposite party could prevent the best builders from building.
a votenodig could prevent griefers like cancer (http://aloha.pk/index.php?topic=6311.0) from continuously burying the tent (I ended up quitting, since there was no way to play a game with him aboard). Again, a votenodig should be limited to the team-members of the offender. I like the idea of weighted votes, but balancing would be very much needed.
Letting trusted vote /no (weight 1) could prevent some incorrect votekicks as well. I personally have often felt like dropping a /n during a frivolous votekick.
I still think dividing the votekicks would be helpful. To get the poll placed on a more annoying place on the screen would also help. Not in front of the aiming point, but a inch above. If it was standing there until the player types /Y or /N, it would force people to vote. The text must be easy to understand. Maybe it could be something like; “Is John Doe griefing? type /Y or /N” “Is John doe spamming? type /Y or /N” “Is John Doe cheating? type /y or /n”. -You get the idea… When forcing people to answer, there should be a limit on how many votekicks each player can start. I would guess one votekick per round would be enough. That way you would not be able to spam with votekicks.
I agree the “Votenobuild” version should only be visible for the team mates.
tbh should just be called ‘votebuild’ instead of ‘votenobuild’ or w/e
having certain reasons for vks (ie ‘griefing’ ‘hacking’) only would still be just as abusable, people would still get kicked for no reason, but i guess it would cut down on reasons like ‘penis’ and ‘hi,’ etc
also I don’t think it’s possible to change where votekicks show up on the screen
would really like to see weighted trusted votes or ‘/n’ tho
Yes, weighted votes one of the better ideas. However, /n is debatable. It already takes about half the server’s votes in order to votekick someone, and just a couple people on the hacker’s team not wanting him to be votekicked could sway the tide.
I really think the nobuild vote on babel would be worth to test. Way to many kids mess with the tent, and makes it difficult for the other players to get to it. I would love to see this vote tested out on babel. Only the same team is able to vote. If the vote goes thrugh, and a player is disabled from building, he can still play (defend, attack and cap the intel), so there is no big loss for him, even if he feels it as unfair. The nobuild could last for the round, and he would be able to build on the next map. Isn’t it worth testing? -Or is it just too difficult to write that script?
I like the /n idea (and sorta the weighted trusted vote… might be hard to balance these though), but in reality the optimal system would be that votekicks are disabled and we have 24/7 admin coverage, but with such a low-key game that’s not really going to be a “thing”.
If a trusted player isn’t trustworthy they shouldn’t have trusted anymore then. Period.
/votedisbuild (or /votenobuild) is all you need. It should disable both placing and destroying blocks for the person. If they are griefing with blocks they will grief with a spade right after they see they can’t place anymore lol. By time the next /votenodig happens your tower will be gone.