Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

We should count resigned players as a "Yes" Vote for !voteresign automatically

38 posts, 1381 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (38 records)
sort
For those times when many people resign, and arent there to !y for the !voteresign and the game drags on.
+5 / -0
9 years ago
What if you resign accidentally prematurely?
+0 / -0
9 years ago
Don't agree. People who resigned renounce any decision about the game. If you are bored about the game that drags on, start another game...
+0 / -0
well the problem is they still count towards the vote treshold, so they didnt actually renounce their descicion making over the game on a technical level.

realisticly, people who resigned want the game to end and they made that descision, so their vote should either reflect that or truly not matter anymore.

+5 / -0
Skasi
People who resign should not automatically count as !y towards !voteresign. If people are afk they should be treated as such: not count towards the vote threshold and be unable to vote.
+3 / -0

9 years ago
I remember such a thread: http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/14197
Because I started it
+0 / -0
I remember saying something in that thread!

quote:
I would prefer to see resigned or AFK players simply not getting a vote at all, and requiring half of the active players to vote for a resign. In particular resigned, spectating players voting one way or the other is a lot like spec-cheating, even though in most (but not all) cases the game is decided already.

If you want to see why I think that, go read the other thread. Not quoting it all again.

tl;dr: not counting resigned players at all makes more sense, fixes the problem and prevents abuses
+10 / -0
9 years ago
Besides the practical consideration (someone has to code it) is there somebody disagreeing that AFK/resigned players should not count towards total?
+0 / -0

9 years ago
I was of the opinion that they should count as +1 in all voteresigns but I'm happy to compromise with this.
+1 / -0


9 years ago
If the game continues after a bunch of players resign then the remaining players should be the ones to decide whether they keep playing it. Reasonable games can arise from that situation.
+8 / -0
Some incredibly memorable games have resulted from Googlefrog and I being on the opposite side of our respective teams and everyone else having resigned. In fact that's the ideal state. In fact that's why I play 1v1. :D

Some people are more than capable (and happy) to handle the extra units and income.
+2 / -0
9 years ago
AUrankAdminSaktoth would you and AUrankAdminGoogleFrog and the rest of the high-kings-of-zk players enjoy a modoption that allowed you extra commanders at start to simulate the scenario you described?
+0 / -0
Also pls fix the situation in 3v3 when u are playing with 2 complete lobsters and they voteresign you as they think game is lost - while obviously(from high elo view) it's won
I suggest make !voteresign vote weight proportional to elo ^^
SKrankSvatopluk had lots of such games recently...

N = whole weight of !voteresign(1 per player in team)
then change each weight proportional to player's elo like 1*player.elo/max(players.elo)
+3 / -0
9 years ago
Although I agree with the problem that you describe, I think computing that way it would be too complex/confusing.

In fact, team play should involve communication between people. The problem is that sometimes they vote resign so fast you have no time to explain/show them why the team is winning.

Idea: based on who votes there should be a "delay" until the vote take effect (and keep the voting panel there). If 90% of the elo of the team voted yes, there could be 10 sec delay. If 60% of the elo of the team voted yes there could be 40 seconds delay. Of course numbers need to be tweaked.
+0 / -0
USrankAutoWar: Only to test degenerate situations with proper levels of teamplay in 2v2/3v3 etc. We'd probably do all sorts of coop faccing and com dropping. 1v1 already works really well, it doesn't really need more comms. The only reason you get crazy epic games (3 Banthas vs a Detri on LLTA complex, Bantha wins BTW) in team games where we are the last ones standing is because you had this huge buildup phase where the players were not aggressive or coordinated enough to just bumrush the middle of their map with battle coms or building an elite commsniping force of scorchers.
+0 / -0


9 years ago
I agree with RUrankFirepluk.
It is annoying to be resigned by players who together control maybe like 1/3 of the team assets, while you are winning with the other 2/3...
+0 / -0
quote:
t is annoying to be resigned by players who together control maybe like 1/3 of the team assets, while you are winning with the other 2/3...


+0 / -0
9 years ago
Instead of counting them as a yes vote, you should recount the vote threshold to factor in the 'afk' players. There shouldn't be a situation where it requires 3 yes votes to end the game, but only 2 players have not resigned.
+0 / -0

9 years ago
Yes but there need one exception (if it will be added) - Firepluk resign didn't count. So many games he resigns and still his team wins. :D :D
+0 / -0

9 years ago
I think meritocracy is very hard to design well.
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (38 records)