TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Let's change the voting system

  1. #1
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2002
    Location: In transit

    Let's change the voting system

    I am a little concerned about the difficulty in passing votes.

    I feel the voting system is a powerful way of improving the quality
    of people's Thievery experience, if it was easier to get votes passed.
    I am sure that more troublemakers would get kicks/kickbans as a result

    The problem, as far as I am concerned, is that it is very rare for all players
    to actually cast a vote.

    This may be because they are otherwise occupied, or don't know how to vote.

    I would like to suggest that the system is changed, to allow the server admin
    to control how votes are passed on individual servers.

    How about this - add another factor, 'percentage required for majority vote'?

    Suppose this new value were set to 65% by the admin - this means that if 65%
    of the players actually vote, then the vote is carried by a simple majority.

    Less than this, then the existing method is used, where those that don't vote
    are effectively considered as 'no' votes

    Setting this factor to 0%, would allow an admin to use the current system, if
    they preferred it.
    Here's an example of votes that change from fail to pass...

    PercentageToPassVote set to 65%, PercentageToMakeVote set to 65%

    (Wot votes are those players who don't vote, for some reason)

    Players Yay Nay Wot Old Result New Result
    4.......2...1...1...failed.....passed
    5.......3...1...1...failed.....passed
    5.......3...2...0...failed.....passed
    6.......3...1...2...failed.....passed
    6.......3...2...1...failed.....passed
    7.......3...2...2...failed.....passed
    7.......4...1...2...failed.....passed
    7.......4...2...1...failed.....passed
    7.......4...3...0...failed.....passed
    8.......4...2...2...failed.....passed
    8.......4...3...1...failed.....passed
    8.......5...1...2...failed.....passed
    8.......5...2...1...failed.....passed
    8.......5...3...0...failed.....passed
    9.......4...2...3...failed.....passed
    9.......4...3...2...failed.....passed
    9.......5...1...3...failed.....passed
    9.......5...2...2...failed.....passed
    9.......5...3...1...failed.....passed
    9.......5...4...0...failed.....passed
    10......4...3...3...failed.....passed
    10......5...2...3...failed.....passed
    10......5...3...2...failed.....passed
    10......5...4...1...failed.....passed
    10......6...1...3...failed.....passed
    10......6...2...2...failed.....passed
    10......6...3...1...failed.....passed
    10......6...4...0...failed.....passed

    /me waits for LR to point out fatal flaw

  2. #2
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2002
    Location: Shadows
    Also, "Player" should not be counter as a player for the purposes of voting. It horribly skews the votes in small games, if I remember correctly.

  3. #3
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2002
    Location: Dallas
    Some of those voting percentages would not pass with the pass-percentage set to 65%.

    Example: 10......5...4...1...failed.....passed | 5 yay, 4 nay = 55%

    At any rate, I agree that something could be done to improve the system. I like the idea that non-voters not be counted as "no" votes, but the vote would have to time out before the vote is passed in order to work as you described and still be fair.

  4. #4
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2002
    Location: The Netherlands
    you are right. The voting system is .... wierd atm.

    If 6 people say yes, and 4 do not even vote ... then it will fail.
    With this system, it can be fixed. Good idea mog

    ( btw, your pm is coming up )

  5. #5
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2002
    Location: In transit
    Originally posted by LeatherMan
    Some of those voting percentages would not pass with the pass-percentage set to 65%.

    Example: 10......5...4...1...failed.....passed | 5 yay, 4 nay = 55%

    At any rate, I agree that something could be done to improve the system. I like the idea that non-voters not be counted as "no" votes, but the vote would have to time out before the vote is passed in order to work as you described and still be fair.
    No LeatherMan, you have missed the point - this example has 9 out of 10 people voting
    90%, is greater than the PercentageToMakeVote value of 65%, so the vote is passed by the majority, of 5 to 4
    I have coded this up, to prove it can work, it's a simple change

  6. #6
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2002
    Location: In transit
    Originally posted by WildBill
    Also, "Player" should not be counter as a player for the purposes of voting. It horribly skews the votes in small games, if I remember correctly.
    My change also helps if 'Player' is present, as he never votes, and is always a 'Wot' vote!
    Mind you, on Mog's, I've got rid of 'Player' anyway...

  7. #7
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2002
    Location: a tract of land designated for a purpose

    Re: Let's change the voting system

    Originally posted by Mogwort
    /me waits for LR to point out fatal flaw
    Sorry to disappoint you, Mog, but I don't see a fatal flaw here. I DO think there's a simpler way to do it, though, and that's to just take into account the votes that were actually cast, and not count non-votes (including "Player") as "no's".

    I'd also like to see a way for admins to set different percentages on different kinds of votes. So 50% to kick, 66% for a map change/next map vote, and 75% for a kickban, for instance.

  8. #8
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2002
    Location: In transit
    Originally posted by LaughingRat
    I DO think there's a simpler way to do it, though, and that's to just take into account the votes that were actually cast, and not count non-votes (including "Player") as "no's"
    I thought that at first, but that allows one person to carry a vote, if nobody else votes

  9. #9
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2002
    Location: a tract of land designated for a purpose
    Originally posted by Mogwort
    I thought that at first, but that allows one person to carry a vote, if nobody else votes
    If only one person cares enough to vote, that person SHOULD be able to carry their vote. Apathy should have a penalty.

  10. #10
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2002
    Location: Palo Alto, CA

    I think there should be more voting options. How about an option for turning off balanced teams for the next map? That would allow a small team of players to all play thieves, for example.

  11. #11
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2002
    Location: In transit
    Originally posted by LaughingRat
    If only one person cares enough to vote, that person SHOULD be able to carry their vote. Apathy should have a penalty.
    Like 'callvote kickban LaughingRat' when you are afk?

  12. #12
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2002
    Location: a tract of land designated for a purpose
    Originally posted by Mogwort
    Like 'callvote kickban LaughingRat' when you are afk?
    If you're afk while logged in to the server, you shouldn't be there in the first place. Nothing ticks me off more than idlers.

  13. #13
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: EnkŲping, Sweden
    While on the topic on votes, I think there should be a "skip map" vote. You fairly often hear people go: "Oh no! Not such and such! Vote!" A vote that just skips the next map in the rotation would be handy here...

  14. #14
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2002
    Location: a tract of land designated for a purpose
    Originally posted by Jocke
    While on the topic on votes, I think there should be a "skip map" vote. You fairly often hear people go: "Oh no! Not such and such! Vote!" A vote that just skips the next map in the rotation would be handy here...
    Not really much need. There's already a "callvote nextmap" you can use to avoid the next map.

  15. #15
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2002
    Location: The Glow
    Originally posted by LaughingRat
    Not really much need. There's already a "callvote nextmap" you can use to avoid the next map.
    I think what he means LR is that the players don't actually know what map comes after the next one! (As far as I know, there is no way to 'look ahead')

    With each server having it's own map rotation its difficult to learn them.

    And if we keep using "Nextmap" then we end up in an endless loop of the same old maps, sometimes missing out on certian maps.

  16. #16
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2002
    Location: Ohio
    Originally posted by TheMachine
    I think what he means LR is that the players don't actually know what map comes after the next one! (As far as I know, there is no way to 'look ahead')
    Its on F2 by default.
    Signed,
    Richard M. Nixon.

  17. #17
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2002
    Location: a tract of land designated for a purpose
    Originally posted by TheMachine
    I think what he means LR is that the players don't actually know what map comes after the next one! (As far as I know, there is no way to 'look ahead')

    With each server having it's own map rotation its difficult to learn them.
    True enough. Just call a vote for the map you want to play, then.

    Originally posted by TheMachine
    And if we keep using "Nextmap" then we end up in an endless loop of the same old maps, sometimes missing out on certian maps.
    Assuming all those votes passed, yes. But one would hope a group of players would get tired of playing the same small group of maps again and again. (Sadly, my experience doesn't bear this out - coughcoughT3Thornscough.)

  18. #18
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2002
    Location: Dallas
    Originally posted by Mogwort
    No LeatherMan, you have missed the point - this example has 9 out of 10 people voting
    90%, is greater than the PercentageToMakeVote value of 65%, so the vote is passed by the majority, of 5 to 4
    I have coded this up, to prove it can work, it's a simple change
    Yes, I did misunderstand. Thanks for clearing that up.

  19. #19
    Member
    Registered: Jun 1999
    Location: Sunny place
    Originally posted by TheMachine
    I think what he means LR is that the players don't actually know what map comes after the next one! (As far as I know, there is no way to 'look ahead')

    With each server having it's own map rotation its difficult to learn them.

    And if we keep using "Nextmap" then we end up in an endless loop of the same old maps, sometimes missing out on certian maps.
    You can also see it on the lower right corner of your screen, in gray letters, on the score table after a game ends.

  20. #20
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2001
    Location: Finland
    Server option to disallow certain IP's from calling votes or voting.

    ie. Someone freshly unbanned or someone constantly calling votes.

  21. #21
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2002
    Location: a tract of land designated for a purpose
    Originally posted by Deep Qantas
    Server option to disallow certain IP's from calling votes or voting.

    ie. Someone freshly unbanned or someone constantly calling votes.
    Ooh. GOOD idea.

  22. #22
    Member
    Registered: Nov 1999
    Location: ‘st Ra'LŽur
    SIMPLE IDEA:
    The percentage required to pass a vote should be taken from EVERYONE THAT VOTED, not everyone in the game.

    there is problems with this though, as i am sure you will discover if you think about it.

  23. #23
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2002
    Location: a tract of land designated for a purpose
    Originally posted by Yenzarill
    SIMPLE IDEA:
    The percentage required to pass a vote should be taken from EVERYONE THAT VOTED, not everyone in the game.

    there is problems with this though, as i am sure you will discover if you think about it.
    Umm. Scroll up. You'll see that was already suggested.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •