Some times I played a 3v3 match, on match making, and the other two guys are friends. Some times, even winning, they start a kick vote on me, and the other team agree with it. And all the game is lost.
This happened to me sometimes, and I think it must have happened to more people.
We all know vote-kicking is currently not against the rules.
Please use this thread to discuss the pros and cons of changing/modifying this policy.
S2 Games: Dedicated employees serving dedicated gamers. Continuous development. Never-ending improvement.
No change is needed to this policy, in my opinion. I have been votekicked once over the course of over 1k games (and this from a midwars public game a year ago), so it clearly has something to do with people having a bad attitude. If nine people want a game without the tenth player, they should have the option to do so without the fear of getting banned.
Considering you lose nothing from being votekicked (not MMR at least, and who cares about win/loss in the long run?), it requires no moderation even if the kick is made out of pure grief.
To expand on this:
- Will reduce the amount of "unfair" votekicks
- The criterias for what would be considered an unfair votekick would have to be very, very strict, and as such, I have a feeling there will be MANY incorrect reports. (Considering it's already close to 50% when dealing with rather self-explanatory rules)
- Fear of voting the way you want
- Will undoubtedly cause a lot of complaints from both victims and perpetrators, since I don't see many reports passing or not passing without someone being very upset about it, due to the unclear nature this rule would have.
I would also argue that such a rule can be compared to the rule that you may refuse to concede facing inevitable defeat as long as you are playing, alongside the one saying that you may, no matter what, unpause or vote down a pause/remake vote. The essence of those rules are the fact that you should never be punished for voting the way you want, if you're not doing it to hold your team hostage.
Personally I have tried to get kicked, even though I had carried our team and shown good manners throughout the entire game, but because the other team wanted to kick someone so that they could cc, and I don't like to kick people just because they are bad or because they want to try and win the game, I actually never kick.
I simply said to my team that I wouldn't kick the guy, and then they voted to kick me, my own team because I guess they wanted them to cc so the game could end (any other reason?) and the other team also voted and I therefore got kicked. Now I knew we would win the game as I had taken care of that, but that I then get kicked is totally not fair.
There should be certain rules making sure that something like this is not supposed to happen, because I really feel that was not appropriate behaviour. And I feel that it should not have happened.
What do you guys think?
I entirely agree with this for 5v5 games. But the case I explained is for 3v3 games, there you need a lot less votes to kick. Let's assume a scenario in a match 3 vs 3 where you play in the team that is winning. Your two team mates are friends, and they decide to make a kick vote on you. The other team sees an opportunity here to win and immediately agrees.
This happened to me two or three times, and to show that there is another side, my friends already said that, during a 3v3 match, they kicked the third player because they found it funny. Again, my discussion is focused on 3v3 matches.
Vote-kicking when a player has done nothing wrong should be reportable. Here is why:
- Making vote-kick reportable will stop people from making these rash decisions. If I had a dime for every time I've seen "OMG Scout you let me die" > Vote Kick > 8/9 Pass > I decline. Holding the vote-kick issuer responsible will, in time, hopefully, eliminate these rash decisions.
- I rarely see the vote-kick actually being used correctly.
In addition to the above, you are completely 100% ruining the experience for the person being kicked. S2 always talks about how actions that cause intentional grief or change the outcome of the game are bannable. Being unfairly kicked from a game couldn't ruin it anymore for that person.
How to implement the policy:
- Only the person issuing the kick can be banned
- The player can only be banned if it was issued to intentionally grief the player. Playing poorly, talking trash, and stealing last hits are some examples of valid reasons to kick someone.
- This will probably eat up more GM time. These tickets would be highly subjective and may require close examination in the replay.
Last edited by stacks; 07-16-2012 at 06:09 PM.
I'm not one for taking part in forum communities often, but this is one issue I feel like I have to get a quick say in since there are a lot of problems with the HoN community and this is one I've found concerning for a long time.
My feelings are that the spirit of the kick system should be to remove griefers from the game. Not as a tool to influence your chances of winning by removing poor players (unless they are playing poorly intentionally to grief) or remove a player who is downvoting concedes because they want to continue the match. Solely to remove players who are out to ruin the game. Not players who are trying to the best of their ability. Those are my feelings of the matter of what the system should be for. The system as it stands has a problem of malicious kicking because people try to kick non-griefers for frivolous reasons. (Honestly, HoN is one of the only games I know where being a good sport and actively trying to play your best will not protect you from being kicked.)
But as pointed out, the kick system is like the way it is right now because of all the problems it presents trying to make it more robust. Allowing reports of malicious kicks may work to fix malicious kicks after a long adjustment period of players learning that they can be punished for doing so, or it may not work at all and just flood the GMs with more tickets. The whole problem may not be very fixable with the poor sportsmanship and immaturity rampant among the community.
The only ideas I can think of basically revolve around the idea of trying to increase the value of the votekick in the players' minds so they won't treat it so flippantly. If players were limited in some way in how they could votekick to start with, they might be more encouraged to only use it in serious situations, or at least not rage votekick. What if players had a limited number of votekicks given to them that refreshed on some system? 3 a month? 3 total but you get 1 back every week? 3 total but you get 1 back for every 15 games you play? Basically, the idea is to increase player respect for the vote and encourage them to save the votes for the actual times they need them, instead of attempting a votekick because, "brown lol". I have no idea if it would work, but I think something of that nature would be needed prior to allowing reports of malicious kicks into the RAP system, in order to cut down the number of reports by virtue of cutting down the number of false attempts and rage attempts.
Something that might also synergize with reporting malicious votekicks would be to require players to attach a reason to their votekick attempts. Instead of just selecting the player and starting a vote, they have to select the player and input a reason (which would helpfully be broadcast to all players. I can't count the number of times I've seen votekicks suddenly start up and wonder why the hell they expect me to psychically know their reason for wanting to remove a player from the game. It's incredible how reliant their vote is on just assuming the entire other team will vote yes.) The two-fold benefit with the RAP system would be that
1) players have this preemptive chance to defend themselves. The GM reads the reporters "I was unfairly kicked" ticket, but then they can see the vote starters justification for the kick. Sort of puts some light on the situation if the player justifies with "Feeding" but all you see in the replay is a poor player getting jumped repeatedly by a ganker heavy team.
2) If players start to learn that votekicking while leaving the reason field blank greatly increases their chances of being punished by the RAP system, they'll learn to always put in a reason, and maybe those few extra seconds of having to type are enough to discourage them from being so rage-y with their votes.
Again, maybe something that would work or help a malicious kicking report system, or maybe not. I have no idea. It might invite drawbacks as well, but I felt it was worth putting out there.
TL;DR The malicious kicking is something that I think should be addressed, but I can't see just adding it to the RAP system working. Not on it's own. Something to make players judge the vote as valuable and important should come first, to discourage them from voting so suddenly and rashly.
I think the vote kick should NOT be reportable. Is it used mostly to grief then to get rid of griefers, YES, but thats because of the way it was implemented. Banning people who start kicks won't solve the problem that the vote kick doesn't work.
If you are gonna report a player for kicking you, why report only the player who started the vote? If all 9 players voted YES to an unfair kick you either ban them all or don't ban anyone. For me this is enough reason to not include the vote kick on the RAP system. It would be unfair to kick only one person out of 9 (or 5 in a 3v3).
The problem with the vote kick is that you need permission from the enemy team to kick a griefer, and they never EVER pass a vote like that. Make the vote kick team only with the same consequences as today (no leaver stats and MMR gain in case of a win) and I think we are golden. Even on a 3v3 I would still prefer a team only kick.
I'd rather being kicked 10 times on a won match by trolls then having to play with a griefer ONE entire game without being able to kick him.
If you play a 3v3 and the 2 other guys decide to kick you at the end of the match, so WHAT??? Whats the big deal about it??? You gonna gain MMR and coins the same way as if you were in the match until the end. And no one is gonna do a troll kick unless the game is completely over (won or lost).
Scenario: You just started playing this awesome game called Heroes of Newerth, you see how much potential for fun the game has, but every time you play, somebody rages because you aren't sure what you're supposed to be doing. Instead of trying to help you, they go "OMFG U NUB F*GF*. KICK THIS FAHGEYT OR I M AFK". You are then kicked.
This game has an absolutely abysmal learning curve, so if someone playing poorly deserves to be kicked, you can expect every new player to get kicked from their first 800 games. (Since they won't get to finish them, they'll never have ample opportunity to learn.)
I don't see why you couldn't switch it to be team only if a players K:D:A reaches a certain point?
You may be kicked by a team-only vote if:
0-15 Minutes: Deaths = > Kills+Assists +4
15-29 Minutes: Deaths = > Kills+Assists +6
30+ Minutes: Both teams must vote
Example 1: at 13:52, Demented Shaman has a score of 1-6-0, He MAY be kicked by a team only vote.
Example 2: At 13:52, Demented Shaman has a score of 0-5-5, He may NOT be kicked by a team only vote.
Obviously the numbers would need tweaked..
With a system like this, you could more realistically implement a system to punish people who use kicking to grief, just make something to parse the scores throughout the course of a game and compare them to the formula; if it doesn't add up, you know it's one case that needs to be more closely scrutinized to achieve a good verdict, which would effectively limit the amount of tickets that have to be screened.
It would be even better if the system parsed the scores of whoever got kicked before they could even send a ticket!
A new player would not be able to use the RAP system anyways, until verified.
But that's part of the point of what I'm saying. The spirit of the vote kick system should be such that it is not a tool for helping you win the game. It should be a tool to remove griefers from the game. Players who are actively setting out the sabotage the fun and enjoyment of others. A poor player is making no effort to ruin the game; they're just trying to play as best they as they are able, and should not be punished for doing so.
The ideal is that, were reportable kick abuse to be included, then being a good sport and playing as best you can should effectively immunize you against unjust kicks (i.e. you can still be kicked but any report you file should come through as guilty for the kicking party.) In other words, you could only safely report players who are making a directed effort at ruining the game.
With that as my ideal, that's sort of why I feel it's important to teach the players to respect the kick vote first, so that they only use it on griefers. It all comes back around to the community's attitude.
The difference From the perspective of winning the game, the difference between beeing a poor player and being a feeder is that being a feeder your not TRYING TO WIN. As a poor player, the player is still TRYING TO WIN. A poor player may only need a point in the right direction. If you decide to rage at them for playing poorly instead of at least ATTEMPTING to help, then your just as guilty for a loss as they are. TEAM game, not SOLO. Get the difference?
The way I see it, the votekick should be implemented the same way a remake is implemented. If 7/10 people want you gone, your gone. However, I also believe that making a troll votekick reportable should also be implemented. And ban all 7 players if it's found guilty. I've seen games where the opposing team wanted to kick the carry that went 12/1/8 for their items. Had it not been for me or another downvoting the kick, they would've gotten away with it. But at the same time, I believe the votekick needs a re-work, since no one wants to kick an enemy griefer.
This discussion is getting interesting. I think a rework on the kick system is an important point that could be improved. I believe that the addition of a reason to vote may be interesting.
Also interesting would be to add situations where the player can not be kicked. For example, a situation in which the player has K+A-D=X and other statistics, which should enter as parameters to dificult the kick vote.
Another thing that could be added to help in these situations and many others, would be an evaluation system, a kind of level of satisfaction from playing with a certain player. It seems that there is something similar in DOTA2, but I do not know details.
My own observations:
-The kick system is rarely, if ever, abused in 1700+ games. In these games it is used as intended.
-When malicious vote-kicking was reportable (it used to be!), a significant majority of submitted cases were marked innocent.
-Griefing and current KADR have zero correlation. We get many, many cases where players start griefing even if they are doing well.
-Kicked players still get mmr and no leave; if anything it gives you a free pass to join a new game sooner with hopefully friendlier teammates.
I am not saying the system is without problems. I am learning a lot from reading your comments, and look forward to keep reading them. I simply want you guys to understand the current perspective. Change cannot be taken lightly. This is a complex matter and may require a complex solution.
S2 Games: Dedicated employees serving dedicated gamers. Continuous development. Never-ending improvement.
I remember back in the day when the submitted tickets were "I reported such and such, but it didnt go through." when the player reported only up-voted the kick, not initiated it.
Also, the problem isnt 1700+ games. It's the games that are played in the lower brackets, as far as I can tell. (1450-1550)
Also, come kicked players(this is where my dog comes into the mix) right to reap the benefits of the work they've put in for the past 15 - 45 minutes because someone on their team wants their items, and the other 3 are a)friends or b)trolls. And when faced with the option of "Certain loss, or make it 5v4 with a chance to win", 90% of THIS player base is going to go with option 2.
I think what he means is that dont expect something to be changed tomorrow or, possibly, never. You've got to get your superiors to look at it and approve as well, and then brainstorm our initial ideas. Right?I am not saying the system is without problems. I am learning a lot from reading your comments, and look forward to keep reading them. I simply want you guys to understand the current perspective. Change cannot be taken lightly. This is a complex matter and may require a complex solution.