Some players are very disruptive to the proper flow of the game. I suggest a consensus kick option. It should be a CK icon in the game controls and when you click it all players would list in a drop menu. When a player receives the click on their name from each of the other players... they go back to the lobby. What do you think about this idea? (I talked to others about this, so someone may have already made the suggestion; forgive me if I am being redundant.)
I think this is a new concept, but I don't feel it is needed for the following reasons: 1) You are able to make new games. You can leave a game, have the other players join, and kick the annoying player out yourself, if he comes in. 2) If the person isn't the host, the other host is probably annoyed. They will probably kick the user shortly. 3) If the host is as bad as the other player or doesn't kick that player, then you certainly should leave. Also, if this was implemented, it would have to be majority rules in 15 seconds. Not all users may respond, making it ineffective. The host could suggest that, and users would have 15 seconds to reply by saying "yes" or "no" by button input (F1 and F2, for example). This would help a ton in comparison for waiting for every user to respond, and there it isn't certain all the users even will. However, despite the fact this is a pretty good idea, it isn't vitally important, so there is a good chance kChamp won't even input it. This is how this game rolls.
I feel that if someone is disrupting play after the game has started, there should be something you can do. For instance if the player is hitting his own team, or taking too long to shoot, or not shooting at all, spamming, making offensive remarks--- in these cases I would like to lobby the rest of the field for expulsion from the game, I may not be satisfied with waiting for two full turns to pass on someone who is not playing before automatic kick, and I'd often like something other than muting to do about an offensive player. Obviously it would only be fair there was more than three people playing, so it should probably be disabled in small size groups.
This is muting. I think in SSLS you can do it by clicking on the tank, but in SSL2, I know that is how it is done. Just because someone doesn't meet your expectations doesn't mean they deserve great punishment. Muting is a fair system. Besides, they would just come back in new accounts and continue to troll you or whatever. That system is simply ineffective. There isn't any point when a player takes too long to shoot. kChamp inserted that time limit, and any player can use as much as they need to get off a shot. For the trolls, just read an article or something. They are kicked from the game after missing three turns. It's better than never. Again, you could just do something else why you wait. Read a book. Watch part of a movie. I dunno, just do something if you aren't content waiting. I don't see why small groups should be changed. Just keep the system linear. It's one of the better parts of SSL2: Everything is simple and easy to understand. Why play under one set of rules for one point and a different from the other? It makes no sense.
Good idea. A better name for it would be a Vote Kick, but all the same. There should be a sort of game moderator too, who can mute or ban people from talking in the game they are in, or kick them without any vote. Just an idea. I believe it has been suggested already by many people.
My only problem with in-game moderators is that they may abuse their power. If they run into a user they don't like, they could remove him, even if they actually did nothing that would be against the rules. There is no way to restore data to a user like this. If you're gone, you're gone. There would have to be a way to hold onto a user's data for a week after they are banned. This would make it more likely they could be brought back without losing anything. That's my only issue with in-game moderators.
There are always that trollers who keep joining the game after getting kicked again and again. Permanent kick is a good idea. We just choose the names and "buyachaka". Magic is done. Everybody is happy. It would be basically like making a private room. But instead only for friend invitation, everybody can join BUT those who we decide that are not welcome. Simple... Edit: Also, in game moderators are just needed for a lot of reasons, guys. I'm pretty sure that might have some mature people that wont ban players just because they dont like 'em. But hackers, trollers, stalkers (i have a personal stalker, really annoying), pub acc that Kyle takes too long to ban, etc, are just good reason to ban.
In-game moderators should on no account be allowed to ban players from the game. Possible things for in-game moderators would be: Mute player from Lobby Chat for 1 minute-5 minute-1 hour-24 hours Ban players from entering a specific game Kick the host of games whether in-game or in game-lobby Delete games while viewing them from the lobby Kick people while in-game Mute people from talking in game for 1 minute-5 minute-1 hour-24 hours
Having in mind its about SSL Steam, once it's on SSL 2015 area: 1. Unless a person is being rude or swearing and cursing, and stuff like that theres no reason to mute. Also, players being able to mute other players on Loby Chat for the time they want would be more interesting. Every person knows whats wanna hear/read or not. Basically like it works on SSL2. 2. That would be just... Unnecessary. The host of the games should have the power to decides who join or nor their rooms. Needing a moderator to do that is just... senseless, beucase 1) a host can kick the players they dont want to join it, and 2) calling a moderator everytime it happens... Authonomy for the host to chose who's able to join or not the games should be available. 3. Yeah. But how to contact a moderator to kick hosts from games? Maybe having a "second host" that can kick actual hosts from games when the counting to ban starts. (is it unerstandable? dont know how to write this sentence better). 4. Mhm. Specially if there offensive titles. 5. That could be also a job for the host. Calling a moderator everytime it happens (considerating not always that a in game moderator would be in that room), its annoying and not practice. 6. Every player should be able to mute other players, man. Same thing i said on topic one. Basically, those are problems that happens everyday and everytime. Players should have authonomy on most of those situations. As I said, in game moderators should worry about harressment, hackers, trollers (that only join games to do anarchy), public accounts, etc. (haaving in mind SSL2 when i say that. Heard that kyle would add that there, but who knows WHEN, right?) MOST of the things i said here should work on Steam and SSL2 versions. Maybe with some excepcions for each games that works differently.
1. I much prefer the idea of Chat Moderators from AirMech. People should not have to listen to other people if they are cursing, even if they don't mind it. 2. Sometimes hosts are the people spamming, glad to spam and things because they can't have it. And most people just keep coming back. There should be a game ban-panel in the game's terrain settings where he can ban specific players from seeing the game in lobby. 6. It is annoying to hear players carrying on, "i muted u little b****h". People hardly ever use that function. At least the host should be able to mute players from talking. Hackers should not have to be banned permanently. And no matter what, game moderators should never let to actually ban people from playing. They will abuse it everywhere.
Sorry, but it's completly need in game moderators. Keep thinking they will abuse of power is just senseless. It's not forums, it's game. Even if they do, pretty sure he/she can be removed as moderator. Banning players will be only in extreme cases. The only difference on a mod banning players to Kyle banning them is... time. It will happen, sooner or later. IF moderators start banning players for no reason, u can be pretty sure players wont be quiet about it. About muting. Players should have its authonomy, just like in SSL2. If people dont use this tool, nothing we can do... It's their choice, man. Expecting moderators to mute them everytime it happens... And everybody knows it ALL the time. lol. If people dont mute them when they can, why would a mod do that?
I suppose. Really all that is needed currently is a kick function for the host while playing the game.
There are some things you should know: 1) kChamp almost never checks out threads like this. Even though you disagree with this idea, he won't even find out about this thread. Ever. 2) Consensus kick gives votes to all members in the game to kick someone. If someone is as bad as you think, then they probably would kick him out too. 3) Your post describes both systems, which makes no sense. You disagree with this idea, then you poop on the system we have now. With it being a one-man show, hosts can do what they want easier, including kicking you. Please, make up your mind. 4) Threads aren't deleted because you disagree with an idea. The forums would be empty if that was the case. You can continue to express your ideas (in a respectful manner), but moments like this should lead to calm debate, not the debunking of a thread. Since you just joined, I decided to give you this "Beginners Lowdown". Just know: No matter how good or bad an idea this is, it won't EVER be implemented.
