Jump to content
dizzydiana

Kick options in DDA

Recommended Posts

i don’t know think the  block/ban list is a completely good idea. the reason for this is that let’s say a few people have blocked you for whatever reason, if you try to join someone’s game and the person who blocked you happens to be in the game (not as party leader or anything but as a random) then i’m assuming you wouldn’t be able to play games where that one person who blocked you is in it. That lowers the amount of games you can join with a community that is already pretty small

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A ban list would be incredibly easy to abuse and bully others with...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back kick system from dd1. Vote to kick was one of the weirdest design choices of dd2.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Make it so its a vote to kick, but host cannot be kicked. Problem solved. If you wanna kick the host you're either A) An a$$hole or B) What the heck are you still doing in a game with an host you'd like to kick? If he's that bad, leave, let him crash and move on.

EDIT: Also, to outweight (the fact that sometimes people will come into a game together, outweigthing the host in his own game to screw him up) that, the host's vote should always be worth 2 votes, and in case of equality, win the vote. Votes aren't always about the kick feature. Sometimes the votes are about going back to tavern, going to the next map, etc. A team of 2 freeloaders could always try and choose for the host in that situation. With my suggestion, it'd be impossible for 2 persons to take over a lobby. It would always require the whole lobby (but the host) to vote against him to work. In a situation of an host with 2 players in a game, if the 2 players vote to return to tavern but the host vote to go to the next map, or vice and versa, the host would win (being 2 votes vs 2 votes, in favor of the host). In a situation of an host and 3 players where the 3 players vote for something and the host for something else, the 3 players win, since clearly, the majority of the lobby want something else than the host, and the host shouldnt have a god almighty power. In the case of 2 persons trying to kick another (who isnt the host since he can't be kicked) and the host vote against it, the host win and the person isn't kicked. The only exception to this verry rule would be when the host would himself vote to kick someone, to prevent him of being a douche, in case of equality, he lose. In that situation, if the host try to kick someone but the 2 other people asked to vote vote no, the host loses his vote. This would be the only situation where an equal vote would result in a loss for the host. Like that, it would create a system where in most situation, the well being of almost everyone involved in the lobby would be respected. It wouldn't cause chaos, the host would have a certain power over his lobby for creating it, while the players joining wouldn't be arbitrarily kicked by a bad host. 

Edited by oliwaltony
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jaws_420 said:

A ban list would be incredibly easy to abuse and bully others with...

I don't see how 🤔.

If someone bans everyone, he'll play solo and it's his problem.

If people ban me for no reason, well, good for them. I don't care.

If many people ben me and i have to play solo, maybe i'm doing something wrong?

What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/10/2019 at 4:02 PM, Ryzours said:

I don't see how 🤔.

If someone bans everyone, he'll play solo and it's his problem.

If people ban me for no reason, well, good for them. I don't care.

If many people ben me and i have to play solo, maybe i'm doing something wrong?

What am I missing?

Read the post above yours as a great example of hostile group play. All a group has to do is target someone. File enough reports, true or not, and most companies would ban first and ask questions later. With one Reddit group, you could almost ban anyone you felt like. Accusations dont need to be true to do damage.

Edited by Jaws_420
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jaws

I've never heard of a ban system being abused. Obviously, the company wouldn't ban for no reasons. They'd need proof of cheating or rude behaviour (afking wouldn't be a reason to be banned)

People making a group to troll? This event is very unlikely. Most trolls are solo , abusing hostkick. It does happen the trolls team up to abuse votekick. But a group trying to abuse a ban system is unheard of (by me).

Yes, a group of 20 players acting together may be hard to stop by any company. Does that kind of group exist? Wouldn't they be noticed and banned?

I've only played one multiplayer game in the past 5 years (dungeon def) so maybe my assumptions are outdated.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 I think perhaps the block/ban list was misinterpreted I had meant it purely for players to actively avoid others they have have bad experiences with. You would select a player and block them from being able to join your games in future and it would also stop you from joining theirs. An unhelpful player is not the same as one who is toxic or cheating, reporting of players exists for most online games to deal with those separately. I have played various online multiplayer games since 2002 and I have kept what I call "Not to play with" lists so I can avoid those I find to be unhelpful, unpleasant etc, but if I come across someone using toxic language, innapropriate behaviour or cheating i would use whatever reporting feature was present in the game. All reporting features can be abused and I know of many players come a foul of such. No matter what system is in place there is always a way to abuse it. I guess it all depends which system is less likely to cause problems in general. There has to be a way to deal with unhelpful players without having to resort to reporting them. With the game being client side (from what I heard) I dont think we could use a vote kick system. This leaves us with host kick and figuring out how to lessen the possibility of abuse. One suggestion I quite liked was removing the possibility to kick a player in the last couple of waves of a map, I would also balance that by also removing the possibility to join that map in those waves. Im not sure what other measures would help reduce abuse of the host kick system and perhaps others in the community have ideas.

Edited by dizzydiana
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm an endgame DD1 player, 9 lvl 100 characters, great ult armor on all and a lots of event items.

I have hosted a lot of games.  I'd say 90% of all games I have hosted is for helping other players.

If you touch the hosts ability to kick players you are shooting your game in the foot.

 

I got two main points if you reduce the hosts abilities.

- Players will just play private games instead

      I would stop hosting games if players could come in and fuck up my game. I'd just stick to play with players I know. 

     That would make your game seem dead, or abandoned way quicker. Also it would make it harder for everyone to find a game to play.

- Vetarans would be annoyed of the game way quicker

           Veterans of DD1 is the players that keeps DD1 alive for all this years and they can keep DDA alive 10 years from now.

           Veterans often host games to help newbies, and if they get reduced host rights they might stop doing that.

           If few players are online and you are tired of grinding, helping other players can be relaxing and nice. Also you can see how insanely good your gear have gotten, and players telling you that your gear is awesome makes you feel good about all the grind you have done. If players don't want to do that anymore because being a host sucks, I think they would quicker give up on the game.

 

This is a game breaker for me. If you mess too much with the hosts abilities, I am out.

(English is not my mother tongue)

 

Edited by Hans Joachim (NOR)
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no logical reason to restrict host ability in the game. If somebody wants to host a game, they should be the ones controlling it. If you take away the ability to kick you give power to trolls and bad people in general. If I want to HOST a game why should I not have any elevated permission? If I don't have the ability to control MY lobby, I won't play public games at all. Please do not even consider this option.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dangermoose125 said:

There is no logical reason to restrict host ability in the game. If somebody wants to host a game, they should be the ones controlling it. If you take away the ability to kick you give power to trolls and bad people in general. If I want to HOST a game why should I not have any elevated permission? If I don't have the ability to control MY lobby, I won't play public games at all. Please do not even consider this option.

I agree with everything you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there are hosts that abuse this power. I've had enough wave 5 kicks that i stopped joining other people's games back on DD1-ps3. DD2 did away with that issue but opened the door for 2-party abusers who can hijack any game. Neither method was perfect. A hybrid may be a better path...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is simple imo. Kicking players last second only happened in DD1 because loot was shared (I'd like to believe). With separated/instanced loot, there's no incentive to kick people last second outside of just being a jerk. Upon being kicked, a player's defenses should immediately be deleted, so the host has consequences to kicking people, rather than just a lack of benefits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You have to always assume the full spectrum of humanity will be playing this game. From gamers who actually care, to noobs, to AFKers, to Jokers who just want to watch the world burn. 

A system that can be abused, will be. Just because you would not do so, or it hasn't happened to you - does not reflect on the full range that all players will experience.

Edited by Jaws_420

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's why I prefer host-kick over vote-kick

Assuming worst of both sides, I much rather - join games and leave, when seeing someone who has a bad rep for kicking everyone on last wave - , than hosting a game, and have no protection from someone who can just randomly join my game and kick me anytime he wants.

Former gives choices (maybe I need to get kicked couple times to recognize the guy); latter doesn't at all (even I recognize that guy joining, will kick me with his fellas, nothing I can do. I will lose all win streak, all map builds, becuz that guy decides to join my game) . It's choosing the better of the bad. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 5:35 PM, Aheadatlme said:

This is simple imo. Kicking players last second only happened in DD1 because loot was shared (I'd like to believe). With separated/instanced loot, there's no incentive to kick people last second outside of just being a jerk. Upon being kicked, a player's defenses should immediately be deleted, so the host has consequences to kicking people, rather than just a lack of benefits. 

Not at all. Pets after a survival were not shared, and i was kicked many times at wave 25.

@hailminion

A rep system would help with both hostkick and votekick. Thanks for your input.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/20/2019 at 9:02 PM, Ryzours said:

Not at all. Pets after a survival were not shared, and i was kicked many times at wave 25.

@hailminion

A rep system would help with both hostkick and votekick. Thanks for your input.

This is just incorrect. Loot is by character in 99% of situations in DD1 including survival wave pet drops. Each character will get the loot rewarded by the map, regardless of if it is 1 person with 4 characters or 4 seperate people in they will get 1 set of rewards per character. If 1 account has 4 characters in they will get all 4 sets. Meaning they are shared. Don't try to spread false information to push your narrative.

Edited by dangermoose125
Clarification
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, dangermoose125 said:

This is just incorrect. Loot is by character in 99% of situations in DD1 including survival wave pet drops. Each character will get the loot rewarded by the map, regardless of if it is 1 person with 4 characters or 4 seperate people in they will get 1 set of rewards per character. If 1 account has 4 characters in they will get all 4 sets. Meaning they are shared. Don't try to spread false information to push your narrative.

I'm not pushing anything. I think you misunderstood something. Shared loot is opposite to instanced loot in AheadatIme post. I answered accordingly. And your post doesn't contradict mine actually.

I'm not an english native speaker, maybe i'm not making myself clear?

In any case, we're all trying to solve a tricky problem together here. We managed to keep the thread nice so far. Let's keep it this way!

 

Edited by Ryzours
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about votekick, but with the host being immune to kick? Is that a good compromise? Can this be abused easily?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ryzours said:

I'm not pushing anything. I think you misunderstood something. Shared loot is opposite to instanced loot in AheadatIme post. I answered accordingly. And your post doesn't contradict mine actually.

I'm not an english native speaker, maybe i'm not making myself clear?

In any case, we're all trying to solve a tricky problem together here. We managed to keep the thread nice so far. Let's keep it this way!

 

I believe what moose is saying is that you get one pet per hero. If I have split-screened 3 other heroes into the mix, so I have 4 heroes on the field, I get 4 pets. Perhaps people would kick last wave to sign in one of their other heroes, so they get 4 pets instead of 3. I don't recall if you can sign a hero in last second like that, but if you could, it would reinforce my earlier point about people mostly abusing the kick option in order to direclty gain something, not just to be total jerks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ryzours said:

What about votekick, but with the host being immune to kick? Is that a good compromise? Can this be abused easily?

It still leads to duos being able to split/stall votes. I suppose if the host's vote was worth 2 votes, and to get something passed you had to have 3 out of 5 votes, then that'd be more fair towards the host. Something still hits me the wrong way about a host not being able to have the power to kick people at will. Hosting a game means having the power to dictate what happens in that game, including the map you're playing on, the difficulty level, why you're playing (farming, pets, challenges, fun, trying out new character), and the atmosphere of the game, or the social vibe. If there's a high-pitched young kid who won't cooperate with building defenses, is talking way too loudly into the mic, and has a bad social vibe in general, I don't want that kid in my game. I hosted so that I could have a certain kind of gaming experience, and that should be in my control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Aheadatlme said:

It still leads to duos being able to split/stall votes. I suppose if the host's vote was worth 2 votes, and to get something passed you had to have 3 out of 5 votes, then that'd be more fair towards the host. Something still hits me the wrong way about a host not being able to have the power to kick people at will. Hosting a game means having the power to dictate what happens in that game, including the map you're playing on, the difficulty level, why you're playing (farming, pets, challenges, fun, trying out new character), and the atmosphere of the game, or the social vibe. If there's a high-pitched young kid who won't cooperate with building defenses, is talking way too loudly into the mic, and has a bad social vibe in general, I don't want that kid in my game. I hosted so that I could have a certain kind of gaming experience, and that should be in my control.

Unless you are a jerk host who kicks people out of pure malice... Now, not saying that is you, but you have to account for more than just "how you would do it". And i have met enough of those types playing DD that is ought to be accounted for in some way.

Edited by Jaws_420

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Have host kick with protection options.  If a player has been there for say 3+ waves, then a host kick will start a vote.

Additionally, have a reputation system.  When you leave a map (whether you were kicked or you completed it) you can give each player a thumbs up or down.  Allow filtering lobbies based on player reputation.

Alternatively, make a player reporting feature.  If you believe users are abusing the kick feature (or any other poor behavior) you can report the user and it can be looked into.  This might require some additional stat tracking, but would be helpful.  If the user is found to be abusing host kick powers, restrict them only being able to create Private lobbies for a time period that can be incremented for repeat offenders.

Edited by Batophobia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Batophobia said:

Have host kick with protection options.  If a player has been there for say 3+ waves, then a host kick will start a vote.

Additionally, have a reputation system.  When you leave a map (whether you were kicked or you completed it) you can give each player a thumbs up or down.  Allow filtering lobbies based on player reputation.

Alternatively, make a player reporting feature.  If you believe users are abusing the kick feature (or any other poor behavior) you can report the user and it can be looked into.  This might require some additional stat tracking, but would be helpful.  If the user is found to be abusing host kick powers, restrict them only being able to create Private lobbies for a time period that can be incremented for repeat offenders.

I really like this idea, it protects the host as well as giving other players joining some imput. It goes inline with my idea of some sort of block list. A reputation system would help people know if a particular host is someone has been abusing their powers but also lets a host kick unwanted players. Having a rep system may be easier to implement than my idea as well. i think this is the fairest suggestion I have seen so far.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Host kick, is the best option in my opinion. Allowing others to hijack the host's game, isn't nice. I didn't used to host a lot of public games, but I did join a fair number of games. Most hosts I've played with have been pretty decent folks. Either that, or they just straight up kicked me for no reason. Which is fine as well, but they really should have made a private game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...