Jump to content
dizzydiana

Kick options in DDA

Recommended Posts

Didn't read the whole thread, but to me the problem with being kicked "at the last second" (host abusing his powers to kick) sounds like a made up/constructed problem. In all my years in dd2 it never happened to me. What made me - and probably a lot of other players along with me - not want to play public was the lack of kicking options and thus rendering myself totally into strangers hands. I guess many people join other people's maps because they don't have the needed builders to build it solo. 

The host needs the control of the team if he is to enjoy building maps for others to profit. If not, you will simply perpetuate the problem of good players shunning away from public games. This is not good for DDA. My advice is to not make the team control functions (kick, invite etc) to elaborate and complicated. Dictatorship is fine in certain games, DDA included.

My suggestion to players who get unfairly treated is to blacklist the host, and find another host to play with. Or make your own maps if you are able. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@krsans78

The hostkick option was heavily abused in dd1. Sometimes, you could be kicked in the first 10 seconds of a game with no reasons given 3 or 4 times in a row, so it could take up to 10 minutes to just start a game. And being kicked at the last second of a survival is not made up, sadly. Why would we lie about that? As a result, most of my 1500 hours of playtime in dd1 were solo. What I describe above happened in the 200 hours or so where I tried multiplayer.

Dd2 solved the problem. There's no host, the game is hosted on the playverse servers. And votekick limits AFKing. If a couple of people abuse the system and kick the builder, the towers are rendered useless and the game is lost, so that's quite rare. Kicking the builder at the last second happened only once in my 1000 hours of dd2, and preventing kick in last wave would solve that, as discussed in previous posts.

Also, other interesting alternatives have been suggested in this thread. You should read it.

Edited by Ryzours
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The main worry for hosts abusing kick powers basically comes from the advantages of splitscreen loot. In DD1 you could load in 4 players and each player you loaded in would win the end game loot be it pets (survivals) or gear. Many people would kick on second last wave to then bring in additional players for additional loot for themselves. They may only want online players to help mass upgrade all the towers or whatever, but not need those players on the end wave that gave the reward. Splitscreen is coming back to DDA and so the worry of osts only wanting players to help upgrade/repair until the last wave remains. One suggestion was to make loot only give one reward per account could help alieviate this issue. Someone else suggested limiting waves to which you can join or be kicked eg if last 2 waves you cannot join or be kicked from a match. Another suggestion of a reputation system where we could thumbs up/down a host could also help minimise running into those  types of hosts.

The vote kick system was lacking for some who wished more automony and I understand why it seems preferable to give complete automony to a host. Especially when there were only 2 players where neither player could kick the other and your only choice was to leave the existing game. I just want to try as much as possible to keep it fair for everyone involved so multiplayer is a pleasant experience and we are not relegated to playing solo or with friends in order to enjoy the game.

Edited by dizzydiana
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you want to skip the part where I disagree on some elements that were brought up in this thread and say why, skip the first three paragraphs.

I'll start by saying that I really don't think a report system is a good idea. Even if CG had enough manpower and money to actually monitor the reports, DD isn't like a MOBA where you can easily look at different logs like chat/feeding/etc. Sure it could all be automated but any reporting system can be abused/unfair. You could get reported just because someone is mad that you used the last DUs to build the wrong things. Not everyone is gonna bother typing to you to tell you, especially on consoles.

A reputation system seems really unreliable. When would you rep someone, at the end of the game? After a while, most people will likely not bother giving rep. Then do you get good rep by default? That would mean almost everyone would accumulate good rep unless they were toxic 100% of the time. Let's say a troll starts playing the game and keeps doing bad stuff and ends up with a garbage reputation but then starts really loving the game. Is that person doomed from playing with anyone who picked "good reputation only". Also in DD1, I remember being kicked a lot for no reason as soon as I joined a game. Would you get bad reputation every time that happens? Having to play with the toxic player until the end to be able to give them bad reputation doesn't sound like a good idea either.

I really don't like the idea of a banlist. Imagine you're playing a public survival game and something comes up IRL, you go away from your computer/console but stay in the in-game not suspecting it would take so long. You come back to see that you were kicked and the host banned you. From now on, every time you randomly try to join that person's game you are greeted with a "You are Banned" message. I have played games in the past where I would get kicked/banned from a player's game for no reason and I would get really annoyed when I couldn't join again. (Most of the time unsuspectingly) I do like the idea of a blacklist though and will talk about it below.

I don't think those are needed as long as we have a good voting/kicking system.

Here are my actual suggestions :

  1. Host-only voting power. Only the host should be able to decides what happens in his game. But allow players to start suggestion votes.

    By example : You are in a game with 4 people in which you're not the host. You would like to play The Deeper Well map next on one difficulty level higher. Toward the end of the current map you start a suggestion vote for that. This would directly show the host what you would like to play next and how the others feel about it. This same feature could also work for suggesting kicks and other things. It would be on the host to decide whether or not to act on the suggestion.

    Have a similar feature for the host. Examples as the host :

    You feel like a player is detrimental to the team but aren't sure if that player should be kicked or not. You would be able to start an actual vote where everyone can decide on the action. Votes initiated by the host would automatically come in effect if unanimity is reached.

    You just finished a map and don't mind playing a number of different maps. You'd be able to start a vote of up to 3? maps with the option to be able to pick a different difficulty for each one. It's pretty simple from there, the map with the most votes is automatically started after the short vote ends. In case of a tie (if the host gets to vote) the map which he voted for wins. If the host doesn't get a vote, give him the final decision in case of a tie. To prevent annoyance and extra loading screens, there should be a prompt for players whose votes lost with the choices to leave the game or go to the next map.

    Decision wise nothing would happen that the host did not want.

     
  2. A blacklist feature when you get kicked. Upon getting kicked, have the option to add the host to your blacklist. Have the blacklist have different tiers. By example : Green/Yellow/Red. If you got kicked and you think it was absolutely unfair, you would add the host to your blacklist as Red. If you got kicked but feel like it was half-deserved, you could decide to blacklist him but only as Green. When trying to join a game hosted by someone on your blacklist, you would receive a message warning you that the host is on your blacklist along with their corresponding color/tier. You could decide to still join and give them another shot if they were only green/yellow. While possibly increasing their toxicity level or removing them from your list depending on the outcome of the game. Personally I think a blacklist should only be added later on if the game actually ends up having toxic behaviors. It should be built to avoid them in the first place.
     
  3. Simply prevent players benefiting from kicking others. Benefiting from having multiple characters present is likely to return. Either from instanced loot for each respective player, if it's added, or end of map rewards. Possible ways to prevent that from having people kick players on the last wave(s):  1- When playing in an online public game, prevent players from being able to add splint-screen players when there are only X waves left. 2- Same as number 1 but only prevent the host from being able to. 3- Require the host to enable/disable split-screen play when creating their game and have that visible when looking for games so players can avoid split-screen enabled game if they're afraid of getting kicked toward the end.


Non-host player gameplay grief should be pretty unimpactful since they said in their last update that DD:A would allow you to replay from a previous wave rather than start over on defeat. I also suspect the unannounced related feature to be save-able defense placements presets. An unanimity only voting system would just add ways for toxic players to grief. Someone went on about ways for the host to not be kick-able by having their votes count for 2 etc. That's just over-complicating things for no reason.

I'm against an afk auto-kick system. Just let the host act on what they think shouldn't be allowed in THEIR game. Wouldn't be nice to have the friend you're carrying get kicked just because they're idle. There could be an option the host could enable if they want to auto-kick players afk for [Insert a slider] X minutes. You would be able to distinguish games with auto-kick ON from the game lobbies. If a blacklist similar to my prior suggestion was added, you wouldn't be able to add the host if you were kicked that way.

Edited by Windex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Windex said:


Here are my actual suggestions :

  1. Host-only voting power. Only the host should be able to decides what happens in his game. But allow players to start suggestion votes.

    By example : You are in a game with 4 people in which you're not the host. You would like to play The Deeper Well map next on one difficulty level higher. Toward the end of the current map you start a suggestion vote for that. This would directly show the host what you would like to play next and how the others feel about it. This same feature could also work for suggesting kicks and other things. It would be on the host to decide whether or not to act on the suggestio
     
  2. A blacklist feature when you get kicked. Upon getting kicked, have the option to add the host to your blacklist. Have the blacklist have different tiers. By example : Green/Yellow/Red. If you got kicked and you think it was absolutely unfair, you would add the host to your blacklist as Red. If you got kicked but feel like it was half-deserved, you could decide to blacklist him but only as Green. When trying to join a game hosted by someone on your blacklist, you would receive a message warning you that the host is on your blacklist along with their corresponding color/tier. You could decide to still join and give them another shot if they were only green/yellow. While possibly increasing their toxicity level or removing them from your list depending on the outcome of the game. Personally I think a blacklist should only be added later on if the game actually ends up having toxic behaviors. It should be built to avoid them in the first place.
     
  3. Simply prevent players benefiting from kicking others. Benefiting from having multiple characters present is likely to return. Either from instanced loot for each respective player, if it's added, or end of map rewards. Possible ways to prevent that from having people kick players on the last wave(s):  1- When playing in an online public game, prevent players from being able to add splint-screen players when there are only X waves left. 2- Same as number 1 but only prevent the host from being able to. 3- Require the host to enable/disable split-screen play when creating their game and have that visible when looking for games so players can avoid split-screen enabled game if they're afraid of getting kicked toward the end.


 

Upon reading through your suggestions, I feel they have some merit and brought up some valid points. I really like the idea that as a host you cannot bring in a split screen player during a public match. That alone would certainly help put my mind at ease for getting kicked in order for the host to gain advantage in terms of loot. I would also extend this to players joining. If there is one space left for another player then that spot should be open for a new player, allowing one player to be able to bring in a split screen player but not another is unfair. If you are in a public match both host and others I feel should be on an equal field in this regard. This is one of the reasons I quite liked removing the option to join or kick in a game in the last couple of waves. Most issues occurred on the second last wave as you had to be present before the start of the last wave in order to gain the loot. Making all players choose in advance how many players they bring in advance for a public match makes sure no issues can arise from a surprise extra spilt screen player later in the match.

The blacklist/banlist idea of mine although not quite as fleshed out as yours was more or less in tune with what you outlined. I wanted a way that I and others could actively avoid those players that I felt i have constant issues with or just very unpleasant. In most of the online games I have played I have kept what I call "not to play with" lists, I found these helpful and wondered if in some way I could extend this to others to use.

Hosts having the say on what happens in their games is something I can get behind, although it may not be obvious by some of my posts. I just want to also protect players who join in public matches and make the whole online multiplayer experience an altogether fairer experience. I feel there is a difference between public and private matches and in private matches I would in fact give the host complete automony without any restrictions whatsoever. I come from a point of view of what i do in my own private game I should control, but in a public mach I should be prepared to compromise with my fellow players. In public matches I do feel that hosts powers should be a little more limited. Hosts should still have some say and be able to kick problem players, but we must also try to limit unfair kicking as much as is feasible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, dizzydiana said:

This is one of the reasons I quite liked removing the option to join or kick in a game in the last couple of waves. Most issues occurred on the second last wave as you had to be present before the start of the last wave in order to gain the loot. Making all players choose in advance how many players they bring in advance for a public match makes sure no issues can arise from a surprise extra spilt screen player later in the match.

I wanted to touch on that but forgot. I feel like people would just exploit that to afk or run around and not care until the map is done while being protected from getting kicked. I'd much rather prevent people benefiting from kicking people in the first place. You would very very rarely get kicked for no reason before the end if that were the case and if there was an in-game blacklist you could just add that person there. That person would never do that to you again. I'm pretty sure there would be much less people kicking in the final wave(s) than people abusing the kick protection.

edit: I don't actually dislike the idea, there could definitely be a way to prevent abuse by having some sort of kick protection at X point under X rule(s).

Edited by Windex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Windex said:

I wanted to touch on that but forgot. I feel like people would just exploit that to afk or run around and not care until the map is done while being protected from getting kicked. I'd much rather prevent people benefiting from kicking people in the first place. You would very very rarely get kicked for no reason before the end if that were the case and if there was an in-game blacklist you could just had that person there. I'm pretty sure there would be much less people kicking in the final wave(s) than people abusing the kick protection.

I actually agree with you, even if it might not sound like it. I liked the idea of protecting from that second last wave kick just for the host to bring in another screen. It seemd to be at least a solution, albeit perhaps not the best one. Having players lock in how many ceens they will be playing in advance as you point out removes the ability to abuse the extra screen in such a way. My only issue (if you could even call it that) was only giving that restriction to the host. If you are hosting and 2 players join your match and there is one spot open it should remain open for a new player or allow any exisiting player to then add an additional screen. I understand that you might be thinking well the host can just kick them if they come in and load up 2 extras etc. That may be true, but it does seem on the surface as being skewed against the host.  Like your main idea prevent the issue in the first place rather than deal with it later. I hope that it doesnt come across in a negative manner,  and that I am in essence in agreement with your suggestion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@dizzydiana From "Upon reading through your suggestions, I feel they have some merit and brought up some valid points." I wasn't really sure but after reading everything you said I had the sentiment that you agreed with most of what I said :).

Edited by Windex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Personally I didn't see how having the third player joining in adding a second and fourth total character unfair. But after thinking about it I'm assuming you have the extra loot in mind? At the end of the day it seems like a lot of concerns go back to that whole "The more players you have, the more loot you get.) The last time I saw it being discussed, no one had really found a way to fix that problem. Relative to the split-screen players in multiplayer, here's an idea I just came up with : If you play in public matches. Your loot is shared across all your split-screen characters. So if instanced loot was to be in the game, you wouldn't actually benefit from having more characters logged in. Sure it's penalizing for the split screen players but only in multiplayer public matches. On the other end, it adds a layer of cooperation among the ACTUAL split-screen players. You would have to communicate and decide who gets what etc. It would be the same way for end of map rewards. 1 in total for all the split-screen players. This is only a suggestion about preventing multiplayer kick abuse. But I'm actually curious what people think about having that apply at any time for split-screen players. Yes it's penalizing for the legit split-screen players but maybe there could be ways to offset that without still having split-screen be the most rewarding.

I meant to type this with my other post but messed up. There's no way to remove this post right?

Edited by Windex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suggestion of loot being shared amongst split screen players has come up earlier in this thread (although I cannot remember who suggested it). I am not entirley convinced of this as a solution, but I do understand how it might work. The increased screen increased loot thing will be in force. The one thing I am not sure if was considered is how split screen currently works in DD2. You have to use a different account for the two split screen players and there is no easy way to share loot between them. If this idea is translated to DDA then it would not be appropriate to limit the different accounts in such a manner. In DD1 you could either have different accounts or just one loading into the game so I guess at this point it would be easy to put in place if one account loaded then they share if more then loot is split. This leaves PC it is not easy to have two different accounts running on steam on an online game so for split screen it will mostly likely be only one account regardless of the actual amount of players. I dont really see a need to limit the loot on amount of screens or have different rules depending on platform. I'd rather disuade or prevent abuse of split screen than give a disadvantage to genuine split screen players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dizzydiana

I hadn't thought of multiple different accounts when playing split-screen rather than multiple characters of the same account. But I don't think it wouldn't be too hard for them to just have the game detect that there's split-screen and then restrict loot for those players only. But yeah I was just curious to hear opinions about my suggestion. I don't actually remember reading about it from someone else in this thread. Also, I don't think it would be fair as is. It's just not fair to penalize legit split-screen players just to prevent the very few ones who are gonna exploit it. That's mainly why I was wondering if there would be a way to not penalize the legit players in some other way, but probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Windex said:

I'll start by saying that I really don't think a report system is a good idea. Even if CG had enough manpower and money to actually monitor the reports, DD isn't like a MOBA where you can easily look at different logs like chat/feeding/etc. Sure it could all be automated but any reporting system can be abused/unfair. You could get reported just because someone is mad that you used the last DUs to build the wrong things. Not everyone is gonna bother typing to you to tell you, especially on consoles.

I agree that a reporting system would be a pretty expensive option and I suggest it as more of a "stretch goal" solution.  It would require additional development time to add in all the logging and systems to look into various accusations.  Not necessarily an impossible option, but unlikely.

17 hours ago, Windex said:

A reputation system seems really unreliable. When would you rep someone, at the end of the game? After a while, most people will likely not bother giving rep. Then do you get good rep by default? That would mean almost everyone would accumulate good rep unless they were toxic 100% of the time. Let's say a troll starts playing the game and keeps doing bad stuff and ends up with a garbage reputation but then starts really loving the game. Is that person doomed from playing with anyone who picked "good reputation only". Also in DD1, I remember being kicked a lot for no reason as soon as I joined a game. Would you get bad reputation every time that happens? Having to play with the toxic player until the end to be able to give them bad reputation doesn't sound like a good idea either.

When DD2 was still relatively new, it had a rep system (haven't played in a while but I think it's gone now).  It was simple and took no time to use.  How I would expect it to work is, when you exit a map, whether it's from being kicked or completing it or leaving on your own, you are able to give an optional up/down to any player that was in that match while you were.  As for good players turning bad, either give players the option to have the rep calculation limit by a time frame (past year / month / week), or have the built in calculation give higher weights to more recent ratings.  If there's still worry that the rating system will be abused, then have up = +1, down = -1, and no vote = 0 and use an average.  The actual algorithm will likely need tweaking, but you get the idea.

Also note that getting kicked isn't an immediate down vote.  Neither is kicking someone giving the host a -1.

Specifically on the "Let's say a troll starts playing the game and keeps doing bad stuff and ends up with a garbage reputation but then starts really loving the game. Is that person doomed from playing with anyone who picked "good reputation only"." remark.  Yes.  If you are a new player and you are only being toxic and a total jerk, then you should expect to have to put in work to fix your reputation.  Same as in other online communities or even in real life.  Perhaps that seems harsh, but a brand new player that's also toxic and a troll isn't something I'm concerned with catering towards.

18 hours ago, Windex said:

I really don't like the idea of a banlist. Imagine you're playing a public survival game and something comes up IRL, you go away from your computer/console but stay in the in-game not suspecting it would take so long. You come back to see that you were kicked and the host banned you. From now on, every time you randomly try to join that person's game you are greeted with a "You are Banned" message. I have played games in the past where I would get kicked/banned from a player's game for no reason and I would get really annoyed when I couldn't join again. (Most of the time unsuspectingly) I do like the idea of a blacklist though and will talk about it below.

I think the idea is that if a player blacklists you their hosted games don't even show up in the list for you.  Likewise, if you blacklist someone, they aren't offered as a game for you to join.  There's not a "You are banned" message on trying to join.

As for getting blacklisted when you go AFK, even if unintentionally, just accept the single instance of it.  If a host doesn't want AFK players then they should be able to remove one simply using host-kick privileges.  If that player keeps joining and going AFK, they should be able to blacklist them.  If it happens to me that after unintentionally going AFK I get blacklisted by some user, so be it.  It's not a room I would care to be in since I tend to play in a way that I might go do something and end up AFK for a few waves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through most of this I think this is a good time to mention something that will probably help you all reach a better conclusion. Unless you currently work for CG, lets not assume what kind of manpower they have to do things nor what capabilities they have at their disposal. These kind of assumptions dont help anything since there is zero way for you to know. Instead just flesh out your ideas and let CG read over the thread and decide what they can do/want to do or what they cant do/dont want to do.

In my opinion, the best option so far was to give zero control to anyone in public matches and host control in private matches. Public matches are a way to meet random people and make friends and if you want to have control of what goes on in your match then take your friends to private matches. If you dont want to make friends in a multiplayer game then that's your choice but you take the pros with the cons. If you want to do plublic matches to help people then CG has given numerous ways for players to get in contact with one another to setup a group.

I think these "bad" cases of these players abusing certain things are blown way out of proportion because you wont get someone coming to the forums and complaining or praising how they managed to play public matches for weeks or months on end without incidents like these. Well here is one, I have managed to play hours a day over many days of the week in the past two years in DD2 and never had any troll or abuser incident.

tl;dr - Lets try to just stay focused on suggestions of the system and not assume what CG can or cant do.

Share this post


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

If there's still worry that the rating system will be abused, then have up = +1, down = -1, and no vote = 0 and use an average.  The actual algorithm will likely need tweaking, but you get the idea.

That does make sense caus as I was trying to say, you can't guarantee a lot of people will bother giving good rep unlike the ones who had a bad experience giving bad rep. Maybe have the good rep selected by default if nothing is done by the player.

 

Quote

I think the idea is that if a player blacklists you their hosted games don't even show up in the list for you.  Likewise, if you blacklist someone, they aren't offered as a game for you to join.  There's not a "You are banned" message on trying to join.

That doesn't really seem better to me. Let's say it turns out that everyone plays games with 4 players. Each person that blacklisted you prevents you from playing with 3 other players. I really don't mind for people who actually deserve it. But I've had plenty of times in different games where I got banned for absolutely no reason.

Edited by Windex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Exglint The matter of them not having enough manpower was actually mentioned multiple times in this third page alone. I have read the entire thread and didn't see anyone expecting them to put 5 people on this and 100k$. We're are indeed giving ideas for them to just see. I didn't see 1 post where someone expected them to apply their idea.

So are we supposed to be giving only ideas that would work assuming the smallest budget and dedicated manpower?

Nobody having any control whatsoever in public games makes no sense to me. Sure some people play multiplayer to make actual friends. More often than not I play to have fun with other people during that game, not to know each other after. Anyway, for me it's either give the host full control or no one at all. At least when I decide to host public matches I won't be trolled/kicked by other players and if it's just annoying to host because you can't kick or do anything about it, I'll just play private matches by myself. That's gonna be the case for more than just me too. So why not try to prevent that altogether in the first place.
 

Quote

Well here is one, I have managed to play hours a day over many days of the week in the past two years in DD2 and never had any troll or abuser incident.

I have a hard time believing that. Maybe it's been the case because people need a certain threshold to play specific content in DD2. Forget abusers, I don't want someone under-geared joining my survival and wasting a third of the DUs because they don't know better. Having to remake your game in such situations is really silly to me. Also like I said in a prior post, don't expect everyone to be able to easily communicate with each other like you can on PC.

At the end of the day I think that it all goes down to being kicked at the end of the map so the host gets more loot by adding split-screen characters. Yes removing any way to kick prevents that but it doesn't do anything about it being much more efficient. I didn't even know that was actually a thing back when I played DD1 but now that I'm aware of it and how good that is, if nothing is done about it, I'll most likely be doing it myself too with 4 controllers on PS4. Minus the kicking people of course.

Edit : Realistically we'll either get : No kick feature/Host only or vote based kick/Some kind of tweaked kick system. Still, I enjoy giving new ideas and hearing about peoples ideas and opinions while waiting for the game to come out.

Edited by Windex
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

New suggestion about the whole host kick/players voting.

Have either kicking disabled or a voting system by default but add an option for the host to turn on host kick, if they want to, when creating their game. Then add a simple visual tell like a hammer or a boot next to the host's name in the games lobby if their game has host kick enabled.

I feel like this would accommodate everyone's preferences and be extremely easy to implement into the game.

Edited by Windex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kicking in Dd2 is never going to be fool-proof and I am sure many people will find ways around whatever the system is in order to be disruptive. I just wanted to find if possible a way to at least reduce the opportunities to abuse the system. Have a system that is as fair as possible. It isnt really difficult to understand why players would want to load in extra screens if it meant more loot. Its how to address those who kick others in order to take that advantage. I liked the idea of having players pick in advance how many players they were bringing to a match as it would stop those looking to abuse the system in such a way. By the same token making each account only get one reward would do the same thing. In either case I would only apply these to public matches as I still believe that in your own private match you should be in control of what happens. If you are willing to enter a public match you should be willing to subject yourself to giving up some measure of control. I do worry that public matches will still be limited if we make it too strict so finding the right balance will be difficult. I I see issues with how the kick feature works with both DD and DD2 and wondered if there was even a third way. Some suggestions given and points raised certainly give me food for thought, perhaps having some sort of poll on certain points might be an idea. Id like an idea of how the community as a whole would like things to go moving forward.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 10:12 PM, Windex said:

That doesn't really seem better to me. Let's say it turns out that everyone plays games with 4 players. Each person that blacklisted you prevents you from playing with 3 other players. I really don't mind for people who actually deserve it. But I've had plenty of times in different games where I got banned for absolutely no reason.

I was only considering the host for blacklists.  If player A is on my blacklist and hosting a room, I wouldn't see it.  If player B is hosting the room and Player A happens to also be in it, I would see it.  It makes the feature a bit less useful, but helps with the host kicking issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Batophobia said:

I was only considering the host for blacklists.  If player A is on my blacklist and hosting a room, I wouldn't see it.  If player B is hosting the room and Player A happens to also be in it, I would see it.  It makes the feature a bit less useful, but helps with the host kicking issues.

I might have been talking about the wrong thing. I was talking about people blacklisting you so you can never join their game again and I didn't like that whole idea. As long as host can kick, you can just kick someone whenever they're toxic, even if it's the 10th time they are.

I'm for the idea of being able to blacklist someone so you don't see their game when they're hosting.

Edited by Windex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a host/client configuration, unilateral control for the host is the best option, as I firmly believe that a player who creates a game should have full control over that game, including being able to choose whom he/she wants to play with. But in a matchmaking environment, you can't have that, because that game isn't owned by any particular person unless it's specifically made private.

  • Like 3

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...