PDA

View Full Version : Something needs to be done about voting


yankeeboy
05-31-2009, 09:28 PM
today i got kicked for being "too frickin good at this game"

there are many other times when things like this happen, such as ppl voting away an ffa with 1 min to go b/c they r losing or they just got into the room. or ppl spamming the vote system in general

jeppew
05-31-2009, 11:28 PM
yeah there has been alot of abuse lately.
maybe the servers should have admins that can veto votes altogether?
you'd just need to find active responsible people.

duck
06-01-2009, 01:44 AM
a "level 60 only" server would solve this problem nicely.

Although it probably wouldn't be very good for expanding the userbase

Triped
06-01-2009, 01:58 AM
a "level 60 only" server would solve this problem nicely.

Although it probably wouldn't be very good for expanding the userbase

Yeah, please don't do that.

skywalker
06-01-2009, 02:01 AM
Today I kicked someone for "Using too many Your Mom jokes in teamchat". FYI.

Valarauka
06-01-2009, 10:02 PM
Heh, I got kicked because my "plane is the wrong color" today ... completely random.

I think the required percentage for kick votes could be revised upwards.
Also, not entirely sure if it's not done this way already, but vote passage needs to be calculated as a percentage of players on the server, not players who voted. IOW, not entering a vote should count as a default No for determining vote resolution.

protest boy
06-01-2009, 10:55 PM
Also, not entirely sure if it's not done this way already, but vote passage needs to be calculated as a percentage of players on the server, not players who voted. IOW, not entering a vote should count as a default No for determining vote resolution.

I've thought about this too...I think at least with map changes it calculates based upon how many people actually voted, not the number of players in the game.

I think it should work two different ways. With kick votes, a 'non-vote' should count as a NO and it should use the number of players on the server, not the number of players who voted for the percent calculation.

But with map change votes, a lot of the time I won't vote because I have no preference, or maybe I just showed up to the server and I don't know what has been most recently played. In the case of map change votes, it should only consider the people who voted.

nesnl
06-01-2009, 11:54 PM
Maybe just include a third option when people vote kick. So for example if someone calls a stupid vote like it would look like this:

"Noob123 has called a vote to Kick Player123, Reason: Likes goats."

1. Yes
2. No
3. Kick Noob123 for abuse.

5. Close

Might discourage people from voting for things if they knew they would be on the chopping block at the same time.

Triped
06-01-2009, 11:55 PM
I think it already counts non-votes as noes for kicks. I survived a 2-1 vote to kick me with four players on the server, and the failure reason was "more than 50% votes required."

gameguard
06-02-2009, 12:56 AM
Maybe just include a third option when people vote kick. So for example if someone calls a stupid vote like it would look like this:

"Noob123 has called a vote to Kick Player123, Reason: Likes goats."

1. Yes
2. No
3. Kick Noob123 for abuse.

5. Close

Might discourage people from voting for things if they knew they would be on the chopping block at the same time.

good idea. That should be easy to implement.


but then again. You never can trust people lol. They might kick people off even if the vote was legit.

Snowsickle
06-02-2009, 01:21 AM
I've failed a vote 3-7 against people spamming to get registration codes in chat, had some idiot start a vote against me for 'trying to get someone kicked' and had it fail 6-4. As far as I'm concerned trying to pirate the game on a server that Karl/Lamster pay for is one of the most legitimate reasons to vote kick out there. Basically, I think giving people the third option is just going to result in more abuse. This isn't a problem with the people initiating the votes, its a problem with the people passing them.

I think at this point some form of moderation is pretty much the only way to significantly decrease this kind of behavior. Right now the respective hosts can and should be trying to moderate their own servers, but I'm of the opinion that official servers should have some kind of loose list of rules written up and enforced as much as possible. Vote abuse, pirating, severe racism/spamming, simple rules like that could be enforced loosely and hopefully curb this behavior a bit.

EDIT: It isn't foolproof but limiting vote kick to paid users might be worth a shot. There are some exceptions, but a lot of the truly random and malicious vote kicks don't seem to come from people who've had access to a credit card or a desire to support the game.

protest boy
06-02-2009, 01:21 AM
Maybe just include a third option when people vote kick. So for example if someone calls a stupid vote like it would look like this:

"Noob123 has called a vote to Kick Player123, Reason: Likes goats."

1. Yes
2. No
3. Kick Noob123 for abuse.

5. Close

Might discourage people from voting for things if they knew they would be on the chopping block at the same time.

That seems like a pretty good idea. Legit kick votes might sometimes end up in the wrong person getting kicked but no system is perfect.

Vi*
06-02-2009, 02:30 AM
EDIT: It isn't foolproof but limiting vote kick to paid users might be worth a shot. There are some exceptions, but a lot of the truly random and malicious vote kicks don't seem to come from people who've had access to a credit card or a desire to support the game.
I agree here. People are less likely to try and **** up something they've invested money in.

Valarauka
06-02-2009, 10:25 AM
Heh, I saw someone trying to kick a player for not being good enough, which seems to me awfully counter-productive. If you kick all the bad / beginner players how will they ever learn to play better?

I'm not sure about the "paid-players-only" suggestion though - it sounds like it could lead to more abuse of the system rather than less; if only paid players count for votes, a single one on a server full of demo users could kick people arbitrarily.

Really, the arbitrary and capricious nature of vote-kicking makes any kind of real solution difficult.

protest boy
06-02-2009, 03:01 PM
I think the idea was only paid players can initiate a vote-kick. Anybody can vote.

Triped
06-02-2009, 03:24 PM
I think the idea was only paid players can initiate a vote-kick. Anybody can vote.

I think I like that, but what if only demo players are on a server, or the only paid account on the server is misbehaving?

DevilsAdvocat
06-02-2009, 06:02 PM
meh, i dont actually think that people need to be kicked that often, so making the requirements for kicking higher, say 65% or so, could work.

Also, i definatly agree that not every1 should have the power to start a vote kick. However, i think that simply putting the limit at any1 willing to fork over 20 bucks is a bit harsh... there are plenty of rich brats out there who are probably already some of the worst offenders.
I think that "admins" only being able to start kicks is the best idea. I just think that there should just be a whole bunch of "admins" who can start the votes chosen by the owner of the server. It would leave the crappy servers crappy, but at least some of the official servers could have a decent list of people who wont abuse it. Someone would just have to be chosen to choose who can start votes or not.
(bear in mind i was using the term admin loosly, its a regular player + the ability to start a vote kick)

jeppew
06-02-2009, 06:15 PM
i just played a game where two spanish guys (atleast i think they where spanish, the XDDDDD and JAJAJAJA after every kill and death got very irritating fast) tried to kick me for "being too good", "miranda fag" and tried to kick [flb]BG1 for running away.

admins that can veto any vote, and kick abusers that are protected by teammates and friends would be the best solution imho.

Vi*
06-02-2009, 06:17 PM
I think I like that, but what if only demo players are on a server, or the only paid account on the server is misbehaving?
As Blank would say, bad players are bad. But in normal cases, people who pay money to play a game should have more control over the game environment (which they paid for, remember) than any arbitrary person in the world, and will wield that power more responsibly, because, y'know, they paid for it.

Dev's idea for having players with Admin capabilities could work too, except that you need a way to pick a ****load of 'responsible' players. I can't think of a way to do it that wouldn't be an annoyance/work for Lams+Karl.

nesnl
06-02-2009, 07:43 PM
Anyone who has over 1 million xp should be considered an admin imo.

yankeeboy
06-02-2009, 09:39 PM
admins= ppl who have high play time/been playing a while, high exp, ppl who comment here daily, n whoever started this thread

DevilsAdvocat
06-02-2009, 11:34 PM
people who pay money to play a game should have more control over the game environment (which they paid for, remember)

meh, i dont think that you are paying for control over the game, otherwise we would have to completely ignore those who didnt pay. You're payin for the perks/planes imo

you need a way to pick a ****load of 'responsible' players. I can't think of a way to do it that wouldn't be an annoyance/work for Lams+Karl.

yea, that is totally true... i guess they would have to at least start the selection process, however once there are a good amount it could just be left up to the already selected people to pick more. (sry Lams/Karl =D)

as red as black
06-03-2009, 10:08 PM
for last second map changes, there should be a time limit to when you can vote changemap. Something like 3 minutes in maybe. Or, make it so that after 2-3 minutes, it requires a 70% vote to changemap.

I've gotten kicked for everything. Being too good. Being arab (at least twice a day when I was known as A.R.A.B.), not supporting Israel by being arab (lol), by quoting snoop dogg after dropping a bomb, by playing Miranda (apparently, it's unfair to those who haven't bought the game....wtf?), by ??????.......just about every reason.

Maybe some vets can be assigned admin. status and have the ability to veto votes and report vote abusers?


-------I must admit though, some vote kicks are damn funny.

yankeeboy
06-04-2009, 12:44 AM
well, it looks like its up to lam/karl to see who will have admin status on official servers.

I nominate myself, ill always be there (just check my playtime)

tyr
06-08-2009, 01:10 AM
Ferret just got kicked out of official #1 because he was using miranda.
Wtf seriously.

yankeeboy
06-08-2009, 01:31 AM
once again, the best solution is admins

If u take everybody on TS and V + other responsible ppl not on those teams i.e. ferret, at almost all times of the day 1 of those ppl is on

Valarauka
06-08-2009, 10:06 PM
Yeah, I'd tend to agree - having a good set of admins is far more likely to be effective than anything else at controlling vote abusers..

Vania
06-09-2009, 04:21 PM
Restrict votekicks to your own team. When a votekicked is called in TBD only the affected team should be able to vote.
Otherwise the opposing team can vote to kick your best player, or vote no to keep griefers on your team.

Triped
06-09-2009, 04:55 PM
Restrict votekicks to your own team. When a votekicked is called in TBD only the affected team should be able to vote.
Otherwise the opposing team can vote to kick your best player, or vote no to keep griefers on your team.

Make the votekick success threshold the K/D ratio. :D

DevilsAdvocat
06-10-2009, 10:06 PM
just got kicked for time warping/teleporting too much >>

Triped
06-10-2009, 10:10 PM
What if failed vote cooldown for kicks got worse and worse? Five for the first, ten for the second, twenty for the third, etc.?

protest boy
06-10-2009, 10:58 PM
just got kicked for time warping/teleporting too much >>

You probably deserved it :)

now that time anchor is even longer...yikes. I find the only way to counter your constantly warping behind an obstacle with the bomb is to delay your progress long enough for reinforcements to come and flush you out. The problem is when your reinforcements arrive first...

There are a lot of ideas in this thread as far as kicking goes. I think the best honestly is to only allow paid accounts to initiate a vote kick. That would solve 99% of the problem and probably most importantly, it would be very simple for lamster to implement.

DevilsAdvocat
06-10-2009, 11:34 PM
now that time anchor is even longer...yikes. I find the only way to counter your constantly warping behind an obstacle with the bomb is to delay your progress long enough for reinforcements to come and flush you out. The problem is when your reinforcements arrive first...

i actually think that it being longer is a bit of a nerf. it means i have to fly farther to max out my line. It essentially raised the cooldown on it for me >> (not to say that it has no advantages).

and i certainly didnt deserve it, its not abusing it, im just good at it. I have yet to see anyone else use timeanchor as i do.

lamster
06-10-2009, 11:38 PM
The intention was definitely NOT to nerf time anchor. I agree that a longer anchor is sometimes bad; if you have any ideas for imiproving anchor please post them!

nesnl
06-11-2009, 01:21 AM
The intention was definitely NOT to nerf time anchor. I agree that a longer anchor is sometimes bad; if you have any ideas for imiproving anchor please post them!

The cooldown shouldn't be anchor length based in my opinion. It should be just like the reverse cooldown in terms of when you can use it. That is it should be a timed cooldown that is related to how much energy you have left.

I am not sure what the exact limits are on time anchor right now but if it is setup that you can't use it unless you have a full length anchor line, then I think that is a bad idea. Maybe the anchor line should always be full length (minus when you are spawning). So if you use time anchor, when you go 'back in time' the line will still be there representing your history when you were at that point (I hope that makes sense).

You could also consider making time anchor do damage. Maybe similar to how the afterburner does damage on Miranda.

skywalker
06-11-2009, 03:49 AM
I think it's time to put these here. This was within like 15 minutes. This is like 1/3 of them.
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n207/alexzhu1/Image10.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n207/alexzhu1/Image12-1.jpg


and here's the best part, in my opinion
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n207/alexzhu1/Image14.jpg
Failed.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n207/alexzhu1/Image13-1.jpg
Succeeded.

Shyney
06-11-2009, 04:03 AM
I think it's time to put these here. This was within like 15 minutes. This is like 1/3 of them.
Succeeded.

But wait.. Thats what the majority of the server wanted.. so it must be right.....

duck
06-11-2009, 04:34 AM
I think a 3rd option of "kick vote starter for stupid vote" would make things better.

michael
06-11-2009, 05:14 AM
I think a 3rd option of "kick vote starter for stupid vote" would make things better.

agreed

and i forgot ten char limit. yay me

DiogenesDog
06-11-2009, 08:25 AM
easy possible buff for time anchor - allow players to use it before it's at full length.

Blank
06-11-2009, 03:12 PM
I think a 3rd option of "kick vote starter for stupid vote" would make things better.

would make it nearly impossible to get the > 60% required for any 1 option.

Triped
06-11-2009, 03:20 PM
would make it nearly impossible to get the > 60% required for any 1 option.

Pretty sure such an option would also be a "no" vote. I'm against it, though.

Shyney
06-11-2009, 06:07 PM
let the free market decide!! the vote system is fine..
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7230/bpvotegoodness.jpg

Post yours for good times..

nesnl
06-11-2009, 06:54 PM
Shyney, I think you are confusing the two types of votes. I don't think anyone here is saying that the votes to kick people aren't abused. However, the voting system to change maps is completely fine. If people want to play a certain game type then they vote for it. If the want a certain map then they vote for it. That's what everyone means when they say let the free market decide. There are no factors like a stupid listed "reason" when changing maps because it is unneeded. Also, a vote for a map change always affects the person casting a vote while the vote to kick someone rarely affects the person casting a vote. Two completely different situations, one with problems, one not. Do I agree that it sucks that a person comes into a game and immediately calls a vote to change a map? Of course. But I think that that is as far as it's going to get when it comes to map changing.

protest boy
06-11-2009, 07:13 PM
I'm throwing in my support for stopping all map change votes in the final 2 minutes of ANY timed game (not just FFA). If a game is within 2 minutes of ending, no map votes allowed.

It's totally unreasonable for a map change to occur on minute 13 of 15 in a timed FFA or timed TBD. Don't want to play the final 2 minutes? Then leave or switch to spectator. It's not acceptable for the bottom half of an FFA or losing team in a TBD to just switch the map right before the game is going to end.

Shyney
06-11-2009, 07:14 PM
Shyney, I think you are confusing the two types of votes. I don't think anyone here is saying that the votes to kick people aren't abused. However, the voting system to change maps is completely fine. If people want to play a certain game type then they vote for it. If the want a certain map then they vote for it. That's what everyone means when they say let the free market decide. There are no factors like a stupid listed "reason" when changing maps because it is unneeded. Also, a vote for a map change always affects the person casting a vote while the vote to kick someone rarely affects the person casting a vote. Two completely different situations, one with problems, one not. Do I agree that it sucks that a person comes into a game and immediately calls a vote to change a map? Of course. But I think that that is as far as it's going to get when it comes to map changing.

Nope, Im talking about both. In this case the vote kicks. I remember when i started the first "fix the vote system" thread, Lam chimed in that he felt it was fine(the threashold feels right). But clearly we're still having the same issues.. The idea that "the majority should rule" would be great if people werent complete morons, but they are. Whether its for kicks or map changes, the system does not work.

lamster
06-11-2009, 07:24 PM
I'm open to adjusting the vote system. Here's what I'm thinking right now:

1) Remove the "reason" field from player kicks -- clearly it's being abused for joke kicks etc.

2) Add a slight threshold bias to mapchange votes depending on how far the current round has progressed, e.g. changing an FFA in the last few seconds would require 70% instead of 50% (at round begin).

Shyney
06-11-2009, 07:38 PM
I'm open to adjusting the vote system. Here's what I'm thinking right now:

1) Remove the "reason" field from player kicks -- clearly it's being abused for joke kicks etc.

2) Add a slight threshold bias to mapchange votes depending on how far the current round has progressed, e.g. changing an FFA in the last few seconds would require 70% instead of 50% (at round begin).

Thats a start, but will just removing the "reason" from the vote kick be enough to stop the nonsense? That poor guy in that last pic, was the only guy on the server to have bought the game. So he shells out $20, and gets kicked out of the game, basically for winning.. Thats a really bad thing for "user enjoyment", and a dangerous road to go down.

Regarding mapchange. Whats wrong with the vote cutting off half way through the round?? If people really want to change the map when an ffa starts, then they will.. After half way point(around 3 mins). It cuts off. This lets the people who have already played half the game, continue to enjoy themselves. If a new player joins and he dosnt like ffa The worst possible thing that can happen,is he has to wait a whole 3 mins for it to end. And if he dosnt like that HE can always go to another server. That seems all around fair for everyone.

Triped
06-11-2009, 07:56 PM
Thats a start, but will just removing the "reason" from the vote kick be enough to stop the nonsense? That poor guy in that last pic, was the only guy on the server to have bought the game. So he shells out $20, and gets kicked out of the game, basically for winning.. Thats a really bad thing for "user enjoyment", and a dangerous road to go down.

Regarding mapchange. Whats wrong with the vote cutting off half way through the round?? If people really want to change the map when an ffa starts, then they will.. After half way point(around 3 mins). It cuts off. This lets the people who have already played half the game, continue to enjoy themselves. If a new player joins and he dosnt like ffa The worst possible thing that can happen,is he has to wait a whole 3 mins for it to end. And if he dosnt like that HE can always go to another server. That seems all around fair for everyone.

Lamster, what about slightly increasing the votekick threshold by K/D ratio like you might slightly increase changemap threshold by minutes left? Say a player going 20-10 requires 65% to kick vs. a 15-15 player's requiring 50%.

jeppew
06-11-2009, 08:43 PM
Lamster, what about slightly increasing the votekick threshold by K/D ratio like you might slightly increase changemap threshold by minutes left? Say a player going 20-10 requires 65% to kick vs. a 15-15 player's requiring 50%.

i don't think a higher K/D means that you are not being an ass.
i still think that admins are basically the best solution for the banning votes.

Blank
06-11-2009, 08:57 PM
Dunno if this is possible or would be incredibly time consuming, but how about just disabling certain peoples right to start a vote (or count in a vote) if they're abusing the vote-kick system? I can't help but think a good chunk of abuse would go away if you had to buy the game to start a vote.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with Shyney.

Luke
06-11-2009, 09:16 PM
If people really want to change the map when an ffa starts, then they will.. After half way point(around 3 mins).

I definitely agree. 2 or 3 minutes to start the vote, than the match (both ffa and tbd) goes on till the end.

Fatknacker
06-11-2009, 10:08 PM
For the first time I fell foul of the Vote Off vote thingy, it hurt, I didn't do anything :(
It actually made me smile but I got nominated twice tonight for no real reason.
Kind of spoils the whole reason for having it.
(I'm such a wimp ;) )

chapped
06-12-2009, 11:57 PM
I think the voting system should be removed entirely. Please continue reading...

When considering a game like Altitude, why is there a vote to kick people at all? Most other multiplayer games have a votekick to kick hackers and cheaters. I haven't seen any cheaters/hackers yet. I'm sure some people will say that a votekick is needed to kick abusive players but you can always ignore those people. People tend to forget that ALL griefers grief for the SOLE purpose of getting attention. If you completely ignore them, they will leave. Especially when good players are get kicked simply because they are good, I think this system is causing more harm than good.

As far as voting to change gametype; with COD4, you have dedicated servers for specific gametypes(TDM, FFA, HQ, etc). Maybe the official servers should be setup the same way. If 80% of the people like FFA and 20% like team-based, then setup the servers accordingly. Make it so a FFA server only runs FFA games, etc.

As far as voting to change maps; well just like COD4, most servers run all maps in a standard/static rotation. Most people like most of the maps. If a map comes on that you don't like, so what, either leave and come back when the map is over or just play through it. It's not like you're going to the dentist or something.

Just my opinions...

DiogenesDog
06-13-2009, 01:25 AM
Good reasons to votekick:

- afk player on a full server

- player trying to pull scams / sell fake reg keys

- abusive language

- spamming chat

- griefing (intentionally camping bomb and then immediately dropping it is the easiest way)

- player is jewish


So yeah, I think we need votekick, it's just a matter of finding the right balance between making it too easy and too hard to kick someone.

skywalker
06-13-2009, 02:08 AM
Good reasons to votekick:

- afk player on a full server

- player trying to pull scams / sell fake reg keys

- abusive language

- spamming chat

- griefing (intentionally camping bomb and then immediately dropping it is the easiest way)

- player is King


So yeah, I think we need votekick, it's just a matter of finding the right balance between making it too easy and too hard to kick someone.

fixed. but yeah, there are definitely valid reasons like those above. although you can mute for spamming/abusive language, they should still be kicked because they are there just to annoy you.

DevilsAdvocat
06-13-2009, 06:44 AM
rofl, i like ur editing of the quote skywalker. (changed "Jewish" to "King")

Luke
06-13-2009, 09:24 AM
- afk player on a full server
Who decides how much can i stay afk before getting kicked? Not fair.
- player trying to pull scams / sell fake reg keys
- abusive language
- spamming chat
Agree.

Anyway, like i said in the other post (sry, forgot about this one), often the vote is abused, so my suggestion is:
1) Only let paying customers us the kick feature.
2) Votekick sends automatically a report (reason,status of the game, chat messages) to lamster/karl/whatever. If the kick has been abused.. let's say a couple of week of ban from the game?

Blank
06-13-2009, 03:24 PM
Who decides how much can i stay afk before getting kicked?

Everyone who votes yes to kick you.

Luke
06-13-2009, 03:28 PM
Everyone who votes yes to kick you.
90% of voting people think.. "hey they're voting this guys because he is afk.. i didn't notice that" and click yes

Blank
06-13-2009, 03:43 PM
90% of voting people think.. "hey they're voting this guys because he is afk.. i didn't notice that" and click yes

and................?

Luke
06-13-2009, 03:54 PM
and................?
and maybe he was afk just for a couple of min..
what i am trying to say is.. in my opinion would be better to have a "afk" time limit, something like.. if the player is afk for more than X minutes, he gets automatically kicked from the server.

Blank
06-13-2009, 04:19 PM
and maybe he was afk just for a couple of min..
what i am trying to say is.. in my opinion would be better to have a "afk" time limit, something like.. if the player is afk for more than X minutes, he gets automatically kicked from the server.

how about, if you have to afk (for an extended period of time on a full server) leave the server. When you get back, auto-join until you get back in?

Luke
06-13-2009, 04:51 PM
how about, if you have to afk (for an extended period of time on a full server) leave the server. When you get back, auto-join until you get back in?
That of course would work, too. I was just throwing in an idea.
Anyway.. this may be a (quite) valid reason for a kick. The biggest problem are still silly votekicks like "he's pwning us", "he has the yellow plane", "he just came out of nowhere" and so on. Something must be done about those.

Valarauka
06-14-2009, 12:46 AM
I still think one fundamental change needs to happen, which is that non-votes should be counted as "No" votes. This by itself should fix a lot of map-change / kick abuse - unless a majority of THE SERVER, not the voters, want something and actively indicate that by voting Yes, it shouldn't happen.
Also, I second the motion to prevent map-changes if it's late in a game (final quarter, or even final half).

EDIT - A couple more things:
- Removing the "reason" field will just make it even more difficult to distinguish between legit and joke vote-kicks. At least right now you can tell which votes are frivolous.
- Logging votes and sending them to Lam/Karl for review is a silly idea, they already have too much other important stuff to do with their time.

tacos
06-15-2009, 08:22 PM
along the lines of the person that posted about dedicated servers.

I personally like TBD games broken up by FFA, but I'm apparently THE ONLY PERSON that does. The TBD and FFA servers are useless, they're TBD servers. I haven't had a full FFA game in a TBD and FFa server for a week, they always get voted down. You should be able to vote for a TBD map while on an FFA map. make the voting system restricted the map type you're playing at the time the vote is made.

Just getting rid of the combined servers would work as well. The system as it stands now is a farse.

Triped
06-15-2009, 09:58 PM
along the lines of the person that posted about dedicated servers.

I personally like TBD games broken up by FFA, but I'm apparently THE ONLY PERSON that does. The TBD and FFA servers are useless, they're TBD servers. I haven't had a full FFA game in a TBD and FFa server for a week, they always get voted down. You should be able to vote for a TBD map while on an FFA map. make the voting system restricted the map type you're playing at the time the vote is made.

Just getting rid of the combined servers would work as well. The system as it stands now is a farse.

You'll have to prevent people from leaving the server, too.

Kuja900
06-18-2009, 08:08 PM
Was 15-3 in a game and got kicked for "being a douche"

nesnl
06-18-2009, 09:36 PM
Was 15-3 in a game and got kicked for "being a douche"

In your case I think that is a legitimate reason regardless of your score.

Kuja900
06-19-2009, 12:15 AM
In your case I think that is a legitimate reason regardless of your score.


Touche, but I wasnt talking at the time lol. Oh also he didnt know me ^_^.