Message for Croteam: The ideal Multiplayer for Serious Sam 4

[Joe Flamingo]

Perhaps by default you shouldn't be allowed to vote kick people. And the server by default will kick idle players.

Kick was bad, but introducing the one hour BAN system was SO DAMN BAD, because now people never votekick and always voteban, for stupid reasons, such I am close to win a game, and they voteban because of their rage.
Allow ban and kick only for server admin, as it should be.

[gedamial]

Originally Posted by Joe Flamingo

Kick was bad, but introducing the one hour BAN system was SO DAMN BAD, because now people never votekick and always voteban, for stupid reasons.
Allow ban and kick only for server admin, as it should be!

By default it's 60min. But with a console command you can change that time.

However, by default it's 60 and that's bad. I'd decrease that default time and remove the console command.

Also, giving the power to ban only to the admin isn't a bad idea.

[Louva-Deus]

The other option could be that voteban requires everyone else to vote yes to pass. That makes it more likely that only abusers will be kicked.

Or just a majority vote and nonvotes count as a no vote.



Also, there should be a timer that prevents someone from being able to initiate a ban vote for a period of time after a previous successful ban vote.

[Joe Flamingo]

The other option could be that voteban requires everyone else to vote yes to pass. That makes it more likely that only abusers will be kicked.

Good idea for a 10 players server or more, but what happens if players are 3 or 4?

I am playing a solo 1on1 with my friend, and someone joins the game. Basically I can ban everyone because me and my friend will agree at every voteban.

My idea remains the same, never allow random people to decide if someone else can play or not.

[Solais]

Originally Posted by Louva-Deus

The other option could be that voteban requires everyone else to vote yes to pass. That makes it more likely that only abusers will be kicked.

Or just a majority vote and nonvotes count as a no vote.

That's kinda-sorta how it works right now.

And yes, talking about Italians and whatnot are actually On Topic, because we are talking about the ideal SS4 multiplayer, and the community, and/or its problems are also can be something that can stand in the way of creating an ideal Multiplayer.

[gedamial]

Originally Posted by Joe Flamingo

My idea remains the same, never allow random people to decide if someone else can play or not.

That is most likely the solution.

But what if the admin of the server is a great moron and bans people randomly?

[Louva-Deus]

Perhaps there should also be some kind of log that monitors and identifies hostile voters who vote ban a lot. And disables that option for them for a period of time.

[gedamial]

Originally Posted by Solais

That's kinda-sorta how it works right now.

And yes, talking about Italians are whatnot are actually On Topic, because we are talking about the ideal SS4, and the community, and/or its problems are also can be something that can stand in the way of creating an ideal Multiplayer.

Don't look at Italians as the reason of Versus insuccess.

I am an Italian player by the way, but I'm one of the few who really takes actions when abuses are made inside of the servers.

[Louva-Deus]

The other option is going back to the old days when there was no vote kick or ban. If someone is being an ass, then everyone else cooperates and hunts that person down and repeatedly kills them until they surrender or leave.

[gedamial]

Originally Posted by Louva-Deus

The other option is going back to the old days when there was no vote kick or ban. If someone is being an ass, then everyone else cooperates and hunts that person down and repeatedly kills them until they surrender or leave.

Do you want the community to be a complete mess?
Shall we start a war everytime someone is being an asshole?

You can't kill a spectator being an asshole in the chatbox!

Disagreed.

[Joe Flamingo]

I don't know why people play Versus if they only want to challenge selected opponents and want to ban everyone stronger.
It's kinda hilarious.


BTW I have other ideas:
1) use a better sound of the chat instead of "BOINGG" (or let people switch off chat sound)
2) Spectators don't count as players in server's player number, instead put a different spectator's limit number as in Unreal Tournament.
3) Spectators can't chat, or maybe just don't let them spam.
4) Spectators can't vote to change map, change gamemode or restart the game.

[gedamial]

Originally Posted by Joe Flamingo

I don't know why people play Versus if they only want to challenge selected opponents and want to ban everyone stronger.
It's kinda hilarious.

BTW I have other ideas:
1) use a better sound of the chat instead of "BOINGG" (or let people switch off chat sound)
2) Spectators don't count as players in server's player number, instead put a different spectator's limit number as in Unreal Tournament.
3) Spectators can't chat, or maybe just don't let them spam.
4) Spectators can't vote to change map, change gamemode or restart the game.

1. HAHAHA Yes agreed, as we were saying before, it's so cartoonish

2. Agreed, spectators are only a mess

3. Agreed

4. Agreed, it's really frustrating to see someone joining the server and starting making votations.

[Artificial]

Originally Posted by gedamial

But what if the admin of the server is a great moron and bans people randomly?

Um, then you leave. It isn't and should never be Croteam's job to babysit server admins. And it's sooo easy to create your own server these days, guys. I mean, c'mon. I do it all the time these days.



(Unless you don't have the connection for it.)

[gedamial]

Originally Posted by Artificial

And it's sooo easy to create your own server these days, guys. I mean, c'mon.

(Unless you don't have the connection for it.)

You answered to your own unintelligent affirmation.

It's not Croteam to be a baby sitter. Since when the Internet was born, it also born the concept of community. And we all know that people together most likely create a mess and there are some morons breaking the peace.

In front of this situation, a game (as well as any other communication system like social networks) should guarantee the comfort of not being pissed off by morons.

[Discy]

Originally Posted by gedamial

[...] a game (as well as any other communication system like social networks) should guarantee the comfort of not being pissed off by morons.

... no.

[Scratch]

Originally Posted by Artificial

Um, then you leave. It isn't and should never be Croteam's job to babysit server admins.

This entire page of posts summed up.

Originally Posted by gedamial

In front of this situation, a game (as well as any other communication system like social networks) should guarantee the comfort of not being pissed off by morons.

Like Discy says,

Though, in Trackmania 2 Canyon, the community is super nice. There's a vote-perma-ban option, and vote-kick, people never voteban ever, people only votekick if someone's game crashed and it's slowing the server down, etc etc.. In short: people aren't assholes. You can't really control that unless you can have a better community. I think the type of game also plays a huge role here. First person shooters will undoubtedly have more kids than any other genre. (sadly, statistically, this is true)

[Joe Flamingo]

You can't really control that unless you can have a better community. I think the type of game also plays a huge role here. First person shooters will undoubtedly have more kids than any other genre. (sadly, statistically, this is true)

A good reason for not give the chance to let random people ban or kick other people.

[Scratch]

Originally Posted by Joe Flamingo

A good reason for not give the chance to let random people ban or kick other people.

It's a double edged sword - you'll have the kids trying to kick/ban you for no reason, or you'll have the adults trying to kick/ban trolls for plenty reason.

[gedamial]

Originally Posted by Scratch

It's a double edged sword - you'll have the kids trying to kick/ban you for no reason, or you'll have the adults trying to kick/ban trolls for plenty reason.

A solution would be to remove the Vote kick/ban from a server, but having the system automatically detect chatbox violations.

[Joe Flamingo]

It's a double edged sword - you'll have the kids trying to kick/ban you for no reason, or you'll have the adults trying to kick/ban trolls for plenty reason.

Well, I prefer playing (and compete) against morons that being banned by kids for foolish reasons.

[Scratch]

Again -- this is completely up to the server admin. Aka the community. See also the "babysitting" comment.

[Artificial]

Originally Posted by Scratch

Again -- this is completely up to the server admin. Aka the community. See also the "babysitting" comment.

This. Never needlessly restrict a server admin's/player options. With a game, do not make people do things your way when you can so easily just add an option to the config menu so people can adjust it according to their preference.

Options, options, options.

[jasser]

Really? We're discussing voting options now?

As several others have already said, it is not the work of the developer to babysit the community and the servers. As for voting options, simple configuration should suffice - i.e. admit decides what voting options are available on the server and what sort of majority they require. Then the community and server admins can figure out what works for them and adapt depending on the proportion of assholes in the community and the level of annoyance they present.

If you don't like the settings of a server, play on another one. If you want to have a 1v1, don't play it on a server meant for more players. Set up your own damn server. If your connection is crappy, then play two games, one hosted by each player. If the SS versus community has a habit of kicking people from servers meant for many players to get a 1v1, then neither the game nor the voting system is the problem - then the community is just full of idiots. And unfortunately, humanity has yet to find a cure for that.

[Joe Flamingo]

Autoquote, again.

My idea remains the same, never allow random people to decide if someone else can play or not.

[PikaCommando]

So basically, the Italians were never at fault; it was the people who were put off by them who were just being whiny.

The Italians were the true SS fans after all.

[Targ3t]

[Solais]

Originally Posted by PikaCommando

So basically, the Italians were never at fault; it was the people who were put off by them who were just being whiny.

The Italians were the true SS fans after all.

You mean, all those people they kicked and banned?

[Discy]

Originally Posted by Target-UPnP

This is the perfect solution. Why force certain values when every server admin has different ideas on how a server should be moderated by its players? In fact, it's great there's a boolean option that decides if voting is enabled at all.

One size fits all is bullshit.

[gedamial]

Other than that, Serious Sam HD has had the most competitive and well designed maps of the whole series.

It's a mix: there are competitive/duel ones like Fortress, Hole, Medieval and others for casual matches like Yodeller, WeGotSkullsNBonesToo...

Serious Sam 3 has a terrible map design.

There are maps completely lost in the darkness! You don't see anything above all if you lower your graphic settings!

There is a map with only one health pickup.

There is a map whit a lots of +1 healers all around a column. And one should waste time to turn around the column, meanwhile there is a +25 healer standing 10 meters away?

There is a map where the Sniper spawns every 10 seconds!

THE SNIPER

The Sniper is terribly unbalanced in Serious Sam 3!
It kills everything with ONE shot!
But not only that: the fire rate is high! It shoots 2 bullets in about 1 second!
Not like in Serious Sam HD where there is a bit of delay between a shot and another.

How the hell did Croteam put a weapon that kills in one shot, spawns every 10 seconds and has a high fire rate!

It has no sense! When that map is played, obviously everyone runs to pickup the sniper because every other weapon is just crap!

This is a very serious map design problem!

[jasser]

Originally Posted by Discy

This is the perfect solution. Why force certain values when every server admin has different ideas on how a server should be moderated by its players? In fact, it's great there's a boolean option that decides if voting is enabled at all.

One size fits all is bullshit.

If you ask me, it would be better if it was at least 2 booleans (one for map, one for the rest) and ideally 4 booleans (one for each vote type). But yes, choice is the point.