A vote for kicking those foul-mouthed spectators in-game

[kentuckyfried]

Hah., I forgot that some people use funny browsers. Looks fine on mine.

[Montyphy]

I use Firefox

[kentuckyfried]

I use Firefox

Hmm, then I suppose the Safari I'm using is the funny one

Scaled!

[torq]

the solution is quite simplier - don't allow specs talks be visible to players. It can be achieved by setting the 'Specs channel' to private.
But what is really needed is an /ignore option for the chat window like on Bert's dedicated server. And what is needed most of all is the way to control the speed of the game by other players in case some idiot leaves it on real time just to show what a jerk he is.
Voting may help but that too creates opportunities for abuse. E.g. you need to micromanage silos or fighters but other players may vote otherwise.
Maybe inactivity period is the key - if a player don't have any nukes left he can't control the speed - a bad way but still a way better than voting.

[kentuckyfried]

Maybe inactivity period is the key - if a player don't have any nukes left he can't control the speed - a bad way but still a way better than voting.

There's still plenty a player can do without nukes.

[PegasusJF]

I just played a game where is was interrupted by a player named "mdr" IIRC.

He (under the alias SR-71 Backbird) first had the game playing at 1x despite everyone elses protests against then. He then revealed his true name and typed SA over and over in the chat.

I think the best and fairest way to get these players out of games is to implement a vote kick system much like the one used in America's army (but a menu command, not a script command) and the majority or tie kicks the offending player out.

[bert_the_turtle]

Apart from using the land ship bug whenever he can, I've only ever seen MDR as a decent person. You can bet that anyone griefing in any form and then saying "BTW, my true name is <bla>" is lying.

And, risking to repeat myself, kick votes against players are a terrible idea. Idiots will use this to kick winners.

[torq]

It's the technical problem IV'd better provide a solution for.

I still think that player's ID should be bound to Defcon authentication key. This way it'd be not a great chore to maintain a players' register.

Something like this:
Player ID (can be changed by player) - Auth ID (permanent ID) - Reputation (in points)

Then, if your rep is below some minimal level it will be possible to kick you through the voting system as it's been proposed here. (thus subtracting from your rep even more).

Now, let's say some idiot will report you just because you'd backstabbed him or you play generally better than he does. So the reporting should not be anonymous. Thus, a person who had reported you should provide his own ID (not a demo) and ideally name the other players who can confirm what he says. The rating system should work somehow like this. If a complaint has been sent on you, your rating is decreased, if someone vouches for you then your rating is increased. (It has nothing to do with your quality of play or gaming skills, it's just your behaviour that matters).

So, when you host a game you can see info on any player joining your game and kick players with lower reputation (or vice versa - assemble a team of jerks so they could offend and piss off each other)

Let's say also that your disconnection should also subtract points from your rep, when you leave as a host before the game ends the sum subtracted should be tenfolded (there's difference when player drops because of network or equipment malfunction or when he just does it deliberately).

Also, successfully finished games should add a small amount to your rep.

(Well, just a general idea that solves the problem of sabotage). And of course, this system can maintain your playing skill evaluation also (but this is quite another story).

[NeoThermic]

It's the technical problem IV'd better provide a solution for.

I still think that player's ID should be bound to Defcon authentication key. This way it'd be not a great chore to maintain a players' register.

Steam keys change once a month. Demo keys can be generated on the fly by the client. Both of these would allow someone to wreck havoc.

Anyway, I had a discussion with Chris ages ago, and about the only solution was to keep track of *every* key, *every* name that the key has, and so on. A hash would be generated based off of their first key, and that would become their player ID. Subsequent keys can be added if the e-mail used to register them is the same as a previous e-mail.

With the system above, the only way someone could conceivably cause problems is if they purchased a new copy to obtain a brand new key.

If keys didn't change monthly for steam users then I agree it'd be somewhat simple to set up a player registry. I myself would love to give it a go

However, the biggest problem in terms of "points" is how you obtain them. Is a 6 player match with humans worth more points than a 1v1? How about a 4 player match? What if the 4 player match was 3v1 and the lonely player won? How do you classify what is worth the most? What happens to games that get dropped? Should the wins with a different scoring mode have different points? If so, how do you calculate those?

There's just too many questions that arise from points which just might be the reason why no one from IV has done a points system yet.

NeoThermic

[torq]

I repeat it's just an idea. The final implementation can be improved.

The points of your reputation don't reflect how well you play or how tough you are - they just prove that your behaviour does not offend people you play with. It's the way of reporting the abuse.

Here's an example (each new game key has 50 pre-added points)

Left the game before it ends -5
... as a host -30
Insults -10
Spam -20
Disclosure of information while being a spec: -10
Abusive staying in real-time -20
False report on another player -50

Hosting a 3 player's game (till the end) +3
... 4 players game (till the end) +4
... 5 players game (till the end) +5
... 6 players game (till the end) +6
Vouching for you by another player having
a rep below 50 +1
a rep from 50 to 70 +2
a rep from 70 to 100 +3
a rep over 100 +5

When your rep is sub-zero your account is blocked and you need to reactivate it by negotiating with the administration. (This clause should be added in EULA)

...something like this. The upper limit for your rep should also be limited (let's say by 200 points). Otherwise we'll end up with users havin reputations counted in thousands or tens of thousands. Once you gained 200 there's the end of it, you can only lose points.

And of course you can add player's ID to your trusted list (if you know them well).


Gaming skills is too difficult to evaluate and I didn't pursue this goal to begin with.

P.S. about STEAM keys being changed - it's not all that difficult to update the database once in a month. And about DEMO users - they don't have a reputation at all so play with them at your own risk (of course this may give demo players an incentive to purchase the game what will benefit the guys at IV).

[bert_the_turtle]

Left the game before it ends -5

Even if you are on the bottom of the scoreboard and only have a lone empty silo and an airfield without bombers left?

... as a host -30

How would this be distinguishable from "Network Problems" (read: host pulling the plug?)
For the rest: none of the negative points could be automatically detected, a human would have to wade trough the multiple layers of mud that would surely accumulate after getting slung around. And he'd have to try to make unbiased decisions, for which he will be on the receiving end of more mudslinging.

The vast majority of players are nice guys and girls. Why burden them with such a complicated system?

[torq]

Well, it was just an example. I'm not saying that this point system is peftect.

And about detection - as I said earlier - yes, other players have to report. (A simple button can do that from UI). Nothing special.
I.E. ESC - TOOLS - REPORT ABUSE (the current player's list is displayed) - click one, then choose from the list (spam, insults, etc).
In this case, other players can even vote whether to report or not.

Or - navigate to register's web page in internet, find the asshole and report him there. (Enter Login/Password so the system could identify you).
Also you can select players who can confirm your words (the next time they login they'd be asked to).

How would this be distinguishable from "Network Problems" (read: host pulling the plug?)

Well - don't host if you have network problems and don't disappoint people. (Hosting another five 6 player games will compensate your loss).
If your problems are permanent - just don't host.

P.S. You could introduce something like this without help from IV on your dedicated server. Just add user accounts and supporting web-page.
It can work like this: a player joins your server. If he logs in, his nick is modified by adding some symbol ( "*". "!", etc). This way we know that this player can be trusted. Users sign up on the web page and the password is sent to the e-mail they'd provide at registration.

[Xocrates]

And about detection - as I said earlier - yes, other players have to report. (A simple button can do that from UI). Nothing special.

How would you prevent and detect abuses in the reports?

[torq]

And about detection - as I said earlier - yes, other players have to report. (A simple button can do that from UI). Nothing special.

How would you prevent and detect abuses in the reports?

reports are personalized - you know who had sent a report. A simple investigaion - other registered players just have to confirm it.
There WILL be abuse attempts, but I think not very many. After all, the one who's making false reports risk being banned himself.

And another thought - the way of saving the chat logs would be reaaly helpful.

All these problems do exist in any online-multiplayer game. And many of them have already been solved by the game-makers.

[bert_the_turtle]

Say, you play in a three player game and one of the others is a jerk and you report him. Only it turns out, the third player was his friend and will now report your abuse report as false. What then? With the example points, you'd be down to zero already. Whatever you do, there will always be room for abuse, you'll just move it around. It's better to prevent the abuse where it happens first, in the game. We've already got /ignore and chat flood spam protection on the dedicated server, and against real time hogs, the real time budget has been suggested. And so far, no other form of abuse has been reported. Well, there is alliance join request spamming, but you can just move the window away, and nuking your allies when defection is enabled, for which there is the button to disable the ceasefire.