Number of votes?

[Cat1981England]

Just a quick question regarding the number of votes each player has at the end of a game. What are the rules? Sometimes we have 1, sometimes 2, etc. I realise that there must be some sort of logic to it but i can't work it out and it's irritating me.

Please and thank you.

[laboRHEinz]

quite easy: you get 1 vote for every map you're on - even as a spectator. When you place your vote on every map, you will always have just 1 vote but if you don't place it, you'll have 2 votes on the next map and so on. So spare your votes for 19 maps and you'll be able to place 20 votes on the next map
it's called the "accumulation mode"

[Zon3r]

aha! now i get it, yesterday i place 6 votes? it was quite amusing

[Cat1981England]

ahhh i see, thanks.

[Pegasus]

I used to think that being able to slowly accumulate votes was both a fairly designed voting system in itself and one that could help the (sometimes) fewer but more seasoned players override some tasteless/clueless pack-mentality-driven map choices (usually because of shiny content) and thus spare the server from mass exodus upon completion of the new, bad map's loading where everyone would realize exactly in what crap they'd landed. Alas, after seeing the system in action for weeks, I'm afraid things aren't exactly so.

First off, and most obviously, being able to gather votes while speccing is absurd and tips the scales in favour of the wishes of someone who shouldn't have earned such a privilege. I doubt there is even a need to support the mentality of my argument, but to anyone who would argue that I do, please explain why you think ppl who're passively sitting on the server's "balcony" speccing and smoking/drinking/whatever without contributing anything to the game (and therefore the server's current network-effect perceived value), but in fact consume BW and make everyone's ping that much higher deserve to have a heavier say on what map should come next when they finally decide to play. Now, I'm pretty sure speccers' vote accumulation isn't something RH chose to enable himself (the mistake is probably Epic's), but I would call to some kind of modding investigation and subsequent action in order to fix it just to make things actually fair.

Secondly, currently ppl can continue accumulating as many votes as they like until they decide to vote. While this might seem fair at first reading, I can assure you that after a certain extent its usage becomes quite the opposite and, combined with the above problem of speccers turned players with enhanced voting power, players can suddenly have the power to adversely override clear majority choices in a way that very much resembles trolling. Just from my point of view, I really don't care if you decided to play/watch the last 10 maps without voting, you still shouldn't have the power to turn about, say, a 10 against 3 voting where 13 ppl participated and expressed their opinion by placing your 10 beans on the much less popular choice 5 secs before voting ends. Frankly, if I had the influence, I'd have all 10 ppl pull out of the server and go play on one of its rivals while the 4 others are left to "enjoy" their choice alone, see how smart the supervoter will feel about his action then. Long story short, just like any right afforded in democratic environment, too much of it can get abused and that's why there should be a max votes cap, IMO somewhere around 5-6 votes. Edit: also force supervoters to vote early in the process (by blocking them from voting in the last 15secs or so) so the "peons" can evaluate the true, created situation and make an informed decision instead of being potentially blindsided again; let's say you hold in your hands X% if the total voting power - you shouldn't be able to vote later than the first VotingTime*(1-X) seconds of the process. Again, if such a provision doesn't exist in the game's code itself, modding research/action should be taken toward that direction. Besides, in the real world there's no retroactive compensation for withholding your voting right in the last 5-6 elections just so you can subsequently override the wishes of 6 other ppl when you decide your interest in politics has been sufficiently rejuvenated and you'd like to start voting again; abstinence is your choice, therefore your loss and yours alone.

Perhaps with the fixing of the above 2 issues voting accumulation can indeed become a more interesting map election method that the standard approach, but ATM I think I've seen enough of this current setup to now be in an informed enough position to advise (and request) that it be changed back.

[Cat1981England]

wow, political theory and ut2004 in one post, it's like an e-wet dream

An alternative would be to give each player a number of votes based on their score. This would allow the more experienced players with their greater map knowledge to dictate the vote and hopefully produce better winning maps, as well as encouraging people to get out of spec.

[laboRHEinz]

Of course, there are pros and cons of one or another voting system.

First off, and most obviously, being able to gather votes while speccing is absurd and tips the scales in favour of the wishes of someone who shouldn't have earned such a privilege. I doubt there is even a need to support the mentality of my argument, but to anyone who would argue that I do, please explain why you think ppl who're passively sitting on the server's "balcony" speccing and smoking/drinking/whatever without contributing anything to the game ..., but in fact consume BW and make everyone's ping that much higher deserve to have a heavier say on what map should come next when they finally decide to play. Now, I'm pretty sure speccers' vote accumulation isn't something RH chose to enable himself (the mistake is probably Epic's), ...

You assume speccers just sit there and do nothing but smoking/drinking/whatever because of their laziness. Well in fact, there are many speccers (including me) just waiting for a map they like. Still there are some players wanting to play classic maps only or others, waiting for a different kind of map like big-tank- or NV-maps. Some prefer speccing rather than playing a map they don't like and therefor, the accu-mode is quite handy and helpful

Secondly, currently ppl can continue accumulating as many votes as they like until they decide to vote. ... players can suddenly have the power to adversely override clear majority choices in a way that very much resembles trolling. ... Long story short, ... too much of it can get abused ...

TBH, I didn't notice any massive abuse of it yet and this mode doesn't really allow it: When a player wants to abuse it, he has to gather enough votes at first. He'd have to wait about 5-10 maps to completely override others votes. Now this will happen every 1-2 hours which is not a big problem IMO. Besides, there should'nt be a totally crap map on the server and if so, it has to be discussed somewhere else Thus, even when a player tries to abuse this voting mode, there'll appear just another nice map to be played.

... and that's why there should be a max votes cap, ... also force supervoters to vote early in the process ... Again, ... modding research/action should be taken ...

Unfortunately, there's no max cap included and indeed, coding would be needed - but is it worth the effort?

Perhaps with the fixing of the above 2 issues voting accumulation can indeed become a more interesting map election method that the standard approach, but ATM I think I've seen enough of this current setup to now be in an informed enough position to advise (and request) that it be changed back.

Everyone knowing how it works can use this mode in his favour. One major disadvantage of the 1-score-vote-mode is that only the commonly known and super-popular maps will be voted over and over again. The lesser known but still nice maps will rarely have a chance to be played. The accu-mode helps a little bit here.

But well, as I said in the beginning, there is no black&white regarding this matter. I will definitely not insist on keeping the accu-mode. If there are several more (1-score- ) votes to change it, I will do so. Though I didn't see any other complaints yet - except for the "wtf??? 5 votes???" remarks. Yours is the first one so far.

An alternative would be to give each player a number of votes based on their score.

There is such a voting mode available - do you really think this would be better? I'd consider it to be even farther away from democracy then the accu-mode

[Pegasus]

Hey RH, thanks your for input on this. Allow me to clarify a few of the points you brought up below:

You assume speccers just sit there and do nothing but smoking/drinking/whatever because of their laziness. Well in fact, there are many speccers (including me) just waiting for a map they like. Still there are some players wanting to play classic maps only or others, waiting for a different kind of map like big-tank- or NV-maps. Some prefer speccing rather than playing a map they don't like and therefor, the accu-mode is quite handy and helpful [...]

For the record, I don't have a problem with speccers speccing. In fact, I'm quite delighted that CEONSS allows as many ppl to spec as it does since the drawback of taxing the server's BW by a certain amount is both offset by the fact that the connection seems to be very fast AND reliable (currently ) as well as by the positive effect of keeping prospective players around anxiously anticipating the next match where they'll be able to join; it's sort of like extra advertisement for the server, to put it coarsely. So while speccers are and should always be welcome and respected, the benefits afforded to them, I think, shouldn't extend the spectacle they get to enjoy to include free extra votes for later on. Voting power is a reward for actively participating in a match, thereby boosting the network effect and thus the server's current worth compared to other choices, and this reward is granted no matter if you voted for the map played or if you were in the minority that didn't get their way. Especially in the latter case, by sucking it up and playing an unappealing map instead of taking off like a spoiled kid who didn't get his way, you prove you earn your next vote and the goodwill of others who might be more inclined to do the same for your map choice next round. That's how friendly communities are built, after all. By granting speccers vote accumulation, you kind of drive a stake through that process and implicitly you're just telling ppl, "hey, if you don't like the coming map, you can always sit it out and you STILL get enhanced voting should you decide to join in on the last second before a core blows just to revote. Neat, huh?". This is not a message I believe we should be sending and that's why I'm in favour of modding action towards disabling speccer vote accumulation.

[...]TBH, I didn't notice any massive abuse of it yet and this mode doesn't really allow it: When a player wants to abuse it, he has to gather enough votes at first. He'd have to wait about 5-10 maps to completely override others votes. Now this will happen every 1-2 hours which is not a big problem IMO. Besides, there should'nt be a totally crap map on the server and if so, it has to be discussed somewhere else Thus, even when a player tries to abuse this voting mode, there'll appear just another nice map to be played.[...]

I won't name names, but I have seen several 7V-8V bombs dropped at the later stages of some late evening map votings glaringly overturning seemingly decided outcomes and typically by some ppl who frequent the spec seats. Certainly nothing as big as 10V or 15V strong (who'd have the patience to spec that long while dodging the constant 2min idle kick checks after all? umm, we DO have idle kicking enabled, right?), but still, enough to reverse quite obvious majority choices by a healthy margin. As to whether that was for the best or not map-wise, that's entirely subjective and I won't get into it for obvious reasons (convincing/educating ppl to improve their standards leaves a much better taste than forcing "better" map choices on 'em). As an admin, however, I'm sure you'll appreciate the problem of having a big(ish) group of ppl feeling frustrated that their voting privilege was trampled on right after they exercised it, just as the map is about to turn and the F10 key (or server browser button) is so conveniently within reach. Now, whether the frequency of such a phenomenon is every 2, 3 or 5 hours isn't very important as it only needs to happen once per average player to give 'em a good enough excuse to hop servers (the dreaded server-clearing map effect). That's why I'm arguing for a max votes cap and a "full disclosure" clause where either the total voting power will be displayed on a modded voting panel ("Players: 25, Total votes: 36" for example) or the stronger voters will be forced to "show their hand" early so the rest can make an informed decision right after that.

[...]Unfortunately, there's no max cap included and indeed, coding would be needed - but is it worth the effort?[...]

Aside from the reasons I've already argued for, continued slight server improvements through (tested and approved) mutators/serveractors is a sign of constant interest in maintaining quality that players will appreciate and recall when making their nightly server choices. I know it sounds an awful lot like marketing lingo, but it's the truth; personally I feel much better playing at CEONSS knowing that cool things like hitsounds and voting tweaks have recently been added and more are likely to follow that'll improve my ONS experience even more than other more stagnant servers left to their own, 7-year old devices.
Btw, for more interesting ideas on further server service customizations (sounds silly and borderline redundant saying "server service" but I honestly dunno how else to phrase this :/), look no further than the swiss LDG mixed gametype server: modded voting panel to include map pics (alas, no map description upon image mouse rollover or further info on the specifics of weighted voting dynamically and on the same panel), F12 extended server news menu mutator allowing for much more ingame info offering freedom than the MOTD 4-liner, brightskins (although that one is a problem in its typical UTcomp form with ONSPlus), and more. These guys get it; they may play silly maps and gametypes, but they still get it.

[...]Everyone knowing how it works can use this mode in his favour. One major disadvantage of the 1-score-vote-mode is that only the commonly known and super-popular maps will be voted over and over again. The lesser known but still nice maps will rarely have a chance to be played. The accu-mode helps a little bit here.[...]

I think most ppl are well aware of the maps they like by now no matter where their relative position on the map list is. They sometimes sort by ascending played times to identify new entries but, overall, I doubt a different voting method has anything to do with map discovery. That is (and has always been) a screen real estate problem with UT's voting menu IMO.

Thanks for everyone's comments on this.

[laboRHEinz]

Hi, sorry for being late (RL kept me busy). My turn to clarify one of my points:

[...]Unfortunately, there's no max cap included and indeed, coding would be needed - but is it worth the effort?[...]

Aside from the reasons I've already argued for, continued slight server improvements through (tested and approved) mutators/serveractors is a sign of constant interest in maintaining quality that players will appreciate and recall when making their nightly server choices. I know it sounds an awful lot like marketing lingo, but it's the truth; personally I feel much better playing at CEONSS knowing that cool things like hitsounds and voting tweaks have recently been added and more are likely to follow that'll improve my ONS experience even more than other more stagnant servers left to their own, 7-year old devices.
Btw, for more interesting ideas on further server service customizations (sounds silly and borderline redundant saying "server service" but I honestly dunno how else to phrase this :/), look no further than the swiss LDG mixed gametype server: modded voting panel to include map pics (alas, no map description upon image mouse rollover or further info on the specifics of weighted voting dynamically and on the same panel), F12 extended server news menu mutator allowing for much more ingame info offering freedom than the MOTD 4-liner, brightskins (although that one is a problem in its typical UTcomp form with ONSPlus), and more. These guys get it; they may play silly maps and gametypes, but they still get it.

What I really meant to say was: Do these disadvantages of the accumulation mode justify the efforts of coding on it (at first)?
In general, I'm all for improving the server step by step, especially when there's a skilled coder providing a piece of his/her work to run it here. But I don't consider the cons of the accu-mode being that severe and still see its advantages. When there's a coder willing to work for the server, I'd rather have him/her work on other issues e.g. improving the balancer, ONSPlus, AntiCheat, delayed bots at match starts, minimising lags and so on. If there's one sending me an improved accu-mode-mutator, great! I'll up it. But if I was a coder I'd work on the other things first TBH. There's a lot to improve ;-)

we DO have idle kicking enabled, right?

sure

[Pegasus]

Well, I can sometimes get in a more analytical state on an issue and it might seem then that my focus narrows almost exclusively to that, but I'm still aware of the bigger picture in the end, don't worry. Now, sure, the issues you mentioned are greater priorities and the sooner I'd see any of 'em tackled properly by an experienced coder the better (for everyone), but if I can't have that in the immediate future, I'll take whatever other (big or small) gameplay tweaks we get working in a shorter timeframe. Big and small, every lil bit helps, you know? That's what I see most of the ingame/forum convos about various gameplay issues we have as: preliminary steps towards starting up even more pet projects that'll make things better when (or if?) they're done. As long as that big TODO list remains active with new stuff going in and others getting crossed out, that's a sign of ppl still caring for this game and it's good enough to keep me happy .