Level Voting system

Hi this is amgine here to suggest another idea that i had a level voting system.

So here is how it works after every match box would pop up asking if you liked the level or not you would then click your choice thus casting your vote any level that has under 50% aprroval rate gets removed also there must be a minumum of at least x votes (will change based on overall player count) also to prevent people from cheating people cannot vote on the same level untill at least x days (I recomend 7) have passed this will prevent people from cheating this would also help remove bad maps so the moderaters wont have to worry about modding those.

Anyways cheers , Amgine

(example of a bad map upload._level)

I do not know so much that the maps should be removed from the server, that might annoy the server host. I think a more favorable way to achieve this is to allow the host to set an option for the map rotation, so that only maps with a certain rating will be in the rotation but can still be played if voted on.

Generally adding another menu is hard, and would also become annoying having to wait through a voting screen. A more reasonable way to achieve this is to have a simple command to vote on it rather than a menu. This way the player can vote on the map anytime they feel like it, and are not required to vote allowing them to have a neutral stance on a map if they like.

An example of what the command would look like;
/votelevelrating 5
(5 as in 5 stars)

Some may not understand the difference between a voted map and a map in rotation.

A map in rotation will be automatically chosen by the server, there are usually several maps in the rotation so the server can choose between them.

A map that is not in rotation can only be played if a player calls a vote to change the map.

Like Heyub said, I don't think a voting system should have the authority to remove maps from the rotation, however it would be nice to have a barebones rating system that would let server owners know which maps are quality and which aren't. We get a sense of what people like based on what's posted on the forums, but for those who just stick to the game it could be useful information I think.

[ZoombeR]

We get a sense of what people like based on what's posted on the forums...

Key information. We already have a sense of what people like based on what's posted on the forums. If you dont like the maps, why not just play on another server?

However it would be nice to let the player rate the map so that they do not have to search for the map then post it. Allowing the player to vote in-game gets rid of the middleman, and middlemen do tend to scare away some of the lazier/self conscious group.

[watusimoto]

Ok, I'm on board with at least letting you +1 a level or something, with some system for providing feedback to level makers.

The question is... how? A menu following the game is probably too obtrusive. Ideally, there would be a control that toggled a +1 flag (displayed somewhere on the GUI). But with buttons limited on joysticks (and already overloaded), what would you recommend? A keyboard-only command, perhaps?

[Skybax]

I don't think a required +1/-1 menu is that obtrusive. I've played tons of games with them and I've never felt like "Omaigawd they're asking my opinion!? I'm not playing anymore!"
In fact, I've felt the opposite. I like having the opportunity to let people know what I think of the map.

I just feel like we worry too much about whether or not small additions to the game will offend the people playing it to the point of not playing it anymore. If they don't like it, they'll tell us.

Isn't that what the forums are for?

We get a sense of what people like based on what's posted on the forums...

Key information. We already have a sense of what people like based on what's posted on the forums. If you dont like the maps, why not just play on another server?

Finish the quote. The forums only fill up some part of the total player-base.

We get a sense of what people like based on what's posted on the forums, but for those who just stick to the game it could be useful information I think.

The question is... how? A menu following the game is probably too obtrusive. Ideally, there would be a control that toggled a +1 flag (displayed somewhere on the GUI). But with buttons limited on joysticks (and already overloaded), what would you recommend? A keyboard-only command, perhaps?

I'd hate to limit features to keyboard users, and I'm positive there's a better way, but one possible idea would be to simply allow users to type /like or /dislike. Perhaps a comment could also be inserted, in the form of "/like <message>".

I have a couple of basic ideas that might be compatible with joystick users (position cursor over section of screen, for example) but ultimately it will take a joystick user to determine what's the best method, what feels natural, etc.

I don't think a required +1/-1 menu is that obtrusive. I've played tons of games with them and I've never felt like "Omaigawd they're asking my opinion!? I'm not playing anymore!"

I think the point being made was that an additional element added to the GUI might be obtrusive visually.

Isn't that what the forums are for?

I agree with you, but unfortunately it is not that simple. In my experience there seems to be some kind of social psychological (?) hesitation to reporting feedback. Maybe it's a twist of the bystander effect, maybe it's an illusion of intimidation, I don't know. However, unless a feedback form is served on a platter, many people will not come forward with feedback, even if it exists. Let me give an example:

I help run a semi-large community. We give multiple opportunities to our users to present feedback, whether positive or negative. There are links all over the place, and we have a weekly "wrap-up" of sorts. However, rarely is it used, and yet we've discovered that there is an alarming number of people who are frustrated with one of the community's methods, but we have had no way to know because they don't tell us.

Okay, so the lack of feedback isn't necessarily attributed to some sort of psychological effect in that example, but my point is that many people will choose not to participate in the forums, but we shouldn't disregard that they may have an opinion because of it.

A couple points about limiting to keyboard users...
I can't comprehend someone playing on a computer that does not have a keyboard.
Yet another flaw, how is typing in /like any less keyboard oriented? I think that indeed a /like would be optimal. As for displaying it, if you press tab you have a wealth of information about that map, add it there, since it is information about the map. Though I am not sure how hard this would be to code, since I believe the information about the map is stored in the .map?

A keyboard-only command, perhaps?

What about a chat-only command?
When the game ends, it'll have overtime of about 10-15 seconds and we vote on the map by using the commands: /yes or /no.

Why limit voting to the end of the game?

Why limit voting to the end of the game?

I agree with this... voting should not be limited to the end of the game, and it should also not keep people waiting for the next round.

Why limit voting to the end of the game?

I agree with this... voting should not be limited to the end of the game, and it should also not keep people waiting for the next round.

I agree, too.
We could just have the players vote during the game by using the chat-box. When the players join the server, the chat log asks the player to vote for the map. However, if the game-play is too short, then the players might not have enough time to vote. This shouldn't happen, unless the map is low quality.

[watusimoto]

Ok, so how about this as a start?

1. We have a key (or pair of keys) that toggles a rating of +1, 0, -1.
2. Your current rating of a level is displayed on screen somewhere (unobtrusively), and will be retained by the central server.
3. Those ratings will be tallied and made available via some web interface that will show level name, hash, creator, date last played, and numbers of +1/0/-1 votes.
4. You can change your rating for the level at any time (even when playing subsequently), and it will be reflected on the website in real time.
5. Only registered players will be able to vote.
6. Levels will be identified by their hash, which means if anything changes, it will be considered a new level.

Ok, so how about this as a start?

1. We have a key (or pair of keys) that toggles a rating of +1, 0, -1.
2. Your current rating of a level is displayed on screen somewhere (unobtrusively), and will be retained by the central server.
3. Those ratings will be tallied and made available via some web interface that will show level name, hash, creator, date last played, and numbers of +1/0/-1 votes.
4. You can change your rating for the level at any time (even when playing subsequently), and it will be reflected on the website in real time.
5. Only registered players will be able to vote.
6. Levels will be identified by their hash, which means if anything changes, it will be considered a new level.

Me likes.

Sounds like a great place to start!

Looks good Wat, but what's the advantage of having an option for zero? I would imagine that someone choosing not to vote would be the equivalent of a voting with a 0.

Also, I think it would be interested not only to see the score but also the amount of players who voted. If a level is at +15, I don't know if that's 15 people all really liking it or 30 people liking it and 15 hating it. I'm sure that could then be turned into a percentage, like in this case, 66% like the map.

Why not vote similar to the forum star system. (0-5 stars)

I would imagine that someone choosing not to vote would be the equivalent of a voting with a 0.

Not exactly, the group that voted for 0 (in this case) are the ones that think the map is undecided or neither good nor bad. The ones that didn't vote either -1,0, or +1 don't count as voters. It's more of a technical difference than a difference in principle.

I would imagine that someone choosing not to vote would be the equivalent of a voting with a 0.

Not exactly, the group that voted for 0 (in this case) are the ones that think the map is undecided or neither good nor bad. The ones that didn't vote either -1,0, or +1 don't count as voters. It's more of a technical difference than a difference in principle.

You talk about this as if its a done deal. Its not. We are simply in the process of developing an idea for the game.

[watusimoto]

Not exactly, the group that voted for 0 (in this case) are the ones that think the map is undecided or neither good nor bad. The ones that didn't vote either -1,0, or +1 don't count as voters. It's more of a technical difference than a difference in principle.

There's a big difference between not voting and casting a blank ballot. Plus, this provides a mechanism for "unvoting" (sort of) once you've voted.

Why not stars? Why stars?

Not exactly, the group that voted for 0 (in this case) are the ones that think the map is undecided or neither good nor bad. The ones that didn't vote either -1,0, or +1 don't count as voters. It's more of a technical difference than a difference in principle.

There's a big difference between not voting and casting a blank ballot. Plus, this provides a mechanism for "unvoting" (sort of) once you've voted.

Why not stars? Why stars?

I was trying to make skylark understand how they were different. He thinks they are the same because in either way the voter is undecided in which side to choose from.

Why stars? Because if I think a map is well-made to play with, but think most maps are better than it, then I'll might rate it 3 stars.

Why no stars? The players don't care about which maps are better than others. All the players truly care about is whether or not the map is legitimate to play with or not.

It obviously depends entirely on the group's interest. Grading something in a 6 point scale is more detailed than a 3 point grade scale. It's really a simple concept to understand. The school grading system is a fine example of one.

Looks good Wat, but what's the advantage of having an option for zero? I would imagine that someone choosing not to vote would be the equivalent of a voting with a 0.

There's a big difference between not voting and casting a blank ballot. Plus, this provides a mechanism for "unvoting" (sort of) once you've voted.

The word "big" can be a vague word. Maybe you could specify exactly how they are different like I tried. Also, if there's a difference, does it necessarily need to be "big" to argue with it? In other words we plainly agree, but you fail to show that you understand the opponent's (skylark's) main view.

There's a big difference between not voting and casting a blank ballot.

Could you explain this a little further? I'm trying to wrap my head around this and maybe it's really obvious, but I'm not quite grasping it.

Ok, so you're not suggesting that there's a difference in vote count (because each adds 0 to total votes) but the difference lies in average score??

Like if 5 people submitted votes and they all submitted +1, then that could be considered a perfect score of 100%. However, if one more person submitted a vote of +0 then that could be considered a score of ~83%, whereas if that sixth person did not vote the score would remain at 100%?

  Code:

Mathematical explanation of the example above:

x = number of voters
y = score of votes

6x = 5
x = 5/6 = ~.83 = ~83%

whereas,

5x = 5
x = 5/5 = 1/1 = 1 = 100%

Am I close?

Like if 5 people submitted votes and they all submitted +1, then that could be considered a perfect score of 100%. However, if one more person submitted a vote of +0 then that could be considered a score of ~83%, whereas if that sixth person did not vote the score would remain at 100%?

x= yes
y= no
z= undecided (voted for blank ballot)

If;
x=5
y=4
z=1
then,
50% of the voters said yes
40% of the voters said no
10% of the voters were undecided (voted for blank ballot)

# of voters = 10
total # of players = 15

also,
10 out of 15 players voted. Thus, 5 players didn't vote, yet. From this, their votes cannot be logically assumed to be undecided, no, nor yes. These 5 players just didn't vote.

About 66.66% voted and about 33.33% did not vote.

Of this group, the ones that voted, which is about 66.66% of the total number of players: 50% of the voters said yes, 40% of the voters said no, and 10% of the voters voted for a blank ballot. However, about 33.33% of the players did not vote.

P.S. I hope this helps. I did repeat myself to try to make it more clear in different angles.

It's more of a technical difference than a difference in principle.

However...

Okay, so you are essentially saying that the difference between not voting and voting with no preference lies in the fact that there can be two very different results percentage-wise. In your example, the former has 50%, 40%, 10% and the latter has 66%, 33%.

I think this confirms my understanding, sweet! Thanks for the assistance.

That being said, what about changing "-1, 0, +1" to "poor, average, good" (or something similar) to help prevent potential confusion by labeling each option? Nothing would change in the actual process.

i would prefer /vote <value from 1-10> <message> easier to program?