Master-mode abuse

by eihrul on 08/28/2007 10:06, 63 messages, last message: 11/26/2007 18:33, 13584 views, last view: 05/18/2024 21:48

Argh, there seems a lot of people around lately abusing master-mode, just taking it to kick people on a whim or randomly change maps against what the players actually want to play.

So, I was thinking a way to solve this might be that when you petition for master, you must have 1, just 1, other player approve your petition. Wouldn't curb all abuse, but would still keep unknown people from getting master in most circumstances, while still giving the master executive power to deal with problems like abusive/cheating players or managing the maps/gamemode responsibility (because players never bother to vote on maps).

I like this idea better than limiting the master's ability to do stuff, or requiring voting for things like kicking people (because players never bother to vote at all... ever).

Thoughts?

   Board Index   

#1: ..

by Passa on 08/28/2007 10:32

Bad idea, it can easily be circumvented by opening another instance of Sauerbraten.

Not to mention it would hamper getting mastermode. Imagine how confusing it would get when someone starts cheating and then immediately everyone else on the server applies for master rather than votes for someone else?

On that note - did that trusted communities thought ever go anywhere? Because something like that would easily solve the problem.

reply to this message

#2: ..

by Julius on 08/28/2007 10:36

I think the main problem with voting is that you can't quickly press F1 for yes and F2 for no as in most other games, but you have to enter the menu etc, which will get you killed for sure :)

The probem with voting for mastermode is that you can't join an emty server claim mastermode and wait for people to join.

Oh and in general I think there should be a menu for mastermode, even though that might make it for lamers even more easy :-/

reply to this message

#3: Re: ..

by eihrul on 08/28/2007 10:38, refers to #1

Note, yes, you could still just open up two instances of Sauerbraten, but most of the annoying kiddies just getting mastermode to abuse it are simply not that savvy.

And the principle is that you should have master BEFORE the problems happen, not after.

Now, if rational self-interest prevents just *2* people from cooperating so someone can get master, then that's okay.

But I think in the general case of experienced players, they will agree to let one person be master.

The trusted community idea would be far more annoying, and is a huge pain in the ass to implement, which is why it has not gone anywhere yet.

reply to this message

#4: ..

by makkE on 08/28/2007 10:56

f2

Approving master is very unlikely to work.
I don´t think the situation is that bad, there´s always been jerks.

reply to this message

#5: ..

by Passa on 08/28/2007 10:56

"And the principle is that you should have master BEFORE the problems happen, not after."

Yes, in principle. However, it is hardly the case, most games I join do not have a master.

reply to this message

#6: ..

by SanHolo on 08/28/2007 13:11

I have seldom ran into this problem. If I join a server and noone is master, I grab it. Easy as that.


...and then I start kicking people shooting me.

reply to this message

#7: ..

by Grinch (has lost his cookie) on 08/28/2007 14:31

The HOP server has been running a feature for a while now where setmaster is enforced. The server gives master control to the first named player connected, if master disconnects the server passes master control to second oldest (named) player. Assumptions are the longest connected players are the least likely to ruin a game and that named players are smarter enough to know the /kick command. It's been very effective in stopping game wreckers. The only concern is if an unknowing player is given master and a cheater joins the game...hopefully other players would give instructions. It would help if the master commands were accessible from GUI menus.

reply to this message

#8: ..

by Julius on 08/28/2007 15:37

Yeah I agree, forced master and a gui for that should be the way to go.

And please add the quick vote buttons as I explained earlier.

reply to this message

#9: Re: ..

by eihrul on 08/28/2007 19:28, refers to #7

This was the way the master system used to work, and as far as I am concerned, it was a failure. Master always went to people who had no idea how to use it, thus disabling the master system. Master has to go to people who want it voluntarily.

reply to this message

#10: Re: ..

by Quin on 08/28/2007 19:38, refers to #9

Easy. Make it script detectable.

Those with a enough brains to get/use such a script which claimed empty master status automatically obviously want it.

reply to this message

#11: ..

by Zorro_hates_cookies2 on 08/28/2007 21:02

I see no problems with the current system. Whenever I join a server, I usually grab master and that\'s that. Don\'t feel greedy when you take master, just take it.

reply to this message

#12: ..

by Zorro_hates_cookies2 on 08/28/2007 21:05

Sorry for the double post, but also, you don't need any special software for the trusted community concept to work. From a point of view, it's already in place. By playing with people you are familiar with, you know you are not playing with cheaters. Most of the time I recognize the people I'm playing or editing with.

reply to this message

#13: ..

by Grogan on 08/29/2007 02:11

I most often join a server that has nobody on it (at the time I usually come there isn't a whole lot going on on the servers in the list), take master, set mastermode 1 change mode to instagib, change to a map that people like (e.g. deathtek), set mastermode 0 again in case people want to vote and sit and wait. It never fails, people always show up after a few minutes and we get a good game going.

What I'd like to see with the master status is a command to give master status to another user. Passing the torch, so to speak, instead of just dropping it and hoping the person who takes it will be good. If there's a good game going on when I need to leave, I will say that I'm leaving and urge someone to take it but what if someone evil is lurking, just waiting for their chance?

I'm not sure I like the idea of needing approval to take master, because there's nothing saying that anyone is going to respond and in fact may not do so just because they have that power. I don't mean people who all know each other, that's seldom the case at the times when I'm playing.

I don't care who has mastermode, as long as it's someone responsible. I prefer instagib but I'll play any mode and any map. Except maybe coop edit, I don't usually bother joining servers where people are doing that because I'm not a mapper.

Ideally, it would be best if server operators with admin passwords spent more time playing, but not everyone has such time on their hands.

reply to this message

#14: Vote against.

by fdskfhdsjkfconorfdsjfhjsdk on 08/29/2007 08:59

How about you can obtain master exactly the same, but when there is a stupid master, everyone can vote against him and overthrow his position.

But if this were in place, to overthrow someone, it would have to be set to F1 or another key, because the bad master could kick everyone before then.


AND If that were in place, it would also be good to have a time limit between kicking, like 10 seconds

The reason is that there is a script that you can make (easy, has to do with a loop) and bind it to a key, so join, push key server cleared.

The 10 second gap would give people time to vote him out.

reply to this message

#15: Re: Vote against.

by eihrul on 08/29/2007 09:58, refers to #14

This is exactly why a solution based on kicking a bad master off will never work. Once there is a problem, its already too late, so a barrier to entry is necessary, rather than an escape plan.

reply to this message

#16: Re: Vote against.

by Passa on 08/29/2007 10:45, refers to #15

Yes but exactly how daunting would that be for new users? They don't know who to vote YES for master control to.

Not to mention all the problems it could cause for people who can't speak English, when this menu pops up asking them who they want as master or something.

reply to this message

#17: Re: Vote against.

by SheeEttin on 08/29/2007 23:28, refers to #16

I don't think voting for a master is a good idea. People will often (if not always) vote for themselves, or like you said above, not vote at all.

The votekick system in America's Army works (at least in the Linux/Mac community). When one person initiates a votekick, a message appears in the console saying "So-and-so initiated a votekick against so-and-so for reason: Reason. Press F6 to vote yes...". A similar kind of thing could be implemented here, and it could work very well. One person initiates a kick, and a message appears informing everyone.
Only problem with this is that the message would disappear rather quickly, especially in games with many people (from all the fragging).

reply to this message

#18: ..

by Zorro_hates_cookies2 on 08/30/2007 05:24

A wise man once said: "Once there is a problem, its already too late"

reply to this message

#19: Re: Vote against.

by Drakas on 08/30/2007 10:51, refers to #17

Important messages could be made to stay on the screen for longer.
But this kind of system would be unfair against people who own a lot.

Say I'm playing really well in capture, took the quad, took many people out. All of them are angry. One posts a votekick and then I get kicked. But how fair was that?

reply to this message

#20: Re: Vote against.

by SheeEttin on 08/30/2007 21:23, refers to #19

While that may happen, I don't think it's especially likely. I'd like to think that most people wouldn't kick you for just being good at the game, but I can't be sure...

reply to this message

   Board Index