How to kick a annoying player from a group game? [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : How to kick a annoying player from a group game?

Skeeter
26 Feb 2008, 14:25
Is there any kick commands or something to kick ppl who dont follow shoppa rules and dont skip turns or annoying players?
Also how do you limit the amount of players joining a game, i mean i do a 2vs2 and 6 ppl join, how do i close it after its full of 4 ppl?

CyberShadow
26 Feb 2008, 14:44
1) No. Please make sure your fellow players are on a level you are comfortable with before starting the game.
2) Drag the bottom of the player list up.

Skeeter
26 Feb 2008, 14:50
PPl seem fine tho but when there playing they just ruin it for the rest of us, im sick of hosting games where ppl dont follow the rules i resever the right to kick them as host. Please introduce a kick command if at all possible. Thankyou.

GoDxWyvern
26 Feb 2008, 17:19
Has been discussed and discarded several times, for rather obvious reasons (think cheating and general abuse). Not gonna happeeeen!

mushroom
26 Feb 2008, 19:21
this might help you:
http://www.x32dev.com/connected/

Skeeter
26 Feb 2008, 20:52
@Godxwyvern. How can you cheat with it? As long as only the host can kick then it should be relativly safe to use, every other online game has a host kick feature why is worms any different?

snowdog
26 Feb 2008, 21:00
Has been discussed and discarded several times, for rather obvious reasons (think cheating and general abuse). Not gonna happeeeen!
General abuse?
Host is king thats what counts, dont want to play with that host dont join.
Cheating?
I wounder why hundreds of other games are fine with admins/hosts always being able to kick and ban players.
I can't stand it people first dont follow rules, then don't skip, then don't ktc, I want to kick such small children.
Quitters are annoying enough ( pretty much every game someone quits these days without notice, I don't mind if they say: gtg to eat or w/e, I do get ****ed though when I host and say ''no quitters'' and end up with ppl leaving with no notice) but ppl that don't follow rules are worse.
I don't understand why worms is such a different game from any other game, the host is supposed to be able to kick noobs/ rule blasphemers imo.

Run
26 Feb 2008, 21:20
If you want to kick someone just minimize the game and use the command console to end their connection
Just don't expect anyone to make it easier for you with special commands
If you wanna kick someone you'll just have to put the damn effort in

GoDxWyvern
26 Feb 2008, 21:34
Cheating?
I wounder why hundreds of other games are fine with admins/hosts always being able to kick and ban players.
I'll give you a hint: All the leagues in W:A these days are unofficial. That means, they are in no way connected to the game via code.

yakuza
26 Feb 2008, 21:43
Very few games allow you to kick a player once already in the game, unless it's a game based around dedicated servers.

Skeeter
26 Feb 2008, 21:53
Sry but thats rubbish. Almost all games i have like civ 4, homeworld 2, most fps games, etc allow to kick on non dedicated servers etc.
About minimising and using a command console, er how there is no such thing for worms i.e admin console etc or none that we are aware of that is for wa. Also why does it have to be a pain to just kick someone thats rediculous it should be easy as possible for the host. If you mean the tool someone linked to above, well hows that going to help i mean its too much fuss and theres no way of knowing who im kicking by basing it off ip alone.

yakuza
26 Feb 2008, 22:23
Sry but thats rubbish. Almost all games i have like civ 4, homeworld 2, most fps games, etc allow to kick on non dedicated servers etc.
About minimising and using a command console, er how there is no such thing for worms i.e admin console etc or none that we are aware of that is for wa. Also why does it have to be a pain to just kick someone thats rediculous it should be easy as possible for the host. If you mean the tool someone linked to above, well hows that going to help i mean its too much fuss and theres no way of knowing who im kicking by basing it off ip alone.
Do the above mentiond games have lobbies or are they played via TCP/IP?
Either way, don't be an idiot, just because you have 4 games that allow you to kick people once in game doesn't mean most games allow you to do so. FPS do because most FPS games are based on dedicated servers with an admin console.
Popular online games such as Starcraft, Warcraft, basically every online console game or any game that has serious competition doesn't allow booting once already in game.
So, if the majority don't allow and we have valid reasoning as to why it shouldn't, why are you still complaining?

Melon
26 Feb 2008, 22:59
Just a quick thought. Maybe it's possible that the people you are playing don't know the rules, hence why they're not following them. I've noticed quite a few new players turning up, as they've been coming for help when I'm sitting in #Help.
Before you start a game, ask everyone if they know what cba and ktl are, and how to behave after cowing. If they have no idea what you're talking about, then they're obviously not going to know the rules. If you copy this into your clipboard and paste it every time someone enters, you can find out who you want to play with minimal effort.
The problem I see with a lot of the "gentleman's rules" that have made it into worms is that they're not obvious to people who don't know them, especially new players who find that the WormNet experience isn't at all what they expected it to be.
One day, I hope we'll get some sort of way to enforce these rules in the scheme rather than rely on people abiding to them. That way, none of this needs to happen.

GAS
27 Feb 2008, 00:15
You could try using xnetstat-pro.
Watches all connections to your pc, and you can see the ppl connected to worm and difference them by their IP / country.
You can terminate any connection (kick).
I recommend it. Be sure not to abuse it tho

snowdog
27 Feb 2008, 00:17
Do the above mentiond games have lobbies or are they played via TCP/IP?
Either way, don't be an idiot, just because you have 4 games that allow you to kick people once in game doesn't mean most games allow you to do so. FPS do because most FPS games are based on dedicated servers with an admin console.
Popular online games such as Starcraft, Warcraft, basically every online console game or any game that has serious competition doesn't allow booting once already in game.
So, if the majority don't allow and we have valid reasoning as to why it shouldn't, why are you still complaining?
Most do allow it, in warcarft and age of empires etc all scenario's pretty much have a line of ''buildings'' under the hosts controll wich he can delete, killing off the whole player the hut is for. EG. condition building destroyed, effect remove all units of player x from map.
I always added a banner to my custom scenario's in age of empires 2...
Besides, worms is a game where there are rules, in most other game's it's hard to break those rules as the game code is made for playing it properly, worms isnt.
But if in cod4 the admin says: knife only, and 1 **** doesn't do it, people just vote to kick him or the admins kick him, simple as that.
Same should be for worms.
don't be an idiot
Personal attacks are allowed on these forums :confused: ?
Anyways what's idiotic about the host being the boss of his own game?
I'll give you a hint: All the leagues in W:A these days are unofficial. That means, they are in no way connected to the game via code.
Erm so?
I fail to see how this has anything to do with cheating.
Even unnoficial tournament makers can just ban people from the tourney that cheat.
just because you have 4 games that allow you to kick people
4 Games?
The mahoosive majority.
Some official, some not, but most players or game makers have added a way to kick people.
The TCP ip tool is handy ty, but still a shame this has been discarded.
The arguments you people bring up against kicking ingame are completly irrelevant I feel and are a lie ( pretty much all games I've played allow kicking, and I have over 100 games installed atm on my pc).
The arguments for it far outweigh the agruments against it.
So, if the majority don't allow and we have valid reasoning as to why it shouldn't, why are you still complaining?
Back up your arguments, most games do allow kicking @ any time, wether by desgin or by possible mods on it. Since it's pretty much impossible to mod WA for the common folk ( by creating triggers and custom scenario's, wich just doesn't apply to this), I feel that the game makers have the obligation of providing such features if they still want to support their community.
If you want to kick someone just minimize the game and use the command console to end their connection
Just don't expect anyone to make it easier for you with special commands
If you wanna kick someone you'll just have to put the damn effort in
Wich is a shame, I didn't know of a tcp blocker and will use it to bust punks now, add their ip on my routers block list too.
Most people I'm annoyed about is people that first follow rules, then just don't, then some silent people who don't speak english ( don't go on about this to me, you learn english @ school from 10, it's pretty poor if you don't even speak basic english these days, I had to learn 4 damn languages @ school and I know 5 now, I don't mind if people speak poor english, aslong as they get ''attack yellow'' and ''kill the cow yellow'', wich they usually blatantly ignore ) and don't do anything about it and don't do ktc for example wich makes me the only one enforcing the rules, I usually just end such games.
I mean it's your game, your hosting the game for other people, surely you should be allowed to enforce YOUR rules on YOUR game ( not WA i mean, but the thing you host online) on YOUR pc through YOUR isp.
I've payed for worms and I wana be the boss of the games I host for other people.
/rant over

Skeeter
27 Feb 2008, 00:22
Well said.

yakuza
27 Feb 2008, 00:35
Most do allow it, in warcarft and age of empires etc all scenario's pretty much have a line of ''buildings'' under the hosts controll wich he can delete, killing off the whole player the hut is for. EG. condition building destroyed, effect remove all units of player x from map.
I always added a banner to my custom scenario's in age of empires 2...
I'm sorry but AOE and Warcraft games played from the lobby (wormnet in worms case) do not allow kicking a player once in the game, lying will not get you very far.
Besides, worms is a game where there are rules, in most other game's it's hard to break those rules as the game code is made for playing it properly, worms isnt.
Rules are made by the users and are by no means supported by the game developers.
But if in cod4 the admin says: knife only, and 1 **** doesn't do it, people just vote to kick him or the admins kick him, simple as that.
Same should be for worms.
Different games, comparing them offers no valid arguments.
Erm so?
I fail to see how this has anything to do with cheating.
Even unnoficial tournament makers can just ban people from the tourney that cheat.
You are very naive if you see how kicking a player wouldn't offer players the option to easily cheat or gain an advantage in a game.
4 Games?
The mahoosive majority.
Not really. Like I said, all console mutliplayer games and all games with some sort of ranking or ladder competition do not allow players to kick other players once in game. In fact, I'd be surprised if you can come up with 3 games that have a channel Lobby, like worms does, were you can kick players once in game.
The arguments you people bring up against kicking ingame are completly irrelevant I feel and are a lie ( pretty much all games I've played allow kicking, and I have over 100 games installed atm on my pc).
They're not irrelevant, you're just not understanding.

snowdog
27 Feb 2008, 00:56
I'm sorry but AOE and Warcraft games played from the lobby (wormnet in worms case) do not allow kicking a player once in the game, lying will not get you very far.
Warcraft I don't know
Aoe2 definatly does, I've played it prolly far more than you, doesn't matter from where u started it be it the zone or directip or lan, you could always add a banner/booter to any scenario you played in the map editor.
I couldn't stand games without em, you had to be able to ban 56k/isdn laggers etc to play a nice game, I only allowed broadband ppl to join, and if I found a yellow ( medium connection lag) or red coin (bad conenction lag) or turtle ( pc lag) in the scorelist next to someones name ( indicating laggers), I banned ppl without questions.
Rules are made by the users and are by no means supported by the game developers.
So it is in most games, but devellopers usually support what players want, and encourage the players trying an as wide as possible array of tools, including banners/kickers.
Different games, comparing them offers no valid arguments.
Yes it does.
A game is a game.
A host is a host.
Host = king.
You are very naive if you see how kicking a player wouldn't offer players the option to easily cheat or gain an advantage in a game.
Add support for stuff like Punkbuster? People cheating just banned from all ''cheat enforcing'' games.
Not really. Like I said, all console mutliplayer games and all games with some sort of ranking or ladder competition do not allow players to kick other players once in game. In fact, I'd be surprised if you can come up with 3 games that have a channel Lobby, like worms does, were you can kick players once in game.
Anything goes aint ladder.
Regardless:
Aoe2 does with players modifications ( even in the ranked rooms on the zone that used to be).
Homeworld 2, wich is a distinguished RTS game...
Any fps games do on proffesional lvl ( cod4 (stats always record), BF2 (stats record + ranks), BF2142(stats record always + ranks), Mohaa, etc...) .
They're not irrelevant, you're just not understanding.
Fine, I aint, and I never will.
The host should be boss, ALWAYS imo.
Regardless what game.
Perhaps I'm too used to FPS games I dunno.
I'll ban people anyways with the tcp tool now.
But imo, if someone is as nice to host a game, he should be suprme king of his own game.

yakuza
27 Feb 2008, 01:42
Warcraft I don't know
Aoe2 definatly does, I've played it prolly far more than you, doesn't matter from where u started it be it the zone or directip or lan, you could always add a banner/booter to any scenario you played in the map editor.
I couldn't stand games without em, you had to be able to ban 56k/isdn laggers etc to play a nice game, I only allowed broadband ppl to join, and if I found a yellow ( medium connection lag) or red coin (bad conenction lag) or turtle ( pc lag) in the scorelist next to someones name ( indicating laggers), I banned ppl without questions.
You're talking about little hacks and edited scenario stuff here. Regular games do not allow you to boot a player once in game in Aoe2.
So it is in most games, but devellopers usually support what players want, and encourage the players trying an as wide as possible array of tools, including banners/kickers.
It isn't, I don't see why you like to keep coming back and say it is.
Add support for stuff like Punkbuster? People cheating just banned from all ''cheat enforcing'' games.
:-/
Regardless:
Aoe2 does with players modifications ( even in the ranked rooms on the zone that used to be).
Homeworld 2, wich is a distinguished RTS game...
Any fps games do on proffesional lvl ( cod4 (stats always record), BF2 (stats record + ranks), BF2142(stats record always + ranks), Mohaa, etc...) .
Is this supposed to mean something? Or is it just a list of games that allow you to boot people while playing?
Fine, I aint, and I never will.
The host should be boss, ALWAYS imo.
Regardless what game.
But imo, if someone is as nice to host a game, he should be suprme king of his own game.
In a capitalist game, a capitalist idiot creates a game and the games belongs to the idiot, the idiot will then proceed to boot the communist pro because he is destroying the capitalist idiot army, this is lame. In a communist game, a capitalist idiot creates a game, and the game belongs to the state, therefore, when a communist pro gets in the game and destroys the capitalist idiot army capitalism loses, and rightly so. When a capitalist idiot creates a game and an Anarchist joins, the capitalist moans about the Anarchist antics and blames him for ignoring the rules, the capitalist loses his nerves and usually ends up quiting, losing, raging or locking the anarchist somewhere were he will be unable to learn. What the capitalist ignores is that anarchists can be taught how to play or easily identified before proceeding to start the game. Because the capitalist idiot is unable to cope with what other people have been able to cope with for almost a decade he decides to make a post saying how it's right to boot people from the games once they're already in them because he can do so by adding little lines of code into his age of empires probably crap custom scenarios.
Seriously though, I'd love to be able to kick people like you from my games for your game taste alone, but it takes a very naive man not to see the inconveniencies this would bring, not only in league games, but in games were the host decides to be "funny" or a bad loser. If you're such a fan of feudalism that you wanna be king of your own game kingdom thing, here's a tip, password your game.

snowdog
27 Feb 2008, 02:10
You're talking about little hacks and edited scenario stuff here. Regular games do not allow you to boot a player once in game in Aoe2.
What hacks (read on later in my post I'll explain) ? Regular official features you mean.
In a regular ''random map'' game there are no special rules, thus they are auto applied. No need to enforce em.
It's a shame really tho that it had no booters liek homeworld 2 because god knows how many games were ruined by a lagger.
In worms you have special game modes tho the game wasn't originally made for, thus it's a lot more often you come across a person you have to kick.
It's by no means a hack, it's a normall legal official condition and effect trigger that existed since v1.00 of aok, en still existed in 2.0c in conquerors.
No mods required, just a custom map. Kind of like shopper is a custom game in WA.
It isn't, I don't see why you like to keep coming back and say it is.
Because I prolly play 10-20 different games every week.
And worms is the only game I stumbled across in a loooong time where I want to kick people but can't and have to end the game coz it's ruined by 3 or 4 ppl not following the rules anymore while they did at first.
Is this supposed to mean something? Or is it just a list of games that allow you to boot people while playing?
You said that I couldnt prolly name even 3 games... Just proving otherwise.
In a capitalist game, a capitalist idiot creates a game and the games belongs to the idiot, the idiot will then proceed to boot the communist pro because he is destroying the capitalist idiot army, this is lame. In a communist game, a capitalist idiot creates a game, and the game belongs to the state, therefore, when a communist pro gets in the game and destroys the capitalist idiot army capitalism loses, and rightly so. When a capitalist idiot creates a game and an Anarchist joins, the capitalist moans about the Anarchist antics and blames him for ignoring the rules, the capitalist loses his nerves and usually ends up quiting, losing or raging. What the capitalist ignores is that anarchists can be taught how to play or easily identified before proceeding to start the game. Because the capitalist idiot is unable to cope with what other people have been able to cope with for almost a decade he decides to make a post saying how it's right to boot people from the games once they're already in them because he can do so by adding little lines of code into his age of empires probably crap custom scenarios.
I have had enough people where people name the rules in lobby and then don't follow em ingame.
Crap scenario's?
You definatly didn't play it, the custom games were always most popular, pretty much always 3 out of 4 custom rooms were full.
Custom made rpg games, bloods and tourney maps added a lot of playability, half the people always played scenario's only, aoe2 would never have so many ppl playing it without custom scenario's.
My clan always made their own maps to even play a standard game on, to have a nicer balanced and more enjoyable game. Or make maps like world map, europe, or holland map.
There is no adding code, just adding a trigger wich is part of the original game code and game. The game was designed to allow such functions. The Campaign games always fully used the triggers.
You keep slagging of something you don't know anything about.
Seriously though, how would you feel by being constantly booted from games because you're a noob?
I have nothing against noobs that follow the rules and listen if they have to skip, I cowed too in the beginning, I just happened to be able to read that I could just skip a turn.
tbh you're starting to bore me, you're doing nothing but slagging off good games, defending some punks that don't follow the rules while they know them, and thinking very conservative. So what it's been like this for nearly a decade, there's always room for improvement. Slavery has been around for millenia too. Noobs aint anarchists btw, just un-educated (uneducated for worms that is) general volk ; liberalists, confesionals, conservatives and social democrats and even commies perhaps.
You forgot about the true anarchists, the people who know the rules and ignore them coz they're starting to lose or can't comprehend they made a mistake ( attack without crate, throwing a petrol bomb from walking and attacking the weakest team).
I don't care about win/lose. Winning is nice but the game aint about that.
I care about an honest game, and killing everyone that isn't fair.
I prolly lose most games anyway, I play worms coz I love roping with others, not to win.
I do these days pretty much kick all people who don't say anything in lobby when I ask them something ( do you know the rules, will you play without quitting?). Sometimes though nobody wants to play and the only people around are potential punks. Wich happen to exit halfway when they see they have half the health of their opponent.
There are many great people on wormnet, including noobs, aslong as they just do what they say they do, and don't spontaniously change their mind during play. I've had days even where clanners just exit in the middle of the game, even had 5 unfinished games in a row once.
Luckily I mostly play with people I know personally from college or just from the internet and got them on msn or xfire. However those people are not always available, and you have to play with wormnet abusers sometimes.

KRD
27 Feb 2008, 03:32
Since it's pretty much impossible to mod WA for the common folk ( by creating triggers and custom scenario's, wich just doesn't apply to this), I feel that the game makers have the obligation of providing such features if they still want to support their community.
How does something that will no doubt result in people getting kicked for dubious reasons do the community any good? Do you have any idea how bad kicking people for having a slow connection, not speaking a language well enough or not behaving well even is for a community such as WA's? And those aren't even the most braindead reasons the feature would be (ab)used for. League games come to mind...
The reason large games to the tune of modern online shooters and strategy games handle things the way they do is there's not much of a community to maintain. They can afford allowing server admins be "kings" and ban as many people as they like because there's always a thousand other servers out there waiting to be joined. Whereas on WormNet, you can pretty much píss 10% of the game's active players off when you're having a rough day and end up kicking 20 people by the end of it.
Instead, I strongly suggest you do what everyone genuinely interested in the well-being of WormNet has been doing for the past decade. The first step is to get a sense of how tightly knit the Worms community is and use that to your advantage. If Shoppers are your thing, find a bunch of like-minded people and advertise the proper way of playing the scheme; you'll have a large enough group on your hands in no time. Once that's done, encourage everyone in it to introduce others they meet and like to the group.
The second step is expanding your horizon. Shopper is a scheme infamous for being played mostly by newbies and those who only come online to have a bit of fun. If people quitting in the middle of a game and breaking rules annoys you greatly, perhaps you shouldn't be playing random people on WormNet at it anymore. Get to know more people and start playing more schemes. Not only will you soon know practically everyone in the community, you'll also be able to tell whether someone you haven't met before has the potential to comprehend your gameplay quality standards by looking at their nickname or, oh the horror, exchanging a few words.
For example: NNN, the society dedicated to the Intermediate scheme, has a league and forum where those incapable of sticking to the gentlemanlike rules of playing get ridiculed and, if they fail to adapt in reasonable time, shunned from. That's a much better way of managing a community than cutting people off in the middle of a game without them getting as much as a message telling them what happened. And before you suggest it, such a message would probably only make things worse. Of course in order for such a concept to work, whoever's in charge of things has to know what they're doing. Judging by how unprepared you are to see things from the perspective of the people getting kicked and banned, not to mention the perspective of people who want to play the game competitively, you don't seem quite on par with Dario yet to me.
To those linking everyone to easy ways of disconnecting people from a game: I'm very glad I'm not a league admin anymore. That is all.

franpa
27 Feb 2008, 05:04
So, you would rather people being able to boot people for no reason other then to **** said person off? nice idea :)
i prefer not being able to kick people because it is simpler to not play the person who annoyed you again. you can simply log there IP address and check it before the game starts via 3rd party tools.... once user accounts are used again, you could easily kick the people you don't like before the game starts since they can only have one account.

robowurmz
27 Feb 2008, 07:38
Snowdog, you have to think about this logically; someone hosts a league game on Worms. They're losing to the others. So they kick everyone else and take the prize for themselves.
See? And anyway, it's far more fun destroying a cow then just kicking him.
And now, my classic argument; you want a feature that we're not going to put in, you program it yourself. Got it?

bonz
27 Feb 2008, 07:58
If I have annoying players in my games I have no problem at all to simply shut down the game by pressing Alt-F4 and restart it without the culprit.
In most cases if you have an evil-doer, the game is completely out of balance for most game type anyway, so a restart won't hurt much.
About the whole "host is king" discussion about kicking:
I play BF2 a lot and on a plethora of dedicated servers (paid through EA's official ranked server program) idiotic admins are abusing their powers to gain advantage over players that are simply better than them, accuse them of cheating and kick or ban them from the server.
If you had an easy to use kick feature in WA the gameplay would get disrupted completely on Wormnet.
It is a major pain in the asṡ right now, that's why I'm mostly only organize my games via IRC or IM and play direct IP or password protected games with people I know.
Also how do you limit the amount of players joining a game, i mean i do a 2vs2 and 6 ppl join, how do i close it after its full of 4 ppl?
2) Drag the bottom of the player list up.
A few years ago I once suggested that this bottom border of the player name box shall get changed in a way that it is easily recognizable as a movable one, i.e. with a some sort of double arrow symbol.

yakuza
27 Feb 2008, 12:48
Because I prolly play 10-20 different games every week.
And worms is the only game I stumbled across in a loooong time where I want to kick people but can't and have to end the game coz it's ruined by 3 or 4 ppl not following the rules anymore while they did at first.
Isn't worms also the only game you stumbled across that has custom rules not programed into the game?
You said that I couldnt prolly name even 3 games... Just proving otherwise.
I said games with channel lobbies were you can chat, a la worms, warcraft 3, etc.
You keep slagging of something you don't know anything about.
Not really. I played Aoe2 back when it came out via the zone. I played lots of ranked games and you couldn't boot people. Fair enough you can do so in your custom RPG whatever scenarios.
I have nothing against noobs that follow the rules and listen if they have to skip, I cowed too in the beginning, I just happened to be able to read that I could just skip a turn.
No, you didn't understand. I meant you as in you. How would you feel like being booted for being a noob?

snowdog
27 Feb 2008, 14:54
How does something that will no doubt result in people getting kicked for dubious reasons do the community any good? Do you have any idea how bad kicking people for having a slow connection, not speaking a language well enough or not behaving well even is for a community such as WA's? And those aren't even the most braindead reasons the feature would be (ab)used for. League games come to mind...
It's my personal requirement to have a fast pc and connection and understanding the rules to join my games, don't like it, dont join.
I do not play leages so that really doesn't apply to me.
Howver leages aren't even played in anythinggoes aren't they?
You could just enable a feature for 1 room and keep it disabled for a second.
The reason large games to the tune of modern online shooters and strategy games handle things the way they do is there's not much of a community to maintain. They can afford allowing server admins be "kings" and ban as many people as they like because there's always a thousand other servers out there waiting to be joined. Whereas on WormNet, you can pretty much píss 10% of the game's active players off when you're having a rough day and end up kicking 20 people by the end of it.
Okay, but 10% is exgaggerated, in AG there are usually 50-60 people in.
Probably at least double that ammount already playing.
I usually only find 2-4 people per hour of playing wich deserve to be booted, surely that's just a few random known culprits and not 10% of the ommunity.
Fair enough though you have a point...
Instead, I strongly suggest you do what everyone genuinely interested in the well-being of WormNet has been doing for the past decade. The first step is to get a sense of how tightly knit the Worms community is and use that to your advantage. If Shoppers are your thing, find a bunch of like-minded people and advertise the proper way of playing the scheme; you'll have a large enough group on your hands in no time. Once that's done, encourage everyone in it to introduce others they meet and like to the group.
Perhaps, but I just don't really want to socialize, I just wana play tbh.
But okay can understand why ppl do...
The second step is expanding your horizon. Shopper is a scheme infamous for being played mostly by newbies and those who only come online to have a bit of fun. If people quitting in the middle of a game and breaking rules annoys you greatly, perhaps you shouldn't be playing random people on WormNet at it anymore. Get to know more people and start playing more schemes. Not only will you soon know practically everyone in the community, you'll also be able to tell whether someone you haven't met before has the potential to comprehend your gameplay quality standards by looking at their nickname or, oh the horror, exchanging a few words.
I am, I play mostly a shopper with a 12 sec time limit on a few favourite maps. Either way wxw, rope race etc doesn't really attract me due to the maps, too tight for my liking :p, atm anyways.
For example: NNN, the society dedicated to the Intermediate scheme, has a league and forum where those incapable of sticking to the gentlemanlike rules of playing get ridiculed and, if they fail to adapt in reasonable time, shunned from. That's a much better way of managing a community than cutting people off in the middle of a game without them getting as much as a message telling them what happened. And before you suggest it, such a message would probably only make things worse. Of course in order for such a concept to work, whoever's in charge of things has to know what they're doing. Judging by how unprepared you are to see things from the perspective of the people getting kicked and banned, not to mention the perspective of people who want to play the game competitively, you're don't seem quite on par with Dario yet to me.
Fair enough.
But people that are kicked know damn well why they're kicked if they are usually.
To those linking everyone to easy ways of disconnecting people from a game: I'm very glad I'm not a league admin anymore. That is all.
Leagues aren't played in AG are they, I'm just on about perhaps a single room out of 4 on wormnet, just AG, not the pro ropers one, etcetc. So with that, people can do their leages in a different room, while random gamers can goto AG
But you have some points though.
It can imo all be worked out nicely though in the end.
and play direct IP
I can't, someone disabled rope knocking in lan and directIP while it's enabled in SP and the main WN room. I haven't found a way to enable it, the tweaks in the WA folder don't work and rope knocking has always been around in SP as far as I can renember...
or password protected games
I am mostly, 50%-75% of my games are private, I play mostly with skeet and perhaps 3 others from msn, sometimes they just aren't available though.
Snowdog, you have to think about this logically; someone hosts a league game on Worms. They're losing to the others. So they kick everyone else and take the prize for themselves.
See? And anyway, it's far more fun destroying a cow then just kicking him.
And now, my classic argument; you want a feature that we're not going to put in, you program it yourself. Got it?
Don't allow such people on leages?
Disable booting from the rooms they play leages?
When 3 out of 5 people don't get ktc and just ignore the cow, and even start to cow themselves imitating the cow's moves ?
I do not know how worms is programmed. I would if I could.
@ Yakuza, welcome to my ignore list, your last comment confirmed my suspicion about you being some teen kid...

yakuza
27 Feb 2008, 15:03
It's my personal requirement to have a fast pc and connection and undertsanding the rules to join my games, don't like it, dont join.
I do not play leages so that really doesn't apply to me.
Howver leages aren't even played in anythinggoes aren't they?
You could just enable a feature for 1 room and keep it disabled for a second.
Do you realize that there's no such a thing as laggers in worms? People with 14k can play the game just like you can without problems or bothering anyone else. The only thing that can be annoying is network drops, which happen to anyone, including people with the fastest cable.
And yes, league games are obviously played in #AnythingGoes, your just in your larva phase and do not know much about the game if anything at all.
Okay, but 10% is exgaggerated, in AG there are usually 50-60 people in.
Probably at least double that ammount already playing.
I usually only find 2-4 people per hour of playing wich deserve to be booted, surely that's just a few random known culprits and not 10% of the ommunity.
The more and more you type the more and more obvious it seems that you do not represent the majority of anything and that you're just a very intolerant hoster.
Leagues aren't played in AG are they, I'm just on about perhaps a single room out of 4 on wormnet, just AG, not the pro ropers one, etcetc. So with that, people can do their leages in a different room, while random gamers can goto AG
Please do not throw random suggestion without investing any thought into them. There's a reason everyone goes to #AG and they all make sense, your suggestion does not. Do not waste my time and have me explain you why please, just blindly accept my superior knowledge.
When 3 out of 5 people don't get ktc and just ignore the cow, and even start to cow themselves imitating the cow's moves ?
Lies.
Your percentages are way off and you're exagerating to find your way. Stop it.
My last comment was only to put you into prespective, which you seem to have none of. Some people can't host, like you can. And you clearly know the rules, so I had to find a different valid reason, which is you being a noob. So how would you feel not being able to host and being booted for being a noob?

Dario
27 Feb 2008, 17:29
As yakuza (why don't you use your wormy nick here? :P)said, many highly competitive games don't allow booting. AOC custom scenarios have never been and are still not as important in competitions as random maps (that don't allow booting). And I've played that game for 10 years, competitively, so I know what I am talking about. The laggers problem isn't something to be decided by the host, but by the game engine, like in warcraft3 (another game I've played competitively for several years, and the custom scenarios there are even less important in competitions than in AOC). Worms doesn't have lagging problems anyway (thanks!!!!!).
If there was a way to know when the host booted someone, then the problems in official games might be solved (WA replays turn out to be very handy again). Of course the system has to be built strong enough so that it can't be used as a cheating tool for making it look like the player you booted disconneted or quit. That would need to include anti-3d-party programs measures.
It could also be good if, in order to boot someone, no less than half the players had to vote for that person to be booted.
I have played AOC and warcraft3 custom maps a lot (not as much as random maps though) and even though there the host is the "king of the game", abusive hosts are not many and you can easily avoid playing with the same host again. If it was needed that half or more the players vote for someone to be booted then the number of abusive hosts would be even lower.
You know, you would need half the players to agree with you on kicking someone. That could be abused too, but in that case the chances of finding a party of abusers that use their power to kick other players out of the game are the same than the chances of finding a party of abusers that use their power to kill all the worms of someone else. I've seen the latter somtimes and a booting system would probably increase the number of cases, but I don't think it would be a big difference.
I can't deny I'd like it (though not useful for me), and I also can't deny I fail to see how it could have a considerable negative effect in the community in spite of the "at least half" and "can't be used as cheat because you can know when someone was booted" security measures (if, in theory, these couldn't be modified with cheating purposes).
So I don't think it would have a huge positive impact, neither a negative one. And, considering that it might be needed to make radical changes on the game coding for implementing a well designed booting function, I also don't think it will ever be done in W:A, so just forget it. :p
Besides that I'd like to ask the forum mods to remove links to cheating programs and everything that might encourage players to search for one.

yakuza
27 Feb 2008, 17:33
But if there was a voting system, in a one on one, the host is already the 50%, so how does that work?

CyberShadow
27 Feb 2008, 18:02
This (vote-based boot) might be implemented when league/ranked games can be identified by the game as such (not before 4.0).

KRD
27 Feb 2008, 18:13
But if there was a voting system, in a one on one, the host is already the 50%, so how does that work?
And if 3 people out of 5 in a Shopper game are incapable of comprehending the scheme's simple rules, what are the chances they'll be able to grasp the elaborate principles behind a voting mechanism... :p

CyberShadow
27 Feb 2008, 19:41
And if 3 people out of 5 in a Shopper game are incapable of comprehending the scheme's simple rules, what are the chances they'll be able to grasp the elaborate principles behind a voting mechanism... :p
I don't see anything wrong with that - if the majority want to play by non-standard rules, let them :p

Dario
27 Feb 2008, 19:45
If it is a 1-1, booting the oponent is the same as quitting ^^.

KRD
28 Feb 2008, 01:36
I don't see anything wrong with that - if the majority want to play by non-standard rules, let them :p
Well, yeah. But I'm sure you can find something less useless to do over the next few years. :p
On a slightly more serious note, how about instead of kicking or voting people out of a game, you'd only be able to make them surrender? That'd be a far more personal solution in my eyes as it would give people plenty of time to ask what happened to them and why in case they wanted to know. I assume it would also make it easier to tell what happened from a replay, especially if such a surrender had its own red message in the chat [like quitting and disconnecting do already].
But anyway, these aren't really solutions to Skeeter's and Snowdog's problem. Many league games will happen until version 4.0 sees the light of day and it's vital that when that happens, WA still has a few people playing it.

CyberShadow
28 Feb 2008, 08:32
Good idea.

walrus
7 Mar 2008, 15:54
I remember a certain character called Name back in '01 that had the capability to kick people from games. That guy could do whatever he wanted, he had wormnet all hacked up.

yakuza
7 Mar 2008, 18:38
Hah, good old Name, he had a fully red flag back when it was impossible to have it and stuff. WormX was another hackish character.

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.