Feature request: booting players in-game [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Feature request: booting players in-game

robowurmz
11 Aug 2008, 17:19
I'd like to see an option to kick disruptive people without having to use Wormkit: sure enough, noobs should be told the rules. But genuinely disruptive folk should be pushed out of the game: if they can't play nicely, then they should be punished. After all, this is a common feature in most online games. Noobs are easy to deal with: explain the rules and such, but disruptive people can be kicked or in extreme cases, banned from that particular server.
A personal blacklist or something would be nice too; if he joined your game, you would be asked in a prompt if you wish to allow or deny his entry. If you joined a game and he was there, you would get a prompt for confirmation.

yakuza
11 Aug 2008, 17:24
I'd like to see an option to kick disruptive people without having to use Wormkit: sure enough, noobs should be told the rules. But genuinely disruptive folk should be pushed out of the game: if they can't play nicely, then they should be punished. After all, this is a common feature in most online games. Noobs are easy to deal with: explain the rules and such, but disruptive people can be kicked or in extreme cases, banned from that particular server.
A personal blacklist or something would be nice too; if he joined your game, you would be asked in a prompt if you wish to allow or deny his entry. If you joined a game and he was there, you would get a prompt for confirmation.
This keeps coming up and it keeps annoying the hell out of me.
In a nutshell, you nuts are asking for a feature to kick people because they're not following a set of rules made exclusively by the user. Tell me, can't you see the flaws in this?

StoneFrog
11 Aug 2008, 17:33
I'd like to see an option to kick disruptive people without having to use Wormkit: sure enough, noobs should be told the rules. But genuinely disruptive folk should be pushed out of the game: if they can't play nicely, then they should be punished. After all, this is a common feature in most online games. Noobs are easy to deal with: explain the rules and such, but disruptive people can be kicked or in extreme cases, banned from that particular server.
A personal blacklist or something would be nice too; if he joined your game, you would be asked in a prompt if you wish to allow or deny his entry. If you joined a game and he was there, you would get a prompt for confirmation.
Did you count the number of ways this can be abused?

robowurmz
11 Aug 2008, 17:45
Did you count the number of ways this can be abused?
Yes. In every game on the planet there are ways to abuse the features: however, this would only be available to the host (admin). For tournaments, how about a tickbox that says "Tournament?" that disables kicking.
Besides, it should be entirely at the host's discretion who plays and who doesn't. I mean, am I going to want somebody who is purposely wrecking a game playing with me?
I don't see how this wouldn't work; yes, there are going to be stupid and purile idiots who kick everyone who starts winning, but then they can be avoided via a blacklist, like I suggested.

yakuza
11 Aug 2008, 17:47
I don't see how this wouldn't work; yes, there are going to be stupid and purile idiots who kick everyone who starts winning, but then they can be avoided via a blacklist, like I suggested.
Okay, so. Hypocrisy o'clock?
Why don't you use the blacklist to avoid having to kick people? You know, I've played this game for 10 years. Probably more than most of you who post here for features, and I've never had any kind of issue with idiots ruinning my games. Then again, I make a habit of playing with people I know, and I don't struggle identifying idiots. Perhaps you should try it, instead of promoting an idea that can potentially break the community, the leagues and god knows what else.
For the record, it is within the host's discretion to choose who he plays with, out of those that join his game.

robowurmz
11 Aug 2008, 17:52
Kicking saves time, and usually the game. Because this is a turn based game, when they start spamming the chat and stuff, and then they only get one turn at messing around before they're hoofed out. That will prevent a further attack in the game: by the end of the game, it's too late to have done anything about it, and it's wasted everybody's time and ruined the fun. Blacklisting would prevent it in future, yes, but action would be a nice thing to have.
I don't understand why people don't like this idea. I mean, you support wKick and everything. You seem fine about it in other games; and it proves its worth there. Then again, it's easier to crash a computer through disruptive behaviour on GMod than it is on Worms, that's true and so there is a greater need on GMod, but still; I think it'd be worth having, IMHO.
For the record, it is within the host's discretion to choose who he plays with, out of those that join his game.
Like I said, you don't always know who is going to be disruptive: so you can't kick them out if you don't know they're going to do it.

yakuza
11 Aug 2008, 17:57
Kicking saves time, and usually the game. Because this is a turn based game, when they start spamming the chat and stuff, and then they only get one turn at messing around before they're hoofed out. That will prevent a further attack in the game: by the end of the game, it's too late to have done anything about it, and it's wasted everybody's time and ruined the fun. Blacklisting would prevent it in future, yes, but action would be a nice thing to have.
Yes, kicking saves time. But I rather waste 1 minute of my life killing a noob or making him quit, remembering his nickname for the future than to see the day a feature like this ruins everything.
I don't understand why people don't like this idea. I mean, you support wKick and everything.
What?
You seem fine about it in other games; and it proves its worth there. Then again, it's easier to crash a computer through disruptive behaviour on GMod than it is on Worms, that's true and so there is a greater need on GMod, but still; I think it'd be worth having, IMHO.
The only games I play other than WA on weekly basis are Kicks Online and Diablo2, in the former it's like in WA, you can kick the player in the lobby but not once ingame. And in the second one you can do neither.
Like I said, you don't always know who is going to be disruptive: so you can't kick them out if you don't know they're going to do it.
You don't always know the host either, or how much of an idiot he is. You take the chance to play in his game, for all you know he might just kick you because he's a sore loser. Oh how great that would be.

DarkOne
11 Aug 2008, 18:08
If a player is particularly annoying and doesn't respond to reason, you can always quit the game and restart.
You may also want to try a different approach around people who are new to this game. First time I ever played RR with a good player, I was astounded at the way he played, but he was patient with me and I got better.
So I chose to do the same with every new player that has shown willingness to learn.
In case you were curious: one of those new players I've shown the same courtesy was Ryan (who later turned out to dominate the RR scene)
Also: http://wormtube.wyvsucks.org/index.php?id=27
The reason people don't like this idea, because those "few" people you named is most likely a majority instead of a handful of people.

KRD
11 Aug 2008, 18:24
Nobody with at least a vague comprehension of the sociology on WormNet supports wKick.dll. If you know anyone who does, please refer him to #worms so that I can interrogate him, attempt to wash his brain and, if all else fails, publicly mock him and the people he associates himself with.
Fairly recently, two threads have been made with the purpose of having this feature implemented on this forum and both have been run into the ground by wise sages like myself those who regularly play WA online on a plateau higher than the one commonly referred to as the BRAINDEAD SHOPPA CIRCLE. Elitism or not, I firmly believe those are the sort of people who should get more of a say in matters where the wrong choice has the potential of making an end to what's left of the WormNet the eldest of us remember and love.
A vital thing to understand when it comes to in-game kicking is that WormNet is small enough for anyone to be able to get to know at least all the types of people playing online, if not most of the individuals. Giving today's lazy computer game audience an easy, unsociable way out in a community this small would, I'm quite certain, result in an even smaller community in the long run.

MilesTP
11 Aug 2008, 18:44
Maybe that idea of kicking people disturb someones, but I find it very useful in case if someone lags too much. We don't want to loose 3 minutes of our life watching a **** who his/her internet is dying. In those cases, it's better to kick him/her. Also there's lots of ******** playing to screw up nice people. A blacklist would be appreciated. No one likes to be kicked, but when you need to, you'll.
Sorry my language, but those words are appropriate for those kinds of people. Note: the 4* isn't noob.

robowurmz
11 Aug 2008, 19:03
I've already said this twice:
New players, not kicked. Disruptive players, kicked.
I think I've quite made the difference here. I'm not talking about noobs being kicked. At all.
for all you know he might just kick you because he's a sore loser.
I've visited this point, please read again.
While I realise that, yes, indeed people will not like it, in all fairness, it's useful to have around. I'm not part of the Shoppa circle; there's nothing I like more than a normal game. I can't stand the silly rules. However, for people who do like to play with silly rules, this is an ideal option.

Melon
11 Aug 2008, 22:03
Kicking works in other games, but the reason why it doesn't work in WA is because so many people play with rules that aren't enforced by the game.
New players cannot possibly know these rules unless they've done a lot of homework on something they never knew existed in the first place.
While booting disruptive players who are just out to cause a nuisance would be nice, it would be abused too much by arrogant fools who seem to think that people who don't understand these silly made up rules are stupid. This potential for abuse just isn't worth the benefits from having a kicking system.

[UFP]Ghost
11 Aug 2008, 22:36
I don't want to repeat everyone else so I'll make this very short. You don't need this, it's simply a convenience. If people don't like it and are completely against it then you can just Let It Go. It won't hurt you to go without kicking, why make others suffer?

franpa
12 Aug 2008, 06:39
Kicking should only be incorporated once a form of scripting that allows a set of rules to be enforced, is available. (have the scripting kick a person after failing the rules either after 1 or 2 infractions.

Run
12 Aug 2008, 09:35
I think if you want to kick a person you should have to work for it (minimise and do it manually)
edit: nothing new here, just parroting what others have said

robowurmz
12 Aug 2008, 09:43
Fine, fine.

bonz
12 Aug 2008, 13:44
Kicking should only be incorporated once a form of scripting that allows a set of rules to be enforced, is available. (have the scripting kick a person after failing the rules either after 1 or 2 infractions.
When such hard-coded rules are available through scripting I still wouldn't kick a person.
You could easily add scripted punishment of the culprit, for example with increasing severity after each infraction:
auto-skip a player's turn
decrease player's total worm health
auto-kill the player's healthiest worm
skip player's next three turns
and so on...
I bet most of those morons, who like to deliberately mess up a game, only have a bunch of 1hp worms left and need to wait three turns to move them, will quit voluntarily rather quickly.

franpa
12 Aug 2008, 13:49
AND possibly, it could undo the damage they caused while breaking the rules too.

MihaiS
12 Aug 2008, 14:00
Kicking is the quickest way to save a game before it gets ruined by any moron, noob, malicious person, friend gone mad or whatever. And none of you can prove otherwise.

bonz
12 Aug 2008, 14:02
AND possibly, it could undo the damage they caused while breaking the rules too.
That reminds me of Run's History Eraser (http://worms2d.info/History_Eraser) from Worms Unlimited.
Something similar could get incorporated as a scripted rule, affecting all worms except the offending one.

yakuza
12 Aug 2008, 15:06
Kicking is the quickest way to save a game before it gets ruined by any moron, noob, malicious person, friend gone mad or whatever. And none of you can prove otherwise.
I can prove it. WA has been online and kicking for 10 years.

MihaiS
12 Aug 2008, 15:10
I can prove it. WA has been online and kicking for 10 years.
The only thing you can prove is that you never back down even if you have nothing useful to say.

yakuza
12 Aug 2008, 15:22
The only thing you can prove is that you never back down even if you have nothing useful to say.
Specially when I try my best to explain things and you seem to be paying no attention.
It's usually a good idea to trust those that have much more experience than you on any given subject. Usually.

MihaiS
12 Aug 2008, 15:32
I'm not going to repeat myself.

yakuza
12 Aug 2008, 16:19
I'm not going to repeat myself.
You don't have to. We're already aware you're a selfish person who wants to be able to have full control over what goes on instead of approaching the game with more of a community spirit, getting involved, and knowing what's going on, getting to know the people that like you love the game and having the patience to teach the newbies, or to restart the game if an idiot appears. All you want to is to jump into the game, host your own Shopper and be able to kick anyone that dares challenge your views.
Perhaps Counter Strike is a better game for you.

robowurmz
12 Aug 2008, 16:25
Calm down everyone, it was only a suggestion.
If we want to kick, we'll use wKick.

MihaiS
12 Aug 2008, 17:32
You don't have to. We're already aware you're a selfish person who wants to be able to have full control over what goes on instead of approaching the game with more of a community spirit, getting involved, and knowing what's going on, getting to know the people that like you love the game and having the patience to teach the newbies, or to restart the game if an idiot appears. All you want to is to jump into the game, host your own Shopper and be able to kick anyone that dares challenge your views.
Perhaps Counter Strike is a better game for you.
You, dude, are slow!
Let me make this easier for you to understand:
1. Don't talk to me from the behalf of the community as you are nothing but a more or less significant part of it. (I'd go for less)
2. I am not selfish, otherwise I would have not been willing to spend time creating the tutorial about selectively kicking people. (Making it implies starting a game with some people, getting some screen-shots at the right moment, editing them, uploading them, writing the actual tutorial) Furthermore, I kind of crossed the limit trying to show you all how it's done by posting another thread that was almost immediately deleted (and I also received an infraction at Team17 Forum for that)
3. Don't talk to me about having the patience to teach the newbies since you play only with people you know (or at least that is what you've stated/replied to me)
4. I don't want to restart the game if an idiot appears! If you find it comfortable, I'm not stopping you.
5. Yes, when I was a beginner I used to host Shoppers. What's wrong with hosting Shoppers? Are you trying to suggest something, because I'm sure many members of this community fall into the lines of your thoughts.
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll give you some feedback if it suits me or not.

Squirminator2k
12 Aug 2008, 17:40
2. I am not selfish...
Kicking someone who is a "noob" - someone unfamiliar with the rules of the game - is the very definition of selfish. You're unwilling to help newcomers learn to play the game. You're prepared, instead, to tell them to shove off. That's definitely not in-keeping with the community spirit that has so far endured for very nearly a decade, and the last thing we need is someone like you trying to upset the apple cart and acftively turn newcomers away from the game.
Remember that [we were all noobs at one point (http://wormtube.wyvsucks.org/index.php?id=27)]. All of us.
And if you're going to be so mind-numbingly dense to as to place importance on how "significant" a person is in the Worms community, well, people seem to think I'm pretty significant. [Glod only knows why (http://www.dream17.co.uk/)].

MatrxCoder
12 Aug 2008, 17:43
Don't talk to me from the behalf of the community as you are nothing but a more or less significant part of it.I don't think you're in the position to judge people who have been playing the game for much longer than you.
I am not selfish said the guy giving away weapons for free. "I'm only giving them away because people can kill criminals with them, but I don't give a damn if people mis-use them to murder innocent children."
since you play only with people you knowHmm, you'd think that in 10 years he'd get the chance to play with random people incl. newbies, no?
I don't want to restart the game if an idiot appears!Then do it and stop telling people how to turn newbies away from the game, making them think everyone is a sadistic anti-social retard! :/

MihaiS
12 Aug 2008, 17:59
@ Squirminator2k and MatrxCoder:
What the hell is wrong with you people? I'm not exclusively talking about kicking noobs. And cut it off with that link to wormtube. I've seen it already! OK? It's nicely done, but I'm not having a crusade against noobs. It's all about having the ability to continue a game and save what's left of its integrity.
The kicking criterion(s) are of the host's (but not exclusively) concern.

yakuza
12 Aug 2008, 18:01
Which leads us back to the selfish point.
You seem to be unable to see the fact that many people would abuse this. And seem to think it's a great idea because you're under the impression you'll give it a nice use on a personal basis.
By giving the host all the power you're taking away a big part from the community, never mind those people who are unable to host (which are probably a majority). All a joiner can do is act like a jackass, and when that happens the most likely scenario is everyone ganging up on him and killing him, or rehosting and not letting him join. If the host has the ability to kick people then it's a whole different animal, and since it's never been a big deal (idiots ruinning games) then why take the risk of adding such a disruptive feature? Besides being a selfish asocial moron, that is, which I'm not saying you are but you surely are hinting it.
Is it that hard to take a look at the whole picture here? Seriously.

MihaiS
12 Aug 2008, 18:18
I'm starting to believe that some of you don't want this kind of information (i.e. disconnecting people) to go public because you like to keep it for yourself.
After all, you can't have fingers pointed at you for disconnecting a player since no one can tell it's you (the host) the one who kicked him.
Did I get the whole picture?

Squirminator2k
12 Aug 2008, 18:21
No. No you did not. You have completely missed the point. Well done.
http://stuff.benpaddon.co.uk/shadowmoon.png

yakuza
12 Aug 2008, 18:25
It's funny because he knows all the little loop holes that would make competitive league games a chaos (just an example) if people started abusing this and yet he is unable to acknowledge its side effects.
VVVV
even more of a reason to decapitate him [/lame]

Squirminator2k
12 Aug 2008, 18:29
It probably has something to do with the fact that, where most people have a brain, he instead has a grilled cheese sandwich.

DarkOne
12 Aug 2008, 18:30
The kicking criterion(s) are of the host's (but not exclusively) concern.
I highlighted the weakness of your reasoning for you.
You're welcome.
In addition, I also talked to you about patience in teaching noobs the game, because I have and still do.

MihaiS
12 Aug 2008, 18:48
http://www.flash-bug.com/_RubberWorm/moron.png

DarkOne
12 Aug 2008, 18:51
You're handing that one out to him because you completely missed his point?

Squirminator2k
12 Aug 2008, 19:00
Oh no, he knows how to use Photoshop! EVERYBODY PANIC!

MihaiS
12 Aug 2008, 19:06
Oh no, he knows how to use Photoshop! EVERYBODY PANIC!
Actually, no! I paid somebody to do that for me.

Squirminator2k
12 Aug 2008, 19:07
I sincerely hope you're joking.

Diablo vt
12 Aug 2008, 20:12
Actually, no! I paid somebody to do that for me.
Um. What??

yakuza
12 Aug 2008, 20:18
Um. What??
It's a funnay. The "a" is important; not to be mistaken with an actual funny.

MihaiS
12 Aug 2008, 20:44
j00 r teh funnay!

MrBunsy
12 Aug 2008, 21:36
*subscribes to thread for entertainment value*

CyberShadow
13 Aug 2008, 06:00
*moves thread for off-topic (non-)value*

robowurmz
13 Aug 2008, 11:06
The point that is trying to be conveyed here is that I do not endorse kicking new players. Kicking genuinely destructive people for messing the game up when they are losing or are just assing around even when they know the rules is a fair punishment, IMHO. I wouldn't unduly kick them, I'd first ask them "Do you know the rules to this game?". If they didn't I'd tell them. If the did know and still kept on being stupid, then I would kick them.
Before you reply to this, please read it again.
TL;DR: I Don't Want To Kick New Players.

MrBunsy
13 Aug 2008, 11:21
The point that is trying to be conveyed here is that I do not endorse kicking new players. Kicking genuinely destructive people for messing the game up when they are losing or are just assing around even when they know the rules is a fair punishment, IMHO. I wouldn't unduly kick them, I'd first ask them "Do you know the rules to this game?". If they didn't I'd tell them. If the did know and still kept on being stupid, then I would kick them.
Before you reply to this, please read it again.
TL;DR: I Don't Want To Kick New Players.
That's not what the problem is. The problem is that if kicking were easy to do, then the idiots would do it. It would be utterly abused, far more than it would prevent abuse.

super_frea
13 Aug 2008, 13:27
*subscribes to thread for entertainment value*
I'm with you on that one.

robowurmz
13 Aug 2008, 13:44
That's not what the problem is. The problem is that if kicking were easy to do, then the idiots would do it. It would be utterly abused, far more than it would prevent abuse.
Oh I GET it now! I see, you're worried it'll fall into the wrong hands...yeah, I can see the problem now. Thanks!

franpa
13 Aug 2008, 13:57
Even I thought that was obvious.

Squirminator2k
13 Aug 2008, 16:18
Even I thought that was obvious.
My God.
When Franpa is one of the voices of reason in a thread, something is very, very wrong with the Universe.

bonz
14 Aug 2008, 00:10
My God.
When Franpa is one of the voices of reason in a thread, something is very, very wrong with the Universe.
Franpa, you know that you just got a compliment by the S2k? :D

DarkOne
14 Aug 2008, 00:55
Then you read that sentence in a completely different way than I do, bonz! :)

robowurmz
14 Aug 2008, 10:10
This thread is starting to detoriate: I think we've finished the discussion now.
Kicking = Not Going to Happen
Close this thread please.

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