Kicking system
So you guys believe that the kicking system we have is the best..
I say give kicking option to the Host of each room but you say that people must change not the system...
And i say...
What if 10 people dont like and only 2 like you ? That means that 10 people can do whatever they want?
Kick you, kill you and you never right if 10 people say you wrong?
I am not trying to reinvent the weel ' “My favorite [MOD] “
I am trying to fix the broken* one
I say give kicking option to the Host of each room but you say that people must change not the system...
And i say...
What if 10 people dont like and only 2 like you ? That means that 10 people can do whatever they want?
Kick you, kill you and you never right if 10 people say you wrong?
I am not trying to reinvent the weel ' “My favorite [MOD] “
I am trying to fix the broken* one
Comments
-
-
.CeeSynthetic wrote: »we have one of the worst communitys known to gaming and you want to give them power to kick at will? all those BRs are noobs who cry hak everytime you get a kill will be able to kick you whenever they feel like it. id rather stick to this system
i say give kicking option only to the Host of each room only he can start voting process not everyone who just entered room and dont likw your ace -
CeeSynthetic wrote: »we have one of the worst communitys known to gaming and you want to give them power to kick at will? all those BRs are noobs who cry hak everytime you get a kill will be able to kick you whenever they feel like it. id rather stick to this system
11 years old, BR/Egypt's/Turks, noobs, trollers, jealous people, hackers.. these people are the kicknoobs and with the five of ten things i've mentioned are already impossible to fix. -
GodsLegion wrote: »i say give kicking option only to the Host of each room only he can start voting process not everyone who just entered room and dont likw your ace
So you give host to some randie that's staff sarg and is going 1-43 when the old host leaves, and then he kicks everyone out.
k -
.There is already abuse in the system, that'd be more abusive. Also hosts can kick after the game.
/reg. close
I say to disable the kick option from all players and leave it only to Host, so only Host can start it and rest players just press f11 or f12 voting.
Its really awefull to be kicked from the room you made.
Dont like my room,go else.
What is the main reason of kicking process ?I think to kick hackers is the reason,but -
What if the host is a noob? What if the host doesnt know how to kick? What if the host doesnt read the chat? What if the host doesnt do this, do that. There are so many questions to be questioned.
There is no way you can go through this game, or any other game, and make any progress wondering "what if?" in every scenario.
I'm sick and tired of constantly being kicked by Crossfailers because I simply killed them 1 time. I would happily put money into this game if Z8 implemented the procedure that GodsLegion suggested.
This game is about shooting & killing, therefor you can't run a room via Democracy. It HAS to be ran like a Dictatorship by the Host or things just get out of control in a hurry.
Could someone abuse the Host only vote system? Sure, but it couldn't be abused as much as the system that's in place now.
I've played other games that have the "Host Only" kick system and it is by a large margin a better way to go.
What would "help" the situation is if you could set a minimum rank in order for people to join the room. Higher ranks tend to have a better maturity level than the constant noobie ranks who kick vote for no apparent reason. -
The kick vote is bad because the majority of players abuse it. Right now kick vote requires majority rule, so all these abusers need to agree in order to kick someone. Giving the host absolute kicking means only one abuser is needed to kick everyone they don't like from the room, and since the majority of kick vote users are abusers this only lead to more abuse kicks.
The Majority of players already can't handle dieing/losing in a videogame, you want to give them more power to ruin everyone's fun because they can't handle defeat?
(Imagine the Host of the room wants a quick win for daily mission, Good bye entire enemy team!) -
The kick vote is bad because the majority of players abuse it. Right now kick vote requires majority rule, so all these abusers need to agree in order to kick someone. Giving the host absolute kicking means only one abuser is needed to kick everyone they don't like from the room, and since the majority of kick vote users are abusers this only lead to more abuse kicks.
The Majority of players already can't handle dieing/losing in a videogame, you want to give them more power to ruin everyone's fun because they can't handle defeat?
(Imagine the Host of the room wants a quick win for daily mission, Good bye entire enemy team!)
Now everyone can start the vote kick,i just say only 1 person should start the voting prosees,and the rest players just vote -
tnxThere is no way you can go through this game, or any other game, and make any progress wondering "what if?" in every scenario.
I'm sick and tired of constantly being kicked by Crossfailers because I simply killed them 1 time. I would happily put money into this game if Z8 implemented the procedure that GodsLegion suggested.
This game is about shooting & killing, therefor you can't run a room via Democracy. It HAS to be ran like a Dictatorship by the Host or things just get out of control in a hurry.
Could someone abuse the Host only vote system? Sure, but it couldn't be abused as much as the system that's in place now.
I've played other games that have the "Host Only" kick system and it is by a large margin a better way to go.
What would "help" the situation is if you could set a minimum rank in order for people to join the room. Higher ranks tend to have a better maturity level than the constant noobie ranks who kick vote for no apparent reason.
Tnx God there still are logical people!!! Congrats really!My respect Huge Respect! -
why host-only kick system is bad idea:
- could be easly abused by cheaters - host-cheater create a game
kill all around, and he is unkickable.
- n00b host will be or do not kick anyone, will on purpose keep cheater to win,
or will be call kick vote to get rid of the ace of opposing team (or someone who kill him)
---
However I'd like to propose more rights for host - keeping the current system,
but the host can call the call vote-kick for opposing team not only for their own. -
.there is no way you can go through this game, or any other game, and make any progress wondering "what if?" in every scenario.
I'm sick and tired of constantly being kicked by crossfailers because i simply killed them 1 time. I would happily put money into this game if z8 implemented the procedure that godslegion suggested.
This game is about shooting & killing, therefor you can't run a room via democracy. It has to be ran like a dictatorship by the host or things just get out of control in a hurry.
Could someone abuse the host only vote system? Sure, but it couldn't be abused as much as the system that's in place now.
I've played other games that have the "host only" kick system and it is by a large margin a better way to go.
What would "help" the situation is if you could set a minimum rank in order for people to join the room. Higher ranks tend to have a better maturity level than the constant noobie ranks who kick vote for no apparent reason.
+10 ....... -
.Annomader1 wrote: »why host-only kick system is bad idea:
- could be easly abused by cheaters - host-cheater create a game
kill all around, and he is unkickable.
- n00b host will be or do not kick anyone, will on purpose keep cheater to win,
or will be call kick vote to get rid of the ace of opposing team (or someone who kill him)
---
However I'd like to propose more rights for host - keeping the current system,
but the host can call the call vote-kick for opposing team not only for their own.
if host is cheater ,everyone can just leave...
If host is noob hes 1 noob not 3,4,5,8 noobs trying to kick the ace or anyone..
You understand the diference between 1 person trying to kick you and 10 people trying to kick you... -
You are just going to cry and whine once it (if) is implemented into CF. It's a horrible idea and it's not hard to understand.
If you try to listen and read what people have been saying, you would slap yourself on your forehead and think about why you would post something so idiotic. -
FrozenSyther wrote: »You are just going to cry and whine once it (if) is implemented into CF. It's a horrible idea and it's not hard to understand.
If you try to listen and read what people have been saying, you would slap yourself on your forehead and think about why you would post something so idiotic.
I disagree. Everyone is saying that the host would have an unfair advantage if the system was a host only kick.
Right now, the way the popular vote kick system works, is that it favors people with limited experience, limited ability, and/or limited maturity. Those people should not have the power to vote in any situation at any time under any circumstance.
Any system will have it's flaws and limitations. It's like trying to make everyone happy, it's an impossible task, so your best option is to severely limit the variables in each room by giving the host the only one with the ability to kick.
The Host however shouldn't be allowed to kick everyone at any given second. Limit the host to "X" amount of kicks per "X" amount of time. That way they cannot create an "Instant Win."
If the Host is a cheat, it's a simple solution, leave and start your own room. It's better to waste 30 seconds of your life with a cheat than 10 rounds trying to do a popular kick vote. I play Hero Mode a lot, time after time people will wait until the last round to boot you when they are raged out.
There is no reason you should have to limit your own playing ability to put yourself at the mercy of the noobs in your room.
A host only vote system would help promote congregating of quality/mature players and leave the noobs to themselves.
I personally would never be angry with a host because I consider the hosts room "THEIR" room and go along with their style of play. I would rather try not irritating 1 host versus 10+ other players in the room (ie. reducing the variables...) -
Your argument is invalid.
"Just leave if the host hacks" Then in that case leave if someone hacks OR get him kicked. (which wouldn't be a possibility)
Even if the current system leans into "limit experienced" players, I would rather have it on 10 people who either don't know how to kick, will kick anyone, and just doesn't speak English. Because then there is still a chance for me but if the host is either one of those, I'm screwed. (if he doesn't know how to kick, glitchers and hackers won't be kicked, if he kicks due to his stupidity then I'm screwed, and if he doesn't speak English, well I just stated the reason)
Sometimes even when the game hasn't started, sometimes the host simply kicks all anyone who seems pro and/or has a high rank. Now imagine that in-game. -
^+1FrozenSyther wrote: »Your argument is invalid.
"Just leave if the host hacks" Then in that case leave if someone hacks OR get him kicked. (which wouldn't be a possibility)
Even if the current system leans into "limit experienced" players, I would rather have it on 10 people who either don't know how to kick, will kick anyone, and just doesn't speak English. Because then there is still a chance for me but if the host is either one of those, I'm screwed. (if he doesn't know how to kick, glitchers and hackers won't be kicked, if he kicks due to his stupidity then I'm screwed, and if he doesn't speak English, well I just stated the reason)
Sometimes even when the game hasn't started, sometimes the host simply kicks all anyone who seems pro and/or has a high rank. Now imagine that in-game.
I'd rather hope that the 10 idiots in my game know what an f11 is, than have a 10/16 chance of a power abusing moron. -
FrozenSyther wrote: »Your argument is invalid.
"Just leave if the host hacks" Then in that case leave if someone hacks OR get him kicked. (which wouldn't be a possibility)
Even if the current system leans into "limit experienced" players, I would rather have it on 10 people who either don't know how to kick, will kick anyone, and just doesn't speak English. Because then there is still a chance for me but if the host is either one of those, I'm screwed. (if he doesn't know how to kick, glitchers and hackers won't be kicked, if he kicks due to his stupidity then I'm screwed, and if he doesn't speak English, well I just stated the reason)
Sometimes even when the game hasn't started, sometimes the host simply kicks all anyone who seems pro and/or has a high rank. Now imagine that in-game.
I do leave when I see a hack. The problem is if I'm in a room, and the hack joins... 9 times out of 10 the people never boot the hack. If I was host and had the ability to kick, I could just boot them without there being any debate. I understand that most players in this game have no integrity what so ever and it could be abused, but I'm tired of playing 20 games and being kicked from 18 of them.
The #1 problem with CF is that it's TOO EASY to play for free, thus making immaturity more of a problem than hacking.
It wouldn't be that hard to program the system to keep a tally of the amount of kicking a host does. Even limit them to "X" amount of kicks per day so they cannot abuse the power readily.
The host kick would still be far better than the current system or no system at all (in my opinion).
In the end, as long as it's free, there really isn't a real reason to complain, but I would happily go to a subscription or fee if the game went that direction. I also believe that anyone who puts money into the game has every right to complain about anything they desire. -
i disagree. Everyone is saying that the host would have an unfair advantage if the system was a host only kick.
Right now, the way the popular vote kick system works, is that it favors people with limited experience, limited ability, and/or limited maturity. Those people should not have the power to vote in any situation at any time under any circumstance.
Any system will have it's flaws and limitations. It's like trying to make everyone happy, it's an impossible task, so your best option is to severely limit the variables in each room by giving the host the only one with the ability to kick.
The host however shouldn't be allowed to kick everyone at any given second. Limit the host to "x" amount of kicks per "x" amount of time. That way they cannot create an "instant win."
if the host is a cheat, it's a simple solution, leave and start your own room. It's better to waste 30 seconds of your life with a cheat than 10 rounds trying to do a popular kick vote. I play hero mode a lot, time after time people will wait until the last round to boot you when they are raged out.
There is no reason you should have to limit your own playing ability to put yourself at the mercy of the noobs in your room.
A host only vote system would help promote congregating of quality/mature players and leave the noobs to themselves.
I personally would never be angry with a host because i consider the hosts room "their" room and go along with their style of play. I would rather try not irritating 1 host versus 10+ other players in the room (ie. Reducing the variables...)
++++++++ respect ++++++++ -
.I disagree. Everyone is saying that the host would have an unfair advantage if the system was a host only kick.
Right now, the way the popular vote kick system works, is that it favors people with limited experience, limited ability, and/or limited maturity. Those people should not have the power to vote in any situation at any time under any circumstance.
Any system will have it's flaws and limitations. It's like trying to make everyone happy, it's an impossible task, so your best option is to severely limit the variables in each room by giving the host the only one with the ability to kick.
The Host however shouldn't be allowed to kick everyone at any given second. Limit the host to "X" amount of kicks per "X" amount of time. That way they cannot create an "Instant Win."
If the Host is a cheat, it's a simple solution, leave and start your own room. It's better to waste 30 seconds of your life with a cheat than 10 rounds trying to do a popular kick vote. I play Hero Mode a lot, time after time people will wait until the last round to boot you when they are raged out.
There is no reason you should have to limit your own playing ability to put yourself at the mercy of the noobs in your room.
A host only vote system would help promote congregating of quality/mature players and leave the noobs to themselves.
I personally would never be angry with a host because I consider the hosts room "THEIR" room and go along with their style of play. I would rather try not irritating 1 host versus 10+ other players in the room (ie. reducing the variables...)
++++++++ Respect ++++++++ -
First of all, everyone has the right to "complain". Someone who spends 100k ZP has the same rights as a guy who spent 0. (Unless there's some sort of event limited to ZP buyers)
Immaturity isn't even a big problem here, it's the fact the most players don't even speak English. (Foreigners) People all have different opinions, one may think a player is simply pro, while the other think's it is blatant hacks. It's not because they are immature, they just both think differently as they are humans.
If a host runs out of his "kicks", what happens when someone is using hacks? What happens if someone is glitching? The system that the OP suggest has too many flaws, much more than the current one. And someone said something about you can't base everything on "What if's", you have to create your foundation on "What ifs". You have to use your brain and think about the flaws that something could bring not just do it right away saying "YOLO". Ignorance is bliss.
And you base everything on personal experience, not what happens in the whole game. Every time I see a hacker, (A blatant one) he gets kicked almost instantly, usually after a round. And yes, this is with people who even call me a hacker, or foreigners who don't speak English. -
FrozenSyther wrote: »First of all, everyone has the right to "complain". Someone who spends 100k ZP has the same rights as a guy who spent 0. (Unless there's some sort of event limited to ZP buyers)
Immaturity isn't even a big problem here, it's the fact the most players don't even speak English. (Foreigners) People all have different opinions, one may think a player is simply pro, while the other think's it is blatant hacks. It's not because they are immature, they just both think differently as they are humans.
If a host runs out of his "kicks", what happens when someone is using hacks? What happens if someone is glitching? The system that the OP suggest has too many flaws, much more than the current one. And someone said something about you can't base everything on "What if's", you have to create your foundation on "What ifs". You have to use your brain and think about the flaws that something could bring not just do it right away saying "YOLO". Ignorance is bliss.
And you base everything on personal experience, not what happens in the whole game. Every time I see a hacker, (A blatant one) he gets kicked almost instantly, usually after a round. And yes, this is with people who even call me a hacker, or foreigners who don't speak English.
I respectfully disagree.
I consider people who don't put money into the game (or any game) having no right to complain (I'm going against my own beliefs by venting here). I use the same logic about people who don't vote in a presidential election, if you don't vote, you shouldn't have the right to complain (just using that as a comparison.)
Immaturity is a very real problem. You kill one smiley face crossfailer and he goes screaming to the hills "hacker/racker" and before you know it they nominate you for a vote and BAM your gone. Regardless of what language anyone in this game speaks, they all know instantly what F11 or F12 means (I find that very convenient). Plus if they couldn't speak English, at least they can read it (be pretty hard to play this game without knowing what the words were...again, convenient.)
"What if's"
I do agree with your initial statement about creating a foundation based on the said statement. However, "what if" will ALWAYS branch out to more "what if's" in an infinite cycle, this is why no system will ever be perfect.
What if the host runs out of votes? That's the point, you have to ration the votes as host and keep them for the true hacks instead of booting someone you just don't like. The current system operates the same way, everyone is limited in the number of kick vote nominations.
Every time I see a hacker, they are almost never kicked. If I nominate the person for a kick, 9 times out of 10 it's denied. People clearly watch a guy fly through the air and F12 a kick request. If I'm the Host, and I created the room, why should I have to put up with that? Could I exercise my right to leave? Absolutely, but that would make it near impossible for a legitimate player to rank up and accumulate any sort of GP or reward.
Most the time anyone in the game F11's without watching the nominee in person. They just punch the button no matter the reason and this infuriates me while in game. Whenever someone nominates a kick in my room I check the players ping (see if they are spiking), check the rank (see if it's a noob kicking a pro), and watch the player myself (to see if I can see any evidence of a hack).
I have to base everything on personal experience, it's the only thing anyone can ever go off of. When everything is going well and people are getting along and there aren't any hacks, this game is a lot of fun, but it only takes 1 bad apple to ruin the whole game. I have a zero tolerance for cheating and firmly believe the host deserves the right to do a unilateral kick vote.
I wouldn't have a problem with the current system if anyone under a butter bar was barred from nominating someone for a kick. Again, no solution is perfect, but no matter what, I believe the current system needs to be revised to be more stringent.
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 15 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 2.5K CrossFire
- 715 CrossFire Announcements
- 714 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 322 Community
- 12 Modes
- 393 Suggestions
- 16 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 73 CF Competitive Forum
- 1 CFCL
- 16 Looking for a Team?
- 524 CrossFire Support
- 7 Suggestion
- 15 CrossFire Guides
- 37 CrossFire Off Topic