[+2D, BIN 11JAN] Please add a system to opt out of round types.

[FreshRefreshments]

Certain gamemodes, I do not want to play. I would rather spend two hours doing what I want than to play a round where not only I do nothing, but the antag has a negative experience because of me. For some rounds, it is simply not feasible to go to cryo when you realize its a certain antag type. 

Therefore, just as you can check certain antag types, make it so that we can check roundtypes we don't spawn in for.  I, for one, do not want to be forced to undertake Antagonist actions as a non-antagonist. If a borer gets into my character, then they have to deal with them, and they don't want to do much of anything. I don't much want to be forced to do something. I dont want to stonewall an Antagonist or be forced for someone elses round to be good at my expense. I would rather everyone else can enjoy their round or not, but I be left out of it entirely.

[DickFreedomJohnson]

Not going to lie this could absolutely be used to metagame the shit out of gamemodes. What if you opt out of a game mode then just spawn in anyways through latejoining? You would know what game mode it is unlike everyone else ((implying secret is the game mode))

Edited February 4, 2020 by DickFreedomJohnson

[FreshRefreshments]

You can metagame a gamemode anyway. If someone avoids a gamemode, and then latejoins, and clearly knows whats happening already, that sounds like a ahelpable issue. I don't think that peace of mind for certain people should be withheld due to certain others abusing it, especially when metagaming is already against the rules. 

[Doxxmedearly]

What do you feel is the best solution in the case of this happening:

Crossfire is in the secret rotation. 25 person minimum. Say we have 28 people readied up and enough antags to fill merc and raider teams.

However, crossfire is a mode a lot of people dislike. Say for instance ten of those people have "don't put me in a crossfire round" option enabled, leaving 18 people, 8 of which would be antags.

What happens, then? Does the gamemode not start, or does it start with seven less people than it should have? (Or is there another possibility/option?)

I only ask because this is a situation that will inevitably come up. What do you feel would be the best way to handle such things if this suggestion were to be implemented?

 

Personally, unsure how to feel about this. I don't think meta's a concern. On one hand, I feel for what you mean and why you'd want this. On the other, it brings up some issues with gamemodes either not starting or being stale due to lack of players (as well as potential balance issues).

[FreshRefreshments]

If secret is chosen, and there are 28 people, and less than 25 actually even want to play Crossfire (not are ok with or without it, but genuinely hate the gamemode and the chaos it brings), then now is the same problem of people voting Crossfire and not readying up. Less than 25 people want to play the selected gamemode, regardless of what it is. How is it fair to them to have to either endure something that they genuinely dislike or just go to cryo with half an hour wasted (assuming this is how long it takes Mercs and Raiders to board and announce they are there)? 

[Doxxmedearly]

My question was more from a mechanical standpoint. Would the game not start, or would it start with less? When people unready because they do not like it, the game will not start for lack of players. Is that how you would envision this functioning? That is, if the "I don't want to play this gamemode" numbers reduce the number of players below the required amount (ie: 25 for crossfire), the game does not start as if they were not readied?

I'm not asking about fair to the players right now (That's a discussion I'm sure will blossom further in this thread). I'm just trying to get a feel for how this would work from a mechanical standpoint with regards to if rounds start and if so, with how many people. I wanted to see how you envisioned that working first.

[DickFreedomJohnson]

2 hours ago, FreshRefreshments said:

You can metagame a gamemode anyway. If someone avoids a gamemode, and then latejoins, and clearly knows whats happening already, that sounds like a ahelpable issue. I don't think that peace of mind for certain people should be withheld due to certain others abusing it, especially when metagaming is already against the rules. 

The thing is only an idiot gets caught with metagaming a roundtype. It would make it easier to easily, subtly prepare for the different antags of each roundtype and make the life of any powergamer that has an above 2 digit IQ that much easier. I like the idea but it's sort of a double-edged sword. My revision to it would be "If you get blocked from the round through this method, you cannot play the round and only can Observe." or some shit like this.

[FreshRefreshments]

7 minutes ago, Doxxmedearly said:

My question was more from a mechanical standpoint. Would the game not start, or would it start with less? When people unready because they do not like it, the game will not start for lack of players. Is that how you would envision this functioning? That is, if the "I don't want to play this gamemode" numbers reduce the number of players below the required amount (ie: 25 for crossfire), the game does not start as if they were not readied?

I'm not asking about fair to the players right now (That's a discussion I'm sure will blossom further in this thread). I'm just trying to get a feel for how this would work from a mechanical standpoint with regards to if rounds start and if so, with how many people. I wanted to see how you envisioned that working first.

I do think that it would work in the same manner- simply denying the gamemode if enough people fall under "I do not want this game at all and opt out", the same as it would people unreadying because they do not want to play a gamemode.

5 minutes ago, DickFreedomJohnson said:

The thing is only an idiot gets caught with metagaming a roundtype. It would make it easier to easily, subtly prepare for the different antags of each roundtype and make the life of any powergamer that has an above 2 digit IQ that much easier. I like the idea but it's sort of a double-edged sword. My revision to it would be "If you get blocked from the round through this method, you cannot play the round and only can Observe." or some shit like this.

I would be vaguely fine with this? Its not a terrible idea, IMO, and id rather take the L and lose out on the round (after all, if I am blocked from the round this way anyway, I did not plan on playing in the first place) than have to deal with the rounds either way.

[BurgerBB]

The greatest illusion that has ever graced Aurorastation is that most people don't know the roundtype.

• I can hit the observe button, go play a round of something else, and then come back to see what the round type is and join based on that.
• I get PMs from other users, unsolicited, of what the roundtype is and they're usually right.
• I can look at the manifest and take an educated guess of what the roundtype is.
• I can even look in game and make a guess based on station announcements or what people have to say to what the round type is.
• Hell, if the gamemode is voted for, it can tell us the roundtype. And do you know what? MOST PEOPLE DON'T OUTRIGHT METAGAME.

 

Like legitimate there is no reason not to tell us the roundtype if people want to. Like this whole voting system is corrupt as shit where the only two viable options for a gamemode is secret or extended because for some reason we're still doing first past the post voting and we're still in make-believe land where people think players don't know the roundtype within the first 20 minutes. Recently, Aurorastation has become absolutely unplayable for me and others because of this insistent that we're not allowed to know the gamemode as well as the fact that bad gamemodes are usually rolled because you guys PR'd out my antag requirements PR.

People are becoming extremely frustrated with the gamemode system and are fucking off to other servers because of it.

 

 

[Coalf]

4 hours ago, FreshRefreshments said:

I do think that it would work in the same manner- simply denying the gamemode if enough people fall under "I do not want this game at all and opt out", the same as it would people unreadying because they do not want to play a gamemode.

The question is also how you define "enough people"
Is a 29 to 23 majority valid or not? Should the gamemode be blocked after that? It's still a very high number of people who don't want it.
Is a 30 to 20 too much? Too little? Why? What did those extra 4 people achieve besides an arbitrary increase in pleased to displased people? 20 is still a lot of players in this case.
How about deadrounds? 9 to 4?  9 to 3? or even a bit more normal like 20 10? What is the exact number of people needed to be upset in order to cancel a round?
Plus what about the people that DO want a gamemode? Antag cross-over events and borers are largely unique to Aurora, isn't it a bit unfair that someone who really likes this gameode and has literally no other server to find it on, has to basically suck his thumb because the minority wants to play the Xth round of wizard?
In this system good gameodes don't get passed, just the ones that are the least offensive to most people.

1 hour ago, BurgerBB said:

some reason we're still doing first past the post voting

What other system should we use?

Condorcet method? Well this wouldn't solve the issue, if voting was based on numbers that people assign to their gamemodes from favorite to least favorite, we'd just keep getting secret and extended.
Two round voting? Where people vote for their favorite gamemode and then the 2 with the most votes have a second voting? Technically the fairest vote, but also bound to get the most people upset as they might get stuck choosing between two things they don't want.
Electoral College? Give the admins a stronger vote so they can sway public votes in whatever direction they deem is best for the round?
Seperate players into voting blocks and give each block a single vote like in ancient rome?

The issue is our gamemode selection, we can't MAKE a fair vote because there is so many choices that all votes always get split up, so people HAVE to  vote in a way to counter their LEAST favorite gamemode. Or vote for what they want and possibly get disregarded for picking the 3rd party.

45 vote Traitor > Extended > Borer
40 votes Extended > Borer > Traitor
30 votes Borer > Traitor > Extended

I.e If Traitor has the most votes, it would be the winner. However, if Extended was not in rotation, Borer would be the winner, as more people prefer Borer over Traitor. Same goes for us, the less choices people have the more they'll be upset they couldn't pick their favorite, but the more choices there are the stronger the bigger the split and possibility of a gamemode that the majority REALLY doesn't want, being picked.
Which is why secret is so popular, regardless of how unpopular your favorite gamemode is, you still might get it. Further it rids you of the moral choice of having to pick something that other people are going to hate, picking you want and weakening a vote, or having to pick between two things you hate.

 

tl;dr there is no "fair" way to do voting on server, revealing the gamemode is going to be convenient for the few people who just cannot stand a gamemode so much they have to leave the game every time its voted, but very inconvenient in terms of actually inspiring slight paranoia those 20 minutes before the first kill appears

2 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

People are becoming extremely frustrated with the gamemode system and are fucking off to other servers because of it.

Which servers don't use the voting system we do?

[Garnascus]

Enabling players to opt out of rounds before they even begin is in my opinion very unhealthy. The idea that the existence of one type of antagonist completely nullifies any fun you would have really raises some questions for me. Aurora's premise is a HRP server with antagonists enabled. So at any point an antagonist could show up and cause some chaos in your day or your friend's day. The idea that you can be in charge as to when this happens or even how it happens is simply incompatible with our server.

9 hours ago, FreshRefreshments said:

Certain gamemodes, I do not want to play. I would rather spend two hours doing what I want than to play a round where not only I do nothing, but the antag has a negative experience because of me.

I would really need to ask what you mean when you say "doing what i want". What is it that you want that a certain round type prohibits you from getting?

[MattAtlas]

5 hours ago, BurgerBB said:

 Recently, Aurorastation has become absolutely unplayable for me and others because of this insistent that we're not allowed to know the gamemode as well as the fact that bad gamemodes are usually rolled because you guys PR'd out my antag requirements PR.

We haven't really... reverted anything related to antags yet?

[geeves]

Voting for dismissal for the reasons above.

[FreshRefreshments]

7 hours ago, Coalf said:

The question is also how you define "enough people"

The same way the standard voting defines enough people. People vote for a gamemode, the top one is chosen. The same thing happens if you don't ready up, or a readied up for a gamemode you don't want to play, because you arent going to be loaded in either way. If certain people have a gamemode toggled off, then it means they do not want to play it. Same as not having enough antagonists, and a gamemode not getting passed on Secret, which happens frequently, again, because people do not want to play the gamemode.

6 hours ago, Garnascus said:

I would really need to ask what you mean when you say "doing what i want". What is it that you want that a certain round type prohibits you from getting?

I'll be entirely honest and clear in the idea that my intention, if this were added, is to avoid Borer rounds. I personally hate the premise of the gamemode, and I would much rather skip out on the rounds before I get stuck with a Borer in my head that I now have to listen to and go completely against what I would rather do. But I don't want to just dodge every single secret round because of its appearance in the rotations. This is the only gamemode that genuinely makes me not want to play Secret. Other gamemodes that are usually bad exist. Ling rounds tend not to be that good. Vampire rounds. But Borer is the only case that I feel like I would request a way to flat out avoid the rounds they exist on.

I would much rather an antagonist cause chaos to my friends day, or even my day, than be stuck for an entire round being an antagonist that either i'm not going to enjoy, or they are not going to enjoy, depending on who gets their way. 

[MattAtlas]

8 hours ago, Garnascus said:

Enabling players to opt out of rounds before they even begin is in my opinion very unhealthy. The idea that the existence of one type of antagonist completely nullifies any fun you would have really raises some questions for me. Aurora's premise is a HRP server with antagonists enabled. So at any point an antagonist could show up and cause some chaos in your day or your friend's day. The idea that you can be in charge as to when this happens or even how it happens is simply incompatible with our server.

I would really need to ask what you mean when you say "doing what i want". What is it that you want that a certain round type prohibits you from getting?

Pretty much this. Voting for dismissal.

[Carver]

Per what Burger said, it's incredibly easy even now to make an educated guess on the roundtype within the first twenty some minutes. It wouldn't make it any much easier to metagame so much as allowing people who don't want to participate in a mode they find unenjoyable to opt out sooner (per suggestion) rather than later (per cryo/passive suicide).

[Hendricks]

I hate wizard just as much as the next but this basically voids secret. Secret. A round type where you are 80% likely going to be disappointed regardless.