tournies

[TenaciousD]

Putting this under suggestions... move to grievances if that's where it belongs.

Recently there have been a few people saying they are in for tournaments and then not joining. After whatever punishment the QO's hand down to them, we are told to no longer count their vote for future tournaments. I am wondering why this is. I think if someone is going to take their punishment and then return to the community as an active player, they shouldn't be given a free pass by having people not count when they say they are in.

If they want to keep repeating the same offense, then I think they should be accountable for repeat offenses and whatever punishment is handed down by the QO's for repeat offenders. With so many people having alt's, and so many people claiming multiple friends/cousins/brothers/sisters/etc use the same computer, I really think it is asking too much of the community to keep track of who should be counted and who shouldn't. I just think if you say you are in, you are bound just like anyone else who agrees to participate in main chat for a tournament. Punishing them once for it and then just ignoring their future attempts at the same thing is only going to lead to repeat offenses with them thinking there are no repercussions if they can find someone to count their vote who doesn't know who they are.

Whatever the QO's decide I'll stand by, but that is my opinion on this whole matter.

[SamAdams]

I whole-heartedly agree with TenaciousD. It's ridiculous that someone can engage in bannable activity as long as they have been punished once. Mabye that makes things easier on the server resources or something, but the server is there to do what it's name means - serve. Us. Not the other way around.

I'm more than willing to abide by the 4 players per tourney minimum because it makes sense. I'm more than willing to abide by anything the QO's say because if I wasn't it wouldn't matter. But I'm also willing to point out that when someone does something more than once on Quest, the answer is almost never ignoring them unless the question is "What to do about PM spams?"

OK, I've blown out about as much hot air on this subject as I can. I hope my effort is noted because I feel strongly about this

[Alexis]

With so many people having alt's, and so many people claiming multiple friends/cousins/brothers/sisters/etc use the same computer, I really think it is asking too much of the community to keep track of who should be counted and who shouldn't. I just think if you say you are in, you are bound just like anyone else who agrees to participate in main chat for a tournament.

Well said. I'm in agreement with you. If this is going to be a rule that we are enforcing we need to find a different solution because if the names start piling up on who's word counts toward a tourney and who's doesn't then it will be very hard to keep track of them not only for players but for QO's as well. Just to reiterate I have brought this up to the rest of the QO's. We'll get back to ya soon.

[Jouser]

Unless I'm misunderstanding should staff really be in charge of policing that players enforce verbal promises?  We can't police that people actually show up in tournies...

We don't have the resources to make sure people act out oral contracts.  We have certain trusted systems in place (trades, player store) to make sure players aren't ripped off.  Outside of these trusted systems it is the honor system (tournies, clans, etc...) -- that's part of the fun!

Am I missing something?  What's wrong with these players earning a reputation for lying about tourny participation....isn't that the community punishment?

[TenaciousD]

The problem that is arising from this mainly is the 4 player minimum rule for tournaments. If people are looking to start a tournament and need that crucial 4th player, which is usually the case, and someone says they are in, then we start the tournament and they either join and log or don't bother joining at all, shouldn't they be held accountable?

Tournaments are a much loved part of Quest, if players aren't required to stick by what they say, or if they only have to face criticism from the community which they can turn off with /ignore, then what is to stop them from making alts and doing the same thing over and over? This is what has happened already, with the player claiming multiple people use the computer.

Right now honest players don't say they are in a tournament unless they plan to compete in and complete the tournament. If there is no repercussion for not following through, I fear the tournament system will degrade into something that no longer is fun. Maybe not, but that is my feeling. There has to be consequences for rules to be followed IMO.

Using "We can't police that people actually show up in tournies...." as a rule for it, I could see mutliple ways to abuse the tournament system. I won't post them so people don't get ideas, but I sincerely hope you reconsider this. I'm sure there are multiple people who would help the QO's enforce this, me included, so there would be no further strain on the QO's other than 5 minutes or so spent checking all the information provided by players.

It's not like this happens a lot, so it wouldn't be something that a QO would even have to deal with much, just occasionally when a new player shows up that refuses to respect the system in place and likes to mess with people by making new characters to do it again. This is only the 3rd time in my memory that I have seen a problem with this in 5+ years.

The only fair way to keep this out of the QO's hand is to incorporate a way to sign up for tournaments through the server. Someone types /tournament or /pk or whatever, and they are added to a list. When the list reaches 4 people, the tournament starts with the normal 2 minute delay so more people can join, the people are prevented from logging out and they are automatically warped to the cave at the start of the tournament. As long as the option to start tournaments remains in the players hands though, I think players should be accountable for saying they will participate.

[SamAdams]

As long as the option to start tournaments remains in the players hands though, I think players should be accountable for saying they will participate.

Perfect way to conclude the plethora of good points you brought out.

I was always told that the reason you are required to enlist 4 people including yourself in order to start a tourney was because it was taxing on the server's resources and needed participation to be justified. Everything Jouser said goes against that, and these were things QO's have told me several times over the years.

If people aren't going to be held responsible for agreeing to tourney and backing out at the last minute/during, then what's to stop others from simply starting tourneys when ever they feel like it? ban them for a day and tell them not to count their own names in the future?

[Jouser]

....
The only fair way to keep this out of the QO's hand is to incorporate a way to sign up for tournaments through the server. Someone types /tournament or /pk or whatever, and they are added to a list. When the list reaches 4 people, the tournament starts with the normal 2 minute delay so more people can join, the people are prevented from logging out and they are automatically warped to the cave at the start of the tournament. As long as the option to start tournaments remains in the players hands though, I think players should be accountable for saying they will participate.

I like this idea.  Also I've kicked around for a while /votekick [name] and /voteban [name] options where players can police themselves.  If 85% majority is reached then someone can be kicked or banned without QOs present....

I believe I was the one who issued the 4 player minimum directive so I don't want to contradict myself on that.  By all means though if players want to help report trouble makers to QOs let's do it.   IMO, if someone is a being a jerk off then kick/permban whatever.  That's what I would do if I was a QO.  No one would have any rights.  ACting like a jerkoff ==> you're gone.  But that's why I'm not allowed to be a QO; I'd step on everyone's personal liberties.

[Sora]

Small idea: Tourny list in the TOP 50 area of the website, or an NPC in game you can talk with to see the results.  Basically the list would show the top 10 people who placed first in a tourny.  Can also have options to show 2nd, 3rd etc.  Also I am all for the /votekick, but not so much for the /voteban.

[Hrothgar]

yes if you have a bunch of people on who don't.....enjoy your presence the /voteban could be bad...

[TenaciousD]

That's what server logs are for. I don't think it would get really abused, except maybe some late night antics between friends. Instead of /kick and /ban I would rather see /kick and /mute though. Leave the banning to the banninators!

[Hrothgar]

if you add /kick have it be for a time limit set on the vote same with mute....

[SamAdams]

I like it. should cost gold to kick, though

[JonnyMonroe]

....
The only fair way to keep this out of the QO's hand is to incorporate a way to sign up for tournaments through the server. Someone types /tournament or /pk or whatever, and they are added to a list. When the list reaches 4 people, the tournament starts with the normal 2 minute delay so more people can join, the people are prevented from logging out and they are automatically warped to the cave at the start of the tournament. As long as the option to start tournaments remains in the players hands though, I think players should be accountable for saying they will participate.

I like this idea.  Also I've kicked around for a while /votekick [name] and /voteban [name] options where players can police themselves.  If 85% majority is reached then someone can be kicked or banned without QOs present....

I believe I was the one who issued the 4 player minimum directive so I don't want to contradict myself on that.  By all means though if players want to help report trouble makers to QOs let's do it.   IMO, if someone is a being a jerk off then kick/permban whatever.  That's what I would do if I was a QO.  No one would have any rights.  ACting like a jerkoff ==> you're gone.  But that's why I'm not allowed to be a QO; I'd step on everyone's personal liberties.

I would support a /kickvote but not a /banvote - But a kickvote should come with a 10minute server lockout as well in order to not be abused. The community is not a predictable entity and a lot of the people who play this get way to emotional about trivial things, and the result could be a lot of bans getting thrown around where the appropriate course of action would just be an ignore or killchat. Admitedly those bans can get appealed but thats even more workload for the QO staff and more greif for a wrongly banned player.

[Lyrael]

^ I agree with what Jonny said but would like to add that we most definitely need a /votemute for those times when the chat's being spammed to hell and there's no QO on.

[Hrothgar]

how about a /getQO option.....

[Hitme]

I like the /kick method so I dont have to wake up at 2 AM and hear about someone spamming. the /ban can be seriously abused.

[kegan]

make it so the game wont let a tourny wont start unless theres 4 people in the cave

[SamAdams]

It was that way for a while. Then everyone realized that until the tourney starts people can still exit the cave. At least that's what I'm assuming since it's no longer that way.

[Jouser]

make it so the game wont let a tourny wont start unless theres 4 people in the cave

Starting with 5.x I believe you cannot start a tournament unless 4 or more players are in the pk arena.

[SamAdams]

Like I said, it was that way for a while. Not anymore. I wasn't sure why, I had theories but it just stopped.