9
\$\begingroup\$

My game has many rooms of around 10 people where they compete. It's basically one big guy against the other small 9 people.

However, sometimes the one guy will intentionally 'troll' and make for an unfun game for the other 9 people. These people would like to kick the one guy to replace him with one of the other 9.

If the vote was required to be unanimous (other than the guy being kicked), then him just having one friend in the game would prevent the vote from passing. Likewise, if you did unanimous minus one, then two friends could stop the vote, etc.

There there is the issue with small rooms. If a room has only two or three people, then one guy can trivially kick other people.

Has any research been done for optimal votes required to kick someone from a room depending on how many people are in the room?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Alternatively you could try to change your game mechanics in a way that the "big guy" is punished for "trolling" behavior, quickly loses the game and gets replaced with someone else. When one player can ruin the game for everyone else, it often hints at a design flaw. \$\endgroup\$ – Philipp Oct 6 '15 at 14:25
5
\$\begingroup\$

It sounds like a simple majority vote (no negative-voting) would work.

In a room of 10 (other than the "big guy", who I assume is unable to vote), dethroning them would take 6 players. Of course, if the majority of players are trolls, they could deny the vote, but who wants to stay in a room where the majority of players are trolls anyway?

This simply scales down to smaller rooms: In a room of five, you'd need 3 to agree. In a room of two, both would need to agree.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

You could implement a "warning system" as well. Something along the lines of:

1) If the majority of the players vote for a player to be kicked, they get a 'warning' that shows up on their screen and vote-to-kick is locked out for 1 minute.

2) If the antagonizing player does not begin to behave within that 1 minute, the other players may vote to immediately kick them with a simple majority vote.

This would give the 'lead' player a chance and give them a 'reality check' of sorts.

[Editing in my comment as an improvement - I'm still new to SE behaviors.]

Perhaps a user could accumulate 'warnings' on their account, and they only get kicked if they have 3 or more 'warnings' in the last 30 days? Ex: You can get 1 warning per game, and if you're a frequent offender then instead of a warning you just get the boot. I just try to be wary of 'vote to kick' systems from past experience. Players can be childish at times

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Unfortunately, players being what they are, I think that the "warning shot" will always be followed by a vote to kick, regardless if the antagonizing player started to behave or not. I would kick right away :) \$\endgroup\$ – Vaillancourt Oct 6 '15 at 13:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @AlexandreVaillancourt This is true. Perhaps a user could accumulate 'warnings' on their account, and they only get kicked if they have 3 or more 'warnings' in the last 30 days? Ex: You can get 1 warning per game, and if you're a frequent offender then instead of a warning you just get the boot. I just try to be wary of 'vote to kick' systems from past experience. Players can be childish at times. \$\endgroup\$ – Amagii Discordus Penndragon Oct 6 '15 at 14:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Seems you have something you can use to improve your answer ;) \$\endgroup\$ – Vaillancourt Oct 6 '15 at 14:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.