Def/int Continue Screen Timeout: Neutral Players Follow Majority

[Frawg]

An idea I had sitting around for a long while now:

 

I propose that when on the interception or defense continue screen,

if there are people sitting on neutral, they follow the majority, (2 extracts, 1 neutral, 1 continue: neutral extracts)

but if its evenly decided, neutral follows host (1(host) extracts, 2 neutral, 1continue:  neutral extracts)

 

However, that may be considered a bit aggressive, so:

Keep it preemptive towards continue (as per usual), but if at least one extracts, and everyone else is neutral, all extracts.

(1 extracts, 1 neutral, 2 continue: neutral continues (as per usual);

3 neutral, 1 continues: neutral continues (as per usual);

1 extract, 3 neutral: neutral extracts)

 

This is a bit more sophisticated system that is meant to catch those who're not yet labeled as afk (an upgrade to 16.4 implementation of this with the AFK system),  and an optimisation from interpersonal patterns (I've noticed those who sit neutral but are not afk seem like they only want to follow the majority of people, or that they feel like they could continue if no one leaves).

[taiiat]

i don't think i'd like that. it makes it easier for people to be partially AFK.

sitting neutral IMO signals that you're indecisive or you don't mind whether the Squad stays or leaves, and would like to wait for others to make their decision before you follow along.

[Frawg]

i don't think i'd like that. it makes it easier for people to be partially AFK.

sitting neutral IMO signals that you're indecisive or you don't mind whether the Squad stays or leaves, and would like to wait for others to make their decision before you follow along.

For the second part, that's exactly my original intention: to allow the indecisive/the ones who don't mind to implicitly follow the others'.

 

For the first, you're missing a point: when exactly in a defense or interception am I allowed to take that 1 minute pee break other than that moment between two waves, especially when there's an extraction cycle (not everyone can pee in 2 litre bottles like the MLG pros).

[taiiat]

taking breaks

if you plan on leaving at the end of a 'Cycle', click Extract, and then go. you know you're going to leave, it isn't going to force you to stay.

alternatively, if you know the group is going to continue and you want to as well, at 98-99%, just walk away(in a relatively safe location ofcourse!), and you have plenty of time.

[DSpite]

If we are going to think up "arbitrary" rules for stay/leave, then something else is also needed:

 

* If you click "Continue" you can't change your mind (locks in), and it means that you want to STAY regardless of who else stays, meaning "I will still happily continue even if I do so alone, and since I'm now committed to it, I'm not going anywhere otherwise my rewards are gone".

 

* If you click "Leave", then you are locked in to extraction, and can't change your mind, so you are saying "no way in hell I'm hanging around, just want to make sure you all know this. I have washing to do, or need to feed the cat, or whatever reasons".

 

* If you don't select either option (Sitting on the fence), then you ONLY stay if the team number does not change, and if it does, then everyone also "on the fence" extracts as well.

 

This means:

 

* If NO ONE clicks anything, they are all put into the next wave.

* Anyone that REALLY want to continue, even solo, will be guaranteed to do so, and will encourage others to continue because "it's locked in", so if 1 good player locks in, decent chance someone else might want to as well.

* If anyone clicks EXTRACT at the last second trying to be a smart arse, then the entire team "on the fence" extracts automatically, because their decision on staying was based on no one else leaving. All or nothing, basically.

 

Basically the best tactic would now be not to vote if you are only willing to stay if EVERYONE ELSE also stays, and if you are set on 100% leaving or 100% staying regardless of what everyone does, then you click either one.

 

A single person that clicks extract at the last second now hurts no one because you were "sitting on the fence" SPECIFICALLY for that reason, that being the "whole team or no team" choice.

Edited April 27, 2015 by DSpite

[Frawg]

If we are going to think up "arbitrary" rules for stay/leave, then something else is also needed:

 

...

 

Basically the best tactic would now be not to vote if you are only willing to stay if EVERYONE ELSE also stays, and if you are set on 100% leaving or 100% staying regardless of what everyone does, then you click either one.

 

A single person that clicks extract at the last second now hurts no one because you were "sitting on the fence" SPECIFICALLY for that reason, that being the "whole team or no team" choice.

 

There is a difference between "arbitrary" and chaotic--we're not trying to make the extraction into a (monarchic) suicide-pact like you think it is.

 

Right now, there is a little difference from staying neutral and from sitting on the continue side, which breaks the idea of being 'neutral'. I want to remove that. I proposed two ideas, two views of what we then could consider 'neutral': one that follows the majority of the voting people and a one that preemptively allows the undecided to not get screwed over when no one explicitly wants to extract.

 

Think of it as this:

My first idea is based on the premise that people often move in a group together primarily because they need each other to stay alive. So if a majority of the party wishes to continue or exit, the neutral won't get screwed over by being forced to follow the minority. If the majority wants to continue, they could use the help of the neutral, and if the majority wants to exit, they don't have to face the imminent failure.

 

For the same reason that you created your "arbitrary" secondary rules, I created a more forgiving idea: something only build towards not screwing over the neutral when the people who do vote actually want to extract. For example, if the frost that keeping the pod alive really wants to extract, but the others (who, for whatever reason wont decide) are neutral, would it be better for the computer to make them play safe, or make them continue to a possible imminent failure?

 

The difference between the first and second one is that the second one requires only one on the continue side for the neutral to continue (second is majorly similar to the current system except it allows a scenario for extraction).

 

Yeah, it is impossible to create a perfect decision system (computers can't easily read humans' minds just yet), but I have seen too many cases where the neutral were screwed over into continuing by not voting to extract, when everyone else did. I want to see a solution to that.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Frawg