Possible Solution to Owner/Admin Abuse - (Community Servers)

Unturned II U4 Discussion
30

Encouraging idlers and bots to fill up your server space is hardly nice. Fortunately, AFK systems should handle that anyways (and I don’t reasonably believe many networks would employ down-vote bots to begin with).

Giving servers the power to directly affect their rating (by requiring a certain amount of hours on the game) is not helpful to the user, and instead the server owner. Very few games will average 300+ hours on them, and if most people can’t rate servers to begin with then the system has no actual reliability.

  • We should not have to assume that most votes won’t be accurate anyways. If that was the case, the system is already going south to begin with. How many hours do people have in the game after 2-4 years of playing to think 300 is common? :thinking:

Being able to shutdown your server and make a new one easily counters a low rating. It also means that any server that is already highly-rated cannot risk creating a new one without losing that rating, though we could argue that most highly-rated servers likely won’t find a reason to make a new server to begin with.

A large portion of the current active community enjoys “OP KITS TPA ECONOMY servers” and “RP servers” more than true vanilla survival. Trying to understate that is a bad idea, at least in Unturned 3. It could very well end up with mostly vanilla servers being down-voted instead.

Regardless, the feature shouldn’t be made to help server owners more than it’d help users. I think if it was implemented it’d likely start quite bare and end up staying that way. :man_shrugging: Need a lot more faith in the general player-base to be fair and credible.

31

i totally agree with you here, but i think he meant 80 total hours? cause if he didnt hes straight insane

33

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20749186349

20180418_225932
20180418_2259321280×350 97.3 KB

Playtimes, too.

34

I also think that banned people shouldn’t be able of voting for the server that banned them.

36

Oi mate chill out with the Ad Hominem attacks will ya?

1 Like
38

I think this idea is a great suggestion to be added. I think it should come as a filter and not default displaying when looking at servers for the following reasons.

Opinion
  • Let’s say a YouTuber makes a server on Unturned 4.x, all of the fans of him are going to upvote the server just to show their support.
  • If there was servers at the top that didn’t deserve to be there all the hardworking servers that don’t have famous YouTuber’s would not get reconition.

I did have a server in 3.x and the way the server list was displayed did get a lot of attraction to my server so I was fine with the system.

Solution
  • I think that the solution to what I just stated is to have a upvote/downvote clear every 2 weeks or other week. If the votes were to be cleared it would give a good chance for a smaller server to get some players trying different servers and possibly liking it.

This is just my feedback on your topic, if you have anything to add just quote or tag me.

1 Like
39

For your second part, why not pull something out of the system Steam reviews use?

Have an overall rating and a recent rating. Both will show when you see the server, so if a server had a one time surge and then did something bad, you can see/judge it more easily.

3 Likes
40

I like this idea with using steam reviews to show servers reputation, only it would need a lot of stuff to make it work (active players on most servers willing to rate it, the ability to find servers fast with good ratings, etc).

41

I think we need to stay 1 hour and playing in it constantly for a server rating…

42

Unfortunately, it’s hard to define “actually playing” without more arbitrary requirements.

43

I actually like the idea you have with clearing the votes every 2 weeks.

This also is a pretty sweet idea. I was originally thinking of something like Steam reviews but never really got to writing it down.

@Awbee

This is still something being thought of. Whether to go with in-game time or server time.

44

Topic updated

45

@bittlejuice he is DEFINATELY on drugs
@AtomSplinter i think if the banned people got the so many hours (probably like a minimum of 8) and they get banned then they should still have the choice to vote because this whole idea is to stop admin abuse and if you get banned by an abusing admin probably for calling em out then you downvote to show theyre abusive

46

I can assure you… No one, including me, are on drugs.

The point of literally every topic suggesting anything to a game is to discuss it… No suggestion is perfect, and the reason someone suggests something in the first place is not only to bring the idea forward to the community. However, to also get input, feedback and improvement methods upon the original suggestion.

So here’s my input on this

This suggestion is contradictory. The good thing about not allowing banned players to vote is because they could be banned for good reasons. Yet, still out of annoyance give a downvote even though it was given wrongly.

Whilst, on the other hand, allowing banned players to vote could allow them to give downvotes to a server which has abusive admins.

2 Likes
47

but if your banned for say… kosing on an rp server, are you realling going to play that many hours just to break the rules? but then on a pvp server with a glitch base youd probably hit the contradictory point as they probably have played a lot

48

Of course a server time! We don’t play Unturned always, Such as me - I played America’s Army: Proving Grounds.

49

This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.