Votekicking in MvM: Bullying vs Experience

[AM DERG]

It's been a matter for quite some time and I feel it's equally high time that this issue be addressed.
Votekicking in MvM is a flawed system, and it generates two distinct PoVs:
To an expert player who doesn't feel like wasting their time with someone they deem unfit on their team
and to a player who is trying to complete, say their first tour but still has some experience.

Is it fair that a player with experience should have the right to muscle out younger or less experience players because it's a "waste of their time"?

Personally, I feel everyone deserves a chance, and if you're complaining a teammate isn't good enough it's my opinion it's YOUR fault for not joining with a team of players you trust, but let's set that argument aside for a moment.

Today I watched a younger player leave a game in tears because another three members (that's all it takes mind you, so if you create a party of 3 intentionally, here's your exploit to forcefully shaping a team) didn't feel he was doing well enough. Rather than quitting the game they decided they'd kick the kid. Now mind you, this is a younger player (as was obvious due to the voice chat) and these users were being particularly rude to him. Now, he has all the right to play however he chooses, but do 3 other players, who might I add joined mid game after 3 others ragequit, deserve the right to kick him out?

A lot of people seem inclined to argue yes, but seriously people, if you don't want to play with "noobs" you shouldn't be joining public games with randomly selected players.

Now, in the event that a player is clearly unfit to be playing the game they are in, you create one situation, but here's another.

In a team that had proceeded all the way to wave 5/7 on an EXPERT campaign, we eventually hit a snag and couldn't seem to proceed. 3 players on the team gave up and quit and a trio of smack talking "pros" entered the game. Seeing as how they couldn't "carry" the rest of us (and from my PoV, I feel it might as well have been the other way around), they figured it was in their best interest (them being the players who just joined) to systematically votekick the rest of us.

That's 5 waves down the drain because some self-proclaimed "elitist" doesn't feel that their teammates are good enough.

So what do you suggest? Is it fair to other players that they be subject to what can be best described as blatant bullying? Or is it better to simply allow the players more fit for the game to muscle everyone else playing out of their way?

This is no uncommon thing, every MvM match I've been in there's alway that one guy convinced he's better and convinced that the threat of a votekick is enough to bully someone into doing what they say, even when he doesn't have the needed 2 votes to back it up.

The current votekick system only requires a majority vote/"enough" players, meaning if 3 players vote yes and 2 abstain it's an automatic kick!

My suggestion is a required unanimous vote or requiring a majority when all players have voted ("enough" being at least 5/6 players, pref. 6/6)
Not only does this excessively lenient "no reason given" kick allow any 3 players to bully an MvM player into submission, but it also bans that user from rejoining the game, even if by accident, so attempting to join games in progress shortly after typical yields the "you have been banned from this server" error and sends you back to the main menu, kicking you from the queue.

What do you suggest?
Do you feel it's fair that a player of higher status deserves the right to do this to other users?
Do you feel it's fair to be kicked from a game for refusing to do precisely as another player demands (or even suggesting they might be wrong)?

Where is the line drawn, and when does it become justifiable to remove a player from your game?
The current grounds for kicking besides "no reason given" are "suspected of cheating" and "scamming" and such, so no such reason seems to be justified such as "not good enough".

What should be done, if anything, to make this a friendlier environment?

[$@GA #merkelsommer]

Votekick is definitely needed if you play with randoms especially on expert.
It´s not a matter of fairness. There are tons of people who are not responsive or that just have a low skill/iq-level.

If you´re really an "expert" you could easily prove it to other players to avoid beeing kicked.

[Octavia]

I completely agree with you, but I've had this argument with elitists before. Their argument is essentially that the lower skilled players are wasting their time, and so they have a right to kick them; the problem is that they don't see the equality that these players should have, nor do they see the logic that if they kick more players than there are in their game, their logic works for the people they kicked, and not for themselves.

Players of a higher status never have the right to do this, and if anyone actually argues that they do, well, can't you just make a private game? I've been told that it takes time and organization, but that's the price you pay for a game where you can verify the skill of your players; it's similar to forming any kind of organized team. If you go to a community center and play a game of Soccer with everyone there, and then complain that your team sucked when you didn't organize the teams where you could pick your players, then you're being an elitist. Same thing here; the only difference is that you could argue that since rewards exist, you need an elite team; the problem with that is that you're taking a greedy approach to the game, and it justifies many acts that are commonly referred to as bad, possibly even rule breaking.

Also, if it isn't a matter of fairness, what it is? A matter of greed? Because that certainly seems the way it is portrayed, since Tickets all cost the same, and they all have the same Tickets.

A suggestion someone else brought up in another thread would be by allowing players the option, and not be required, to search by Tours completed. In general, this would give the elitist players higher chances of joining themselves, while organized teams could still be made and players could join without search limitations; I see that as perfectly acceptable. Kicking should still be possible, but it should be required to be an actual majority, not just three; a fifty-fifty vote, or players who abstain from voting, should lead to a kick. If someone abstains, then they clearly don't believe that the player should be kicked, and the vote should not pass; a four versus two or five versus one vote is an actual majority, but the player who is kicked should be prevented from joining said server as long as a majority who has kicked him without a map change stays on the server. That way he isn't consistently kicked, and can look for a server with people who aren't elitist, greedy jerks, as you describe.

[$@GA #merkelsommer]

Equality they should have is not an argument. It`s something that can´t be accomplished. Neither in a game nor in real life.

There´s no doubt that lots of people attempt expert without a propper skill level. They ARE wasting their time and the time of others. However, I agree with you that the people who whine about the huge amount of noobs should put more effort into gathering good players so that they can avoid the bad players.

Also you assume that everyone who just wants to win the tours quickly is elitist and/or a greedy jerk because they kick players who cleary not belong in expert mode?

[Octavia]

Originally posted by $@GA【表面張力】:

Equality they should have is not an argument. It`s something that can´t be accomplished. Neither in a game nor in real life.

There´s no doubt that lots of people attempt expert without a propper skill level. They ARE wasting their time and the time of others. However, I agree with you that the people who whine about the huge amount of noobs should put more effort into gathering good players so that they can avoid the bad players.

Also you assume that everyone who just wants to win the tours quickly is elitist and/or a greedy jerk because they kick players who cleary not belong in expert mode?

Actually it is; by your logic, it's completely fair to exploit a working class in real life, to have social inequalities or to be prejudicial, since all of those actions are based on lack of equality. I'm sorry, but it's a completely justifiable argument, since the only requirement for expert is a Mann Up Ticket, which they bought as well, and so you can't say your time is 'worth' more, nor can you can you have 'paid' more.

There are people in games who only want to Market Garden people in regular games, or someone who can only play Heavy; they don't contribute as much, nor are they a credit to the team. Should they be kicked? Of course not; Mann Up involves a reward, which is the only difference, and so logic does mean you're being greedy if you kick someone in a situation like that and do not kick other players of similar skill in regular games. It's a double standard, and if you can find me a justification as to why it isn't, feel free to say so; until then, it's greedy, since you're kicking that player solely so you can get a reward, rather than due to their conduct.

Skill level doesn't matter, since the only indication of skill is the name of the mode; there's no requirement, no different Tickets and no way to weed out other players. You say they don't belong and waste their time, but they have as much of a right to be there as other players; your opinion is that they don't belong, but you can't justify it with logic, since there is no requirement for the mode other than a Ticket which has no limitations.

[AM DERG]

Well the fundamental issue at stake is this: votekicking in MvM is far too easy. On a team of 6 players, only 3 people are required to essentially be able to reshape the team infinitely.

3 people shouldn't have that much power, because with 3 people you can just sit there and kick incoming players out of your game until you get someone you "like".

To all these people out there who consider this whining, think of this:

If 3 players all vote yes, and the other two ABSTAIN from voting, it's an automatic yes, that means the default vote in that situation is considered to be "yes" even though there is no real majority. If the whole team is opposed to having someone there, shouldn't a REAL majority be required? Darn, if someone's so bad they need to go, why should there be any issue convincing a 4th person to vote them out?

The issue is that you only need 3, and unless all 3 other players on the other side are willing to stand up for themselves (they never usually do), this can only ever result in a stalemate with someone ragequitting.

How would you like it if you'd played a solid 5 waves into a game only to have the whole thing hijacked by three random "pros" who claim you're not good enough to play your own game?
5 waves in, how can 3 random people who just joined a game-in-progress, have the right to kick out players who have been in for all 5 waves? Or even 1 wave for that matter?

I hope the devs are reading your replies, maybe they'll get an idea of the issue here and realize your counter arguments only further validate the point.
This isn't teamwork, it's blatant segregation by assumed skill. If someone doesn't have, say, 50 waves completed, how can you assume they aren't good enough? Because they didn't take the time to chew through 150 tickets? How is someone without a tour supposed to complete one if everyone assumes that person is an automatic noob?

And lastly, I present this:
If you wonder why so many unskilled players wander into MvM expert, have you at any time considered it's an attractive nuisance? Because the game only has 3 missions to complete, everyone and their uncle is going to sign up for it first thing, since, how hard can it be? It's cheapest, and to most everyone that makes it the best one to play. It's like a 50% percent off sale: do you pay 6 tickets to play a normal game, or do you keep playing the high-level games for only 3?

Someone once mentioned having the requirement of completing an advanced tour before advancing to expert, and perhaps that's not uncalled for, but you can't blame someone for picking the cheapest option, since clearly that's what everyone else did.

[AM DERG]

Originally posted by $@GA【表面張力】:

Votekick is definitely needed if you play with randoms especially on expert.
It´s not a matter of fairness. There are tons of people who are not responsive or that just have a low skill/iq-level.

If you´re really an "expert" you could easily prove it to other players to avoid beeing kicked.

"clearly prove it" to most players these days entails that you do exactly as they say, play the class they pick, buy the upgrades they demand, and overall follow some arcane predetermined formula they've pulled from their rears. We've all discussed strategy before - just because something works "best" doesn't mean it's the only thing that works. And when you're wave 2+ and these "pros" are in your game, being class-locked to something they don't like is a guaranteed kick no matter how good you are.

I've seen very successful spies kicked in later waves because people assume they're the problem, I've seen medics kicked for being medics, and I've seen people kicked for simply refusing to pick the exact class another player demands.
Nowhere on my game ticket does it say "must play heavy or else", and I'm sick of players imposing their pre-determined strategy, especially when a number of them never really consider anything else below this "god tier" to be worthy of MvM expert.

So when I enter a game, and someone demands that this team be Heavyx3/Scout/Engie/Demo, I'm putting my foot down. This game has 9 classes, and I bought a ticket to be able to play the one I choose, so when the first round starts, I'll be reasonable, but if you're going to split hairs over classes to the point where you'll kick anyone who plays Soldier, Pyro, Medic, Sniper or Spy, I see an issue here, especially with balance.

So to all those who argue "tough ****", consider that that other player is a person, who is paying to play this game just like you, and they have the right to play the class of their choice to at least some degree, and if YOU don't agree with that, considering all things, it's "tough ****" YOU, not them. It's co-op, throwing out a player for being afk, cheating (and who would stop them in MvM?), scamming, or posting obscene content is one thing, but throwing a player out of a game for not meeting some extremely unnecessary standards?

TL:DR
Accept your teammates or go look for a new team - either make one in advance, keep hopping servers until you find one, or don't play.
TL:DR 2
Your strategy isn't entirely necessary, there are other ways to win.
TL:DR 3
Gtfo from MvM, you have no place in a game based on cooperation if your idea of cooperation is my way or the highway.

[$@GA #merkelsommer]

The kick with 3 votes is legit for me because what would make people abstain in the first place? I´m pretty sure the vote system indicates what decision is about to be made and if you see that 3 players voted yes you know that the player will be kicked unless you vote against it. It´s their decision what they do then.

Back in the days I had to play with randoms I joined decoy expert on wave 2 or 3. I asked if they mind me going sniper. "Um yes. I thought sniper sucks in mvm"
But I said they should let me play and I was able to show the player who said sniper sucks that I am credit to team. However there was also an engie not meeting my standars and calling a vote to kick me. While 2 people voted yes 4 voted no which shows that you should be fine as long as you find reasonable people. Ofc we kicked the engie afterwards, completed the misson and lived happily ever after. The end~

[Mtn Dew Man #KillTF2]

I was actually in a game with you last night Krysto, at least for a little bit before everyone ragequit...
I think kicking people is frequently justified. And I rarely see people kicked that have been around for many waves. If they were that crappy, they wouldn't have even been able to pass the earlier waves as 1 bad person can cause a wave to fail.

While some may consider it being bossy, it's perfectly legit to tell someone what class to play. As you become more experienced, you KNOW what class to play when you join. Oh look, 5 people and no engie, you pick engie. There is no question about it. When someone joins and sees no engineer, but instead picks a 2nd pyro or a soldier or something (or really anything other than engineer), then he's going to get kicked if he refuses to switch. Unless its round 1 and people can still switch classes. Why? Because there is very little likelihood you'll beat the entire mission without one (just for the dispenser if nothing else). It's educating the newer players on how to do things. You rarely see more experienced players get all butthurt about picking whatever class helps the team the most. It's the tourless people that get their panties in a bunch because people are telling them to play whatever class.

But yes, there are sometimes those groups of self-proclaimed pros that join a game as a group, and proceed to be jerks. The ones that insist on 100% cash retrieval or the scout is a n00b and needs to be kicked, etc. Not much you can really do about them except ignore them. Even then, they rarely kick people unless they are truly doing poorly, since it's just as likely someone even worse will join.

[AM DERG]

@Jeraden, it was either that game or the game after, I forget which, but after half the team ragequit the other half that joined in commandeered the game 5 waves in and kicked the rest of us out, which is wholly unfair since the 3 of us who stayed worked pretty darn hard to get that far.

I understand it's fair to make suggestions and I understand it's fair to demand something that is necessary, but the way I see it, when you have your engie, and you have your heavy, and hell you already have a scout, why should the remaining three players be told they can't play pyro, can't play soldier, can't play sniper or spy (the last two I can understand), but rather that they MUST PLAY HEAVY OR ELSE.

It's rediculous, and I think people are looking at this from a perversion of ownership.
To whom does a particular game belong?
Clearly, if you're trying to demand something from another player beyond the realm of justification, you are under the impression it's your game, but what about everyone else? We all want to win, but we also all want to have a relatively good time. If you want to play a fast game and get it over with, for god's sake go join a preexisting "pro" game, you have no business in a public match, that's why it's PUBLIC.

In regards to your comment about it happening rarely, it happened twice consecutively that night. Once because I argued with a "pro" over whether a pyro was useful on coaltown (apparently he felt the class was useless, we already had an engie, heavy and scout mind you), and he got fed up with me refusing to play heavy #3, because I'm officially sick of this mandatory 3-heavies policy.
He got fed up and he and his two friends ragequit over this simple argument. The game fell apart when the remaining two players didn't feel like waiting for three more.
I go to join a new random game, end up with that arse a second time, and he flat out kickbans me, no reason given. You see, that's unreasonable at it's core, because if you want a set team of 6 specific classes, you might as well go build one and join an empty server.

Situation two occurred when, 5 rounds into a game, three players had to leave for various reasons (one didn't have time to finish, and the remaining two followed suit as quitting has a magic habit of promoting).
Shortly after we get 3 replacement players by some miracle.
These players are all self proclaimed "pros" and start badmouthing the remaining two players on my team, saying they'd played before and were awful. I tried explaining we'd gone 5 waves no problem, he said someone had to go engie, I said we were all class locked and he and his two friends, if they felt classes were necessary, should fill them themselves.

This is where things got annoying. They guy started doing the quintessential 3-year-old procedure of mimicing everything I said in a mocking tone, and in general just being a poor sport about it all, complaining about no one being engie and him having to do it himself and blah blah blah. I muted the guy, because no one wants to listen to an obnoxious arse like that for more than 10 minutes.
After two failed rounds which I wholly blame on the team as a whole, rather than taking the ragequit approach, they decided instead to commandeer OUR game, which we spent 5 rounds and waaaay too much time on, by kicking everyone else out of it.

That's a situation that shouldn't even be possible, let alone actually happen.

And this isn't a unique case, I've had plenty of instances where players refuse to be reasonable, yelling at others and threatening to kick before the game's even started!

[AM DERG]

Furthermore, while we're on this topic, why is it that the only stats available mid-game are player name, class, ping (which seems to be cut off all the time), and tour #? Why does the stat window not display any information for a purpose besides clear discrimination? A normal game lists points scored (based on healing, kill count, caps and such) so why on earth are we showing off a player's completed tours publicly and not, rather, something indicitive of their actual productivity as a team member, with, say points scored based on kills, assists, healing, ubers, cash collected, resets, and so on?

Why is it that tours completed is so important? It only counts paid tours of that particular tour, so it's not like it's an indication of skill, though people seem to take it as such. If I wanted that number publicly displayed, I'd wear my badge - not to mention it doesn't count boot camp missions or missions in advanced.

The way I see it, we're entering into a phase of elitist discrimination again, something that doesn't quite belong in public co-op.

[Avandas]

just don't play expert mode if it's out of your league! save the world some time !

[AM DERG]

That's the problem, it's not out of my league, and shame on you for assuming that.

[Jayyy.10k]

if ur under xpert skill lvl dnt play on an xpert mvm server (simple and that)

[Mr_Twister]

I agree with OP. Elitism and bullying is so all over the place in Expert MVM, I basically stopped playing it and went back to Advanced. Even though I really find the challenge in Advanced insufficient, the players are generally much more cooperative and polite which makes up for the lower difficulty.

Lately I was in the mood for playing sniper, so I bought some MVM tickets and started some Expert missions. Every single game I got kicked before the 1st wave had started, and this for several games in a row (all different servers). Not even giving me a chance to explain, or prove how good I am.

So I ended up playing Advanced, and even though some games had a few less experienced players, we discussed our strategy and adapted well to the circumstances. And it was fun.

What should be done about it in my opinion (some ideas copied from above) :
- Make it so that expert missions are only available if you completed a tour on advanced.
- Increse votes needed to kick
- If possible, disable newcomers to vote for kicking original players
- Show stats so people can show the elitists they aren't noobs

[AM DERG]

Originally posted by Jdog:

if ur under xpert skill lvl dnt play on an xpert mvm server (simple and that)

I have the feeling you've neither read nor come to understand the situation - people are in the habit of kicking other players "just because" or for them not doing exactly as told, which is flat out a form of bullying. Clearly skill level isn't entirely the case, otherwise this wouldn't be as much as an issue. People are kick-happy, and it needs to stop. Votekick is a tool that is meant to punish players for committing specific offenses, such as scamming, posting of pornography, cheating/hacking or gross misconduct, it shouldn't be used as a means to an end to shape a team mid game.