Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system

futzilutzkutz300
Operator (ZS)

Posts: 50

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Aug 29, 2021 15:22:00 GMT PlayerZ likes this

Post by futzilutzkutz300 on Aug 29, 2021 15:22:00 GMT

Hello everyone,

as was recently discussed, some players, who have been around for a long time feel that polls, especially map removal polls, often come out with strange results, with maps that are barely played being kept, while very popular and well liked maps get removed.

The prime example for that would obviously we the Small map removal poll a few months back that ended up being cancelled after an uproar by most of the active players about its result. A more recent example would be the medium map removal poll, that ended up removing maps like beckhams_resort and overpass, two very enjoyable and well liked maps, as you all know, while keeping bismarck, a map that is barely played and not very practical for dynamic gameplay at all, at least compared to the 2 removed ones i mentioned. I think most experienced player would agree with me on that.

But how is it that possible? How do maps that people visibly like and vote for when they come up on ZS get less upvotes in a poll than a map that usually drys out the server and barely gets voted for on zs?

The obvious answer is:

A. Anyone can vote, and everyone has the same voting power. That means if I never ever played on Bismarck but thought the picture of the ship was cool, I could upvote that map. Especially new players tend not to vote for a good map, but a map they had success in. For example, when I was a noob, I loved big maps i could hide and survive on, while I hated maps like campsite and even the best parkour maps, just because I didn't have the experience needed to succeed there, and it was no fun to just get infected every time and fail again and again. This opinion changed as i got more and more experience.

B. There are more random short term players than actual active players that know NBZS.

This problem needs to be addressed, because maps are in the end one of the defining factors for a servers success. We all see this problem, the point where everyone has different opinions is on how to address it. Many don't have an answer for that, the argument is always the pursuit of a fair system, where everyone can be heard.

So, I think i found a solution that is very easy to implement and keeps the system fair and unbiased to personal view:

Use the XP system to determine the weight of one's vote.
Here's how it could work:

1-10 XP players: Their vote counts once.
11-20 XP players: Their vote counts twice.
21-30 XP players: Their vote counts three times.
31-40 XP players: Their votes counts four times.
41-50 XP players: Their vote counts five times.
51-60 XP players: their vote counts six times.
Cap the system there.
+ The hidden condition that players who haven't played in more than 2 months don't have their votes counted.

Why is this good?
XP sharpens the players view of whats important in the game and what make sit fun in their opinion. Therefore, an uneducated choice if much less likely. If the votes of high-XP players count more than the ones of players who barely played, it will make the outcome much more balanced.

Why is this fair to everyone?
XP literally stand for the experience the player has in the game. XP can be achieved by anyone who has the commitment to put in time on the server. So everyone can play the game to have a better voting power. And if they don't want to play the game to have a higher voting power, there is no reason their vote should be of equal significance as the vote of a player who comes in every day to play and have fun on NBZS.

Why is it cool?
This system would give a purpose to the currently almost useless system of XP, and give another great incentive to play more and increase the XP.

I really think this would be a great step in the right direction for the server, and while it may have flaws, it would definitely be a improvement to the current system.

I hope you consider this proposal, and let's discuss it if you have any doubts! In any case, I hope this suggestion won't be put on hold for a long time

Thank you,

your futzlord

PlayerZ
Respected

I Like Big Trees

Posts: 58

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Aug 29, 2021 17:37:35 GMT via mobile PlayerZ likes this

Post by PlayerZ on Aug 29, 2021 17:37:35 GMT

Even though I am a fairly "new" player, even I can see the logic behind this suggestion. Having higher levels have more voting power would help balance the giant power divide. Having a much higher amount of low level players causes them to hold much more power, and thus not letting the higher levels have a voice. All in all, this system would be great addition to NBZS. -PlayerZ

------------------------
Best of Luck,
PlayerZ (Operator)

arvid115
Administrator

Posts: 247

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Aug 29, 2021 18:34:55 GMT PlayerZ likes this

Post by arvid115 on Aug 29, 2021 18:34:55 GMT

I agree for the most part. While I don't think it's a perfect solution, it's a step in the right direction. The one thing I would say, is the not having played in two months part feels a bit harsh to me. Some players simply have to take a step back from the game for a while, but it doesn't necessarily diminish their experience with playing the game, nor their knowledge in what constitutes e.g good maps. You could include something like that, but in that case I would either say it should be after a longer break from playing the game or after two months your vote will count less than it otherwise would, but not completely disregarded.

electronus1
Respected

Posts: 251

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Aug 29, 2021 21:28:24 GMT toby likes this

Post by electronus1 on Aug 29, 2021 21:28:24 GMT

I've just spent the last hour going through the previous poll's results and what, under this weighted suggestion, the outcome would have been. That meant checking people's levels to figure out how much they count for, and then counting up the keep and remove votes in accordance with that. In total there were 154 votes per map under this suggestion, spllit between 31 people, as one person had a score of 0 due to time on (Some maps had less than 154 due to people not voting either way on it, beckhams_resort being the lowest at 140 votes, 14 votes were between three people who did not vote on this map). Everyone who voted had a vote worth of between 4-6, bar one person who was stuck with a score of two. This is the score of keep votes divided remove votes.

ominousity ~~0.301587302~~ 0.327586207
king_tower 0.350877193
neon_pyramids 0.350877193
pirates 0.388888889
maplemansion ~~0.630434783~~  0.578947368
prorun_area 0.595744681
mariomeetsmario 0.704545455
dawnlounge 0.724137931
quadrun ~~0.704545455~~  0.764705882
eucalyptus 0.790697674
palmtree 0.833333333
desertvillage ~~1.236842105~~  0.973684211
beckhamsresort 1
hell_run 1.054794521
osiris ~~1.15942029~~  1.081081081
overpass 1.109589041
oil_rig 1.2
summerisland 1.298507463
trenches 1.333333333
meshwork 1.333333333
venice 1.34375
bismarck 1.440677966
whites_run ~~1.483870968~~ 1.444444444
runaround ~~1.830188679~~ 1.542372881
jumparound 1.566666667
docks 2.260869565
crossroads ~~2.422222222~~ 2.333333333
dyatlov 2.347826087
campsite ~~2.658536585~~ 2.488372093
treasureisland 3.666666667
marketplace 5.16
farm 8.625

You state that the result seems strange, however the same maps would be removed, bar one (summer_island) because the weighted suggestion stops the threeway tie of oil_rig, summerisland and overpass. Personally, I don't like the weighted suggestion as it creates a hierarchy of expectation and gives a small minority a higher voice over the majority. However, even working off of that, we can see that actually bar a few maps moving around in the same section, the results have remained the same (beckhams_resort and overpass, two maps you suggest are enjoyable and well-liked, have an even worse score under this basis). I would attempt doing the same method to check against the small map poll, and see if that result also reflects the original, but if I do it would not be right now.

futzilutzkutz300
Operator (ZS)

Posts: 50

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Aug 29, 2021 22:27:18 GMT

Post by futzilutzkutz300 on Aug 29, 2021 22:27:18 GMT

"Personally, I don't like the weighted suggestion as it creates a hierarchy of expectation and gives a small minority a higher voice over the majority."

you are contradicting your own point that the post is trying to make with that sentence. apparently the majority already has a very high vote xp value.

Other than this sentence, I don't see how you are making a counterargument to my suggestion with you post. You disproofed my theory that votes are largely impacted by new players, i give you that, but there is no valid argument against my proposition.

But taking you point seriously, one could even argue that the players with high xp are the actual groundwork of the server, and without them it would all collaps, so therefore they are are the majority that actually matters, namely the players you see on the server day in day out. Players that stay on low xp come and go.

electronus1
Respected

Posts: 251

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Aug 30, 2021 13:18:15 GMT

Post by electronus1 on Aug 30, 2021 13:18:15 GMT

Aug 29, 2021 22:27:18 GMT futzilutzkutz300 said:

"Personally, I don't like the weighted suggestion as it creates a hierarchy of expectation and gives a small minority a higher voice over the majority."

you are contradicting your own point that the post is trying to make with that sentence. apparently the majority already has a very high vote xp value.

Other than this sentence, I don't see how you are making a counterargument to my suggestion with you post. You disproofed my theory that votes are largely impacted by new players, i give you that, but there is no valid argument against my proposition.

But taking you point seriously, one could even argue that the players with high xp are the actual groundwork of the server, and without them it would all collaps, so therefore they are are the majority that actually matters, namely the players you see on the server day in day out. Players that stay on low xp come and go.

My point was that the results of the last poll were not 'strange', I was not attempting to disprove your overall suggestion. I've shared what the poll would have been under your suggestion to provide an example of how it would work, and then stated my personal opinion on why I don't like weighted voting (the minority vs majority bit). You're right that the post proves that the people who get involved in polls are those who have been around for a long time, so the idea that new players have a major influence factor on polls is minimal. You're also right regular players do provide a base groundwork, but I also remember a period where all the regulars were giving up on newblood because we didn't have new players and so we should always make sure we do not alienate them. But this argument (new players influence polls heavily) was also your reason for wanting this suggestion. Combining point A and B of your original post indicates that the issue is the new random short term players having an equal vote changes the outcome of the polls. The poll itself indicates that new short term players do not generally get involved at all, and as such cannot be influencing it.

I only really have a few minor issues with the suggestion. The first is the amount of work that would have to be put in determining which voting amount each player has each poll, and then doing the maths to determine the weighted keep and remove scores, and then working out the percentages takes up a lot of time. I am unsure if this is worth it considering that the range of votes were 4-6, and considering the groups were xp groups of 10 levels up to the cap of 6, it shows that all the players involved were of a similar level.

I'm also personally not a fan of the 6 groups of 10 levels, I think the gaps are too small and gives a player who is level 51 way more influence (6) that a player who is level 30 (3). To provide an example, yorkie ended up with a voting power of 4, someone who has been involved in the community from the start on and off. I have a power of 6, and I was only around at the start for a chunk and then since my return. I would argue yorkie's involvement with the community extends beyond my own, yet I have a better voting power. Similarly, Toby who has dealt with maps consistently the past few months will find all his votes are worth less than mine also. I would prefer gaps of 20, with 3 as the highest voting power. It means that the highest power isn't so extremely different from the lowest that 3 high voters could outweigh 17 of the smallest voters This also link to my next point.

The next issue is how representative XP is, cause whilst it is a good measure it would penalise staff members who may have low scores due to being in ref and not getting xp those rounds. This, I would also argue, is not a really big issue cause most staff aren't spending all their rounds in ref mode. Also mentioned, I view yorkie's involvement with the game and the community to be above my own, yet I have the stronger voting power under an xp based system. Also, linking back to the fact that xp was reset for some and not others, it means that any measurement is actually not truly representative of a player's time and experience and neither is it a fair one.

To sum up, the issue for me is that on the basis of an issue which doesn't seem to exist (though working off one poll to argue this is unfair, I would need to check against the small map poll at least which I will do today), I am expected to weigh peoples votes, creating an unequal voting dynamic, with weighted classes that are rather small creating the potential for big differences, using a measurement that I am not sure is fairly representative due to resets and the fact it penalises staff (and players who may enjoy playing the game but not particularly be 'good' at it).

arvid115
Administrator

Posts: 247

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Aug 30, 2021 13:39:42 GMT

Post by arvid115 on Aug 30, 2021 13:39:42 GMT

Aug 29, 2021 21:28:24 GMT electronus1 said:

You state that the result seems strange, however the same maps would be removed, bar one (summer_island) because the weighted suggestion stops the threeway tie of oil_rig, summerisland and overpass. Personally, I don't like the weighted suggestion as it creates a hierarchy of expectation and gives a small minority a higher voice over the majority. However, even working off of that, we can see that actually bar a few maps moving around in the same section, the results have remained the same (beckhams_resort and overpass, two maps you suggest are enjoyable and well-liked, have an even worse score under this basis). I would attempt doing the same method to check against the small map poll, and see if that result also reflects the original, but if I do it would not be right now.

Even then, just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it can't happen. There could very well be new players that do change the outcome of the vote. Main reason they aren't already is most likely because a lot of the less experienced players aren't in the discord, where the map removal polls are announced, aside from the rare popup in the in-game chat. "It gives a small minority a higher voice over the majority", going off the results you showed this isn't the case right? And even if it was, what is wrong with giving the more educated majority more of a say? The point is to get the absolutely best decision possible from the polls. Instead of risking having beginners sway the result with potentially random, baseless votes, it's good to at least work in the right direction to get accurate results.

And sure, in this case, Futz is disappointed with the results even despite most voters being more experienced. As said, it's only a step in the right direction, it's not a perfect solution. Being experienced != Being able to objectively analyze objective pros and cons in gameplay, aesthetics, etc. It just increases the likelyhood. Similarly, an inexperienced player can be able to do said things, it's just not as likely, hence Futz' original suggestion. Most players vote subjectively, and there's nothing wrong with that, but since the results of most polls will be entirely based on subjective opinion it will often end up being quite random, and most people are disappointed with the results because they don't make a lot of sense. And it doesn't make a lot of sense since people have different opinions and it will just end up being just that. What would make sense is having a result based on objective pros and cons of maps, along with subjective opinions on what people like. Then I think most players would see the results and be content with it. Basing weight of votes on levels isn't exactly that, but it's at least closer to it.

electronus1
Respected

Posts: 251

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Aug 30, 2021 14:41:06 GMT

Post by electronus1 on Aug 30, 2021 14:41:06 GMT

In the first section you are arguing on the potential of something happening. My statement that a minority can speak over the majority is also a potentiality based argument. If you weight votes, certain people automatically get a higher say than others and leads to a potential majority outweighing a minority. Both arguments are valid if we're arguing on the potential of something happening. If we go off the results, both our arguments fail. But you can't argue a potential outcome and not allow another potential outcome to be used against it.

I also do not understand why we instantly assume that beginners vote randomly/baselessly? You may have done so when starting out, but that does not mean everybody does so. I get it ties into the later argument that the more experienced someone is the more likely they are to be 'objective' but again this is predicated on a likelihood and not a guarantee, in just the same way it's argued that new players are baselessly/randomly voting. Weighted voting in no way solves the issue of random or baseless voting, as it doesn't get to the root of the issue that is making sure votes are not random/baseless. Instead it gives more experienced players a higher voting power to influence a poll in the direction they would prefer it to be. To be honest, I do not see this as a method of promoting voting for regular players, but more as a measure punishing not as able players by telling them there votes mean less to me because you may have 2 days playtime but your xp is at level 25. The issue seems to be unhappiness at votes being baseless, which has then been equated to new players voting baselessly, but I don't understand what evidence we have to back this statement up? We're arguing in likelihoods and possibilities of how players vote which is an inherently personal decision that I do not think anyone can fairly gauge as baseless or 'objective' because we do not know how people think or the reasonings for their vote, and thus are penalising players on the possibility that x might be happening without knowing it does.

It's going to alienate newer players from polls as there votes mean barely anything compared to mine or your for example. As you say, maps and map polls are subjective and unfortunately maps get removed that invariably some people will be upset about. This will always be the case. But what I see before me is a suggestion that I boost certain players voting power because they're better at the game or have been around for 4+ years so that newer players have less say. And yes, this result demonstrates newer players don't get involved in polls so them having less power doesn't make much difference, but this at most keeps them further away from polls and doesn't encourage there involvement and keeps map polls to the same few. But even then because of these xp categories and their weights I have players who have been around since the beginning who are have less voting say than someone who joined last summer. It also means penalising the players who get involved with the server and new blood who aren't able to play on ZS as regularly as you or me. I get the argument against this is that if they have less time to play then votes should matter less to them, but this is unfairly penalising players who want to play but cannot.

electronus1
Respected

Posts: 251

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Aug 30, 2021 17:01:59 GMT yorkiebarz likes this

Post by electronus1 on Aug 30, 2021 17:01:59 GMT

I have had a chance to attempt the same technique on the small map poll. Once again, I used the level based weighting of 0-10 being 1 vote, 11-20 being 2 etc up to a cap of 6. There was 30 participants, with one having their votes nullified (same person as the last results) meaning 29 participants whose votes had weight. I also briefly looked into the averages, the medium poll had an average weight of 4.9 per player, whilst this time round the average weight was 4.75. The previous poll had only one player whose weight was less than 4, this time there was 3. The first had a weight of 1. The two others both had a weight of 3, although one of those had their xp reset back at the xp update, otherwise I imagine their weight would have been higher. The total overall combined votes worked out to 138, although due to one person (weight 6) voting only on maps they wanted removed + 1 keep map, and a few others missing out one or two votes the lowest total votes was 127 (smol_town) The results are:

play_time 0.277777778

laboratory 0.32

insane_asylum 0.333333333

panic_alley 0.360824742

armageddon ~~0.346938776~~ 0.434782608695652

stoneways 0.454545455

duplex 0.517241379

vertigo 0.542168675

pacman_maze 0.550561798

bliss 0.552941176

the_end 0.684210526

ctf_turbine 0.714285714

planks 0.85915493

relic 0.85915493

escape 0.885714286

raid ~~0.777777778~~ 0.882352941

oceanic_pathways 0.885714286

n64_block_fort 0.913043478

incline 1.029411765

garaged ~~0.833333333~~ 1.12903225806452

jungle_adventure ~~1.464285714~~ 1.262295082

smol_town 1.309090909

gydaie_glen 1.357142857

stoned_up 1.379310345

arctic 1.490566038

main_3 1.538461538

sundial 1.588235294

aaaaaa 1.869565217

nothing 2.066666667

fungi_sky 2.473684211

The map results for remove maps are the same as the unweighted poll. Whilst some maps in the remove section have moved up or down they have remained in the same section and this is due to previous ties in the unweighted results. Interestingly nothing fairs worse in weighted than in unweighted, but that's just a fun tidbit.

I also decided to check how the results of the player who had only one vote matched up. He voted keep on 7 of the 9 removed maps, and remove on 2. He voted remove on 12 of the 21 kept maps, and keep on 9. Conversely one person with a weight of 6 voted remove on all kept maps bar one, and remove on all removed maps. I would argue the person who had a weight of one showed more selectivity and thought than the person who had a weight of 6. Also, map polls may better reflect your opinion if you actually voted in them. Once again the weighted vote seems like more effort for the same result, and that little to no new players involve themselves in polls. So the problem of new players influencing polls once again seems minimal.

electronus1
Respected

Posts: 251

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Aug 30, 2021 19:03:01 GMT

Post by electronus1 on Aug 30, 2021 19:03:01 GMT

For transparency sake, I did all of these manually but have just figured how to do it via functions, and in the results I miscounted some maps, I apologise for those mistakes. I have edited the posts accordingly. You'll find that no maps move out of their relevant sections so all conclusions remain the same.

I have also rechecked the earlier medium map results and have edited that post accordingly. Wrong calculations will be struck through and the map will be moved to the correct place in the list with it's accurate percentage. Similar to above, maps don't move sections so conclusions remain the same.

I thought I'd take a look back at the controversial one that got veto'd and see if the results changed this time round. I made sure to use the formula so there will be no need for corrections this time round. I should also add these polls have been based on levels and activity as of today/yesterday, obviously for this poll it doesn't reflect truly the weight as it would have been.

The lowest weight this time around was once again 3, bar the same person who got 0 (otherwise would be 2), however having looked at his /seen he might have been around at the time of the poll. As mentioned though this has been worked off of based on today/yesterday's xp levels and as if the poll was today, so he has been classed as 0 (sorry man). The average weight was 5.11:

*velvet 0.244604317
*panic_alley 0.354330709
*play_time 0.361344538
*jungle_adventure 0.363636364
*pacman_maze 0.464912281
*mario 0.482758621
*airfield 0.547826087
*stoneways 0.558558559
*garaged 0.587155963
*clash_royale 0.588785047
*ctf_turbine 0.638888889
*circuit_board 0.732673267
*ctf_sector9 0.740384615
*bloom 0.772277228
*escape 0.787878788
*smol_town 0.873684211
*armageddon 0.964285714
*garden_of_demeter 1.011904762
*main_3 1.023529412
*c418 1.081395349
*planks 1.189873418
*oceanic_pathways 1.222222222
*twilight_house 1.271604938
*relic 1.373333333
*aaaaaa 1.376623377
stoned_up 1.452054795
raid 1.535211268
vertigo 1.623188406
arrowtastic 1.671641791
main 1.75
gydaie_glen 1.870967742
sundial 1.933333333
connections 2.384615385
arctic 2.403846154
excitebike 2.5
gcn_pipe_plaza 2.56
orbit 2.576923077
nothing 2.791666667
n64_block_fort 3.227272727
fungi_sky 3.341463415
incline 3.357142857
junction 3.365853659
playground 4.454545455
main_2 6.913043478
terre 7.173913043
park 7.5
barbados 7.619047619
perplex 8.684210526
little_locomotive 9.111111111
roadrunner 10

For sake of ease, I put a star next to all the maps which were voted to be removed on the last poll. I don't think I need to comment too much. On the plus side, knowing the formula makes it much less work for future polls to use a weighting system, apart from the hassle of figuring out everyone's vote weight each poll.

Still not sure on the representativeness of xp, nor the class sizes, and still not a fan of penalising potentially new players from getting involved on a potential issue that thus far isn't showing up. I also think that maps is a completely subjective topic no matter how hard you try to objectify it, and as such giving weight to more people's opinions on the argument they have a better chance of being 'objective' is something I find flawed.

arvid115
Administrator

Posts: 247

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Aug 30, 2021 20:16:24 GMT

Post by arvid115 on Aug 30, 2021 20:16:24 GMT

Aug 30, 2021 14:41:06 GMT electronus1 said:

In the first section you are arguing on the potential of something happening. My statement that a minority can speak over the majority is also a potentiality based argument. If you weight votes, certain people automatically get a higher say than others and leads to a potential majority outweighing a minority. Both arguments are valid if we're arguing on the potential of something happening. If we go off the results, both our arguments fail. But you can't argue a potential outcome and not allow another potential outcome to be used against it.

A minority speaking over a majority isn't necessarily a bad thing, because often a majority can be wrong. Especially in this case because the experienced players (regardless of whether you consider them a minority or majority) will always have a greater chance at producing better poll results. However, inexperienced players having a chance to sway the vote will always cause a risk, and it's always good to minimize the risks as much as possible.

Aug 30, 2021 14:41:06 GMT electronus1 said:

I also do not understand why we instantly assume that beginners vote randomly/baselessly? You may have done so when starting out, but that does not mean everybody does so. I get it ties into the later argument that the more experienced someone is the more likely they are to be 'objective' but again this is predicated on a likelihood and not a guarantee, in just the same way it's argued that new players are baselessly/randomly voting. Weighted voting in no way solves the issue of random or baseless voting, as it doesn't get to the root of the issue that is making sure votes are not random/baseless. Instead it gives more experienced players a higher voting power to influence a poll in the direction they would prefer it to be. To be honest, I do not see this as a method of promoting voting for regular players, but more as a measure punishing not as able players by telling them there votes mean less to me because you may have 2 days playtime but your xp is at level 25. The issue seems to be unhappiness at votes being baseless, which has then been equated to new players voting baselessly, but I don't understand what evidence we have to back this statement up? We're arguing in likelihoods and possibilities of how players vote which is an inherently personal decision that I do not think anyone can fairly gauge as baseless or 'objective' because we do not know how people think or the reasonings for their vote, and thus are penalising players on the possibility that x might be happening without knowing it does.

Of course it's based on likelyhood, but in that case why not go with the option with a greater chance of producing a better result? I don't assume all beginners do, but there is a greater risk of it due to them not having commited enough time to the game, having as much time playing on the maps, knowing the ins and outs of the gameplay, etc. In all games, no exceptions, the most skilled players will overall be more cunning in what should happen to the game. They will be better at knowing the problems of the gameplay, the pros and cons of different things, etc. Of course there's always bad apples in all groups, but you'll overall get a better result if you compare only the veterans vs only the beginners. Furthermore, as I said, it's not a perfect solution. To completely separate the objective opinions and subjective opinions you'll (admins) have to completely stray away from your (admins) righetous democratic path I know you (admins) love. When it comes to maps, the objective opinions should be valued above the subjective opinions (if one has to be picked, of course both should be considered). When it comes to the latter, everyones vote is equal. For example, my opinion of the colour blue is just as correct as your opinion. However, the former, everyones is but it shouldn't be. I don't intend to step on any toes, but comparatively, a lot of people are unintelligent. Too unintelligent to properly list up all pros and cons with maps and thus be able to get an objective opinion on it. In a perfect world, those people should have the right to comment, but no right to vote when it comes to the objective qualities of a map. The proposal doesn't completely fix this, but having experience within the game will help in making more proper objective decissions regardless of your level of intelligence. Thus having experienced players' votes matter more will always provide a more accurate result from an objective point of view, which is the point that should be prioritized as the two currently are separate from a polling perspective.

In terms of the incentive to vote, in my opinion it doesn't matter. Clearly a lot of people aren't too interested in the issues of the server and trying to fix them. If you do want to help make a chance, you will vote regardless of the weight of your vote. And if you do, it will be incentive to play more to have your vote weigh more (PlayerZ for one said it would be incentive for him to play more to get his XP up). If you don't have too much will to assist in it already, it wouldn't matter.

Aug 30, 2021 14:41:06 GMT electronus1 said:

It's going to alienate newer players from polls as there votes mean barely anything compared to mine or your for example. As you say, maps and map polls are subjective and unfortunately maps get removed that invariably some people will be upset about. This will always be the case. But what I see before me is a suggestion that I boost certain players voting power because they're better at the game or have been around for 4+ years so that newer players have less say. And yes, this result demonstrates newer players don't get involved in polls so them having less power doesn't make much difference, but this at most keeps them further away from polls and doesn't encourage there involvement and keeps map polls to the same few. But even then because of these xp categories and their weights I have players who have been around since the beginning who are have less voting say than someone who joined last summer. It also means penalising the players who get involved with the server and new blood who aren't able to play on ZS as regularly as you or me. I get the argument against this is that if they have less time to play then votes should matter less to them, but this is unfairly penalising players who want to play but cannot.

Most of this has been addressed already, but the one thing from this part I would like to talk about is that you say theere are people who get involved with the server who aren't able to play a lot. The thing I have to say about that is, it makes sense to not weigh their vote as well. If you don't play a lot, you won't know as well how the game flows in comparison to others. That means you won't know as well if a map is good or not. Of course they should always have a say in things and be able to argue their opinion, but the fact of the matter is that they won't be able to know as well in comparison to more experienced players if a map is good or not.

classic1234
Respected

Posts: 72

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Sept 1, 2021 17:31:05 GMT via mobile

Post by classic1234 on Sept 1, 2021 17:31:05 GMT

Aug 30, 2021 19:03:01 GMT electronus1 said:

For transparency sake, I did all of these manually but have just figured how to do it via functions, and in the results I miscounted some maps, I apologise for those mistakes. I have edited the posts accordingly. You'll find that no maps move out of their relevant sections so all conclusions remain the same.

I have also rechecked the earlier medium map results and have edited that post accordingly. Wrong calculations will be struck through and the map will be moved to the correct place in the list with it's accurate percentage. Similar to above, maps don't move sections so conclusions remain the same.

I thought I'd take a look back at the controversial one that got veto'd and see if the results changed this time round. I made sure to use the formula so there will be no need for corrections this time round. I should also add these polls have been based on levels and activity as of today/yesterday, obviously for this poll it doesn't reflect truly the weight as it would have been.

The lowest weight this time around was once again 3, bar the same person who got 0 (otherwise would be 2), however having looked at his /seen he might have been around at the time of the poll. As mentioned though this has been worked off of based on today/yesterday's xp levels and as if the poll was today, so he has been classed as 0 (sorry man). The average weight was 5.11:

*velvet 0.244604317
*panic_alley 0.354330709
*play_time 0.361344538
*jungle_adventure 0.363636364
*pacman_maze 0.464912281
*mario 0.482758621
*airfield 0.547826087
*stoneways 0.558558559
*garaged 0.587155963
*clash_royale 0.588785047
*ctf_turbine 0.638888889
*circuit_board 0.732673267
*ctf_sector9 0.740384615
*bloom 0.772277228
*escape 0.787878788
*smol_town 0.873684211
*armageddon 0.964285714
*garden_of_demeter 1.011904762
*main_3 1.023529412
*c418 1.081395349
*planks 1.189873418
*oceanic_pathways 1.222222222
*twilight_house 1.271604938
*relic 1.373333333
*aaaaaa 1.376623377
stoned_up 1.452054795
raid 1.535211268
vertigo 1.623188406
arrowtastic 1.671641791
main 1.75
gydaie_glen 1.870967742
sundial 1.933333333
connections 2.384615385
arctic 2.403846154
excitebike 2.5
gcn_pipe_plaza 2.56
orbit 2.576923077
nothing 2.791666667
n64_block_fort 3.227272727
fungi_sky 3.341463415
incline 3.357142857
junction 3.365853659
playground 4.454545455
main_2 6.913043478
terre 7.173913043
park 7.5
barbados 7.619047619
perplex 8.684210526
little_locomotive 9.111111111
roadrunner 10

For sake of ease, I put a star next to all the maps which were voted to be removed on the last poll. I don't think I need to comment too much. On the plus side, knowing the formula makes it much less work for future polls to use a weighting system, apart from the hassle of figuring out everyone's vote weight each poll.

Still not sure on the representativeness of xp, nor the class sizes, and still not a fan of penalising potentially new players from getting involved on a potential issue that thus far isn't showing up. I also think that maps is a completely subjective topic no matter how hard you try to objectify it, and as such giving weight to more people's opinions on the argument they have a better chance of being 'objective' is something I find flawed.

Never been a fan of mass removal polls. As you can see lots of well-known, good prorun maps would of been removed if that poll you showed wasn't reverted. (Many regulars complained about it). In my mind, anything above the 50% threshold shouldn't even be considered for removal (again I understand the way they were judged, but I don't agree with it).

We are talking about very small margins, due to the lack of player involvement today. The reset itself for likes should of happened at the start of summer while players were around, not during a time where the server is dead. This resulted in many maps receiving below 10 likes/dislikes, in some cases 5 I reckon, and still being added to a mass removal poll. In my mind that just isn't a fair judgement, maps need way more time to receive more feedback from more players. Especially when previously those same maps had twice the amount of likes in comparison to dislikes. I've heard the typical response to this is, "well just do a map request". This wouldn't be a problem if it was a couple of good maps, but in reality it isn't and no one is willing to spend half their day writing 10 or so map requests.

In response to the XP suggestion, I can see the benefits behind it, however in general I think it's common sense to realise players shouldn't vote to remove a map they barely play on nor know much about. Yes this may be in rare cases, but still like I said we are dealing with small margins, where 1 vote could decide the fate of a map. This shouldn't be the case, especially during a time where the server is lower on players.

electronus1
Respected

Posts: 251

Using XP as a tool to improve the polling system Sept 5, 2021 11:41:11 GMT

Post by electronus1 on Sept 5, 2021 11:41:11 GMT

The basis of this post was the idea that the results that came out of the past few polls have been questionable. We've demonstrated that a weighted polling system returns the exact same results, which means that this cannot be the solution to fix the suggested problem. Secondly, the suggestion that maps are something objective to judge is not quite true, there may be objective factors, but people's experiences of those maps and those factors in turn make any stance on a map inherently subjective. Your example in voice call of bismarck's round time being too long is an example of a subjective stance on the objective factor. The objective fact is its round time, the subjective stance is whether it is too long or not. Some people will agree, some people won't, but having a different opinion to you doesn't make it a stupid one.

Also, looking at the poll results there are many points where players have not voted keep or remove, which I can only assume is because they do not know the map well enough, so I agree that it is common sense for players to not vote on maps they barely know. Considering most voters are regulars and those who aren't had blanks votes at times, I think this is already the case.

These polls are for removing enough maps to warrant us accepting more and not continuing to overflow. If players want us to accept newer maps, we have to have the space to do so. That means we do have to occasionally do overflow truncation polls to bring us below the limit. It's unfortunate, but it's that or we stop accepting new maps.

It's been interesting to look into over the past three polls + the controversial poll, but we are not going to weight polls as we see no demonstrable difference in the results which would demonstrate a less controversial result in the polls, especially when this method prioritises certain voices over others on a metric that doesn't represent a players full current involvement in the server. (Some players come on once a month yet would have a 6 weight in the poll due to xp being based on all stats from before the xp system was introduced bar those who reset)

#Declined
#Closed
#Moved