Ch(e)ating

[Pxtl]

Really, we need more control on spectators. One idea is this: change the concept of "player eliminated" until his whole alliance is eliminated. He's not actually out of the game until all his allies are gone. Until then they can still share stuff into him.

Second, _any_ player should have the power to silence spectators. Spectators needs are secondary to the players, so any player should be able to pop up a list of the spectators and silence one (similar to the "H" menu).

[LathanStanley]

I got a list taped to my monitor...

its got 3 categories:

GOOD PLAYERS

BAD PLAYERS

SH|TTY

i'm curious, which one i am in? :D

I put you in good...

I just like giving ya crap

[kirbyssb]

Second, _any_ player should have the power to silence spectators. Spectators needs are secondary to the players, so any player should be able to pop up a list of the spectators and silence one (similar to the "H" menu).

I like this idea

[DakarMorad]

I personally like spectating. It's interesting to see people's strategies, and epic battles are more interesting if you can see both sides. Furthermore, being able to make sarcastic comments to the players is fun (unless they don't like it).

However, I agree that speculators shouldn't be able to reveal positions on the map and such. A silence feature would definitely work. A vote-kick feature would also be a good idea, because it doesn't rely on the host kicking him/her.

[LakeSolon]

Sounds like we need a new tab in the Battle screen options. The consensus seems to be that we'd be happy if we had the following options, for various purposes.

Upon Elimination Player:

• Becomes Spectator (default)
• Remains Alive (can share units)
• Spectates Own Team (no global vision)
• Is Disconnected

[Neddie]

I've never had an issue with spectators, and would be offended to see any of the restrictions in place that have been suggested. I think the spectator mode helps set Spring apart... and hell, if some loser exploits it to cheat, even if they win they are a loser. Once you learn of it, call them on it, kick them, announce it in the lobby... just don't put barriers on third-party spectators.

[Neddie]

I got a list taped to my monitor...

its got 3 categories:

GOOD PLAYERS

BAD PLAYERS

SH|TTY

the first two are self-explanatory... the 3rd, is game quitters, whiners, bad hosts, low bandwidth game killers, cheaters, and annoying mofo's

You know, I may start working on a Spreadsheet... I know about twenty good, twenty mediocre and twenty bad. Then I will add in tags for... complaining, disconnector, ass, experimental leader, jester... the usual permutations.

[Zoombie]

I fall under mediocre jester.

[SwiftSpear]

Really, we need more control on spectators. One idea is this: change the concept of "player eliminated" until his whole alliance is eliminated. He's not actually out of the game until all his allies are gone. Until then they can still share stuff into him.

Second, _any_ player should have the power to silence spectators. Spectators needs are secondary to the players, so any player should be able to pop up a list of the spectators and silence one (similar to the "H" menu).

I like the first idea but I doubt the second idea will go... The game host may not have a problem with the spectator chatting with the players in game, and it's there game to make that decision for, not the other players.