Vote Reset (Dec 2019)

[APorg]

So the last vote reset that took place failed despite 29 votes in favour vs. 12 against and 18 or 19 abstentions; after the server was up for 5 days.

I recognise that, previously, vote reset was too easy and people abused it; but the above scenario, where a great majority of people who actually voted favour reset, and after 5 days up time, is probably the sort of situation where it ought to pass.

Could we maybe either offer certain members of the community (e.g. CC members) the ability to Shout, in order to encourage people to not abstain and actually vote, or change the vote counting formula so that after a certain number of days of server up time (e.g. 5 days), then abstentions are no longer counted as "No" votes.

Too frequent resets are disruptive, but after a certain number of days, surely the risk of crash becomes more potentially disruptive.

[SardineTheAncestor]

I still like the idea of a "reason field" and would like to see more communication about resets in general when they are occurring.

The original idea that led to this was actually a little different. That you could not vote no; only abstaining or voting yes were options. Thus you could hold your vote until you had the intel needed to accurately vote according to your wishes. If that info never came, and you didn't see a reason to reset, personally, it's on the people initiating the reset for not communicating.

I'm liking that the server is up longer now. It means less teleporting around, less flyer refreshing, but I have noticed it get a little weird from time to time as a result of these longer uptimes too. I have no horse in this race but just wanted to pitch in with that knowledge.

Semi-related, I've never seen stuff like this back when 24 hours was considered "a long time to go without a reset" for the majority of the EE craze. https://files.catbox.moe/zp2okq.mp4

[APorg]

I still like the idea of a "reason field" and would like to see more communication about resets in general when they are occurring.

The original idea that led to this was actually a little different. That you could not vote no; only abstaining or voting yes were options. Thus you could hold your vote until you had the intel needed to accurately vote according to your wishes. If that info never came, and you didn't see a reason to reset, personally, it's on the people initiating the reset for not communicating.

That's also an idea; but AFAIK it's been shot down before because the dev team fear abuse, e.g. profanity in the reason field.  So perhaps the compromise there is to give the CC the ability to do Shouts or whatever, to be able to communicate the reasons for a reset, when there are good ones.

[Purist]

I don't remember if it already shows, but why not show the hours count it has been running until the point a reset voting pops up?

"Server has been running for 104.6 hours"

Maybe people will feel more compelled to vote that way.

[Disorder]

As a side question. Is there a way to set a server in some sort of auto resetting mode if it's up for more than 100 hours? Asking developers, of course.
Additionally, yesterday at 9pm gmt +2 despite four players used @vote reset command to initiate server reset it did not work. The actual voting did not even start.
Is that a bug or possibility of players to initiate it was temporary disabled?

[Purist]

It probably has a cool down timer, like you can only do it every X time. My guess.

[APorg]

Yeah, there's a cooldown timer, I forget how long.

[StreetSamurai]

1 hour, which is up from 15 - 30 minutes.

[Disorder]

The trouble is that within one ig hour four players typed @vote reset command, thus the voting process should have began, but it did not start. Sorry for the 

[APorg]

The trouble is that within one ig hour four players typed @vote reset command, thus the voting process should have began, but it did not start. Sorry for the 

I think it's a valid contribution, the general gist of this thread is that, previously, it was too easy to vote reset but now the pendulum has perhaps gone too far the other way.

[PlatointheCave]

I think an automated reset after a given period makes the most sense. Ideally, this would include notifications at least an hour in advance of the reset so players can prepare.

Though, it'd need an override for DMs who happen to need the server up a little longer.

[Iridni Ren]

The current system is a vast improvement over the old, and I don't see any need to change it at all: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." If the majority deems a server reset is necessary, it will happen. If not, it can still happen when a DM is around to make it so and thinks the majority have erred.

As for the cool down, the vote itself is disruptive to ongoing RP. It's unlikely that a situation would lose, yet be so critical as to require voting on again within an hour.

Finally, the big changes coming may have significant effects on reliable server uptime, so reexamining this issue then would be more informative than trying to forecast in a vacuum

[Disorder]

I think an automated reset after a given period makes the most sense. Ideally, this would include notifications at least an hour in advance of the reset so players can prepare.

Though, it'd need an override for DMs who happen to need the server up a little longer.

That's exactly my thought. Notifications will help people to get to safe spots, pick items they've placed and wrap up ongoing rp activities. Keeping server running more than 100h seems to me unreasonable. Lag will be there by that time. I am sure other players notice it too.

[Iridni Ren]

Keeping server running more than 100h seems to me unreasonable. Lag will be there by that time. I am sure other players notice it too.

Why do the other players not vote to reset then? The presumption is your experience is the same as theirs, and the objective evidence is that it's not.

[APorg]

The current system is a vast improvement over the old, and I don't see any need to change it at all: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." If the majority deems a server reset is necessary, it will happen. If not, it can still happen when a DM is around to make it so and thinks the majority have erred.

*sigh*

The whole point of the vote reset functionality is to delegate the work of resets away from DMs.  If we've reached a stage where resets require DM interventions again, then it demonstrates that the Vote Reset functionality has indeed been too greatly restricted.

[immasturgeon]

I think adding a server up time to the dialogue present in the reset vote is a good idea. . . a subtle nudge to people who are on the fence.

[EO]

The impact of uptime should decrease drastically with the next Beamdog patch since it fixes memory leaks that slow the game down. Also, actual latency issues (ie: video) are not related to uptime but rather to the connection with the server itself. More frequent resets doesn't help with that part. We can reevaluate this in a few months once we've had enough data after the patch.

[immasturgeon]

Awesome to hear.

Honestly as has been stated this is a huge positive. If nothing changes it is still functioning very well and greatly appreciated.

[Alan Hunter]

The current system is a vast improvement over the old, and I don't see any need to change it at all: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." If the majority deems a server reset is necessary, it will happen. If not, it can still happen when a DM is around to make it so and thinks the majority have erred.

As for the cool down, the vote itself is disruptive to ongoing RP. It's unlikely that a situation would lose, yet be so critical as to require voting on again within an hour.

Finally, the big changes coming may have significant effects on reliable server uptime, so reexamining this issue then would be more informative than trying to forecast in a vacuum

Agreed. I don't think the CC should be privy to Shouts in my opinion given all players wouldn't be bale to utilize such function. And in my experience if people want to reset they generally have reached out to players explaining why and the reason thus far. Granted as Sardine mentioned if it becomes to frequent it interrupts much of the roleplay people are involved in with flyers, camps,  and notices in game which can get tideous as these arent persistant placable objects. Though glad to hear thebupdate from EO and hope this new patch helps adress some of these concerns.

[APorg]

Except we don't really have the tools to communicate reset reasons across the logged in population directly except for mass Tells, and that's not very practical (I know, I've tried). Nor will all players be on Discord.

The takeaway from EO's response is that the vote reset functionality will be less necessary once memory leaks are fixed.  That's not really the same thing as saying it works well; and I think the current state, without tools to encourage people to participate and vote, is weak.

At the end of the day, Vote Reset is a tool about saving DM time and effort so that they don't have to step in and reset the server.  If a DM has to step in to stop a vote reset because the players are being too gung ho about it, that's a failure of the tool (and justified the restriction).  But equally, if a vote reset can't be motivated and a DM has to come in to reset the server, that's also a failure of the tool.  That's the measure to watch for.

[EO]

Except we don't really have the tools to communicate reset reasons across the logged in population directly except for mass Tells, and that's not very practical (I know, I've tried). Nor will all players be on Discord.

There are very few reasons to call for a reset; it disrupts the overall server population, especially when no DM is present (ie: losing gear because you're bleeding). If the reason is because one or a few PCs wants one, then that's not a good enough reason for a reset. Now, if the situation affects a majority, said majority will vote for a reset.

[Arawn]

Even yesterday, when people were clamoring for a remake, I did some tests and found that I personally was able to connect to the server with low latency and few issues. That means, by definition, that it's not an issue that resets can fix.

[APorg]

There are very few reasons to call for a reset; it disrupts the overall server population, especially when no DM is present (ie: losing gear because you're bleeding). If the reason is because one or a few PCs wants one, then that's not a good enough reason for a reset. Now, if the situation affects a majority, said majority will vote for a reset.

I think what your response and Arawn's demonstrate is that even amongst well-intentioned players, we can be motivated to vote for or against reset for the wrong reasons. (For example, I honestly would have expected "there's too much lag because the server's been up for five days" to be a good and sufficient argument for reset, and I'm probably not the only one.)

I'll admit I'm motivated by a possibly archaic fear that infrequent resets leads to frequent crashes, and that's a superstition I maybe ought to put to rest.  It might be helpful if you could explain to us, some time, what the good reasons to Vote Reset are, and which common reasons are actually bad ones; spreading some technical knowledge to the player base.

[DM Sinister]

I was online for that vote and I admit I was one of the ones that voted no. I had not noticed any issues with lag or latency. I did crash once but I had been logged in for a while.

[Khornite]

Even yesterday, when people were clamoring for a remake, I did some tests and found that I personally was able to connect to the server with low latency and few issues. That means, by definition, that it's not an issue that resets can fix.

Just connecting though doesn't show the whole picture, though. If you're just standing around and talking, most times you'll be fine. Actually try to move around though? That's when you see the chaos. I was in a dungeon during that vote and we actually had to call it quits and leave because it was nothing but the game pausing for 30 seconds, then watching everything happen in fast forward, followed by rubber banding around the room for 10 seconds. And before the question is asked, yes, I am positive it had nothing to do with my network or machine. I have a resource monitor open 24/7.

On another note, I only ever saw one message appear for that vote. With how the vote system is set up currently with non-votes acting as "no" votes, people should be aware that a vote is active and one message is pretty easy to miss.