by GreaseMonkey » Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:45 am
I think I recall yelling at Ben about this when I was still technically a noob. It was in 0.52 so I got to enjoy it for 1 day but the way it was implemented there was terrible - if enough people /n'd early, it would cancel, and if not enough people voted, it'd cancel anyway, so it didn't really get a fair go from my understanding.
If there's anyone undecided, their votes really shouldn't count as instant /n.
Allowing /n would be good for unvoting, if this suggestion doesn't go through.
Personally I think there should be a minimum threshold of /y votes, and the /y votes need to be >= the /n votes (or > if you'd prefer it to be that way). A good floor() >= threshold could be something like
min(playercount-1,max(3,playercount*0.22))
which basically means "absolute maximum of (player count - 1); otherwise absolute minimum of 3 players; otherwise 22% of the players".
Once there is a clear majority, the vote should do what it's meant to do. Otherwise, it should wait until the timeout happens before anything is decided.
This could be experimented with and tweaked in pyspades.
Anyway, if you vote for this you get an airstrike.