I’m going to be honest, this isn’t the way to get rid of meh spamming, and it only makes it unfair to people who vote more strictly than others (some people, for example, choose ‘ok’ as their baseline / average vote, and that’s fine by me). I also disagree with the suggestion made by @masonmasterbot about banning people for meh / love spamming, because it can easily be worked around by voting ‘ok’ or ‘great’ every once in a while, not to mention that it’s not really even against the Hive rules. I still agree that unfair voting is an issue though, but it needs to be addressed in another way.
Now I know it looks like I’m doing nothing but criticizing everyone’s suggestion, so let me offer my own one and tell you why it’s (probably) better: I’m thinking of having a 12 - player split into 2 groups (6 and 6) for solo games and a 24 - player split into 2 groups (12 and 12) for duos games (if it’s an odd number, say 21, it would be split into 10 and 11 players in each lobby, and parties and / or friends will be grouped into the same lobby to avoid unfairness). Each lobby will then vote for each other’s builds the same way that we do now. Or, even better, they would rate the builds from #1 to #6 (best to worst) in each of these games.
And here’s why I think it would be better: The way to combat meh spamming isn’t encouraging / rewarding higher voting nor is it punishing / limiting lower voting, but removing the incentive of unfair voting. With this suggestion, the people who you are voting for are no longer competing with you nor are they your friends or party members, and now the players who vote unfairly to gain an advantage by voting everyone else ‘meh’ or only their friends / party members ‘love’ will no longer get this advantage. I realize that people could still vote bad / inappropriate builds high just to be funny or troll, so in addition I suggested (as has been suggested before by others) a ranking system of best to worst to avoid every build getting a ‘meh’ vote and providing a way to drastically reduce the skewness of people only voting ‘meh’ to good builds and ‘love’ to bad ones. And there are a couple other side advantages from this suggestion too:
It reduces voting time: Currently, there are 12 voting periods, but with this suggestion, there would only be 6, since each lobby would be simultaneously voting for the other’s builds. In the case where voting is based on a best to worst system, the voting time could be even shorter.
Unlike many of the other suggestions that directly influence the way people should vote, this one doesn’t give any bias toward higher voting. It simply eliminates the main reason people vote unfairly.
Now, the only downside I can think of with this suggestion is that you may earn less exp since fewer people are voting for your builds, so for that I have a couple solutions to counter that problem.
Lobby sizes could be 24 and 48 players for solo and duo instead, increasing the number of votes you receive (and with 2k+ players online at a time, this may not be as hard as it sounds). This, however, would lengthen the game back to the current voting time.
Exp earnings could be based off of an average vote instead of a direct point scale. I like this better because it reflects more on how people think about your builds instead of how many people voted.
Honestly, I can’t think of anything wrong with this solution. In terms of gameplay, hardly anything actually changes, as far as I am aware. I’m sure you guys can find some flaws in my suggestion, and I would like to hear them to see if they can be worked around.
P.S. - I don’t think non - voters are a significant problem, since it automatically defaults to a ‘good’ vote if a person does not vote. It wouldn’t really affect outcomes since it is neutral (3 from a 1 to 5).