Unless it does not work, you should be able to unpause any pause you initiated immediately. If you miss clicked, you can correct it as usual.
if a guy needs to afk for 30s+ a player may still unpause after 10s, being annoying, and wasting a minimum of 2-3 timeouts or more
Maybe I'm sleepy, but I don't get it? Wasn't this more of an issue before?
Can you define what makes it bad in your experience?
@goblinsly2 said in CPU performance tests:
Do you have any data on performance ? I am on 5600x and get severe lagging when playing with 11 M28's on 20x20 maps. After about an hour, depending on unit limitations, it will go down to -5. Mainly im interested on effect of x3d, to figure out if 5700x3d would be a worthy upgrade for me
This game is not made for 11 AIs of any kind. The Lua thread that AIs run on is single threaded. No matter how good your CPU is, you'll never be able to run 11 AIs.
My reference was to typical pvp games, campaign maps and/or games with 1 - 3 AIs.
I am not sure.
I managed to implement a rejoin-like functionality. It allows a player to attempt to rejoin the lobby after X seconds when the lobby did not manage to connect to all peers. It is similar to a player rejoining a custom lobby. See also #6479.
However, I noticed that the lobby implementation is brittle. The rejoin tends to fail by... crashing the game. And I'm not doing anything special there - when I exit the lobby it occasionally crashes. Maybe that is because I run multiple instances on the same machine, I do not know. At the moment it is disabled.
If we do want to take this road then I feel we need much more statistics. Grafana (a tool to see how many lobbies there are, etc) recently got back up with thanks to Sheikah and Brutus. We'd need to expand that to track other lobby-related statistics . One of them is the local status of a player. And when a player attempts to rejoin. And whether that succeeded.
All co-op maps are interesting of course! But beyond that, you could try out Rainmakers Survival, see also:
It is on the vault. It's a map I made, so do take this me promoting my own things 
.
@BlackRedDead said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:
Tho in that case, it needs an exception procedure for players being dropped out in the meantime! (to not await their unpause signals anymore!)
And hence, my case that everything gets complicated.
I appreciate your input, but it appears to me that you do not understand the code base and its limitations. We do not have access to how it works internally - there's two globals exposed to the user side of Lua that allows a user to (un)pause the game. We can add additional logic on top of that, such as a small delay. But we can not mess with how the signals are sent over the interwebs. That's all in the binary and it is definitely not something we should mess with.
I also do not believe that people will 'abuse' this. It feels really dark and pessimistic. A small delay in a pause exists in other games too. Besides, any form of abuse can be reported. And if individuals really want to stop or break the game out of spite then there's easier ways to do that .
@RudePlayer said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:
Something to be said about this, and all moderation actions/rules, which I know may not be part of this discussion at hand but, can we please stop with manipulating the ban hammer for everything. (...)
All of your suggestions already happen. They're just not transparent to the average user. Moderators have a backlog of everything a user did that is relevant to the moderators. There's a lot of thought that go into some reports, up to the point that there's even a Discord channel between the moderators and some game team members to discuss whether something is a bug that is being (intentionally) (ab)used or not.
If anything, try to become a moderator. You'll see (and help maintain) the nuance that you request.
@Nuggets said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:
Not to mention "oh misclick"
You can unpause your own pause just fine. I mentioned this - the delay only applies when you try to unpause a pause that is initiated by another user. Unrelated, the other quote of me is in my opinion a little bit of a clown reaction. That's okay, but to what purpose?
All the discussions about turning pausing into a vote - it is fundamentally not how the game works with pauses. Every user can pause the game. And every user can unpause it. The comparison with Recall is not correct - Recall fundamentally works different. They're not comparable.
It feels to me a lot of people are just thinking in problems. We won't ever get to a solution like that, even if the solution means that the original problem is not perceived as much as a problem and therefore does not require any changes.
@TheVVheelboy said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:
The only problem is the potential abuse. So unless you make it so there is definite pause limit per team, it can go wrong. Not per player, but per team
The game does not work this way. It works on a per-player basis. There's a lobby option to limit the number of pauses. You can use that to prevent it from being infinite.
And if there are infinite timeouts and a party decides to do that then I think you can just report them. See also the rules and search for 'Ruining games'. It states:
Ruining games — Do not deliberately ruin games by abusing game mechanics, such as continuously pausing the game or spamming pings.
You probably downloaded the map before this issue was fixed by using Cloudflare. The problem is that a texture is only partially downloaded. And this particular texture covers the entire map. The suggestion of Magge fixes the issue.
