Punish bad lobbies
-
@cocucka we already have matchmaking, but that's beside the point. Even if the devs agreed with your suggestions, it would take months to make the changes. You don't have to wait months (or forever) to solve your problems, at least not in my experience. Try it.
-
It's worth remembering for "afk" hosts that they might have been waiting for one or more hours for the game to start, so I'm sure you can wait some 10 minutes for them to finish doing whatever is keeping them busy.
-
@deletethis or just say in lobby chat "i rehost", then get an almost insta full lobby
-
@phong said in Punish bad lobbies:
@cocucka we already have matchmaking, but that's beside the point. Even if the devs agreed with your suggestions, it would take months to make the changes. You don't have to wait months (or forever) to solve your problems, at least not in my experience. Try it.
Agree, I'll try.
Sorry, miss clicked @Nex to reply) -
@deletethis said in Punish bad lobbies:
It's worth remembering for "afk" hosts that they might have been waiting for one or more hours for the game to start, so I'm sure you can wait some 10 minutes for them to finish doing whatever is keeping them busy.
Sure but only in case I am guaranteed to play. Because wait 10 minutes and wait 10 minutes to be kicked/forced unfair slot - very different experience.
-
This all should be automated
-
@melanol go ahead and automate it
-
@phong I meant the matchmaking style. I once proposed a hundred queues, but the administration even removed the 4v4 no share queue, and I guess they want as less buttons as possible there.
There shouldn't be lobbies for popular maps/modes, just matchmaking queues.
-
A 6v6 queue is just unviable
-
@melanol removing the 4v4 no share queue was a good idea I think, since having multiple very similar queues will split up people between the queues which is bad. Even if you can technically queue for both at the same time, there are a number of scenarios where people wouldn't do so since they clearly prefer one over the other.
But adding queues for the most popular (even if most contributing members don't like them) maps should be done, since anything that brings people from the matchmaking tab to the custom games tab is especially bad for new players, because "just host yourself" is not an option for them, so they have to put up with all the shit going on, plus you can only be in one lobby at a time, so you are forced to play what fills fastest, instead of trying to get a game in the mode you want to play.
-
@blackyps why is it unviable to have a 6v6 dual gap queue?
-
There are too many connection problems when trying to connect 12 people at once
-
@zlo I'd rather make it one queue button and some checkboxes for which slots you'd like.
In the background it might be a good idea to later have some priority system and sometimes "force" people into roles that nobody wants, so they at least get to play. (Like other online games also do)
But that's for after people actually use the queue
maybe dualgap folks will just stick to hosting customs to kick people they don't like or something
who knows -
@blackyps how are people playing dual gap custom games then?
they work the same as the matchmaker -
In a custom lobby people that can't connect to everybody will leave again. In a matchmaker you only have one shot to connect everyone. We already see that a certain percentage of 4v4 games don't launch because of connection problems. A 4v4 game needs to establish 28 connections. A 6v6 game needs 66 connections.
-
@blackyps said in Punish bad lobbies:
A 6v6 game needs 66 connections.
Ah, one of the things that threatens the forever part of FAF: Modern games are run on the server and not on each player's computer. That 6v6 would only need 12 connections, and there wouldn't be any desyncs, and here comes the source code / engine wall again...
-
@blackyps but people not being able to connect to some players should be a rare issue.
It's currently quite common because of issues with the ice adapter, but assuming those get fixed, the amount of connections that fail should be relatively low.
Also I'd believe GAF is doing this since it's the obvious way if you only play that map to have a queue for it. (is that shot from zlo from the GAF client?) -
@melanol said in Punish bad lobbies:
Ah, one of the things that threatens the forever part of FAF: Modern games are run on the server and not on each player's computer. That 6v6 would only need 12 connections, and there wouldn't be any desyncs, and here comes the source code / engine wall again...
You'd also either need to compute the whole game on the server, skyrocketing running costs or live with increased latencies across the board making it impossible for people from multiple countries to play together.
It's also unneeded, cause assuming a working ice adapter and coturns, you only need 12 connections in the worst case scenario, as everyone could connect to a coturn and from there to the other players. (sure they'd each have 6 connections to a coturn, but loosing one of them is unlikely, since they all connect to the same server)
-
well, it should be rare as you correctly said. At the moment it clearly isn't. And even if it is rare, let's say a connection failure occurs 1% of the time, the chance that a 6v6 game launches successfully is still 0.99^66=0.51, so just over half of the time.
Do you know if it even works well in GAF? It could also be that they generally have an easier time to connect as most of them are in russia, so pretty close together. -
@nex said in Punish bad lobbies:
(is that shot from zlo from the GAF client?)
lol, no i just used paint.
Here is actual GAF screenshot:
