Punish bad lobbies
-
@endranii , yes, this is one of possible solutions.
But look here...
Right now (10 hours away from prime time) I can see 5 lobbies with e.g. dual gap with totally 60 slots and 23 players.
Hence I don't believe that hosting extra lobby will quicken game start.
-
@maudlin27 said in Punish bad lobbies:
While I dislike many of those scenarios, I'm not sure how feasible the proposed solutions are even if it was felt they were desirable.
- afk hosters - I'm not sure if it's possible for the client to get information on if all players have checked that they're ready and (if so) if it is then capable of checking over a period of 5m if everyone is 'ready' except the host and (if so) to then automatically kick the host. Even if it was possible, it'd require someone with the expertise to code.
- Kicker (kicking low rated to make room for high rated after a long period) - how to evidence? Also what about a host who is afk, and returns to see a far too low rated player in one of the game slots that would mean a very imbalanced game (although you could argue they should've just set rating limits if that was the case)
- Spawns shuffle - I dont understand this, the host can switch player positions if they want, with no need to kick someone
- Infinite balances - if host takes ages to balance then say you'll leave if theyve not settled on teams within a couple of minutes and then join a different game
- unmotivated kicks - I dont see how an options list would help - hosts could pick an option even if it doesnt apply. Also requires dev time to code such a list, and moderator time to then review the option chosen and somehow figure out if the option is appropriate in the circumstances (which seems unfeasible).
As others have said, the solution to avoiding lobby issues is either host your own lobby or join matchmaker. That and to 'add foe' hosts that exhibit behaviours you mention so you won't waste time joining their games in the future (assuming it's still an option after the various changes to FAF/the client, I've not checked).
- afk hosters - after certain percents (e.g. 10/12) of players are ready startup timer runs automatically. But instead of actual startup timer will kick unXed players.
- kicker - players should be queued from observers. Thus to take high rank into host's team he would need to kick 5-6 players before - equal to rehosting.
- spawns problem - some players want to play specific positions (e.g. air slot). Unfortunately hosts often shuffle until they and only they are satisfied. Example: reshuffle until take no-mid spawn and the highest rank join host's team. So I'd like to have air/mid/navy/team lock option as protection of reshuffle. Alternatively opti should automatically turn on after 2 reshuffles.
- unmotivated kicks - consider these kick reasons: refaf (with slot autoholded), ping , preadded to host's foe. All such reasons also can be checked automatically.
All in all, this sounds like matchmaking 2.0) with much more control of games.
-
I felt the same way about bad hosts and started hosting and it worked for me. You will be able to solve all your problems if enough players come to prefer your games over others, and you will get there way faster than the changes you're asking devs to make.
-
@cocucka said in Punish bad lobbies:
All in all, this sounds like matchmaking 2.0) with much more control of games.
This rather sounds like matchmaking 0.5
Like what you actually want is a matchmaking queue for dual gap, where you can check slots you prefer or even only play those slots.What you are proposing is just making custom games less custom, which might be a good thing in these very specific scenarios, though I doubt even there it'll actually make things better.
There is no reason to do any of this when adding a matchmaking queue is more effective and requires 95% less effort.
-
Does not look THAT bad TBH.
wonder how would one decide witch version of the map to use ughhh
Can hide this in "extra options" if someone insists that it looks ugly
Tho adding many more separate ratings for each start position sounds kinda bad
Edit:
also if you gonna just select all options and search, you are then more likely to end up in slots that nobody else wants -
This post is deleted! -
@phong said in Punish bad lobbies:
I felt the same way about bad hosts and started hosting and it worked for me. You will be able to solve all your problems if enough players come to prefer your games over others, and you will get there way faster than the changes you're asking devs to make.
Check out any popular online game (lol, dota, overwatch). Nowadays role matchmaking - must have. Nobody wants toxic or unfair games.
-
@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
