Could not play FaF for a week - very sad.

Noticed that relays are always dead, so one should use only p2p.
Unfortunately, I have public static IP but still can not connect to most of players.

@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)

Well, can someone explain what I am doing wrong?

Spent 30 minutes in lobby without any single connection

@thomashiatt , @ftxcommando , explain me please how can I play ladder at desired position without full share on dual gap map.

@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.

@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.

@eternal said in Nucleus genius and ddos of FAF. (ru original is below):

After checking all the players who responded on this topic, I came to the conclusion that most of the author supporters are Russians. What a plot

Ru players have one interesting trait: they hate each other but when are offended stick together and spare no effort to protect their nationality.

So just do not be racist to not offend whole ru community.

@spikeynoob So why didnt u just rename him to e.g. player54861354 instead of ban?

I support nucleus genius in case of ban because this is double-standardized moderation. There should be either ban for every toxic player (like one time sid (сид) reclaimed my acu → he should be permanent banned) or no permabans at all for all.

@conny_action said in Punish bad lobbies:

maybe introduce auto lobbies with a strict set of rules, a voting system and an obs waiting queue, the lobby stays alive after game starts and after you died you decide if you keep your spawn for next match or leave.

Sure, this is was my initial post about. But this actually would be matchmaking queue) Hence no need to hardcode new mode while it is already implemented in queues.

@ftxcommando said in Punish bad lobbies:

I fail to see why I would gather statistics in something I said doesn’t matter, nor why that burden is put on me.

Since you have no evidence your hypotheses like "95% of people play in wrong manner" must be as valid as others hypotheses like "gap/astro queue should exist".

Consequently, I mean developers have to say "we do not want this because we have no time/dislike these maps/do not respect such players" instead of blaming people for gameplay preference over lobby simulator.

@ftxcommando Can you provide some statistics about whom and how prefer playing faf?

Currently "It also doesn’t matter for the matchmakers" sounds like "we do not players to get fun" or "we want a cyber sport league" or even "95% of players are fools".

@phong said in Punish bad lobbies:

Personally, I have to admit whatever gut feelings I might have about a hypothetical gap only queue are worthless since the death of 4v4 tmm came as quite a surprise to me. It was vindicating, but surprising as hell, based on what I perceived the consensus to be at my rating level at the time. The fact that it even existed at all is proof that fullshare was at the very least controversial, forcing the devs to launch tmm with both. I wonder if no-share's utter failure came as a surprise to them as well, and if so, maybe it's worth reminding ourselves our intuition is not perfect at predicting how large, mostly silent communities will react and can't replace actual experiments. On the other hand, if it came as no surprise at all to anyone on the dev team, more the reason to trust their judgement on this.

This is easily bitten by statistics. But I can not find any in open access. Unfortunately, last years devs try to hide their "popularity".

Well, can someone explain what I am doing wrong?

Spent 30 minutes in lobby without any single connection

@Nex agree. Moreover this is the simplest solution could be - just add more queues like other queues already exist nearby.

@ftxcommando said in Punish bad lobbies:

Should be based on what rationale? By popular sovereignty half of all queues wouldn’t even involve players facing players.

Ultimately these queues have never been about some popularity poll. The first queue in GPG was 1v1, this carried out into FAF, now it’s different. Back when it was only 1v1, this was basically the entire rationale for balance decisions with some sentons sprinkled in. Now the schema of games viewed this way has gone beyond 1v1 and you have a roster of teamgames that have legitimacy for considerations about the game.

1v1 wasn’t chosen because it was popular, never was. It was easy dev resource wise, it had historical precedent, and it was built upon using said precedent.

Why do you speak about history? This is not about history, this is about actual problem.

I do not understand your point. You say lobbies are too bad to play them, matchmaker is for strange different (then play game and get fun??) purpose. But currently faf is lobby simulator with rare gameplay inclusions. So what do you suggest to solve this issue?

@ftxcommando said in Punish bad lobbies:

rather than having 50,000 matchmaker queues for the 50,000 individual maps

Please provide some statistics if you have access.

I can see that the most popular maps are: seton, astro, gap. Maybe generated. Maybe other curated huge maps. But there should be at least one queue for these maps.

@ftxcommando said in Punish bad lobbies:

@cocucka said in Punish bad lobbies:

@thomashiatt , @ftxcommando , explain me please how can I play ladder at desired position without full share on dual gap map.

Sounds like you’re part of the problem then. Can’t moan about wanting a specific slot and then moan that host wants to play with a specific player.

Likewise can’t have these 80 prerequisites for you to play and then be flabbergasted host takes a while to balance games.

If host really wants balance then he should use opti. Otherwise he should respect the role. At least, he should react somehow in chat about this.
Also when the highest rank writes something like "move me to 5" host moves but when the same is written by low skill players host kicks them.

Consider there should be interface like this:

• Select map: random, small pool, medium pool, huge pool, <check manually>.
• Select size: random, 1v1, 2v2, 4v4, 6v6.
• Select role: random, mid, air, navy, eco, non-mid.
• Toggle ranked: on, off.
• Button: Enqueue
• Hint: Most wanted roles (faster search): mid.
• Hint: Most wanted sizes (faster search): 4v4, 6v6.

Algorithm of matchmaking:

1. Search for available players for a while.
2. If not enough players prompt to extend role/size/map (without loosing priority).
3. If not enough players prompt to extend role/size/map(without loosing priority).
4. If not enough players prompt to extend role/size/map(without loosing priority).