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

@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).