Support of starting options

[Gota]

Can we have support for the 3 following start options?

Random-each player starts on one of the starting points on the map without any specific order,players might even start right next to each other in some cases.

Boxes-like boxes work ATM

set-players choose a starting position before the game based on available starting points.

[SirMaverick]

What's the difference to the start options random, chose in game, chose before game/now as they are implemented now?

[Gota]

What's the difference to the start options random, chose in game, chose before game/now as they are implemented now?

Im not sure how random works ATM but it ends up putting players,say of a 1v1 game,in the same 2 spots.
Every game the players might start in opposite spots but the pool of the 2 spots remains the same.

As far as i know "choose before game" does not work.
If it is fixed i hope it will be "choose from the starting points the map allows" not just "choose a spot within specified boxes".

This is how it works in other games and this is what people will be expecting.

[Pxtl]

What's the difference to the start options random, chose in game, chose before game/now as they are implemented now?

iirc, random still uses the first X start points - so if there are 6 players, the first 6 start points will be randomly assigned to them and points 7,8,9, etc will never be used. So I can see the desire for an all-points-random, but I can also see the desire for a first N points random.

As for the other request, I thin the problem with the fixed position is that the start points are assigned based on join-order. That is, the first player to join gets pos 1, etc. No way to control that. Logical approach would be to assign them based on "team/commshare" number, so that players could pick their starting points pre-game.

And iirc, I think he's saying that boxes work, so don't change them. It's not clear if he wants 3 new options or just the existing ones fixed.

I'm not sure about the random start points, but I wholeheartedly agree about fixing "fixed" startpos.

[hoijui]

choose before game works, and i am using it since.. two years or so.
it was broken shortly, maybe two times, for a week or two.
now even TASClient supports it.
It does not work like you expect it though (if i got you right). The host has to choose all start positions for all the players. If each player would choose the start position in the lobby already, it would need a lobby server change (among other changes).

[zwzsg]

Every game the players might start in opposite spots but the pool of the 2 spots remains the same.

And that's good! Otherwise, when playing 1v1 on map with 32 start pos, you might accidentatlly end up close to each other.

Of course that suppose that mappers put their start pos in a sensible way, odd number in one side even on the other, instead of stupidly going first 3 on the top island, last 3 on the bottom island.

As far as i know "choose before game" does not work.

It does work in TASClient. It make the host freely pick the start pos of every player.

What's lacking is a choose before game where players, not host, pick their start pos. And a variant to limit possible start pos to those in the map smd.

In choose before game, SpringLobby had a snapping to maps start pos, at least in single player, that was nifty.

[Pxtl]

@ zwzsg

Both approaches to random have merits. On a large FFA game where each start point is meant to be a standalone base, the "all-points random" is better (like Beherith's Mearth or Europe or that Risk map). On a 1v1 team map or a map that includes "extra" start points that kind of suck (like a 4-player FFA map with 12 start points), "first N points random" is better.

[SirMaverick]

"choose before game" works fine with SL, too.

"first N points random" vs. "all-points random"
CA has shuffle option. (Due to lack of springie handling starting options.) One of the options is "Distribute over all boxes" (1v1, ffa). You set up at least as many boxes as players. Then the commanders are randomly places over all boxes. All boxes are used and you are independent from map starting points.

[Gota]

Bah too many contenders for default options again..the plague of open source..

I think the best way to do starting options is to mimic other games to make it intuitive hence i suggest supporting options that are indeed similar to how it is in other games.

@zwzwg,Pxtl
Thats why you always have boxes to correct the map or to play a map in ways it was not designed to be played.
want a map that support all mods of play make a nice symarical balanced map...if not than the host can always adjust it all with his boxes.
I think its incorrect to try and adjust such an encompassing thing like starting options to badly designed maps or maps that were not designed to suit all play styles.

I am thinking ATM of 2 possibilities.
1)there are no more than 3 starting options to choose from without any complex sub options.

The 3 options should IMO be:
a)random-starts players randomly on the map's starting positions using all the available ones as the pool,disregarding the actual amount of players.
b)boxes-like it works now.
c)predefined starting positions chosen by the players.
If boxes are drawn each team's players can only pick starting positions from their box.

2)Many available options-ask lobbies to support all interesting options and than allow games to choose what options will be displayed when a player hosts a room with that game.
This means game dependent starting options.this is ideal IMO but is probably the most complex to implement.

--------------------------------------------------

Note:imo there should be no starting positions based on id number or ally number,it is very confusing,the player cannot guess that and its not obvious how one can see where he will start.

[Satirik]

wow i don't understand shit to what you say basic ...

[SirMaverick]

Bah too many contenders for default options again

You are one of them.

[Gota]

wow i don't understand shit to what you say basic ...

http://pastebin.com/SrSLQmgU
french version

[zwzsg]

But your list does not include random start position amongst the first <nbr_player> ones, which is the best setting!


The only thing I would change in the existing system, would be to remove fixed start pos and instead have: each player gets to pick his start pos, amongst all those predefined by the map. Upon entering the room any player is by default put on the first free predefined start pos. When a player click on an already occupied start pos, it switches start pos between the two players. The start pos are drawn on the lobby minimap, SpringLobby-style.

[Gota]

Bah too many contenders for default options again

You are one of them.

I was not accusing anyone im just trying to come up with very simple intuitive starting options.
Having a gazillion options might suit developers but it is not proper when you want to attract simple players that don't want to spend a month understanding how everything works(did i write month?i meant years if all you do is try to play games fast expecting stuff to automatically reveal their nature like in commercial games).

[Gota]

But your list does not include random start position amongst the first <nbr_player> ones, which is the best setting!


The only thing I would change in the existing system, would be to remove fixed start pos and instead have: each player gets to pick his start pos, amongst all those predefined by the map. Upon entering the room any player is by default put on the first free predefined start pos. When a player click on an already occupied start pos, it switches start pos between the two players. The start pos are drawn on the lobby minimap, SpringLobby-style.

Why is this better?this is unintuitive you must agree..
Can it be that you feel it is the best cause that's what we are used to and we pick maps that have good 1-2 starting positions...
When do you really need this and cant use starting boxes?
Some maps have good 1-2 points to start a 1v1 with random some don't..we are used to those that are suited for it but there are many that aren't.

[Satirik]

fixed start sux, if your id = 8, you should start at the 8th fixed start pos

except that, it is intuitive ...

edit: that kind of fixed pos can be done lobby side without touching spring

[JohannesH]

Maybe it could be done so that map decides which type of random to use. Current maps aren't done with proper random start positions in mind so it wouldnt be good with vast majority them.

But some option to the .smd (or somewhere else) that allows all startpositions to the random pick pool would be great. Or even how many of the startpos's are used for different player numbers (this could be worth considering for Throne for example - if theres up to 7 ppl use the 7 first positions, if 8-12 use 12 positions, 13-15 use 15).

And if someone doesnt understand where this would be useful, it'd fit symmetrical maps like this for example
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/m ... Garden.jpg

Don't really see whats the point with the current random setting though, its so similar to just using the set positions. Does it matter if I know in advance if I spawn at top right or bottom left corner or ccr...

[SirMaverick]

I was not accusing anyone im just trying to come up with very simple intuitive starting options.

I would not call an option intuitive if it places 2 players on a map with many spots next to each other.

[Gota]

I was not accusing anyone im just trying to come up with very simple intuitive starting options.

I would not call an option intuitive if it places 2 players on a map with many spots next to each other.

It is intuitive cause it is used everywhere.

[zwzsg]

Why is this better?

It is better because it automatically gives player the best start positions without requiring any human intervention.

When do you really need this and cant use starting boxes?

Stupid argument, with that line of thought we'd remove everything but start boxes.

The advantage of the current random pos are:
- No need to bother with anything, players are autoplaced on best spots.
- If you play several games in a row, positions change each game, evening things out.
- The host, or the first player to join, doesn't always end up in the worst spot.

The only drawback of random pos is that it doesn't group allied players.

But some option to the .smd (or somewhere else) that allows all startpositions to the random pick pool would be great. Or even how many of the startpos's are used for different player numbers (this could be worth considering for Throne for example - if theres up to 7 ppl use the 7 first positions, if 8-12 use 12 positions, 13-15 use 15).

Grah, stop it with the ever growing tag forest! All we need is mappers to stop being idiot when placing start pos! Place 1 in one side, 2 in the opposite, 3 in the same side as 1 but away, 4 opposite of 3, 5 between 1 and 3, 6 opposite of 5, etc... That way the map is balanced for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 5v5, 6v6, 7v7, etc...

All maps should have at least 16 start positions, even small ones that are actually unplayable with that many players. It costs little times to add starting positions, doesn't hurt anything, and remove lots of trouble. Don't forget that all start position don't have to be used. But there's certain circonstance where you'll be happy to have them instead of crashing.

As for how to place start position: make it so they're well placed for any number of K vs K configuration, and not just one: Start position should be made for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, and 5v5. I believe that having games with more than one "alliance team" are incomparably rarer than with two team. To make it so it support any K v K configuration, it's pretty simple: make it odd vs even: all odd number on one side, all even number on the other side. To place start pos, just do like that: place player 1 somewhere, place player 2 in the opposite. Place player 3 in some other place, place player 4 in the opposite place. Repeat until all playable start pos are used. Then, to fill out to reach 16, you can either place them in not so playable position, or place them very near to previous player start pos, which is great for team play. For instance, if your map is meant for 3v3, it's extremely bad to place people like:
1..2..3
........
.......
4..5..6
because then your map is ONLY suitable for 3v3, and unplayable for any other number of player.
Instead, place players like:
1..5..3
........
.......
4..6..2
That way, 3v3 is still as possible as before, but so become 1v1 and 2v2 as well. And it would be great to have to remember only "odd vs even" that would work for whatever map, instead of having to remember where start pos are on each and every map, to make team.

Here's an exemple, from one of my Spring map. Notice how the start pos are good for any number of player, and how it's always odd vs even no matter how many players. Also notice how the 4 last start pos are in slightly odd location, but that I still added them for the shake of adding them just in case someone needs them some times.

It is intuitive cause it is used everywhere.

Can it be that you say it is intuitive only because that's what you are used to?