[TERA] Autohosts info

[muckl]

no info

[Jazcash]

Finally. Glad somebody's at least making a bit of effort to prevent massive games on stupid maps.

[hoijui]

if i wanne spec, and host does not let me, i will not play instead.
also, if the other hosts are DSD or other stuff i dont want to see, i will not go spec there, and there is hardly ever more then 2 games (except at turney time) that i would want to see.

peoples no liek when someone create artificial borders that limit their abitilies, just to stear them in a way that the birder creator wants.
.. ok... some will just sheep along the line, but this is spring.. everyone is intelligent here!
short: please do not limit #specs

[[LOeT]Brenner]

hoijui,

a lot of people are not like you and may be they will think "i'm so lazy and i wanna spec, but i cant. well, i'll play few games just to keep myself busy so i dont have to work/learn in RL".

The second reason is that Spring (BA) will probably not be concentraited on only one host anymore. Like now it is the x-host midday and ACE or TERA at the evening. This may change and it would be good.

If this will not work out, every host-owner will just take all changes back and that's it.

[KaiserJ]

thanks for making this post, it's nice to see host operators taking an interest in community integration and feedback.

edit: and it's nice to see you wanting to make changes to get more simultaneous matches and "reasonable" sized teams per map. these changes can only have good results IMO

[albator]

3)

When no admins are there or even because some admins just want to, 10v10 almost never end on big maps but always on maps. Just imposed big map only in map list of 10v10 host

1) if the effect you wish to produce is noble, the mean to achieve it not good imo. Some people really like to spec. I would increase the number of spec limit as soon the game start, and decrease it back to 7 as soon game stop. Also spec who are there since the longest time should be kicked first.

[[LOeT]Brenner]

I would increase the number of spec limit as soon the game start, and decrease it back to 7 as soon game stop. Also spec who are there since the longest time should be kicked first.

Is it even possible to implement? I'm not sure. It has to be done automaticaly, admins can't manually control the time someone is spectating or adjust maxspecs with every game start/end.

[FabriceFABS]

Before all, can I talk here or this topic is just for advertising ?
I just hope not to spoil the subject because there are things to discuss.

muckl
Nice convention. I'm not joking, but is it Copyright [TERA] or may I use it ?

Just in a way that we (autohost owners) should all have same common rules and, at least, why not having a forum section for this ?
I'm really FOR it and NOT for the fact of being against each other.
This is important to work together for Spring's community.

Jazcash and KaiserJ
Thank you for your congratulations ! Did it on 5 autohosts since October 2011
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... 99#p503799
Except for Senna's map request on the last remaining autohost : I did it 2 days ago, when [LOeT]Brenner had a discuss with me => it has been Downgraded to 10 pl / 7 sp.

So to the point, two owner's team autohosts are rdy.
Which are missing ?

[LOeT]Brenner / hoijui
I think that it's time to separate from the taken habits.
If a game is not available, it's time to wait elsewhere.
I never understood why some players waits in a running game lobby, without specing ?
Why not waiting on a free autohost ?
All of us knows (not ever, but often) that more the players are waiting in a free autohost, more next players arrive quickly.

If this will not work out, every host-owner will just take all changes back and that's it.

Humm... Well you said that Spring game shouldn't be concentraited on only one host (or 2) anymore So Nope

[FabriceFABS]

I would increase the number of spec limit as soon the game start, and decrease it back to 7 as soon game stop. Also spec who are there since the longest time should be kicked first.

It's too complicated and far-fetched. Simply limited to 7 it is simpler and everyone can understand it.

[[LOeT]Brenner]

Humm... Well you said that Spring game shouldn't be concentraited on only one host (or 2) anymore So Nope

I just wanted to say, that everyone is still absolutely free in his decisions. :)

[albator]

I would increase the number of spec limit as soon the game start, and decrease it back to 7 as soon game stop. Also spec who are there since the longest time should be kicked first.

It's too complicated and far-fetched. Simply limited to 7 it is simpler and everyone can understand it.

Surely not. Limiting the number of spec on 1v1 host is just sad. Think about other game, not 12v12 dsd only. You cannot expect noob to learn anything if they cannot even spec good games

I would increase the number of spec limit as soon the game start, and decrease it back to 7 as soon game stop. Also spec who are there since the longest time should be kicked first.

Is it even possible to implement? I'm not sure. It has to be done automaticaly, admins can't manually control the time someone is spectating or adjust maxspecs with every game start/end.

If not possible, just don't apply this rule for host Starting from 6v6 only.
I like to spec good small game. I indeed dont care to spec 12v12 dsd.

You cannot blame noob for sucking and at the same time not giving them the opportunity to improve by specing good game.

[FabriceFABS]

Humm... Well you said that Spring game shouldn't be concentraited on only one host (or 2) anymore So Nope

I just wanted to say, that everyone is still absolutely free in his decisions. :)

Sure, I agree.
We should just have a think about spring community and not only our own autohost lobby

And btw, if one of us, autohost owners, doesn't want to downgrade to 7 specs, what will happen ?

Well, maybe it's time to decide a spec rule, and possibly even to elec a sort of « supervisor » that will manage relatioship between autohost owners by a special forum topic / group.

[very_bad_soldier]

Well, some time ago I was interested in the idea of limiting spec count to force people to populate another host instead of lurking around in a running game until it ends.
In fact, by that time when the idea first came up I actually limited spec count on X-Host despite I was the only admin doing that. Nobody else was interested. The result was that people not being able to join joined the dark side instead (aka DSD). Also since I spec games I often wasnt able to spec on my own host due to spec limit. So in the end I removed the limit.

Well, I will implement the limit again but I am not very convinced about the benefits. I might remove it if I dont see an improvement. May I ask how it comes that you are now intersted in a spec limit while it was not an option for you some months ago? Did anything change for you?

If you are interested in increasing the running battles and fill more autohosts how about decreasing the player limit in the first place? A player limit of 24 seems to be the problem in the first place. Decreasing spectator count was more a workaround idea.

[FabriceFABS]

albator, 7 specs is really enough on a 1V1. As far as I'm concerned, I never saw 16 specs on a 1V1.

Remember also that specs ARE NOT 100% noobs :)
That's means that I don't spec because I need to learn or because I'm a noob.
So do not make this case a generality.

It's time to apply on all autohosts this «7 specs project» on all autohosts and stopping about discuss it.

[very_bad_soldier]

albator, 7 specs is really enough on a 1V1. As far as I'm concerned, I never saw 16 specs on a 1V1.

Right now we have 10 specs in the 1v1 game. 7 specs is not enough, really.

[FabriceFABS]

very_bad_soldier, It surely didn't work because this rule is NOT on all autohosts.
And what about going on another autohost for playing / spec ?
I know.. I know, I rarely do it.

We just need to apply this setting for having a try.

[FabriceFABS]

albator, 7 specs is really enough on a 1V1. As far as I'm concerned, I never saw 16 specs on a 1V1.

Right now we have 10 specs in the 1v1 game. 7 specs is not enough, really.

Sorry, but then, could you explain me :
- Why it is enough (the current discussion) ?
- Why it is not enough ?

Time to apply changes and see how it reacts.
More action and less thinking !

I repeat again : Often, but not ever, More there are players / specs in a autohost, quicker next players / specs joins it.

[very_bad_soldier]

very_bad_soldier, It surely didn't work because this rule is NOT on all autohosts.

Yeah thats why I am willing to try it again. I might be annoyed if I am regularly locked out from my own host though.

And what about going on another autohost for playing / spec ?

Lets face it: We are basically talking about just two types of games here: 8v8+ DSD and max-6v6-different-Maps (Spads + xhosts). Like Alba said: speccing 8v8DSD isnt that interesting for me. I can tell you exactly how the game will go along before it even started. :)

I think it is quite interesting that Loet comes to the forum now and proposes general rules for all autohosts while different people tried to convince them for months/years about different hosting issues and they were always like "our host, so we do what we want".

[very_bad_soldier]

albator, 7 specs is really enough on a 1V1. As far as I'm concerned, I never saw 16 specs on a 1V1.

Right now we have 10 specs in the 1v1 game. 7 specs is not enough, really.

Sorry, but then, could you explain me :
- Why it is enough (the current discussion) ?
- Why it is not enough ?

All those people really want to see the match (high class 1v1). So I see no point in limiting the spec count.
This cant be compared to 12v12 where I would assume that half of the specs are not interested in the actual game but are just waiting for it to end so they can join in.

[[LOeT]Brenner]

I'm not sure if everyone knows it, but the idea with maxspec 7 was from beginning only for hosts with min. 6v6.
bibim wanted more spectators in small games (like 1v1 or 2v2) because he thinks that people who spectate there really dont want to play. They only want to spectate.