ideas....

[smoth]

I forget who codes spads iirc licho is over springy, I wonder what language that one is in?

[Johannes]

Spads is done by bibim. Iirc he said sometime that it's possible to make !teamsize X and !autolock X command require a vote, but vast majority autohost owners just haven't set it up that way. Not sure what's the default, changing default wouldn't affect already running autohosts though.

[Valheru]

OK im really starting to get pissed off at the same message ive heard a million times on these threads:

"If you want a smaller game, make one yourself and advertise it in #main! People will join!"

Well you know what? It doesnt work at all.

If i've learnt nothing else from spring, its that people would rather join an already full server than join an empty one. Quit spamming these threads with the same broken horse-shit message please.

[smoth]

Valheru you cannot make people do what YOU want them to do. Stop pitching a tantrum and read what we are discussing because as it stands without support for these options yes what you keep hearing is the reality. Just because you don't like the reality does mean you can scream and fuss and that will do anything.

Short version, chill re read the current discussion, people will do what they want deal with it

[Pxtl]

They join the near-full servers because those will start soon, unlike other rooms which will spend the next half-hour open.

That's why Spring needs real matchmaking - not the half-assed "join the game automatically" thing in the zero-K lobby, but true matchmaking of creating *new* battlerooms as needed and plonking in the N players who are looking to play simultaneously.

If a bunch of players log-on and say "I'm want to play a BA game of at least 3v3", the server should automatically put them together into a game.

[smoth]

That is a good point!

[Wombat]

Iirc he said sometime that it's possible to make !teamsize X and !autolock X command require a vote

retarded, so ofc tera got it.

Quit spamming these threads with the same broken horse-shit message please.

dunno how disallowing ppl to play what they like is better idea than advertising smaller games.

[bibim]

As to fighting it in the lobby - I was hoping the people who manage the autohosts and code spads/springie might read this and have ideas. But it seems not.

I read this, but if you want to catch my attention it's easier to send me a pm or post in SPADS thread.

Spads is done by bibim. Iirc he said sometime that it's possible to make !teamsize X and !autolock X command require a vote, but vast majority autohost owners just haven't set it up that way. Not sure what's the default, changing default wouldn't affect already running autohosts though.

All this is indeed totally configurable by autohost owners. Default configuration was to allow changing teamSize value directly. This has changed more than 6 months ago, to make it require vote for values greater than 6 (values 1-6 can still be set directly without vote).
And indeed, "new" default doesn't affect already installed autohosts. You can try to convince autohost owners to change their configuration though.

[Wombat]

And indeed, "new" default doesn't affect already installed autohosts. You can try to convince autohost owners to change their configuration though

bahahaahaah.

[Cheesecan]

They join the near-full servers because those will start soon, unlike other rooms which will spend the next half-hour open.

That's why Spring needs real matchmaking - not the half-assed "join the game automatically" thing in the zero-K lobby, but true matchmaking of creating *new* battlerooms as needed and plonking in the N players who are looking to play simultaneously.

If a bunch of players log-on and say "I'm want to play a BA game of at least 3v3", the server should automatically put them together into a game.

It can be done with new lobbies, or by creating(or expanding the existing) protocols for all lobbies to implement. But question is will enough players use it, or will they stick to the old ways.

Do we have enough players to have a system like that? Waiting times could get really long. Especially if we want games to be ELO balanced - a noob and a pro who press 1v1 shouldn't be matched up, at least not immediately(only when nobody else can be found within say, 1 minute). We have maybe >110 players(happy smoth?) online during peak hours, I think even if all of them used matchmaking waiting times would still be long.

I remember in Age of Mythology there was a matchmaking service called ESO, now although there were usually >2000 players on at most times, that system could take ages to find you an opponent(based on your ELO rating). It was probably a badly written system. But still we really need to consider the usefulness of a matchmaking function. At least 24+24=48(Tera DSD hosts) players during peak time only want to play BADSD 12v12, that leaves us with maybe 50 players to work with.

Anyway it's something to consider, matchmaking is a nice feature in theory.

[Johannes]

There's 100+ players playing a game, if you count people waiting in lobby theres over 200[Edit: meant waiting in a battleroom, in lobby overall there's more people]. In a matchmaking system you'd have to wait, but for how long compared to now? Well, that's quite impossible to know, depends on the exact details of the system and players reaction to it.
And I'm pretty sure that not all 12v12 or 8v8 players want to play that exclusively.

[Cheesecan]

Hrhm well it would need a pretty convincing case to make all the lobby makers add that feature(esp. ZK which already has something like it), and then maybe also update the server protocol which hasn't been under active development for long.

[Pxtl]

Hrhm well it would need a pretty convincing case to make all the lobby makers add that feature(esp. ZK which already has something like it), and then maybe also update the server protocol which hasn't been under active development for long.

ZK's lobby-system just auto-joins existing games. To fix the "never-start" issue, automatching needs to just look at everybody's minimums and create a *new* battleroom as soon as it has enough players with similar requirements to satisfy them all.

The problem with that would be getting those guys to agree on a map. Some kind of tag-driven preferences and random-selection would be necessary.