If one of the players is zzz on the other team, the game should not autolaunch.
In fact, idle players should be put on the spectators list and then if they are idle for X time they should be ejected from the battle.
Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
Moderators: Moderators, Lobby Developers, SPADS AutoHost
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
Really spads? No afk players? I beg to differ.
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
It's very easy to make a spads plugin that does this.
It's funny how each game have different needs. I made a plugin that bypasses the do-not-start if up to a certain players are not ready, so that we can then wait in the game instead. You're asking for almost the opposite :)
Edit: I cannot see what's written in the screenshot at all.
It's funny how each game have different needs. I made a plugin that bypasses the do-not-start if up to a certain players are not ready, so that we can then wait in the game instead. You're asking for almost the opposite :)
Edit: I cannot see what's written in the screenshot at all.
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
Seriously?... Right click > View ImageJools wrote:Edit: I cannot see what's written in the screenshot at all.
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
Jools wrote:It's funny how each game have different needs. I made a plugin that bypasses the do-not-start if up to a certain players are not ready, so that we can then wait in the game instead. You're asking for almost the opposite :)
AFK is not "Not Ready" AFK is "Not Here".
SWL auto-readies players.
Spads keeps launching when players have gone afk. Spads should automatically by default auto-spec players that have gone afk, and it certainly should not autolaunch a game when a player is AFK.
Seriously... wtf?
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
I guess this is really a matter of whether it should be the default or not? Anyway, as silentwings linked, there seems to be a plugin for it http://planetspads.free.fr/spads/plugins/AutoSpec.zip
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
automatically warns/specs unsync/unready players with configurable delays and thresholds
Forboding Angel wrote:AFK is not "Not Ready" AFK is "Not Here".
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
Oh, I guess it would have to be implemented to spec AFK players (as detected by the lobby player status).
It's a valid use case and ZK servers do it, but I can see why people wouldn't want it as a default: can't really wait for people for 1v1s in that case while doing something productive.
It's a valid use case and ZK servers do it, but I can see why people wouldn't want it as a default: can't really wait for people for 1v1s in that case while doing something productive.
-
Silentwings
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
You may need to edit code slightly, oh the horrors. Or ask BlackHoleHosts, iirc they've been doing it for years.
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
Actually the problem is moreso that a person in a 1v1 goes afk and then persion #2 joins and spads happily autolaunches the game regardless of the fact that the player is AFK.
And due to the fact that spads has no countdown, game ends, and it immediately tries to launch again, rinse repeat.
And due to the fact that spads has no countdown, game ends, and it immediately tries to launch again, rinse repeat.
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
In your screenshot I don't see SPADS saying there is no afk player.Forboding Angel wrote:
Really spads? No afk players? I beg to differ.
It is said there is no unready afk player...
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
I'm using chrome, no such option, but I did manage to get it working by opening the image in a new tab. Weird, maybe I have some blocker or something...Forboding Angel wrote:Seriously?... Right click > View ImageJools wrote:Edit: I cannot see what's written in the screenshot at all.
Anyway, what you want is a check before the launchgame command is given, that no players are in sleeping state? And if one is, he should be specced and the launch cancelled? Is this what you want?
And also a countdown between !start and the command that launches the game? Or you can just disable autolaunch...
Last edited by Jools on 02 Nov 2015, 11:17, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
As explained in the autoStart setting documentation, the restrictions concerning players status for autostarting are "all players are ready and synced, and no player is in-game". There is no condition on the "afk" flag.
That is because usually the "ready+afk" players are actually waiting for the game to start while doing something else in the same room, keeping an eye on the computer screen to come back as soon as the game launches. So they are technically "afk", but they are also "ready" which should mean they will be here, ready to play as soon as the game starts. Such players would really hate being auto-speced whereas they explicitly did set themselves ready.
Of course, all this is no longer true for players using lobbies which don't implement the lobby protocol normally, by auto-setting the ready flag for example. But I don't plan to change core SPADS standard behavior to favor non-standard lobbies...
That is because usually the "ready+afk" players are actually waiting for the game to start while doing something else in the same room, keeping an eye on the computer screen to come back as soon as the game launches. So they are technically "afk", but they are also "ready" which should mean they will be here, ready to play as soon as the game starts. Such players would really hate being auto-speced whereas they explicitly did set themselves ready.
Of course, all this is no longer true for players using lobbies which don't implement the lobby protocol normally, by auto-setting the ready flag for example. But I don't plan to change core SPADS standard behavior to favor non-standard lobbies...
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
That's true. But I must say that in xta, people especially want the game to start even though they are not ready, or even though they have forgotten a game windows open and are technically in game. They prefer to be waiting inside the game instead and plan the action there. Also, the longer you wait in the battle room for the game to begin, the more people become impatient and just leave, so people want the game to launch quickly. So that's So that's why I implemented a plugin where you can override a certain amount of unready players, and so far I think it hasn't been misused.
I think people want different things, so there should be many options.
I think people want different things, so there should be many options.
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
I'm not sure I understand how it is better to wait unready/afk players in game (with the risk of the missing players never coming or not wanting to play, and thus forcing everyone to quit/wait/relaunch the game) than in lobby. But sure, SPADS' plugin interface is made to allow such specific customizations easily.
In the same way I'm not sure it is very relevant to use the auto-start functionality with lobby clients that auto-readies up (in this case on the contrary it might be useful to only allow !start command through vote, as it is/was made in Zero-K, cf the recommendation in the README file of SPADS' Zero-K plugin). But sure, once again it should be quite easy to make a plugin to force SPADS to handle the afk flag as the ready one for specific non-standard cases. The plugin interface is made for these specific cases indeed.
In the same way I'm not sure it is very relevant to use the auto-start functionality with lobby clients that auto-readies up (in this case on the contrary it might be useful to only allow !start command through vote, as it is/was made in Zero-K, cf the recommendation in the README file of SPADS' Zero-K plugin). But sure, once again it should be quite easy to make a plugin to force SPADS to handle the afk flag as the ready one for specific non-standard cases. The plugin interface is made for these specific cases indeed.
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
Because then the players that are present can already start planning the game strategies, drawing on map etc...bibim wrote:I'm not sure I understand how it is better to wait unready/afk players in game (with the risk of the missing players never coming or not wanting to play, and thus forcing everyone to quit/wait/relaunch the game) than in lobby. But sure, SPADS' plugin interface is made to allow such specific customizations easily.
Yes, it merits that the group knows that the afk player is only away getting tea, putting the kid to sleep or something similar...
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
I understand, indeed in my opinion this is the perfect example for plugin usage. I guess in XTA community you known each other well enough to guess when you can bypass the lobby protocol to start the game in advance with unready and already-in-game players or not. But in the general case, with lots of unknown players/smurfs etc., this is not optimal to start the game in advance like this. You would waste too much time planning strategies for games that wouldn't even start due to afk players never coming back, newbies unable to launch spring etc.Jools wrote:Because then the players that are present can already start planning the game strategies, drawing on map etc...bibim wrote:I'm not sure I understand how it is better to wait unready/afk players in game (with the risk of the missing players never coming or not wanting to play, and thus forcing everyone to quit/wait/relaunch the game) than in lobby. But sure, SPADS' plugin interface is made to allow such specific customizations easily.
Yes, it merits that the group knows that the afk player is only away getting tea, putting the kid to sleep or something similar...
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
Yes I totally agree. I think my point was indeed that plugins can solve both this issue and the autolaunch countdown one easily. And that there is no one way that is best: it really depends on what people want, and different people want different things.
Yes, it's possible to misuse things that skip the ready state, that's what the ready button is for. But it's also good sometimes to launch the game as soon as possible. It could turn out that the map doesn't work, that somebody has a computer issue, etc. Waiting in-game instead of in battleroom would diagnose those issues sooner, rather than 9 people waiting for 1 to come back, and then it turns out that the map didn't work anyway.
Yes, it's possible to misuse things that skip the ready state, that's what the ready button is for. But it's also good sometimes to launch the game as soon as possible. It could turn out that the map doesn't work, that somebody has a computer issue, etc. Waiting in-game instead of in battleroom would diagnose those issues sooner, rather than 9 people waiting for 1 to come back, and then it turns out that the map didn't work anyway.
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
Re: Autolaunch should be disabled if one of the players is ZZZ
As battle.net has proven time and time again, a ready button is bad design. Obviously many lobby devs agree.
If you're using springlobby as some sort of metric for what is "standard" then ur doin it rong. I suggest using pretty much just about any commercial RTS game as your metric for what is standard. The obvious being battle.net because obvious reasons.
The reason I am annoyed is that this is such standard behavior that it becomes difficult to explain why it's standard behavior... Suffice it to say that it works well. There is a reason the companies use the method.
If you're using springlobby as some sort of metric for what is "standard" then ur doin it rong. I suggest using pretty much just about any commercial RTS game as your metric for what is standard. The obvious being battle.net because obvious reasons.
The reason I am annoyed is that this is such standard behavior that it becomes difficult to explain why it's standard behavior... Suffice it to say that it works well. There is a reason the companies use the method.