Spring has less players

[Johannes]

I don't see anything wrong in promoting a game anywhere as long as you don't do it in a spammy irritating way. Whether you ask people through a chat channel, PM, or in a battleroom what's the big difference? Is PMing someone in a battleroom "stealing" them too?
It's up to the person to decide what they want, and they can make a better decision if they're properly informed.

[smoth]

I didn't say it is wrong, I said it is rude. Rude I feel is just bordering on civility not wrong but not really right either, maybe a little wrong..

Nothing wrong with pming someone, maybe someone you played with had a gg with and want to do that again, why not pm them.

Like I said before, people do randomly pm people in the lobby to try and get games going. Which I do find a bit rude mainly because I didn't solicit their spam.

it has nothing to do with "my players" and everything to do with "butting in."

Now joining a server and talking shit about the host/game and trying to pull players that way, i do see as wrong.

[FabriceFABS]

@Johannes, you're true but I dislike this method (doing that in a current autohost' lobby).

+1@smoth It is exacly the feeling, but I don't have words to say that.

@Carpenter
No pb, it's ok for me, thx.

Maybe you're true, but I hate this method (And then, don't practice it ; I prefer take the time to send private msg like «Hi ! What about waiting in a new DSD...» to players that currently waits, don't play, don't spec, simply waits in an autohost' lobby game ending).

I'll try to do an effort being less picky regards it, maybe I'm a bit too rude about this.

However, I will place my autohosts 6 max specs, and force the autolock when nb of players + specs are reached, also when a game is running.

Previous settings were 10 specs // !autolock off.

I urge other autohost admins to do the same, maybe it could be change something.

It's just a think, every comment are welcomed, worth recalling that.

Cu

[momfreeek]

force the autolock when nb of players + specs are reached, also when a game is running.

Thinking about what changed, the ability to join a host with a running game seems key: before this feature you either had to wait in the lobby for the game to end or enter a new host. But now people learned they can join the populated host and wait for slots to open even while the game is running.

[FabriceFABS]

Yes, I agree with you.
This feature is an interesting progress (remember time we could NOT spec a game already started).

This leads to the fact that many players are stagnating in a lobby running game.

If all autohost will be set as those settings around this :

However, I will place my autohosts 6 max specs, and force the autolock when nb of players + specs are reached, also when a game is running.

Then, for spec a game, you should be in the autohost's lobby before game starts.

The annoying thing is just if a player stop play, would spec, and number of specs reached in autohost lobby => kick

[momfreeek]

Perhaps the spec limit is not so important. Locking means there is only a small window to join per match. 95% of the time the host will be locked.

[knorke]

95% of the time the host will be locked.

And then lobbies would invent something that makes you join a battle as soon as it is unlocked.

[momfreeek]

95% of the time the host will be locked.

And then lobbies would invent something that makes you join a battle as soon as it is unlocked.

Would they? Have lobbies invented something that unspecs as soon as a slot opens in the host you are sitting in? Its the same problem.

Anyway: so long as the player is in the lobby he is looking at the battle list and open to joining a different host rather than sitting in the one game.


edit: Besides, spec limit makes no difference whatsoever to this theoretical issue. if its an issue, its an issue with every solution here.

[PicassoCT]

95% of the time the host will be locked.

And then lobbies would invent something that makes you join a battle as soon as it is unlocked.

Realism? Smells rantzig..

[FabriceFABS]

Yeah... You're finally true momfreeek, I doubt player would join an autohost lobby just for spec if no battle is running.

[momfreeek]

yes, only if they actually want to spec (not play).. and there's no need to kick them for that.

[FabriceFABS]

lol it's an "autofeature" when max specs reached
It's not me, even if I'm now tagged as rude with this story

[zerver]

That you can join a running game gives more players, not less. A spectator is a more of a potential player than someone who has not joined any battle at all. Before, when most battle rooms were locked, you in many cases missed the small time slot between games. Then you end up playing nothing, and to sit and stare at the battle list continuously is not the funniest thing to do.

[smoth]

+1 zerver

[momfreeek]

But if no-one is watching the battle list how to get a new game started? New players don't join your new game and fill it up, they go and spec the big DSD game.

WAS:
- One player starts a new game
- Second potential player joins
- etc..

IS:
- One player starts a new game
- Second potential player doesn't join that game: he specs the big DSD game. Or he is already speccing it.
- first player gives up.

The old landscape encouraged small and numerous games cause the players couldn't get into the big game (perhaps this is what they wanted all along?). Whether there are more or less players due to this is arguable but it seems fairly clear how it has lead to less battles and less variety.

[FabriceFABS]

That you can join a running game gives more players, not less.

In same running game, yes.

A spectator is a more of a potential player than someone who has not joined any battle at all.
As you said, potential.

But if he comes directly in another autohost, he will be player (or a spec if he really wants to).

Before, when most battle rooms were locked, you in many cases missed the small time slot between games. Then you end up playing nothing, and to sit and stare at the battle list continuously is not the funniest thing to do.

Just have to fill empty autohosts, and next players exponentially will come after.

Autohosts should really be closed during battles.

[zerver]

That you can join a running game gives more players, not less.

In same running game, yes.

Maybe so, but you cannot blame people for wanting to be where the action is.

If this really is a problem, just make a feature that automatically splits the game into two when the number of players and specs grows too large. Exactly half of the players and half of the specs should go, and at the same time the host can adjust the max player/spec limits accordingly.

[se5a]

could a lua widget be made that would keep a spec informed of other games that may be about to start, but for 'one more player'
with a button that will exit the current speced game, and put them in the battle room of another?

[Johannes]

That you can join a running game gives more players, not less.

In same running game, yes.

Maybe so, but you cannot blame people for wanting to be where the action is.

But you can blame the system, where you get more specs and less players than otherwise.
I don't see how midgame join will ever give you more players. Was it a problem before to get full 8v8 games when you couldn't join midgame? Now it's only easier to join the queue earlier. You still have about the same amount of players in the game in the end, but less games.

If this really is a problem, just make a feature that automatically splits the game into two when the number of players and specs grows too large. Exactly half of the players and half of the specs should go, and at the same time the host can adjust the max player/spec limits accordingly.

I don't want games split like that where I can't decide who I play with.

[AF]

All of these changes would require developers to intervene. So far the only reliable developer we have is Licho, and he has already intervened to the best of his ability with the ZeroK Lobby, and cited roadblocks.

Also technically as I understand it, the relayhosts should have obsoleted autohosts.

If you want to fix things, right now it's a persuasion/cultural task, not a technical task. We can provide all the matchmaking and fancy features, but if autohost owners don't like it, they won't shut their autohosts off, they won't change their limits, and they won't introduce the newer versions with these schemes, and all the technical solutions will be wasted.

General truths:

• 3 or 4 Autohosts would satisfy the entire BA Autohost requirement.
• There are at least 5x more autohosts than is necessary
• Autohost owners do not believe they are at fault or doing anything wrong
• There are reasons for running autohosts that are detrimental to the community at large
• Moderation is not going to step in
• Technical solutions are not going to work without Autohost collaboration or a popular abandonment of Autohosts ( unlikely to happen )

You need to change attitudes within the BA community and persuade autohost owners to bend to your will, because technical innovation and moderator intervention are not going to fix this, and any action on these fronts is not going to happen in the near future. Any further discussion of them is a waste of time.