Spring RTS Engine

dont think it has anything to do with what game size players prefer.
even if you had 12 players in a host, all who would prefer a 2v2 over a 6v6 game, the players would not split to form three 2v2 games. its the (un)dynamic of people.

Yeah but with smaller porcy maps you could just have a host initially for 8 player or even less.

knorke wrote:dont think it has anything to do with what game size players prefer.
even if you had 12 players in a host, all who would prefer a 2v2 over a 6v6 game, the players would not split to form three 2v2 games. its the (un)dynamic of people.

And this is what CA games suffer from, which is the whole reason quickmatching system is being developed. Set the desired gamesize, click and forget.

CarRepairer wrote:

knorke wrote:dont think it has anything to do with what game size players prefer.
even if you had 12 players in a host, all who would prefer a 2v2 over a 6v6 game, the players would not split to form three 2v2 games. its the (un)dynamic of people.

And this is what CA games suffer from, which is the whole reason quickmatching system is being developed. Set the desired gamesize, click and forget.

Really?
I thought it was about people joining to spectate and not play.
Is it about too many active players per game?
I think making a matchmaking system is an excellent idea but has nothing to do with the fact there are a lot of spectators in ca hosts and not much actual gaming going on.

All of the less-popular mods are full of players who don't want to be trounced by a hardcore player in a 2v2, but would love to play a big game. You know all those specs in the CA rooms? That's them.

Quickmatching to say "I want a 4v4 minimum" fixes this. They don't have to sit and watch and manually enable/disable themselves. They will automatically join when they want.

Either way: tried quickmatching. Didn't work for me. It logged me into a game, but the chat/lobby/whatever didn't work, so I was probably just taking up space. I'll get more detailed error info next time I try it.

Still think that actually joining the game prematurely is a bad idea.

Pxtl wrote:Still think that actually joining the game prematurely is a bad idea.

Huh? That's the only feasible way to join a game - before it starts.

You know what I mean - joining before you see there are enough players to actually start the game. That makes the Quickmatcher a dishonest version of the CA Specs - players that aren't realistically going to play unless the game gets much, much larger.

I suggest having the quick match pips be on a diff list.
When you have 4 that want a 2v2 game or more u make all all join a host.

@Gota - I don't see why. No need to divide the playerbase. What's that get you besides less games?

Well how can it work otherwise?
ATM its just an automatic room joiner...
It can find pips for a game and launch it.
Say you ask for a 2v2.It searches amongst all those that want a 2v2 finds an ok balance,beeps than,after 5 seconds it launches.
It could also work by you specifing a minimum amount of players or several choices like 2v2 and a 1v1v1 and a 2v2v2.
Works nice in wc3.
Mixing with players that dont use the system is,IMO an invitation for annoying behavior in rooms.

Pxtl wrote:All of the less-popular mods are full of players who don't want to be trounced by a hardcore player in a 2v2, but would love to play a big game. You know all those specs in the CA rooms? That's them.

Dont think so. New players would be just as happy or happier playing a 1v1 or 2v2 against a similarly skilled opponent. If they have a good mindset theyll be glad to get trounced by good players once in a while too, so they can see better what theyre doing wrong.

And yes quickmatchers should be matched with each other, not into custom-made games. Matching them together, if they want to play at the same time, is actually quick - unlike joining to other peoples games.


Edit:right now theres 7 1v1s, 1 2v2, 1 5v5, and 1 8v8 going on. And its the big game players that have higher ranks on average. So yes I would say theres some demand for smaller games too

Gota wrote:Well how can it work otherwise?
ATM its just an automatic room joiner...
It can find pips for a game and launch it.
Say you ask for a 2v2.It searches amongst all those that want a 2v2 finds an ok balance,beeps than,after 5 seconds it launches.
It could also work by you specifing a minimum amount of players or several choices like 2v2 and a 1v1v1 and a 2v2v2.
Works nice in wc3.
Mixing with players that dont use the system is,IMO an invitation for annoying behavior in rooms.

I agree. I've encountered a couple people using this, and it's just been an annoyance for everyone else in the room. The only way for it to really work is if a lot of people use it, and if the people using and the people not using it aren't mixed in rooms. Too much confusion and frustration on both sides.

Pxtl wrote:You know what I mean - joining before you see there are enough players to actually start the game. That makes the Quickmatcher a dishonest version of the CA Specs - players that aren't realistically going to play unless the game gets much, much larger.

If no one joined a game until there was exactly N-1 nonspecs in it where N is their minimum desired playercount, well.. that doesn't work very well.

If the quickmatch behavior is annoying it should be tweaked in some other way, not have people never join.

JohannesH wrote:Dont think so. New players would be just as happy or happier playing a 1v1 or 2v2 against a similarly skilled opponent. If they have a good mindset theyll be glad to get trounced by good players once in a while too, so they can see better what theyre doing wrong.

You are some sort of idealist. This is very far from reality for 99% of players.

CarRepairer wrote:

JohannesH wrote:Dont think so. New players would be just as happy or happier playing a 1v1 or 2v2 against a similarly skilled opponent. If they have a good mindset theyll be glad to get trounced by good players once in a while too, so they can see better what theyre doing wrong.

You are some sort of idealist. This is very far from reality for 99% of players.

All right. How about the 20+ players playing 1v1 or 2v2 right now in the lobby? They just couldnt find a dsd game anywhere so had to settle for that?

Pxtl wrote:@Gota - I don't see why. No need to divide the playerbase. What's that get you besides less games?

say there are 5 players, 4 would play a 2v2 if possible.
atm it is like "wait for more" - "ok"
wait
wait
wait
wait
eventually more players join. or not.
why shouldnt the 4 players be able to play their game instead of just waiting in the lobby? players can still join the battleroom while the game is in progress.

or there already is a large number of players but everybody is still getting map or whatever. sometimes i did find someone to play 1v1 instead of waiting then you get back and the large game is still not started.

i am sure even new players who are "afraid" of small games have more fun if they wait 2 minutes for a number of small games than waiting 30minutes for one large game.
small games also restart faster while after a big game everybody is always frustrated.

Oh, I agree if there are enough players _within_ the quickmatching system to form a game, it should form one.... but if a player is, say, looking for a 5v5+ and has only 3 other players in the Quickmatching system, it should be assigning him into an existing game. That's why I don't think he should join until he's ready to play - if there exists enough players _within_ quickmatching to create a game, create one. If there exists a game in the existing system that would allow a player to reach his limit, join that. Support _both_ approaches.

But if they join even before there is enough people, non-quickmatchers become aware of them and can join same host.

The more people you have in host, the faster others join. There just has to be clean indicator that people want to play at less than quickmatching people on given host. For now, I will just increase !specafk timer (60->120 seconds).

Regarding why people like big games - I think its down to individual contribution and balancing. Big games tend to be more balanced (averaged out) and individual contribution is not that huge (you don't feel so pressed). It creates more relaxing game with lower chance of total stomp.

Licho wrote:But if they join even before there is enough people, non-quickmatchers become aware of them and can join same host.

The more people you have in host, the faster others join. There just has to be clean indicator that people want to play at less than quickmatching people on given host. For now, I will just increase !specafk timer (60->120 seconds).

Regarding why people like big games - I think its down to individual contribution and balancing. Big games tend to be more balanced (averaged out) and individual contribution is not that huge (you don't feel so pressed). It creates more relaxing game with lower chance of total stomp.

In ca this becomes even more apparent since It is completely impossible to porc (in BA as well,mostly)at least with the current available maps.
Make game changes or maps that allow to porc easier and i think people will be more happy to play smaller games.
They wont be so stressed about having to raid and having to constantly move their units to defend expansions.

If youre used to playing, say, comet 4v4, with random teams - somebody make a 4x16 comet map and you get similar experience!!

Oh and I dont think big team games are more balanced, they just tend to go on longer due to there being so much less opportunity to attack.