Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Vote or time warning to "normal/splitted" start!

11 posts, 906 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
Need a vote OR a warning, ring the player and a message (like in old time when you were not read in game)and some time (5 or 10segs) before game start, so if it going to be splitted cause someone did NINJA start i do not get forced to play splitted game that i do not want to play.

Forcestart you see the vote so if you do not want to play a big game you can spec, need to give plp that to not want to play small game the same time to choice.

Another option is a config(off by default) so if i am in a big room full of plp and some ninja start i get auto spected before game start, so i do not get forced to play the splitted game. For now i will just resing in begin every time that happen, do not like played small games...
+0 / -0

11 years ago
Lots of people are in the same case and want large games. They don't care that veterans use derogatory terms for such games, and they don't like that the game is split without any warning or any option to spec. Waiting for a 12v12 game and ending up in a 6v6 often results in enough players to resign at start, which cause voteexit and lost time until everything settles. Users should get what they expect... if game is allowed to start, it should start without splitting people.

Having to forcestart results in either unbalanced games, or !balance spam during the forcestart vote. If "someone" has decided that there should be a soft-limit, add a new !votestartlarge:
- will autobalance, so no !balance spam
- will act as a warning for people who prefer small games... they can spec during vote

Its simple for people who want small games to just spec if they don't want to participate in large games...
+0 / -0


11 years ago
What about remove auto split and have a new kind of start "!votesplitstart" which does the current instant split then start behaviour if it passes.
+0 / -0
Imo split is, and should be, the norm. There are many players who don't like these chaotic 20+ player lagfests, and 5v5 (the minimum for split games) is imho enough players for any map. If you add a special vote, then it should be about not splitting, i.e. !votenosplit. A special case like this, however, isn't imo needed. There's just so much good in splitting.
+0 / -0
If you don't want to play a game smaller than a 6v6 then you probably just shouldn't be playing. :/ Games these size are just bad for the playstyle they encourage, the metagame, the community, 2000 players playing 1250 players, the game, everything.
+0 / -0
11 years ago
While I am definitely in the no larger than 6v6 camp, I do recognize that sheep has a point.
A simple way would be to have the room throw a "max players is 20" error on a !start command and require a vote to split or vote to forcestart.

The problem with doing this is that we then need a way to have a room that has a lower limit. Like a max 6v6 room that autospecs anyone joining after 12(IIRC, BA had this)
+0 / -0
There is some time to click spectate, but you must watch when it gets splited, I always somehow manage to spec in time. Most often high elo player split is quited, but lower elo split is played.

I personally think this spliting is really good idea +1 whoever did it, because everybody joins bigest game anyway, but probably happens a bit too soon, for example 5x5 or 6x6 = small game on very big map and thats why people resign and so on, starting with 7x7 should be okay I think.

Personally my favorite is 8x8-10x10 bigger gets too lagy, but still fun. On small games too much depends on you and you must play seriously and typical, cant try new tactics, some unit rush or so. I simply dont want to screw mine team if I would do so, because those few first minutes really matters in smaller games so I try avoid small games.


Another thing to try is to name rooms big room, small room and limit player count like in BA rooms, but this probably will result in specing, but then everybody gets what they want.
+0 / -0

11 years ago
What about limited hosts which specs everyone when player limit reached > 10... (like 1 vs 1 host) would be a good host for those who like small games... and normal team games host would be unlimited.. all would be happy..
If you dont like "mega games" just join small teams room and have fun with others who like small games...
they will join there because they don't want the big game....
really simple
+0 / -0
"There is some time to click spectate, but you must watch when it gets splited, I always somehow manage to spec in time."
So it must be 1 seg or less, could that time be increased to 7 segs? For me, that would be the best of all solution posted, just want to know if it will be splitted or not and time to react.

"add a new !votestartlarge:
- will autobalance, so no !balance spam
- will act as a warning for people who prefer small games... they can spec during vote"
Good too. There could be a server side config option to allow or not splitt too, like the command that unlock/lock(so him must manually unlock with "technologies points") all tech to every player.

"Another thing to try is to name rooms big room, small room and limit player count like in BA rooms, but this probably will result in specing"
Agree, i do not like the old BA rooms systems, lots of play do not know what to do to play if the room is full and all another empty.

tl;dr just need to increased to 7 segs before game start.
+0 / -0

11 years ago
personal I would prefer a warning with a message and a ring
5 or 10s befor autostart. It would give you the chance to leave/spec...
+0 / -0
quote:
personal I would prefer a warning with a message and a ring 5 or 10s befor autostart

That what i asked at the beginning of topic.
+0 / -0