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

Even teams lobby feature

15 posts, 433 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
22 days ago
I give this a thumbs down.
+3 / -0

22 days ago
As I have already told several people this was only applied to the team lobby because a few players were tired of just getting a crappy balance, for example 1 + 2 and some lower rated players balancer makes with not even teams 1 + 1 vs 1 which just makes absolutely no sense

quote:
someone said , i dont remember who:
who cares about having 2 coms

For the beginners of Zero-K when there are uneven teams (2vs3 / 13vs12 / 15vs16) always the player with the highest ELO number gets a 2 commander and accordingly double starting resources, the main problem is mostly the balance, which is already mostly very selected by clans.

In my opinion, that (feature) makes sense in any case for small teams, for larger with Clanbalance also, and if more than 10vs10 are there it is usually weekends so that the waiting list is activated anyway due to a maximum of 32 players.

+0 / -1


21 days ago
I think it makes sense below a certain threshold. The threshold is currently 10 players, so 4v5 is the largest game affected.

People are going to miss out due to it, but I think the average effect can still be positive. Consider the people who don't want to play small uneven games so would otherwise spectate in a 4v5 situation. Or someone who joins a battle, sees a 3v3, so opts to not play so as to not ruin the even teams. Now they are free to join as a waiting player, signifying that they would like to play provided that someone else joins to even up the numbers. Ideally this will solve deadlocks that arise when the host gets small.
+5 / -0

20 days ago
We were complaining about this situation for a long time, it's nice to see a solution being developped. Many thanks :)
+1 / -0
20 days ago
With the threshold it seems fine. Initially the threshold seemed higher than 10?
+2 / -0
19 days ago
Implement this for every team format but turn it on its head for 5v6 and above: when teams are uneven - waitlist the highest whr player in the lobby. Newcomers or otherwise not in the know get to play and aren't getting bothered, and I think the majority of high whr would agree that it is by far the better option for both them and everyone else.

Could be a toggle per player, then again, the entire team is getting burdened with 2x, so maybe it shouldn't be any single ones call to essentially force your side into this.
+1 / -0
The current system puts the most recent player to join on a waiting list, not the lowest rated player, so I'm not sure that
quote:
turn it on its head

is an apt description. Throwing out the highest rated player over and over again sounds pretty rough for whoever that happens to be.
+0 / -0


19 days ago
I think the highest rated player can opt-in to the waiting list by quickly spectating then playing, putting them at the bottom of the list. This is the intention at least. I forget whether the implementation ended up sorting people by how long they have been in a player slot, or how long they have been in the room at all.
+1 / -0
19 days ago
quote:
...sounds pretty rough...

It would be a crude solution, but I think having to 2x com atm sucks to the point where it's just better. If I could opt out of every game team/me (hell even the other team) was forced into 2x otherwise I know I would.

And can't really manually do it either, whatcha gonna do, sit there eagle eyed with your thumb on spec button all the time? Still going to get caught at some point by a random ninja join or some such.

quote:
...whether the implementation ended up sorting people by how long they have been in a player slot, or how long they have been in the room at all...

This would push you to the bottom of the waitlist currently, yes.
+0 / -0
The present solution also fixes the double-com problem. It just doesn't put the consequences 100% of the time on the highest rated player in the room.
+1 / -0
18 days ago
Which is good. Only if I read it correctly - this would only apply to 4v5 and lower, which is such a small amount of games. If the problem is not with the presented option, and other ways to get around it sound ridiculous, why not raise threshold & push the current "latest joining waits until even" for every format?

I just don't get why not make something like this available for every team size.
+0 / -0
quote:
If the problem is not with the presented option, and other ways to get around it sound ridiculous, why not raise threshold & push the current "latest joining waits until even" for every format?

I just don't get why not make something like this available for every team size.

I set !maxevenplayers to 32 in the all welcome room a few days ago to fix an immediate problem, and decided to see what would happen if we left it there. People complained. We set it to 16 a day or two later. People complained. We set it to 10. So far people haven't complained a lot about 10.
+2 / -0

16 days ago
This is exactly the fix we needed for balance correction in smaller lob pot games. Thanks for implementing this!
+0 / -0
this evener should only be applied to max 3v3... or like add server command to turn it off in a vote
+2 / -0
13 hours ago
it turned out to be good for small teams, not so much for big teams.
+1 / -0