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

Forum index  > General discussion   >

some thoughts on the new lobby mode

9 posts, 244 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
DErankzini
2 days ago
I’m perfectly fine with 32p or 22p games — in fact, 22p can even be a bit more manageable, especially when using planes.
I also fully respect the personal preferences of other players.

However, what’s completely unacceptable is being forcibly removed from the player list just because others have fewer games.
Having to wait 45 minutes just to possibly get into the next match is not something I’m willing to tolerate in the long run.

In my view, this kind of system pushes away the active players.
+3 / -0
RUranklxa4000
2 days ago
It is actually not.
From post
https://zero-k.info/Forum/Post/271799#271799
GoogleFrog's answer:
quote:
This is designed to not happen. In fact, if I follow your argument then the new system encourages seeding new rooms. I'd better clarify how the queue is meant to work, before people end up arguing about nonexistent systems.

The player list is sorted by two parameters.

First it is sorted by whether you played the last game in the host. Players who did so are sorted lower. The last game is any game that ended with an automated map vote, otherwise it is deemed too short to count.
Next, if two players tie for whether they played the last game in the host, then they are sorted by how long they have been a non-spectator in the host. This is exactly the same as the old waiting list.


If you seed a new room, then you're winning the duration-based tiebreak. So the only way you won't play every game is if 22 people join who did not play the previous game. This seems unlikely, and if it does happen, then there are surely enough people wanting to play to form a new room. This is the most reliable way to play every game. That seems like an incentive for seeding. Previously, to play every game, you just had to be the 32nd person to join the room, so joining a small room early now has an advantage over being a late joiner.

If you jump on the bandwagon as a game is getting large, at around 10-15 players, then perhaps you will be waiting for a game. I'd have to have people track and report this to know how likely it is. In any case, this seems like an incentive to seed a new room. People who join when the room is near-full get to play a game immediately, but then run the risk of making space for other newcomers in the next match. I've yet to hear your explanation for why this is inherently worse than having newcomers wait a whole game or two before they get to play.
+2 / -0
DErankzini
2 days ago
well, than something elese kicked me today twice from the playerlist to waiting list and Friday once. It was not beeing AFK.
+1 / -0

DErankmadez
45 hours ago
Maybe there is a bug? The UI experience doesn't help either, people think it's random. It's a new feature, though.
+0 / -0


AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
44 hours ago
RUranklxa4000 that quote isn't talking about DErankzini's situation. It explains the waiting list, but the conclusions are different.

DErankzini did you play a game, then spend the next game on the wait list, then play a game, then spend the next game on the wait list, then play a third game? That can happen but is unexpected. It would be good if you could confirm this sequence.
+0 / -0
DErankzini
36 hours ago
AUrankAdminGoogleFrog

No, i played a couple games and then i was forced to waiting list of this lobby. I switched to other lobby made two games without any issues and went back to TAW Lobby. After some games i was forced again to waiting list. Then i stopped playing.
+1 / -0
VErankTunacantine
29 hours ago
quote:
did you play a game, then spend the next game on the wait list, then play a game, then spend the next game on the wait list, then play a third game? That can happen but is unexpected. It would be good if you could confirm this sequence.

Although I'm not DErankzini, I had this exact same thing happen to me and attributed it to the game being a loss rather than time on lobby despite the stated systems in place. I had spectated 3 full games before joining to play and got immediatly put on wait list after playing.
+0 / -0

USrankStuart98
28 hours ago
Yeah, it's not great how with a constant set of players it's always the same players who have to sit out every other game while other players always get to play consecutive games.
+0 / -0
DErankRadP
27 hours ago
What i experienced is, that even when staying afk in the spectator list of a lobby, then clicking join puts me very high in the list of playing players (not waiting list). Staying afk a few games seems to increase chance of playing and also staying longer in the list of playing players. Most of the time, when there is excess of players, moving one active player to the waiting list.

Even knowing the intention of encouraging filling up more lobbies, it just doesn't feel right that another player gets forced to the waiting list because of me returning from being afk. Neither for me nor the player getting forcefully moved.
+0 / -0