1 |
For the moment, seed a room. Perhaps try to get people to click on a !proposebattle: https://zero-k.info/mediawiki/Setting_Up_a_Game#Propose_Battle
|
1 |
For the moment, seed a room. Perhaps try to get people to click on a !proposebattle: https://zero-k.info/mediawiki/Setting_Up_a_Game#Propose_Battle
|
2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
3 |
The
goal
of
waiting
list
was
to
do
an
auto-split
on
start
at
about
40
players.
That
step
hasn't
happened
yet.
|
3 |
The
goal
of
waiting
list
was
to
do
an
auto-split
on
start
at
about
40
players.
That
step
hasn't
happened
yet.
You
could
make
that
step
happen.
|
4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
5 |
Another point though, is your example that bad? How many players are going to cycle out after the game? Waiting another five minutes for that game to end, and having a full game, seems like a good strategy. The number of available players is the number of people who would play the [i]next[/i] game, not the sum of the waiting list and the current players.
|
5 |
Another point though, is your example that bad? How many players are going to cycle out after the game? Waiting another five minutes for that game to end, and having a full game, seems like a good strategy. The number of available players is the number of people who would play the [i]next[/i] game, not the sum of the waiting list and the current players.
|
6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
7 |
Alternately, maybe some sort of dynamic server wide size limit. If there are regularly 47 people waiting to play, then a room limit of 12v12 could be good. The big hurdle is how to scale to that point. At any game size you'll have some time of day where there are 20% more people who want to play than can fit in one room.
|
7 |
Alternately, maybe some sort of dynamic server wide size limit. If there are regularly 47 people waiting to play, then a room limit of 12v12 could be good. The big hurdle is how to scale to that point. At any game size you'll have some time of day where there are 20% more people who want to play than can fit in one room.
|