Just had an idea - What if, after completing a big (like 10v10 or larger) Teams - All Welcome game, the autohost automatically started a poll to split the room into two Teams-All Welcome rooms? (Possibly with higher elo players being sent to one and lower elo players being sent to another?) I ask because I personally find 10v10's and above to usually be too crowded, and find the peak of enjoyment to be around the 4v4-8v8 size. I'm wondering if other people think that too, and are just going with the meta of mega teamgames right now because that's all we have. (I've never gotten matchmaking to matchmake me in anything except 1v1's and a single 2v2, once)
+15 / -4
|
I agree, there's probably some variation of this that'd significantly improve things. A key situation where that'd be helpful is when the number of people in the room wanting to play is higher than the 32 player limit.
+4 / -1
|
I prefer 6v6-10v10 size, and I think there is quite a few people who enjoy larger matches. This solution would feel a little like I'm being nagged to join a smaller room because its supposedly better, and it would also repeatedly disrupt the voting for the next map or to start the next match. The "room is full, start a new room" option seems pretty reasonable. Maybe some sort of way to make alternative rooms appear as a link without making them nag people who are happy to play large teams.
+3 / -1
|
There was such a vote years ago. If I remember correctly many times after a successful split vote people in one of the hosts would quit and join the other host (because some would not want to play a "small" game).
+6 / -0
|
Many systems have been tried. These are the results.
-
If the vote is opt-in (would you like to go form a new room, given X people agree) then people initially click it randomly at such a rate as to make it useless (the rate does not have to be particularly high for this). People learn that the button is a "get booted into a doomed room" button, then learn to not press it. So nobody presses it, and the vote is just a waste of time.
-
If the split is forced, then one of the room quickly dies and people filter back into the other one. The dead room is the lower skill one if the split is by skill, as it turns out people like having a few purples in their games. The room tends to not even finish a full game, with players often leaving as soon as they realise a split occurs (so eg if the split occurs on game start, the game is exited rather than played).
The waiting list is my latest attempt, but the infrastructure work wasn't done to actually finish it. The idea is that if the waiting list reached, say, 12 people, then the waiting players would be split off into their own 6v6 when the game starts. The main feature of this approach is that the waiting people wouldn't have played a game anyway (since they were waiting) so they aren't so clearly deprived of the opportunity to play the big room by being split off. It is also straightforward to opt-out of being split off by switching to spectator, if you would rather watch the big game than play a small one. It's waiting on infrastructure though. Perhaps the people who are non-waiters could even opt-in to play the smaller game somehow.
+7 / -0
|
Is it this time of the year again? The answer is simple: "NO!". Ive lost count of how many times this topic has already come up and been discussed extensively.
+5 / -4
|
well i would vote "YES!" everytime, that being said, maybe we could revisit my idea about an additional matchmaking button like the 1v1 match avaiable button, but for teams instead, since an opt out option is already ont he table i think the timne would be good to try it. (add an Team Queue active JOIN! button at the top of the client if someone is queueing for small teams)
+3 / -0
|
quote:
The idea is that if the waiting list reached, say, 12 people, then the waiting players would be split off into their own 6v6 when the game starts. |
Maybe there should be a well-visible numeric input control (in the room lobby) "Take me into a new room if it will contain at least this many people:". That's basically what !proposebattle does already, but for some reason it didn't gain traction. Maybe because people don't know the chat line is clickable, or because it scrolls off too quickly, or simply isn't read.
+1 / -0
|
Ok... but if you are in the waiting list for the big teams game and its full. Then usually enough people leave at the end of a game that you get in. If it starts a game with all those waiting people, the small game might take longer than the big one. Then the people will miss the chance to join the big game AGAIN. This also reduces the player count in the next big game as all the waiting players who would replace the people who leave are not there to fill in the places.
+2 / -0
|
hm yes, but this doesn't take into consideration that the people who are waiting, are in part only waiting in lack of a better option and would opt out to play a none big teams game instead
+0 / -0
|
Maybe put proposed battles on the MM tab. Maybe non-game joined players could have proposed battles announced to them similar to how MM announces 1v1 matches.
+3 / -0
|
quote:
maybe we could revisit my idea about an additional matchmaking button like the 1v1 match avaiable button, but for teams instead, since an opt out option is already ont he table i think the timne would be good to try it. |
Love the sound of that idea, can you explain more?
+1 / -0
|
It's been years since the last attempt and player numbers are higher. We should try room splitting again. Possibly in addition to the teams all welcome autohost getting a 16 player cap?
+1 / -0
|
you can always join the small teams lobby if you dont like large teams
+1 / -1
|
if anyone actually wanted small teams they would just join small teams, but obviously nobody wants it
+0 / -1
|
Not exactly. The first player has high risk of not getting a game. Why would you leave a guaranteed game for one that might not happen? This is pretty dishonest.
+2 / -2
|
quote:
Ok... but if you are in the waiting list for the big teams game and its full. Then usually enough people leave at the end of a game that you get in.
If it starts a game with all those waiting people, the small game might take longer than the big one. Then the people will miss the chance to join the big game AGAIN. This also reduces the player count in the next big game as all the waiting players who would replace the people who leave are not there to fill in the places. |
Yes, that is the risk of going to a new room. We can only reduce it, not remove it. quote:
if anyone actually wanted small teams they would just join small teams, but obviously nobody wants it |
This isn't how reality works.    TechAUmNu (the quote above) gets it. A large game is just safer. You can be pretty sure to get a game if you wait for a 30 player game to end. Waiting for a 10 player game to end is much riskier. If two people leave you're now down to 4v5 and people might want to wait for an even game, then end up wandering away instead. Small rooms also don't have enough players to dilute the effect of someone people generally don't want to play with, or of skill disparity (eg, a game of two blue+ vs one blue+).
+0 / -0
|
|
|
quote:
Love the sound of that idea, can you explain more?
|
i have some more information in a post here http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/36051?page=2
+0 / -0
|
I see - basically a button similar to "1v1 match available" but it's "small team match available" and if enough people press it it creates a small team game. I think if that button popped up automatically at the end of a large team game it would be great! It'd probably get some use, and wouldn't be too obtrusive to people who want to stay in the big pot team game. It'd make sense to build this off the algorithm that currently powers the "1v1 available" popup
+2 / -0
|
