Loading...

Forum index > General discussion >

Seeding new lobbies

8 posts, 247 views

Post comment

Filter: Player:

sort
Medlazer 2 days ago (edited 2 days ago) Problem: Many players prefer waiting for a spot in a full game room instead of starting a new one. The result is long wait times, and difficulty in seeding secondary lobbies despite recent changes (like smaller lobby sizes and smarter queue logic). Below are some mechanics and UI suggestions that may further promote and incentivise seeding new games. Sweeping changes are not simple. But maybe we can settle for starting a conversation to begin with. ------ “Apply for New Game” seeding Mechanic: - When a lobby reaches full capacity, a highly visible “Apply for New Game” button appears for idle/waiting players. This goes away if the lobby drops below 75% or the next lobby fills up. - Players who click it are not moved immediately. They are added to a seeding pool for a lower population TAW room. They can still opt out unless the game they were waiting for begins with them in it. - Once 10+ players apply (for example), the system moves them into the secondary lobby. Maybe some day players can set their game size preference, but it complicates things at this stage. - If a secondary TAW game starts before the first room restarts, any remaining waiting players in the main room are offered to transfer, but only if space is available. Eg “11 people are going to war in TAW2. Join the cause! or I'm scared” -------------------- UI & Flow Simplification: - Players only see the core button and a simple message. All logic is hidden unless they interact. - Transfer prompts appear only if relevant and contain info on the next game (so people know if they want in) - Rewards and reward messages should be visible and FUN if implemented. -------------------------- Optional incentives & limits: Players who risk seeding a new or low population TAW room receive a reward: XP, cosmetic unlock progress, rank points, or community badges. A "Seeder", or "Early adopter" badge could be cool for example. Limit: Max 3 rewards per day (to avoid abuse), with messaging like “You can earn 2 more seeding rewards today.” ------------------------- +4 / -0
raaar 2 days ago (edited 2 days ago) This, not sure about the details of your particular suggestion, but agree that there is a lack of UI mechanics to incentivize people seeding new teams rooms. There could be a casual teams queue like MM that people could click to join and get moved into if a player count threshold is met, but instead of starting the battle immediately... - subscribing players just get moved to a new big teams room where they can interact and choose whether to wait a bit or start now - the "join" shortcut button would remain visible for other people to join until the new room fills completely +2 / -0
GoogleFrog 29 hours ago We had a similar system to what you (both of you) are proposing. At the end of a large game, it said something like "Do you want to play a smaller game of similar skill?", then if enough people voted yes for the poll-like item that appeared the voters would be split off into a new game. There was probably something to do with splitting off people who were close enough in skill, but I recall the bounds being quite wide. Here is what happened: People clicked the button to see what it does. There were a range of comprehension skills behind this choice. Sometimes the threshold would be reached and people would be split off into a new room. The new room lacked the buy-in for the game to actually start. People didn't realise what their team would look like and it seems like many didn't really understand what the button was going to do. The players who were split off left or filtered back to the old room. People who would want to use the feature were taught to never press the button, because it very rarely worked. So it didn't take long for the system to effectively do nothing besides waste time with an extra vote. There were also a lot of demands for the ability to opt-out of seeing the option entirely. These systems have to be durable so that they can build enough trust for people to actually use them. For someone to use it, they have to be reasonably sure that it is going to give them a better game than they have at the moment (even if what they have at the moment is waiting for a whole game to end). You have to imagine how the system is going to fail in the face of messy player interaction, rather than looking at the ideal case. Hopefully, this may all be moot. The current !split threshold is 32/22 and it has not been used so far. It seems like new hosts are seeded before that threshold is met. I'd like people to report on how this is going though. The reason split require 32/22 is that the new games need to be large enough to survive, and the split has to offer at least some people something. I saw a suggestion to split at 32/32 (ie a full 32 player room), but that won't work because enough people are going to want to filter back into one or the other game to cause a cascade back to one room. A 32/22 !split gives the rooms 10 extra players of hope. +2 / -0
madez 29 hours ago (edited 29 hours ago) I like and repeatedly propose a matchmaker because it acts as one large lobby that seeds matches as soon as enough people are willing to join, all in one big queue. I still think this as a replacement for teams all welcome has a good chance. +0 / -0
raaar 28 hours ago (edited 28 hours ago) UI and culture quirks may drastically affect the outcomes of things like these in or near the join button there could be: - number with players currently in - avg rank color currently in also, in my opinion something like split should not disrupt the currently active players, just the excess ones that are waiting to play, maybe spectators too. +2 / -0
QuietMute 24 hours ago (edited 20 hours ago) The offer should include the map (no choice), the percent balance, and the player list - without showing the teams. After everybody downloads the map, then the game would immediately start. There would be no lobby and only 1 vote - yes or no. Prompt players to create a Match-Maker Large-game map ban-list before even selecting them for a game offer. "Please click here to create a Match-Maker large-game ban list so you might be selected to play a smaller match now and in the future." If players do not click in 60 seconds, then it just becomes another icon in the spectator UI like the stats list. For players who created the list, the option would show just as a blinking icon on the spectator UI that, once selected, would show the map, player list, and timer (maybe 120 seconds) with a prompt for yes or no. This popup would appear in the lobby the same way, but without the need to select the blinking icon. Players that used !notify would receive a notification. I especially think it would be a good idea 5 minutes after a TAW game starts. There is a significant delay anyway, unless the !force vote succeeds. Just a blinking option in the spectator UI would not distract spectators too much anyway so it could be available the entire TAW game so that when people join the lobby, then a game might become possible. It also should be a choice in MM with a note that unranked. +1 / -0
aaaasd 13 hours ago Maybe now would be a good time to run a round of Planetwars? With the extra PW-spice some players might be interested to play in matches that they would otherwise ignore as too small. Maybe they will enjoy it and continue to join smaller rooms even after PW has ended. +0 / -0
Medlazer 10 hours ago (edited 10 hours ago) GoogleFrog, I really appreciate the detailed feedback; especially your point that “you have to imagine how the system is going to fail in the face of messy player interaction, rather than looking at the ideal case.” That’s exactly the mindset I had when designing this proposal. It differs from the previous attempt in some key ways, specifically addressing the pitfalls you described: - Positive reinforcement Players who help seed new or low-pop lobbies are rewarded. This turns risk-taking behavior into a habit and encourages long-term trust in the system. As raar mentioned, UI and culture quirks may drastically affect the outcomes. - Optional opt-in Players aren’t moved automatically; the next game is promoted to them. They explicitly opt in to join the seeding pool, and can still opt out until the moment the game launches. This solves the confusion and frustration of being moved without understanding what’s happening. As QuietMute mentioned, we should look at these as "offers" for a different game (like an advert) - Clear info before transfer (upon interaction) "Adverts" for a new game should be small but visible. Ie a call to action button. When pressed, transfer prompts must show details about the game that’s about to start (eg player count, map) so people know what they’re signing up for. This should reduce regret-driven leave behavior. - Last-minute invitations When a new room reaches launch threshold, idle players in all lobbies get a final invite like “11 players are launching TAW2. Want to join?” It’s a proactive nudge and increases the chance of a game actually starting. Adding playful negative reinforcement to the decline button (e.g., “No, I’m scared”) can further dissuade this choice. Also just to clarify: this isn’t tied to any specific room size. Whether TAW stays at 32 players or shrinks, the system is designed to adapt. It’s not trying to force a split. It’s trying to make sure that, when a split does happen, it has the best chance to succeed. Ultimately, I'd like to see a matchmaking mechanic like madez suggested. I do think that option requires more players though, which means finding new ways to promote the game (and therefore ways to fund that promotion). +0 / -0