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

Post edit history

32-player TAW is not good for Zero-K

To display differences between versions, select one or more edits in the list using checkboxes and click "diff selected"
Post edit history
Date Editor Before After
7/18/2025 8:53:28 AMAUrankAdminGoogleFrog before revert after revert
7/18/2025 8:20:12 AMAUrankAdminGoogleFrog before revert after revert
Before After
1 @Galamesh what I really wanted is something explaining Wednesday. But that feedback is good too. 1 @Galamesh what I really wanted is something explaining Wednesday. But that feedback is good too.
2 \n 2 \n
3 [q]One thing I'm really not clear on is this: is it intended that a player that just joined the room and played only one match gets benched while other players in the room are on their 1+n match? [/q] 3 [q]One thing I'm really not clear on is this: is it intended that a player that just joined the room and played only one match gets benched while other players in the room are on their 1+n match? [/q]
4 Yes, it is the simplest system. Tracking further into the past is going to be harder on its intuitiveness. 4 Yes, it is the simplest system. Tracking further into the past is going to be harder on its intuitiveness.
5 \n 5 \n
6 @raaar 6 @raaar
7 [q]This reduces the incentive for people to seed rooms or join as they build momentum and rewards those that got in only when it was already full.[/q] 7 [q]This reduces the incentive for people to seed rooms or join as they build momentum and rewards those that got in only when it was already full.[/q]
8 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. 8 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.
9 \n 9 \n
10 The player list is sorted by two parameters. 10 The player list is sorted by two parameters.
11 * 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. 11 * 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.
12 * 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. 12 * 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.
13 \n 13 \n
14 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. 14 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.
15 \n 15 \n
16 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 worse than having newcomers wait a whole game or two before they get to play. 16 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.