| 1 |
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.
|
1 |
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.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
It differs from the previous attempt in some key ways, specifically addressing the pitfalls you described:
|
3 |
It differs from the previous attempt in some key ways, specifically addressing the pitfalls you described:
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
- Positive reinforcement
|
5 |
- Positive reinforcement
|
| 6 |
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.
|
6 |
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.
|
| 7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
| 8 |
- Optional opt-in
|
8 |
- Optional opt-in
|
| 9 |
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)
|
9 |
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)
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
- Clear info before transfer (upon interaction)
|
11 |
- Clear info before transfer (upon interaction)
|
| 12 |
"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.
|
12 |
"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.
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
- Last-minute invitations
|
14 |
- Last-minute invitations
|
| 15 |
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.
|
15 |
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.
|
| 16 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 17 |
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.
|
17 |
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.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
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).
|
19 |
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).
|
Seeding new lobbies