I fear that many people would leave the game after finding out they are flying under someone they don't want. This would result in a longer waiting time (and wondering what is going on) before game, potential premature ending of games beause people leave, and difficulty in switching around the command (since noone knows what team they are on until it starts).
mm, perhaps with some work most of these issues can be fixed, so don't give up on it; it just need some more planning that's all.
Anti-Stacking Changes
I like both ideas
Greator's requires a hefty re-write of the lobby (basically we'd have to graft the before game chat code out of the server into the lobby code as well as have the servers pass back join/quit messages to the lobby). It is 'doable' however with some effort.
Vly's idea would be easier to implement (and thus more likely to be done). Not a new idea, but it pulls together what others have said. The 'afk' status would be replaced with a 'ready' status (not a new idea but still a good one) and the teams would not be filled until launch. Once we had two coms and they were both ready, they would launch, all players 'ready' to play would be auto-balanced to the teams.
Now a bunch of people will have a problem with this but we cannot please everyone. What we have now is a compromise/partial solution (it was what we could get out in the time we had without making huge waves).
A nice addition to Vly's idea would be a 'preference' column that the players could select indicating which team (and possibly faction) they would prefer to play on and the team assignment algorithm would give that some weight.
I'd like this to be the default behavior (this also meshes well with Greater's idea). We would need a Squad mode or Pick mode where coms select who gets on, but the current mode of players picking would either be the last choice or not available. I am all for choice so I would like to leave some way of doing it like we do now, but it shouldn't be the norm, at least not for pickup games.
We'd have to see how many people join, get a com/team they do not like, bail, and come back an hour later, or switch servers (in Vly's example) versus how many people just want to play and make the best of the team they ended up on.
Greator's requires a hefty re-write of the lobby (basically we'd have to graft the before game chat code out of the server into the lobby code as well as have the servers pass back join/quit messages to the lobby). It is 'doable' however with some effort.
Vly's idea would be easier to implement (and thus more likely to be done). Not a new idea, but it pulls together what others have said. The 'afk' status would be replaced with a 'ready' status (not a new idea but still a good one) and the teams would not be filled until launch. Once we had two coms and they were both ready, they would launch, all players 'ready' to play would be auto-balanced to the teams.
Now a bunch of people will have a problem with this but we cannot please everyone. What we have now is a compromise/partial solution (it was what we could get out in the time we had without making huge waves).
A nice addition to Vly's idea would be a 'preference' column that the players could select indicating which team (and possibly faction) they would prefer to play on and the team assignment algorithm would give that some weight.
I'd like this to be the default behavior (this also meshes well with Greater's idea). We would need a Squad mode or Pick mode where coms select who gets on, but the current mode of players picking would either be the last choice or not available. I am all for choice so I would like to leave some way of doing it like we do now, but it shouldn't be the norm, at least not for pickup games.
We'd have to see how many people join, get a com/team they do not like, bail, and come back an hour later, or switch servers (in Vly's example) versus how many people just want to play and make the best of the team they ended up on.
DOG PROPERTY LAWS:
2. If it's in my mouth, it's mine.
[unless it tastes bad, then it is yours.]
There's so much stack lately that it really reduce the quality of games. I'm not the kind of loser who wants to wait 30 mins in the lobby to get a "change" to win a game without any challenge. So I usually end up on a team that usually has some good players, just just too many newbies to accomplish anything.
The main problem is that most players usually have similar preferences and right now, it is those who are willing to sit out the most who gets to play on the prefered team.
Putting preferences in the system would be good.
Also, I'm pretty sure that unless booted, players should not be allowed to join the other team with another account(I'm pretty sure that many would be willing to do that).
The main problem is that most players usually have similar preferences and right now, it is those who are willing to sit out the most who gets to play on the prefered team.
Putting preferences in the system would be good.
Also, I'm pretty sure that unless booted, players should not be allowed to join the other team with another account(I'm pretty sure that many would be willing to do that).
How would you do the game and faction settings again? Is that also what takes alot of time -- game and faction settings horse trading between comms, as well as who the comms are?
I like the idea and it works similarly to other online games I have played.
Munch on how you deal with the factions and such. I have a thought -- but it would not be popular, I fear.
I like the idea and it works similarly to other online games I have played.
Munch on how you deal with the factions and such. I have a thought -- but it would not be popular, I fear.
Robin: "Gosh, Batman, this camel grass juice is great."
Batman: "Beware of strong stimulants, Robin."
Batman's idea is to just randomize it. /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />
No really, I disagree that hashing out factions/settings is what takes so long. The time-killer is choosing comms, or getting the teams reasonable to be able to launch it (but that just disintegrates within 30 seconds anyway).
Once you get a comm, he/she usually has a pretty good idea of what they want to do.
No really, I disagree that hashing out factions/settings is what takes so long. The time-killer is choosing comms, or getting the teams reasonable to be able to launch it (but that just disintegrates within 30 seconds anyway).
Once you get a comm, he/she usually has a pretty good idea of what they want to do.
Personally, I like most of Vly's idea, but with a few changes:
First, people definately have preferred comms and factions. However, that's the issue - if you let people choose which comm or faction they want, you end up with stacking. The other side is no choice at all - random assignments. We have that option now (via the "Autobalance" button) but it seems to be widely reviled. Even a hint of it's use brings a wave of "AFK" throughout NOAT. I'd prefer settling near the middle. A design where everyone chooses (via a "Join" button) which side they prefer to be on - and if possible the game assigns people on their preferred team. However, it is figured by priority of first "Join" - so those who hit the button first get a higher chance of landing on their preferred team. Those who choose to NOAT sit (and post-launch stack) get assigned wherever to maintain balance. This would encourage the filling of games faster I think, since there's an advantage to joining first. Of course, there's no guarentee - balance comes first. But if you can assign most of the players to their preferred team, and get the game moving fast - then you'll make most of the people happy.
I'd also fix it so that when comms are decided, all comms would need to check a "Ready For Joiners" flag, to open up the filling process. Finally, I'd lock the joiners so they can't jump in - then off - and back in trying to bypass the balancer. Once you're in, you're in.
Last, I wouldn't make it so a late joiner would have to wait for another player (that keeps balance) before being allowed in. Sometimes these games can last an hour or more - and it can take a while for more people to want in. That would suck, and people would just leave the game and play something else rather than wait for who knows how long. Just let the joiner in, and when (or if) the next guy comes along, assign him elsewhere to maintain balance.
rushl
First, people definately have preferred comms and factions. However, that's the issue - if you let people choose which comm or faction they want, you end up with stacking. The other side is no choice at all - random assignments. We have that option now (via the "Autobalance" button) but it seems to be widely reviled. Even a hint of it's use brings a wave of "AFK" throughout NOAT. I'd prefer settling near the middle. A design where everyone chooses (via a "Join" button) which side they prefer to be on - and if possible the game assigns people on their preferred team. However, it is figured by priority of first "Join" - so those who hit the button first get a higher chance of landing on their preferred team. Those who choose to NOAT sit (and post-launch stack) get assigned wherever to maintain balance. This would encourage the filling of games faster I think, since there's an advantage to joining first. Of course, there's no guarentee - balance comes first. But if you can assign most of the players to their preferred team, and get the game moving fast - then you'll make most of the people happy.
I'd also fix it so that when comms are decided, all comms would need to check a "Ready For Joiners" flag, to open up the filling process. Finally, I'd lock the joiners so they can't jump in - then off - and back in trying to bypass the balancer. Once you're in, you're in.
Last, I wouldn't make it so a late joiner would have to wait for another player (that keeps balance) before being allowed in. Sometimes these games can last an hour or more - and it can take a while for more people to want in. That would suck, and people would just leave the game and play something else rather than wait for who knows how long. Just let the joiner in, and when (or if) the next guy comes along, assign him elsewhere to maintain balance.
rushl
-
Greator_SST
- Posts: 277
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 7:00 am
...well, I still like the idea of our chat lobby being separate from the games. It separates the people don't have the time to play a game or just want to chat with the rest of NOAT from the people who are ready to play a game in ernest. And when the NOATs have talked themselves out and are ready to play, they choose a server and join up.
...yea
I really don't think that any system designed to prevent players from joining the team of their choice will work. I know you guys want to reduce stacking, but I don't think any algorithm that we've yet seen is capable of consistently choosing fair teams, and the game will be significantly less fun if the default behavior is to force you to fly on a team under a commander not of your choice and with teammates not of your choice. This is a fundamentally social game.
In order to reduce stacking, I really think that the solution is to motivate commanders to command and then teach them how to do it well; when we get two even comms up, games are usually less stacked and more fun.
In order to reduce stacking, I really think that the solution is to motivate commanders to command and then teach them how to do it well; when we get two even comms up, games are usually less stacked and more fun.
I dunno, I see this being about much more than anti-stacking. It's about assisting in newb-retention, about opening the possibility of multiple games instead of all sitting in one game wondering if it would be possible to start another one. The anti-stacking part is just an aside (despite the thread topic).
I think re-doing the lobby process is an important and necessary upgrade to the way Allegiance looks and works. Done right, this can only benefit the game. Emphasis on done right.
I'd even agree to leaving the whole stacking argument out of it to get progress on this.
Man I wish I could write code.
I think re-doing the lobby process is an important and necessary upgrade to the way Allegiance looks and works. Done right, this can only benefit the game. Emphasis on done right.
I'd even agree to leaving the whole stacking argument out of it to get progress on this.
Man I wish I could write code.
-
CronoDroid
- Posts: 4606
- Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
- Contact: