42 replies to this topic

[naknak]

I'm not sure why limiting choice is the wrong answer 

 

It's wrong because if people wanted to offclass, in order to play sooner, they would already be doing that and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

People have classes they want to play, and maps they want to play, and people they want to play with.  Just because there is a viaduct lobby open in Argentina doesn't mean I want to play on it.  And the "EU" on TF2C is, what, like 15 timezones?  There are lots of good reasons to have lobbies open.  

 

And what are the reasons for not?  People don't like to scroll?  Having one lobby ensures that the one medic online has to join your lobby?  These are not good reasons.  If you want a medic to join your lobby, get some medics on your friends list and petition them.  If you want to see all lobbies at once on screen, zoom out.  If you don't have much time to wait, play during primetime or try a pub.   

 

The whole argument of "limiting the choices of others will make my lobby start faster" seems selfish and short-sighted to me.

[TheMattgician]

There are a couple of things to keep in mind here (I hate to bust out fancy economics terms, but it seems that my econ class wasn't useless after all).

 

Most players aren't Homo economicus, as in they don't know what's the best for them. It's attractive to get the class you want to play in a lobby with 2 players that won't start all of the other lobbies are started (and probably until they're over to get these players back in the system). This is fine if you have plenty of time. However, if you are short on time, you'll be able to play less lobbies, or maybe none at all (and the goal of TF2C is, in essence, to play lobbies).

 

When people don't join a lobby, it's basically a market failure: the private marginal benefit is larger than the social marginal benefit. This means that although it's better for the player himself (which is arguable as explained above), there's a cost to the overall TF2C 'society'. One way to fix this would be to, you guessed it, decrease the number of lobbies (I could draw the graph, but I hate to admit that my econ class was useful beyond by exam).

 

Let's think of things in a mathematical way. Assume a finite number of people who exclusively join the top class they want to play. If there are no lobbies, then no one can play. If there are infinite lobbies, then people will spread out, since there is not an equal distribution in class popularity and since only two people can attain one slot. [Infinite is only to simplify things, since with finite players there are infinite lobbies with no one, therefor there's a finite number of lobbies for which there's this effect]. Thus, the lobbies will take longer to start. Now if there are less slots than people who want to join, then, by pigeon hole principle (look at me go with the fancy terms!), not everyone will be able to play. However, if they are willing to offclass a bit, then lobbies will go at full capacity.

The trick is to hit that sweat spot. Some people will have to play less they're second or third favorite class, but this is to the benefit of everyone else (I'll refrain from quoting spock). From a probability standpoint, people will be able to play their favorite class, but not necessarily always.

 

The trick is to dose the number of lobbies in terms of how many people are online. Obviously having a fixed limit is ridiculous. Hell, if the devs get around to having the TF2C servers automatically available for use, we can use those as a buffer in case there aren't enough lobbies (which was I believe one intended feature).

 

Finally, restricting the number of lobbies is almost invisible to people. People are way more inclined to complain that there are too many lobbies than that they are not able to play their main class. So this is a decent solution politically too.

 

Note: Please don't see any of this as condescending, I'm literally trying to as unbiased as possible. Except maybe for the following joke:

 

TL;DR: outnerded nerd

[Kenneth]

It's kind of an unspoken rule over in aus because our community is much smaller, of there is a 6s lobby up, don't make a new one. If two go up at the same time, generally one leader will close his.

Everyone knows that if we put up multiple, none will start.

[naknak]

they don't know what's the best for them.

Did your econ course include a study of the seminal work, Successful Centrally Planned Economies Throughout History?  It's a fairly short book at just zero pages.
 

there's a cost to the overall TF2C 'society'.

Having the regional lobby quota consumed by a 2fort, a non-pro viaduct and a potato in South America imposes a cost, too. Let me guess the solution to that -- more central planning?
 

People are way more inclined to complain that there are too many lobbies than that they are not able to play their main class.

Haha what?!?! Real life actual people are here to play, not to obsess over the length of the scrollbar on a website. Here's my radical solution to seeing a lobby I don't wish to play: scroll down.

And all your mathematical handwaving reduces to: "provide the choice of 'medic or nothing' and medic will fill faster." To which I respond that that is not a good enough reason to limit choice.
 

Everyone knows that if we put up multiple, none will start.

UGC has no limit on number of teams formed, therefore all of the teams lack medics and heavies and no UGC teams are formed. That's right, using things that Everyone knows, I just proved that TF2's most popular league doesn't exist.

[TheMattgician]

Well I tried to be unbiased. However you seem to emotionally attached to your opinions to have an educated discussion. Since that's the case, I'll follow REM and stop bothering.

[Kenneth]

Keep it civil boys*. 

 

Also this http://puu.sh/8Hk9z.jpg

 

*nak nak

[naknak]

Kenneth, there's nothing uncivil in any post I've written here. Your reasoning was very poor and yeah, that will get pointed out. But you failed to notice the part where I got called "nerd".

Please refrain from moderating discussions you participate in, if it's going to impair your judgement so severely.

What's the screengrab supposed to show? That people don't like playing heavy/engy/med? We all know that. That needs to be allowed. People must be able to say "I'd rather wait to play ___ than play heavy now."

Negative solutions to problems of preference are bad shortcuts. Give positive incentives instead.

[TheMattgician]

Just for the record, the "outnerded nerd" was, in fact, a joke. As stated the line right before. The joke being that the post was rather 'nerdy' itself due to the academic thought process throughout, thus calling you the generic baseless insult creates a contrast with 24 lines preceding, while being hypocritical. While I am calling you a nerd, I'm also stating that I am even more of a nerd, which would be an insult to myself, inducing comedy.

 

If you want to continue this discussion, please do so seriously. If you want to keep making a fool of yourself then I'll show you to the metaphorical door. You aren't just trying to convince me (this isn't even a debate over who's right), you also need to convince the devs who would implement such features. So far, you haven't made much of a valuable point.

[naknak]

was, in fact, a joke.

I don't care about your comment. It's only relevant insofar as it reveals Kenneth's self-debasement. That's why I chose to respond to the substance of your arguments, many of which also appear in _Das Kapital_.

this isn't even a debate over who's right

Agreed, that is a settled question. Reminder: you are on a site which is all about lobbies and complaining about having too much choice because other people (not you, of course) aren't able to decide what's best for them.

fool

ooooh.

[fraac]

There's plenty of evidence that having multiple open lobbies slows all of them. People generally want to play some 6v6 or highlander more than they want to play a particular class. I know I do.

 

I can't imagine the coding scenario where this isn't a trivial problem. Does somebody not want to limit the number of identical open lobbies?

[jayserp]

The question here is do we need to limit lobbies, and if so how and why. Attacks and moderator bashing are not order of points.

 

Locking this until we get some peace here....

[pancila]

I've already seen the topic of limiting the number of lobbies posted by Kitty and there are few things I need to add. If possible: there should be a smart algorithm that would limit the number of lobbies based on the number of on-line and lobby-filling players per region(EU, NA, AUS). Second of all, TF2 Center should prohibit troll maps such as: Dustball, DeGroot Keep, Balloon Race, etc. And third of all, lobby leaders must not be allowed reserving all or even more then three slots for their private mixes on the expense of other players. 

[TheMattgician]

The thread pancila was talking about can be found here (take a look for some interesting ideas if you haven't already). It was closed because the discussion was getting unnecessarily/unappropriatly heated.

Anyway, I figured it was better to start on a new slate here.

 

MasterNob's take on this is to implement a system where no two maps with the same settings (map+region+mumble) can be created, such that people making a new lobby would either make a different one (which is good) or join one existing (which is great).

If I recall correctly, there was an algorithm thought by Mother Tereza, but it's implementation status is unclear.

I'm not sure if TF2C should prohibit such maps, their effect on serious lobbies is probably fairly small. Having lobbies with only reserved slots has no effect on lobby starting or not, it just makes the list longer (which is not a problem in itself).

[The Once and Future King]

 Having lobbies with only reserved slots has no effect on lobby starting or not, it just makes the list longer (which is not a problem in itself).

 

Except that if the duplicate prevention system was working ( though as far as I can tell I'm the only one it ever prevents from making a lobby) then if there is a lobby with all reserved slots either because teams are too lazy or too stupid to just run their league configs then everybody else is prevented from doing a lobby with that map.

[TheMattgician]

I actually thought about that, but forgot to mention it. But yeah, you can just make an exception on lobbies with say 50% reserved slots.

Also, if there's a limit on the total number of lobbies, a list of maps should be excluded from the system (2fort etc.)

[The Once and Future King]

Also, if there's a limit on the total number of lobbies, a list of maps should be excluded from the system (2fort etc.)

 

That's really the hard part thought isn't it?  Having a limit on the total seems like it would certainly be a good thing since there can still be a lot of lobbies open at once even with different maps, and there is that affect of every time a new lobby opens several to half of the players from the lobby I am waiting to fill will leave and go to the new one.  

 

Problem of course is then you don't allow people to make any map they want but then I guess it depends on how you see the sight.  If it is serious and competitive play then maps like 2fort, trainsawlazer, and hightower don't need to be allowed though there are many issues that would contradict this being serious enough of a site to not allow those maps such as the lack of punishment for people who join mumble lobbies but don't join mumble.  If it is a "glorified pub" which is a sentiment I get from many of the players on the site (or at least I did this past weekend), then why disallow those maps? (and I've played some of troll map lobbies and they are fun to a point if you really do want a casual pub atmosphere.)  I don't really see any good way around the problem, it probably comes down to which direction the ownership wants the site to go in and either not allowing certain maps or just not capping the total lobbies.

Edited by The Once and Future King, 16 June 2014 - 05:32 PM.

[Mahmoud]

In my opinion the limit should be also applied on the map type: only one koth_, cp_, pl_

[vaylren]

Not sure if this is viable, but I thought perhaps instead of limiting the number of lobbies allowed to be put up, the time for which they stay up for could be limited based on the number of players currently in a slot in the lobby.

 

This would fix issues with next to unfilled lobbies staying up for hours at a time, as well as limit the number of duplicate lobbies with the same map - if one has less players, this lobby will auto-close faster. Not saying it should close within a couple of minutes, as this would put pressure on to the leader to find players, but an arrangement with a base time of 15-30 minutes (based on the number of players currently online in the region) and extra time allowed if players are in a slot in the lobby. An extension of some amount of time should also be added upon all slots being filled, to prevent a lobby from closing despite having only 1-2 slots remaining from players who don't ready up in time.

 

If this were implemented, a reminder upon the close of the lobby that another lobby with the same map is open might be handy to try and fill out the less popular classes available.

 

 

Regardless of whether you think that's a good idea - please don't disallow password locking all/the majority of slots, at least until there is an option to lock slots by region. Australian lobbies use these to prevent 200 ping or higher players from joining in projectile or important classes, and essentially ruining the lobby, or at the least, blocking slots for other AU players in the limited number of lobbies we have.

[The Once and Future King]

Not sure if this is viable, but I thought perhaps instead of limiting the number of lobbies allowed to be put up, the time for which they stay up for could be limited based on the number of players currently in a slot in the lobby.

 

This would fix issues with next to unfilled lobbies staying up for hours at a time, as well as limit the number of duplicate lobbies with the same map - if one has less players, this lobby will auto-close faster. Not saying it should close within a couple of minutes, as this would put pressure on to the leader to find players, but an arrangement with a base time of 15-30 minutes (based on the number of players currently online in the region) and extra time allowed if players are in a slot in the lobby. An extension of some amount of time should also be added upon all slots being filled, to prevent a lobby from closing despite having only 1-2 slots remaining from players who don't ready up in time.

 

If this were implemented, a reminder upon the close of the lobby that another lobby with the same map is open might be handy to try and fill out the less popular classes available.

 

 

Regardless of whether you think that's a good idea - please don't disallow password locking all/the majority of slots, at least until there is an option to lock slots by region. Australian lobbies use these to prevent 200 ping or higher players from joining in projectile or important classes, and essentially ruining the lobby, or at the least, blocking slots for other AU players in the limited number of lobbies we have.

 

 

This is an absolutely terrible idea.  It's bad enough that a lobby that opens 2nd or 3rd will sometimes fill before the first one of the same map.  Closing the earlier lobby so that the 2nd or 3rd can fill faster is asinine when if you just prevented the 2nd or 3rd from being opened then the 1st would actually fill.

Edited by The Once and Future King, 17 June 2014 - 05:33 PM.

[TheMattgician]

Additionally, the leader would probably just make a new lobby as soon it is forced down.