afk prevension features

[mobius]

most online multiplayer games have features to ensure the game is not brought to a standstill/ruined because someone is afk. Things happen and sometimes you become unavoidably detained; the rest of the players should not be punished for this.

suggestions:
-While in the lobby and selecting a map/getting ready; once one player selects ready there is a timer; when this timer runs out any players that haven't pressed ready are automatically brought in as spectators.

-Several times there have been situations where people keep switching colors (whether on purpose or by accident) and the game cannot begin as "player ready" status is reset.
   -Either get rid of resetting ready status on color select or divide this process up into two separate modes: color/team select; then map select and pressing ready. Map selection should come first I think; as that determines if it will be a team effort or not.

[Simon]

This is important. I've imagined a bell to alert afkers, but the bell alone is not enough; we should turn them into observers after they don't react to the bell.

Turning afkers into observers is less intrusive than kicking them from the room, good idea.

I'll have to think about the color selection; it got messy several times with many people.

-- Simon

[Simon]

Server has the map, but doesn't interpret it, and therefore server doesn't know intended number of players. Not sure if I want to give the server that power. If server knew map's player count, then server could handle color changes accordingly.

Clients have the map, and interpret it already during the lobby to render the preview. Maybe clients should only be able to press ready when players have chosen exactly as many colors as the map calls for intended number of players.

This client-side change will at least guarantee that an 8p map isn't started with 7

This client-side change will clash with the timeout after ready because afkers will have wrong colors, thus never allowing good players to press ready, thus the timer-before-afkers-become-observers will never run.

-- Simon

[Forestidia86]

Just trying to gather the ideas one can have about:

After the timer runs out for a player then:

1. The player gets the observer status, nothing more.
2. The player gets the observer status and then game starts.
3. The player is readied automatically and then game starts.

[mobius]

Just trying to gather the ideas one can have about:

After the timer runs out for a player then:

1. The player gets the observer status, nothing more.
2. The player gets the observer status and then game starts.
3. The player is readied automatically and then game starts.

I vote option 2, only because it's seems more natural. I'd be okay with option 3, but I suspect most people wouldn't--and if the person never comes back then you have a lop-sided game.

TBH: in my practice this issue hasn't been a major issue most of the time. The more annoying issue actually was the color changing. Maybe focus should go on that.

Timing out is still important however. As I recall it did happen at least once that everyone quit and started a new room because someone went afk.

[Simon]

The more annoying issue [than afk] actually was the color changing. Maybe focus should go on that.

Yep. I feel like a good solution keeps both problems in mind, even when we focus on the color-changing first.

When player A readies and player B then changes color, A should unready. I believe this is correct even when the game auto-corrects colors to preserve the correct number of teams.

Should we automatically match the map's number of teams? When we force the map-wanted number of colors, players will be routinely kicked off their favorite colors. Examples: 8-free-for-all into 4v4 with only two colors. When you then go back to 8-free-for-all, I'd dole out colors in sequence without catering to favorites. You can still click on your favorite color and bop somebody else out of theirs.

-- Simon

[mobius]

When player A readies and player B then changes color, A should unready. I believe this is correct even when the game auto-corrects colors to preserve the correct number of teams.

wait why? I never understood this or thought it was odd; and annoying that just because someone else changed color I had to keep re-readying. Because 99% of the time it didn't effect my color decision and I immediately re-readied.
This may change if auto-color changing becomes a thing.

Should we automatically match the map's number of teams? When we force the map-wanted number of colors, players will be routinely kicked off their favorite colors. Examples: 8-free-for-all into 4v4 with only two colors. When you then go back to 8-free-for-all, I'd dole out colors in sequence without catering to favorites. You can still click on your favorite color and bop somebody else out of theirs.

It depends. Auto-balancing is definitely preferable for serious game play. But eliminates the possibility of silly games, which are fun sometimes. But I think I'd prefer auto-balancing.
I'd also like to allow for combinations of 3 teams of 2,3 each etc. or four teams of 2 etc.

[Forestidia86]

If you automatically distribute the colors you maybe should think of the case that there can be more players than the amount the map is designed for and how to deal with that.

[Forestidia86]

After some talk in IRC a possible alternative to automatic meassures:

The room owner gets special rights like the power to kick, make observers and choose colors in relation to the players.

The general problem of that goes in two contrary directions since you have then special responsibilities for the room owner and with that the human factor again:

1. Danger of abuse of these rights/power.
2. Danger of inaction in cases where meassures would be needed, which would then leave the originial problem unsolved.