Lobby Decisions - How to start a game?

Im reading all posts here, and looks like (for me) the best way is:

- When all players click ready - game will start after 10s
- When all players click ready and host click start - game will start;
- Players can uncheck Ready

And there is just no other way. Ready button just need to be there, becouse there is alway chance that someone just "brb 1min" when game is full.
Its nice to get autostart, but its good only in maches where balance is not important. So we can skip it and just make it in old style

Whoa, this is kind of complicated. Also by default I think having the host able to reconfigure is more generally convenient. This one is a tough issue though.

I think it's that time of the year again folks ... the worst idea on the forums award show!!
no seriously being tricked into a game mode you don't want is the worst thing that's happened to you?

all you have to do is leave and join another.
You're way over-evaluating the worth of joining a host and I thing that's because you can't see the host list and lobby side by side.

which is why PA multiplayer needs a desktop environment, like SupCom GpGnet and FaF. which is what makes me think your post is of a different conversation.

here we JUST want to know : "Kick + Ready in or out?"

Because getting kicked by a troll host wastes about 5 seconds of your time. Joining a game and being thrown into it before you are ready can cost you a lot more time. And like others have said, nobody wants a player slot filled by an afk player. Currently everyone is just asking all players if they are ready before clicking start anyway.

I've certainly thought about having a purely social ready indicator. Maybe having other statuses like AFK, and then the host/room can decide what to do about that.

Perhaps instead of 30-second countdown, the host can issue a kick-warning that removes a player (or all non-ready players) if they don't set ready within the timeout (or convince the host to cancel through chat) That would allow new players to enter if someone really did just walk away.

well put @cptconundrum

Tatsujb, that's simple, tonight, i succefully join 6 lobbies :
2 game mode change (1vs1 -> 6 way, 1vs1 -> 2vs2vs2)
It happend more and more since the guys discover that it's easier to get someone for a 1vs1 but more difficult to get the first of a 6way.
Is it catastrophic ? No. It is annoying ? Yes.
I just gave my opinion about a way to fix it. No need to be a dic* about that.

As i said it isn't that complicated, i just gave the all picture. In short it is nothing more than :
When a lobby is published, the players have to agree to give the host this possibility on a majority basis. THAT IS IT.

Yes, i saw that too. ^^

it's ridiculous, the smallest of stifes, side by side lobby and game list will fix it.

Plus you belittle host not being able to change his options like it's nothing when it's clearly a big deal. the host should be able to change the host's status according to his host's popularity and what the people within it want and without wasting time.

I can't describe my anger towards those people. For now, try using the PA Stats mod. It has auto 1v1 matchmaking!

Since we have all forgotten about being able to kick people. I propose a few more options that have not been solidified.

• Host has the power to kick
• Host can change ingame and map settings, but this un-check's everyones ready. ///The host can lock the settings and have it unchangeable as an option before starting the game.
• Host has the option to cancel the start sequence.

I'm fine with all these options being included to all "states"

For those who join games and don't announce being AFK, then it is entirely the fault of the user.

I'm Pro- Host control

Against- lack of host control.

Usualy its faster to rehost game, than waiting for all players to click "we are ok for changes"

About locked hosted game, what about that situation:
Guy A: "Hey, you forgoted to change something!"
Host: "KK, rehost"

all of this is copy paste FA-lobby and I'm all for it.

Apparently none of you have designed a UI before. Most of the suggestions are far too complicated. Neutrino's proposed idea is good enough. If the host is AFK, then all the players can join a new game. If you join a game, don't go afk, as it can start at any time. (and you've got 30 seconds to check the settings if the Host does click 'Start' as soon as you enter.) Simple as that. No need for unnecessary complication.

I like the proposed state.

I've actually requested/suggested that in a previous thread a few days ago.

In the system i described, Guy A have said that and he has hit the unlock button, and the host can change the settings. Done. No need to rehost. It's not that bad.

If you talk about my proposition (as it has been described that way), no. Most of what i said is backend. You just need to have a ready button and an unlock button somewhere, there is way enough room for it.
By the way, bad luck, i do have made UI before.

it's quite bad.

Reading some of the comments here, I get the impression that people want a technical solution for a social problem (ie. they don't want to talk with each other).

I believe a simple approach should be preferred. The worst thing would be if people get already annoyed or confused by the starting procedure.

Ready / Unready for everybody.
Kick for the host (optionally including a ban to rejoin this game).
Final "start" hits the host, which gives a 3-5 second countdown.
Host can make changes, but it unreadies everyone.
Done.

You don't like that the host keeps changing 1v1s into bigger games or keeps changing other settings you don't like? Host your own game.

You don't like people endlessly unreadying? Kick them.

I genuinely believe that people that host and join a game have an honest interest to play and are able to agree on the what's and how's. If you already don't get along during the game set up, why would you even want to play together?

I also think it would be very valuable for everyone to see the pre-loading status of everyone else.

On another note:
Aww man, I just finished https://forums.uberent.com/threads/rel-new-game-courtesy-countdown-v1-62318.57492/ and now it'll be obsolete so soon. Damn Uber. I kid, you're the best.

Alternate proposal. Don't take this as anything official, just adding to the conversation.

• Host and other players have a ready button. If all ready buttons are checked the game starts after 5 second countdown.
• Host has a player kick which can be used any time not during a countdown.
• Host has a force start. This forcibly sets all players to pseudo "ready", but game starts after 30(?) second countdown.
• Any player can unready at any time to interrupt the countdown, even after a forced start. A player's ready state should be echoed in the chat; abusers can be easily kicked.
• If all players ready during a forced start, countdown changes to 5 seconds if greater than that.
• Host can change the game setup at any time prior to a countdown starting, but doing so un-readies any players in the lobby. Also any game setup changes should be echoed in the chat.
• A player can leave the lobby at any time, including during countdown. Doing so interrupts the countdown just as if someone unchecked ready.

I feel like the current issue of hosts changing games to setups not wanted by the players is solved by those changes being echoed in chat and the fact players can leave whenever they want and join or create a new lobby.

I also feel like many of the complaints people have with the current lobby are looking for something more along the lines of an open lobby system. No explicit host and player voting to determine changes. This would be more like what exists in a lot of matchmaking style games or even old school multiplayer FPS games. But I feel that would be work for the future as it is a lot of work. That'll make a lot more sense once we have player run servers.

Something else that I think would be good to have is the old Color dot for sever side loaded and client side loaded then put that next to every players name so not only can everyone else see when someone is loaded but the host can tell when everyone is ready at least technical wise

Well, "too complicated" it left up to Uber. They wanted our thoughts so we're launching away. There are some good ideas to the thread which I don't think I can out-do. Neutrino had a good proposal, but it could be expanded upon.