Lobby Decisions - How to start a game?

As several people have indicated not having a ready button is making people unhappy. I want to riff a little bit on lobby design with you guys. This isn't a general open thing, I want to specifically talk about starting games. Other lobby decisions can be talked about separately but I want to move quickly on this.

Current state:
- whoever creates the lobby is in control and can hit start to get the game going
- they can change the lobby around as they want to before launch
- there is no delay of any kind, once they hit start it goes which can catch people off guard

Previous state:
- in the previous lobby everyone had to click ready. Only at that point could the game start. This means someone could take the game hostage by not clicking ready.

Proposed state:
- everyone had a ready button
- when everyone has checked ready the game starts
- the lobby host can still start the game without everyone being ready, but in that case a 30 second countdown happens

A couple of potential options:
- having a "lock" button on the config which doesn't allow changes once check. This would show up in the server browser (I personally don't think this is needed but I'm curious on people's thoughts)

The timeline here is short! I want to make a decision by tomorrow (3/6) and start implementing any of these changes.

Also be aware there is a bunch of other lobby stuff being worked on separate from the start issue. For example more game options (multiplanet anyone?). Also the kick button should be back soon as well.

Poke holes in it, let's talk about it. I'm well aware not everyone will be pleased by whichever option we go with

The previous state was fine imho. A working kick button prevents people from blocking games for too long.
It has to be prevented that a game starts with people afk at any cost, so imho a ready button for everyone that cannot be override is mandatory.
What's the point in forcing a game to launch if somebody is afk in it?
Kicking that person is best.
Maybe think about a way for a majority vote or something to change who is the lobby creator who can kick others, so even an afk host cannot completely block a game.

I host a lot and I'm enjoying the new functionality - being able to change maps/lobby size is useful if there are fewer people joining than expected.

I'd be up for having the proposed system, as sometimes it's difficult to tell if people are AFK or not before starting.
The kick function is certainly handy - glad to hear it's coming back.
I agree with Cola_Colin on AFK hosts - if the majority 'Ready Up' and the host hasn't said anything in a few minutes, ownership could be passed. That or somebody could make a "Bid" to be host and the Lobby members could vote him/her in.

A bit off-topic but related to game-start/lobby issues:
Sometimes in 10-person team games on Scale 3 or Lower Worlds, I have to force 'Army Sharing' in order for there to be enough spawn spots for everybody (not sharing yields separate spawns).

Edit: I'm not sure if people would pay attention to whether a game was locked or not - usually people base joining upon how many other people are in a game and how many planets are in a system. Granted locking would prevent these things being altered but tricking people into joining games they don't want to/can't play is liable to just result in them leaving.

I'm with Cola_Colin here, and I had to go through changing my mind about it first.

Reinventing the wheel here created more problems than the other model which, all things considered creates the least problems out of all the models.

I like the proposed options. I'm new to multi-player; however, I had to start three games before the host was actually available to start the game after several minutes of having a full room.

I still think the host should click the final "go" button, after everyone has clicked "ready".

I like the countdown timer if the host clicks "go" without unanimous readiness!

I think changes should be able to be made by the host at anytime, but doing so reverts everyone's "ready" state.

A player would have to undo his "ready" state to make changes (teams/alliances/colors); i.e. all changes locked when "ready" - to allow this, would each player having a checkbox be best?

I like the proposed system its the best of both worlds. Nothing worse than messing about having to kick people.. As creator I should be able to force the game I set up whenever desired. Making everyone hit ready to be able to begin has always struck me as a bad design choice.

Nothing is more annoying than that guy who joins and immediately goings off to relieve himself for fifteen minutes.

Only thing more annoying is the host themselves going afk but little can be done about that I guess.

This needs to be worked around any preloading option though. I know several people who cant play because of the instant starts with no preloads.

So people like everyone has to ready up + we have a kick button? This does put the host in serious control of everything. In which case why not go with allowing the host to start the game with the countdown as well?

Yeah this is why we changed it.

Yeah the new idea puts the host in charge for real. But he always was with the kick button.

Anyway going to hang back and watch more comments come in.

Complicated no-abusive-hosts proposition:
- Everyone has a ready button
- If everyone has checked ready and the teams are fair, the game locks and after a 0:03 second countdown will start.
- If everyone has checked ready and the teams are not fair, only then can the lobby host compel a start.
- When everyone but one player has checked ready, the odd man out will be kicked after a 0:30 second countdown unless that player checks ready.
- Checking and unchecking ready more than five times in a minute is an auto-kick.

Edit: In case you thought '3 second' was a typo.

It breaks a game completely if somebody really is afk while the hosts forces a start of the game.
Imagine I join a game and leave for the bathroom (not nice to do, but people do it) or something and the host just forces a start. So the game starts without me. I come back, see the game is started, say "duh" and leave.
Having a player leave right at the start breaks teamgames at aleast.

Like Colin said the one u had in pre Alpha was pretty good.. And yeah i think there should come a ''Ready'' ''Kick'' button cuz it is bad when u have to make a new room cuz you dont want to play with one of the persons that is in your room.

But the bad thing is u have to wait till they all get ready.. so or they should get some warning sign that the leader wants to start the game and then give them 2 min before kick, or less than 2 min..

But yeah i vote for readty and kick buttons but im fine with just a kick button too hehe.

For me this proposed state sounds good, but can be even less than 30s. There is not much for player to config, only color, commander, and ready button. 15-20s is ok for me.
And when all players check ready game can start after 3-5s. This is just to tell players "Hey, game is starting!". This is good when someone checked ready and is afk or is doing something else.
I like how this was made in starcraft. When all players joined game, host clicked start, and they have 3-10s countdown before game starts.

Other idea is auto start when game is full. 30s countdown and after that game will start. But if every player clicked ready then this changed to 5s.

lock button... well, i don't think this is needed, becouse right now we can configure game before publish it. Usualy problem with game changed after hosted is becouse host started lobby, and then is selecting map etc. This is not existing here.

Better will be to add control name of game in lobby.

I like the idea of locking game config or at least lock some of options because I don't want to join FFA and then find that host decide to play alliances because I usually don't have time to finish game (or laptop start lagging too much) and this is why I play FFA...

My suggestion for lobby: if you implement planet generation while in lobby add some planet generation status per-player that visible to everyone as addition to "ready" button.

I dissagree with this. We have to consider that one day one of the things we'll have to configure before launching is balance.
which on that note, host should have full rights to.

and currently there is no observe slot, meaning if the game is full but you're not in your buddy's team, you gotta rehost.

That still risks players being afk.
That said, I've encountered many who quit after the game starts, so I'm not sure if ensuring all players are ready is that essential for informal games.

You don't need to reinvent the wheel on this. Joiners get themselves setup and click ready, the host has kick to get rid of people who take too long.

The biggest issue I had with the ready system was I couldn't unready myself. So if I ready up but my teammate left (or under the new system the host changes the settings) I'd find myself trapped in a shitty game. You could back out but it didn't remove you from the lobby until you timed out leading to further confusion...

I think you misunderstood me, neutrino. What i was saying is that by default, the host can't change the setting but everyone has a button "unlock settings" allowing the host to change the rules. If a majority hit it (50% or more), there is a setting unlock.
For exemple : If there is only the host and one client, one hit by one client would be enough. 2 client and same thing, 3 clients and 2 vote would be needed. That way the host weight as much as the players in the decision. Except in a Host+1 Client situation, because a LOT of host trick the first player with a 1vs1 that become FFA or Team that the player didn't wanted. It also mean that if he's alone on a public lobby he can't change anything.
It won't be a problem in case of recuperation of the host title because when it happend the lobby automaticly go back in private.

If really he can't live with the way he set the lobby and nobody wants a change, he can still make another and set it as he wants before publishing it. Or if he is alone on it, he get back in private, set, en get in public again

It may sound complicated in text, but in reality it is really simple : Host can't modify lobby if players don't want to. If host want, host do in private and then publish.

However about the ready button, my view on it is simple :
Ready button for everyone, if one player hasn't check the box, the host can force-launch within a delay of 30 seconds. Of course there is the ability to kick players.
I'm talking here about something, i think, optimal, not all of it is necessary. Like Cola Colin said, the previous state worked well.

EDIT : Being able to "unready" is important too, i forgot about that.

What happens if the host is on the opposite team to the afk'rs? Sure theres an argument about already having 'ultimate' powers, but it doesnt mean the host needs all of them. Any rational player that wants a genuine game would never use that button, and any ******* wanting to ruin the game could. I dont see much need for it.

Perhaps the start button should be clickable by the host and 'ping' all players in the lobby to ready up, but it shouldnt start the game.

Other than that, i agree with the statements saying the beta system was fine (which it was).

Observe slots are coming although the total will still have to be 10 players or under for now.