The last player joining a game should start the game

Recent

Hottest

Forum Index » New Feature Request

Poll

Do you agree?
Yes	43%	[ 3 ]
No	14%	[ 1 ]
I'm a Khralean, and Khraleans can't vote	43%	[ 3 ]
Total Votes : 7

Author

Message

Nov 11, 2010 03:58

Subject: The last player joining a game should start the game

davidparks21

Messages: 15,
Joined: Nov 07, 2010,
Offline

When joining a game the first player to move is always the host.

But this approach is flawed, I end up joining many games for which the host never starts, I wait days on end and eventually abandon the game to start others. I even avoid joining games which were not started recently.

This causes me (the user joining the game) frustration, and also causes many old games to be left in the queue because people don't want to join them for fear that the other person has forgotten it.

We can fix this.

If the joining player (the last joining player for multiplayer games) started the game, then the timer would commence and all would be under the contract that they signed up for when joining the game. It's fair, and it allows us to eliminate games that people are ignoring in the first round or two (much better than an unstarted game in my list for, how many days, I can't remember).

It's also fair for the joining player to start since the player creating the game got to choose the configuration, thus they have some advantage just from having the right to set the options to their preference.

The benefit summary:
- The system benefits by reducing the number of open games from inactive players
- Players benefit by starting games immediately (immediate gratification)
- Players benefit by not having their play list filled up with inactive games that will never start
- It is fair to hold users to their time limit contracts from the point that they join the game
- It's fair for the second player to have the advantage of starting since they didn't pick the options

The only counter argument I can conceive of is that it might be considered unfair to the host of say a 3 minute limit game in which a player joined only after an hour and they were not prepared for it. However by this logic it is equally unfair to the joining player who might wait another hour for the host to start, thus you have six of one or half a dozen of the other, there is no real change in the balance of fairness.

Nov 12, 2010 00:48

Subject: Re:The last player joining a game should start the game

Solitary

Messages: 273,
Joined: Aug 24, 2010,
Offline

The host doesn't choose the configuration, they choose the map xD. I know people who rating inflate by just picking whichever matchup favours them best on imbalanced maps but on a basic level it's true, you can choose race when you go second with knowledge of what the other player is. For example if you never wanted to lose on dead monk just go second and pick saps if you see khrals, titans if you see saps and khrals if you see titans.

Unless the map is really small going first isn't an advantage at all and it would make rating farming on three minute games too easy if the host went second.

Nov 13, 2010 02:06

Subject: Re:The last player joining a game should start the game

davidparks21

Messages: 15,
Joined: Nov 07, 2010,
Offline

Solitary wrote: The host doesn't choose the configuration, they choose the map xD. I know people who rating inflate by just picking whichever matchup favours them best on imbalanced maps but on a basic level it's true, you can choose race when you go second with knowledge of what the other player is. For example if you never wanted to lose on dead monk just go second and pick saps if you see khrals, titans if you see saps and khrals if you see titans.

Unless the map is really small going first isn't an advantage at all and it would make rating farming on three minute games too easy if the host went second.

I think your second point is most apropos, there isn't an advantage to going first. Therefore we are not changing the balance of fairness by allowing the second player to go first.

To your first point, we may be able to assume that the second player has an advantage by picking a map that they have comfortable strategies for against known opponent types, but what difference is there from what we have today if the second player went first. None really, especially if your other comment is assumed true, there is no advantage to going first.

So we would be left only with the benefit of not having games linger indefinitely, and having page after page of week old games cluttering the list.

I contend that we are not shifting the balance of fairness at all by implementing this change, only improving on the community playability.

Further to address your point. On maps which there are clear advantages to being one player or another, those maps should be adjusted to eliminate the imbalance - as has been suggested (and accepted) in this forum for one such map already.

All in the name of a healthy debate of course, glad to have your comment.

David

Nov 14, 2010 06:05

Subject: Re:The last player joining a game should start the game

Solitary

Messages: 273,
Joined: Aug 24, 2010,
Offline

Do you even listen to what you're saying xD.

Players aren't likely to join a map they have no understanding of so map selection is an option for both sides whether joining or hosting as you can see the map you're going to play on before you pick out the game. What I'm saying on a pretty basic level is that your suggested change is pointless >.<. If people don't start the game off then just delete the game as the results won't change either way whether you make your first move or not if they're not going to respond to it, surely?

Dec 01, 2010 19:21

Subject: Re:The last player joining a game should start the game

zalcore

Messages: 49,
Joined: Oct 09, 2010,
Offline

I think what is being suggested is that once there x/x people have joined the game the last person who joins can start it so that it gets going right away and there isn't (In some cases) waiting forever for the host to start. The only flaw in this idea is that in a 3 min game all the players would need to be online at the time otherwise there would be a skipping epidemic. I see this request as perfectly reasonable, it wouldn't effect gameplay, the host still plays first, there just would be a penalty for forgetting about games you hosted.

Actually, it should just be made so that anyone can start the game, it'll get games going faster.

Why isn't my name CAPITALIZED? As always the world is out to get me...

Forum Index » New Feature Request