Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Current state of hosting games

16 posts, 544 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
3 years ago
I'd like to start a discussion about hosting ZK games and all the various restrictions in place on the hosting of these games.

The following commands are restricted for moderators: !togglecbal, !minrank, !maxrank, !minelo, !maxelo

!togglecbal toggles clan balance, meaning we cannot currently change whether we want clan stacks in our host or not. Rest of the commands are self explanatory, we can't create elo/rank restricted rooms.

Then there's the matter of being unable to kick whoever we want from our rooms, under threat of unwritten rules.



Personally, I have a problem with all of the above and wish we could host unpassworded elo restricted rooms and kick unwanted players. It is a truly radical idea that player game hosts should have control over their rooms, unseen in any other game RTS or otherwise. Could you imagine a world where players could decide for themselves? It's scary, isn't it.
+2 / -0
3 years ago
I agree that players should have all of the freedom when it comes to hosting games.
+2 / -0
quote:
!togglecbal toggles clan balance, meaning we cannot currently change whether we want clan stacks in our host or not.

This was implemented recently and I wasn't keen to expose it to users until it was verified to work on the main server. There is a bit more work in exposing it the right amount and ideally making the current state visible through lobby. It might happen though if I or somebody else gets around to it. On the other hand policy might change so that that doesn't happen. Idk.

As for the rest of this, this conversation has been had before and I doubt the consensus position of the moderators has changed.

For reference:

- All arguments of the form "oh but some other RTS does X" are totally irrelevant unless you take into account the differences in their community compared to ZK (in terms of size and culture). I have no doubt that people will attempt to make such arguments in this thread anyway but they will be dismissed by quoting this post.
- The ability to arbitrarily kick people can be (and has been) used to effectively disallow people from playing multiplayer ZK. This is not something the moderators are willing to accept whoever happened to randomly seed the main host on a given day having the power to do.
- The min/max commands are liable to be misused in more or less the same way.
+0 / -0


3 years ago
The short answer is that deciding who plays in a game you have hosted is fine up until the point that your game becomes the de facto lobsterpot. At that point the host is not merely deciding who they play with, they are deciding who gets to play Zero-K at all. History has shown that the usual cast of drama-vets will use this to seed the lobsterpot to prevent new players and other drama-vets from playing.

Interact with the above issue if you want to discuss this at all. And do it with arguments less disingenuous than "The excluded players can go host their own room", we all know enough lobsterpot dynamics to know the weight of that claim.

PRs are welcome. More control over 1v1s and small team games sounds fine.

quote:
Then there's the matter of being unable to kick whoever we want from our rooms, under threat of unwritten rules.

You mean the code of conduct?
+2 / -0
3 years ago
The topic of room moderation isn't included in the CoC.
+1 / -0


3 years ago
quote:
Treat other players with respect and do not lose your temper.
+0 / -0
3 years ago
To give an example, having your own blacklist of who you don't want to play with would not be inherently disrespectful, if said blacklist is based on past anti-social behavior, trolling, etc. But its not something hosts are currently allowed to enforce on unpassworded rooms, if I understand current policy correctly.
+1 / -0

3 years ago
Treat other players with respect

"drama-vets"


its like listening to a bunch of kindergarden teachers who know exactly what their children need.

go on, you are pissing off one "vet" after the other. you even chased away the last spring-dev that was
active in your community. great! thumbs up!
+2 / -0



[Spoiler]
[Spoiler]
+0 / -0
Drama vets? Whats a Drama ve-

quote:
go on, you are pissing off one "vet" after the other. you even chased away the last spring-dev that was
active in your community. great! thumbs up!


Ah yes.
+0 / -0
I find the lack of ability control over a lobby I host to be quite an annoyance, and that the majority of players that want to use it for its functionality are punished because of the minority that abuse it instead of them being individually punished.

Examples I've had of missing this functionality is trying to play 2v2s with my brother, I host a game and have to state in the room title I want 2400+ WHR players and then explain to low ranked players that enter why I don't want them to play (it just wouldn't be a balanced or fun game for anyone involved). I've played high ELO 2v2s in my own hosted games and had specs after the game commandeer the room with their commands, changing the max players and I've been powerless to stop them and had to give up the room and remake (and then they followed... https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/29969?postID=218502#218502)

"But rANDY, just make a passworded room!" - This means I have to message every prospective player the password (annoying for people who don't want to play), and may miss players coming online that would like to play, and people with password filter on would miss seeing the battle in battle list. It also stops spectators coming in to watch.

"Just use !proposebattle, rANDY!" this is a tool that is not as good as hosting a game, it relies on all your potential players watching the chat and a slow moving chat, it needs the players to be online when the link is first sent out, it stops specs that don't meet the requirements from watching.

esainane hosted a game with proposebattle last week with a minelo setting, I loaded up ZK a few mins after he had done so, so couldn't see the link in the zk main chat. I had to ask him to type it again, but clicking his new !proposebattle link didn't help me join his battle room. When we finally got a game going and esainane disconnected/crashed part way through, he could not rejoin his own battle room for the next game.

Lobster pot may be the default game as a result of there being too many artificial and unnecessary barriers to players hosting the types of games they want and having the power to enforce. If individuals abuse these functionalities, please punish them instead of the players that wish to use them normally.
+8 / -0


3 years ago
GBrankPRO_rANDY that is a real problem and I'd like to see some solutions. As I said, such things sound fine for 1v1 and small games.

quote:
Lobster pot may be the default game as a result of there being too many artificial and unnecessary barriers to players hosting the types of games they want and having the power to enforce. If individuals abuse these functionalities, please punish them instead of the players that wish to use them normally.

For the record, the lobsterpot existed for a long time and doing things like !minelo was possible for a while. The people who discovered they could use it to become king of the lobsterpot did essentially ruin it for everyone, but my recollection is that this was the majority use. 'Just punish the people who abuse it' sounds like a simple solution but makes moderators deal with a lot of crap. I remember last time.

Another approach could be to add a moderator action that restricts a player's access to commands such as minelo. Then perhaps policing its use would be possible.
+0 / -0
quote:
Another approach could be to add a moderator action that restricts a player's access to commands such as minelo. Then perhaps policing its use would be possible.

I for one am not particularly keen to adjudicate the grey areas even with this tool. Nor am I keen for a constant procession of people who meant well when they used minelo etc. but nevertheless caused a situation where a certain group of people were persistently unable to play.
+0 / -0
3 years ago
Why can't these commands be allowed on non autohosted rooms? I have never seen the lobsterpot in anything but the autohosts.

As GBrankPRO_rANDY said, that particular !proposebattle caused a lot of issues. We ended up paused for a good 5-10min waiting.
+0 / -0

3 years ago
quote:
I have never seen the lobsterpot in anything but the autohosts.

I have seen this happen. I have definitely seen it happen at points in time when a non-autohost room allowed the host considerably more power than they would have in an autohost.
+1 / -0
3 years ago
Limit size of games in which people have power, both in terms of players and specs? Then such a host will never become the lobster pot.

For example a hosted game shouldn't be more than 8 players (including specs) and when it reaches that limit it becomes with a password - to hide it from the normal list.
+3 / -0