MegaGlest Forum
MegaGlest => Feature requests => Topic started by: victorj on 26 February 2014, 22:33:34
-
I've thought about when the players are in host room waiting for to play, that button choice "Be Right Back" must not to be start gaming before that all players are "Ready", or at least most are "Ready". This wouldn't case kind like that happened to me, How players staring games with very fast speed without letting time for me customize my preferences and settings, I felt that it work with a longer waiting time for the game not start, avoiding a beginning too early. Of course that think should have button "block" for dormands players or those very long time waiting. Maybe in a more complex way, making on these players that was "Be right Back" for "Spectate mode" inside the match. Thank wait that it help me.
Sorry, for my Beginning English.
-
I think what Victor is saying here is that it should not be possible to start a game until all players have readied up. And I agree with this.
Right now, this would introduce a problem on headless servers, though, since - if I recall correctly - those do not allow the controlling admin to kick players. As such, a malevolent or just unresponsive player could connect to a game and not ever ready up, factually blocking this game from starting indefinitely. So if this feature was introduced, it will be necessary to also enable the controlling player to kick other players. I think so far we do not allow for this on headless servers since it would put the controlling player into the position of indefinitely blocking the headless server (and currently we only have a few headlesss servers).
If Titi will succeed in engineering and stabilizing the new headless server, hosting headless servers will become much cheaper than it is now. So we will likely have a bunch more headless servers then which will make the issue where a controlling client blocks a server irrelevant. So if we get to this point, I don't see why we could not also allow (headless server) controlling players to block players. And that would allow for requiring everyone to ready up before a game can be started - on both headless servers and standard game hosts (where a player plays and hosts at the same time).
-
I think what Victor is saying here is that it should not be possible to start a game until all players have readied up. And I agree with this.
Right now, this would introduce a problem on headless servers, though, since - if I recall correctly - those do not allow the controlling admin to kick players. As such, a malevolent or just unresponsive player could connect to a game and not ever ready up, factually blocking this game from starting indefinitely. So if this feature was introduced, it will be necessary to also enable the controlling player to kick other players. I think so far we do not allow for this on headless servers since it would put the controlling player into the position of indefinitely blocking the headless server (and currently we only have a few headlesss servers).
If Titi will succeed in engineering and stabilizing the new headless server, hosting headless servers will become much cheaper than it is now. So we will likely have a bunch more headless servers then which will make the issue where a controlling client blocks a server irrelevant. So if we get to this point, I don't see why we could not also allow (headless server) controlling players to block players. And that would allow for requiring everyone to ready up before a game can be started - on both headless servers and standard game hosts (where a player plays and hosts at the same time).
I agree, but will be to running correctly? and if it works well, of that way, will be good? You not think of other ways about it running without messing the multiplayer would feasible? I thought necessary it have a way of blocking those players starting the game before which chosen my faction?
My mistakes, you can take a look? https://ed.grammarly.com/register/signup/report_pale/?newv=1 thank very much.
-
I'm not sure what you're saying this time, your English is still really hard to comprehend.
On a side note, please do not full quote a post you are directly responding to, since it is obvious when at you are responding to when you do.
-
In my opinion can be sufficient some simple solution like e.g. button is "grayed" for 20 seconds after the time when last player joined.
-
In my opinion can be sufficient some simple solution like e.g. button is "grayed" for 20 seconds after the time when last player joined.
I agree, Would resolve those problems.
-
In my opinion can be sufficient some simple solution like e.g. button is "grayed" for 20 seconds after the time when last player joined.
I agree, Would resolve those problems.
I could understand what written? case of not please answer me.
My suggested, It now complement of this suggestion https://forum.megaglest.org/index.php?topic=9478.0
-
@Filux, Do note that such a feature should have diminishing return so after "player" join X times, (2-3 should be sufficient i think) this no longer counts This player, (as to avoid griefing).
For a start, a simple grace period seems fine tho.