Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 71
  1. #1
    Remember
    RedWatch

    DarkSail Raiders
    Apple Fanboy
    Houdini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,047

    Connection Hosts

    Historically, connection issues have been frustrating. The current system of the defending army hosts the lobby is fair, but we should be prioritizing the experience of the majority over "fairness." Is it fair to degrade somebody else's experience in the community?

    The host advantage is most notifiable when the connection is bad, if the connection is perfect (impossible) then there would be no advantage to being host. If we can attempt to make all lobbies as close to perfect connection as possible everybody would have a better time and hopefully we wouldn't have to worry about disconnections except in exceptional circumstances.



    The rough idea of my suggestion is to have a roster of "certified" lobby hosts with demonstrated good connections for hosting lobbies. Then when matches are setup if there is somebody in the lobby on this "certified" host list, that person will be the connection host (regardless of army affiliation). If there are multiple people or no people on the "certified" host list, then the defending army could choose (probably choosing one of their people).

    Requirements to be certified:
    1. Demonstrated ability to host 12 members (6v6) or whatever the largest lobby size FC decides to host.
    2. Has all gametypes and maps downloaded (BEFORE 6:00pm EST on Sundays)

    Anti-Requirements:
    3. Reported disconnections on Battle Night



    Details:
    1."Demonstrated" means that we actually test that persons host with a lobby of 12 people. There are a couple of options with this.

    A. We could have a battle night designated as a "host tryout" ran like normal, and document who was the connection host and then have all players give a rating on the host. If the connection was good, that host is added to the "certified" host list.

    B. We could designate a specific time during the week for community practice/activities where anybody who wants to join the "certified" host list can show up and do a test run hosting a lobby. This would be dependent on the number of people who want to join the host list plus the number of people who just want to play Halo and show up to test the connections. It might be worth having a scheduling system to make sure enough people show up so we can have a good test since it doesn't make sense to test a persons connection with only 3 people.

    2. This shouldn't be a big deal, but it would be a responsibility of all certified hosts to be prepared to host the lobby (i.e. they should show up to battle night at least 5 minutes early to ensure that they have the maps downloaded)

    3. If players report that a host wasn't good on battle night then that host would then be removed from the list of certified hosts. There is a possibility of this being abused, but I think overall people will be more interested in playing a stable game than trying to find an advantage by false reporting hosts. We could also implement an appeals system where false reports are dealt with if this ever becomes an issue.



    This may sound complicated but it could be implemented almost seamlessly. Next week could be the host tryouts and the week after we would start implementing the host regulations.

    A very positive side effect of this would be that the community would be able to come together to practice/play customs during the week for host tryouts which would hopefully increase community unity and foster a healthy inter-army relations.

  2. #2

    Re: Connection Hosts

    I think host checking should be done before every match anyway to make sure it is sufficient for both sides; good idea houdini

  3. #3

    Re: Connection Hosts

    I cannot stress enough that crashing and lagging is the most infuriating and unfair event during battle night since no one has control over whether they will randomly disconnect from the game. While i know that we can't prevent every time this happens, players who have demonstrated a steady connection and ability to host a stable lobby would allow for much more fair battle nights That being said i 150% support this idea and would like to see it implemented as soon as possible.

  4. #4

    Re: Connection Hosts

    or, have someone on green team with the host and have them spawn in a box in the sky and afk for the night. People that aren't otherwise playing could do this, like war directors, FM's, whatever.
    Spem Successus Alit

    RP forces
    RP Units guide

  5. #5

    Re: Connection Hosts

    Quote Originally Posted by silversleek View Post
    or, have someone on green team with the host and have them spawn in a box in the sky and afk for the night. People that aren't otherwise playing could do this, like war directors, FM's, whatever.
    The amount of times this has been suggested lol.

    Also downloading the appropriate map and gametype takes literally 2 seconds. Being a requirement is silly. Just go to Myth's file share. It's much easier with the update lol.

    As for my opinion. It wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea except for this accounts for the majority and not the minority. People in the UK who's connection is fine will get bottlenecked because "overseas." That's something you should definitely speak with them about before even considering this.
    "Gamers always believe that an epic win is possible and that it's always worth trying, and trying now."













  6. #6

    Re: Connection Hosts

    I disagree with this tbh, the system works. It has it's kinks but it's all part of the game.

    Someone may moan about my connection, but I have a squad of new recruits. None of them can take host. I don't want this to be a witch hunt for Barry and I. I can see it ended in an argument over whether people like each other's host or not. With one army saying yes the other no. I can also see the complaining on verified hosts being flawed too. A further potential argument is that two verified hosts or more are in a game and they all argue over having host, with others split on who they prefer.

    This seems to me like a pointless addition which will only extend the length of battlenights and increase drama
    You are not a godless fucking moron
    You are still a moron but not a godless fucking one
    - Silko, 2016

  7. #7

    Re: Connection Hosts

    I feel like this is a petty attempt at barring EU people from having host. We never had host on the 6v6, and with H4 running as fast as it is on the X1 now, host is just a bad excuse. I've personally played on American hosts for 2 years and sure, I'll complain about it to myself but I would never go to this length to actually persecute and bar someone from being the host. The fact that people won't let people from EU host a few games on one map of each week is pretty awful.
    "Different name, same fate."
    Quote Originally Posted by WM Feedback View Post
    I (Feedback) tried to flank them Barry Soap style, but it didn't really work out and I just ended up hiding a lot
    Quote Originally Posted by Platinum View Post
    Damn you barry, being seductive to all those recruits by painting vivid, purdy imagery with your words.

  8. #8
    Remember
    RedWatch

    DarkSail Raiders
    Apple Fanboy
    Houdini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,047

    Re: Connection Hosts

    Quote Originally Posted by silversleek View Post
    or, have someone on green team with the host and have them spawn in a box in the sky and afk for the night. People that aren't otherwise playing could do this, like war directors, FM's, whatever.
    I think the problem with this is that WarDirectors/FMs have to play because we have such low numbers. Anybody who gets online is almost always playing because there are simply not enough people.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer View Post
    Also downloading the appropriate map and gametype takes literally 2 seconds. Being a requirement is silly. Just go to Myth's file share. It's much easier with the update lol..
    The requirements to be host aren't meant to be hard. They are meant to keep things running smoothly.

    Quote Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer View Post
    As for my opinion. It wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea except for this accounts for the majority and not the minority. People in the UK who's connection is fine will get bottlenecked because "overseas." That's something you should definitely speak with them about before even considering this
    Would your argument be that it is better to degrade the experience for the majority for half of the battle night so that the minority doesn't feel left out?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Solus Exsequor View Post
    Someone may moan about my connection, but I have a squad of new recruits. None of them can take host. I don't want this to be a witch hunt for Barry and I. I can see it ended in an argument over whether people like each other's host or not. With one army saying yes the other no. I can also see the complaining on verified hosts being flawed too. A further potential argument is that two verified hosts or more are in a game and they all argue over having host, with others split on who they prefer.
    The defending representative always has host selection. It doesn't matter how many or how few hosts are in the lobby. The only rule is that if there are any "certified" hosts in the lobby one of them must be selected. If there are no certified hosts, then it goes back to the current system of defending representative selecting the host.

    If there is complaining about verified hosts, then we could easily address it with some sort of official appeal system. If people are trying to game the system and manipulate host selection, then they probably don't belong in the community and should be punished accordingly.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Soap View Post
    I feel like this is a petty attempt at barring EU people from having host. We never had host on the 6v6, and with H4 running as fast as it is on the X1 now, host is just a bad excuse. I've personally played on American hosts for 2 years and sure, I'll complain about it to myself but I would never go to this length to actually persecute and bar someone from being the host. The fact that people won't let people from EU host a few games on one map of each week is pretty awful.
    This isn't an excuse to bar people from having host. If EU people (or any other country) can demonstrate a good host, then they are added to the certified host list like anyone else. If NA people (or any other country) can't demonstrate a good host, then they aren't added to the certified host list.

    It shouldn't matter where you are from at all.

  9. #9

    Re: Connection Hosts

    As an advocate of another community that promotes the corruption of this one, suggestion threads like this shouldn't appear from you. You can't automatically assume that the opinion of the OP is the opinion of the majority. It's probably pretty damn close but seeing things like this saddens me.
    "Different name, same fate."
    Quote Originally Posted by WM Feedback View Post
    I (Feedback) tried to flank them Barry Soap style, but it didn't really work out and I just ended up hiding a lot
    Quote Originally Posted by Platinum View Post
    Damn you barry, being seductive to all those recruits by painting vivid, purdy imagery with your words.

  10. #10

    Re: Connection Hosts

    [QUOTE=Barry Soap;172409]As an advocate of another community that promotes the corruption of this one, suggestion threads like this shouldn't appear from you.[./QUOTE]

    Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Soap View Post
    You can't automatically assume that the opinion of the OP is the opinion of the majority. It's probably pretty damn close but seeing things like this saddens me.
    Agreed
    You are not a godless fucking moron
    You are still a moron but not a godless fucking one
    - Silko, 2016

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Website maintained by Metkil5685 and Mythonian.