Feature idea: dynamic map list for servers

by SATAN!!@# on 01/28/2008 01:51, 10 messages, last message: 02/14/2008 00:54, 1354 views, last view: 05/02/2024 22:38

Problem:

Frequently, when playing regen capture, a server that has just a handful of people on it will get hit with a large map that works best when there's a lot of people on. This situation often leads to the server emptying out further, because very large maps often aren't that fun with just a handful of people.

Solution:

Rate all maps by size (say, small, medium, large), and choose from the map rotation list the next most fitting map on the list.

For example, if the server has 6 people on it, we would skip by the outdoor river map, and check the next map on the list, until we get a map flagged as "small".

Notes:

Most maps seem to work out well with a moderate or high number of players - even the small maps (tho I admit, after 10 minutes or so of 28 people on some of the smaller maps, my mind gets kinda numb). But, the big maps rolling in when there's a small number of people present (say, 8-10 or less) tends to kill the server. So, while we could envision this idea as working to keep small maps off packed servers, the real need, I think, is just to keep the big ones off low-population servers instead.

   Board Index   

#1: ..

by Quin on 01/28/2008 03:45

The server requests the next map from the clients, even if there is no master present. Set; nextmap_BLAH = "mapname" (where BLAH is the current map name).

An alternative to this is to grab master and change the map yourself. This isn't to say it isn't a good idea, but this will serve as a stop gap for you.

reply to this message

#2: ..

by scasd on 01/28/2008 13:21

How is about having minplayer and maxplayer vars in the cfg so the mapmaker can specify them in his map cfg and the server has a flag which allows to choose the map by that values or not...

Couldnt that be implemented without changing the engine code - just a server script ?

reply to this message

#3: Re: ..

by rock.n.rol_ on 01/30/2008 10:56, refers to #2

Don't you think that would be too restrictive ? What if some ppl enjoy playing a small map with many ppl or a medium one with just 4 players ?

reply to this message

#4: Re: ..

by SATAN!!@# on 01/30/2008 22:16, refers to #3

I'm with you on the small maps: I've been impressed how many people you can pack into a small map, and still have it work out well (tho, as I mentioned, there does come a point when it becomes mind numbing carnage, heh).

The real issue that brought this to mind are very large maps when there's 6 or 8 people on the server.

You bring up the point of people perhaps wanting this scenario at times: well, no problem there, that's what the vote feature is for. However, I've watched time and a gain a server with just a handful of people on it empty out completely when a huge map rolls in. It was this problem that led me to mention the feature idea.

reply to this message

#5: maprotation preferences

by MeatROme on 01/31/2008 18:11

well, what about a server with just one (or two or three) player(s) on it .. it changes map - with your scenario it'd pick a "small" map ... then (after just a minute played) there join a few more players ... you'd be stuck with the same problem.
In the end it comes down to this:
no matter how you attempt to rotate maps, wether by a server configurable list, the current (rather static) client side CubeScript aliases or even an enhanced selection algorithm (like the one you suggested/alluded to) ... voting and thus players aware and capable of the features of the game will be required.
A good master can help players less experienced and/or unwilling to vote in keeping a series of matches stay fun & challenging.
This goes farther than switching to VETO mode (mastermode 1) and forcing maps, it also encludes keeping players "in line" (warning and eventually banning TK-ing players for example) and generally keeping a balance in teammodes.

reply to this message

#6: Re: maprotation preferences

by SATAN!!@# on 02/02/2008 04:00, refers to #5

No.

As I've mentioned a few times above, I've been impressed that small maps (like, say, Asteroids), work darn well when the server starts getting busy. These maps are already in rotation, and get played with a lot of people already. The issue here is, say, the big huge river map coming into rotation when six people are on the server.

Or, to put it another way, if you have 6 people, only asteroids (out of a choice of it or the river map) will work. But if you have 20 people, both Asteroids and the river map will work. Solution? Rate maps, and choose next in list based on playercount.

reply to this message

#7: ..

by scasd on 02/03/2008 19:23

Nevermind - only specify minplayer. That would do the trick but a vote system may also be awesome.

reply to this message

#8: ..

by shmutzwurst on 02/13/2008 14:05

already solved the problem at our servers: the-conquerors 1 and 2

reply to this message

#9: Re: ..

by Drakker__ on 02/13/2008 19:36, refers to #7

I think a 'maxplayers' would be useful too, you can't pack 20+ players on a map such as FC3.

This feature would also make FFA or Instagib so much more interesting with 2-4 players.

reply to this message

#10: Re: ..

by SATAN!!@# on 02/14/2008 00:54, refers to #8

awesome work shmutzwurst, and fast too!

reply to this message

   Board Index