Host Coordination Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its gonna be different players playing each game, not sure why that's a problem to you ?
25-30 different players in each game? be realistic fuji.

I have no problems with anything, I am just saying that it has to be a mutual agreement between the hosts. If two hosts are okay then go for it. But if not then you have to respect and let that game finishes first. Especially if it's a big game.
 
25-30 different players in each game? be realistic fuji.

I have no problems with anything, I am just saying that it has to be a mutual agreement between the hosts. If two hosts are okay then go for it. But if not then you have to respect and let that game finishes first. Especially if it's a big game.
I am realistic though.
 
D

Dragomir

It's important to realize that with the whole alternating phases thing, not every game has the same phase length. Ratchet's phases are 48/24. @Flowa are you gonna make yours that long to make the alternation seamless?
 
It's important to realize that with the whole alternating phases thing, not every game has the same phase length. Ratchet's phases are 48/24. @Flowa are you gonna make yours that long to make the alternation seamless?
We can arrange that. Lind will be a bit busy next week anyway, so we can make the first phases longer.
 
Dont change the subject, do you want to bet that I cant get 25-30 unique players from any current big game? Im using Ariess as an example here.
I am not changing the subject, i been playing here for a while now and don't see having unique 25-30 players for two games respectively at the same time. You are more than welcome to go ahead and prove me wrong, I don't really care. I said if hosts are mutually agreeing to it, then go for it.

However, when I host my game, I won't be okay with having another game happening at the same time. That game will have to hold it out until my game finishes.
 

EkkoLoJinx

"What could have been..."
From personal experience, hosts didn't wanna sign up their games if the calendar was too booked, no one wants to wait months to host
how is this any different with or without signup threads?

With so many people wanting to host there's naturally gonna be some schedule in place so everybody doesn't run into each other. Let's say for example, everybody just creates a signup thread for the game and puts in a start date at July/August. Everybody will see that a crash of games will occur and very little people will signup for games since nobody's gonna want to play two or more games at the same people. Nobody will really want to when every game is 25+ players. So, what happens? The hosts talk to each other and set different start dates to make sure they all can host a game. This thread is basically that. It's easier way to do that and it allows everybody to see when each game will go and so players can know what to sign up for. Sure, it's kinda like going back to how things were but with so many people wanting to host, a schedule becomes a necessity.

You might think fo NF as a place where a schedule isn't needed, that's because NF is dying and there's barely anybody trying to host games.
NF did not have a schedule when it was in its prime either iirc. there was one long time ago that nitty was managing, but it was mostly open.
 
I mean we just had a situation like this like a month ago which I. Think that's the way to deal with this. Two games should not start at around the same time as it will kill both games activity. it is possible to play both but it's obvious people are gonna use other people's activity level in another game to determine whether a player is scummy which is bad.

Smallers games if filled and ready to go can have a 3-4 day delay before starting in alternative phases. It worked with usopp and Drago don't see why it can't work again. Now for bigger games then yeah their should be a delay in games starting without interruptions, at the very least wait till it's half the players are gone or more to start yours to alternate phases.

Activity 80% of the time tends to die down once half or less players have been killed in games, so don't see why not let another host can't start their game then
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top