Spawndelay countdown even when not in mission

[morck]

Would it be possible to have a time counting how long you have been in the "lobby" so that when you enter a mission, any eventual spawndelay can be checked for.

As it is now, it only starts counting when you join a mission, which is really annoying.

Assume you are on mission A with spawn delay.

You despawn (for some reason).

At mission screen spawn delay is counting down.

You wait for spawn delay to count down.

Just when it's clear to spawn you decide to change to mission B (to same target) because the FRU went down or you need to spawn at a different depot or whatever.

The spawn delay countdown starts over when you enter mission B.

So, you get 2 x spawndelay in this case. Of course, this can get even longer if you switch mission again before spawning.

Wouldn't it just be easier to remember timestamp of despawn and check time difference against spawn delay of the mission in question when you want to spawn?

That way you only need to pass the spawn delay countdown once (which I assume is the intended effect).

The way it is now I would consider it a bug.

[bigrow]

If the rats were to implement this idea then SD would have to go up for all.

As it is, those wanting to spawn straight back into the same mission get, for example, 30 sec SD while those switching missions/brigades/towns etc have to wait a bit longer, which makes sense to me.

Remember, the objective is to balance the sides. If you were to essentially speed up the process of switching between objectives then either the imbalance would grow or everyone on the over-pop side would have to suffer greater SD.

[delems]

I think this is a bug or unintended feature also. The idea of spawn delay is when you leave the world you have to wait some time to get back in. It doesn't matter where you wait, as long as you do. Making the SD timer restart means you have to wait longer... and yet you were NOT in the game world, so why wait again?

I have experienced this double SD many times and it is very frustrating and agree it should be looked into and fixed.

[morck]

If the rats were to implement this idea then SD would have to go up for all.

As it is, those wanting to spawn straight back into the same mission get, for example, 30 sec SD while those switching missions/brigades/towns etc have to wait a bit longer, which makes sense to me.

Remember, the objective is to balance the sides. If you were to essentially speed up the process of switching between objectives then either the imbalance would grow or everyone on the over-pop side would have to suffer greater SD.

Makes no sense at all.

I can get virtually infinite SD if I keep switching missions. Why should it be intended to work that way?

If SD is X seconds, then I should only have to wait X seconds, no more.

If I switch between two mission (or even leave and return to the same mission) towards the same target, both with the same SD (obviously) of X, I can either get:

* 1 second (for leaving the mission) + X (for the new mission) seconds SD.

or

* If I hesitate, then switch, I can get X+X. Logical? Absolutely not.

No balance involved there, just confusion.

Edited December 25, 2010 by morck

[bigrow]

Makes no sense at all.

I can get virtually infinite SD if I keep switching missions. Why should it be intended to work that way?

If SD is X seconds, then I should only have to wait X seconds, no more.

If I switch between two mission (or even leave and return to the same mission) towards the same target, both with the same SD (obviously) of X, I can either get:

* 1 second (for leaving the mission) + X (for the new mission) seconds SD.

or

* If I hesitate, then switch, I can get X+X. Logical? Absolutely not.

No balance involved there, just confusion.

I think you missed my point.

If, as you propose, the timer starts as soon as you despawn, then there is less of a wait for those switching missions. Right?

So, this would mean that there would be more people on that side spawned in at anytime(because you didn't have to wait as long).

Let's say that side A has 300 players and side B has 200. SD aims to reduce the imbalance to something more manageable, i would guess around 10%. So what we actually have spawned into battle is more like 220 vs 200 (again a guesstimate to illustrate the point)

Whereas without the 'mission switch penalty' we would end up with more like 240 vs 200 unless SD was increased for everyone.

I hope my point is clear.

As for this being a bug, i don't know if it is or not. But the alternative, as i see it, would be actually penalising those who simply want to respawn on the same mission as quickly as possible - mostly those on defence where lost seconds can prove critical.

[DOC]

yeah what it is trying to rebalance is more complicated than most indicate when they post

of course, we could just not attempt to redress this balance at all, but we don't think that's a good idea

this coming year, if we complete other things we can use to this end (we intend to) then things will change, won't they ?

BTW, this is not a bug you're reporting

[petie]

Working on Christmas DOC, you rats must love it

[morck]

I think you missed my point.

If, as you propose, the timer starts as soon as you despawn, then there is less of a wait for those switching missions. Right?

No. It would be the same, but not more (as it is now).

If you switch mission to the SAME target the SD will be the same. You should only have to wait for that delay to pass once.

How is that less wait?

So, this would mean that there would be more people on that side spawned in at anytime(because you didn't have to wait as long).

Let's say that side A has 300 players and side B has 200. SD aims to reduce the imbalance to something more manageable, i would guess around 10%. So what we actually have spawned into battle is more like 220 vs 200 (again a guesstimate to illustrate the point)

Whereas without the 'mission switch penalty' we would end up with more like 240 vs 200 unless SD was increased for everyone.

I hope my point is clear.

No. I must be stupid

I don't see why there should be a penalty for switching mission. There will be no reduction in waiting if you switch mission. It's the same number of players spawning at the same place. Why should SD suddenly start changing when the numbers haven't?

As for this being a bug, i don't know if it is or not. But the alternative, as i see it, would be actually penalising those who simply want to respawn on the same mission as quickly as possible - mostly those on defence where lost seconds can prove critical.

If you wait for SD on mission A to count down from 30 to 0. Leave the mission and then go back to the same mission instantly, you have to wait for 30 seconds all over again. What purpose does it serve?

How can that not be a bug? Or at least a flawed SD countdown mechanism.

And why should it any different if you choose to switch to another mission to the same target?

[bigrow]

No. It would be the same' date=' but not more (as it is now).[/quote']

That's just being pedantic.

Obviously i didn't mean that those switching missions get less SD than the rest of the side, simply that they would get less SD than they get now(you know, as you said in your own examples) by switching missions.

So basically what you want is to wait less on those occasions that you switch missions. You can't have that without either making the numbers imbalance worse, or having your whole side suffer extra SD to compensate.

[delems]

The multiple SD for switching missions is a pain and not in the spirit of the original intent of SD (my guess). SD is for once you leave the world you need to wait an amount of time to come back in. It should NOT matter what you do out of the world, you should only have to wait the SD time once.

Yesterday we had SD and sure enough I waited my SD then accidentally pressed back to brigade screen. I immediately clicked back to the mission I wanted and wala I had to wait AGIAN for SD, that is not right imo.

This makes no sense. I had already waited my SD and and had not been in the game world. This is not working the way I think it should or is intended. It may not be a 'bug' per se, but it is an unintended feature that was not in the design criteria of SD (again, my guess).

And, yes, should be fixed or at least looked into to see if it could be fixed easily.

[morck]

Exactly delems.

And bigrow (and DOC or anyone else), if this helps you understand my point of view, I repeat a sentence from my previous post that I think describes the entire problem well.

Why should SD suddenly start changing when the numbers haven't?

Whatever is said about the SD and how it works now, I think that sentence sums up an issue that should not be there.

Edited December 27, 2010 by morck

[morck]

Bump.

Why should SD suddenly start changing when the numbers haven't?

[morck]

Any rat comment to:

Why should SD suddenly start changing when the numbers haven't?

?????????????????

[bigrow]

The reason i didn't reply the first 2 times is that the question makes no sense.

Are you trying to say that it's unfair that you suffer more than 1 dose of SD if you decide to switch missions after waiting once. Or is it the time it takes to select a new mission before SD starts that you mean?

Either way i have given you an answer, written out 3 times ad nauseum. DOC has said this is not a bug. If it was a decision to code it like this, then ask yourself why they might decide to do that.

As 1 final attempt to explain what i mean, and given you seem to like basic maths examples:

If X is the amount of SD needed to balance the numbers

And Y is the amount of time, on average, a player who switches missions etc takes to join the mission they eventually spawn into

Then, in an attempt to reduce X as much as possible we could take a portion of Y (portion to represent % of players switching missions, thus subject to Y) away from X

Players staying on the same mission will get: X-(Y/p)=SD

Those switching missions will get: SD+Y

And yes, sometimes people will experience something more like: SD+Y+SD+Y+SD.....

But when this happens, the fact that they are not spawning in means that they are helping to increase the value of Y(or simply reduce the value of X) How did i get myself into this lol

Of course, this is hugely over-simplified and there are other factors. Also, noone is saying the system is perfect, i hate SD. But it is not a bug, it's a choice.

And.... If side selected=Allied, then SD=0

[delems]

Disagree completely. The question makes sense. It may not be a bug as DOC says, but it sure isn't working the way I think it should be working and I don't believe they designed it on purpose that way. (or if the design was correct, they didn't see the unintended effect of multiple SDs)

[morck]

Then, in an attempt to reduce X as much as possible we could take a portion of Y (portion to represent % of players switching missions, thus subject to Y) away from X

Players staying on the same mission will get: X-(Y/p)=SD

Those switching missions will get: SD+Y

And yes, sometimes people will experience something more like: SD+Y+SD+Y+SD.....

But when this happens, the fact that they are not spawning in means that they are helping to increase the value of Y(or simply reduce the value of X)

You're not a rat

Anyway, is this a formula you have found that CRS have told you about or did you construct it in an attempt to justify the spawn delay countdown reset?

I still think it's wrong and illogical, since I believe it's an erroneous implementation, thus a bug. By your explanation then, if nobody switches missions it means the spawn delay is too low?

Seriously. Please read my question once more and think about it from that point of view:

Why should spawn delay suddenly change when the numbers haven't?

That formula of yours doesn't answer it. It is just an attempt to excuse the strange resetting of the countdown, and it also produces an inconsistent spawn delay. Your formula describes the effect, yes, but I seriously doubt it is as intended. Why punish the occasional player that (deliberately or not) changes mission?

I don't think players switch missions THAT often when they die. Therefore the total SD effect becomes negligible.

Example:

If you have 300 players on one side and say 90 sec SD, one waits the full SD time and THEN switches mission and gets double SD, so "total SD" effect if you could call it that goes up by 0.33%? Total effect: negligible.

On the other hand, it's really extremely frustrating for that player that has to wait for three minutes before being able to log in.

To compensate for removing the reset, I would be happy to raise the total spawndelay like you suggested, by 0.33% (in that case) to 90.3 seconds, since it would be the same total spawn delay. I can't really imagine this is the intended effect.

Also, MOST players probably don't sit and wait for the counter to go all the way down before changing mission. But IF you do, for whatever reason, you get really punished.

It is completely beyond me.

I would really like someone from CRS that knows why SD is implemented the way it is to explain it to me in a childish way so that I can never be accused of not understanding it.

Edited January 7, 2011 by morck
Clarifications and spelling...

[DOC]

no further bug feedback required here regarding spawn delay

when we have work pending that deals with spawn delay or any associated variable, we'll reopen the subject