ENT Gaming

Last player to sign should be owner, since he is most unlikely to be afk unlike player who started the game. Simple as fuck.

Makes sense.

+1

Sounds good haha

Sure, if @Diablo_ can do it.

We might only have a problem, when the current issue persists, that more than 8 people can sign, which happens from time to time. I've seen 9 ppl signed and someone said also 10 players have been signed at one point, after spam-sign-wars

But I guess a simple rule like "if 4s game then owner = player8", that would also cover that issue.

Or, first one to join the lobby becomes owner

Kreutertee wrote:We might only have a problem, when the current issue persists, that more than 8 people can sign, which happens from time to time. I've seen 9 ppl signed and someone said also 10 players have been signed at one point, after spam-sign-wars

Really, this happens? Make a screenshot next time you see it please.

Happened to me on Sunday. Was just a huge sign spam war and in the end 10 people were signed. Bot saying -2 players needed xD

Diablo_ wrote:Really, this happens? Make a screenshot next time you see it please.

Yes, I tagged you the other day in discord channel when it happened, search for your explicit name-mentions in lihl-games channel. Shouldn't be too hard to find.

EDIT: found it. Last friday, 2 am.

LOLOL I WAS IN THIS GAME AND DIDNT EVEN REALIZE

I think the signing should be fixed now, no more too many players being able to sign.
If it still happens pm me pls!

About game owner:
When changing this I can see more problems/drama with 2v2 and 3v3 games though. Currently if someone starts a 2v2 game that person will be the game owner and can simply enforce this setup by starting the game. But if the last player becomes the game owner I can see people sign for 2v2 even if they don't actually want to play 2v2 and strongly convince/force other players to accept the swaps they will do.
Is it worth that? I can't remember the last time we had to start a new game cause the game owner wouldn't show up. Generally I like the idea of the one starting the game (and with that also making clear what the game type is) to be the owner more.

Hmm, I guess there are valid points for both possibilities. Someone would have to make a judgement call on what is least likely to be abused and if the benefits would outweigh to even put work into that

Owner not showing up happens occasionally, but to be fair enough, I think both times I've seen it recently, haza was around to swap/start. Ofc can't rely on him being around all the time. I personally didn't feel it happens that often for something to actually be done about it.

Bottom line, idc

Yeah, we will stick with the first one being owner. People should not be afk anyway, you can report that.