ENT Gaming

As the rules say so far, you can only unhost if all players agree.

However the situation came to happen (signing before checking what kinda game is hosted/more people logging to bnet/other game ended), should we change it to this?
2s: 3/4 are enough to unhost
3s: either 4/6 or 5/6 are enough to unhost

Makes no sense to include 4s, I think. Unless 10 people wanna play and you wanna split into 2 games, 1x 2s + 1x 3s.

Well then 4s: 6/8 are enough or 7/8 are enough

So shall we change it or keep it?

Personally, I'm for change, but the signed players should be offered a spot in the new game. Anything else is just purely unfair. If those decline that offer, well tough doodles for them.

Going to bed now, will check in tomorrow.

Edit:
Keep the discussion clean and off from accusations and specific cases, at least don't mention names.

On the condition that every single one in the game that gets unhosted gets a spot in the newly created game
Don't want anyone to be "kicked out" of a game just because it gets rehosted
But apart from that I think there is more ups than downs in letting people fill games easier

Kinda could still end in some sucky situations where as 1 guy have been waiting 30 minutes and have to go in 40-50 minutes ish but they have to rehost and get fucked cause of the 10 min extra time from rehosting - but I doubt this will be a problem and in case it does become a problem I think it's fairly easy to adjust the rules

Also - we are all human and if one guy REALLY doesn't want it to get rehosted with +2 I think we can agree that you don't HAVE to rehost just cause 3/4 is for the idea

Bottom line - I think we should change the rules to what you suggest

yeah. seems legit to me to change the rules like this. if overhelming majority want to unhost, then it should be allowed to be done.

What's the problem with the current rule? If people sign for a game they should play it. I just fear more problems with that rule change like the player(s) who don't want to unhost lose their spot in the next game for example (and good luck getting people to wait until everyone of that game signed).

i think diablo_ is right
just read before u sign

The change would include that the already signed have to be offered a spot in the new game, if they are too slow to sign.

If e.g. 5-6 people want to play 3s, but one has already started a 2s, then I think it is fair that a 3s is played. Well, the other option would be for those 5-6 people to wait until the 2s get auto-unhosted by the bot, and then snipe the original guy by typing !start3 before he can type !start2 again.

Some people wanna play 2s, but the majority is currently against 2s, as far as I can tell. Especially when enough people are present.

If the already signed people do not want a spot in the new game, well then that's up to them. It needs to be offered.

Glad you brought that up.Imo a vast majority should be enough to unost a game, for example all but 1 player agree is good enough.You cant guarantee a sure spot in the next game cause there might be people waiting in channel.

AFAIC people always swap other people in unless they have a good reason not to do so.

I think it should stay as it is, because it helps to keep an environment where there is respect. If you make it a majority vote people can just overrule other's opinions just because they are with more and it will take away respect and responsibility. For example, for some reason you signed for a 2v2 and don't want to play a 3v3 (maybe time cos 2v2 last shorter, maybe because you want revenge for the last game, et cetera). If people respect that and play, you are more likely to give some respect back the next time. If they just say 'we are with more so suck it' you won't be likely to help them out a next time.

Hutzu wrote:If e.g. 5-6 people want to play 3s, but one has already started a 2s, then I think it is fair that a 3s is played. Well, the other option would be for those 5-6 people to wait until the 2s get auto-unhosted by the bot, and then snipe the original guy by typing !start3 before he can type !start2 again.

this is not the same as u suggested at start ^^ i thought its already like: if somebody starts a game (e.g. 2s) and people want to start another (3s) then he need to unsign/abort. but what u suggested at start was, then games will get unhosted even after 4 people did actually sign for the 2s and it got hostet and THEN they want to change it into 3s/4s. not?

Yes, starting games in the channel should not be blocked (and can result in a ban if done on purpose), so if 6 people want to play 3vs3 while 1 guy is signed for 2vs2, he has to unsign (and either join their 3vs3 or start another 2vs2 once their 3vs3 has started).

I do agree with Hutzu's suggestion, Current rule,which needs all players agreement to unhost game could be seen as bad by majority people.
It is not always majority's opinion better than minority's , but I think majority will choice would be much better when changing community rules since community is based on members.

In my opinion
2s: 3/4
3s: 5/6
4s: 7/8

But, I don't like 3s goes unhosted with 4/6 and 4s goes to unhosted 6/8 because there is a lot of diffrence between 1 player disagree and 2 players disagree.

Hope we more LIHL players express their thoughts so we can think together to make better LIHL.

Added a poll for clarification.
Please all vote, you can change your vote any time.

If this change would happen, how would a grey area go for 1 player askin for unhost, 2 players says okay whatever ,i dont care, and 1 player says no..would count as 3 players agreeing to unhost? Or in the case where 3s are unhosted, and 2 of those players want to play 2s while 4 wants to play 4s, they start 4s and 6 sign and the 2 who dont want to play 4 dont, then remakes 3s because not enough people and wrong players are being left out because of a unhost?
Change of this rule just creates more problems, as whoever screams the most will get people to say ok, whatever...

the "i dont care" doesn't count as a vote. So the votes in that situation would be 6/8 for unhost. 1/8 no and 1/8 abstained from voting.

What is the plan to prevent sniping spots of the 'declining' player who may very well be afk for 2 minutes?
A new rule?