I'd like for a third button to be next to "Leave game" and "Ready" ; "Skip", or something to that effect. It would allow you to be "ready" per say, but you would remain in the game room for the next song while everybody else plays. This is mainly intended if you need to go afk and don't want to hold up the game. Now you're probably thinking "why not just hit ready and go afk?" Well yes, that's fine, if you have the map already. The Skip button would be for use when you do not have the map downloaded-it allows you to "ready" without the current map, so that the rest of the players can go ahead and play while you are afk. Is it very situational? Yes, but I can still think of countless times when I would have wanted to use it.

Edit: Now that we have Force Start, this idea would be redundant and add little to the game. Also AFK status and potential multiplayer spectator mode have more potential than this idea, so marking invalid. - TheVileOne

If you're not playing, you shouldn't be taking up slots in a multiplayer game which could be used by people who do want to play.

In the case a game isn't full, you shouldn't be taking up slots in a multiplayer game if you're not playing.

You should give up a spot in a good game because you need to get up to refill a drink or go to the bathroom? I don't think so.

KoromoAmae wrote:

You should give up a spot in a good game because you need to get up to refill a drink or go to the bathroom? I don't think so.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe some other people want to be in that good game and since you aren't using it while you go get a drink or go to a bathroom you should let them be in it?

It's called etiquette 101; if you're not using a public facility and someone else wants to use it you should let them. It's basic manners. Here's what you're requesting:

You're requesting that you should be allowed to take up a slot in a game that maybe some other people want to be in while you aren't even using that slot.

Don't support it, this is just plain selfish and rude. This is just like people in those limited-space online games that AFK all night so they don't have to wait for a spot. It's annoying and selfish. Also, this button is screaming "I'm not going to be here, kick me so you have have 8 *active* players." Just leave the room, take a break, and do the right thing. Don't be a selfish ass, please.

An unexpectedly strong negative response. You're looking at this from only one perspective.

Would you call a friend a selfish ass for asking you to wait 45 seconds before starting while they run to the bathroom? If the answer is no, then you have no right to say I'm a selfish ass for requesting this feature, because it's essentially the same thing except it doesn't require you to delay the other people.

Secondly, game rooms are not public facilities. They operate at the sole discretion of whoever is hosting. You don't have the right to be in their game just because you want to be; they can kick you whenever they want. I see people kick others from rooms all the time because they don't want to wait on a download. If anything is poor etiquette, it's this. There's currently nothing you can do about it. This is not meant to address that problem either, I'm just pointing it out.

Instead of only looking at the negatives, try looking at the positives and see if the potential benefit outweighs the potential so-called abuse.
The entire point of this is to be courteous to the people you're playing with. You have no obligation to be courteous to people who aren't even in your game, and potentially don't even exist in the first place.

Here's another possibility: make the feature only apply to locked rooms. This could be mainly for usage when you are playing with friends, and don't want to hold them up. Yes, it could be abused in unlocked rooms easily by telling people to skip whenever they have to download. This is an obvious downside and I'm not overlooking it (although you two did, instead focusing solely on it being "bad-mannered" when in fact it is the opposite.) If there's a solution to that problem then it would be very usable in unlocked rooms as well (which would make it a lot more useful; there's little point for it in a locked room unless it's a semi-public locked room). I can't think of one at the moment, but that's what discussion is for.

If you think this is a bad idea in the first place, you don't have to come in here and essentially "shitpost" the thread. If nobody supports the idea then it obviously won't be implemented. Name-calling doesn't accomplish anything either. I see a lot of overbearingly negative posts on this forum, and it's likely discouraging people who actually have good ideas from posting them.

I'd like to hear ideas on how to prevent hosts from abusing this in unlocked games, because that's the only downside I currently see. A limit is one viable option, say one skip per 30 minutes. I probably won't be defending the basic idea anymore; this post should be sufficient for that. What I want to see in the rest of the thread is either pointing out flaws that need addressing (such as the abuse by a host that I brought up), or ideas for improvement. If you plan on posting a stream of insults and not contributing at all to the idea, please just move on to the next thread on the forum.

I remember playing a game called VMK.

Pretty nice game, when I played it.

Run by Disney, completely free.

15 person limit for rooms. If you tried entering a room with 15 people, then you get put on a queue. Many rooms were fun and had stuff like games, or, in the later age of the game, quests. Now, sometimes, people sat AFK in a room for a very long time, and did nothing. This happened especially in Staff-run rooms. This caused much sadness for people who wanted to go in, as they had to wait a long time (and in the earlier stages of the game, you had to sit and wait for the queue to be open. You couldn't just walk around to other places) just to get into a room.

Same with osuwosu~.

KoromoAmae wrote:

Would you call a friend a selfish ass for asking you to wait 45 seconds before starting while they run to the bathroom? If the answer is no, then you have no right to say I'm a selfish ass for requesting this feature, because it's essentially the same thing except it doesn't require you to delay the other people.

What?

If you're asking your friend to wait, why do you need a "skip" mode?

O_o???

KoromoAmae wrote:

Secondly, game rooms are not public facilities. They operate at the sole discretion of whoever is hosting. You don't have the right to be in their game just because you want to be; they can kick you whenever they want. I see people kick others from rooms all the time because they don't want to wait on a download. If anything is poor etiquette, it's this. There's currently nothing you can do about it. This is not meant to address that problem either, I'm just pointing it out.

If some dick is not downloading a map or remains afk, the host can kick him.

If you were kicked for being afk, or left because you'd be afk and you didn't want to hold a game up, you can ask the host via PM to make a slot for you if necessary. This is up to the host.

KoromoAmae wrote:

Instead of only looking at the negatives, try looking at the positives and see if the potential benefit outweighs the potential so-called abuse.
The entire point of this is to be courteous to the people you're playing with. You have no obligation to be courteous to people who aren't even in your game, and potentially don't even exist in the first place.

I find it rude if someone is just taking up a slot in my multiplayer game. Maybe you like to socialize but not play (in which case there's #skandinavian), but that's not what multiplayer is about.

KoromoAmae wrote:

Here's another possibility: make the feature only apply to locked rooms. This could be mainly for usage when you are playing with friends, and don't want to hold them up. Yes, it could be abused in unlocked rooms easily by telling people to skip whenever they have to download. This is an obvious downside and I'm not overlooking it (although you two did, instead focusing solely on it being "bad-mannered" when in fact it is the opposite.) If there's a solution to that problem then it would be very usable in unlocked rooms as well (which would make it a lot more useful; there's little point for it in a locked room unless it's a semi-public locked room). I can't think of one at the moment, but that's what discussion is for.

How about you just leave the room, then? No one will probably take your slot, so you don't have to worry about that.

KoromoAmae wrote:

If you think this is a bad idea in the first place, you don't have to come in here and essentially "shitpost" the thread. If nobody supports the idea then it obviously won't be implemented.

So if a discussion doesn't support your view, it shouldn't exist? We are giving (mostly) constructive criticisms and things to consider or reconsider with your request. I'm shooting this request down because the current system allows for what you want and it is, in my opinion, nicer for hosts to manage.

CDFA, are you saying a queue would be good or bad? Because I see a queue as being a very Bad Thing (tm).

-

strager wrote:

CDFA, are you saying a queue would be good or bad? Because I see a queue as being a very Bad Thing (tm).

I'm saying a queue would look bad.

My post probably didn't make sense, so I was saying that it's kind of gay to just afk in a room while other people are waiting to go in~.