Conversation
|
That seems pretty reasonable, but I think there's one more thing worth adding - if there's been more than (say, a dozen) messages in a lobby, it's most likely that either:
|
|
Would you recommend adding a criteria based on the number of messages, or after the game has existed for so long (like 10+ minutes) |
|
I think number of messages is probably reasonable - typically in an unattended lobby, somebody will join, see that other people have joined and left, then instantly leave - and these consume two messages each, and I think a fresh lobby starts with two messages?. Feel free to take whichever approach makes the most sense to you (or skip this feeedback entirely) and use whatever numbers you like. As it stands now, I think your change will already be a good improvement on what we have 👍 |
If a lobby has more than 10 messages, it will be placed after other lobbies.
|
The most recent commit should put lobbies with more than 10 messages below other open lobbies. It should be ready to merge unless there are any other requested changes. |
|
Neat, yeah this looks fantastic to me, but I'll let @NoahTheDuke have a peek at it with his trained code reviewing brain |
|
nah this si good |
3 participants
This pull request is my proposed solution to issue #7587
The goal of this solution is to make games that have been waiting longer more easily accessible, while also making newer games easier for spectators to access
This sorting solution splits the lobbies into 3 categories. Each group is individually sorted and combined in this order (top to bottom)
Let me know if this solution works, or if we want to take another approach to sorting lobbies. If accepted:
closes #7587