ummmm what is this sharky?

nobody thinks he's a mediocre bumhunter, i think i never talked to anyone who didn't say they want that feature

I've talked to cash players who have admitted they're a bumhunter (bit diff tho I guess), but I'm sure lots of people are ****ting the bed at the thought of this.

yeah can we take the red pill pls

not sure what you meant by that, I think [well, in my opinion] sharky was awesome when there was like 3-5 ppl using it, and that was actually beneficial in a way that you get more games/hour, but it wasn't unpredictable that it will become a tool that everybody will get eventually. and now you're like have to sit 40th in f**king line to get lobby @ 100s. why not just register manually and if you sit with someone decent or not - just play.

also I think there are much less fishes left in hypers simply because sharky makes it difficult for them to sit first, they just see crazy action happening there and it doesnt seem like fun to them. I'm not an expert ofc, but I think that sharky had some serious impact on weaker regs getting lobbies/fishes going away to have fun elsewhere.

pretty sure main problem is just that there are ****load of regs nowadays

So if a couple regs all got sit 2nd get next lobby they are going to play each other all the time? Sounds fun.

That's not how it works...

How then? Another waitlist?

no, u do get 1st on the existing waitinglist

Where is the difference? One of the other Regs will still sit him then.

one reg can sit one player, so no need for waitlist, as soon as you sit someone, there is created new lobby you can sit

Hi Marko, merged a thread in here from HUSNG (OP is quote here for linking), with feature request and discussion since I know you can't really comment there.

Thanks

Ph33roX you might come around in the recent times but user feedback was always valued and any veteran user knows this.

However we are here on the point where certain suggested feature is of a delicate and controversial and could even say destructive nature. For this reason it is more like a joker that can come or not. You might want this feature really bad but it would just force you to play players which you can already play with your free choice which is by the way completely automatic if you chose so . If you are expecting Sharky to tell you why you are not motivated to sit other regs, you are asking on a wrong place because it doesnt lower rake or increases edge in games and so on

In the meantime if you dont like the long waitlist, just make it shorter without even having a glance at the lobby, its all doable in the settings.

Such an absurd response to something EVERYBODY in this thread has pretty much unanimously said they want. Nobody wants to just play regs endlessly, the value in it comes from lobby control, your creating a system at 300s and below where nobody can improve their own standing. Yes you can sit 6 regs and bring the queue from 30 to 24, but now your 6 tabling and can't decline without the community going ape****, so all you've done is made everyone else's situation better. Nobody is asking for lower rake or any more incentive than the lobby, which is why we all got sharky and continue to use it (for lobbies). It's become enough of a struggle to deal with waiting forever and being able to do nothing about that for sure people are going to start moving to another software who cares more about what the users want, esp at higher stakes where player pools are smaller and overhead in a group switching is smaller.

We all use and love sharky now but please Marko make this feature, it seems there are 10 people asking for it for every 1 saying no here, and like ALL of your higher stakes players (the ones who pay the most) want this. Please don't make it so your customers have no say in the direction of the product, which also is deciding out futures

Infinite lobbies were never a problem pre black Friday on FTP. Certain regs could target other regs that thought they had an edge over, fish could have their choice, even the option to sit first (which is no longer an option any more) I would say that FTP setup pre BF was and still is much better than stars now. Its just that most people have become used to 2 lobbies now and they don't want it changed.

The more people that use sharky the worse its going to get and the fact now that in order to play anything above $30s you HAVE TO use sharky or your not getting a lobby unless its at a stupid hour when all the recs are asleep.

Sharky is an excellent tool, for the stars HU lobby however its destructive and eventually will destroy the games, most will go elsewhere for sure.

what primo said

It's my lobby and I want it now!

Rabble rabble rabble!

1+ what primo said

Agree with Primo.

+1

agree with primo also, couldnt have said it better

http://poll.pollcode.com/ovx365_result?v

73% want it and 27% want it not.

+ we can argue on the other way also, i mean people will still be able to opensit even with this feature? Also pretty sure 95% of those "no" votes are bumhunters, so tell me one reason, why they should get protected? Even stars is planning more and more to make bumhunting impossible.

++ A golden advice for you marko, if there wont be found a good solution which makes people stop cryin to stars, stars will find another nonsharky solution (which they are planning anyways), but i guess if it will get much better with this feature and people stop cryin (rake and action increases), stars could let it be how it is. But like it is atm, people wont stop cryin and give the faulth always to sharky. With this feature everyone can just stfu and play.

Not sure if this is the right place or not, but I've got a small problem with Sharky;

After I've set up my session and hit start, Sharky goes through the motions and, at first glance, seems to be working fine, the only problem is it doesn't register me for any games. The little waitlist in the bottom right of my screen simply reads "No Queued Games..."

No warning screens pop up, and the Sharkyscreen reads "Scanning lobbies."

Cheers.

I agree about the sitting second/get next lobby, but the poll really discredits your argument. It is obvious that the answers are phrased in such a way to force a "yes" answer (There are even 2 "yes" answers and one "no" answer"). A deceptive poll doesn't really help our argument. It makes it seem like you need cheap tactics to get the community to support your opinion. Maybe make another poll with an unbiased question and "agree" "disagree" options--that would be make a far more convincing argument to Marko

I dont care one way or the other, but that poll is the least trustworthy setup of a poll ive ever seen.

Heres why,

1) There are 3 options which are horribly distributed . there should only really be the first 2 options, the 3d one creates obvious confusion such as poster above who claims outrageous results as "73% want it and 27% want it not" which is about impossible to deduct from the statistics given from that poll. since the poll isnt even about wanting that update or not, but more like speculation how if it came, how should it work, and then a third option that just says, this dont work. In other words, you cant treat this poll as if it is do want or dont want, because its a HOW question, not a yes/no question

2) even if it was a yes no question the distribution of the 3 questions is horrible, since looking at that both 1 and 2 are yes I presume and 3 is no, which is just stupid.

3) huge non-respons bias because people like me who dont really care dont really respond to it, and other who might be slightly against it, will not go trough the troulbe of voting the so called "no" option because contrary to the other 2 'yes' options you have to write up an explanation.

so Jarul3 you cant interpret this poll that way, its simply not correct to do so for multiple reasons.

(Sorry for ranting on about it, now that I have statistics classes at school im a bit of a nitpick about this stuff lol)

IMO sharky is alot like stars, the software is privately owned, it cant be best for what everyone wants, and some people will never be happy (not saying it isnt just that they are unhappy atm or so) but at the end of the line we are very dependent on both msim and stars. Because their decisions will impact our profit. The only way to become independent of this dependence is to simply not use the software and not use stars, which we cant really do because it would take a pretty big bite out of our income most likely. So IMO our real choices are (Imagine, you get it to work as some guys here are arguing for, other people will be unhappy then, and they will be faced with the "real choices") only 2 choices, 1) Dont use the software 2) Use it and accept its IYO shortcomings.
We are somehow enslaved to both stars and sharky, because its better to use it, then not use it, but its not ideal as wed like and we dont get the changes we want (or sometimes get changes we dont want) but not much to do about it really. Arguing and complaining for your point will just make others argue and complain back again for getting it back to how it was. There will virtually never be a 100% consensus. And if its just a majority system well... Read up on this imo : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule

lol dno how to link here anymore...

Eitherway bottom line being, while a majority decision is fair, it isnt necessairly the best decision for the majority of people. Which is why I believe, while suggestions can be made, ultimately we shouldnt pressure the software creators that "enslave" us, to have everything our personal way; we should just let them make their own decisions, and when they make bad ones, and people stop using it, things will change for the better eventually. Im not saying user feedback isnt important, but simply going for a majority vote system on everything you personally want would be so wrong on this issue imo, esp because many people probably overestimate their edge vs others and might vote the opposite of what they truly need because off ego and so on. Aside from that popular posters can obviously skew the generals public ideas on how to vote and influence them and so on. Furthermore implementing something that 51% of customers want and would outrage 49% of customers, is obviously something that would be a poor business decision most likely on msim's part. Im not saying this is not a complex issue and that lines are not long, im just saying there is no obvious solution to this, and a handfull of people saying +1 doesnt make it less complex. All this is why I am inclined to take a backseat on this discussion, and use my only true power I have as a customer, which is choosing to continue using the service or not, depending on the changes made. While believing that, if the changes are made in a bad way, enough others will choose to stop using the service, which will eventually force the creator(s) to alter the service.


What I do want to point out is, now there are for example 20 people in line, this is very differently from if there were 20 people in line on ftp, because in ftp u could also sit the guy who is 18th in line, not just 1/2. I feel like that is something important to at least mention as well here.

my 2cents with alot of rambling in there.

@poisonlolz dammit beat me too it, high five for being a critical thinker tho UP TOP!

then make another poll? never said it is so trustworthy.. But u can see for sure tendencies for a "yes"

Tell me one reason why it is good for all when 30-35 players are waiting instead of battling?

Its better for stars = more rake (which will invest more moneys in promos/advertisement etc)
Its better for fish looking at the lobbies. I mean how does that look to them when always the same guys are waiting and never playin each other.

Tbh i dont care anyways, cause ill jump to 200s in the near future and with the new feature i will get fked months long and thats why its my last post here.

But the last thing what i want to mention is, that if we wont find a better solution, there is a very high chance that stars will **** it up completely. They already mentioned implementing a battlenet lobbysystem. If msim isnt on our side now and doesnt give a **** what the majority of the players wants, then we also wont fight for keeping sharky/lobby system, since even the battlenet system might be better in some months!