Other by iLoLz

[lean shell]

Welcome @north ferry! Any feedback from the community will show up here.
Please note that this thread discussion may be shared with SMG, but its primary purpose is for the RISK community to discuss ideas and provide constructive feedback.
If you would like to submit feedback to SMG directly, use this link.

[cyan sandal]

That would be a good QOL improvement, however I believe there's a bigger issue at hand:

The host can add/remove bots to/from the lobby at any point. The number of bots on a setting significantly influences the nature of the game up to a point where people would rule out a lobby/setting to play in, just because it has/doesn't bots in it. So why do we allow the host to decide whether to change the settings or not, for hosting convenience?

Everyone who thinks that this is an issue would probably support the integration of "number of bots" and "number of players" to a game into the core settings of the lobby without having one single person with the power to suddenly change that.

On the other hand there are scenarios where the lobby might feel like compromising a setting in order to get it started. You'd of course start adjusting at "number of players" and "number of bots". But that can't be up to 1 single person, simply because they were the one to initiate the lobby. Could be in the form of a vote and could include more kinds of settings. Decision should probably be unanimous.

[dusk dagger]

I mean, sure, it's not a bad idea but I am going neutral bc I think it's not high priority. not a big deal to just leave a lobby if its got too many bots

also people add bots to get people to join the lobby and then remove them, it doesn't actually mean they will keep them....