Required Seat should restrict game starting

[Jest Phulin]

This should only be a turn based issue.
Turn based tables may be started by the table admin at any time, so long as the minimum number of players for the game are at the table.
Realtime requires a confirmation from everyone at the table to start the game.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't turn-based prevent changes to table configuration (including number of players required/requested) after another player has joined the table? If it doesn't, it should (or be reported as a bug, as I'm pretty sure other configuration options can't be changed).

[N_Faker]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't turn-based prevent changes to table configuration (including number of players required/requested) after another player has joined the table? If it doesn't, it should (or be reported as a bug, as I'm pretty sure other configuration options can't be changed).

You are correct. Table configurations can't be changed after at least one other player has joined the table.

It doesn't prevent the table admin from starting the game, even if the minimum number of players hasn't been reached, though.

[7decoeur]

For now, required mark is simply a symbol to make guest know the min players that host wants. But sometimes host just use the default setting or lose patience, start game with fewer than seats marked. It should be forbidden, since the guest maybe pick the table by this term, to start freely means an unnecessary rejection or unwanted game mode. So please put a red bar when host doesn't respect this setting.

The settings say "I want between X and Y players" so anyone joining the table knows the number of players is not pre-determined by the host and thus may start the game at their will. I don't see this as an issue at all - personally I go by the mantra the host of the table calls the shots. If you don't like the shots, you can either not join or go host your own table so you can call your own shots. Problem solved.

[Lotus Blossom]

For now, required mark is simply a symbol to make guest know the min players that host wants. But sometimes host just use the default setting or lose patience, start game with fewer than seats marked. It should be forbidden, since the guest maybe pick the table by this term, to start freely means an unnecessary rejection or unwanted game mode. So please put a red bar when host doesn't respect this setting.

The settings say "I want between X and Y players" so anyone joining the table knows the number of players is not pre-determined by the host and thus may start the game at their will. I don't see this as an issue at all - personally I go by the mantra the host of the table calls the shots. If you don't like the shots, you can either not join or go host your own table so you can call your own shots. Problem solved.

Subject to minimum and maximum numbers that the game can support, the host CAN set the number of players, in your example X would be the minimum the host wants (supposedly), and Y the maximum. Interpreting it otherwise makes setting the number of required players completely pointless.

[7decoeur]

Subject to minimum and maximum numbers that the game can support, the host CAN set the number of players, in your example X would be the minimum the host wants (supposedly), and Y the maximum. Interpreting it otherwise makes setting the number of required players completely pointless.

I think you missed my point based on the OP's comment. The OP was frustrated that people are opening up a table with the default setting that says I want min X to max Y players, yet as soon as the table reaches X (min) they press start. i.e as a guest he wanted to play the game with Y players and joined on that basis yet now feels tricked into playing a game under conditions he dislikes. I was trying to suggest that if the table had said I want to play with Y and Y players alone then the guest would know that is the exact number of players the host wants, whereas using the X and Y default means the host doesn't care if it is 2,3 4 etc. as long as he gets a game, so if it isn't what you want don't join.

Hence paraphrasing what I said - if you find it a problem, then all you have to do is be the host yourself to set the parameters you want, your game your terms, rather than ask the developers to put a red mark against a host that "doesn't respect this setting". That seemed a bit harsh to me.

[e1q3z9c7]

Subject to minimum and maximum numbers that the game can support, the host CAN set the number of players, in your example X would be the minimum the host wants (supposedly), and Y the maximum. Interpreting it otherwise makes setting the number of required players completely pointless.

I think you missed my point based on the OP's comment. The OP was frustrated that people are opening up a table with the default setting that says I want min X to max Y players, yet as soon as the table reaches X (min) they press start. i.e as a guest he wanted to play the game with Y players and joined on that basis yet now feels tricked into playing a game under conditions he dislikes. I was trying to suggest that if the table had said I want to play with Y and Y players alone then the guest would know that is the exact number of players the host wants, whereas using the X and Y default means the host doesn't care if it is 2,3 4 etc. as long as he gets a game, so if it isn't what you want don't join.

Hence paraphrasing what I said - if you find it a problem, then all you have to do is be the host yourself to set the parameters you want, your game your terms, rather than ask the developers to put a red mark against a host that "doesn't respect this setting". That seemed a bit harsh to me.

It's a misunderstanding, I mean when players "<X" and host start, not equal with x.

[Lotus Blossom]

Subject to minimum and maximum numbers that the game can support, the host CAN set the number of players, in your example X would be the minimum the host wants (supposedly), and Y the maximum. Interpreting it otherwise makes setting the number of required players completely pointless.

I think you missed my point based on the OP's comment. The OP was frustrated that people are opening up a table with the default setting that says I want min X to max Y players, yet as soon as the table reaches X (min) they press start. i.e as a guest he wanted to play the game with Y players and joined on that basis yet now feels tricked into playing a game under conditions he dislikes. I was trying to suggest that if the table had said I want to play with Y and Y players alone then the guest would know that is the exact number of players the host wants, whereas using the X and Y default means the host doesn't care if it is 2,3 4 etc. as long as he gets a game, so if it isn't what you want don't join.

Hence paraphrasing what I said - if you find it a problem, then all you have to do is be the host yourself to set the parameters you want, your game your terms, rather than ask the developers to put a red mark against a host that "doesn't respect this setting". That seemed a bit harsh to me.

As confirmed by OP, he meant the host starting with less than X. I also suggested this is what he meant in an earlier post but it seems this was missed.

[Jest Phulin]

It appears that the situation is thus:

The host sets the game to say "I want between X and Y players." Someone joins, wanting to play a game with at least X players.
However, once W players are at the table (W<X<Y, and W>=players required to play the game), the host starts the game. The non-host players are now compelled to play a game under conditions that they did not want. Yes, compelled, as if it is turn-based game, they already agreed to play the game.

The system automatically starts the game when Y players are reached. It should prevent the game from starting until X players are reached.

[Liallan]

As confirmed by OP, he meant the host starting with less than X. I also suggested this is what he meant in an earlier post but it seems this was missed.

People don't read. They respond to one post and miss the rest of the conversation.

Perhaps OP could edit that first post to reflect this, so it's understood up front. (I misunderstood as well.)

And I agree the game shouldn't start with less than X, unless everyone agrees to that because in some situations that may become necessary. I find it hard to believe it's allowed, because then that range does indeed become meaningless and screws over those who have agreed to the terms.

[7decoeur]

People don't read. They respond to one post and miss the rest of the conversation.

Perhaps OP could edit that first post to reflect this, so it's understood up front. (I misunderstood as well.)

And I agree the game shouldn't start with less than X, unless everyone agrees to that because in some situations that may become necessary. I find it hard to believe it's allowed, because then that range does indeed become meaningless and screws over those who have agreed to the terms.

I did read the posts. Some of the issues do stem from translation and nuance issues as English is not everyone's first language I get that. I think however I am guessing this must only be an issue specific to turn based games then. If the host presses start, and you want to play with more players you can simply decline to start in real-time.

The point I was trying to make is (i) if you are very concerned with playing only with a precise number of players then all you have to do is be the host so you have total control, rather than put a red punitive mark against someones name just for pressing start and also (ii) if the host has set a range of player numbers X to Y, or used the default, rather than categorically setting X and only X players, that gives you a strong indication the host doesn't care about a precise number of players and so it is not a table for you to join and be disappointed.