Accept/Decline option for turn-based games.

[el cosimo]

How will this avoid this option the problem that people can work together?

Do you know before game start if they play together? Yeah in 1% of the games you can get a case that this happen maybe. But to implement an useless function to extend waiting time before games start..

You can limit some settings to avoid starters, low karma, .. that is enough to block some risks. You can’t avoid other risks or you must get a sixth sense.

[JustHere4Tichu]

It is interesting that as soon as someone posts a suggestion, and I have read many here, lots of people rush in to rubbish/criticise it.

No, it won't extend waiting times, and if it does it will be minimal. If you don't mind who joins your table, you will just accept to start the game.

And yes, there are times that I get a bad feeling when I arrive to find one of my turn based games has filled up and begun, and I look at the other players - and I couldn't prevent it starting This is because it is not related to karma or their level. No, I don't have a sixth sense - thanks for the sarcasm - and no, it does not happen a huge amount but it happens often enough. Additionally, I don't want to red thumb too many people. It happens often enough that two friends join in a table for three players and then somewhat play it as a semi co-op or tag team or by kingmaking towards the end of the game

Which means if you sense what is going to happen you know you have to go through a longish game and suffer the experience, or quit and take the penalties, which I don't like doing. Or, you play a game that can take weeks to finish and at the end of you lose because one friend helps the other. So for me, it would be very useful.

What BGA could do, is implement an option to select an accept/decline function on turn based games, or not - so that everyone is happy.

[JustHere4Tichu]

Sadly, this discussion board and discussion points often seem to descend into, and get stymied by, a battle of wits whereby people are seemingly trying to win arguments rather than improve player experience.

[/quote]
It's not unique, every time I want to start a stack of turnbased games, I would experience this. This could be daily, this could be weekly.

Commenting on your above comment.
We seem to be getting confused here. But from my understanding, you have already said that you are prevented from opeing up "a stack" more than 4 turn based games. Therefore, I don't see how my suggestion will have any impact on your situation. You probably have to wait a long time for them to fill anyway. The difference is time is only once the table has filled up, not before that point.
And, if you are trying to open up a stack of tb games then you are probably online a lot/frequently so the time difference between the game moving from the filled up stage to the accept/decline stage and you getting the usual notification that the game is ready to go, and you accepting it is minimal.

I thought the point of tb games was they are to be played over a longer period of time and that there is no big rush, and players are a bit more relaxed about the starting time of the games.

Sometimes people have to wait to start the actual game because the start player is not online anyway. People who play tb games are not hyper time freaks sitting around waiting for their games to start and their next turn because they have nothing to do with their days.


Exactly, THAT IS THE PROBLEM. The table will NOT start.
And as long as the table won't start, it shows to me as an open table and I cannot open new tables. I can only have 4 open tables waiting for people to join, or as per your suggestion to hit the accept button.

About your above comment, which I have somewhat commented on further above, It seems to me you are online a lot during each day, I doubt there will be much time lapsed between the table filling up and you accepting to start, and then you can open up another table- OR join tables created by other players.

Your point seems minor in comparison, that you are not allowed to open one or two more tables at the same time (as there is a 4 table limit) to the experience I am sometimes having where I am locked in an awful game experience for days and weeks..


And use quoatation marks. The forum offers this tool, use it.
[/quote]

[RicardoRix]

If you do it for 1 player (table creator) don't you have to do it for all players? The same way as real-time games get started.

If you have 2 players with the same IP then you might know, and not start the game.
If they don't have the same IP then it would be down to prior knowledge that you have. In that case you can use the red-thumb system to not play with those players.

So what you're really after is a confirm for when 2 players share the same IP. This rarely happens, you could ask to abort the game when it starts in this case, they should understand your concerns in that case.

As a side note, in Arena it's strictly forbidden to stop a game starting.

[Jest Phulin]

Mostly a history lesson to start off here. When turn-based was first introduced, it was based off of the same mechanic of realtime games. As such, there was a confirm launch button for everyone that was not present until the table was full.

This lead to a significant number of complaints in the forums of how long it took to start a turn-based game. Even on popular games, if the table was set for one move a day, if the table author only played during their lunch break it could easily be 48 hours after table creation before the first move could be made. (24 hours for administrator to launch, another 24 if they were first player.)

As such, BGA decided to change the acceptance to when a player joined the table, not when the table was full. There is little chance of that decision being revisited.

(History lesson based on personal memory, which has been known to be faulty on occasion -- details may be inaccurate.)

Now, as to the issues raised in the thread. The original post complained that two friends would join a table, and work together. The suggestion was to reimplement the confirm launch button to prevent this. As pointed out by others, this behavior is against the terms of service and should be reported. But even it it was reported, I see no way of determining who is likely to engage in that behavior beforehand. How will looking at what players have joined a table identify which two are friends and will work together?

Once they do engage in that behavior, the solution is quite simple: give each of them a red thumb (even a private one). The table-matching algorithm prevents players who have received a red thumb from joining a table where the giver is already present.

--------
tl;dr -- The confirm button has been done before and removed for good reason. Adding it back doesn't solve the problem listed in the first post. A solution to the problem already exists.

[voriki]

It is interesting that as soon as someone posts a suggestion, and I have read many here, lots of people rush in to rubbish/criticise it.

I don't rubbish it, I was just listing all the extra problems it creates. The "advantages" don't way up to the disadvantages.

[Jellby]

Even on popular games, if the table was set for one move a day, if the table author only played during their lunch break it could easily be 48 hours after table creation before the first move could be made. (24 hours for administrator to launch, another 24 if they were first player.)

I believe this is more a psychological issue than a practical one. True, it can takes some time (several days if there are many players), but it shouldn't be more than a normal turn would take, so at the end it's just an extra "turn" to wait. Maybe the problem was actually that players did not get a notification, or that their time did not run out.

[JustHere4Tichu]

I completely disagree that the disadvantages out weigh the advantages when I have experienced the problems with two friends joining my game and playing somewhat cooperatively (especially towards the end of the game), who don't share the same IP address, join a table which automatically starts when full. I will only notice they are friends after the game has started and have no way to get out of the game. I will have to suffer until the game has been completed, and possibly lose unfairly. Obviously, I will not have been able to have red-thumbed them prior to them joing the table, if I have not played with them before. And, I don't want to red-thumb people because the problem won't arise if they join a future game table on their own.

[JustHere4Tichu]

I agree with Jellby, the negative responses are ones which come more from a psychological basis - which is the often the norm here and somewhat human nature's reluctance to change. It does seem to me there is often a knee-jerk reaction to shoot down suggestions.

[Jest Phulin]

I will only notice they are friends after the game has started

How will you know they are friends before the game starts?