No Time Limit shouldn't mean Training Mode

[Peter D Switzerland]

Another major issue we're finding this evening ... if someone arrives in our group while we're partway through a game, until recently they'd just become a spectator on the real-time normal-mode "no time limit" game we'd have been playing until it ended, then join in the next game for the evening. While waiting they join in the conversation, both about the game and all the other topics. Now, since we're in a turn-based game (but playing in real-time, just not with a timer running), that is not straightforward and it's strange to sit around waiting.

Yet another downside to the change, with no concomitant benefit.

[fluffbutter]

You stated:
"If you want to want to play with "no time limit", we now encourage you to play using "Training mode" ("infinite sign" in the new lobby), which is the safest way to play this way."

My friend and I just tried this solution. We started a game, but got interrupted. When we came back (just over 4 hours later), the game had been automatically abandoned. It appears that Training Mode games are considered Real-Time and get automatically abandoned after 4 hours of inactivity. That is NOT a "no time limit" game. Your solution is not a viable alternative. Please bring back "no time limit" for turn-based games or at least let Training Mode games live longer on the server.

[Cotj]

You stated:
"If you want to want to play with "no time limit", we now encourage you to play using "Training mode" ("infinite sign" in the new lobby), which is the safest way to play this way."

My friend and I just tried this solution. We started a game, but got interrupted. When we came back (just over 4 hours later), the game had been automatically abandoned. It appears that Training Mode games are considered Real-Time and get automatically abandoned after 4 hours of inactivity. That is NOT a "no time limit" game. Your solution is not a viable alternative. Please bring back "no time limit" for turn-based games or at least let Training Mode games live longer on the server.

Can you post a link to that table?

[Virgil Prane]

One problem with just playing as usual with 1 move every 2 days, is that people will get reputation penalties if they take a week as a break.
If I'm playing with friends anyway, I don't mind them/ not going to rate them down, but this is bad deal on that side of things if there is a rep penalty for being "slow".
There is a standard of quality multiplayer boardgames from websites that allow time to perform turns. I can set 45 days for a game of Terraforming Mars. I can play Yucata for well beyond that, as long as it takes assuming someone has made a turn within a month.

Maybe there is a 1 turn per week option that might fit the flexibility folk are seeking, while satisfying the development's desires to curtail slow games? Functionally folk are going to be playing turns per day, but we all appreciate not having to deal with another deadline.

If the issue is with stuck games, Yucata handles this stuff pretty well, by just dropping games that haven't featured a turn in 45 days. Maybe you don't give that much leeway, but something in the ballpark of a month is pretty reasonable to consider a game dead.

I've moved from playing and starting roughly 30 or so games to just finishing up the last 5 or games I have running. It's been really disappointing for the service I was purchasing.

[Virgil Prane]

Like most people in this thread have already posted. This seems to be a very one sided decision.

Based on the reply we have seen from BGA I believe this is solvable situation with just allowing the old no-time limit option to tables that are restricted for friends only. I believe there's very little people (if any) "trapped" in a no-time limit game with friends... Therefore, allowing this option to exist under that restriction, should solve both problems.

I hope this gets fixed

This is a really good point

[Jellby]

Another idea / suggestion:

Make the no-time-limit (NTL) option a choice that has to be activated (and agreed by all players) once the game has started, like abandoning a game. In addition, once NTL is enabled, allow any player to expel any other player at any time. Of course, this should not happen among friends, but it would prevent getting trapped in NTL, or the mode being abused by ELO cheaters. (If someone expels you from a NTL game, use red thumbs as usual. If this happens after you accept NTL with strangers... you'll be more careful next time.)

The more I read complains, the more I like this solution (although I personally don't play NTL). Better yet, to discourage random expelling give also a karma penalty to the player who expels, after all they "broke the rules" of a NTL game, and maybe even -10 ELO to all players (all losers).

[Orctavius]

Well, NTL has now been disabled in the "old" lobby. Thanks BGA, you truly are the worst holiday gift giver.

[dj_rob13]

it is highly probable that this possibility will disappear for good, even with the "old" lobby.

This would be a very bad news :'(

Then the alternative is to play turn-based with a slow pace.

Then it would be better to add slower mode like "1 move a week" or maybe "1 move for 2 weeks" (I guess that "1 move for 1 month" is really too slow but maybe there are some people interested in).

I see many cases where 1 move per 2 days is too fast when playing with friends (mainly when we are away for a full week-end).

In fact, I don't really see what is the problem of being trapped in a game where a player never plays. Won't the game stop after 3 months if no one has played? If it is the case, the only problem is that the game will be in the list of played game (for 3 months).

I am agree with you. It's a bad new... I think we can have the right to play with friends at our rhytm and with elo competition...

[goku_vs_freeza]

I know lots has been said and no I didn’t read all 15 pages of comments but I wanted to add my thoughts.

If people are playing “friends only” games and then stopping in the middle because they were having a bad game then I think that is entirely the fault of the people who agreed to play a “friends only” game with them. Friends only implies trust, it was not made for “hey, we are friends because we played 1 random game and sent a friend invite” even though we are still really total strangers.

And sure, it is true that maybe the player won’t lose ELO if they just stop playing but it is also true that they won’t gain any ELO either so I don’t see it hurting anything other than people’s feelings. Again, refer back to the trust comment above if you get your feelings hurt.

If BGA wants to add this back I think a 30, 45, 60 expiration time would work after no activity.

If BGA really doesn’t want to add this back then please please please add linger turn options like 1/week at least. It is common to take holidays longer than 6 days either out of the country or up in the mountains where internet connection is not always even possible. Also, even more important, I have several friends/family who work jobs 7 on then 7 off. During their 7 on they are 12 hour days, then they have to take care of life and also sleep. Those weeks are not good weeks for them to take turns. Sometimes they even get asked to work overtime and it may be even longer 2-3 weeks that they are busy with life and can’t play games. I don’t think it is a good idea to exclude them like this.

Hopefully some of these comments as well as everyone else’s comments get considered.

Thanks

[Windrisen]

I've moved from playing and starting roughly 30 or so games to just finishing up the last 5 or games I have running. It's been really disappointing for the service I was purchasing.

I feel the same way - it really reduces the draw for this site and my support. And several of my friends have recently said they will NOT be renewing their premium membership because of this decision. My membership isn't up for renewal just yet, but I'm feeling like it might be time for me to move on, too.

If my friends don't want to play with me with this new rule, not sure what the point in staying actually is, to be honest, since I mostly play with my IRL friends, many of which I've brought over to this site so that we can play together.

I have to wonder, after this much dissent from the community, if this isn't exactly their intent - to get people to leave the site. I'm not sure how or why they'd do this, but I don't really understand why they did this in the first place.