Insane : hundreds of simultaneously played turn based games

[Hagardunor]

Can you seriously believe that a player can properly manage hundreds of turn based games ?

I recently noticed one I am playing with that has started over 200 turn based games. And of course, his/her responses are lagging and we are all there, waiting that he/she wakes up and remembers that he/she is playing with us.

There should be an absolute upper limit of simultaneously played turn based games

You don't know about the lives of these people. A retired person with no work, playing games set to 1 mover per day, could very easily take 200 moves every day. So could a student in their summer holiday.

Just because you don't have time for 200 games or would like them to move faster doesn't mean they can't manage them and can't play within the time rules

You may be right, but I have nevertheless great doubts on the quality of playing of such persons. I don't ask for BGA to cancel their accounts, I just say that i would prefer not playing with them, and that I would appreciate settings on MY profile to help me choose my partners. That's a personal choice, not a request to ban them.

[T72on1]

It also greatly depends on the type of games being played. I can't imagine having say 50 games going at the same time, if they are all in the Barrage, Dungeon Twister, Lost Ruins of Arnak, Tash-Kalar, ... ballpark, because those tend to have such a variety of options and rules that they take a long time to think on each of them. On the other hand, On the other hand, managing 150 or even 200 games of the lighter variant, which is the majority of the games here: easy if they are with a time limit of 1 move per day or slower, as one can play a few of those in one minute time.

[nccc]

https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=52353

[Hagardunor]

https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=52353

signed it, but it appears at second reading that I misunderstood the purpose (signed too quickly).

[Hagardunor]

It also greatly depends on the type of games being played. I can't imagine having say 50 games going at the same time, if they are all in the Barrage, Dungeon Twister, Lost Ruins of Arnak, Tash-Kalar, ... ballpark, because those tend to have such a variety of options and rules that they take a long time to think on each of them. On the other hand, On the other hand, managing 150 or even 200 games of the lighter variant, which is the majority of the games here: easy if they are with a time limit of 1 move per day or slower, as one can play a few of those in one minute time.

When I go to turn based games, it is generally because they involve reflexion over a long time at each round which is incompatible with real time playing. That's why I am doubtful about properly handling dozens of such games, not speaking of hundreds

[Hagardunor]

here is the link to the request for a tool to say you do not want to play with multi-hundreds turn-based game owners

https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=97075

[Ceaseless]

It also greatly depends on the type of games being played. I can't imagine having say 50 games going at the same time, if they are all in the Barrage, Dungeon Twister, Lost Ruins of Arnak, Tash-Kalar, ... ballpark, because those tend to have such a variety of options and rules that they take a long time to think on each of them. On the other hand, On the other hand, managing 150 or even 200 games of the lighter variant, which is the majority of the games here: easy if they are with a time limit of 1 move per day or slower, as one can play a few of those in one minute time.

When I go to turn based games, it is generally because they involve reflexion over a long time at each round which is incompatible with real time playing. That's why I am doubtful about properly handling dozens of such games, not speaking of hundreds

Other people do turn-based games for other reasons. For example, if someone cannot guarantee a specific set of time for a game, but has lots of free time in general, such as if they are waiting for something that could happen at any time, so they have lots of time that could be cut short at any moment. A real-time game doesn't support that, a turn-based game will. Different people may have different reasons for playing turn-based, you can't accurately assume everyone does it for the same reason you do.

[Hagardunor]

It also greatly depends on the type of games being played. I can't imagine having say 50 games going at the same time, if they are all in the Barrage, Dungeon Twister, Lost Ruins of Arnak, Tash-Kalar, ... ballpark, because those tend to have such a variety of options and rules that they take a long time to think on each of them. On the other hand, On the other hand, managing 150 or even 200 games of the lighter variant, which is the majority of the games here: easy if they are with a time limit of 1 move per day or slower, as one can play a few of those in one minute time.

When I go to turn based games, it is generally because they involve reflexion over a long time at each round which is incompatible with real time playing. That's why I am doubtful about properly handling dozens of such games, not speaking of hundreds

Other people do turn-based games for other reasons. For example, if someone cannot guarantee a specific set of time for a game, but has lots of free time in general, such as if they are waiting for something that could happen at any time, so they have lots of time that could be cut short at any moment. A real-time game doesn't support that, a turn-based game will. Different people may have different reasons for playing turn-based, you can't accurately assume everyone does it for the same reason you do.

I was speaking of my case, not speculating on someone else reasons.

My choice of games in turn based system generaly implies reflexion, sometimes a long one (Decrypto for instance). That's why I do not want to play with persons who manage too many games of that kind. Plus this is a team game and the misdeed of your partner affect your game.

For individual games (ex Haiclue) i do not mind if one of the players has hundreds of turn based games in stoke. I would like to say that I even prefer that : so much for their chances to win ah ! ah !

[Nullzone]

And of course, his/her responses are lagging and we are all there, waiting that he/she wakes up and remembers that he/she is playing with us.

Play realtime then. The player timer exists for a reason and you agreed to it when you joined a game with that timer rule. If they're not going overtime they're doing nothing wrong and violating no social contract.

If realtime isn't sufficient, then restrict your join rules to only show tables that play at a speed that feels appropriate to your taste.

[Hagardunor]

And of course, his/her responses are lagging and we are all there, waiting that he/she wakes up and remembers that he/she is playing with us.

Play realtime then. The player timer exists for a reason and you agreed to it when you joined a game with that timer rule. If they're not going overtime they're doing nothing wrong and violating no social contract.

If realtime isn't sufficient, then restrict your join rules to only show tables that play at a speed that feels appropriate to your taste.

The case that triggered the discussion is much much worse than you seem to think. The game was ready to start and we waited and waited for the overbooked player to make his move. Finally he never showed up and the game was closed without having even started. If you dont call that rude behavior I dont know what can be.

Again and again the problem is mine : I want to play with people of my choice, and hundreds+ game players are not in my list. So are players with bad karma, but nobody finds it strange that you sort your partners by karma level. So why does it seem so weird to sort them by how many games they play simultaneously. What harm does it cause to anybody ?