Insane : hundreds of simultaneously played turn based games

[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.

Plus I could easily return your argument : why do hundreds+ turn based game players accumulate so many simultaneous games ?

That's probably because they dont like to wait for others to play and dont want to fall short of playing turns for a too long time. In french we call that "vouloir le beurre et l'argent du beurre"

[nik592]

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 ?

It doesn't cause harm, you can do as you please. Many of us have tried to point out however that your logic is arbitrary. Someone with a poor karma score has either been behaving badly around the place or (more likely) running over time limits and being booted from games. Those people have a history of being poor playing opponents, so restricting them makes sense. Someone who plays hundreds of games is not necessarily someone who doesn't take their turns on time, or disappears from games altogether. Someone who plays only a few games is not necessarily someone who always plays on time and doesn't disappear altogether. Nor is either a good indicator of their ability/engagement/etc.

To put it another way, if I said, I hate Game XYZ, anyone who thinks that game is good must be silly and wouldn't be worth my time playing with. So I want to limit my player choices to exclude anyone who plays Game XYZ. Most people would probably say that the fact that a person enjoys Game XYZ does not impact how they play a totally different game, and I'm probably going to be missing out on people who might be very worthy opponents. To take it a step further, certain types of arbitrary limitation, such as deciding that a person's country/age/gender are indicative of whether they're worth playing with are actively frowned upon, for obvious reasons. Yes, this is not the same as those, it doesn't cause harm as those kinds of exclusions may, but it's still faulty logic. Many games does not imply a poorly mannered or engaged player.

As I said, you can do as you please, but just be aware that I would guess it's unlikely your suggestion will ever be implemented, as there are many more pressing issues to be dealt with, and I don't think it would be easy (maybe impossible) to implement either. But then, so are many other suggestions raised on this website, so if it makes you feel better to have raised it, then I guess you're done here.

That's probably because they dont like to wait for others to play and dont want to fall short of playing turns for a too long time. In french we call that "vouloir le beurre et l'argent du beurre"

You're somewhat correct in that I come on to BGA multiple times per day and I like to find games ready to play when I do. But when I come on to BGA, I want to play games, so I play them! Which is in opposition to your idea that people with many games can't possibly play them all. Games are presented to you in order of time remaining - you are given any you're over time on first, then games with least amount of time remaining. So theoretically, each time you come on, you are starting from the oldest games in queue waiting for you, and providing you come on sufficiently often and/or stay for long enough, it's easy enough to manage hundreds of games. If playing BGA is one of your main hobbies because you're retired/unable to work that's entirely possible. I do work part-time, and also have two small children, one of whom is with me on the days I don't work and I easily find time to manage 60+ games simultaneously and almost never run out of time (except during tournaments, which is for entirely different reasons).

Right now, I've actually cut back on the games I have running because I currently have a video game I'm playing during evenings, which took away from the time I normally spent on BGA. I don't want to run my games over time anymore than anyone playing with me, because I want to maintain my reputation so I can play more games. So I'd probably argue that more games in progress (and a good reputation) probably indicates a player who is more likely to stick within their time limits and be engaged in the game because they enjoy it.

I believe the English equivalent to your French saying is "having your cake and eating it too" - that is, you're saying that these people who play many games don't want to wait for others to play but have no problem holding others up. As someone who plays more games than you think is ok, I will say I have no issue waiting for others, so long as they are in time limit. If I am frustrated that I can't find games to play, I'll often add a few more to my queue (but it tends to top out around 60). If I feel like I am regularly finding too many games waiting for me, I'll let some finish and not start new ones to replace them (that's how I got down from 60 to 30 - I didn't quit or allow myself to be booted from any games). As I said, I have no desire to hold other players up, nor do I want to let myself be in a situation where I can be booted. So again, your assumption (in my case, at least) is incorrect.

[Fuchur]

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.

Instead of waiting one week for this guy, why didn't you join some other tables and played there ?

[Hagardunor]

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.

Instead of waiting one week for this guy, why didn't you join some other tables and played there ?

You're right. In fact, this was probably the best I had to do, but did not for three reasons :
1) I did not check this player, only when it was expelled (out of time) did I notice that non only had he 200+ games in progress, but he also had 0% Karma !!
2) I was playing with the administrator of the table who is a friend and I was reluctant to leave his game
3) it did not come to my mind that the person could be so rude; until then all players I met were perfect, so I was off guard

Whatever, this made me think that there is a flaw in BGA handling of bad players in turn based games. That's why I am still so upset.

[Hagardunor]

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 ?

It doesn't cause harm, you can do as you please. Many of us have tried to point out however that your logic is arbitrary. Someone with a poor karma score has either been behaving badly around the place or (more likely) running over time limits and being booted from games. Those people have a history of being poor playing opponents, so restricting them makes sense. Someone who plays hundreds of games is not necessarily someone who doesn't take their turns on time, or disappears from games altogether. Someone who plays only a few games is not necessarily someone who always plays on time and doesn't disappear altogether. Nor is either a good indicator of their ability/engagement/etc.

That's exactly the point !!! How do you prevent bad karma players to enter the game ? TODAY YOU CAN'T for turn basedf games if you are not the administrator of the table. And this is exactly what happened with the guy I'm speaking since the beginning : HE HAD A 0% KARMA and registered to the table neveretheless !!! And until now I have never succeeded to find a turn based table with karma limit so I am forced to enter wide opened tables which makes you at risk seing one nitwit like the one we speak of entering the game.
In real time game this would have never happened because I see which tables ask for minimum karma, or I can refuse to play in a game where bad karma have entered after I enrolled in them.

So at least, implementing a setting in your profile with a karma limit (I don't think you will challenge this proposal) would be a good start to help solving my problem.

To put it another way, if I said, I hate Game XYZ, anyone who thinks that game is good must be silly and wouldn't be worth my time playing with. So I want to limit my player choices to exclude anyone who plays Game XYZ. Most people would probably say that the fact that a person enjoys Game XYZ does not impact how they play a totally different game, and I'm probably going to be missing out on people who might be very worthy opponents. To take it a step further, certain types of arbitrary limitation, such as deciding that a person's country/age/gender are indicative of whether they're worth playing with are actively frowned upon, for obvious reasons. Yes, this is not the same as those, it doesn't cause harm as those kinds of exclusions may, but it's still faulty logic. Many games does not imply a poorly mannered or engaged player.

Your example is not relevant. That's the kindest way I can comment it.

As I said, you can do as you please, but just be aware that I would guess it's unlikely your suggestion will ever be implemented, as there are many more pressing issues to be dealt with, and I don't think it would be easy (maybe impossible) to implement either. But then, so are many other suggestions raised on this website, so if it makes you feel better to have raised it, then I guess you're done here.

Oh no ! I am not done!
I can effectively understand that there are so many more urgent problems in the pile that mine will never be addressed, and I will never blame the developpers and administrators of this site for that, because they do a fantastic job !
But this is just a warning to them : be cautious with that because making superb implementations of superb games is of no use if the atmosphere turns bad

That's probably because they dont like to wait for others to play and dont want to fall short of playing turns for a too long time. In french we call that "vouloir le beurre et l'argent du beurre"

You're somewhat correct in that I come on to BGA multiple times per day and I like to find games ready to play when I do. But when I come on to BGA, I want to play games, so I play them! Which is in opposition to your idea that people with many games can't possibly play them all. Games are presented to you in order of time remaining - you are given any you're over time on first, then games with least amount of time remaining. So theoretically, each time you come on, you are starting from the oldest games in queue waiting for you, and providing you come on sufficiently often and/or stay for long enough, it's easy enough to manage hundreds of games. If playing BGA is one of your main hobbies because you're retired/unable to work that's entirely possible. I do work part-time, and also have two small children, one of whom is with me on the days I don't work and I easily find time to manage 60+ games simultaneously and almost never run out of time (except during tournaments, which is for entirely different reasons).

You probably did not think about it, but you are close to what I believe. Although 60+ games would be for me much too many to really appreciate the games, this does not sound to me as "insane". The player that trigerred my anger was playing over 200 games simultaneously. THAT is my point.

I believe the English equivalent to your French saying is "having your cake and eating it too" - that is, you're saying that these people who play many games don't want to wait for others to play but have no problem holding others up. As someone who plays more games than you think is ok, I will say I have no issue waiting for others, so long as they are in time limit. If I am frustrated that I can't find games to play, I'll often add a few more to my queue (but it tends to top out around 60). If I feel like I am regularly finding too many games waiting for me, I'll let some finish and not start new ones to replace them (that's how I got down from 60 to 30 - I didn't quit or allow myself to be booted from any games). As I said, I have no desire to hold other players up, nor do I want to let myself be in a situation where I can be booted. So again, your assumption (in my case, at least) is incorrect.

Exactly : "vous apportez de l'eau à mon moulin" would be the appropriate french saying for what you write above . My idea, if I could, would probably to set the limit somewhere between 30 and 50 simultaneous games. Gamers having over this limit I would not like to play with.

Above that, our discussion drove me to think of a karma setting in one's profile that gives you the same management possibility in you turn based games as in your real time games. Thanks for making me think of that

[Jellby]

How do you prevent bad karma players to enter the game ? TODAY YOU CAN'T for turn basedf games if you are not the administrator of the table

Well, you chose to join a table that's open for 0-karma players. You can't change the settings of the tables you join, but you can choose which tables you join. You can create tables with karma restrictions, or set an automatic filter to search for them. Or you can send a message to the table administrator asking them to put in a karma restriction.

[nik592]

How do you prevent bad karma players to enter the game ?

Exactly as Jellby posted. You can impact tables you create, or you can set a restriction for games you are automatically joined to. You shouldn't be able to impact tables created by others (apart from not joining them), though you can ask, and if the administrator of that table was a friend and restricting by karma is important, then I am surprised you did not ask them to make a karma restriction.

You probably did not think about it, but you are close to what I believe. Although 60+ games would be for me much too many to really appreciate the games, this does not sound to me as "insane". The player that trigerred my anger was playing over 200 games simultaneously. THAT is my point.

I can only speak to my experience of playing 60+ games, though I have at times pushed the limit higher, and ran at about 100+ games for a bit, but found I was having to put more time into BGA than I wanted to (but was still able to manage my games within time limits). But I work, and have two young children to manage, other hobbies besides. For someone who may be without family responsibilities, retired or unable to work, 200+ games is completely workable, as others have pointed out.

[Suoivax]

You probably did not think about it, but you are close to what I believe. Although 60+ games would be for me much too many to really appreciate the games, this does not sound to me as "insane". The player that trigerred my anger was playing over 200 games simultaneously. THAT is my point.

I'm willing to bet that you have played many games with people that have 100-200 games active before, and just never noticed it, Until this one guy bugged out. unless you actually check every opponents profile?

It's really not that big of a deal, especially for people with certain jobs that have a lot of downtime. (I have to keep four CNC machines running, if nothing breaks, I have 10 hours of nothing to do every day).

[Hagardunor]

You probably did not think about it, but you are close to what I believe. Although 60+ games would be for me much too many to really appreciate the games, this does not sound to me as "insane". The player that trigerred my anger was playing over 200 games simultaneously. THAT is my point.

I'm willing to bet that you have played many games with people that have 100-200 games active before, and just never noticed it, Until this one guy bugged out. unless you actually check every opponents profile?

I just looked today to know how much hundreds+ I have played with on Decrypto (not enough time to search for other games, plus games like Decrypto are in my opinion those which tolerate multigaming the less).

Here is the number of games those are playing right now.

0,1,1,4,7,7,7,8,9,10,12,12,13,15,16,16,21,22,27,28,32,32,35,37,41,130,196

None is above 40, which means close to the limit i guess should not be crossed, except 2 crackpots which ELOs stink. So that's not so many as you said.

Happy for you that you did not bet effectively

[Suoivax]

Something, something, insufficient sample size