Insane : hundreds of simultaneously played turn based games

[nik592]

My only point is and always has been that number of games played is not an automatic indicator of the quality of the player. I don't doubt there's players out there who play more games than they can handle (however, that number can frankly also be 1) and it either affects the quality of their play, or, probably more often, means they time out of games and need booting (again, for some, 1 game is enough to cause those issues). I also don't doubt there are those who can and do handle multiple hundreds (or more) games simultaneously. Avoid them if you want. Come back in a year and tell me if the quality of your opponents has improved. Even then, you'd only be talking anecdotally, as I doubt you're looking to measure the difference any more scientifically (ie. Spend 6 months not avoiding, and 6 avoiding perhaps and track the number of games where you have to boot someone, or face someone you think is playing poorly. Perhaps even check how many games said person is running when you play them).

Either way, it doesn't bother me. But just as you and others have the right to come into the forums and state what you believe about people who simultaneously play lots of games, I have a right to challenge those beliefs if I disagree with them.

[Chiffa of Kettari]

If we're talking about anecdotal evidence, than all players I've ever seen going overtime had <20 games, usually <10. So, I, personally, now think "more games = stronger commitment to BGA = safer to play"

[slimy_asparagus]

I see the occasional person up for a few games and never login into BGA again. That sort of person does not bother me. It is the sort who manages to get to 80% of a game and then disappears. Worse if they then have the audacity to come back and complain about being kicked out. (That last bit only happened once and I was not the one who kicked them out. But I had no sympathy for them.)

[nik592]

I personally think having to boot the occasional person is just part of playing of BGA. I give a fair amount of grace, but if someone hasn't turned up for several days, I boot and start a new game (typically, I only run one table of any given game). When everyone else quits, I red thumb the over time player and I will never see them again, unless they launch a new account, which I wouldn't be able to tell that they have done against the many other new players who join BGA all the time, so who cares? The problem is the specific player, not some blanket statement about the play style of that person. One could extend Chiffa's arguments (not saying they are, this is just my own thought) and say that anyone who plays less than 10 games isn't serious about their play on BGA, and I should avoid them. That would be crazy - I'm sure there are many players, probably more than play multi-hundreds of games, who play less than 10 games regularly and are reliable opponents. My experience on BGA will not be noticeably improved by indiscriminately avoiding them based on their number of games.

[Hagardunor]

....

Lol, I would say tossing out insults counts as feeding the controversy...

Lol !

I could have said instead "pour water in a glass of Château Margaux to take off the bad taste".

That's a joke, not a good one perhaps, but a joke nevertheless. Not an insult.

By the way I will stay away from the discussion now, unless it takes a funny turn.

[slimy_asparagus]

Okay I have a concrete proposal. How about BGA find ways to positively reward players with a good track record (irrespective of how many games they play simultaneously). I really don't feel BGA does this. I suspect some treat poor reputation as a badge of honour or at least with complete contempt. And in any case people seem to be able recover reputation fairly quickly.

So I would like BGA to track "punctuality track record" and to be able to filter out players on that.

[Suoivax]

....

Lol, I would say tossing out insults counts as feeding the controversy...

Lol !

I could have said instead "pour water in a glass of Château Margaux to take off the bad taste".

That's a joke, not a good one perhaps, but a joke nevertheless. Not an insult.

By the way I will stay away from the discussion now, unless it takes a funny turn.

It was more than just the junk food comment.

The whole "how can you be giving serious effort to this game with soooo many games active" thing is a bit rude.

I could say "you play so few games, how can you have the experience to be taken seriously?"

[Hagardunor]

....

Lol, I would say tossing out insults counts as feeding the controversy...

Lol !

I could have said instead "pour water in a glass of Château Margaux to take off the bad taste".

That's a joke, not a good one perhaps, but a joke nevertheless. Not an insult.

By the way I will stay away from the discussion now, unless it takes a funny turn.

It was more than just the junk food comment.

The whole "how can you be giving serious effort to this game with soooo many games active" thing is a bit rude.

I could say "you play so few games, how can you have the experience to be taken seriously?"

Since you seem to have checked my account, did you notice i have played close to 1500 games ? Is this you call "few" ?

[nik592]

Since you seem to have checked my account, did you notice i have played close to 1500 games ? Is this you call "few" ?

I believe, much like I said, Suoivax was referring generally to low numbers of simultaneous play, as opposed to specifically to you. I could take a person playing only 3 games simultaneously as not being very interested in BGA, not serious about their games, more likely to abandon their games (as Chiffa noted as well). Players have varying amounts of interest and time to give to BGA. Some like to play a lot, some like to concentrate on fewer games at once. Neither is likely to be a reliable indicator of how dedicated or reliable an opponent is, and saying that someone who chooses a play style opposite to yours is "insane", "cannot play well on (in your opinion) demanding games such as Decrypto", or any other insult you like is rude. There's nothing to stop you being so, but people will likely call you out on it.

[Hagardunor]

Since you seem to have checked my account, did you notice i have played close to 1500 games ? Is this you call "few" ?

I believe, much like I said, Suoivax was referring generally to low numbers of simultaneous play, as opposed to specifically to you. I could take a person playing only 3 games simultaneously as not being very interested in BGA, not serious about their games, more likely to abandon their games (as Chiffa noted as well). Players have varying amounts of interest and time to give to BGA. Some like to play a lot, some like to concentrate on fewer games at once. Neither is likely to be a reliable indicator of how dedicated or reliable an opponent is, and saying that someone who chooses a play style opposite to yours is "insane", "cannot play well on (in your opinion) demanding games such as Decrypto", or any other insult you like is rude. There's nothing to stop you being so, but people will likely call you out on it.

I make sometimes mistakes when reading english as this is not my mother tongue, and I most probably misinterpreted the post.

Sorry for that