Not enough users

[Ceaseless]

The op account is almost four years old and they only played a couple dozen games starting a few months back. You could assume that poster has experience here as well which is why I think the conversation should've been about what they actually said and not chess. What they basically stated was "I would like to see the company expand to enhance the user experience". I don't understand the opposition to that.

You go talking about "what they actually said" and then jump over to "what they basically said", lol. Let's take a look at what they actually said.

"Waiting too long for games, BGA needs to attract a larger user base."

Yes because people are taking a negative approach to what the op said. So I said it in a way which can be clearly understood that what op is saying is beneficial for all parties.

Obvious question, why are they waiting too long for games? A quick look at their profile would indicate their game choice would have something to do with it. A game that is never going to be particularly popular on BGA not because it's rarely played or known about, but because the competition for it is far too fierce in an area BGA has no reason to focus on.

Chess, Chess, Chess

That's because people read what the OP actually said and looked at what they actually did. You said something unrelated in a way too vague to have any relevance.

[GTSchemer]

I personally felt that it became much, much harder to find a real-time game once the new lobby was added.

This is entirely anecdotal and could be false, of course. If it were true, I wonder if it's because players using the new lobby filter on preferences and can't readily see all waiting real-time lobbies with all settings easily, like in the old system.

[Zozoken]

That said, everyone should go play the great abstract game "Donuts" by Bruno Cathala.

A bit off-topic, but this is a re-implementation of the game Insert which is no longer available on here (because Donuts replaces it). So if you've been wanting games of Insert, you can play it again!

[ChiefPointThief]

I personally felt that it became much, much harder to find a real-time game once the new lobby was added.

This is entirely anecdotal and could be false, of course. If it were true, I wonder if it's because players using the new lobby filter on preferences and can't readily see all waiting real-time lobbies with all settings easily, like in the old system.

There are things that can be done to help with being able to find tables. I don't know why people are acting as if this is not the truth. Another is the ability to search for arena and regular games easily.

[ChiefPointThief]

and there is no way for BGA to force more people to play what you may want them to play.

"Force" is the wrong word. But they can definitely redirect some of the traffic they do have. Like I mentioned already look at the bga award announcement. Not only did captain flip get a huge boost but several posters including myself mentioned how they weren't going to vote because they didn't play all of the games. Now if bga listened they will do a better job of handling that this year. So all games that will be nominated will get more attention from users who would like to participate in the vote as long as bga gives people a heads up. Bga has the power to spread out the user base.

The issue that OP posted is not a problem for me. I'm in an awesome group on BGA that makes it much easier to get tables together for games with long wait times.

You mean you acted proactively the way people have been saying the OP needs to?

Yeah but you just don't have the blueprint on how to get the best out of the site once you first arrive. Solutions have to be learned.

[ChiefPointThief]

That's because people read what the OP actually said and looked at what they actually did. You said something unrelated in a way too vague to have any relevance.

You don't know what op did because it is impossible to know what games they've queued for. This is what op wrote. "Waiting too long for games, BGA needs to attract a larger user base."

What is your actual stance? That bga doesn't need to attract a larger user base?

[Stroom]

More players doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to play that one obscure game that no-one else is going to play.

BGA is adding a new game almost every week. It's not going to be feasible that the player base would increase at the same pace. You'd basically need 1000 extra active players on the platform, willing to play that game. You will eventually end up with "dead" games. In order to set up some games, you would have to find the players by yourself. Make friends, ask them to play the game with you etc.

Saying that BGA has to do something about it is just ridiculous. Entitlement. How can they force people to play specific games? Some of the games are not that fun anyway, but there they are. No-one is going to delete them either.

If there is a single player who wants to play a game, he starts a lobby and no-one sees it, then no-one is going to join. Simple as that. In the old lobby we had a list of all active games. Maybe it would help if there was a "unpopular games lobby" that people who'd play anything, could see and join those games.

But there is no way to keep up with ACTIVE_PLAYERS/NUMBER_OF_GAMES level. Game numbers increase faster than active player numbers. And that is OK.

[Ceaseless]

That's because people read what the OP actually said and looked at what they actually did. You said something unrelated in a way too vague to have any relevance.

You don't know what op did because it is impossible to know what games they've queued for. This is what op wrote. "Waiting too long for games, BGA needs to attract a larger user base."

What is your actual stance? That bga doesn't need to attract a larger user base?

If they can't even manage to get 1 game, even with features existing that tells them someone is hosting it, they've chosen quite the fringe option. I've played several less popular games and managed to get some games even before I knew about that feature.

My stance is that their issue isn't BGA not getting enough users. Would BGA like to get more users? Probably, but that's a separate matter from the issue at hand.

[Meeplelowda]

That said, everyone should go play the great abstract game "Donuts" by Bruno Cathala.

A bit off-topic, but this is a re-implementation of the game Insert which is no longer available on here (because Donuts replaces it). So if you've been wanting games of Insert, you can play it again!

Yes, Donuts was the reskin of Insert. I saw the announcement about Insert being available again, but haven't tried it since they brought it back. I have some concerns about the already small player base being divided between two skins of exactly the same game. To clarify, the smaller player base is not within BGA's control. Having the same game implemented separately, as opposed to the different graphics being options within one of the two, is within their control.[/sidetrack]

[thoun]

That said, everyone should go play the great abstract game "Donuts" by Bruno Cathala.

A bit off-topic, but this is a re-implementation of the game Insert which is no longer available on here (because Donuts replaces it). So if you've been wanting games of Insert, you can play it again!

Yes, Donuts was the reskin of Insert. I saw the announcement about Insert being available again, but haven't tried it since they brought it back. I have some concerns about the already small player base being divided between two skins of exactly the same game. To clarify, the smaller player base is not within BGA's control. Having the same game implemented separately, as opposed to the different graphics being options within one of the two, is within their control.[/sidetrack]

I don't know where you saw that, but I highly doubt Insert will ever come back, Donuts just takes its place.