Not enough users

[Ceaseless]

If that’s how you take it ok but I don’t agree. The headline is the headline no matter who wrote it. If I were to make this same thread and was referring to strands before bga announced it in the summer challenge your reply wouldn’t hold. You could say nobody was playing it because it’s terrible and I need to pick better choices but that would be false. Bga did something (put it in the summer challenge) and it went from a few games at a time to now there are currently 85 tables. Also assuming bga being able to add players will help your game isn’t a bad assumption. Even if only x amount of new players play your game out of new subscribers it’s still better than the current state.

"I am the greatest Chess player of all time" is not the same headline from you as it would be by say, Magnus Carlsen. "Why are all of my opponent's cancelling vs me?" by username "HAHAHAHA NOOB!" is not the same headline as the same question from "Bob".

These are horrible examples. These examples would be directly about the op. Of course it would matter in that situation In this thread the op wrote about a site issue.

Not sure why your quote of mine cuts out so much of my post, but the examples are fine. They show that who writes the headline can impact the message in said headline. The OP wrote about something they said was a site issue based on their experience in not finding an opponent. The reason they weren't finding an opponent was not due to a site issue, but factors related to their decisions. The issue in question was an individual one.

[ChiefPointThief]

Not sure why your quote of mine cuts out so much of my post, but the examples are fine. They show that who writes the headline can impact the message in said headline. The OP wrote about something they said was a site issue based on their experience in not finding an opponent. The reason they weren't finding an opponent was not due to a site issue, but factors related to their decisions. The issue in question was an individual one.

I could understand if the op wrote this in the chess forum. I left out the second paragraph because you made it about chess again when I believe the overall issue is not being able to get tables. There are several reasons as to why someone cannot get tables. What you are suggesting is that a new thread needs to be created for every reason that someone has the issue of getting tables. That’s seems excessive and a waste of forum space. Imagine 10 threads on the main page saying “hard to get tables” from ten different users who play 10 different games.

[Stroom]

I find the entitlement of demanding BGA to do something about this, really stupid. Do something yourself if you want to play the game. Try to find like-minded people and form a community that regularly plays. Just like in real life. Most likely there just aren't enough players to do it and that's fine.

If there are eventually 1000 different board games and 20000 concurrent players... it is really unreasonable to think that the players should be evenly divided between all the games. The matchmaker lobby is a stupid idea in this sense - it can't automatically match players for all different games, especially as the player counts per game become increasingly smaller. Rather organize games in a lobby, not the new one-game-interface. You can see other games lobbies too. And you need a common lobby list for less played games. That's as much as you can do passively in order to make more games visible to the users.

But to ask for someone to actively create ads for boring games to cater for a handful of players... really? Not worth it. What brings in money is to work with popular games and do things that the masses are interested in.

Some game communities are dead. $#!7 Happens.

[Ceaseless]

Not sure why your quote of mine cuts out so much of my post, but the examples are fine. They show that who writes the headline can impact the message in said headline. The OP wrote about something they said was a site issue based on their experience in not finding an opponent. The reason they weren't finding an opponent was not due to a site issue, but factors related to their decisions. The issue in question was an individual one.

I could understand if the op wrote this in the chess forum. I left out the second paragraph because you made it about chess again when I believe the overall issue is not being able to get tables. There are several reasons as to why someone cannot get tables. What you are suggesting is that a new thread needs to be created for every reason that someone has the issue of getting tables. That’s seems excessive and a waste of forum space. Imagine 10 threads on the main page saying “hard to get tables” from ten different users who play 10 different games.

People write things in the wrong forums all the time. My second paragraph included things like you rewriting a new hypothetical thread and then trying to act like I'd give a completely different thread the same reply, which you ignored.

There being several threads for different discussions would be ideal, yes. Having a giant blob thread with 10 wildly different discussions on different issues would be annoying to try and follow. If 10 people had topics titled "BGA issue" with one of them having an issue with the chat, another lag, another getting paired, another with trouble following the rules, we'd not need them all merged into 1 big thread even though they are all labelled "BGA issues".

Anyways, it seems this thread has pretty much been resolved. The OP's issue was solved pretty quickly and easily. I doubt there's much point in posting in this thread anymore, so it's unlikely I'll bother.

[Zozoken]

The only thing I'd like to add is that BGA is consciously aware of the issue and made a notification bell for real-time tables. You can go on to do other things and then get an alert when a real-time table gets made. I find the feature pretty handy, though it doesn't seem to impact how many real-time tables get made.

[ChiefPointThief]

The only thing I'd like to add is that BGA is consciously aware of the issue and made a notification bell for real-time tables. You can go on to do other things and then get an alert when a real-time table gets made. I find the feature pretty handy, though it doesn't seem to impact how many real-time tables get made.

This is an example of bga doing something by not being stagnant and enhancing their product to offer a better user experience. I too find the feature very handy and have turned on the notification for several games that I play that are not too popular. I have seen positive results.

Not sure why your quote of mine cuts out so much of my post, but the examples are fine. They show that who writes the headline can impact the message in said headline. The OP wrote about something they said was a site issue based on their experience in not finding an opponent. The reason they weren't finding an opponent was not due to a site issue, but factors related to their decisions. The issue in question was an individual one.

I could understand if the op wrote this in the chess forum. I left out the second paragraph because you made it about chess again when I believe the overall issue is not being able to get tables. There are several reasons as to why someone cannot get tables. What you are suggesting is that a new thread needs to be created for every reason that someone has the issue of getting tables. That’s seems excessive and a waste of forum space. Imagine 10 threads on the main page saying “hard to get tables” from ten different users who play 10 different games.

People write things in the wrong forums all the time. My second paragraph included things like you rewriting a new hypothetical thread and then trying to act like I'd give a completely different thread the same reply, which you ignored.

There being several threads for different discussions would be ideal, yes. Having a giant blob thread with 10 wildly different discussions on different issues would be annoying to try and follow. If 10 people had topics titled "BGA issue" with one of them having an issue with the chat, another lag, another getting paired, another with trouble following the rules, we'd not need them all merged into 1 big thread even though they are all labelled "BGA issues".

Anyways, it seems this thread has pretty much been resolved. The OP's issue was solved pretty quickly and easily. I doubt there's much point in posting in this thread anymore, so it's unlikely I'll bother.

"Waiting too long for tables". There was one discussion being had here which is wait times. Just like there is one discussion being had in the Games wanted for bga thread. Instead of having over 1600 different threads for each game that is wanted on this site users collectively post their very different games that they would like to see come to the site for everyone's convenience. Otherwise every other thread in this forum would be "bring this game to bga please". Bga themselves see the benefits of this method and even pinned it to the top of the suggestion page.

[MANNY-OLIVIA]

*Moderators have removed this comment due to inappropriate content.

[Cappa]

I find the entitlement of demanding BGA to do something about this, really stupid. Do something yourself if you want to play the game. Try to find like-minded people and form a community that regularly plays. Just like in real life. Most likely there just aren't enough players to do it and that's fine.

If there are eventually 1000 different board games and 20000 concurrent players... it is really unreasonable to think that the players should be evenly divided between all the games. The matchmaker lobby is a stupid idea in this sense - it can't automatically match players for all different games, especially as the player counts per game become increasingly smaller. Rather organize games in a lobby, not the new one-game-interface. You can see other games lobbies too. And you need a common lobby list for less played games. That's as much as you can do passively in order to make more games visible to the users.

But to ask for someone to actively create ads for boring games to cater for a handful of players... really? Not worth it. What brings in money is to work with popular games and do things that the masses are interested in.

Some game communities are dead. $#!7 Happens.

Some people think it's everyone else's fault except their own

[ChiefPointThief]

If there are eventually 1000 different board games and 20000 concurrent players... it is really unreasonable to think that the players should be evenly divided between all the games.

It has been awhile since I've read this thread but did anyone actually have this expectation?

But to ask for someone to actively create ads for boring games to cater for a handful of players... really?

Did anyone have this expectation either? Also you've been here eight years and played 30,000 games. 99% of which have been hanabi. So as for boring games you've basically deemed almost none of the games here are worthy of your time.

What brings in money is to work with popular games and do things that the masses are interested in.

You know what the masses like? Things like the summer challenge and bga awards. Like I've already mentioned there are things that bga can do to increase the community for games using these types of events. The summer and winter challenges don't even require you to play the games to achieve the reward. They could do something like offer double the gift points for playing games released during that month or whatever other reward they think fits to get people to play them. With the bga awards they could let people know months in advance of at least the games that will be nominated at that point and require players to play in at least half the games of that category to vote instead of telling people the week of the vote.

Some game communities are dead. $#!7 Happens.

The more people to enter communities the longer they stay alive

[Stroom]

If there are eventually 1000 different board games and 20000 concurrent players... it is really unreasonable to think that the players should be evenly divided between all the games.

It has been awhile since I've read this thread but did anyone actually have this expectation?

This is an explanation that there clearly are not enough active players to make all of the games have active communities. Therefore complaining about this is irrational.

But to ask for someone to actively create ads for boring games to cater for a handful of players... really?

Did anyone have this expectation either? Also you've been here eight years and played 30,000 games. 99% of which have been hanabi. So as for boring games you've basically deemed almost none of the games here are worthy of your time.

You seem to have this kind of expectation. I play Hanabi in here because it is quick. Also it is interesting for me as it helps me tune my brain into concentration mode - fast turnover etc. When I play longer games, I prefer to play them offline. Or I play on dedicated platforms that have better gameplay than BGA.

What brings in money is to work with popular games and do things that the masses are interested in.

You know what the masses like? Things like the summer challenge and bga awards. Like I've already mentioned there are things that bga can do to increase the community for games using these types of events. The summer and winter challenges don't even require you to play the games to achieve the reward. They could do something like offer double the gift points for playing games released during that month or whatever other reward they think fits to get people to play them. With the bga awards they could let people know months in advance of at least the games that will be nominated at that point and require players to play in at least half the games of that category to vote instead of telling people the week of the vote.

These are things that you like. And these do not solve the problem for long. The game will be dead again in no time. And there are so many games that these events won't be able to cover all these games anyway. OR there are so many events going on at the same time that people would rather play on a few events not all of them.

The more people to enter communities the longer they stay alive

Unnecessary. Just find online friends and ask them to play that dead game with you. No need to force active communities to exist for all of those games.