Aborting Everything Instead of Matchmaking Settings??

[Name_Taken]

Maybe someone can tell me what I'm missing, because something is really frustrating me and it seems like a no brainer...

It takes a while to find a game sometimes, so I start a handful of tables and wait for one to attract attention. Usually if one starts to collect players, I'll start canceling the others, because I don't want to waste everybody's time. But sometimes there will be several tables that find only 1 opponent out of 4, and in that case I don't worry too much because I figure that other 1/4 probably has other tables waiting the same as I do. Regardless, eventually a table will be ready to start, and everybody chooses "Accept" except one person who aborts. And that game almost starting has caused all the other potential tables to close, so I have to start over on the whole thing. Open some tables, wait for players, then one person aborts. After watching this a few times, and then seeing how it happens in 2 player games with the same person sometimes over and over, aborting every time right after I join, I have a theory of why this happens, and it's really obnoxious, so maybe I'm wrong and someone can correct me.

All I can guess is that it's my low ELO that the other person is rejecting, and the only reason they are doing this is because they must not know how to change matchmaking settings for the ELO range they want. And I have to imagine there are many people who do this at any given time throughout the site. Either this is a huge problem, or I'm missing something. Thanks in advance.

[Archisian]

Why do you think people shouldn't abort at a table they don't want to play in?

[BarnardsStar]

Why do you think people shouldn't abort at a table they don't want to play in?

I feel like maybe you didn’t read the whole post… here’s the one-liner answer:
Because it aborts the table for everybody else and makes the whole process a lot more arduous. They should be using filters so they don’t end up at that table in the first place.

[Archisian]

Why do you think people shouldn't abort at a table they don't want to play in?

I feel like maybe you didn’t read the whole post… here’s the one-liner answer:
Because it aborts the table for everybody else and makes the whole process a lot more arduous. They should be using filters so they don’t end up at that table in the first place.

I agree with using filters. However, I think the inconvenience of someone else should not be a factor in limiting people's freedom on which tables they want to play at. The OP hasn't suggested this, but I personally feel that there is an implication that the OP wants to make a case on some possibility of creating such limits. Otherwise, they wouldn't have complained here.

[BarnardsStar]

Yep, it sure would be terrible if people who … came to a gaming website to play games … and signed up for a game … then had to play that game.

Seriously, if they backed out of the table before the last possible moment, before everybody else accepted the game, then there would just be an empty seat and somebody else could come along and take it, and not force everybody at the table to start over. There comes a point at which, yeah, maybe they should have to play the game. Actions, consequences, etc.

[Archisian]

Yep, it sure would be terrible if people who … came to a gaming website to play games … and signed up for a game … then had to play that game.

Seriously, if they backed out of the table before the last possible moment, before everybody else accepted the game, then there would just be an empty seat and somebody else could come along and take it, and not force everybody at the table to start over. There comes a point at which, yeah, maybe they should have to play the game. Actions, consequences, etc.

Then let's get rid if the whole karma system/red thumbing. Because if a person joins a table in the last space available and the host finds their reputation to be unacceptable, following this logic, we should say too bad. The table is full, deal with it. Play with the people who joined. This can be used both ways, you know.

[FrankJones]

I have experienced this when trying to get a game of hearts or spades started.

I open a table with specific settings. Players start playing musical chairs, joining, then quitting. It can take forever to actually start the game. I don't understand why so many people do this. It will happen a dozen or two dozen times just at one table trying to start a 4-player game.

I get the impression they are jumping in the seat to "grab the seat" before anyone else does just in case they like the settings, then they check the settings and decide, "oh, I don't want to play with these settings".

I'm not sure what this has to do with the red thumb system. How did that become part of this discussion?

[BarnardsStar]

Then let's get rid if the whole karma system/red thumbing. Because if a person joins a table in the last space available and the host finds their reputation to be unacceptable, following this logic, we should say too bad. The table is full, deal with it. Play with the people who joined. This can be used both ways, you know.

Well, yeah. If the host doesn’t put any karma restrictions on the table, then yeah, they should have to deal with it. That’s not going both ways; that’s agreeing with me.

It’s not an argument for getting rid of karma or red thumbs (and I have no idea why you’re mentioning red thumbs).

[BarnardsStar]

I open a table with specific settings. Players start playing musical chairs, joining, then quitting. It can take forever to actually start the game. I don't understand why so many people do this. It will happen a dozen or two dozen times just at one table trying to start a 4-player game.

I get the impression they are jumping in the seat to "grab the seat" before anyone else does just in case they like the settings, then they check the settings and decide, "oh, I don't want to play with these settings".

Sometimes—definitely not always, but sometimes it’s because the site allows you to join multiple realtime tables and when one starts you automatically withdraw from all the others. I’ve been guilty of doing that myself, joining tables in three or four different games just because I wanna play something and am not picky about what.

[FrankJones]

I open a table with specific settings. Players start playing musical chairs, joining, then quitting. It can take forever to actually start the game. I don't understand why so many people do this. It will happen a dozen or two dozen times just at one table trying to start a 4-player game.

I get the impression they are jumping in the seat to "grab the seat" before anyone else does just in case they like the settings, then they check the settings and decide, "oh, I don't want to play with these settings".

Sometimes—definitely not always, but sometimes it’s because the site allows you to join multiple realtime tables and when one starts you automatically withdraw from all the others. I’ve been guilty of doing that myself, joining tables in three or four different games just because I wanna play something and am not picky about what.

Ah, okay, that makes sense. That probably explains the majority of those occurrences. The hypothetical reason I suggested makes little sense.