Table restrictions

[SimonzSays]

I think it would be good to be able to limit tables to players that have fewer than a certain number of games that they are already playing. I'm playing a game with someone right now who is very slow, and when I went to look at their profile they have more than 90 turn based games that they are playing. If someone wants to try and manage that many games, that is fine with me, but it will inherently slow down how quickly they play their turn, and I would like to be able to limit my tables to players that have a more reasonable number of games so that the games keep moving.

[Jest Phulin]

You seem to be equating speed of play with number of games in progress, and wanting to limit based on games in progress. However, there is already a method in place for speed of play. It's the "game speed" setting.
If you make a table that requires one move per day, and your opponent is making one move per day, it is unreasonable to complain that you want faster play. If faster play is wanted, set the game speed to be faster.

[SimonzSays]

Of course I'm equating the speed at which someone plays to how many games they're playing, the two are correlated by their very nature. Yes, I could just set it up to 24 moves per day, but then what? Just kick people out when they run out of time? That's not the point. The point is that people who are playing a large number of games cannot get around the problem of taking longer between their turns in each individual game, and that slows the game down for everyone else. This suggestion is perfectly reasonable. What was unreasonable was the level of snarkiness and contempt in your reply.

[Een]

This seems a good time to point out that we recently added an entry on communication in our FAQ
Please let's all try to get this forum to be the most kind and friendly place on the internet!
https://boardgamearena.com/#!faq?anchor ... munication

And thanks about the suggestion. Not sure if we will introduce this at some point, there is already a lot of restrictions, and a player can have many games because he is himself waiting on other players, while moving quickly on his few games with fast paced opponents.

[Jest Phulin]

OK, I'll try this with a little less snarkiness.

What functionality will be gained with this suggestion that is not already accomplished with the game speed setting?

[Sushiyum]

I thought jest's reply was perfectly polite and reasonable personally. I used to have many games on the go. I have never been late, see my 100% record. Limiting tables to reputation level may be a safer bet.

[Liallan]

I thought jest's reply was perfectly polite and reasonable personally.

Agreed. I also agree with what he said.

There might be a correlation of how many games someone is playing and how fast they take their turns. If someone has the site open and checks in a lot, it's more likely they are taking up their available playing time with other turns, when perhaps they could be returning for another turn on a same game.

But how often is that happening? It also could be they can only come on for a short period of time, they have time to catch up all current turns, but would not hang around longer anyway; that is, if some of those games came up again, they would already be gone. It's a nice coincidence when your opponent(s) happen to be around and you can take a few turns live, but if someone does not have time to hang around anyway, that will not happen.

And what Lotus Blossom said is also a possibility: that someone took more games because no turns were available. When I first started playing turn-based, the weird thing to get used to was having turns caught up and feeling like there ought to be something else to do, and taking more games so I could have more turns to play. It may be that someone with a lot of games can handle them just fine.

And it is true there's plenty of options for game speed. If you set to 1 turn per day, it's not reasonable or fair to expect more than that. While it might be nice to get more turns in than that, if you play turn-based, I think you have to accept the speed you pick. And someone who only has 5 games can end up overtime, and we should all know how true that is. Which is why I agree history and reputation say more than how many games someone has.

All that said, it's not really hurting me if they add this restriction since I never play more than about 10 games at once, other than taking up developer time. But I like to toss my opinion in.

[augustjologs]

If players are not running out of time, then there should not be any issue about how many games they currently are playing. It's unreasonable to ask players to play faster than the table's time setting.

If you want players to play faster, you'd just have to select a faster time setting. Of course, with faster setting, more players might run out of time and it'd be up to you if you want to skip them -- to enforce your faster time setting. This mechanism is already in place. Besides, there's already a limit to the number of turn based game a player can simultaneously play - I think it's the number of turn based game that player has completed. And reputation measures their game completion rate. So, those players who have 70+ simultaneous turn based game have proven they can handle that many games. Otherwise their reputation would take a hit.

Another consideration is that those players signing up for many turn based game help game tables get filled up faster. Some less popular games take time to get filled up with minimum number of players. So, restricting who can sign up could further delay their start.

I've played with players who have so many simultaneous turn based games and yet not run out of time and I've played with players who only have one turn based game and yet still run out of time. But what I discovered is that if a player has so many current turn based games and no bad reputation or games skipped, I could count on that player to play within the time setting and not run out of time.