Auto-start + spectators chat + many little things (May 8th update)

[compte obelète]

Many small improvements today (May 8th 2020).

Auto-start

Now, when a realtime game table is full, you go automatically to the "accept game start" screen.

Spectator chat

But there are more situations where this is causing problems than the opposite. And in real life, you would not want to let anyone come and start discussing around your game table while you are focused on your game.

Many small things and fixes

The Auto-start and the Spectator chat ban are very good improvements.

I've been frustrated about waiting for the table to start when it's already full. I don't think 'managing the table' is a common need. The table setting could be set beforehand to prevent 'undesirable players' (ie low reputation). Besides, the table creator can expel anyone (except the last joiner) before the game auto-starts. Needing to expel the last joiner is probably a rare case, not worth the hassle.

What's frustrating for other players too is seeing the table full, then the table creator gets picky, kicks out the last joiner, and the rest of the table gets too wait even longer for the table to get filled and for the game to start - a recipe for leaving the table, which just execerbates the problem.

As for the chat ban. I really like these. Chats are annoying during the game. I'm concentrating on the game, and some random chat pops up. So distracting - more distracting even it's from spectator who's not even a player.

You are just a anti-community

[Shaid]

I've been a member for a couple of years and met some fantastic people and really enjoy the community that I am a part of. We meet regularly, we chat, we enjoy one another's company. For this reason, I feel a bit like the kid who loses recess because 1-2 students make bad choices. Instead of punishing those kids, everyone loses recess. It feels really unfair and honestly, it makes me seek different ways to implement chat anyway. However, alternative solutions are just difficult and fiddly and it is frustrating because the BGA chat worked well. Again, if there are some concerns for misuse--then, surely there can be a moderator button. I also feel some frustration because I feel that I've been a premium member since the beginning and yet, I'm being punished for some new, "bored", individuals.

Regarding the table start, surely you can see that forcing someone to start a table when they aren't ready isn't a good idea? They aren't there to accept anyway. It feels like it fulfills a selfish need of the participant and doesn't really consider the table maker at all. Often those individuals that are wanting the table to start cannot create the table because they are not premium. So in order to accommodate those individuals we punish the premium members? Also, it's frustrating because my preferences/settings for the table reset each new table, so even if I wanted to filter out unwanted individuals-it again, becomes fiddly and time consuming. Moreover, the cooperative games need some communication prior to pressing start. IRL, if I had a table of co-op or even a table that is new. I may want to review some material, info, questions.

The removal of these features, chat and table start in the hands of the table creator, makes the game less personal and more automatic. Maybe that is the direction that BGA wants to go? These features remove the sense of community that we have built and the enjoyment of playing with friends. Instead it makes it more robotic, "start" "play" "end". I can do that with an app on my phone. I came to BGA for the people.

bright!

[Shaid]

So prior to playing on BGA, I used to play online BloodBowl on a site called Fumbbl. Since every game on there had an impact (both in terms of the coach ranking, similar to ELO, and player development) there was a full on division between 'coach' chatting, and between the spectators. The spectators were allowed a few interactions like /applause (if I recall) so they could acknowledge a good play and the coaches would hear an applause sound effect, but there was no direct interaction. That feels right to me, especially in something like the Arena mode on here - let the spectators chat with each other, discuss strategy, rules etc, without affecting the game. Outside of arena, I have to say that player and spectators having a chat with each other at the game table would be quite rude, as it would in a tabletop game. It's rather like someone texting friends while a game is going on. I can justify a wave action (click on a friend, let them know you're watching, and let them decide what to do at the end of the game), but for the most part, I don't feel like spectator chat is a good thing. Honestly, if you allowed every player at a table the option to anonymously veto spectator chat, I think most times someone would take that veto. We already get notifications if friends are online, so maybe that part of the system could be where the fix is implemented? That way, the table talk isn't interrupted.

The idea that someone had about letting the spectators join in with the table chat at the end of the game would seem to fix most of the issues, though I would still like to see a separate spectator room too

I respect your opinion but I think you are very wrong when you use a personal opinion to affirm that there is always someone like that at a table. At the tables that I frequent the discontent with the changes is practically unanimous. We made a lot of friends on BGA and they often want to interact with each other even without playing. It was never a problem.

[Deranged]

A game without table talk is a game not worth playing.

I've found a workaround for the autostart! I just invite a friend of mine who's nearly always offline, so the game can't start until I kick him from the table again ^^.

[augustjologs]

Remember the time when people were complaining that the table creator wouldn't start the table that's already full or reached the minimum number of players required because the table creator's screen didn't update to show that the table is full already? On his end, it's still showing a few more empty seats. The auto-start helped fix that frustrating wait. It's really a good improvement.

The auto-start just automtically brings the game screen to the 'accept/refuse' the game start. It does not actually start the game or the timer, so there is no timing out. Also, at the accept/refuse screen, the table host could still see who joined and if there's an undesirable last joiner, the host could still click refuse to start the game and expel whoever he wants. The ability/control of the table creator is still there; it's just on the next screen. In reality the player last to join be that undesirable player that should be expelled is not a common occurence. Most of the time, it's just a regular player and the game gets on the way much sooner because of auto-start.

I like this improvement.

[ViolentSilence]

I respect your opinion but I think you are very wrong when you use a personal opinion to affirm that there is always someone like that at a table. At the tables that I frequent the discontent with the changes is practically unanimous. We made a lot of friends on BGA and they often want to interact with each other even without playing. It was never a problem.

What you tend to find with things like this is when some people are strongly opinionated about something, people will publicly agree with them to avoid an argument/being judged, but the fact is, it is really poor etiquette to talk to other people while a game is going on. Try using a phone often at a table top in real life! Please note the conditional language - What I said was that I THINK (and quite strongly), that if you anonymously polled people about whether people should be talking to the spectators during a game, in most groups someone would find it objectionable. I didn't say that there was always a person like that, just that most times someone would consider it rude (because it is). What a system would need to avoid is making people feel bad because their reasonable requests weren't listened to. It would be egregious if a player got red thumbed for expecting other players to talk to the players at the table instead of chatting with their friend nearby...

[postmans]

I respect your opinion but I think you are very wrong when you use a personal opinion to affirm that there is always someone like that at a table. At the tables that I frequent the discontent with the changes is practically unanimous. We made a lot of friends on BGA and they often want to interact with each other even without playing. It was never a problem.

What you tend to find with things like this is when some people are strongly opinionated about something, people will publicly agree with them to avoid an argument/being judged, but the fact is, it is really poor etiquette to talk to other people while a game is going on. Try using a phone often at a table top in real life! Please note the conditional language - What I said was that I THINK (and quite strongly), that if you anonymously polled people about whether people should be talking to the spectators during a game, in most groups someone would find it objectionable. I didn't say that there was always a person like that, just that most times someone would consider it rude (because it is). What a system would need to avoid is making people feel bad because their reasonable requests weren't listened to. It would be egregious if a player got red thumbed for expecting other players to talk to the players at the table instead of chatting with their friend nearby...

I think the comparison to a phone is off. You talk here to the whole table, not 1 person. The phone is more similar to the PMs here. In my IRL board game evenings I play with more social oriented rather than competitive oriented players. And it's really common to go to an other table ask how it's going, or when they will be finished to see if we wait to combine or not. That's the same we want to use this functionality for here. I think the distinction is that some players are here more for the social aspect, and others more for the competitive aspect. I do a bit of both and as such in my Checkers game where I play somebody I don't know I don't really see the benefit if one of my or their friends drops by and says hi. It's 1v1 so if they are aimed at 1 player they might as well do it in PM. On my Hanabi tables however the spectators often know everybody or 75-80% of the table, as such they want to say hi to everybody, not just to me.

The nice thing is that we don't have to be restricted by how things work in real life. Because we are online there are extra options we can use, which are not possible online. I think a lot of the solutions mentioned here go in a direction that works for both ends. Things like blocking this per table/person in the end accommodate both the players who want to block out spectator chat and those who don't. Why deny the other group their ideal situation if we can both have it the way we want?

[beri]

Oddly enough, little more than an hour ago, a spectator was able to chat at my table of Hanabi (a friend of my teammates’), but a few minutes ago I was unable to do so at my friends’ table.

[Ankeszu]

The auto-start just automtically brings the game screen to the 'accept/refuse' the game start. It does not actually start the game or the timer, so there is no timing out. Also, at the accept/refuse screen, the table host could still see who joined and if there's an undesirable last joiner, the host could still click refuse to start the game and expel whoever he wants. The ability/control of the table creator is still there; it's just on the next screen. In reality the player last to join be that undesirable player that should be expelled is not a common occurence. Most of the time, it's just a regular player and the game gets on the way much sooner because of auto-start.

Have you actually tried to Refuse on that screen?
I tried. Two times. At the same table. (As a player but not table creator; I guess the table creator didn't experience the problem as she was able to change the settings in the meantime between first and second start screen.). Each time the page looked like it went back to the lobby, but was totally unresponsive and didn't allow me to quit the table (and chat, if I remember correctly), regardless of refreshing. I had to use another tab to quit the game. https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=17185

One other thing I don't like about this autostart is that if host is afk (and we know it and are okay with it), then while waiting for him to be back, other players can't check anything else on BGA in the meantime (for example, reading forum, checking group or someones profile) - as start screen prevents seeing it all.

[postmans]

I only realized in a recent game, but spectators (players not sitting on the table) can't talk also before the game started (they also can't after the game finished).

Three issues we had in that one game with the before the game: (as background table was restricted to group and by accident had wrong level restriction). One player wanted to ask if he could join in spite of the table limitations (they knew I would be fine with it likely), this was not possible because they couldn't speak.
A similar one: player wanted to say they would join after their current game was over, but couldn't without sitting in on the table.
And finally (yup was a bit of a weird game): I had an interesting idea to try some variant/playstyle which was denoted in the table description. Players wanted to discuss the details before committing to join.

All-in-all the spectator talk limitation is really limiting in games which are more about having fun with friends, especially if part of them are on the table, part of them looking on and joining the fun. And especially so before/after games if we'd like to ask the table who's playing next game and if we can join in or clarify some information before a game (which convention do you use in Hanabi. Or are you ok with X in a game).