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

[upthebooks]

yea both of these are horrible changes. why don't you guys ask for feedback before instituting changes that long-term users of hte platform absolutely 1. hate, 2. have never asked for?

for auto start -- x2 ing on everyone saying how this doesn't allow admins to choose whether or not they want to kick a late joiner for something like bad rep, inexperience, being unknown player, etc. etc.

for spectators chat -- i can see this maybe being a good idea when a game is in progress (yet it was already possible to mute spectators by clicking X), but it should absolutely not be in effect before the game has started. this prevents people who are thinking about joining the game or who were invited but then kicked for not responding fast enough from asking about joining, being re-invited, inquiring about special game conditions, etc.

please, please, please, consider having a questionnaire before you roll out features like this that will have an unavoidable impact on how we use the site. has it been so long that you've forgotten how much people hated the big UI rollout done?

[John McD]

Auto start and spectator chat should be preferences that can be set at account level. If that's the way you want your tables then set them that way, but it's really a huge annoyance to me.

I'm finding that popular games, or two player games are auto launching constantly before I've had a chance to set up the table properly. Players turn up and fill the seats before there is time to set up. The inviting friends before the game interface is awful if you want to invite offline friends, I prefer to do that from in the game where you can see when they were lost online.

Spectator chat seems to solve a problem that didn't exist.

The whole set of changes seems to drive the site to facilitating transactions rather than building friendships and community. The changes reduce communication and make it harder to play with the people you want.

[Deranged]

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.

But that's just not true!

Well, it may be true that you like this improvement, I'm not sure about that.

But the page does NOT simply go back to the lobby. It tries to, and the sputters about for a minute trying to figure out how to show the page it just came from, while we wait quite furiously because some silly person joined the game, refused, and left. The Page does not know what to do, refuses any input from us, refreshes like a spoon of salt, flails about in a bit until the browser cuts in with "This page is not responding. Kill it?" When we finally get back to the lobby, half the players are gone I don't know where, and the Page shuffles its feet in shame.

Yeah the site is just bloody BRICKED when you refuse to start the game.

As for the other person talking about talking at a table being bad etiquette, how about those people who join in just to leave again without ever bothering to even say hello? People who join the table and all they immediately say is "Go" or "Start", sometimes with a question mark, sometimes without. That's not just bad etiquette, that's just plain rude. If somebody is bothered by somebody speaking, tell them so, and if they don't shut the hell up, then you've got a reason to complain - and the Red Thumb of Wrath to admonish them with. Why not have a + button instead of a x button anyway? When you know somebody, you can give them permission to speak. If someone disagrees (or the person misbehaves), there's still the x button right there.

I fully agree with whoever said it seems the site is gearing itself more to automatic play, and I for one hope that's just not true. If BGA is to become a gameplayfactory, that'd probably be one of the few things that'd get me to leave.

Anyway, I'm off to play a friendly (and probably talky!) game of Hanabi. It's fun to see that most people who oppose these changes seem to be Hanabists . Warms my heart, that does <3.

[Shaid]

The conclusion I reached is that we can please both sides in a simple way. Just adding the necessary tools for each one to choose what they want.

In the table configurations there could be a button "[ ] ​​allow automatic initialization" (the administrator of the table could select it as soon as he created the table).

And during the match having the button next to your player bar with "[ ] I don't want to be disturbed by spectators"

doesn't it seem like a more democratic and simple solution?

[pinkyandthebrain]

Different strokes for different folks. I get that for some games it could get frustrating having spectators come along - say the friend of your opponent -that starts chatting and distracting them from playing in a timely fashion but in other games where perhaps you have a network of BGA players then it's nice for them to be able to come along for some banter.

If it is not a whole heap of work then I would love the spectator chatting to become an optional thing that the host can set to on or off, with the host also able to kick spectators (or perhaps every player has the option to kick a spectator/mute a spectator in case the host is lousy??). Essentially the onus would be on you to decide whether you want to join a game of that set up much like for other settings.

Secondly I also agree that the auto-start function is more annoying than it is good. You have zero chance to vet the last player that joins, either as host or another player and decide whether you still want to be at the table. Yet if we click the reject button then all the players that auto-joined the table are kicked out and you are back to waiting for the table to fill back up and those original auto-joiners may even lose their spot (this is the prime reason I'd like to make auto-joining an optional feature for the host to turn on/off). I'm sure we all know players who we personally don't find fun but this is not a reason to give a red thumb. With this auto-start functionailty I feel like we should be handing out more red thumbs rather than using the note system you have implemented but I prefer to use red thumbs just for major offenders. If a host is afk and not starting a table then I am not sure how this solves the problem as they won't be there to press accept anyhow.

TLDR: Please make both these new features an option rather than mandatory

[Caffe Latte]

If everything will be configurable, the table setup will look like spaceship control room

[fafa-fr]

If everything will be configurable, the table setup will look like spaceship control room

No, please, don't say things like that, it could lead to decisions based on false assumptions. It is definitely possible to have more options without overloading the interface. Menus, show/hide advanced options, there are ways to do that.
Maybe some people don't care about a lot of options and want to have a simple interface, but some other people want more control. I think both are not incompatible.

[idum]

The core argument is that boardgaming is not as video-gaming, even if it is made online.
Boardgaming require social environment, so chats, friends, spectators. Yes, it can be competitive situations where strict rules are needed by default, but that is the aim of the site? competition or community?
So, this limitation about chat is not in the spirit of boardgaming. Lot more, when the cases of abuse can be managed with red thumbs, temporal ban, specific options that can be adapted at the specific context of a game. Or limited at arena games, that want to be the real competitive soul of boardgamearena.

Regarding the autostart, it is a bad practice. It don't resolve problem of players away. It don't resolve problems of hosts that don't want to start a game. It don't add anything at the game: if all player are ready and the table is full, the host start and there isn't time consumed. If the host is not ready, the game go in another fancy page, but DON'T START the same, so, what is the gain?
So it don't resolve any of real problems. Instead, add problems: if you refuse to start, game freeze. If host need to select players on the start, he have to manage unnecessary phases. If, as player, you are joined to more tables, this autostart remove you from all the other tables and, if the game don't start because host is afk, you have to restart again to find a table.

It is one of that features that appare efficient but it was not. It is not only useless, it damage fun.

[Wreckage]

The chat issue is simple. The players who never meet anyone, but just play with strangers every game, don't care about chat so they like no chat.
The players that do get to know groups of people, like to be able to chat with a group and so they HATE this latest change.

I think there are a lot more people in the latter group, and I think the players that socialize make a community that benefits the site the most.

[LoesElska]

What is the advantage of manual tables when the table starts automatically?

I just got into a game without knowing it And kicked out.
My karma was already bad after I got an error twice during a game yesterday.

The problem with me not starting a table is often that I see / hear people leave but there has been no mention of someone sitting at the table. In the chat window only something about *** leave table.