Player count ranges gone??

[Jellby]

Well, to be honest, it happened before that someone would set a table with 4-5 players, I join, and then they start the game with 3 players only (even without bothering to change the settings). Since I wanted only 4-5, I decline to start the game and then I'm criticized for not letting others play, not accepting the table manager's choice or whatever.

My point is: I liked player count ranges, but since they were not "enforced", they were pretty useless anyway.

[Romain672]

Well, to be honest, it happened before that someone would set a table with 4-5 players, I join, and then they start the game with 3 players only (even without bothering to change the settings). Since I wanted only 4-5, I decline to start the game and then I'm criticized for not letting others play, not accepting the table manager's choice or whatever.

My point is: I liked player count ranges, but since they were not "enforced", they were pretty useless anyway.

That's not how that usually work.
You can't make an exemple a generality.

[towehaal]

I'm surprised more people haven't chimed in. This is a terrible change.

Take for example the game LAMA. I never would want to play this game two player. If I join, the table admin could just fire up a game. The "required" tag on player spots gives the intention of the table admin.

This is especially pertinent for turn based games. I usually join looking for a four player game and I'm fine if the table takes a day or two to fill, but would be irritated if a game started with below my desired player count.

[Manda Mc Panda]

Another vote for bring it back please

Same reasons as above, if someone had a game with required for the number I like I would join and wait.

Now starting my own games to be sure - but that results in loads of people joining mine then leaving as the others they joined started with two people, then them declining that and rejoining mine then out again... it’s like soem surreal yo-yo until magically two join at the same time to give me the three player I prefer

A lot of games are too predictable with two players

[Curtis E Bear]

Another vote for bringing it back here also.

Makes me very wary joining a game of 6nimmt that the admin won't try and start a 2 or 3 player game on me.

Being able to set a minimum number of players makes it very clear the intent of whoever's setting up a game. I would like to know why it was removed in the first place.

[sourisdudesert]

Indeed we decided to replace the "I want to play with X to Y players" by the way more direct and simple "I want to play with X players".

Like all choices there are pros and cons, and I'm sorry that you dislike it, but we thought a lot on this and think this is the right choice.

Non exhaustive list of reasons:
- according to our stats, most of you want to play with an exact number of players. With the current system, when you want to set this number, you may have to change the min AND the max, which is too complicated and too many clicks for a simple operation like this.

- we have more and more games with a Solo mode, and the new system makes the selection of Solo mode obvious (you select "1 player") while something like "1 to 4 players" is unclear.

- some options are only visible with a given number of players. For these options, the "x to y players" makes the options interface behave weirdly and really difficult to understand.

- and finally, with the "x to y", the only number that matters was the y (the max). You were able to start the game using "Start" button, even if the minimum was not reached, so the "x" was kind of useless.

We recommend you to use the new "number of players" as you were using the "maximum" number of players, and you should not see a big difference compared to what you had before.

(I should add that we are not seing an increase of "refuse to start", so it seems that it actually does the trick).

[nena1502]

I still think this is a bad idea (particularly for turn based mode) but if you decide to keep it that way, could you at least make it easy on the main page to start the game even if the max number of player is not reached ?
now we have to click on view and then start the game which is quite annoying because by the time you click and the page load; people may have leave the game and on the phone it takes a little time to to scroll down to ensure that the minimum player you want it still around (thinking of 6nimt where people join/leave the game very quickly)

Thank you for considering this

[8dearboy8]

Yepp, not we can't see how many players the table owner wants at least before they start the game. That's a big change for the worse.

It's also worse for the table owners as well. Because of they now attempt to start with their wanted minimum size, many players might decline and leave - as they wanted more players


Makes for longer waiting times, more frustration because of game starts getting declined

all games need to become premium, so non-premium players have no choice but to obey the table settings, thus reducing 'players decline to start'.

[Dorvan]

Fully agree with others saying this is a negative change in terms of quality of life for game creation. Even if the UI didn't hard enforce it, knowing the table admin's minimum player count was really valuable. I'm disappointed to see this step backwards in the UX.

[Romain672]

One thing which could change too over time, is players who put 5 players when they start at 3. They got 1/2/3 refuse over time. So what do they do? They themselves change the 5 players count to 3 players to avoid those cases.

That means slowly, if there is enough player who want a specific number of players, that will incensitive the hosts of the tables to put the right number of players for their games.