Player count ranges gone??

[CuriousPhilomath]

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

Also chiming in, agreeing that it's a negative change. I'm not even trying to start games any more because I don't have that control over the minimum number of players.

I probably won't be joining as many games either, since I don't know how many players there will be. This change particularly affects 6 Nimmt! because the game strategy changes drastically depending on the number of players, and playing with too few players makes it not fun at all (for me, at least - YMMV).

I guess I'll just be playing a lot fewer games here. Is that the effect the admins were hoping for?

(Also, if I understand correctly from the admin who kindly provided the explanation, and the minimum count was never enforced anyway, then I would have said that that was something to fix, not to remove. As a programmer myself, it seems like pretty straightforward change…)

[ReneSauz]

I also find this a negative change.

For the games I play, the table admins have tended to have a range in mind. I usually do not prefer 2-player games. If the table admin had created a 3 - 4 or a 4 player game, then the odds of them starting it with 2 players were low. I'd only join a 2-4 player game if I was willing to play 2 players. Now, the tables all look the same for admins wanting 2-4, 3-4, or 4.

The few extra clicks when setting up games are well worth the clarity.

This is my feeling as well. There are plenty of games I love at 3, not so much at 4 (and vice versa!). Very few I want to play at 2.

GAMES HAVE IDEAL PLAYER COUNTS AND THIS CHANGE MAKES IT HARDER TO PLAY AT IDEAL PLAYER COUNTS

[Phoxtrot]

Don't forget to upvote on the issue if you want the feature to come back
https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=46498
https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=46585

[RicardoRix]

Personally, if I join a turn-based table, then some thought has gone into it, at the top of requirements, is - Has the table been setup correctly?

If it's 2-5 players then it's a very good indication of 'don't bother'.

I'm looking for Free or FreeRequired to see if the number of players will exactly match my requirements. It's also suggests whether the table admin has even bothered to adjust other fields. It's a good indication of people that will take the game seriously after joining.

- 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.

So rather than the new default being that the table starts with the exact number of players specified, you've gone for the opposite... :/
If the table settings are stored / remembered for each game, then this is an operation you don't have to change that often.

- 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.

This is along the lines of 2 wrongs don't make a right. If originally the X was useless then you should have made it work as intended.

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

So what you are doing is putting people in the awkward position of being 'that person that has a problem'. Probably causing others to give them red thumbs for joining a table but then refusing to play. Also it means that it causes friction and already begs a discussion between players because it's ambiguous as to how many people will really be playing the game and if each and every person that joins is OK with it.

It's much easier if you can give us the capability to make things clear from the outset.

I think the earlier suggestion of a checkbox 'exact number of players' would be a good addition.

[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.

That's so weird to be the only one here which agree with that change.
There still need to have the problem of turn based to be adressed (=don't let people start with a lower number of player than the maximum without asking them if they are fine with it or not).

In games such as 7 wonders where I find it ok to play in any range from 5 to 7 players and there are certain times of the day in live games when lots of players come in and out of the tables very quickly, to have the start button already on the "play now" screen when reaching the minimum amount of players was very handy.

But outside from that, to take the '7 wonders' example where depending of hours you want 5 or 7 players:
- atm you do 2 clicks to start the game with the settings it was configured before.
- Before, you was doing 3 clicks to start the game with the top button.
- And now you do 2 or 5 clicks (included two at the same place) depending if your game start at the same hour than last time.
Hum, that average nicely no?
There is still one problem, the fact you could not know if you want 5 or 7 players when you start the game. It's possible there is lots of people connected at this 'weak' hour, and instead of starting at 5 as usual, you want to start at 7. So you want to put 7. But if many others people want to start at exactly 5, they will not join your game, but instead create their own game at 5 (it they are prenium, which is another problem) that you could join at the cost of one more click but really a lot more attention.
Hum... You could generalise that problem.

(btw, all this post assume you prefer 7p than 5p, else you just put 5p most of the time, and 7p when you are in a 'strong' hour)

That feel like a lot of condtions.
The problem would be resolved if you could start two games of the same game with differents settings at the same time, but I'm not sure at all if it will be positive. And it ask for... 7 clicks which is a lot even for a minority for players.
Myself, even if I usually prefer X game at Y players, I will not said no to a game with +1 or -1 player if we waited a long time.

(Can I? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias )

tldr: The 7 wonders problem is a problem if: you really prefer 7p as 5p ; you haven't lots of players at this hour ; and there would be strangly a lot of players at this hour. Else just put 5 players.
Ant to me, it's a pretty rare problem.
The big problem stay the turn based else.

[MarcT512]

I really dislike this change. Please bring back the ranges.

[Marklbetya]

I agree this is an AWFUL change, especially for 6 Nimmt, as someone said. I have no desire to play with less than 7 people. It's just a horrible game for that few. It was bad enough that 9 people were allowed to start the same exact game number that everyone else already had, so there were tons of identical games open.

So what do I do now? Join a game and keep quitting when they try to start it with fewer players than I want to play? Well that just pisses off everyone now, doesn't it.

I can understand not upgrading games or fixing bugs. But please don't make changes that make things worse. And your explanation was terrible. You have very complex games available, and suddenly clicking on a minimum and maximum player number is too confusing for our simple brains? Really?

[Marklbetya]

"For example, Haiclue. I do NOT want to play this at 2 or 3 player. At least 4, preferably 5 or more."

Yes, I forgot about Haiclue also. But now 6 Nimmt is IMPOSSIBLE to play. I only like larger games, but now there is no way to get one. If someone gets tired of waiting, they can just start whenever.

BGA says that there aren't fewer declines, but that's because we don't bother trying to JOIN!!!

This change sucks. Please change it back, or I'll probably cancel my membership. This is a waste of time now.

[ExpendableEnsign]

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".

By "direct and simple", you mean "vague and unsatisfying".

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.

It's ludicrous to suggest gamers find it too complicated and too many clicks to set two numbers instead of one, especially given the loss in functionality.

- 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.

Fine. Add a "solo" button rather than adversely changing the setup for most multi-user games.

- 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.

The new situation allows games to be started early with fewer players than intended. That must make such games much harder to understand, as options specific to a certain number of players will be different between the setup phase and the actual play!

- 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.

It was useful in determining what the player who set up the game wanted. On some other sites, players have to enter text to tell other players how many they are planning to play with. That is vastly more effort than one or two clicks.

Yes, games could previously be started when the minimum was not reached. I'd call that a bug. The best solution would be to bring back the "x" and enforce it.

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 suggest you try that out. Join 10-player 6Nimmt games and report back on how successful you are.

[Tisaac]

. You have very complex games available, and suddenly clicking on a minimum and maximum player number is too confusing for our simple brains? Really?

Yes, really. As a game dev i can tell you how many bug reports i was getting because players didnt understand how to play solo or how to select the correct table option because the player range was a real mess with that: there were no way to display a table option depending on the number of player, since that was a range, so the only thing you could do was displaying the option anyway and restrict on start with a red warning. I got MANY bug reports/players complaining on Concept for this exact reason.
So yes, the previous interface was confusing, figures don't lie.