Board Game Arena

Andy_K wrote:I think a good first step would be to add some filters (or sorting) to the existing lobby

I agree, but this is a short term action.

Let say you cannot join 30% of tables. The filter will remove 30% of tables. Then when BGA will get +30% of players (which could be fast), you get back with the previous situation.

Another thing which is not great with the current lobby : if 2 players actually want to play a game, but do not decide to create a table, they won't play. We detect that a significant part of BGA players NEVER create new tables.

The 2 previous problems would be solved by an "automatic mode".

senatorhung wrote: uh .. that is incorrect. BGA members can see everyone's ELO. when you let your membership lapse, you don't see anyone's ELO, but other BGA members can always see yours.

Sorry. I am talking about the list of players that you can suggest to play. everyone can see BGA members Elo, you are on the top of the list.

sourisdudesert wrote: One of the possible future could be :

• Special interface for those who only want to play with friends (no need to pollute the lobby with private games).
• Propose an "Automatic mode" for those who just want to play asap with games/opponents that meet their (custom) criteria.
• Keep the current lobby for those who want to precisely choose what & against who to play.

That sounds good but can bring new problems to BGA.
1. If I want to play the game but don't see enough players in Sit'n'Go (Automatic tables) lobby I need to go to current lobby, then if I don't find the tables in current lobby, I need to return to Sit'n'Go. It isn't comfortably. I agree that automatic creation of tables is necessary, but why don't create them in the current lobby?
2. If I don't see enough friends to play the game now I can open seats for everyone or suggest some users to play it, would it be so easy with your 3-lobby system?

So I agree that creating filters is more suitable solution. As you can add a filter to show/hide Sit'n'Go tables, add a filter for private games, add a filter for normal tables (if someone wants to play only Sit'n'Go or only private tables) and so on.

Another small suggestion.
As some members don't want to receive suggestions to play I can assume that some of them don't want to show their ELO. So you could add this option to player preferences.

demiurgsage wrote: I need to return to Sit'n'Go. It isn't comfortably

The idea is not to split the lobby, but to have an automatic mode on the existing lobby. So there is no benefit to "switch". You're best chance to play would always be to sit on "automatic" lobby.

senatorhung wrote:

ollyfish2002 wrote:That is one of the reason I did not renew my subscription.
When I was BGA member and ELO visible, I was in the top of the list and got too much suggestions.
Not being a BGA member allows to hide your ELO and be somewhere hidden in the list.

uh .. that is incorrect. BGA members can see everyone's ELO. when you let your membership lapse, you don't see anyone's ELO, but other BGA members can always see yours.

as for the original topic, this would be another reason to have separate lists of games you 'want to play' between real-time and turn-based. that way, you only receive suggestions for real-time games that you are willing to play real-time.

When you're a BGA member, you're on top of the suggestions list because your ELO is visible to everyone, and you get suggestion notifications more often because you're at the top of list.

I wish I could turn suggestions off for some games. I never play Tash Kalar in real time yet I always get suggested to join tables. I can't take it off my game list because then it wouldn't show up on my available games. I had to take Saboteur off of my games list because I received constant suggestions for it and it was overwhelming.

I definitely agree that we need more game lobby filters. Some filter suggestions:
ELO
Number of players
Hide tables I cannot join
Suggestions on/off
Game speed
Same IP address (I do not play with people from the same IP address and wish they couldn't join my tables)

Letting players turn suggestions off or on will also provide a more accurate count of who actually wants to play a game. It's frustrating when I start a table for a game that apparently has 60 people who want to play it yet no one joins even after I send out tons of suggestions.

This is a little more advanced and probably hard to implement, but I would like filters for particular game settings. For example, in Tokaido, I never play with The New Encounters expansion, as I think it's pretty terrible and ruins the purpose of the encounters (encounters are supposed to give you free items - paying for them defeats the entire purpose of what an encounter is...but I digress ). I want the option of hiding games with that expansion on.

@shaq: +1 for your suggestions.

Shaq Jenkins wrote:

senatorhung wrote:

ollyfish2002 wrote:That is one of the reason I did not renew my subscription.
When I was BGA member and ELO visible, I was in the top of the list and got too much suggestions.
Not being a BGA member allows to hide your ELO and be somewhere hidden in the list.

uh .. that is incorrect. BGA members can see everyone's ELO. when you let your membership lapse, you don't see anyone's ELO, but other BGA members can always see yours.

as for the original topic, this would be another reason to have separate lists of games you 'want to play' between real-time and turn-based. that way, you only receive suggestions for real-time games that you are willing to play real-time.

When you're a BGA member, you're on top of the suggestions list because your ELO is visible to everyone, and you get suggestion notifications more often because you're at the top of list.

no, you get suggestion notifications more often, not because you are a BGA member, but because you have a high ELO (and thus appear at the top of the suggestions list which is sorted by ELO, highest to lowest) olly's comment about not renewing a BGA membership does NOT cut down on suggestions .. the ELO values are just hidden from view for non.members. those with a high ELO in a game will still tend to get more suggestions, especially from non.BGA members who can not distinguish the actual ELO values and who might assume that the list is in random order when it is not. those who can see the ELO values tend to be more judicious as to selecting who to suggest into their games.

senatorhung wrote:those with a high ELO in a game will still tend to get more suggestions, especially from non.BGA members who can not distinguish the actual ELO values and who might assume that the list is in random order when it is not..

Yup - that would be me. I thought the list was random like most other lists around here are. Interesting information. (Only "interesting" because I'm not seeing myself ever making a live invite, nor suggesting people play it.)

sourisdudesert wrote:Just a word to say that we know this is an issue.

Good to know... but....

One of the possible future could be :

• Special interface for those who only want to play with friends (no need to pollute the lobby with private games).
• Propose an "Automatic mode" for those who just want to play asap with games/opponents that meet their (custom) criteria.
• Keep the current lobby for those who want to precisely choose what & against who to play.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding what this means. Or more specifically, what "automatic mode" is supposed to mean, especially after you mentioned that a huge number of people never create invites and this would solve that. I'm one of them - I rarely create invites. I'm not sure if you're meaning I'd automatically be joined to a game, or if it would create an invite for me, or what. I wouldn't want to do anything like that. I want to be able to keep all known games in my list so I see those invites up top, and then scroll the list to find what I want to play. I can't say that I'm looking for something in particular and therefore want to use that criteria. I'd rather see what is available and decide for myself, and things like a criteria for a player isn't that simple. (I want to LOOK at that player, not just go by numbers that have a meaning to you but maybe not to me.) Honestly, this sounds a little more "real time" geared, someone who wants to play some specific game right now. I'm doing turn-based and may be taking several games, and based on what looks good at the time, and not based on a decision I made ahead of time.

But based on this set of options, that puts me in the 3rd category, which is how it is now that a lot of us are having issues with. It doesn't really solve the issue if the only other option is automatic.

I agree a filter is a much better idea, so that I can still scroll through the list on my own and make my own decisions.

Right before I hopped on the forums, I counted the turn-based invitation list, and made note of how many games I actually qualify for. I couldn't play 85% of the games - not even close to 30%. This includes both games I simply didn't quality for, but also games that were full and waiting on people to start, because I can't play those either. So I could play 15% of that mess, and was only interested in 1 invite. Some of the reasons I didn't take certain games would require pretty complex criteria, some of it subjective. But, if only that 15% were in the list, it would be a whole lot easier to look through.

I just want the other 85% to go away, not have it do anything automatically for me.