Hagardunor wrote: ↑02 September 2023, 17:31
Again and again the problem is mine : I want to play with people of my choice, and hundreds+ game players are not in my list. So are players with bad karma, but nobody finds it strange that you sort your partners by karma level. So why does it seem so weird to sort them by how many games they play simultaneously. What harm does it cause to anybody ?
It doesn't cause harm, you can do as you please. Many of us have tried to point out however that your logic is arbitrary. Someone with a poor karma score has either been behaving badly around the place or (more likely) running over time limits and being booted from games. Those people have a history of being poor playing opponents, so restricting them makes sense. Someone who plays hundreds of games is not necessarily someone who doesn't take their turns on time, or disappears from games altogether. Someone who plays only a few games is not necessarily someone who always plays on time and doesn't disappear altogether. Nor is either a good indicator of their ability/engagement/etc.
To put it another way, if I said, I hate Game XYZ, anyone who thinks that game is good must be silly and wouldn't be worth my time playing with. So I want to limit my player choices to exclude anyone who plays Game XYZ. Most people would probably say that the fact that a person enjoys Game XYZ does not impact how they play a totally different game, and I'm probably going to be missing out on people who might be very worthy opponents. To take it a step further, certain types of arbitrary limitation, such as deciding that a person's country/age/gender are indicative of whether they're worth playing with are actively frowned upon, for obvious reasons. Yes, this is not the same as those, it doesn't cause harm as those kinds of exclusions may, but it's still faulty logic. Many games does not imply a poorly mannered or engaged player.
As I said, you can do as you please, but just be aware that I would guess it's unlikely your suggestion will ever be implemented, as there are many more pressing issues to be dealt with, and I don't think it would be easy (maybe impossible) to implement either. But then, so are many other suggestions raised on this website, so if it makes you feel better to have raised it, then I guess you're done here.
Hagardunor wrote: ↑02 September 2023, 17:59
That's probably because they dont like to wait for others to play and dont want to fall short of playing turns for a too long time. In french we call that "vouloir le beurre et l'argent du beurre"
You're somewhat correct in that I come on to BGA multiple times per day and I like to find games ready to play when I do. But when I come on to BGA, I want to play games, so I play them! Which is in opposition to your idea that people with many games can't possibly play them all. Games are presented to you in order of time remaining - you are given any you're over time on first, then games with least amount of time remaining. So theoretically, each time you come on, you are starting from the oldest games in queue waiting for you, and providing you come on sufficiently often and/or stay for long enough, it's easy enough to manage hundreds of games. If playing BGA is one of your main hobbies because you're retired/unable to work that's entirely possible. I do work part-time, and also have two small children, one of whom is with me on the days I don't work and I easily find time to manage 60+ games simultaneously and almost never run out of time (except during tournaments, which is for entirely different reasons).
Right now, I've actually cut back on the games I have running because I currently have a video game I'm playing during evenings, which took away from the time I normally spent on BGA. I don't want to run my games over time anymore than anyone playing with me, because I want to maintain my reputation so I can play more games. So I'd probably argue that more games in progress (and a good reputation) probably indicates a player who is more likely to stick within their time limits and be engaged in the game because they enjoy it.
I believe the English equivalent to your French saying is "having your cake and eating it too" - that is, you're saying that these people who play many games don't want to wait for others to play but have no problem holding others up. As someone who plays more games than you think is ok, I will say I have no issue waiting for others, so long as they are in time limit. If I am frustrated that I can't find games to play, I'll often add a few more to my queue (but it tends to top out around 60). If I feel like I am regularly finding too many games waiting for me, I'll let some finish and not start new ones to replace them (that's how I got down from 60 to 30 - I didn't quit or allow myself to be booted from any games). As I said, I have no desire to hold other players up, nor do I want to let myself be in a situation where I can be booted. So again, your assumption (in my case, at least) is incorrect.
