Board Game Arena

Meeplelowda wrote: ↑01 March 2025, 10:59

Girlfromnowhere wrote: ↑01 March 2025, 07:26 But other board games still take over 10 minutes and at that point, I just give up. I mainly prefer playing Azul, but would like to learn different games

What other games are you trying? Azul is extremely popular with 8988 games in progress as of the time I typed this. In contrast, one of my favorite games only has 198 games in progress right now and would possibly take 10 or more minutes to fill if I wanted to play real time. Some games just don't have many people playing them, and having Premium doesn't magically change that fact.

Tried to play Splendor, 31, Shifting Stones, and Battleships to name a few. They ALL take so long.

Splendor is quite played, weird that you had to wait long. I play a lot of Ticket to Ride and matchmaking is close to instant with premium. About other games depends on what you like... For example 7 Wonders, Wingspan and Carcassonne all are popular games, you shouldn't struggle finding opponents

Girlfromnowhere wrote: ↑01 March 2025, 12:56

Meeplelowda wrote: ↑01 March 2025, 10:59

Girlfromnowhere wrote: ↑01 March 2025, 07:26 But other board games still take over 10 minutes and at that point, I just give up. I mainly prefer playing Azul, but would like to learn different games

What other games are you trying? Azul is extremely popular with 8988 games in progress as of the time I typed this. In contrast, one of my favorite games only has 198 games in progress right now and would possibly take 10 or more minutes to fill if I wanted to play real time. Some games just don't have many people playing them, and having Premium doesn't magically change that fact.

Tried to play Splendor, 31, Shifting Stones, and Battleships to name a few. They ALL take so long.

Here is a snapshot with with over 16,418 players currently playing on BGA:
Game [Current Tables]
Splendor [5031]
31 [40]
Shifting Stones [387]
Battleships Pencil & Paper [583]

Keep in mind that these numbers include turn-based games, so there could be significantly fewer people playing real-time games, which would increase wait times. For example, for 31 ALL of those 40 games were turn-based, i.e., there were ZERO real-time games. And I checked and no one was even waiting for a real-time game. So for all intents and purposes, no one plays 31 real-time. The high proportion (in this case 100%) of turn-based games is a symptom of how hard it is to find real-time games. Sometimes a game is so unpopular that the player pool gives up trying to play real-time and plays mostly turn-based so they don't have to sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for a game to start. Having Premium isn't going to make more people play 31.

The only surprising one is Splendor, which leads me to believe there is a filter you are using that is limiting the matchmaking pool. As a test I just started a 3-person real-time Splendor table with no restrictions of any kind (karma, ELO, etc.) and started a stopwatch when I pressed the "Open table to other players" button. It filled in 7.18 seconds, and that's including the fact I was a little slow stopping the stopwatch. What settings are you using for Splendor? Any karma restrictions? ELO restrictions? Game mode is normal (not friendly)? Are the Silk Road expansions enabled or disabled? Because there is no reason it should be taking as long as you claim.

RicardoRix wrote: ↑27 February 2025, 20:43 sure, you can choose game speed and level +/- difference.

I have my preferences set to something like "strong" and "expert" but am more often paired with players ranked below that. I don't think level difference preferences have any bearing on arena matches.

thg0724 wrote: ↑02 March 2025, 04:04

RicardoRix wrote: ↑27 February 2025, 20:43 sure, you can choose game speed and level +/- difference.

I have my preferences set to something like "strong" and "expert" but am more often paired with players ranked below that. I don't think level difference preferences have any bearing on arena matches.

your lookin at a different set of settings.

Go to "play now", set the drop down to "arena", then on any game, click the little gear, you can't change the gameplay settings, but somewhere on that popup window, you can set the level spread and game speed preference.

Suoivax wrote: ↑02 March 2025, 04:22

thg0724 wrote: ↑02 March 2025, 04:04

RicardoRix wrote: ↑ sure, you can choose game speed and level +/- difference.

I have my preferences set to something like "strong" and "expert" but am more often paired with players ranked below that. I don't think level difference preferences have any bearing on arena matches.

your lookin at a different set of settings.

Go to "play now", set the drop down to "arena", then on any game, click the little gear, you can't change the gameplay settings, but somewhere on that popup window, you can set the level spread and game speed preference.

Thanks!

Ceaseless wrote: ↑28 February 2025, 16:21

RicardoRix wrote: ↑28 February 2025, 01:00

Ceaseless wrote: ↑27 February 2025, 23:56 The sample of people most likely to be paired against when playing in Azul Arena is exactly the sort of sample that is majorly flawed for determining the percentage of users that have Premium. Highly active players would have a greater incentive for Premium usage. That you're checking users from a Premium game alone likely biases the sample in Premium's favor but throw in the top players on top of that and it only gets worse.

The context of this thread is playing Azul in Arena.

Even narrowing it down to that group, the top 100 are going to be a biased sample. They are the ones playing actively and successfully and are going to be more likely to be inclined to get Premium than your average player.

The original statement was 50% premium, and the retort:
I don't think it's even close to that value tbh

This is the context you seem to be struggling with. And for Azul arena.
You're yet to show me a sample less than 50%.
I went down to position 3000 and it was still 27:22 for premium.
I'm struggling to understand the point you're trying to make anyway about this specific issue. You're just slinging mud / covering your own tracks / being over pedantic or something, but it's not helping. It's OK you don't need to reply for justification.

As the OP is now saying, there are other popular games where the matchmaking seems off, and they are premium now. And also other reasons other games might not be matched quickly.
So it's not a 'get premium' to fix everything solution. Which is the opinion I was warning about.

RicardoRix wrote: ↑02 March 2025, 11:21

Ceaseless wrote: ↑28 February 2025, 16:21

RicardoRix wrote: ↑28 February 2025, 01:00

The context of this thread is playing Azul in Arena.

Even narrowing it down to that group, the top 100 are going to be a biased sample. They are the ones playing actively and successfully and are going to be more likely to be inclined to get Premium than your average player.

The original statement was 50% premium, and the retort:
I don't think it's even close to that value tbh

This is the context you seem to be struggling with. And for Azul arena.
You're yet to show me a sample less than 50%.
I went down to position 3000 and it was still 27:22 for premium.
I'm struggling to understand the point you're trying to make anyway about this specific issue. You're just slinging mud / covering your own tracks / being over pedantic or something, but it's not helping. It's OK you don't need to reply for justification.

As the OP is now saying, there are other popular games where the matchmaking seems off, and they are premium now. And also other reasons other games might not be matched quickly.
So it's not a 'get premium' to fix everything solution. Which is the opinion I was warning about.

My point is exactly what I already said it was. That using the top 100 elo users for the sample is massively flawed. I don't know why you're being so defensive about this. I have no opinion on what the actual sample size is, just an objection on the method used for the sample size to approximate with. 3000 is better than 100 at least. It would be nice to if there a way to randomly select players instead of going top down, which is likely to have a bias favoring Premium users, though one that should decrease the further down you go. An issue likely caused by the tools we have at our disposal, irritating all the same.

Suoivax wrote: ↑02 March 2025, 04:22

thg0724 wrote: ↑02 March 2025, 04:04

RicardoRix wrote: ↑27 February 2025, 20:43 sure, you can choose game speed and level +/- difference.

I have my preferences set to something like "strong" and "expert" but am more often paired with players ranked below that. I don't think level difference preferences have any bearing on arena matches.

your lookin at a different set of settings.

Go to "play now", set the drop down to "arena", then on any game, click the little gear, you can't change the gameplay settings, but somewhere on that popup window, you can set the level spread and game speed preference.

Didn't work this morning. Got paired against someone outside the level settings.

thg0724 wrote: ↑02 March 2025, 15:25

Suoivax wrote: ↑02 March 2025, 04:22

thg0724 wrote: ↑02 March 2025, 04:04 I have my preferences set to something like "strong" and "expert" but am more often paired with players ranked below that. I don't think level difference preferences have any bearing on arena matches.

your lookin at a different set of settings.

Go to "play now", set the drop down to "arena", then on any game, click the little gear, you can't change the gameplay settings, but somewhere on that popup window, you can set the level spread and game speed preference.

Didn't work this morning. Got paired against someone outside the level settings.

Iknow for less popular games, it will spend X hours trying for your preferred, then Y hours for your less preferred, ect..

Dunno if it ever uses your "never want to play" parameters.


plus sometimes settings on BGA take time to actually propogate/take effect.