Player count ranges gone??

[ExpendableEnsign]

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

I would imagine many live players would just "stick it out". I'd be interested to know if there is an increase of "propose to abandon". Or quits. And maybe there aren't. Which speaks more to the quality of the community than the quality of this decision.

While it make increase ease of use (I guess), I feel like is reduces agency which doesn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff.

Not only will players often stick it out anyhow, but also they may change choice of games to avoid the issue. I'm now almost entirely playing games with fixed numbers of players (with friends, tournament games, games that are only for a specific number of players, or games that work with 2 players) and not even trying to play games with large, variable numbers. I'm not clicking "refuse to start" because I'm not wasting my time getting into that situation in the first place.

[voriki]

- 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.

This is the best solution. Add a button for different playing styles, which would be mostly solo games, that are not generally added in the other options.

I do state different playing styles, because some games could use such another button for alternative "game rules" which impacts the amount of players, that is not really a normal menu choice, and also enforces the amount of players joining.


For example:
Love Letter, the game is played vastly different whether you play with with 5-8 players or 3-4 players(dangit, add a 2-player possibility, if you're so keen on making solo games too, the game is designed, albeit not as fun, to also function with 2 players). It is a whole different type of game almost.
For this: the Table Admin has to actively define whether he wants to play the base game(number of players locks down in range 2-4) or the expanded version(number of players locks down in rang 5-8).

King of Tokyo, you can play with 2, and then there is an alternative rule enabled hailing from KoT Dark. This option only appears when you select the range of 2 players, not when you set a higher range. So similar to a solo-button, for this game I want a duo-button which locks down the range to 2 players, and a normal game which lets you set the range between 3-6, but not back down to 2.

[Tisaac]

- 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.

This is the best solution. Add a button for different playing styles, which would be mostly solo games, that are not generally added in the other options.

I do state different playing styles, because some games could use such another button for alternative "game rules" which impacts the amount of players, that is not really a normal menu choice, and also enforces the amount of players joining.


For example:
Love Letter, the game is played vastly different whether you play with with 5-8 players or 3-4 players(dangit, add a 2-player possibility, if you're so keen on making solo games too, the game is designed, albeit not as fun, to also function with 2 players). It is a whole different type of game almost.
For this: the Table Admin has to actively define whether he wants to play the base game(number of players locks down in range 2-4) or the expanded version(number of players locks down in rang 5-8).

King of Tokyo, you can play with 2, and then there is an alternative rule enabled hailing from KoT Dark. This option only appears when you select the range of 2 players, not when you set a higher range. So similar to a solo-button, for this game I want a duo-button which locks down the range to 2 players, and a normal game which lets you set the range between 3-6, but not back down to 2.

Still not enough for the example i explained in previous post for table option in Concept. A perfect solution simply can't exist because players want incompatible things.

[compte obelète]

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).

it could change to squares (depending to each game to set up more specific players) like i like games, but most of them, i hate them at 3, eg. i will play mostly 2 or 4 at rallyman gt, maybe 5. but never 3. like 3 is like "target the 1st and the 2nd get 1st" it's mostly likely the one who got blocked seem the game is unfair, and 3 players games are just "bad", like, whit squares, it like this [number of player (1:"yes" 2:"yes" 3:"no" 4:"yes" 5:"maybe" 6:"no")]

well, of course, this is an examble of what i want mostly, and just the "minimum of the game-maximum host want" make me feel that a 3 player game can happens a lot.

Also, here another example i want 5 to 8 players in saboteur, but "this" allow game whit 3 or 4 players and if is not in my choises, i will never join them.

Whit a way, like as an automatic settings, but only for number of player. It just re-use an fuctionallity of auto-join, but as a creating game. (also for other if you want random (custom random).

you gonna said, what is custom random?

well, it's like the random, but whit only the setting i would like to play.

[Romain672]

Also, here another example i want 5 to 8 players in saboteur, but "this" allow game whit 3 or 4 players and if is not in my choises, i will never join them.

If it's real time, you should join and refuse the start if they start below 5 players.

It's the host's fault to not put 3 or 4 players in the first place if he is not fine with people refusing.

[Yasten]

Also, here another example i want 5 to 8 players in saboteur, but "this" allow game whit 3 or 4 players and if is not in my choises, i will never join them.

If it's real time, you should join and refuse the start if they start below 5 players.

It's the host's fault to not put 3 or 4 players in the first place if he is not fine with people refusing.

Well, that's why player ranges were there in the first place I guess. I understand killing it for games where it is only playable with 2 (bc most common) or any number players but the other games got worse without the ranges, especially on turn based.

[pjt33]

- some options are only visible with a given number of players.

That's another recent change which IMO made the UX worse. It used to be that I could just leave "The Mighty Duel" option in Kingdomino enabled and it would apply only in the games where it made sense. Now if I want to play a two-player game I have to manually change the maximum number of players to make the option appear.

[Tisaac]

- some options are only visible with a given number of players.

That's another recent change which IMO made the UX worse. It used to be that I could just leave "The Mighty Duel" option in Kingdomino enabled and it would apply only in the games where it made sense. Now if I want to play a two-player game I have to manually change the maximum number of players to make the option appear.

This is a good thing : only have game options coherent with your number of players. The opposite was a bad UX, the fact that you get used to it does not mean it's good. It's very confusing for new players to a game (see my previous example of Concept and team size).

[pjt33]

This is a good thing : only have game options coherent with your number of players. The opposite was a bad UX, the fact that you get used to it does not mean it's good. It's very confusing for new players to a game (see my previous example of Concept and team size).

If it were impossible to start with fewer players than configured then I would agree with you. As it is, I think we currently have the worst of both worlds.

[Yasten]

This is a good thing : only have game options coherent with your number of players. The opposite was a bad UX, the fact that you get used to it does not mean it's good. It's very confusing for new players to a game (see my previous example of Concept and team size).

If it were impossible to start with fewer players than configured then I would agree with you. As it is, I think we currently have the worst of both worlds.

Well, if you want to set 2 player options after selecting 3 players just in case it should be there...