Board Game Arena

Ceaseless wrote: ↑15 February 2024, 19:08 My stance is that their issue isn't BGA not getting enough users. Would BGA like to get more users? Probably, but that's a separate matter from the issue at hand.

What is the issue at hand in your opinion? How to solve the issue of long wait times, that the op should go to another site to play the game they want, or both?

GTSchemer wrote: ↑15 February 2024, 17:06 I personally felt that it became much, much harder to find a real-time game once the new lobby was added.

This is entirely anecdotal and could be false, of course. If it were true, I wonder if it's because players using the new lobby filter on preferences and can't readily see all waiting real-time lobbies with all settings easily, like in the old system.

It's possible that's a factor, but you also have to consider how many games BGA has added in the meantime.

If BGA removed all but the 100 or so most popular games, they'd still have more than any other site (I think). And no one would complain about how hard it is to find a real-time game of Game X because Game X wouldn't be here. Surely that's at the heart of the issue.

I'm sure BGA would love to add more users, but there's no reason to believe they'd flock here to play Donuts or Polis or whatever.

thoun wrote: ↑16 February 2024, 00:10

Meeplelowda wrote: ↑15 February 2024, 23:29

Zozoken wrote: ↑15 February 2024, 17:15

A bit off-topic, but this is a re-implementation of the game Insert which is no longer available on here (because Donuts replaces it). So if you've been wanting games of Insert, you can play it again!

Yes, Donuts was the reskin of Insert. I saw the announcement about Insert being available again, but haven't tried it since they brought it back. I have some concerns about the already small player base being divided between two skins of exactly the same game. To clarify, the smaller player base is not within BGA's control. Having the same game implemented separately, as opposed to the different graphics being options within one of the two, is within their control.[/sidetrack]

I don't know where you saw that, but I highly doubt Insert will ever come back, Donuts just takes its place.

I probably misunderstood the message I saw. I'm guessing the person meant you can play Insert again....as Donuts.

Ed.: Nope. I just completely misread the message. It clearly says "Insert is back under the name of Donuts!" So no divided player base. Just a basic "niche" game.

I’m aware that bga catalogue is growing at a rapid pace. It feels like not too long ago they were celebrating getting 700 (maybe it was even 600 can’t remember) games and now it shows they are at 788. So the site will just get thinner and thinner. I wanted to ask a veteran user about the site experienced prior to my arrival and I noticed something. A lot of us came here during the pandemic. This is a once in a lifetime occurrence that easily landed people on bga but that does mean they have lots of potential customers out there.

I don’t know how true this is but I’ve also seen that the issues bga has been having with the servers is because they got an influx of users with the addition of ark nova that they weren’t prepared for. I’m not expecting bga to grow their user base but it isn’t impossible. Me personally I wasn’t a board gamer. I came here for 1 game in particular and eventually branched out to others. So if people come for games like ark nova it helps the communities for other games as well assuming they branch out. I’ve already stated some ways how bga can spread the user base.

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑15 February 2024, 02:13

CappaCappa wrote: ↑14 February 2024, 22:45 I've been a long time bga usee I am posting obviously from a newer account.

The op account is almost four years old and they only played a couple dozen games starting a few months back. You could assume that poster has experience here as well which is why I think the conversation should've been about what they actually said and not chess. What they basically stated was "I would like to see the company expand to enhance the user experience". I don't understand the opposition to that.

Youre missing the point, if BGA has 50 million users, but you want to play a game that only 10 people actually play out of those 50 million users and then complain about it, is it really BGAs fault that less than 1% of those 50 million users want to play the same game as you?

CappaCappa wrote: ↑16 February 2024, 11:02

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑15 February 2024, 02:13

CappaCappa wrote: ↑14 February 2024, 22:45 I've been a long time bga usee I am posting obviously from a newer account.

The op account is almost four years old and they only played a couple dozen games starting a few months back. You could assume that poster has experience here as well which is why I think the conversation should've been about what they actually said and not chess. What they basically stated was "I would like to see the company expand to enhance the user experience". I don't understand the opposition to that.

Youre missing the point, if BGA has 50 million users, but you want to play a game that only 10 people actually play out of those 50 million users and then complain about it, is it really BGAs fault that less than 1% of those 50 million users want to play the same game as you?

Im not missing the point. For the record I don’t think all 788 games can have a healthy community. I also understand that just because bga gets 100,000 more accounts over x amount of time (more reasonable than 50 million) that that doesn’t mean a particular game will get x amount of players added to its community. More players equals a better site experience though no matter how you want to slice it (outside of maybe bga needing better servers to support them). Most users here play multiple games. Even if you come here for a popular game there is a trickle down effect.

I also understand that there are several games here that are not good and that is why they don’t have a huge player base.
But saying that all games that don’t have a healthy community is the result because they are bad and no one wants to play them is simply false. I’ve already given examples how that is false.

With such a large quantity of games it would help if bga suggested games that actually fit you instead of “try ark nova everyone else is”. For instance I play district noir. I came across koryo because of a friend. I find them to be similar. I probably would’ve never played/found that game otherwise. That has nothing to do with it being terrible.

Saying bga can do nothing is also false. I’ve already given examples of that as well and there is even more ways to help with this issue. Also for the record I don’t feel like bga owes me anything. I actually do and agree with a lot of the suggestions that were posted to overcome not being able to get games. But honestly expecting a new user to make friends, join groups, create tournaments for niche games etc etc as soon as they get here is just as unrealistic as some new users expectations for bga.

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑16 February 2024, 00:49

Ceaseless wrote: ↑15 February 2024, 19:08 My stance is that their issue isn't BGA not getting enough users. Would BGA like to get more users? Probably, but that's a separate matter from the issue at hand.

What is the issue at hand in your opinion? How to solve the issue of long wait times, that the op should go to another site to play the game they want, or both?

The issue at hand would be the topic brought up by the OP, that the OP could not get games when hosting and so is pushing for BGA to get more users to fix this problem on their end. For them, it's an observation at an individual level. After checking the probable reasons for this issue, it doesn't look like something caused by an issue BGA as a site has a problem with, rather, the OP's game choices were just not ideal.

There are things BGA could do to improve, but that's a separate topic probably deserving of another thread.

Ceaseless wrote: ↑16 February 2024, 17:31

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑16 February 2024, 00:49

Ceaseless wrote: ↑15 February 2024, 19:08 My stance is that their issue isn't BGA not getting enough users. Would BGA like to get more users? Probably, but that's a separate matter from the issue at hand.

What is the issue at hand in your opinion? How to solve the issue of long wait times, that the op should go to another site to play the game they want, or both?

The issue at hand would be the topic brought up by the OP, that the OP could not get games when hosting and so is pushing for BGA to get more users to fix this problem on their end. For them, it's an observation at an individual level. After checking the probable reasons for this issue, it doesn't look like something caused by an issue BGA as a site has a problem with, rather, the OP's game choices were just not ideal.

There are things BGA could do to improve, but that's a separate topic probably deserving of another thread.

If that’s how you take it ok but I don’t agree. The headline is the headline no matter who wrote it. If I were to make this same thread and was referring to strands before bga announced it in the summer challenge your reply wouldn’t hold. You could say nobody was playing it because it’s terrible and I need to pick better choices but that would be false. Bga did something (put it in the summer challenge) and it went from a few games at a time to now there are currently 85 tables. Also assuming bga being able to add players will help your game isn’t a bad assumption. Even if only x amount of new players play your game out of new subscribers it’s still better than the current state.

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑16 February 2024, 18:34

Ceaseless wrote: ↑16 February 2024, 17:31

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑16 February 2024, 00:49

What is the issue at hand in your opinion? How to solve the issue of long wait times, that the op should go to another site to play the game they want, or both?

The issue at hand would be the topic brought up by the OP, that the OP could not get games when hosting and so is pushing for BGA to get more users to fix this problem on their end. For them, it's an observation at an individual level. After checking the probable reasons for this issue, it doesn't look like something caused by an issue BGA as a site has a problem with, rather, the OP's game choices were just not ideal.

There are things BGA could do to improve, but that's a separate topic probably deserving of another thread.

If that’s how you take it ok but I don’t agree. The headline is the headline no matter who wrote it. If I were to make this same thread and was referring to strands before bga announced it in the summer challenge your reply wouldn’t hold. You could say nobody was playing it because it’s terrible and I need to pick better choices but that would be false. Bga did something (put it in the summer challenge) and it went from a few games at a time to now there are currently 85 tables. Also assuming bga being able to add players will help your game isn’t a bad assumption. Even if only x amount of new players play your game out of new subscribers it’s still better than the current state.

"I am the greatest Chess player of all time" is not the same headline from you as it would be by say, Magnus Carlsen. "Why are all of my opponent's cancelling vs me?" by username "HAHAHAHA NOOB!" is not the same headline as the same question from "Bob". If someone is complaining about BGA not having enough users because they can't seem to get paired vs any in a game, the games they're playing are an obvious starting point. If your main game is Chess, BGA's population isn't going to be the main issue.

Details often matter. Changing those details is going to affect things too. You never made such a thread about Strands with me giving the exact same reply, and your hypothetical substituting an identical reply from me after changing the very details my reply is based on doesn't make any sense. You're not making an identical thread if you change the game in question. Strands isn't Chess. For starters, Strands was a lesser-known game that finally got released by BGA out of their testing mode and so got an announcement, while Chess is a very well-known game with multiple dedicated Chess sites, and Chess has been out on BGA for a while.

Ceaseless wrote: ↑16 February 2024, 20:22

ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑16 February 2024, 18:34

Ceaseless wrote: ↑16 February 2024, 17:31

The issue at hand would be the topic brought up by the OP, that the OP could not get games when hosting and so is pushing for BGA to get more users to fix this problem on their end. For them, it's an observation at an individual level. After checking the probable reasons for this issue, it doesn't look like something caused by an issue BGA as a site has a problem with, rather, the OP's game choices were just not ideal.

There are things BGA could do to improve, but that's a separate topic probably deserving of another thread.

If that’s how you take it ok but I don’t agree. The headline is the headline no matter who wrote it. If I were to make this same thread and was referring to strands before bga announced it in the summer challenge your reply wouldn’t hold. You could say nobody was playing it because it’s terrible and I need to pick better choices but that would be false. Bga did something (put it in the summer challenge) and it went from a few games at a time to now there are currently 85 tables. Also assuming bga being able to add players will help your game isn’t a bad assumption. Even if only x amount of new players play your game out of new subscribers it’s still better than the current state.

"I am the greatest Chess player of all time" is not the same headline from you as it would be by say, Magnus Carlsen. "Why are all of my opponent's cancelling vs me?" by username "HAHAHAHA NOOB!" is not the same headline as the same question from "Bob".

These are horrible examples. These examples would be directly about the op. Of course it would matter in that situation In this thread the op wrote about a site issue.