Board Game Arena

Thank you for all your sincere feedback.

I can see a lot of passion, and it’s great to see how much everyone cares about the future of the site.

Finding the right balance for the future of BGA is tough. There are no magic solutions, I wish there were, and no decision has been made yet but when we do, we’ll let you know.

For now, rest assured that I am taking your feedback, especially the concerns around AI, back to the team. The whole point of the survey is to "read the room" and hear what you really think, and we’re seeing it.

Thanks again for being so honest about it.

On the original subject of AI:

As noted in this thread, AI is a major resource hog, with regard to societal infrastructure but also likely with regard to website resource allocation. I can understand why people would want BGA not to get involved with AI.

People often use the phrase "AI" a bit freely, often referring to computer-controlled players as "AI opponents", even though these opponents aren't really AI, in the sense that they are not "thinking" and learning the game, but rather, are just following a pre-programmed set of "if/then" or "if/else" instructions. That likely does not use a significant quantity of resources compared to an actual thinking AI opponent.

In some cases in which players express interest in AI opponents, I'm thinking perhaps they just wish some games here had a non-thinking "bot" player to fill in as a placeholder in games in which a player quits or forfeits so the game can be finished naturally.

As long as the players knew when starting the game whether this option were selected, I do not think this would be a problem nor would it hog resources or cause problems. These "bot" players are typically not good and make their moves very quickly following a simple set of pre-programmed instructions that make legal moves without much strategy.

FrankJones wrote: ↑19 June 2026, 14:50 These "bot" players are typically not good and make their moves very quickly following a simple set of pre-programmed instructions that make legal moves without much strategy.

I 100% guarantee that if this were implemented people would complain that the bots are programmed to kingmake in favor of Premium players, even if they are just literally choosing random legal moves.

Meeplelowda wrote: ↑19 June 2026, 16:22

FrankJones wrote: ↑19 June 2026, 14:50 These "bot" players are typically not good and make their moves very quickly following a simple set of pre-programmed instructions that make legal moves without much strategy.

I 100% guarantee that if this were implemented people would complain that the bots are programmed to kingmake in favor of Premium players, even if they are just literally choosing random legal moves.

Ugh, you are absolutely correct. While it would be nice to have the option of a bot to fill in for a dropped player, or allow for less popular games to be played, or let players try a game out against a bot before playing against real opponents; It would still take a lot of resources to make available (every game would need its own individual bot coded), probably wouldn't be used a lot, and the end result would be endless threads of "Bots favour premium players", "Bots cheat", "Bots are terrible players"...

Cile wrote: ↑19 June 2026, 19:36 While it would be nice to have the option of a bot to fill in for a dropped player

Perhaps. But, in my opinion, it should never prevent other players to leave after a player has dropped. Anything that changes the initial conditions when the game started should give everyone the possibility of leaving the game without penalty (or veto the change).

The best way you could use AI would be code reviews and eliminating technical debt as well as implementing new features. I ship everyday day with Claude Code and Codex. Make sure to do a lot of planning first and do a thorough PRD and test plan. Good Luck.

i don't mind AI stuff , but im 100% against bot player to play ( with a fake name).. i want to play with real person even if i have to wait longer