Let us start multiple games at once

[asd123321]

This would help us find players a huge amount since we often are waiting 30 to 60 minutes for players.
After a player arrived for one game, then the others would not be listed as long as that player
stayed. Then people wouldn't be waiting for nothing. When 1 of the games started, then all
the others would be ended. There would be a benefit both ways, for someone looking for players
and for those looking for games to join.

[Jest Phulin]

Is this suggestion for multiple tables of the same game, or for different games?

[asd123321]

Different games

[CB Droege]

I don't think I understand. What's stopping you from creating multiple games? People do it all the time. I usually start five or six turn-based games at the same time. Does the system not let you do that for real time games? I've never tried.

[Liallan]

I'm not sure I quite understand what is even wanted, but sounds like other games would automatically be cancelled so people aren't waiting around. But isn't that going to be confusing for the other players who took the game? It seems it only benefits the table admin, so they can start whichever game fills up first, and then anyone else who accepted the other games has waited for nothing, which defeats the purpose.

I don't understand.

[sourisdudesert]

As I understand it, this suggestion is matching one of the feature we want to implement in our future "automatic lobby" :

If you want to play Hive, Amyitis or Quoridor, you click on "play Hive", "play Amyitis" and "play Quoridor", and as soon as there are opponents matching your criteria the game starts. This way, we expect you to play more "rare" games.

Philosophy from player's perspective : "I would never create a table of Amyitis because I don't want to wait 20 minutes for an opponent, but I can click on "play Amyitis" among other games, and if by chance another player did the same we can play this game together".

[Liallan]

Seems like this would only work with 2 player, or at least in a fair way. Cause if Amyitis is 4 player, and I believe the other two are 2 player only, and I accept the Amyitis but we need 2 more players... then someone accepts the Hive and Amyitis disappears, leaving me going huh? and disappointed to have found the game but not getting to play it. Or the only other solution being to make me now wait until Hive is over.

If this could only be done 2 player, that would make more sense, cause then you don't end up with those issues.

(And I fully intend on learning all 3 of those someday. But, well, turn-based. This is one advantage of turn-based.)

[Romain672]

Actually, it's fair too for 3 players : someone else create a table for a game, then you join and nobody come, and then you leave for an other game : the other person can just create an other game if he doesn't want to wait more.

Now, if there is already 3players, it would be bad if you leave...

[asd123321]

As I described it, the only game listed after one that had a second player would be that game.
There still could be a long wait for a third player.

[Liallan]

Actually, it's fair too for 3 players : someone else create a table for a game, then you join and nobody come, and then you leave for an other game

This assumes that I leave for another game. This assume that I know the admin has created other tables, that I know no one is coming. Maybe I'm still waiting and suddenly the game disappears, and then I have to wait for another game.