How can BGA improve Real-Time matchmaking?

[nik592]

(I haven't been to a gamecon and will never do such thing. Not my cup of tea. I want to play, not look at what could be played. I've actually been on the BoD for local game weekends, where we play. Yup, just play, until we're too exhausted or drunk. Very few marketing stalls or other distractions, and those were against my vote.)

A convention is a meeting of a large group of people. Some cons have shops, some don't, but either way, I don't go to cons to shop, I go to cons to sample their board game library. Mostly, I do a quick 30-60 min peruse of the shops (depending on the con size) and then spend the rest of my time playing, until they kick us out - but I could easily skip my shop browsing and just play all day (or multiple days). Pretty much all cons I have been to usually have their (not insignificant) play area full or almost full, providing their game library is diverse and interesting. Many people to play with. Just because there are shops there, doesn't mean you don't get to play. But in any case, my point was, they typically have a similar mechanism to RT games on here running - where people pick up a game and stick a sign on their table saying "looking for players". Sometimes they fill quickly, sometimes they wait for a while, sometimes they have to give up. Depends on who is there and what they're into, and that's not something the con organisers can control. Much like BGA.

Also, despite what you may think, I actually AM interested in playing RT with random people, but I don't get time for a lot of it. If I get time to play, I start up some tables (or join them) that I'm interested in and see what happens. Sometimes I don't get a game cause no one is interested in what I want (and available). That's just how it goes sometimes. If I'm not choosing super popular games (Azul, TTR, Carcassone, etc.) and/or have lots of time to sit around and wait, that's about what I expect to happen. It'd be great if people who want to play the same games as me were online at just the same time, but since that's fairly unrealistic to hope for all the time, I play turn-based when I can't - it's better than not playing at all (and for some games is the better option anyway).

[Jellby]

I don't even come back to BGA to play

Well... then you are not helping people wanting to play RT.

[QueenGambitAccepted]

I think RT is fine, could be better but I think it is satisfying enough for me. I don't feel the same regarding RT arena though... I never play it. I feel like separating the regular and arena pools does nothing but make the RT issue worse. so I would suggest merging the two, or allow players who seek automatically to search for arena and regular games.

[Perduicitte]

I wish this weren't about me, and it's not! There's at least you!

If I'm not choosing super popular games (Azul, TTR, Carcassone, etc.) and/or have lots of time to sit around and wait, that's about what I expect to happen. It'd be great if people who want to play the same games as me were online at just the same time, but since that's fairly unrealistic to hope for all the time, I play turn-based when I can't - it's better than not playing at all

I didn't read that at all in your previous post. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems you experience what I dubbed the vicious circle. So maybe we're two. It seemed to me you were saying "oh well, BGA can't do much about RT, it's player preference" and there also, I might be wrongfully interpreting your words.

I do believe there is tons of options for BGA leadership, and they have the means to do it. I know that the stuff I manage is entirely up to me, and my decisions are, after deliberations and arguments, final and implemented; but I don't manage BGA. BGA could be starting with marketing: promoting BGA as a functional RT platform. Promoting internally, to BGA players, seems like the first place to go (customer relations) but I've suggested other ideas and others have added to those suggestions. I also suggested leaving Arena behind (some people seem to like Arena a lot though) and keeping "Play Now" as the main lobby (if it ain't broke, don't fix it!).

Anyways, that's what I do to help people wanting to play RT, short of having the patience for queuing too long for games that will rarely start: I put the issue forward and try to tease facts & data out of these posts. I tried back-of-the-napkin stats and there was some discussion about my methodology, but not resounding enthusiasm for RT play. That's what I'm mourning: apparent apathy regarding something I'd like to have and seems very feasible, should the interest (prioritization & decision-making) be there. And that's what I'm addressing, trying my best to conjure data to either prove my point, or prove that I'm delusional (see my previous post). But I don't know how to get to that data, if feasible.

Anyways, sorry for misunderstanding your post, maybe. I would love to hear your take on improving RT, if you are as interested as I now read. And that goes for anyone else, I ain't a jealous dog-that-barks I do get tired of feeling like I'm writing a monologue.

Cheers,

me

[nik592]

It seemed to me you were saying "oh well, BGA can't do much about RT, it's player preference" and there also, I might be wrongfully interpreting your words.

I am saying that. I'm not disputing that it can sometimes be difficult to find RT games of less popular titles, but that's just how things work. But that's true of BGA, conventions, hell, even my RL game group. We don't always have time to meet, and even when we do, not everyone wants to play what I do, so we have to sometimes compromise. I get more opportunities to play games (and a much more diverse range) on BGA than pretty much anywhere else, and for that I'm grateful. If I can get a RT game that I want in the few opportunities I get to RT game, great! If not, I can choose to wait, choose something more popular, or choose TB, or go and do something that's not playing a game. I don't expect BGA to magically produce just the right players for the right game at the right moment.

As far as I'm aware, BGA has a decent size user base, so it's probably reasonably representative as a sample of potential players out there in the world. If you assume that less players play RT already, that's probably going to continue, so any new players they attract (either via marketing or something like ditching Arena hoping players go back to non-Arena and don't just quit the platform) are likely to represent a small slice of that. I suspect it's probably more likely that less players play the games you want to play (whether RT or TB), as you've admitted they're not the super popular gateway titles, but the same thing applies - new players will still only include a small amount who are prepared to try or regularly play less popular titles.

BTW, as someone who plays quite a lot of TB and Arena, starting a TB game of a less popular title also takes longer - I've waited days for some on occasion. The difference is I don't have to be online for all the time I'm waiting with a TB game. Also, less popular titles in Arena seem to take even longer to find a game at times, which makes me think that probably less people play Arena than non-Arena, so I don't think Arena steals away as many players as you may think.

[Perduicitte]

Hey nik592, thanks for your answer.
I think you are assuming a lot of inaptitude (as in "not capable to..") on behalf of BGA's leadership. I say: "Gimme the keys to the car and we'll drive it to Botswana if we want to!" Different perspectives, I prefer mine. BGA can act to improve RT matchmaking and CHOOSES NOT TO. (all caps for emphasis, not emotions.)

Anyways, here's my challenge: win this argument with data!!!
That's the challenge I'm taking and honestly, you may be in a better fight position than I am, because all I have is my back-of-the-napkin stuff posted earlier. I'm seeking and not finding a way to get:

IMPORTANTLY: What proportion of the player population starts tables for games, and for what games, that are never filled and they just abandon; or another table fills first and they play the other table? How long is the average wait time per RT table that is filled / unfilled, disaggregated per game?

What proportion of RT disaggregated games are played in Arena?

What proportion of RT disaggregated games are played in "Play Now" *with 2 or 3+ friends around the table*, as I've often used that trick to fill tables for games that are much, much better with 3/4/5/+ players?

Until then, I sincerely believe it's a business decision to prioritize the dumbing-down of BGA to favour newcomers, to the detriment of RT matchmaking (ie: resources are invested elsewhere than fixing the issue you recognized yourself, but are not discounting).

Cheers, and please take up my challenge to you and anyone else!

me

[Perduicitte]

Le roi est mort, vive le roi!

This is not a criticism, it is meant as an opportunity for change (this is a historical reference, for the unawares: https://www.unifr.ch/alma-georges/artic ... 20monarque). Change can be good or bad. Tell us if the change you want to see includes improved RT games: upvote https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=90026

"Real-time game matching is lacking, BGA should do more to support this. Specifically, if you speak poor-man's-math: [(Arena+PlayNow) + (FriendsOnly+RandomPeople)] * (RT games that are not starting) = no fun
See boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30498 as reference.

If you agree, not with me, but with the general principle, please upvote!"

Good luck Greg, I'll investigate and use https://en.baztille.org/ if relevant to my purposes, but I'm seriously happy to "feel the vibe"!
That said, I don't know what was yours and what was others' in the BGA choosing to let go of RT games, but good luck to you.

....now good luck to us (myself included), or good luck to you (myself excluded) players who would like to see more effective RT game-matching!


Cheers,

me

[Perduicitte]

I was happily going to log onto and play on one of the other platforms I use, which we are forbidden to even mention, when I had regrets about the great offer that BGA has here. But then I remembered that it's only true if you do not seek Real-Time games... I then remembered I had tried to do something about it and... it petered out. This post will consider the reader is aware of previous arguments summed up in an earlier post, reading the full post by clicking the ↑ in the quote:

I've finished my samples of RT, times for EST (Eastern provinces of Canada)

Those with access to data have not taken up the challenge to answer the argument by using that data.
Thus, I must assume that leaving BGA behind is the correct choice.

I regret the really good implementation of very many boardgames. Thank you programmers. They could be played in Real-Time if there were efforts to make that a priority, against real people from all around the world. This would be superior than playing against AI on other platforms, which is currently the better option. Without data, the players cannot know why, or how ridiculously difficult of a challenge it would present.

Cheers