what would be nice is if a player can title their game with a short limited "title" or "summary"
You got that done! Into "Play Now" (until they withdraw it) you have the
(no presentation yet) [modify] thingy-dingy that allows you to do exactly that; look under the games settings. But then, on "Play now" it's a mostly redundant feature as it already is pretty much a perfect user interface. Don't know about the new lobby. "Don't use until they wipe it out" it is my best advice about that one. And when they make it the only thing, anyways, you'll know it's not you they're interested in if you're able to use "Play Now". Priorities and decision-making = interest of leadership.
Now... I'm back because I'm mourning. I don't even come back to BGA to play, I come back to the forums, to understand why I don't want to play.
Well, I've done more thinking...
*Please*: If you're not interested in Real-Time play with random people, go on and live your life without replying! We all love you nonetheless, but your irrelevant comment will not be missed. (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.)
Are there people, like I've expressed the perspective, that care about starting a Real-Time game with random people, having more options than the coercion of Arena play and top-10 (on BGA) played games?
I think I've met many, but I'm unsure because very few have eluded that they share the desire, in this thread. Real-world mates discarded.
[For the record: most of my mates don't give a humpf about BGA since the pandemic ended, others will meet for what has been expressed already: distance or family life makes it the best alternative; but it's not random folks, they actually make appointments to play...
they could play elsewhere, but here the price is unbeatable at $0.00 and the games that are coded are well coded!]
What would help prove/disprove the argument is intelligence about:
- 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?
The *importantly* bit would qualify / disprove the vicious-circle I've experienced: (Play Now) No play = (me) compromise for lesser fun & choice = (all players trying Play Now) less play for non-compromise & fun! = (me) no play for greater fun! = (all) less play for fun! = (me) no play = (all) less = (me) nope.
The *intelligence about* bit is because we need hard data. Most players, like me, probably have no interest whatsoever in the forums aside from when they have a problem. They very likely wouldn't manifest here. But that's easy to write, and to prove / disprove it: only data matters. Any tech-wizard has found that data? Unlikely that leadership would share that sort of thing. Less likely to a disgruntled-player-started thread.
For those annoyed by this thread, I'm over my mourning soon. If no-one replies, my horse is dead. We're far from "How can BGA improve Real-Time matchmaking?" now, I guess; my mind's more into "does BGA have any incentive or interest to improve Real-Time matchmaking?", I guess.
Cheers,
me
