Insane : hundreds of simultaneously played turn based games

[Hagardunor]

Can you seriously believe that a player can properly manage hundreds of turn based games ?

I recently noticed one I am playing with that has started over 200 turn based games. And of course, his/her responses are lagging and we are all there, waiting that he/she wakes up and remembers that he/she is playing with us.

There should be an absolute upper limit of simultaneously played turn based games

[nik592]

There are plenty of players who I've seen with hundreds of simultaneous games, and I don't think there's any reason to suppose they can't manage them. I personally was playing with around 60+ simultaneous games - I have friends who think that that is an insane number, but I handle it just fine. If a player is playing too slowly and running over their time limit, then you have the option to boot them from the game, and red thumb so you don't see them again. Otherwise, why does BGA need to manage how many games a person can reasonably play at once? Are we not all grown ups?

[Hagardunor]

There are plenty of players who I've seen with hundreds of simultaneous games, and I don't think there's any reason to suppose they can't manage them. I personally was playing with around 60+ simultaneous games - I have friends who think that that is an insane number, but I handle it just fine. If a player is playing too slowly and running over their time limit, then you have the option to boot them from the game, and red thumb so you don't see them again. Otherwise, why does BGA need to manage how many games a person can reasonably play at once? Are we not all grown ups?

You may think so but I don't.

60+ is acceptable if you are not playing games in team. Otherwise you put the pressure you have on time availability to all your game mates. Plus you cannot concentrate on good playing which affects also the whole team. I do not believe you can handle fairly those games that require reflexion and/or communication with partners such as Catan, Decrypto aso...

200+ simultaneous games means around 30 per day (edit : in a week), i.e. 1 round per hour not sleeping not eating. By the way the guy who owned these 200+ games let us down and WE HAD NOT EVEN A CHANCE TO START THE GAME !!!

I redthumbed him but lost my week waiting fo him to play.

And unfortunately i absolutely do not agree with you on BGA players maturity : we have daily proofs that NOT all of us are grown ups ! Just have a look on topics about cheaters and/or abusive behavior.

[ChiefPointThief]

I don’t understand how people are playing that many games either. I’ve encountered players with over 400. I’m guessing these players play with very slow settings or even friendly matches. I play a lot and 60 was too much for me. I have a few friends that stay around the 200 mark so it is doable.

[nik592]

60+ is acceptable if you are not playing games in team. Otherwise you put the pressure you have on time availability to all your game mates. Plus you cannot concentrate on good playing which affects also the whole team. I do not believe you can handle fairly those games that require reflexion and/or communication with partners such as Catan, Decrypto aso...

What do you mean by team? As in cooperative (which Decrypto is but Catan is not)? Or just more than 2 players? Either way, apart from in tournaments where time limits work differently, I almost never exceed time limits. In fact, every now and again, someone disappears in a game I'm in (by which I mean for several days beyond their time, I actually give people a reasonable chance as life does happen) and I end up having to boot them - I suspect it happens to all of us. And I don't think many of them had 200+ games going on. That may be a reason why someone is late, but you can just as easily lose your week waiting for someone whose only game it is. In some ways, someone who is playing many games is more likely to be engaged with the website than someone with fewer games.

I personally don't think that (most) cooperative gaming works well in turn-based no matter how many games you have on the go, but that's just my personal opinion.

200+ simultaneous games means around 30 per day, i.e. 1 round per hour not sleeping not eating. By the way the guy who owned these 200+ games let us down and WE HAD NOT EVEN A CHANCE TO START THE GAME !!!

I'm not clear on your maths. You are saying it takes an hour to take one turn? My games would often have me wake up in the morning to 40-50 tables waiting for my move, which I typically start to play over breakfast. Depending on the games, it might take 1-2 hours to get through them all, which sometimes I get through in the mornings (weekends typically) or other days I might spend half an hour in the morning, 10 minutes a couple of times during a break in my morning, some more time at lunch, etc. Most days I'd have my turns done by lunchtime, occasionally some might wait through to the end of my day. Then repeat.

I won't say I make optimal moves every time, but that has far more to do with how long it has been between turns rather than other games going on. Occassionally, if I have multiple of the same game going I get confused which one I'm looking at, though that typically results in me wondering why the thing I wanted/move I was planning has been taken by someone else before I realise that's my other table of that game. For that reason, I tend to play one table per game for the most part, but that doesn't always work out in tournament play.

And unfortunately i absolutely do not agree with you on BGA players maturity : we have daily proofs that all of us are NOT grown ups ! Just have a look on topics about cheaters and/or abusive behavior.

You can only put so many limits on a system and even when you put more on than most, some jerky person will still find a way to be their jerky self. As I said, plenty of players still disappear on their games even if they're not playing 200+. People can still come on a site like this and ruin the experience for others playing entirely in the rules (deliberately throwing a coop game for example, or even just playing absolutely randomly against someone just to annoy them). When I say people are grown ups, it means you put reasonable limits in place and trust that the majority of people will follow them in the intended spirit. Fortunately, for those who don't, BGA provides a self-limiting mechanism in terms of thumb ratings. If someone's a jerk, they'll get lots of red thumbs, their karma goes down, they have less people to play with. If someone decides to red thumb a player just because they happened to lose to them, theoretically, that will be balanced by green thumbs they get from the majority. It's not a perfect system, but very few are.

Additionally, let's say they apply a hard limit of 50 games. For those who can and would like to handle more, they just get annoyed, possibly even decide to play elsewhere. You'd probably get a small percentage who are helped by BGA placing the limit they should be placing on themselves, but someone who takes on 200 games they can't keep up with is equally likely to one day take on the 50 when they shouldn't and still disappear. And, hey, sometimes life happens, a person signs up for 50 games they have every intention of playing and then they get hit by a bus (literally or figuratively). Sure, you lost your week waiting for them to start, but at least you didn't get hit by a bus.

[Shobu]

I wish there was settings to exclude that kind of players during table creation.

[Hagardunor]

I wish there was settings to exclude that kind of players during table creation.

Thumbs up !

This could be a tradeoff that could fit to people like me and people like nik592 above as well

[Chiffa of Kettari]

Ok, let's imagine this was implemented. You set the limit for players with e.g. 30 simultaneous games. A gamer with 10 games joins your table, then goes and joins 100 more games. Than what?

This limit makes no sense technically, as a person can have 5 games now, 100 in next 15 minutes.

[Hagardunor]

Ok, let's imagine this was implemented. You set the limit for players with e.g. 30 simultaneous games. A gamer with 10 games joins your table, then goes and joins 100 more games. Than what?

This limit makes no sense technically, as a person can have 5 games now, 100 in next 15 minutes.

Your argument against my proposal can be challenged too :

• If we agree with you, karma limits are of no use either : somebody can be just over the limit and drop down quickly too

• your example is purely theoretical and has very little chance to occur; my idea is rather to set the limit around a few dozens in order to avoid multihundreds games players

I admit that what I ask for is not the ultimate weapon against stragglers, just as red thumb is not against cheaters or hot tempered persons, but it helps to contain the number of which you are obliged to play with. In that sense it can be an interesting tool that I would appreciate having at my disposal. Moreover nobody is obliged to use it, same as red thumbs

What decided me to make this proposal is a personal experience : we got a 200+ games owner in our game, and what was bound to happen effectively happened : we waited 1 week for him, after what he was ousted as he reached the limit time, and the game had to be closed without having ever started.

Anyway, I am decided to make this suggestion and see how it is received

[frogstar_A]

Can you seriously believe that a player can properly manage hundreds of turn based games ?

I recently noticed one I am playing with that has started over 200 turn based games. And of course, his/her responses are lagging and we are all there, waiting that he/she wakes up and remembers that he/she is playing with us.

There should be an absolute upper limit of simultaneously played turn based games

You don't know about the lives of these people. A retired person with no work, playing games set to 1 mover per day, could very easily take 200 moves every day. So could a student in their summer holiday.

Just because you don't have time for 200 games or would like them to move faster doesn't mean they can't manage them and can't play within the time rules