Imbalanced

[killjoyprose]

The most popular games are restricted to premium play where people deliberately start 1v1 tables to bully other players much below their skill level. I have the choice to either wait hours to play a board game in my free time against people in my skill level or play someone now when I have the time that is going to absolutely demolish me. Their are no tables I can match with where people don't abuse gaming mechanics I can't even begin to understand that have literal thousands of games put under their belts for something that only released a few months ago. This doesn't feel fun to me and I don't feel like I l learn anything as these same people often ignore questions or give basic advice. That anyone who is already playing understands. "You should try to get a higher score." I've had multiple people say those exact words to me. I try to have fun despite it but often I'm so willfully matched against my opponents that it just feels like I was put their to get beat up

[Tisaac]

Just buy premium then ?

[T72on1]

There is no correlation between premium subscription here and those people's skill level at certain games. Maybe you were just unlucky at the opponents you faced?

Whatever the situation and game outcome is, people should always treat each other with respect, obviously!

[Kayvon]

people deliberately start 1v1 tables to bully other players much below their skill level

Or just to play the game against similar players, right?

where people don't abuse gaming mechanics

How does one "abuse gaming mechanics"? How is this different from following the rules in order to win?

I hear that you're frustrated, but these accusations feel baseless. People play games they enjoy. If you'd rather play against apprentice players, choose a non-premium game and start a new table. You can restrict your new table to newer players, which should solve (most of?) your concerns here.

[Meeplelowda]

I don't feel like I l learn anything as these same people often ignore questions or give basic advice. That anyone who is already playing understands. "You should try to get a higher score." I've had multiple people say those exact words to me. I try to have fun despite it but often I'm so willfully matched against my opponents that it just feels like I was put their to get beat up

Go to the Community page (linked at the top of the page in the desktop interface or in the hamburger menu on mobile) and search for the group "Game Tutors" in the "Find a group" search box.

If you are assuming this site is like a board gaming convention where people are eager to meet new people and teach them the basics of games they like....you may be disappointed. It's not like anyone has to book a hotel room and flight to travel to BGA. It's a different experience. But you can find folks like that on here. Friend them when you find them.

[Cile]

Alternately: People who create tables for a game are more likely to be people who play that game a lot. They are willing to let lower ELO players join their table because they are just wanting to play the game. (Note that if the higher ranked players restricted their tables to higher ELOs that wouldn't solve your concern of the wait time to find a player at your skill level.) They are playing 1v1 so they don't have to wait as long for their turn.

If you are wanting to learn a game or having difficulty finding a fair match-up you might want to consider searching for a turn based table. You can set your ELO preferences and it doesn't matter if it takes some time to find an opponent as you aren't expected to take your turns immediately once the table starts. The vast majority of tables on BGA are turn based, so you'll be more likely to find an opponent around your skill level.

[Ceaseless]

The vast majority of tables on BGA are turn based, so you'll be more likely to find an opponent around your skill level.

Wait, seriously? What makes you say that? I'd expect there to have been far more real-time based games on BGA than turn-based. It's a shorter format, easier and more conventional to work with. I don't have anything that would confirm my hypothesis one way or the other though. I could see there being more ongoing turn-based tables since they take forever, so it would just be the ongoing real-time games from that part of the day vs the turn-based ones from not just that day, but any ongoing from that week, month, etc. but I'd be surprised if there were more overall turn-based games in general. Are there stats on this?

[chris1nd]

I was going to suggest playing a few asynchronous games as gives time to think and research.

Personally, I *never* play real-time.

[turtler7]

The vast majority of tables on BGA are turn based, so you'll be more likely to find an opponent around your skill level.

Wait, seriously? What makes you say that? I'd expect there to have been far more real-time based games on BGA than turn-based. It's a shorter format, easier and more conventional to work with. I don't have anything that would confirm my hypothesis one way or the other though. I could see there being more ongoing turn-based tables since they take forever, so it would just be the ongoing real-time games from that part of the day vs the turn-based ones from not just that day, but any ongoing from that week, month, etc. but I'd be surprised if there were more overall turn-based games in general. Are there stats on this?

The number of people who can invest the time to play a full game in real time without the need to step away here and there across the world is vastly smaller than the number of people who are able to get on a few times a day or more and take turns then to make up for it just run 10+ simultaneous games. I often run hundreds of simultaneous turn based games. The number of turn based games is much much higher than the real time ones for most games.

[Meeplelowda]

The vast majority of tables on BGA are turn based, so you'll be more likely to find an opponent around your skill level.

Wait, seriously? What makes you say that? I'd expect there to have been far more real-time based games on BGA than turn-based. It's a shorter format, easier and more conventional to work with. I don't have anything that would confirm my hypothesis one way or the other though. I could see there being more ongoing turn-based tables since they take forever, so it would just be the ongoing real-time games from that part of the day vs the turn-based ones from not just that day, but any ongoing from that week, month, etc. but I'd be surprised if there were more overall turn-based games in general. Are there stats on this?

Look at this page to see the relative numbers of real-time vs. turn-based games that are currently being played. True, it's not an apple to apples comparison because of course real-time games are shorter, but they'd have to be a lot shorter for their volume to be comparable to the turn-based volume.

Why the difference? Although it's not my personal preference, playing turn-based literally lets you play dozens (or even hundreds) of the same game simultaneously. Even though real-time is "more conventional to work with," I'd argue that turn-based is more convenient to work with. You aren't tied to being in a certain place for an extended period of time (which matters for longer format games). Also, there's no need to arrange for a group of friends to all be available at a certain time (if you don't want to play with random strangers).