Metsfanmax wrote:I think it is better the way it currently is. To simplify, suppose we have a stock of 1000 waiting games, and that 100 are created every day and 100 are joined every day. Let's take the extreme assumption that people join games that are on the first page of Join a Game no matter what. This means that we will exactly fill those 100 created games every day, so the 1000 waiting games just idle there, forever. This sounds bad until you properly weigh it against the alternative. If we display the oldest games first, what will happen is that the oldest 100 games will fill every day, while 100 new games are created every day. This means that the average game that is created today won't fill for 10 days. So in one system we have 1000 games that are never played, and in the other we have every game for all time taking 10 days to start. The solution that benefits the most people is clearly the former.
Obviously that assumption is unrealistic; since we do have the Game Finder, eventually those old games will be filled. I believe that relaxing the assumption in any way just makes the case even stronger for leaving it as is. In particular, it is probably not the case that people just join whatever is on page one. Surely some percentage of players do that, and perhaps it's even a large percentage. But it seems rather unreasonable to suggest that there is not a non-trivial percentage of users that do discriminate between game types, which means that chap's experience was more coincidence than anything else. In other words, if his conclusion is correct, then why didn't people join his game the first time it was on the first page?
It's not a coincidence. It's happened multiple times. I make some poly games and make 9 at a time. Three each of 3 different setups. Invariably, 5-7 fill right away, while the others sit and wait forever (READ: longer than I want) until I invite people or they are dropped and I create another batch of 9.
I also disagree, that the argument gets stronger for keeping it as is if people aren't only joining games from the first page. If people are wanting certain normal settings, they are easy to find. For the unusual things, people don't search for them as often, because as shown
here, not all the games you search for are available every time, but it's pretty easy to find some 1v1 games or standard games. Over half the games waiting are standard games. Team games make up about 25% and assassin/terminator/poly make up the rest. Trench is an a little over 25%. Unlimited makes a little under 25%, which is the same number as Adjacent, Parachute, and no reinforcements combined. So, chained is around 55%.
When you check all these statistics and add over 200 maps, it's easy to see that there could be unusual games that aren't crazy weird. I mean a poly game with parachute and no trench? Only 41 games total of over 7000 waiting games. About 0.5%. So, to me, something more needs done to highlight the new and
unusual settings for people to try. Otherwise, what's the point of having them? I think enough is being done to protect NRs. At some point, we need to promote the game play we have and not worry about pandering to people we don't have yet with inferences on what will make them happy without actually having proof or statistics. I'm at that point. If the dozens of possible setups and game play settings in addition to the over 200 maps can't keep people, then I think we're not keeping them. Simple as that.
A better solution for this may be to show both games on the front screen. Have a tab for
unusual game types or have two columns. One for new games, one for older games. Maybe a tab that shows all standard games and a tab that shows all other games? I don't know, but I think we need to have something that promotes games that aren't on the first page.
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:18 pm