Simple SUB SORT of "Join Public Games" list

[Robinette]

I suggest that the "Join Public Games" section be divided into several additional categories.

• Additional SUB SORT of "Join a Game" list

"Join A Game" is currently separated into 4 groups
* Join Public Games
* Join Private Games
* Join Tournament Games
* Join Speed Games

I would like to suggest that the "Join Public Games" section be divided into several additional categories.

Currently, within "Join Public Games" there are over 2000 games waiting...
796 are Standard (585 seq, 211 freestyle)
779 are Team Games (666 seq, 113 freestyle)
156 are Assassin
326 are Terminator


Separating these 2061 games into the 4 (or 6) groups noted above would be very beneficial to the community as it would provide members with an easier finding the games they want to play. At one time long ago "Join a Game" had ALL games in one group, and I can remember when that list grew to over 1000 games and became very difficult to use. The change to 4 sub groups made things better. This would simply expand on that idea and would ake the Join a Game function an even more usable feature.

To restate, my suggestion is that when you click on "Public Games" that another selection option is displayed with the above 4-6 sub groups, OR, if you feel it would be more usable to have all choices on the initial screen, then expand the current 4 choices to include these additional groups.

[IcePack]

i agree

[nebsmith]

Isn't this already available. for instance if you want all the public, seqeuntial, team games just tick waiting for players, doubles, triples, quads, sequential and public and click search.

[Woodruff]

I suggest that the "Join Public Games" section be divided into several additional categories.

• Additional SUB SORT of "Join a Game" list

"Join A Game" is currently separated into 4 groups
* Join Public Games
* Join Private Games
* Join Tournament Games
* Join Speed Games

I would like to suggest that the "Join Public Games" section be divided into several additional categories.

Currently, within "Join Public Games" there are over 2000 games waiting...
796 are Standard (585 seq, 211 freestyle)
779 are Team Games (666 seq, 113 freestyle)
156 are Assassin
326 are Terminator


Separating these 2061 games into the 4 (or 6) groups noted above would be very beneficial to the community as it would provide members with an easier finding the games they want to play. At one time long ago "Join a Game" had ALL games in one group, and I can remember when that list grew to over 1000 games and became very difficult to use. The change to 4 sub groups made things better. This would simply expand on that idea and would ake the Join a Game function an even more usable feature.

To restate, my suggestion is that when you click on "Public Games" that another selection option is displayed with the above 4-6 sub groups, OR, if you feel it would be more usable to have all choices on the initial screen, then expand the current 4 choices to include these additional groups.

Grab that button over to the left called "Game Finder". Works like a champ.

[Robinette]

Isn't this already available. for instance if you want all the public, seqeuntial, team games just tick waiting for players, doubles, triples, quads, sequential and public and click search.

Grab that button over to the left called "Game Finder". Works like a champ.

perhaps you fellers don't use the "Join A Game" feature all that much...

so yes, the Game Finder could get you there... heck, you could even drop the "My Games" button, and just use the Game Finder for that too.

But that also would be a bit lame i think...

[Woodruff]

Isn't this already available. for instance if you want all the public, seqeuntial, team games just tick waiting for players, doubles, triples, quads, sequential and public and click search.

Grab that button over to the left called "Game Finder". Works like a champ.

perhaps you fellers don't use the "Join A Game" feature all that much...

so yes, the Game Finder could get you there...

Could get you there? It essentially can give you whatever you want, specifically. You're basically asking for a feature that already exists.

And you're right...I DON'T use "Join A Game"...not at all, because it's superflous unless I absolutely don't care about any specifics to the game I am going to join. Truthfully, I don't personally see why the "Join A Game" button even exists.

[IcePack]

Yeah I agree, thi suggestion I would use it. Right now i just use game finder. Get rid of join public game or impliment this so its used.

[Robinette]

And you're right...I DON'T use "Join A Game"...not at all, because it's superflous unless I absolutely don't care about any specifics to the game I am going to join.

Yeah I agree, thi suggestion I would use it. Right now i just use game finder. Get rid of join public game or impliment this so its used.

thank you both for agreeing with me...

[nebsmith]

And you're right...I DON'T use "Join A Game"...not at all, because it's superflous unless I absolutely don't care about any specifics to the game I am going to join. Truthfully, I don't personally see why the "Join A Game" button even exists.

The join a game button is really only useful when you are a NR and limited in what you can play. Hitting "join a game" then gives you around 70 games to choose from

[TheForgivenOne]

I still use the Join A Game function. And I'm pretty gosh darn sure i'm not a NR

[40kguy]

I still use the Join A Game function. And I'm pretty gosh darn sure i'm not a NR

lol me2

[Woodruff]

And you're right...I DON'T use "Join A Game"...not at all, because it's superflous unless I absolutely don't care about any specifics to the game I am going to join.

Yeah I agree, thi suggestion I would use it. Right now i just use game finder. Get rid of join public game or impliment this so its used.

thank you both for agreeing with me...

I didn't agree with you. I don't agree with you. In fact, not at all. I stated quite clearly that the "Join A Game" was superflous and has no reason to exist. (You conveniently edited that part out...is this some sort of "Queen_Herpes try to make it sound like everyone agrees with me and ignore those I can't make look that way" thing?

[Woodruff]

I still use the Join A Game function. And I'm pretty gosh darn sure i'm not a NR

I still use the Join A Game function. And I'm pretty gosh darn sure i'm not a NR

lol me2

Do you use it when you simply don't care to set up any specifications for a game you're looking for, then? I'm basically asking...would it cause you any loss in capability/functionality if the "Join A Game" function were to go away and you were to use Game Finder instead?

[TheForgivenOne]

I still use the Join A Game function. And I'm pretty gosh darn sure i'm not a NR

I still use the Join A Game function. And I'm pretty gosh darn sure i'm not a NR

lol me2

Do you use it when you simply don't care to set up any specifications for a game you're looking for, then? I'm basically asking...would it cause you any loss in capability/functionality if the "Join A Game" function were to go away and you were to use Game Finder instead?

Would probably Annoy me quite a bit. I barely use Game Finder at all. I mainly use it to click on speed games, Or, go to the last page and look for an interest type of game.

[Woodruff]

I still use the Join A Game function. And I'm pretty gosh darn sure i'm not a NR

I still use the Join A Game function. And I'm pretty gosh darn sure i'm not a NR

lol me2

Do you use it when you simply don't care to set up any specifications for a game you're looking for, then? I'm basically asking...would it cause you any loss in capability/functionality if the "Join A Game" function were to go away and you were to use Game Finder instead?

Would probably Annoy me quite a bit. I barely use Game Finder at all. I mainly use it to click on speed games, Or, go to the last page and look for an interest type of game.

It would add one step to what you do, and I can agree that would be annoying. But no loss in capability/functionality, right? Essentially, my point is NOT to get rid of Join A Game, but rather to point out that the functionality that is requested here already exists.