waiting games

[chapcrap]

If game finder suffices, then why aren't games filling? What's the problem with bringing a little attention to these games?

What is your solution to get the games filled better, other than game finder?

I don't have a principled objection to things like the two join-a-game pages. I have an objection to solutions that increase the prominence of complicated games at the expense of simple games (which is, what I am arguing, reversing the game order would do).

Maybe if there were two tabs, the "complicated" tab could be something that became unlocked after a certain number of games.

[agentcom]

If game finder suffices, then why aren't games filling? What's the problem with bringing a little attention to these games?

What is your solution to get the games filled better, other than game finder?

I don't have a principled objection to things like the two join-a-game pages. I have an objection to solutions that increase the prominence of complicated games at the expense of simple games (which is, what I am arguing, reversing the game order would do).

Maybe if there were two tabs, the "complicated" tab could be something that became unlocked after a certain number of games.

That would be fine, but do you really think that it would make your games fill faster? The big problem that was solved by reordering the game finder was that so, so many of these games were being filled by unwitting folks picking the first result on the list--the same games and settings that the more experienced players obviously had passed up in favor of something else.

So, if you set the threshold for seeing these games where only experienced players will see them, and we know that the experienced players were the ones avoiding these games previously, then what have you solved? Who is going to want to view that Join A Game page when it doesn't have things that are of interest to them?

Also, it makes sense that your newer identical games would fill first. For some reason the results from Game Finder also display the newest games first, which is not how it always was. This is unfortunate, and I think that should be reversed. At one point there was significant discussion about how to order the results on each page (for example, the tournament guys had the results newest to oldest when running their searches, but other searches were the reverse). If you want to bring back that suggestion, then I'm all in favor of showing people the oldest games out there when they are actively searching for those types of games.

Additionally, many players are probably satificers, which means they will pick the first game that they want to play versus looking for the perfect game farther down in the list. With identical or nearly identical games, this means that they'll pick a result off the first page rather than farther into the results. I'm not sure that there's a "solution" to this on the Join A Game page, where by definition, the player hasn't indicated any type of preference for one game over another.

[koontz1973]

This might be a slightly radical idea, but instead of new to old or old to new as we have/had it, why not popular to unpopular. We can use maps and some settings for the basis of it. So classic map that is the most popular would show first and Salams Switch with trench, trips, no spoils and no reinforcements on the last page. That would allow some games to get ahead of others. When trench and poly came out, both where popular as everyone tried them, but now fewer and fewer are playing them, they would go to page 3 or 4. Couple this with another waiting games suggestion and you might get a good solution.

[Metsfanmax]

Also, it makes sense that your newer identical games would fill first. For some reason the results from Game Finder also display the newest games first, which is not how it always was. This is unfortunate, and I think that should be reversed. At one point there was significant discussion about how to order the results on each page (for example, the tournament guys had the results newest to oldest when running their searches, but other searches were the reverse). If you want to bring back that suggestion, then I'm all in favor of showing people the oldest games out there when they are actively searching for those types of games.

I would strongly support this option if you make a separate suggestion for it.

[chapcrap]

If game finder suffices, then why aren't games filling? What's the problem with bringing a little attention to these games?

What is your solution to get the games filled better, other than game finder?

I don't have a principled objection to things like the two join-a-game pages. I have an objection to solutions that increase the prominence of complicated games at the expense of simple games (which is, what I am arguing, reversing the game order would do).

Maybe if there were two tabs, the "complicated" tab could be something that became unlocked after a certain number of games.

That would be fine, but do you really think that it would make your games fill faster?

Yes, I really feel like that.

The big problem that was solved by reordering the game finder was that so, so many of these games were being filled by unwitting folks picking the first result on the list--the same games and settings that the more experienced players obviously had passed up in favor of something else.

So, if you set the threshold for seeing these games where only experienced players will see them, and we know that the experienced players were the ones avoiding these games previously, then what have you solved? Who is going to want to view that Join A Game page when it doesn't have things that are of interest to them?

Also, it makes sense that your newer identical games would fill first. For some reason the results from Game Finder also display the newest games first, which is not how it always was. This is unfortunate, and I think that should be reversed. At one point there was significant discussion about how to order the results on each page (for example, the tournament guys had the results newest to oldest when running their searches, but other searches were the reverse). If you want to bring back that suggestion, then I'm all in favor of showing people the oldest games out there when they are actively searching for those types of games.

I must not be explaining this well. I start games my batch of 9 games and 6-7 get filled very quickly. I'm talking about getting filled on the first day. The rest sit there for 10-14 days. I remake the batch of games and most fill the first day again. It has to do with them showing up sooner in the Join a Game page. It has nothing to do with Game Finder. What people are doing is going to Join a Game and scrolling through games until they find one they want. They aren't using game finder at all.

Additionally, many players are probably satificers, which means they will pick the first game that they want to play versus looking for the perfect game farther down in the list. With identical or nearly identical games, this means that they'll pick a result off the first page rather than farther into the results. I'm not sure that there's a "solution" to this on the Join A Game page, where by definition, the player hasn't indicated any type of preference for one game over another.

This is exactly true. That's why I think that creating two lists is a great idea. I think people will search through the unusual games list for fun and find things they might want to try. It can unlock for players after enough games.

[Metsfanmax]

I must not be explaining this well. I start games my batch of 9 games and 6-7 get filled very quickly. I'm talking about getting filled on the first day. The rest sit there for 10-14 days. I remake the batch of games and most fill the first day again. It has to do with them showing up sooner in the Join a Game page. It has nothing to do with Game Finder. What people are doing is going to Join a Game and scrolling through games until they find one they want. They aren't using game finder at all.

It's not your explanation that is problematic, it is your conclusion. If you create 9 games and 7 get filled, there aren't enough players around to fill all those games right now. So why should we continue to be leaving them on the first page for the two weeks it takes for people to be interested to play that game type again?

[chapcrap]

I must not be explaining this well. I start games my batch of 9 games and 6-7 get filled very quickly. I'm talking about getting filled on the first day. The rest sit there for 10-14 days. I remake the batch of games and most fill the first day again. It has to do with them showing up sooner in the Join a Game page. It has nothing to do with Game Finder. What people are doing is going to Join a Game and scrolling through games until they find one they want. They aren't using game finder at all.

It's not your explanation that is problematic, it is your conclusion. If you create 9 games and 7 get filled, there aren't enough players around to fill all those games right now. So why should we continue to be leaving them on the first page for the two weeks it takes for people to be interested to play that game type again?

I don't accept the premise of most of what's being said here and earlier posts.

First of all, I don't care if they are kept on the first page. I'm just saying that's when they fill. It's because people scroll through the games as agentcom pointed out and find the first that seems like something they might like. So, if more attention is given to the separate games that are unusual/complicated/non-standard/whatever, then it promotes, to people that typically play standard games, the other half of the games played here. If they get a glimpse of that, it will create more activity there.

Second of all, there are people interested in the game type. It's evidenced by the fact that every time I make the games that I'm speaking of, most fill very quickly with a wide variety of opponents. It's not just the same person or people group joining the games. The reason the games aren't getting started is only because they aren't earlier on the list. If they were earlier on the list, they would start, because people are interested. They just aren't interested in trying to use game finder, because as agentcom pointed out in the post from a different thread that I referenced earlier, trying to search for too specific of things leads to no or little results. So, people broaden their search or simply use Join A Game.

So, because of the greater number of games that are waiting, I think we should do something to promote the greater variety of game types. That's what this suggestion is getting at, in the end. Wanting people to explore beyond the first page. Essentially, we've got a bunch of lemmings looking for games. When they see a game they join it. We need to combat that. What would be nice is something similar to a website like Best Buy has. It would allow us to shop for games and filter games based on different criteria that can readily be seen on the left panel.

Something like this:




Additionally, tournament games need to stay the way they are in game finder. The newest games definitely need to be first for all tournament games. If other game searches can be separate from tournament games and be ordered oldest to newest, that would be very beneficial. If all games searches have to be lumped as one, then newest needs to go first.

[Metsfanmax]

So, because of the greater number of games that are waiting, I think we should do something to promote the greater variety of game types. That's what this suggestion is getting at, in the end. Wanting people to explore beyond the first page. Essentially, we've got a bunch of lemmings looking for games. When they see a game they join it. We need to combat that. What would be nice is something similar to a website like Best Buy has. It would allow us to shop for games and filter games based on different criteria that can readily be seen on the left panel.

That's all fine, but it is not mutually exclusive with having the newest games appear first on 'join a game'. I'd like to have more of a discussion on various ideas for how to promote the non-standard games without selling short the standard games, but let's please do it in a different thread.

Additionally, tournament games need to stay the way they are in game finder. The newest games definitely need to be first for all tournament games. If other game searches can be separate from tournament games and be ordered oldest to newest, that would be very beneficial. If all games searches have to be lumped as one, then newest needs to go first.

What's the reasoning for having the newest games first for tournament games? This is also a discussion that's best for another thread, I suppose. I've created it here.

[agentcom]

Chap, I guess I misunderstood you, but even under that reasoning, your argument is still problematic but for a different reason. Even if those games would be filled if they were on the front page, there are simply too many settings for us to pick one and place it on the front page for any length of time. Under the current system, they get displaced by other semi-unusual but acceptable to the masses games. I don't see an alternative. We could have just your favorite flavor up there on the front page, but that's obviously not going to be to everyone's liking. We could have the oldest games up there, but that rewards people who create the weirdest settings and that nearly everyone but noobs will pass up.

The current system is fine. Newest games displace the older ones. If you think that there's a steady market for your desired games, then create a steady supply of them. But just because you made 9 games one day and 9 games two weeks later and 14 of them filled doesn't mean that creating 14 games at one time should lead to the same result.

You're forgetting that the people who let your games slip down some pages, are joining games created by other people. Those other people have a right to get some games filled, too, by the players that are willing to go shopping in the Join A Game page.

That's the problem with this whole discussion. Everyone thinks that their games should be filled. They think that because there might be people out there willing to play their games ... maybe even who would prefer to play their games ... that their games should fill. But there are hundreds of people in the same boat, and there are two obvious ways of choosing which ones go up front: the newest or the oldest. Choosing the oldest creates problems and on balance choosing the newest is net beneficial.

Once you go beyond those two choices, you've moved outside the debate here, and we should probably talk about that elsewhere:

The sidebar idea would be cool, but it's a whole different suggestion. For now, what we have that approximates that is the Game Finder. It potentially has promise though, if you could actively toggle between various settings without running a new search each time. I would support it, if it came up.

The side note that I made about only Game Finder results being sorted from Oldest to Newest is, as Mets points out, also a separate suggestion. It's something that used to be in place because I remember having a lot of discussion about how each different listing should be sorted. I'd support going back to this, too.

Sorting them based on popularity is a separate (and much more complicated) suggestion. I'd have to know more about it, but I think it's probably complex, and it actually would do the opposite of what (I think) this suggestion promotes, which is that it emphasizes the "normal" games.

But on this suggestion, which is just about reordering the Join A Game results, I don't see any better way of doing things.

[BigBallinStalin]

What would be nice is something similar to a website like Best Buy has. It would allow us to shop for games and filter games based on different criteria that can readily be seen on the left panel.

Something like this:

This would pretty much resolve many of the issues here. Game finder is too clunky for most, and this easy way of sorting would bring demanders in line with suppliers much more efficiently due to lower search costs. This obviates the need for a debate on which maps a few deem as most demanded by the many; it lets the market decide.

I'd keep the same rotation style of games too (i.e. older ones get pushed to the back as the newer ones start up front). Keep the 2-week (4-week?) countdown, but don't automatically drop games if (a) it's a partially filled standard game or (b) if team 2 has at least 1 outta however many players on it (allow for people to invite to fill or wait). If people still want partially filled games to be killed, then a 4 to 8-week(?) grace period seems reasonable.

[chapcrap]

Chap, I guess I misunderstood you, but even under that reasoning, your argument is still problematic but for a different reason. Even if those games would be filled if they were on the front page, there are simply too many settings for us to pick one and place it on the front page for any length of time. Under the current system, they get displaced by other semi-unusual but acceptable to the masses games. I don't see an alternative. We could have just your favorite flavor up there on the front page, but that's obviously not going to be to everyone's liking. We could have the oldest games up there, but that rewards people who create the weirdest settings and that nearly everyone but noobs will pass up.

The current system is fine. Newest games displace the older ones. If you think that there's a steady market for your desired games, then create a steady supply of them. But just because you made 9 games one day and 9 games two weeks later and 14 of them filled doesn't mean that creating 14 games at one time should lead to the same result.

You're forgetting that the people who let your games slip down some pages, are joining games created by other people. Those other people have a right to get some games filled, too, by the players that are willing to go shopping in the Join A Game page.

That's the problem with this whole discussion. Everyone thinks that their games should be filled. They think that because there might be people out there willing to play their games ... maybe even who would prefer to play their games ... that their games should fill. But there are hundreds of people in the same boat, and there are two obvious ways of choosing which ones go up front: the newest or the oldest. Choosing the oldest creates problems and on balance choosing the newest is net beneficial.

Yeah, I was just using my games as an example. And I do use the work around of creating games at quicker paces and deleting the old ones. But, I was advocating for the others. I probably tend to agree that the games shouldn't just be switched to oldest first. However, I think the discussion below is a valid one to have.

Once you go beyond those two choices, you've moved outside the debate here, and we should probably talk about that elsewhere:

The sidebar idea would be cool, but it's a whole different suggestion. For now, what we have that approximates that is the Game Finder. It potentially has promise though, if you could actively toggle between various settings without running a new search each time. I would support it, if it came up.

The side note that I made about only Game Finder results being sorted from Oldest to Newest is, as Mets points out, also a separate suggestion. It's something that used to be in place because I remember having a lot of discussion about how each different listing should be sorted. I'd support going back to this, too.

Sorting them based on popularity is a separate (and much more complicated) suggestion. I'd have to know more about it, but I think it's probably complex, and it actually would do the opposite of what (I think) this suggestion promotes, which is that it emphasizes the "normal" games.

But on this suggestion, which is just about reordering the Join A Game results, I don't see any better way of doing things.

I'll work on a different suggestion or split this topic, since I derailed it somewhat.

[Mageplunka69]

ok after reading all of your suggestions,

My conclusion would be a daily or weekly scrambled order for them kinda like random but as far as placement of turn order, then they would all be new and old alike
I understand that when new people came and got page 1 , it was like farming for noobs for us with teams waiting

but damn 6 months for a game that would fill daily HAS to clog up the server i would think...just like map ranking my played games haha

but seriously we need a change, there are some numerous year players who went freemium over this , they say why bother paying if noboby joins,

we had 65-115 active games easily back then, now we have to farm player 2 games for fun

[Mageplunka69]

2013-06-25 23:15:05 - Game has been initialized

thats how long my oldest waiting game is from about ...thats nuts