I think it might be time to have a real discussion about the 'queue' on WarGear. I think until now we've all taken a bit of a hands-off approach but as the site grows, the laissez-faire approach is going to really stop working.

For example, right now I take a look at the open games and I see: Weathertop started 3 identical games on Dungeon that have been there at least a couple hours. Just now inxs started a 4th for no apparent reason. There's a game of Plinko waiting that was started last night (at least 10 hrs ago) with no notable progress, as well as a couple of others. I created a handful of Global War games - each of the 1v1s started within minutes and the larger ones are almost full as of >30 minutes after initialization.

I think there are 2 debatable points at hand:
1) Is action needed
2) If so, what action?

1) I think something definitely has to be done. As the site gets bigger and its user-base as well as its board library grow, a free-for-all queue style is going to mean that many games will take longer and longer to fill up and begin, not to mention the increasing danger that the more people there are registered for the site, the greater the likelihood that some tool comes along and thinks it's hilarious to start 200 games in an hour. However the main point remains the day-to-day, basic functionality of the games list.

2) We've learned a lot from our prior experience. I like the one-tier, top-down approach taken to the queue here (no secret 'fast players' queue, no separate queues that you never expected based on surrender/boot status, etc.), but most of my suggestions will still look familiar.

• Max un-started games created per player
  • If you are hosting some number of un-begun games, you should have to wait until they start to create more. Some number like 5 or even more; this would be more to prevent abuse than anything else. Note that un-started games a player joins but didn't host should not count here; that's behavior we should encourage.
• Max un-started games created per board
  • Take the Dungeon example above. We can debate whether there's any utility to the site to weathertop's ability to create three identical games on the same board at the same time, but the fact that someone else can come along hours later, when not a single player has joined any of the three, and start yet another one, is pretty silly. 3 does seem like a good number here. There aren't that many possible settings/rules tweaks to make any more games than that dramatically different from each other.
• Max number of un-started open games displayed
  • I can see 15 games waiting right now. If that's a max, that's cool. I'd suggest not showing any more than 20 at the most - that's more than enough games displayed for people to avoid games they don't like for whatever reason, causing those unpopular games to languish for who knows how long.
  • That might even be too much. 10 or 12 might be better, assuming this rule is publicized - the idea is to encourage people to join games even if that means venturing outside their comfort zone. Even limiting the number of games displayed to 20 might mean that over time you get dreck floating to and remaining at the top.

On a somewhat related note, this last suggestion may seem a bit contradictory: I think you should split the queue in 2. Take the team games and drop them down into another list right below the first one. In my opinion it's far from clear enough that these games exist on a different plane than all other open games, both when creating them and especially when joining them. If there is public clamor to allow Open/Unranked games they would go here as well. You'd have two explicitly separate queues for games that count towards your score and those that don't.

For those counting at home, this is thread number 5 on this subject. 

Restriction on Number of Public Games?

Queue question/discussion

Open Games List

Limits on game creations

Some action is needed IMO.

Since Ranked games can't be customized (or can't be customized much) and Host seat doesn't matter (since Auto-Skip), then there should be a restriction on number of Open games per Map, I like 3-5ish.   Of course 3 two player games "holding up" a queue for a map that you want four players kind of sucks and vice-versa, but eh, get over it perhaps?

Number of games per player may not be bad either, although I'd say upwards of 10 wouldn't be too bad.

Number of games displayed is just reflective of your Setting for "Games Per Page", which I like personally.  Games beyond that number can still be filled if they can be located (ie going to a Players Game List and seeing them).

I like the idea of a separate list/queue for Team games.  I like Cram's idea to list Oldest to Newest by Default instead of the reverse.

Well, sure, I could have bumped one of those threads, but that would have required finding them first.

of course 3 two player games "holding up" a queue for a map that you want four players kind of sucks and vice-versa, but eh, get over it perhaps?

Yeah. If it's that bothersome, join one. Those tend to go quickly anyway.

Games beyond that number can still be filled if they can be located (ie going to a Players Game List and seeing them).

Which is fine. If someone's willing to put in that much effort I say they deserve it. But still, limit what's shown automatically

I like Cram's idea to list Oldest to Newest by Default instead of the reverse.

I didn't even realize this wasn't the case until I skimmed those threads you linked. This should happen immediately IMO.

asm wrote: [all of the above]

I agree.

5 un-started games per player seems fair. Could also do something like 3 for non-paying members and 10 for premium members.

3 un-started games per board also seems just right.

I think the magic number for un-started games allowed to display in the queue is 15. Long enough that there is interesting stuff available (at least 5 different boards with the above 3-game limit), but short enough that you can see everything at a glance and force people to join existing games (good for community-building as well).

There should be separate queues for ranked games and unranked games. My preference is that these queues display in separate, clearly marked tabs.

I've set the default sort order for the game join page so that the oldest game is first (note if you have set a different sort order by clicking on one of the column headings this will override the default).

Happy to go with the consensus on a reasonable limit once everyone's thrashed this out. Seems like there should definitely be some limit.

Okay. Since I titled it that way, this will be the thread to draw conclusions from. Not those other, earlier, lesser threads.

On the table right now:
- 5 un-started games hosted per player
- 3 un-started games per board
- Max of 15 un-started games displayed in queue
- Separate queue for ranked vs. team or any other un-ranked Open games

Any other ideas or suggestions? Any disagreement or debate about these?

I disagree with the Max display in the Queue, I think it's fine to go off personal settings (default is still 15 anyhow isn't it?).

I would be prepared for commotion around the other maxes as well.

No concern about an unlimited total # of joinable games in the queue resulting in games occasionally taking weeks to fill up?

tom wrote: I've set the default sort order for the game join page so that the oldest game is first (note if you have set a different sort order by clicking on one of the column headings this will override the default)

If this is Live then I don't believe I'm seeing it work.

asm wrote: No concern about an unlimited total # of joinable games in the queue resulting in games occasionally taking weeks to fill up?

If they are listed in order from Oldest to first, then no I don't see games taking weeks to fill up.  Actually could help in some cases since I wouldn't be able to see game #16 but perhaps I would like to go ahead and join it.  Besides there is a limit of 100 (and that's only if you set it to that), I have mine set to 50 and I don't think I've seen the queue hit about 25ish yet (yet yet yet), and that's normally only with a lot of the same map and host of 2 player games.

Yertle wrote:

tom wrote: I've set the default sort order for the game join page so that the oldest game is first (note if you have set a different sort order by clicking on one of the column headings this will override the default)

If this is Live then I don't believe I'm seeing it work.

More on this.  When I hit the Home page I get this: http://www.wargear.net/ with the games list of Newest to Oldest.  If I hit the Created link to sort the order I get this: http://www.wargear.net/home/default/open?viewselector=All&sortfield=games.createstamp&sortorder=DESC (which doesn't change anything).  If I hit it again I get this: http://www.wargear.net/home/default/open?viewselector=All&sortfield=games.createstamp&sortorder=desc (which again, doesn't do anything).  If I hit it a third time I get this: http://www.wargear.net/home/default/open?viewselector=All&sortfield=games.createstamp&sortorder=asc (which finally changes from Oldest to Newest.

asm wrote: Okay. Since I titled it that way, this will be the thread to draw conclusions from. Not those other, earlier, lesser threads.

On the table right now:
- 5 un-started games hosted per player
- 3 un-started games per board
- Max of 15 un-started games displayed in queue
- Separate queue for ranked vs. team or any other un-ranked Open games

Any other ideas or suggestions? Any disagreement or debate about these?

i started 3 cus i figured that was more than enough and it was a newly live board.

i'm fine with your # of unstarted games (assuming we have the ability to terminate a game that is taking too long to start - think we do but haven't looked at this yet.) i'll terminate tomorrow if noone has joined the other two.

max # on the queue should be as it is. 15 is default and you can change it.

i'm fine with separating the two queues, tho i don't see it as terribly necessary.

i agree the old to new listing is a good thing.

Should work a bit better now Yertle.

I have some issue with the "3 max unstarted games per board" thing. There are currently many options for a board - teamplay, fog, lightning mode, number of players - and these options are going to be increasing in number. Seems like this would make it really hard to join/start games on a board in which I liked the options.

Also, I'm not really seeing a huge negative to having many different open games on one board. If each user is limited to 5, it's unlikely that you're going to have a bunch of games open on one board with the same options. When I'm looking for games to join I like having different options, looking at which players are in which game, etc. Let the counter-argument begin!

At first I was inclined to agree with everything asm said, then I came to my sense. I do agree that it is a certainty that eventually some sociopath will waste an hour of their time creating 800 copies of the identical game, simply sorting the game list from oldest to newest won't help for that.

I disagree about placing any restrictions on the starting of games. I think it would be easier in the long run to program the queue on the server side to eliminate any negative effects of the idiot mentioned above. (not asm, the sociopath =)

I would like to see the Open Games queue follow rules something like the following:

Display a maximum number of games equal to the setting that person has in their settings, with a link on top/near the table that tells people they can adjust this setting.

Use these rules to determine if a game should be displayed:

1. Is if the oldest game?
2. Did the last game that was started have the same board, identical settings, and was started by the same person? If so.. then DO NOT display.
3. Are there already 3 games with the same board and identical settings (but started by different people because of rule 2) then DO NOT display.

I would also suggest a hard limit on the amount of time a board is available WITHOUT ANYONE ELSE JOINING before it is deleted from the queue, say 48 hours?

This would render the 800 identical games started by the same person irrelevant. At most 1 of these games would be shown at a time, you could have a choice of two other identical board settings started by different people, and most of the 800 would eventually be deleted from the queue solving the database pileup problem.

I would also like the option to sort games by board with a drop-down list, with identical display rules as for the general table, but of course limited to that board. For someone with a setting of 15 boards to show, this would provide at least 5 different board options shown with at least 5 different hosts even if the queue had 900 games started on that board.

Finally to address the ignorance factor (ignorance without the negative connotations, just meaning not aware of) I would prompt someone when they click the create board button. Something like:

'This board will remain in the open games list for 48 hours. If nobody else has joined by then it will be deleted. There are (X) number of identical games in the queue. There is an average of X number of these games being started per hour. The chance your game will be filled before 48 hours is up is (almost certain/excellent/good/fair/bad/forget it).

'There is/are already X number of games on this board with identical settings! You can click HERE (popup) to see this/these game(s) and decide if you want to join them instead. Or you can continue and create your new game by clicking whatever. (OK, continue, I forget)

I have no opinions on separating team games or any other sort options, that's bonus stuff and not necessary for policing the queue.

I retract my suggestions and throw the full - and highly influential - weight of my support behind IRoll11s.

I throw the full - and not at all influential - weight of my support behind 11s as well. Well done!

IRoll11s ideas are great! I especially think that hiding games according to his listed criteria will go a long long way.

I would like the ability to "decline" a game in the queue, thus removing the affronting apparition from my sight.

Cramchakle wrote: I would like the ability to "decline" a game in the queue, thus removing the affronting apparition from my sight.

Taking that one step further (and in a slightly different direction), it would be nice to be able to filter games by board, fog setting, number of players, etc.  A first cut could probably be adding another option or two next to the "View" and "Started" drop-down boxes at the top.