Yertle wrote:

Same game perhaps, but asm created quite a few last week and they all filled up relatively fast I believe.  I don't think it would be a bad thing to limit to only 10 open games as Host at a time, but not sure if other restrictions are needed.

Yeah I ran down the list of all the games I had or was close to having CP's in and started up 1-4 on each board. But since I'm a responsible user and am not trying to mess up the system, I didn't make a whole bunch of games that I didn't think people would join. Even the 12-man Atomic Transporters game started up within a couple of days.

I saw this inanity last night and chuckled. Referencing the previous discussion on the queue this exact scenario was mentioned as a potential way to abuse the system, it looks like it only took a month for some knobhead to try it.

Or you could look at it another way, that it's only really been abused once in a month. I think the best response is moderation, delete the games and message him to the effect that this is undesirable behavior.

Cram I like your idea of a seat limit, it has a certain elegance to it.

Yertle wrote: Bah, who was the person on WF that would start a lot of Ant games...ohhhh it's on the tip of my brain...

That was the first thing that came to mind when I saw all those Antastic games...  has Beaubody come to WarGear?

I have mixed feelings when somebody does this kind of thing.  I'm glad someone enjoys one of my games so much that they want to play a lot of it, but I worry that everyone else will get sick of seeing it in the queue.

asm wrote:

Yertle wrote:

Same game perhaps, but asm created quite a few last week and they all filled up relatively fast I believe.  I don't think it would be a bad thing to limit to only 10 open games as Host at a time, but not sure if other restrictions are needed.

Yeah I ran down the list of all the games I had or was close to having CP's in and started up 1-4 on each board. But since I'm a responsible user and am not trying to mess up the system, I didn't make a whole bunch of games that I didn't think people would join. Even the 12-man Atomic Transporters game started up within a couple of days.

Aye, that's an example of where a restriction or limit wouldn't necessarily be needed.

I really liked Cram's seat limit idea and want to put my vote in to have it implemented.

The beauty of the idea is that it would really only come into effect for the "idiots" that want to create a ton of very large games. The rest of us "normal" players would rarely (if ever) see the, "You have created too many games with open seats; please wait until your previous games start before creating more."

i really don't think clicking on the X to hide a few games is a big deal. usually when i log on and scroll down the list if there are games that I'm no interested in then i hide them right away.

at the most i could see capping the "pending players" games at 10 per board (5 for standard members)

the option that i would like to see is having a favorite boards list that once you add a board as one of your favorites then any games that are "pending players" are at the top of the list on the Home page.

I'd prefer to have automatic settings rather than need to have moderators tell people what not to do and manually close games - the site should be self managing in that respect.

We can trial the seat limit idea as it's a nice easy one to implement... what do you reckon, 50 currently open seats max?

Alternatively another limit that could work would be capping the number of open game boards that are visible per player - e.g. max 2-4 games visible per board.

tom wrote:
Alternatively another limit that could work would be capping the number of open game boards that are visible per player - e.g. max 2-4 games visible per board.

Problem would still be where somebody thinks that 16-player games work (they really never do) and makes 4 of them on the same board.  Of course, your reasonable game with the same board that has only 5 players will only show up in the queue in 2-weeks because all those other pointless games will take forever to start.

True... so what do you reckon the seat limit should be?

With the ability to hide games by clicking the 'x' next to them (on the Home tab), I don't think any of these controls are particularly necessary. It honestly wasn't that hard to hide all of Toby007's annoying games, and now I never have to look at them again. I think as long as Tom creates a maintenance check to delete games that have been in the queue for so long that they'll clearly never start (e.g. 30 days), I don't think anything else needs to be done.

Just IMO, of course.

If the majority don't think it necessary, that's fine. I did just click the Xs and all was fine, but I just felt that there's no reason for people to be able to create that many games. It might as well be spam as far as I'm concerned.

If Tom is interested in making some cap still, I'd say make it multi-faceted if possible. Something like 10-15 slots (so a few 4 player games or 1-2 larger games) per board per game host (so, as Toaster said, other people making the same board but with different rules/# of players still get the opportunity to make the map they want).

Another question worth considering:

Why 16?

Few maps support that many, and those barely work at such high numbers. Card values end up perceived as broken, and that forces us to consider these fringe cases in setting up site-wide system settings and board specific rules. We're niggling over queue issues that only exist because 16 player games take weeks to fill. Turns in those games take a very long time to come around, which probably leads to player transience.

I can't say as I've ever really had fun playing with any more than 8 people at a time, but could maybe stretch out to 12 when I really had a mood for chaos.

So... why keep the limit at 16?

Toaster wrote:

tom wrote:
Alternatively another limit that could work would be capping the number of open game boards that are visible per player - e.g. max 2-4 games visible per board.

Problem would still be where somebody thinks that 16-player games work (they really never do) and makes 4 of them on the same board.  Of course, your reasonable game with the same board that has only 5 players will only show up in the queue in 2-weeks because all those other pointless games will take forever to start.

wouldn't the seat cap take care of this, especially when combined with the queue? if say it is 50, that means at most they could make were 3 16-player games. or 6 8-player games. that's not too bad. it'll be the 24 2-player games that will take up room (assuming they tweak one thing in each game) otherwise the queue will take care of the duplicates.

Vataro wrote: If the majority don't think it necessary, that's fine. I did just click the Xs and all was fine, but I just felt that there's no reason for people to be able to create that many games. It might as well be spam as far as I'm concerned.

If Tom is interested in making some cap still, I'd say make it multi-faceted if possible. Something like 10-15 slots (so a few 4 player games or 1-2 larger games) per board per game host (so, as Toaster said, other people making the same board but with different rules/# of players still get the opportunity to make the map they want).

i don't think the # of boards visible should be decided based on the whole games list, maybe per person if at all.

Yeah that's my opinion of the larger games as well, but other sites support much larger games, e.g. LandGrab regularly hosts games with up to 100 players on this map:

http://landgrab.net/landgrab/maps/Land%20Of%20Quaz/map_image.jpg

Personally I can't think of anything worse but maybe there's demand for it and it does seem a bit limiting to max out at 8 players.

KrocK wrote: 

the option that i would like to see is having a favorite boards list that once you add a board as one of your favorites then any games that are "pending players" are at the top of the list on the Home page.

Exactly what I was saying.

EDIT: haha, I just realized I had brought it up in another thread and not this one.

EnixNeo wrote: A good feature would be the ability to select which maps show up on the list (rather than having all maps or the map filter which only shows one map) a la newegg's "Power Search" feature. This basically creates a way for users to automatically filter out some of the garbage maps that have somehow made it through review.

I couldnt resist c ommenting on the dup thread :)

100 players in ONE game. NUTS!

weathertop wrote: 100 players in ONE game. NUTS!

Set a turn limit of 1 hr (with email notification)  and it sounds like fun!  Sure people are getting skipped left and right but it's a massive brawl.  Course the turn limit would have to slowly scale to a more reasonable number as it starts approaching a normal player count.

btw you just reached 300 and for some reason the first thing that popped in my head was sparta. hmm

hehe, i do put up a helluva fight. tho i usually lose in the end.