Gimli wrote:

How about development games don't count to your 10 game limit max? A perk for those who donate time and board slots for testing and improving wargear games?

Done!

wowsers... this is why people love this site. thanks Tom!

when does it take effect? or will it take effect starting now (ie is not retroactive?).

is working now... :)

great change.

yeah... it works in a specific way though. I was at 10 games, with 3 development... I couldn't start more games to go past 10, but I could join development games to go beyond 10.

that's why I thought it wasn't working at first, til I got a D-game invite! Thanks Tom!

H-Ratings for each # category of "Game Win Ratios" on the "Player Stats" tab.

lol n/m forgot I was reading from like the start of this thread.

How about adding the option of setting minimum/maximum ranking for players who want to join my game?

Similarly, it'd be nice to set a restriction on avg turn time or percent of games where someone was booted. The turn limit is not good enough, because even though the slowest players are usually booted in the end, all others waste a lot of time and the game becomes boring...

I agree with Nix here. I would like a sort by turn time. I know, it is going to create different queues and that is bad, but I don't really understand why it is bad. Let's not make it based off of the players turn time, but rater let them select it. Default would be anyone but then players could set the limit to players under 3 hours, under 6 hours, or under 1 day or something.
It would just give us Day Players a way to all get together and finish a game while pretending to work rather than having to start 75 games just so we can get a few turns.
I know the site will grow but I don't think that will really stop this issue. I want to play with all sorts of players and like the 1 queue but I would also like to be able to get games in with the players who play quick.

Welcome to the forums, nix. Glad you found us.

I think the general feeling on setting game-joining restrictions of any kind was that it would needlessly fracture our nascent community. I agree that at some point it may be a good idea to implement these ideas, but for now we are still growing and I think it would be best to get more regular players on the site before we start making it harder for people to fill up games. For now you'll just have to endure some slow starts; stats show that the vast majority of boots we get are the one-and-dones who show up, join a game, and never return (which would be hard to filter out without being unnecessarily restrictive to genuinely interested newbies), rather than repeat offenders who are regularly booted but nevertheless do continue to play on the site.

In short: Give it time. That being said, Tom is the Man In Charge so he may have a different take.

EDIT:

RiskyBack wrote: I agree with Nix here. I would like a sort by turn time. I know, it is going to create different queues and that is bad, but I don't really understand why it is bad.
...
I know the site will grow but I don't think that will really stop this issue.

 Risky, I think you're looking at it backwards - it's not that site growth will stop the issue, it's that acting too soon to address the issue will retard site growth. That's 'why it is bad' (IMO obviously).

 Risky, I think you're looking at it backwards - it's not that site growth will stop the issue, it's that acting too soon to address the issue will retard site growth. That's 'why it is bad' (IMO obviously).

How would actually getting to play more turns during the day retard growth?  I don't care who I play with and I don't even usually look at the names, just the colors, I just wanna play.

I am trying to keep at about 30 active games and I get between 15-22 turns first thing in the morning and then maybe a dozen turns during the work day.  I can't play at night right at the moment nor on the weekends but someday I'll be back to 24/7 Online and I just don't see how I will get many more turns.  I don't see how adding the option like I suggested will do anything except give me a chance at more turns.  I want more turns!!!!

I'm still against multiple queues in most fashions, whether that is turn timers and rankings (especially rankings!). I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of change for the one-and-dones, perhaps a restriction to only allow players with at least 1-2 games played, something low but helps avoid the number of boots.

If you subdivide available game views by turn time, fewer players will be able to join each game. Fewer players seeing fewer games = perception of less site activity and hence growth retardation. You also want to avoid a situation where noobs are only playing other noobs until they reach some arbitrary cutoff point.

Again, what I recall from the original queue conversation was that site leadership wanted to hold off on introducing ANY restrictions or subdivisions into the queue view until membership strengthened. I don't personally think we're yet at the point where that stance should be reconsidered.

EDIT:

Yertle wrote:  I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of change for the one-and-dones, perhaps a restriction to only allow players with at least 1-2 games played, something low but helps avoid the number of boots.

 I don't understand this thinking at all. You're advocating not allowing new players on WG? Or what?

Yertle, how many games did the two of us play together on ToS vs WG? I bet the percentage is much lower here because with the queue system there (which I am NOT advocating) allowed us to join the same games and we became familiar with each other. Here I see the same people one day and totally new people the next day and that is not building the community since I don't have time to admire the way they play, resent them or fear them.
A big community is great but activity can be seen by the stats page or the number of people Online. I think it's gonna be tough to have the next generation of WarCore become like we all became without playing a lot of games with the same people and I really don't understand why people are against it.
Of course, I am an elitist and I make no bones about that so that may be the reason I can't understand your rationale.

Lol so somehow I've gave the impression that WG shouldn't allow new players and I don't want people to play a lot of games with the same people, that's pretty impressive since it wasn't anywhere near what I was going for!

On WF you had to have 2 completed games before the Public Queue showed up and you were allowed to join games.  I'm not saying that's the way to go, but to have the option of game host setting that all players must have completed 2 games. An incomplete thought would be a Setting for that each person can set when they reach 20 games as to "Allow all players to join your hosted games" or "Allow only players with at least 2 (or 10 or something relatively small) completed games to join your hosted games".  People with under 20 games played have it forced to the first option.  The Setting is then read at the time the person Creates a game and then either allows or restricts to who can see/join as a way to avoid new players that will be one-and-done.  This keeps the single queue logic overall, but allows a way to filter out players with a higher probability of boots.  (*edit* I think this or something similar has been proposed in the past by someone else.)

IMO, the Open Queue is a huge reason why you don't see the same people.  A lot of times I believe people would join games to get them out of the queue and allow their games to be opened up, where as here it is simple to just create your own game and allow it to sit in the open queue.  I really don't think have a quick players or non-quick players queue is going to speed up games or change them that much, I would actually tend to side with asm's line of thinking in that it would break up the player base and result in fewer games getting filled up.

There was this guy on WF (Kobra something or other) that would play not in "his" queue but in the most open queue in order for the games to fill up faster, I think the same thinking still works which is one of the reasons I think the Open Queue works better than more than a single queue.

Yes, but on ToS you only saw 3-5 games or whatever in the queue and they never went away once they are filled. Here you see all open games and if you don't want to play Risky Kong, you can X it and it goes away.
I spend 15 minutes a day X'ing out the World Maps because I don't wanna play em or see em. That takes away that argument.....
Point: RiksyBack!

P.S. I am not limiting the games by turn time, I am saying give an option to do it so if someone wants only quick players they can get em. The queue stays the same format but I just get only day players seeing certain games.

Huh? That's what I said. I would say more people joined more games because of the closed queue. Not that I'm for a closed queue, but increasing from 1 open queue to 2 open queues just splits the player base, which, my thinking means it would take longer for games to fill up.

I still don't understand but I give so as not to turn this into a 14 page discussion about nothing.