This may be considered rude in some quarters, but since we don't have a 24 hour (or less) boot time, I'm thinking of terminating and/or leaving any games where I see a newbie join (before it starts, of course).  Too high a percentage of them join WG, sign up for a game or two, and then disappear off the face of the map ..only at a snail's pace.

I wonder if there aren't people already doing this?  It's unfortunate because I don't want to discourage people from joining by cancelling games they join, but then I don't want my experience to be frustrating either.

I believe the only game you can (as Host) terminate after someone has joined is a Lightning game, I think.
But the rest seems like it would work.

right -- hence,the before it starts part

M57 wrote: right -- hence,the before it starts part

You can't Terminate a game after someone joins (unless they then leave), even if it is before start.

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote: right -- hence,the before it starts part

You can't Terminate a game after someone joins (unless they then leave), even if it is before start.

Are you sure?  You can terminate a tournament before it starts even after many have joined..

Yep, tested it this morning. Tournament's are different (they were the same for about a day :P), you can delete those up to tournament start.

*edit* The exception being Lightning games, those can be Deleted up to game start (meaning even after players join).

M57 wrote:

I'm thinking of terminating and/or leaving any games where I see a newbie join...

Dude, this may be one of the most jacked-up selfish ideas I've ever heard of.

Selfish, Absolutely.. "Jacked up?"  No, but I would say that I am a tad frustrated.  Why should I pay to play with people that join and then don't play? Why should I pay to play what I consider a reasonably paced game against opponents who don't or can't play at that pace, when I know there are people who can?   People here complain about weekend boots when that's when I am able to make the most moves.

I don't have a lot of options.  Yes, if I don't like it, I can leave.  But there are many things I like about the site, so I'm doing what I can to make it work for me.

So, start private games with people who you know can play at your pace. Don't discourage the general user from staying with the site because it doesn't match your needs. (I do definitely understand your frustration with those who join and never come back, but penalizing others for it isn't the best plan in my opinion.)

It's nice that WG accounts for players leaving.

I did find it kind of interesting that I only seen 1 player that has been booted in M57's (7) finished games, and just a couple with a skipped turned in his Live games (although most of the Live games are Fogged, so there could be more Boots there already).

Yes, sadly I might have to do that. I think the problem is exacerbated by the small size of the playing community at this point. We do have friends, but we don't have "friends lists" where you can gang invite like on WF, do we?

Yertle wrote: It's nice that WG accounts for players leaving.

I did find it kind of interesting that I only seen 1 player that has been booted in M57's (7) finished games, and just a couple with a skipped turned in his Live games (although most of the Live games are Fogged, so there could be more Boots there already).

I have noticed that things have gotten a bit better, but a few of the first games I played in were plagued by hit and runs, so I'm projecting forward.

I do like to promote my boards by inviting all.   I guess I just want to have my cake and eat it.

M57 wrote:  but we don't have "friends lists" where you can gang invite like on WF, do we?

"like on WF"?  Ummmm, what?  WG does a better job of big invites and handles invites over the number of players needed.  There's also a real Friends list that affects more than just invites.

M57 wrote: ...I think the problem is exacerbated by the small size of the playing community at this point.

This is why your idea is self-defeating.  On the one hand you view part of the culprit as the lack of players.  Then with the other hand, you determine that all new players should not be allowed to play. 

How are new players supposed to enjoy the games on the site when the very first one they join doesn't want them to play and cancels the whole game because they joined?

So, "jacked-up?"  yes, most definitely.

Toaster wrote:

M57 wrote: ...I think the problem is exacerbated by the small size of the playing community at this point.

This is why your idea is self-defeating.  On the one hand you view part of the culprit as the lack of players.  Then with the other hand, you determine that all new players should not be allowed to play. 

How are new players supposed to enjoy the games on the site when the very first one they join doesn't want them to play and cancels the whole game because they joined?

 

So, "jacked-up?"  yes, most definitely.

Self-defeating, you could be right.. unless the "power(s) that be" consider offering a mid-level playtime because enough people try to avoid playing long games (and also unfair ones) where opps keep on getting booted.

What does jacked-up mean exactly?  I though it meant like super-sized or possibly over-medicated on amphetamines or steroids.  

Outlandish?  Extreme, perhaps?   That would be hyperbole at best.  Leaving games before they are played does not effect them in any way.   Terminating a game before it starts is not that disruptive to the lives of those that joined.  They can just join another game or start one themselves.  Besides, it turns out that's not an option anyways. Now, if "extreme" is your definition, jacked-up could be if someone decided to always let their turn time out, or decided to play spoiler and only attack newbies..

I'm enjoying playing devil's advocate here, so I'll continue (only because I'm hoping this can result in a useful suggestion that helps solve the problem). ;-)

How would shorter turn times help limit the join and not come back issue? They would get booted faster, true, but in my experience those people who join and leave don't understand the boot timer and join all games regardless of what the turn timer says.

I think a core part of the solution to this problem involves gradual inclusion to the site somehow, along the lines of the tournament restriction that players have to have a picture before joining. If, say, you could only join 'starter' games (this idea has been suggested before, in which one experienced player plays a game with some newbies) until you had completed 5 it might help.

This matches the mantra of many games that keep people excited by carroting them along with 'achievements'. Here it would be things like being able to join tournaments, join lightning games, chat if that is ever an option, etc. Could work, but could also discourage people from joining in the first place if it was too complicated/not explained well. Solving this problem is key to the site though, in my opinion. Ok, done now.

Well, my suggestion was that 2-days is normal, and 1-day is fast.

I'm thinking probably 80+% of all games would be normal.  Tournaments would be normal.

Aw Shucks, this is a losing battle..  Let's talk about newbies, shall we?

Yes, while restrictions on newcomers can be confusing, I think just finishing one game is proof enough of interest.  As I write this, I don't think I have finished 5 games, certainly not official ones, yet I have over 100 posts to the forums.  Hmm... What does that say about the speed of these games?

At least you need to come back to the site a few times in order to finish a game. Believe it or not, for all my ranting and raving, that's good enough for me.  My pet-peeve is the sign-up/joinacouplegames/nevercomebackers which, in an open-to-all site format will always be a problem and IMO only has the potential to get worse.

I wouldn't even mind being one of those "experienced players" who hosts those newbie games you speak of, if that's what is decided.   So long as they don't count, they can last for years for all I care.

I'm not so sure how much I agree with your carrot philosophy.  One of the things that turns me off is having a carrot dangled in front of me that subsequently gets replaced by a bigger carrot.  I loved it that I joined this site as a premium member.  I was instantly able to try my hand at designing a board, peruse (yes, peruse) all the games, and dare I admit it, join in as many reindeer games as I wanted.  But then, ..I knew what I was getting into.

Sheesh, even one game can take forever, especially if it is full of newbies.  And think of that game from their perspective..  YEEUCH!  How 'bout this? Newbies join newbie games - but after a certain amount of moves (like 5) they are eligible for a month of premium membership, which is revoked if they are booted from that game (ahem.. unless of course they pay to become premium members).

Has the WF model of invited members been discussed? Essentially, invited members are exempt from the process -  in essence the game that they are invited to counts as the newbie game.

Yet, unlike WF, anyone can walk through the front door, they just need to take 5 moves in a Welcome to WarGear game, which is limited to 3 newbies and 1 member on a standard board. While they are taking these few moves, they have time to check out the other boards, ask questions, etc..

i think we've discussed having the just joined newbie have something completely different than what is currently there. they'd start off with a standard membership, be able to join a few games and test the waters. they'd get a limited number of development opportunities (like 1 free map submitted for review, but unlimited attempts at other maps as long as they were kept private) THEN about a month in they get an email about a free month of premium membership which they'd then follow and 'activate'. this way they KNOW there's a difference between Std and Prem, and will have an idea of what's different between the two. This alleviates the problem many have had saying "where'd all the kewl shit go?" and leave. but i'm not sure where we ended up leaving off with this discussion.

Make it more like 2 weeks and not a month (I figure 2 weeks is a good time for them to figure out they like the site), and you may have something there.

What if you just make it so that they have to "activate" the free Premium?

So, the account starts out basic but there's a link in the profile settings that would activate the free 30 days of Premium. If they haven't found the link just by investigating their account, then once they've completed their first game a box would appear explaining that they can have a free 30 days.