JamesKer1 wrote:What if there were a preferred game/tournament game that needed to be joined while you had more pending games than active slots? It would be difficult and confusing to code in a selection for this, and it may confuse new members on the "need" to buy premium
If a freemium risks taking his last slot for a non-tourney game while waiting for a tourney game, that player already runs the risk of losing his place in his tournament; this suggestion doesn't change that.
Does anyone know if this is definitely the way it works now?
stahrgazer wrote:What bothers me about this suggestion is all the expense of coding it for players who are not contributing to the costs of the coding.
As suggestions go, the programming effort required for this one should be very low (I am a programmer), and the benefit should be high in terms of encouraging activity on the site. And while fremiums aren't contributing monetarily, they are supplying a huge benefit to the site by providing opponents for the premiums. How dead would this place be if the fremiums were not here? And where will the future premiums come from if they don't do anything to make this site more active?
This further idea fixes my concern.
degaston wrote:It occurs to me that this feature could also benefit premium members. I would think that everyone has their own personal limit for the number of games they want to play at once. If premium members were allowed to set a maximum number of games, then they could join the wait lists for all the games that they are interested in without having to worry about being overloaded if all of those games go active. They should be able to adjust their maximum games setting at any time, and could also use the "Priority" or "Optional" joins to control which games are important to them.
But that changes the idea from "allow unlimited wait-lists" to an ability to set priority and total desired games with the caviat that for free players the total desired games is not changeable.
The question is then, for premium players, are you saying that they should not be dropped from their "priority" games but would be dropped from the others once they reach their max? If they're not dropped from their "priority" games, they'd still potentially go over their max limit, wouldn't they?
How would they go over? Here's an example:
Suppose a premium player has 3 active games, and sets their maximum games to 8.
They could then sign up on the wait lists for 2 "Priority" games and 20 "Optional" games.
As soon as three of the optional games fill up, they would be dropped from all of the other optional wait lists.
Once their priority games fill up, they will have 8 active games, but will not go over that unless they change their maximum games.
stahrgazer wrote:On the other hand, I'd think that this is forcing the site to control what players should be controlling: how many games they try to join.
The point of this is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for all players to get optimal use from the site. Fremiums have to choose between waiting for a game to almost fill before signing up, or potentially wasting time if they sign up for the wrong game that may take a very long time to fill up. Premiums can sign up for as many as they want, but if they do that, then they may end up with more active games than they want.
stahrgazer wrote:If there were 5 rather than 40 pages of unfilled games, maybe some games wouldn't take as long to fill.
I agree - this is a result of having so many possible combinations of maps and settings, which I think is mostly a good thing. A lot of these games could probably get filled if it were easier for people to indicate all of the games they would be willing to play, rather than forcing the fremiums to sign up only for the 4 games they most want to play, and forcing premiums to risk getting overloaded if they sign up for too many.
I submitted another suggestion (Game Matchmaker
) that would be an even better solution, but it would take more coding effort.