Limit the number of speed games (poll)

[I_AM_BOGEY]

I keep seeing people get into trouble for point dumping or taking advantage of someone point dumping. Why isn't there a limit on the number of speed games one can be in at the same time? Seems to me that would at least limit the damage from people point dumping or taking advantage of said point dumping.

I have added a poll so please vote.

[iamkoolerthanu]

I don't want to limit the number of games made, so I chose option one. Even thought your poll sucks because I do not want to play 30 at once, you made 2 opinions one choice lol

[I_AM_BOGEY]

I don't want to limit the number of games made, so I chose option one. Even thought your poll sucks because I do not want to play 30 at once, you made 2 opinions one choice lol

Sorry for confusion, the second part after the forward slash was an attempt at humor.

[lordhaha]

I wish people would just play 1 speed game. Take turns faster rather than having to waiting for someone who has other games on and taking 5 mins to complete each of their turns if they make it back in time

[Ishihara]

limiting the number of games would be a pretty easy deterrent to point dumping... otherwise, it would require a LOT of effort to really move down... personally, as I'm chatty in most games, I can't manage more than two speed games at a time without getting myself into timer trouble...

[AndyDufresne]

Check out these two topics---we discussed some similar things a years ago, and most users were not in favor of limiting:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=121035
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=120966


--Andy

[chapcrap]

Check out these two topics---we discussed some similar things a years ago, and most users were not in favor of limiting:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=121035
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=120966


--Andy

Not true. In the thread you made, the poll says only 13 of 88 who voted wanted to play 21+ speed games. And 52 of 88 wanted 10 or less. That seems that the exact opposite of what you said.

I say less speed games. Playing too many speed games makes them take longer anyway. Play one or two at a time and actually make them speedy.

[Sniper08]

Check out these two topics---we discussed some similar things a years ago, and most users were not in favor of limiting:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=121035
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=120966


--Andy

Not true. In the thread you made, the poll says only 13 of 88 who voted wanted to play 21+ speed games. And 52 of 88 wanted 10 or less. That seems that the exact opposite of what you said.

I say less speed games. Playing too many speed games makes them take longer anyway. Play one or two at a time and actually make them speedy.

most ppl that vote aren't regular speed players and when a limit was introduced before many regular speed players had a problem with it that the limit was taken away.point dumping happens so rarely that its not worth inconveniencing the paying customers for those point dumpers which happens only a few times a year.

[Funkyterrance]

I voted the first option. This is not because I can possibly play that many games at once (four is probably my max atm), but because I have no idea what the plateau is for playing speeders and it would be unfair to limit those people who maybe get a thrill out of playing that many at once (I think I would probably pass out). I do agree that it is less fun when your opponents have multiple games though, but that's my problem, not theirs.

[chapcrap]

Check out these two topics---we discussed some similar things a years ago, and most users were not in favor of limiting:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=121035
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=120966


--Andy

Not true. In the thread you made, the poll says only 13 of 88 who voted wanted to play 21+ speed games. And 52 of 88 wanted 10 or less. That seems that the exact opposite of what you said.

I say less speed games. Playing too many speed games makes them take longer anyway. Play one or two at a time and actually make them speedy.

most ppl that vote aren't regular speed players and when a limit was introduced before many regular speed players had a problem with it that the limit was taken away.point dumping happens so rarely that its not worth inconveniencing the paying customers for those point dumpers which happens only a few times a year.

The poll was on there after the limit was introduced. If you look at the poll it says that a limit of 10 was the current procedure. So, if speed people had a problem, it doesn't seem like too many showed up.

Either way, Andy was still wrong. It was still pretty much the exact opposite of what he said.

[Squirly]

sounds to me like a great idea Bogey.
I don't play speed games but to me, being active in more than 5 speed games at once seems a bit reckless and irresponsible.
As far as I know CC views playing recklessly as a negative thing, your idea provides a way to deter this form of negative behavior.

I suppose one could handle 5 multiplayer games but 5 1v1's? That seems like a stretch, you can't put a lot of thought into each move, you'll certainly make your opponent wait around a whole bunch and you'll probably miss turns.

Maybe I'm way off, maybe 5 games is a piece of cake, I really don't know. Nevertheless, there certainly is a limit and it seems to me like setting one is a good idea for many reasons.

[Sniper08]

I don't play speed games but to me, being active in more than 5 speed games at once seems a bit reckless and irresponsible.

this proves exactly my point people who dont play speed games think they have the right to say that others cant play as many speed games as they want.we paid for premium we should be allowed to play as many speed games as we want.

The poll was on there after the limit was introduced. If you look at the poll it says that a limit of 10 was the current procedure. So, if speed people had a problem, it doesn't seem like too many showed up.

Either way, Andy was still wrong. It was still pretty much the exact opposite of what he said.

wrong that poll in viewtopic.php?f=6&t=121035&start=30 was before the limit was introduced, then the many speed players voiced their opposition after the limit was introduced in viewtopic.php?f=6&t=120966 which resulted in the limit being removed as it should remain.

again the whole idea behind this is that it will restrict point dumpers but how many point dumpers has there been this year? at most 5 or 6 i would bet at most.

[Darwins_Bane]

Check out these two topics---we discussed some similar things a years ago, and most users were not in favor of limiting:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=121035
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=120966


--Andy

Not true. In the thread you made, the poll says only 13 of 88 who voted wanted to play 21+ speed games. And 52 of 88 wanted 10 or less. That seems that the exact opposite of what you said.

I say less speed games. Playing too many speed games makes them take longer anyway. Play one or two at a time and actually make them speedy.

most ppl that vote aren't regular speed players and when a limit was introduced before many regular speed players had a problem with it that the limit was taken away.point dumping happens so rarely that its not worth inconveniencing the paying customers for those point dumpers which happens only a few times a year.

The poll was on there after the limit was introduced. If you look at the poll it says that a limit of 10 was the current procedure. So, if speed people had a problem, it doesn't seem like too many showed up.

Either way, Andy was still wrong. It was still pretty much the exact opposite of what he said.

I remember voting in that poll. Although if you look at that poll you may not see it, there were a lot of threads around the forums and people making a lot of protest about the fact that the limit had been introduced.

[kennys777]

Can non-premium members vote for this poll??? Then the results are flawed if this is true.

[chapcrap]

Can non-premium members vote for this poll??? Then the results are flawed if this is true.

That's a good point. Definitely can skew the poll from those who cannot play speed games.

How many speed games should someone be allowed to play? I know that those of us who have premium want to protect our ability to play as many games as we want, but even in casual games, perhaps there should be limits.

The reason is to maintain integrity of the game itself. How many speed games can one person handle at a time? For those of you against a limit, what is the most you would play? I think the most I would play is 5, but I could probably push it higher. I think 10 would be good.

As far as casual, I try to stay around 70, but I have played up to 143 at once and could handle 200 or so probably. I would say that a good limit would be 500, but it could be higher I guess. The reason a limit needs to be set is to protect the integrity of the games.

[kennys777]

Can non-premium members vote for this poll??? Then the results are flawed if this is true.

That's a good point. Definitely can skew the poll from those who cannot play speed games.

How many speed games should someone be allowed to play? I know that those of us who have premium want to protect our ability to play as many games as we want, but even in casual games, perhaps there should be limits.

The reason is to maintain integrity of the game itself. How many speed games can one person handle at a time? For those of you against a limit, what is the most you would play? I think the most I would play is 5, but I could probably push it higher. I think 10 would be good.

As far as casual, I try to stay around 70, but I have played up to 143 at once and could handle 200 or so probably. I would say that a good limit would be 500, but it could be higher I guess. The reason a limit needs to be set is to protect the integrity of the games.

There was an earlier response that I agree with, and that is I usually only play 4 or 5 max at a time, but I don't want the option to be limited. Also, it changes for people awaiting games versus playing them. Limiting the number of games that you join would not be a good way to do this. I sometimes join 20 or so speed games at once, and when a few them begin (because they are awaiting more players) then I go back and drop the games that have not started yet.

The key here is that the option to do this should be left up to me, the premium player who pays for the site. If there are people abusing the unlimited, well it can't be the rule, but more like the exception. This 2nd paragraph is purely my opinion.

[chapcrap]

There was an earlier response that I agree with, and that is I usually only play 4 or 5 max at a time, but I don't want the option to be limited. Also, it changes for people awaiting games versus playing them. Limiting the number of games that you join would not be a good way to do this. I sometimes join 20 or so speed games at once, and when a few them begin (because they are awaiting more players) then I go back and drop the games that have not started yet.

Yes, this is important to consider and should be taken into account. Being in games that are waiting is different. Not sure if there is way to allow someone to be in a certain amount of waiting games (30?) and a different amount of ongoing games (10?). However, I don't think that would help with the issue very much. If someone is point dumping, they can just start a bunch of multiplayer games and they'll fill slower and would allow all games to be filled and lost.

I'm not sure there is a great solution for this. While I am in favor of a limit, it may not be something that is the best option. Sigh.

[I_AM_BOGEY]

It was just a suggestion and I was curious to see what others thought about it. It was never about limiting anyone's enjoyment of the game we pay to play. Just a way to limit the damage from some bored twisted people who want to ruin things, that is all. I maintain between 100-150 casual games constantly and enjoy speed games as well. When I click on the join speed games tab I rarely see 30 games total on the board. I just don't think people can possibly play 10 or more speed games at once so why does is it even need to be an option. The people that have voted "no limit" don't play that many at once, just do not want to be limited. If people really played more than 10 at one time I just wanted to hear from them, I just do not think they are out there.

[Darwins_Bane]

What about people who play sequential instead of freestyle? Those games fill much slower and each person can take up to 5 minutes, which means a possible large number of minutes between turns. Would they not want the ability to make many games in order to play at the same speed as someone playing two or three or four freestyle speeders? I'm not trying to discourage the suggestion, I just think there are angles you haven't considered.

[Qwert]

hmm i play 182 speed games, so i can give some oppinion.
Any normal player,know what its limit when play speed game, mine its probably 3, to play normal.
Now limit the number its easy, but if you limit to 10, again you will have people who will miss turns and deadbeat, and these is bigest problem. When you introduce new speed time options(1-3-5 minute per turn), i can not see that anybody can play 10 games in 1 minute option per turns.
I think that will be better ,if you can put some restriction to players who deadbeat in speed games, instead limiting a speed games.
If someone deadbeat 2-3 speed game,then its better to give hem few month ban on speed games play, these will be better option, and player who play speed games will be protected from deadbeats who ruin a speed games.

[Sniper08]

this suggestion is not about how ppl can handle speed games its about will limiting prevent ppl from taking advanatage of point dumping.this has been so few point dumpings this year that implementing this again(it already was impemented then removed) will serve no purpose but to piss of the active speed players.i someone could find out how many point dumping there was this year (my guess no more than 5) against the ppl that will be affected by this change (dozens of speed players) then it doesnt make sense to reindroduce this when it wasnt liked the last time.

[kennys777]

Yes, if we stick to the matter at hand, then the original question is flawed. It tries to solve a problem created by few people, but its over-arching effect will affect many more non-point dumpers. I agree with Sniper on this.

[AndyDufresne]

Yes, if we stick to the matter at hand, then the original question is flawed. It tries to solve a problem created by few people, but its over-arching effect will affect many more non-point dumpers. I agree with Sniper on this.

This is the conclusion we reached when we tried to address the issue and concern a year or so ago. If there is a more targeted suggestion, however, I am all ears.


--Andy

[Sniper08]

Yes, if we stick to the matter at hand, then the original question is flawed. It tries to solve a problem created by few people, but its over-arching effect will affect many more non-point dumpers. I agree with Sniper on this.

This is the conclusion we reached when we tried to address the issue and concern a year or so ago. If there is a more targeted suggestion, however, I am all ears.


--Andy

this is no real way to stop point dumping cause if people are intent on doing it then they will find a way around whatever system is in place.

[chapcrap]

this is no real way to stop point dumping cause if people are intent on doing it then they will find a way around whatever system is in place.

Second that. People will always find a way.