Improve the list of open corr games

Wouldn’t it make more sense to just list all the players who want to accept corr games? Currently players here work around this problem by creating a few challenges to let eveyrone who wants accept it, while the intent is really to say “send me a challenge if you haven’t sent one and if you’re between 3k-1d” for instance.

What about an option in game creation to allow n number of players to accept your challenge. And there could be a check box for “allow duplicate players?”.

1 Like

Definitely some good ideas, and ones that we have thought about in the past. I guess what’s nice about the current system is that it’s obvious and visible. One thing I wouldn’t want would be for someone to set their status to “available”, have a ton of games start with people and then they leave and never come back. At least this way we’d cap the number of games they’d cause problems in.

1 Like

I’m not sure what’s wrong with current system. Can you explain?

1 Like

oh, its not the end of the world, but it goes something like this -

correspondence player wants to keep some number of games going. when that
number drops below a certain level, they open something like 6-8 open challenges.

what happens is -

some number of those challenges are taken by people who are expecting
live games, and cancel right away

some number of those games are taken by people who really are lower
than the minimum ranking in some regard, but managed to get by because
maybe something having to do with the multiple rankings

someone grabs a few of your games, even though you’d rather keep
at most one open with a given player (this isn’t too bad, just mildly annoying)

some fraction of the games accepted progress one or two moves and
then just time out

so in general, out of my 6 - i might get 2 that are actual games. so, after sorting
through all the chaff, i’ll open up another 6 the next day and see if i can
catch some more good ones.

its not terrible, and i wouldn’t have thought to complain, but its maybe a little
more work than it could be, and results in alot of noise

1 Like

I like this idea and I have it on our board to start working on… some thoughts.

Is that still a problem? I added logic about a year ago to prevent the same person from accepting multiple open challenges.

I’ve thought about allowing a user to exclude timeout-provisional or regular provisional players but I worry that this would make it too hard for those players to get games. I agree that this sucks though.

1 Like

So the provisional player has to post his or her own challenge. Works on boardgamearena where there’s not a provisional status, but players can be excluded based on skill or excessive timeouts or negative ratings. Down side: newbies to OGS would think that there aren’t many opportunities to play here.

sorry, i don’t track these things very carefully. i’m sure its gotten much better, but
i think 2 month(?) ago. i had three cancellations in a row and i messaged the person
saying ‘please stop that’, and they replied ‘ok, sorry’. without fixating on that
too much in general I think its still less than 50% success rate.

overall i think you can’t keep adding all these funny rules to try to weed out these
small annoyances, although I appreciate that you try. maybe a better approach
for this particular sub-problem would be to think over time about how to
make the messaging more clear so that people who are new to the site realize
that having a fisher time of 3 days probably implies that you’re going to have
to wait more than 20 seconds for me to respond to your move.

anyways, i’m happy to just keep posting em


yep, its still an issue. the repeated accept/cancel.

i posted 6 this morning and sasi ate three of them

just to be clear again, i don’t think its a serious problem that needs
attention, but it does make it a bit of work to keep ones correspondence
games up

i do think cancel makes quite a bit of sense in general. if the circumstances aren’t
right to commit to a game its better to just say forget it

So we can report a user, but can’t ban him from accepting our open challenges, right?

If you block a user it will prevent them from accepting your open challenges

So ability to block helps in some circumstances.

Block is not really a solution as the issue is not that we want to completely ignore a player, just we don’t want all of our games to be with the same player.

The way it works currently is that if a player is already playing you in a game then they won’t be able to accept an open challenge of yours (they can still directly challenge you or accept direct challenges from you, however).

If they are accepting and then immediately canceling all of your games then that is an abuse of the service and you should let us know. Though there is a 2 minute cool-down period where a player may not accept an open challenge immediately after they cancel a game.

1 Like

Maybe the problem could be fixed, for newbies, by having different labels on the sections for the “Play” page. “Short games” becomes “Fast games” and “Long games” becomes “Correspondence games”

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.