PlanetsCentral

I remember player BRAVOG07 dropped from his last game.

So, I offer to set hostrun with all trn's in, to check player's availability.

And, maybe, replace non-alive players before continue

I remember player BRAVOG07 dropped from his last game.

So, I offer to set hostrun with all trn's in, to check player's availability.

I normally wouldn't do this, but in case of user BRAVOG07, evidence that we don't see a turn from them for this game is pretty high (server has no traces of their activity), so I will remove them on Friday if I don't hear from them.

So, BRAVOG: if you're active, please reply to this forum thread and/or submit a turn.

And, maybe, replace non-alive players before continue

I would give everyone else the benefit of the doubt; I don't see anyone I remember as notorious no-show among them.

--Stefan

Let's stop the game till all 11 players will be found

Siba in Player's availability:

I remember player BRAVOG07 dropped from his last game.

So, I offer to set hostrun with all trn's in, to check player's availability.

I normally wouldn't do this, but in case of user BRAVOG07, evidence that we don't see a turn from them for this game is pretty high (server has no traces of their activity), so I will remove them on Friday if I don't hear from them.

So, BRAVOG: if you're active, please reply to this forum thread and/or submit a turn.

And, maybe, replace non-alive players before continue

I would give everyone else the benefit of the doubt; I don't see anyone I remember as notorious no-show among them.

--Stefan

I would prefer that the game continues. We have waited too long for it to start

I would prefer that the game continues. We have waited too long for it to start

we have waited to start normal game with 11 players.

If you want to play small party with just few players - you can do it anytime... without me.

Hope, you understand my position.

wasp in Re: Player's availability:

I would prefer that the game continues. We have waited too long for it to start

we have waited to start normal game with 11 players.

If you want to play small party with just few players - you can do it anytime... without me.

That would be a pity. Understandable if the game had, say, just 7 players, but with 10, it counts as pretty full to me.

The problem isn't new, we have too few players, and it won't get any better from quitting. What would be more appreciated would be tips how to reach older players (like, from PlanetsServer, TheStarbase, or RCworld. Or from Fido?). More players, faster time to fill up games, fewer drops. I occasionally advertise at newsgroups, but there surely are other channels I don't know about.

I'm open to other ideas to mitigate the problem. One idea I've been tossing around has been to make five-player games (like: five Feds). That would surely be fun, and possibly fill up faster, but it would also certainly be a totally different gaming experience.

--Stefan

The problem isn't new, we have too few players

Yes, but real problem in long period to gather players. Because of it's too long, some players may disappear while waiting.

So, i think, we just need to check all players ready BEFORE the game start. And start the game only after all of them are ready.

Now we lose 2 of 11 players and the game not even begun. If these players wouldn't register at all - we would still waiting now. So I think we need to wait.

Or make alternative party for a few players, if they want to.

streu in Re: Player's availability:

The problem isn't new, we have too few players

Yes, but real problem in long period to gather players. Because of it's too long, some players may disappear while waiting.

So, i think, we just need to check all players ready BEFORE the game start. And start the game only after all of them are ready.

Sure. And what helps to fill games faster is more players

So far I see one vote for wait, one for start. Does anyone else have an opinion on that matter? I will ultimately do what the players in this game want. (But then, fairness demands to follow the majority decision.)

--Stefan

Siba in Re: Player's availability:

streu in Re: Player's availability:

The problem isn't new, we have too few players

Yes, but real problem in long period to gather players. Because of it's too long, some players may disappear while waiting.

So, i think, we just need to check all players ready BEFORE the game start. And start the game only after all of them are ready.

Sure. And what helps to fill games faster is more players

So far I see one vote for wait, one for start. Does anyone else have an opinion on that matter? I will ultimately do what the players in this game want. (But then, fairness demands to follow the majority decision.)

--Stefan

We could try to announce in Phoenix 5, because I see people signing up for the next game. Since the game is not shown on the main page - we have a very small chance to find somebody. Personally, I vote for start after asking people in Phoenix 5.

We could try to announce in Phoenix 5, because I see people signing up for the next game. Personally, I vote for start after asking people in Phoenix 5.

You see those people already playing Phoenix 4

But there's some other players register in Pleiades 10 (Yggdrasill, NicolaiMa) and Titan 5 (bimski,Sorigal), so we can invite them to Phoenix 4.

And, maybe, streu want to play this game too

so, what about Akhenaton now? He's got a very bad quota too and didnt send in a turn yet. Maybe we should reconsider replacing him as well? It seems we should at least try.

I am also voting for full games. Its way more fun. And I got an idea about the (really) long waiting time: Would it be possible to arrange something like a "refresh" system where maybe people who register for a game have too reply (with an empty mail) to an email sent to them automaticly every 14 days to stay inside the game? Maybe giving them 3 days to reply. It should be easy enough for everyone, and players who forget about the game drop out before the game starts.

Stefan, if you want your site to get more players, how about asking everyone (email all) to just ask around among friends etc? Maybe that will help and its not much work for you. I for example didnt know that you try to get more players to sign up here. Gonna keep my eyes open now and ask around.

And, maybe, streu want to play this game too

Sorry, I am already in one-and-a-half game and cannot handle more than that at a time.

As for this game: looks like we have another shy vote for "pause and refill"? So I would stop the game this evening (...leaving for work now.)

--Stefan

Hi everyone,

ok, I

• dropped Akenathon
• mailed the other games' players
• stopped the host

your task: ask your friends.

Regarding the future: I will not do anything that could be spamming ("*whine* come to my website") or even MLM ("make your friends come to my website"), I want the product to speak for itself Honestly, it's hard to stay on the right side of the fine line between spamming and, well, not spamming. Thus, I will stay with the occasional announcement on newsgroups, but if you have honest enthusiasm to spread at places I don't know about, that would be wonderful.

Regarding snouka's suggestion of making people renew their subscriptions: as far as I know, another big host site has a feature that just deletes games if they didn't get full after a given timeframe. The effect should be similar. I was considering doing something similar, but that'd be a noticeable implementation effort.

--Stefan

Hi everyone,

how do we proceed? The game currently is on hold (manual hosting). Should I resume it?

--Stefan

I had expected a little more enthusiasm in this thread...

I have now set the host to resume normally on Wednesday; please submit your turns or bring your friends in until then. Note that I'll be a little further from my console the following days (it's summer after all).

--Stefan

Hi everyone,

how do we proceed? The game currently is on hold (manual hosting). Should I resume it?

--Stefan

No, you should not.

I had expected a little more enthusiasm in this thread...

It was weekend.

I have now set the host to resume normally on Wednesday;

Now just Monday, but I see new turn here.

please submit your turns or bring your friends in until then. Note that I'll be a little further from my console the following days (it's summer after all).

--Stefan

Guys, if you decide to play Phoenix 4 with lack of players - please, remove me from this game.

streu in Re: Player's availability:

I had expected a little more enthusiasm in this thread...

It was weekend.

streu in Re: Player's availability:

I have now set the host to resume normally on Wednesday;

Now just Monday, but I see new turn here.

streu in Re: Player's availability:

please submit your turns or bring your friends in until then. Note that I'll be a little further from my console the following days (it's summer after all).

--Stefan

Guys, if you decide to play Phoenix 4 with lack of players - please, remove me from this game.

I had almost no time to reply recently. I do vote for full game start.

I think, having the game went 2 turns ahead with incomplete player set is not really good. We could not proceed as Siba would leave and this will make the game even less interesting.

I suggest player willing to play to vote for closing this game and join Phoenix 5. Hopefully we'll get some players in the new game.

streu in Re: Player's availability:

I have now set the host to resume normally on Wednesday;

Now just Monday, but I see new turn here.

Learn something new each day: the scheduler somehow added the "run host early if all turns are in" flag. That was not intended. Got to debug that next week. (I do not have good access to source code and console this week, that's why I wanted to go ahead.)

Siba in Re: Player's availability:

Guys, if you decide to play Phoenix 4 with lack of players - please, remove me from this game.

I think, having the game went 2 turns ahead with incomplete player set is not really good. We could not proceed as Siba would leave and this will make the game even less interesting.

Well, it is kind-of egoistic to say "I will not accept decision X"; when you try to get a dozen players to agree, someone has to make compromises. Good for you and bad for me: I do not know what the majority decision is; I was the only one to post here since last Wednesday.

If you agree to go on with Ph5 and abandon this one: great. But please decide how to proceed. If I shall delete this one, I would need he OK from everyone.

--Stefan

Well, it is kind-of egoistic to say "I will not accept decision X"; when you try to get a dozen players to agree, someone has to make compromises. Good for you and bad for me: I do not know what the majority decision is; I was the only one to post here since last Wednesday.

If you agree to go on with Ph5 and abandon this one: great. But please decide how to proceed. If I shall delete this one, I would need he OK from everyone.

--Stefan

Maybe it looks kind-of egoistic, but i should not to accept the "decision of majority" What i did is register to new VGAP game, to play with 11 players. Now we have just 9 players here, and even if majority of 8 players want to continue playing, but I don't.

So I offer to stop the game and keep waiting for new players, before continue.

Or, like Hedin says, delete Phoenix 4 and register to the new Phoenix 5, and keep waiting for new players for Phoenix 5.

I'm really can't understand, why you start incomplete games, and make hostruns, while there's not enough players in the game.

streu in Re: Player's availability:

Well, it is kind-of egoistic to say "I will not accept decision X"; when you try to get a dozen players to agree, someone has to make compromises. Good for you and bad for me: I do not know what the majority decision is; I was the only one to post here since last Wednesday.

Maybe it looks kind-of egoistic, but i should not to accept the "decision of majority" What i did is register to new VGAP game, to play with 11 players. Now we have just 9 players here, and even if majority of 8 players want to continue playing, but I don't.

I cannot chain anyone to their computer and force them to submit sensible turns. Not even you. However, if there were 8 players that say "continue", player 9 dropping from the game would be the same kind of killjoy as the no-shows. Or as someone dropping in turn 60 after seeing they can no longer reach place one. The problem is: I don't know whether these 8 exist, they didn't articulate their wishes.

But being in a multiplayer game always also is a responsibility. Sometimes it's 10 players entertaining you, sometimes it's you who has to entertain someone. Dropping out if your own entertainment goes below maximum is bad style.

Or, like Hedin says, delete Phoenix 4 and register to the new Phoenix 5, and keep waiting for new players for Phoenix 5.

I'm really can't understand, why you start incomplete games, and make hostruns, while there's not enough players in the game.

So far we had one vote for continuing, one for pause. I paused a little, sort of a middle ground. I understand my job as a service to do what players (note: plural) in a game want -- if I know what this is.

Regarding Phoenix 5: well, create precedents: convince other participants to come over.

--Stefan

I don't like the idea of players dropping a game especially when i have to fight a computer payer afterwards. But that's vgaplanets life and i can't do much about it.

Siba, i respect your point of you but then you should respect ours too. There's no guaranty that a player won't drop the game after 10 turns, or if he sees that he's in a bad position.

Anyway, the idea of transferring players from one side to another is a good one, although some may not come because the game setup is different.

Maybe we can restart, and get a smaller map? That way, the players who really want to play, will be in a similar position as with a bigger map and 11 players.

However, if there were 8 players that say "continue", player 9 dropping from the game would be the same kind of killjoy as the no-shows. But being in a multiplayer game always also is a responsibility.

Good, but there's no killjoy, cause i didn't even register such kind of joy . I don't want somebody hurt, but I say this is not I have registered to.

Sometimes it's 10 players entertaining you, sometimes it's you who has to entertain someone. Dropping out if your own entertainment goes below maximum is bad style.

That is why I opened this thread immediately after game start, while nobody hurts That wasn't me, who made some hostruns with lack of players.

Siba, i respect your point of you but then you should respect ours too. There's no guaranty that a player won't drop the game after 10 turns, or if he sees that he's in a bad position.

Yes, and this is the biggest reason to have full set of players at the game start. Because if we drop some of them at turn 1, we can lose a half at turn 20. I remember one of the game here, there was near 5 players at the midgame, and most of them was allied. We decide to stop that game then.

By the way, I think it is good idea to hide player names in the game, or restrict alliances, because most of players in my last games was allied each other.

I would also prefer to start a game with a full set of players. if there is one missing chances are good that it wont affect the game too much. but already two or more in the beginning changes the chances for the lucky ones to be close to an abandoned HW drastically. The whole game then will be out of balance.

So, for me it would be no problem to cancel such a game and try to restart with a fresh group of players.

ok, another wild suggestion to maybe find a solution for this problem please excuse if it's something which is technically not possible here on this site, I have no clue about these things, just trying to help.

what about you add a section in the player's profile here where they can save settings for taking part in a game, like which races they would like to play, which game setups they would choose (list available setups which you offer), maybe also how many games at a time they would play etc...

as soon as people fill in their preferences you would have some kind of database from which you can pick players. if there are enough players available to setup a new game you could send an invitation to them telling that a game will start which matches their chosen preferences and tells them to register for it within maybe 5 - 7 days.

After that the game could start right away.

if you give the players an additional button which can change the status between "available" or "not available" for games it should be easy for everyone to get along with it.

If you think this could be an interesting option please feel free to modify it the way you want.

I would also prefer to start a game with a full set of players. if there is one missing chances are good that it wont affect the game too much. but already two or more in the beginning changes the chances for the lucky ones to be close to an abandoned HW drastically. The whole game then will be out of balance.

So, for me it would be no problem to cancel such a game and try to restart with a fresh group of players.

This would be fine for me, I just don't see what's going on regarding filling, say, Phoenix 5. Plus, Phoenix 4 now is full - the only one who's missing is Siba.

what about you add a section in the player's profile here where they can save settings for taking part in a game, like which races they would like to play, which game setups they would choose (list available setups which you offer), maybe also how many games at a time they would play etc...

This is actually a nice idea which I will kick around a little. Don't expect it to be implemented within the next weeks, though

--Stefan