Limiting Host Flooding

[Pip Squeek]

Description:
Lately I have seen more and more people starting 20+ games at a time. Now I do not have a problem with them making so many game since they are a paying member, but what I do have a problem with is seeing that the have all them games started in row and in most cases done under a min. I do not know if it is done on purpose or on accident, but it is a lot to try and dig threw when looking for a game. So I suggest adding a 30 second or 1 min. timer to when you can start a new game for hosting that way people are not using scripts or hitting the back than create button to make 20+ games in under a min. Most times them games either get dropped or people actually fill them, but if they really want play that many games I do not think this delay would cause them to much trouble.

Specifics:

• Add a 30 Second or 1 min. timer to creating new games

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Would prevent making accidental extra games
• Would help make finding game easier
• Would help cut down on the number of dropped games

[Optimus Prime]

So what you are saying is that you want someone who is making 30 games to have to sit for 20-30 minutes just to do it? I don't think that is going to fly. The site already addressed the issue in one way by putting a cap at 50 waiting games per player at once in order to cut down on both overload AND potential for intentional deadbeating.

I don't think making a big wait between creating games is a proper solution. This coming strictly from a tournament organizer. I have had evenings where I have created literally hundreds (500+) games for tournaments. If I had to wait 30 seconds between them I would be pissed. Simple as that.

Regards, Optimus Prime

[Herakilla]

all they do is click the start button over and over before the page switches, its not like theres a number they can change to start X games

[Pip Squeek]

The flood protection doesn't needed to be added for tournament games. Tournaments are already controlled and not made just for fun.

It can also be as low as 10 or 15 seconds if you think 30 seconds is to high. Which would slow them down enough without hurting the system. I am just bringing this up because I just watched a guy make 45 - 1 vs 1 games in less than a min. and it is really annoying to try and work around.

[BaldAdonis]

Tournaments... and not made just for fun.

Yes they are

Have you tried using the game finder to look for new games? You don't have to sort through any big lists of games that you wouldn't want to join.

[Optimus Prime]

The flood protection doesn't needed to be added for tournament games. Tournaments are already controlled and not made just for fun.

It can also be as low as 10 or 15 seconds if you think 30 seconds is to high. Which would slow them down enough without hurting the system. I am just bringing this up because I just watched a guy make 45 - 1 vs 1 games in less than a min. and it is really annoying to try and work around.

10-15 seconds would still be too long in my opinion. I don't know official numbers, but I would say that new tournament games make up at least 40% of the games made on a regular basis. Of course I may be way off on that estimation, who knows. If you put a limit, it has to go on all of them.

Game Finder is your friend, your very best friend.

[Pip Squeek]

The tournaments themselves maybe be fun, but the person who is setting one up usually has put some thought into it...

I use the game finder all the time, but it doesn't help when one person creates 20+ of the same game...

[Timminz]

I use the game finder all the time, but it doesn't help when one person creates 20+ of the same game...

If they're creating 20+ of a game that you like to play, what's the problem?

[Optimus Prime]

I use the game finder all the time, but it doesn't help when one person creates 20+ of the same game...

If they're creating 20+ of a game that you like to play, what's the problem?

Yes, this would be my question as well. What does it matter if you have 20 options? Just pick the ones you want and get to playing.

[Pip Squeek]

Well I could join all there games to teach them a lesson, but I would most likely get accused for cheating if I did. I mean how many times do you really want to play someone if you know you can beat them?

Make it 5 seconds than. That is more than enough time to prevent accidental ones. That way you know for sure it was done on purpose and not accidental.

[Optimus Prime]

No, no flood limit is acceptable in my mind.

You still haven't said why this is a problem if you are using the Game Finder. If you are, then you have found the games you want, and you can join as many as you like. I still don't see the complication.

As for creating accidental games, I think you are misunderstanding the intent of the players that make this many games at once. They don't care if there are 24, 52, or 745 of them, they just want lots of games on that setting and will play all of them that they make.

[Pip Squeek]

Fine, so you are saying I should worry about playing someone 20+ times if I win 90% of the time against them. I only ask because it would only seem like an unfair boost to my rating.

[Optimus Prime]

Fine, so you are saying I should worry about playing someone 20+ times if I win 90% of the time against them. I only ask because it would only seem like an unfair boost to my rating.

Why is this a problem? If you aren't the same person and they make 20 games and then you beat them it is their own fault for sucking at the game so bad if you ask me. What is unfair about it? I don't see any problems.....granted someone might accuse you of being a multi for winning 90%, but if you know you aren't then you have nothing to worry about anyways.

If you want to make yourself feel more "fair" just don't join all 20, just join 5 or 6 and go from there.

[BaldAdonis]

Make it 5 seconds than. That is more than enough time to prevent accidental ones. That way you know for sure it was done on purpose and not accidental.

I'm pretty sure everyone is doing it on purpose. Unless they get really frustrated with waiting and click "Create Game" a number of times before the screen comes up, and then they don't notice that they've created more than 1 and have a stack of games waiting, and then they don't bother dropping any..... in that case, they might not want to play those games. But I really don't think that happens.... and if you are good at those settings, then why not play? At least that person will think twice next time they want to open 20 of the same games.

[wcaclimbing]

I'm pretty sure everyone is doing it on purpose.

exactly. People start tons of games on purpose. All the time.

I always start my games in batches of 50 (the maximum allowed) and I know many other people that do the same.
I start 50 AoR Magic games, then after a day or two a few people always join them. They are generally good players that are joining. Cause if you are good at AoR Magic, you would join most of the games to get a bunch of points. If you aren't good at it, just don't search for that on gamefinder.
even just a 5 second wait would screw me over, because then that would take over 4 minutes for me to make 50 games (4 minutes, 10 seconds, to be exact) instead of the 15 seconds it currently takes me.

Accidental games rarely happen, and is it really that big of a deal even if they do?

I vote NO DELAY.

[greenoaks]

i noticed wcaclimbing does that a lot. i will join 5 or 6 of his at a time, often spreading them out on the list in the hope of getting different opponents joining each.

so i vote leave it as it is.