agentcom wrote:Seems to me the easiest way to do it would be to give each game n number of "bumps" where n is the number of players in the game. The game would go to the top of the screen upon creation, then would get bumped again when the second player joins. However, the game has now used 2 of its "bumps." So if player 2 drops, that game isn't going to get bumped again until it has 3 players in it. I think that would solve the problem and the biggest form of "abuse" would be to start a quads game and have 1 player from your team join every 24 hours or so. But you'd have to coordinate invites. I.e. abusing this would be kind of difficult.
That would work.
agentcom wrote:But I'm not really in favor of this as the default option.
The reason I came up with this, which may be obvious, is due to the recent changes to the waiting games list seeming to have a mixed review. I personally am happy with the new changes but thought that maybe this idea would appease a greater number of people as it's sort of a compromise/middle ground between newest games first and oldest games first.
Perhaps ... after some initial hesitation, I'm whole-heartedly in favor of the change now. I think it's a great thing for the site and the benefit comes mainly at the expense of certain people engaged in questionable tactics. Don't get me wrong, I've joined a handful of those games, so I'm not trying to cast stones here. But I would not have wanted to be on the other side of our team if I was a new recruit. I remember trying to search out team games that I could join way back in the day before I had any friends
and I got into a couple of games like these.
I think that the people who truly enjoy those types of games, as opposed to just enjoying the points from them, will like the new format as their games will now pose a challenge because people have to search them out.
So, as far as this suggestion goes, I'm indifferent. I don't see the relatively few "bumps" really encouraging people to join many games. Also, (and this is just an educated guess/impression), I'm not sure that there's much desire to revisit this system so soon. As to the efficacy of the suggestion, the n-1 or n-2 bump would probably get some people excited, but that brings me back to thinking that I'd rather see a searchable gamefinder where you can sort by slots remaining. And I think that a gamefinder update is long overdue.