[GC] Checkbox to Join Games

[DukeHazzard]

Join more than 1 game a a time

When searching for games, I find it time consuming to only be able to join one game at a time. Then I have to re-enter my game criteria to search for another game with the same criteria. How about having check boxes to join games. Then I could join multiple games displayed on one page. This would make joining many games with the same criteria much faster and less frustrating.

Thank you
DukeHazzard

[phantomzero]

Try holding the shift key when you click on the join game link. that open a new window. You can close that window and repeat for each game you wish to join.

[macbone]

Or to do the same thing, right-click on the Join Game link and select New Tab/Wndow to join multiple games without leaving the Game Finder results page.

[nebsmith]

Or click the back arrow on your browser.

[chapcrap]

Those are things that you can do, but it would be better and more efficient if you could join multiples at once.

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 4&t=157875

[TheForgivenOne]

Those are things that you can do, but it would be better and more efficient if you could join multiples at once.

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 4&t=157875

That has to do with Invites This has to do with the Game Finder. Am I missing something?

[chapcrap]

Those are things that you can do, but it would be better and more efficient if you could join multiples at once.

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 4&t=157875

That has to do with Invites This has to do with the Game Finder. Am I missing something?

Even if they are different, they probably would be coded similarly/at the same time it seems to me. So I dropped it in here. I'm not a coding guy, so I don't know that to be true, but the ideas are of the same vein.

[DukeHazzard]

Or click the back arrow on your browser.

this one doesn't work for me for some reason. thanks for the suggestions. I'll give the other 2 a try.

Those are things that you can do, but it would be better and more efficient if you could join multiples at once.

yes, check boxes or something would be more efficient

[eddie2]

Or click the back arrow on your browser.

this one doesn't work for me for some reason. thanks for the suggestions. I'll give the other 2 a try.

Those are things that you can do, but it would be better and more efficient if you could join multiples at once.

yes, check boxes or something would be more efficient

no it would not so while you are checking these boxes someone else can join them would be awkward .

[DukeHazzard]

Or click the back arrow on your browser.

this one doesn't work for me for some reason. thanks for the suggestions. I'll give the other 2 a try.

Those are things that you can do, but it would be better and more efficient if you could join multiples at once.

yes, check boxes or something would be more efficient

no it would not so while you are checking these boxes someone else can join them would be awkward .

someone can beat you to 1 game while your searching thru the page. it will happen either way. At least you'll have some success.

[i-Enigma]

I totally agree with you Duke, the suggestion that you should hit the back button would be great except that in Firefox it responds with a re-send info box followed by a second confirmation box.

Surely a checkbox system cant be too difficult to impliment and would certainly, in my case anyway, encourage me to join more games.

I joined 30 games just now which involved no less than 90 + mouse clicks together with a stream of monotonous scrolling back to the next game available to join each time.
A checkbox option to join all 30 games would have involved just 3 clicks - No brainer???

[i-Enigma]

Same applies to Feedback/Reviews, Too many clicks not enough time- lol.

[chapcrap]

Just thought this might be nice to talk about again.

[BigBallinStalin]

Firefox:

Right-click on "Join Game" link
press "T"


"Urh no, so many tabs!"

Ctrl + W.



You'll spend just as much time--if not more, clicking on boxes and clicking on the Join Game button.

[chapcrap]

Firefox:

Right-click on "Join Game" link
press "T"


"Urh no, so many tabs!"

Ctrl + W.



You'll spend just as much time--if not more, clicking on boxes and clicking on the Join Game button.

Where do you find Ctrl + W on your phone? I can't find it on mine.

[greenoaks]

Firefox:

Right-click on "Join Game" link
press "T"


"Urh no, so many tabs!"

Ctrl + W.



You'll spend just as much time--if not more, clicking on boxes and clicking on the Join Game button.

Where do you find Ctrl + W on your phone? I can't find it on mine.

CC is not built for phones.

[chapcrap]

CC is not built for phones.

Not yet, but there's no sense in knocking a suggestion that will help multiple people (like this one) and hurt no one (like this one) just because there is a alternative (opening new tabs and then closing them) that's only slightly harder than this proposal for some people.

It's like saying, I don't want things to be a little easier for me and lot easier for some, because I have a method that's only a little bit harder. If you don't like the suggestion, bring something that has merit as an argument. That's my point.

[BigBallinStalin]

Firefox:

Right-click on "Join Game" link
press "T"


"Urh no, so many tabs!"

Ctrl + W.



You'll spend just as much time--if not more, clicking on boxes and clicking on the Join Game button.

Where do you find Ctrl + W on your phone? I can't find it on mine.

Did you install the latest firmware?

[patrickaa317]

CC is not built for phones.

Not yet, but there's no sense in knocking a suggestion that will help multiple people (like this one) and hurt no one (like this one) just because there is a alternative (opening new tabs and then closing them) that's only slightly harder than this proposal for some people.

It's like saying, I don't want things to be a little easier for me and lot easier for some, because I have a method that's only a little bit harder. If you don't like the suggestion, bring something that has merit as an argument. That's my point.

I think there is little to gain by implementing this. I wouldn't be opposed to it but it should be damn near the bottom of the priority list.