Effect of live game limits on the live game community

Limiting the number of live games players can play per day has had very adverse effects on the D12 live games community.

The daily live games limit has drastically reduced the number of players who are able to play live games. This has, effectively, greatly reduced the size of the live gaming community.

We all understand that games stress the server. The more games, the more stress. Servers have to be paid for, and server stress manifests itself in lag.

Here is a possible suggestion/compromise, that would allow the live games limit to be removed once again while still imposing a limit on live games so that the servers aren't unduly stressed:

Make a cap on the total number of live games which the site can hold at any one time (based on server capability). For instance, say there is a limit of 10 live games: if there were currently 10 live games being played, the next live game which became full of players could only start once one of those 10 games are finished. Here 10 is just a placeholder to make the example easier to understand: developers could choose a number which they believe would work best, based on the server capability.

The above is simply one possibility - others might be able to come up with a better solution to the server stress issue that doesn't harm the live games community. Since many of the developers play long term games exclusively, we hope the live game community can feedback their thoughts on how this limit has affected their gaming experience. I created this forum thread at Fendi's suggestion based on feedback from several site members (mostly premium members).

I think what most players who play live games agree on is that the live game limit is severely hurting the live gaming community. Many of the people who think so are premium members, who themselves can play as many live games as they want, but can't find enough people to fill their games. While it's new people who are turned away by not being able to play, it's premium and other regular members of the community who suffer the lack of players.

I for one hope the developers reconsider this policy which in my view is hurting the site's live gaming community. What are your thoughts?

Thanks for posting on here Mach. I totally agree with your comments. Sometimes I am waiting for as long as an hour to get a game (I prefer live games) and sometimes I give up and go and read a book! This in reality makes my premium membership null and void because there are not enough games going on.

I am hoping that a compromise like Mach has suggested will be forthcoming because it was a great site when I first came here (in terms of never having to wait long for a game) and it is a shame to see it go this way.

If money is the issue, if it comes to it I would be prepared to pay a little more than it stands currently.

hi i agree with machi 's comments and it is easy too say now i was about too start paying for premium which i will still do as i believe this is still by far the best site and a fantastic community . i have absolutely no idea of the costs involved in running this site but i am totally great full of all the effort put in by all staff

Some thoughs:
- I'm not sure what the costs and income of this site are, I guess Fendi knows, I'd like it if everything in this world was free, but it isn't, and for very good reasons.

- Let's say you are a non premium member, and you happen to like to play long term games only. Say a game lasts 10 games on average (depends very much on the type of game, the average is probably higher, but lets say...) then you basically play 1 game every two days.
If you are a non premium member and you happen to like to play love games only, then you can play 100 games on a single day if you want.
This is not fair.

- This site is not setup to make a profit. All the admins are volunteers. Cireon and me are volunteers (yes, we got paid a bit for the rewrite, but everything we do now (and I'm still doing things every week) is for free). Fendi is the only one that pays and gets money. I'm not sure if she makes a profit now or a loss, but when she bought the site she defenitely made a loss.

- I like this site to grow, to stay, and it's community to be happy. So if there is a good solution which is both fair and gets more games on, I'd love to hear it.

- Currently there's an issue with "www". Go to https://www.dominating12.com and you'll get an error. Go to https://dominating12.com and everything is fine. The only reason why it is not fixed yet? Well, because I can't do everything and I'm busy this weekend. But that might also be a reason why this week the # of live games is lower, rather then the live game limit.

It is a bit more complicated than how you sketch it. There are a couple of things I want to point out.

First of all, you are wrong in assuming that the decision to limit live games on a daily basis was made by the developers only. While they were an integral part of the decision, the entire senior staff made this decision together. This includes some people that play live games a lot, so the live game community was definitely not forgotten. Sure, the limitation looks bad for the live game players, and we have also made the long term game limits more lenient. Even though it looks like we're biased towards long term games, you have to realise the website was always very nice on live game players, and we have merely made things more fair for everybody.

Second, you propose a different solution. This solution has actually been discussed by the staff too, but it is very unfair. People who live in the Americas would be disadvantaged a lot, because they have the "honour" of playing while the website is the most busy. They would always run in this limit, while players from other parts of the world who play when the website is less busy would never even see it. Now, this maybe sounds like a good deal to you if you play at a quiet time, but it would be very unfair. It would also lead to a terrible user experience! Think how frustrating it is for a same time player if they cannot create a game and all the existing games are consecutive.

So, let's return to the solution at hand, shall we. Lionesse says he would gladly pay more, but this is not entirely how things work. Less than 20% a game is currently played it is done by a premium player. That means that every premium players pays for more than 4 other people. We could increase the premium price, but this would definitely not lead to more premium players, and the growth of the website would not be possible to sustain.

I actually did look at some statistics. You say that it is impossible to fill up games now, but the statistics show otherwise. I checked the number of times people have played a game in one week, and compared those to statistics a month ago. The total number of players has only dropped by 10%! I fail to see how a 10% decrease in players all of a sudden fails to fill up games entirely. Sure, non-premium people may be less likely to join games with weird settings, but otherwise there appears to be little issue. 10% should hardly be noticeable by the average player.

The problem with games not starting is probably a bit like this: everybody makes their own games with their favourite settings. Of course if everybody makes their own games, they won't start. It's a multiplayer game. To make games start more often, try joining games as well, even if they are not exactly what you are looking for. There are so many settings, it is unlikely that people like the exact same settings. After finishing a game, you can offer doing a game with your favourite settings, or maybe you find new settings you like because you never tried them before!

Don't worry. We are monitoring things carefully, and we will adjust as we go along. In the end, all the staff members are volunteers who want the very best for the website.

I find the live game limits are good. It gives tokens some worth, and promotes games to not have missed turns (no tokens earned if you miss turns). From a moderating point of view, most problems of poor sportsmanship came from the 1v1 live gamers, players leaving games when losing, wasting time. Since the new live game limits, I have seen less complaints in this area.
 I don't think the site has slowed down because of the live game limits. I'm seeing more people frustrated with the dice or the lag, or log in issues.
5 live game limits per day, really only effects non premium players with quick game settings. Players that play 2p games, or sametime games or maybe team game specialists.
Their gaming activity can be over quick per day if they run out of tokens. Otherwise, 5 live games per day is quite generous with normal risk settings of 3+ players.
From resources point of view, i understand that these active multiple games(players) are the ones that put strain on the server. These players should really then be paying for extra enjoyment of more games if they want more games. You can support the site with more opponents and your token count with introducing more players using the referral program. or I suppose you can try and convince the powers that be that it is the live game limits causing less activity. I haven't noticed a lack of games in my timezone at least.

Thanks both for your replies. I have a few comments:

On the question of fairness which Matty points out: I think we all agree we want the system to be fair. Live gamers don't want to in any way restrict the amount of games long termers want to play. The issue however isn't the number of games of each type non premiums can play over a given time frame. The issue is the difficulty of finding people to play live games with, for both premium and non premium users alike.

Premium users can play as many long term games as they want to. Premium users can't play as many live games as they want to, because there just aren't enough people to fill these games (compared to pre-upgrade and to pre live game limit). Surely your statistics show a decrease in site population over both these periods.

Regarding people branching out into other game types: it's a nice idea, but I have found most players tend to play specific games - that's more so the case for higher ranked players who don't want to lose points with settings they are less familiar with. There are quite a number of people on this site I have never encountered in a game, despite inviting them and changing game settings: some people prefer consecutive turn long term games, others prefer same time live games - changing settings isn't usually enough to bridge that divide. I don't think we need to either: it's good to have a variety of games to cater for different tastes. That's one of the strengths of D12.

I did not say it is impossible to fill games now. I said it's significantly harder than it used to. One of the reasons is the daily live game limit. Another is that new players don't have any spare tokens to unock the different game types. As a result of this, there have been no new players seen in any of the games I've played since the limits were introduced.

The number of players will continue to lower until all the non premium regulars run out of tokens. Then it will even out (some of these will purchase premium, others won't - that won't change the number of games being played).

I don't think I see the unfairness Cireon refers to if the site would do better if there was a cap on the number of games played. This measure wouldn't be taken to annoy people who play at peak times, but rather out of necessity to ensure a smooth and lag-free gaming experience for the people who play at such peak times. It would benefit the people who play at peak time the most. The argument would be that a cap was needed because we get too many games and that makes the site laggy. At the moment, at the peak times you refer to, many games become unplayable. I for one would prefer to wait until one game finishes to play over being able to play a game that I can't play due to excessive lag. As long as everyone understood that such a limit was needed for the site to function properly, I think most of us would prefer it over having unplayable lag. It wouldn't even have to be a permanent cap: if the code can be streamlined/the lag reduced in the future, the cap could be increased over time? The aim should be to have as many games as possible on the site (but not more than possible!)

It would certainly feel like a fairer solution: one that addresses the issue of server stress when the server is stressed, without imposing limits on the number of games when the server isn't stressed. I don't think anyone could argue against that? The case you mention: there being no slots for a sametime game because there are too many games being played: I'd wait, knowing that when the game did start, it would work well and not be laggy.

Which is not to say this is a good idea (it was just an example of something which might work). I however don't think the limit on live games is a good idea.

I think the number of games played are reducing over time as people run out of tokens. Sure, some purchase premium when that happen. Others don't and leave the site. And yet others continue to play but just 3 games a day. The result is the same: a smaller pool of live game players online. Which is the point Kitty and I (and many others) were making.

I won't go into the finances since I don't know anything about that side of things on this site, though I do want to say I don't think anyone objects to developers being paid! Or at least I don't (but then again I'm biased due to my having done developing work on a voluntary basis before).

@Hood: a small side note, I think it would be good to differentiate between feedback on dice being unfair (those people are simply wrong, it isn't a question of opinion but one of maths and common sense!) and other more reasonable feedback, such as feedback on lag or login issues. Or maybt it's just me who doesn't respond well to complaints about statistics being unfair...

if the site needs more revenue surly there is room for advertisement on the home page & possibly down the sides of maps ? 

The reason why I liked this site so much when I got here was because it was not about revenue. A bit more money is nice because we can get a faster server, but profit is not nescessary.
It's also about fairness and what's good for the site and it's community. Do we want more 14 year old boys that join a game and leave it when they feel like they can't win it anymore and just join another? Things like that.

I actually thought that the lack of players was due to the large number of humiliating defeats inflicted on people by my men.
Thankyou for alerting me to other possible explanations.

Ok, now that i understand the potential issues: I tend to agree with Mach that the current regime of limiting games might be counterproductive.

Naturally, I understand there are costs involved. I do not expect Fendi should run this place at a loss.
So I do think a new solution needs to be found.

One part of the solution might be: two categories of premium membership:
a) The current 25 dollars a year or 9 dollars a quarter and b) 100 dollars a year or 35 dollars a quarter (which seems to me to be quite modest).
I did use to play on warzone, and did usually contribute 100 dollars a year. Many others did.
So if say, 1/4 of current premium members were to go to category b), would that generate enough income to resolve the issue so that restrictions on games could be lifted? It would have the effect of doubling the income.

If the answer is 'yes', then perhaps a message could be sent to all premium players asking whether they would be prepared to go to category b)
next time their payment is due, to find out if there is the necessary numbers. Players like myself, are prepared to pay for category b), but
only if their are players to play against.

On that point marco3, I would like to speak personally, I am all for supporting the site and more so, if you can afford more, but....
I think the option of purchasing premium for a specific player is more preferable to me.
My reasons:
I would feel that I am financially supporting a site where 90% of the hindrance and abuse comes from free players.
Therefore, the free players would get all the benefits of an Ad Free fast site that my money helps to sustain for their pleasure, but instead of being grateful for such a rare opportunity, they're actually the opposite in most cases.

I would recommend that even more restriction be put on free membership before I would agree to paying extra for a better playing experience for all.

I'm afraid I have to fundamentally disagree with the above. Restricting players from playing only damages the gaming community. It runs contrary to what the aim should be. Paraphrasing Matty above: to have more games, for the site to grow and the community to be happy.

I, and everyone else reading this forum, agrees we want to have the best gaming experience possible. To have a community of good players who don't behave badly. To prune those who act like the image of that annoying 14 year old which Matty alluded to: the sore loser who likes to ruin games, make others wait and move onto a different game when they lose. I agree that some, possibly most such people are relatively new to the site. With time they'll either leave, improve, or be ignored and blocked by most people.

Since you argue that 90% of bad behaviour comes from free members I would argue 90% of free members are good players who behave well and contribute positively to the vibrant D12 community.

There appears to be conflicting arguments in favour of the live limits:

1) Were they introduced for technical reasons, because the site can't handle the number of games being played? If that's the case I feel there are better solutions.
2) Were they introduced for financial reasons? Either because the site is running at a loss, or because it runs at too small a profit (and perhaps were it to run at a higher profit further improvements could be made). If that's the case I feel there are better solutions (thanks due here to those who have proposed some of these!)
3) Is it to help police bad behaviour (the argument going that bad behaviour comes from non premiums and so by reducing the number of games such people play you therefore reduce bad behaviour). I'd like to discount this one, but leaving it in here for completeness as it has been brought up.
4) Is it none of the above, but rather a believe that those who don't pay should have their playing restricted in some way?

The argument against the live limits is much simpler: the live limits reduce the pool of available players, making it harder for both paying and free members alike to play live games. It therefore has an adverse effect on the live gaming community. Some premium members are particularly unhappy at having to suffer such a restriction for the obvious reasons.

More generally speaking, I view the decrease in site population as a negative thing. Both in terms of gameplay and community (as well as in financial terms). The site's population has been decreasing and with the live games limit the site's effective population (that is, the site's population which can play games) is being significantly reduced.

You have done what a lot of people here do..... you picked up on one part of a post, which perhaps stood out to you or struck a wrong chord with you.

My point was virtually nothing to do with what must have taken you ages to write disapproval to.
It was that I too want to support the site financially, but not in the way marco3 suggested and my personal reasons for not supporting it in that suggested way are listed.
You see, I too want the site to grow, but only for the right reasons and I have a reasonable idea of the work that goes into this site and what is required to sustain it... all things which make the playing experience smooth and enjoyable and which (when the new site reaches optimum levels) will again have a flow of new players, some of whom will become loyal veterans who play regular live games.

Here's the opening part of the post for further reading:

(Edit) This topic has to be careful not to lose track of two important points.
One can, without fear of contradiction, decide how to spend their money.
One can not decide how much of something they are given for free.