(After every map there will be Citations from the players)
"I could not play many games at the same time.. But I think it is ok but there should be a cap on how many games are being played, not only to keep everyone who wants to play playing but to keep the game more interesting... It is more fun to fight an enemy who you do not know or to be wary of a friend who you are unsure of then to play with the same people over and over so you know who will and will not backstab you..."
"I think it should be possible to play more than one game but it should be limited to max 3 games at the same time."
"I think that it would be possible for each player play a maximum of games at the same time! Say 4 or 5."
(This refers to players who do not care if there should or there should no be a limitation)
"I feel that players should be limited to one game only, but only until they have finished a complete game. This shows a commitment to finish. I do not feel it is necessary to require a player to have earned his (E) before they can play multiple games though."
(I considered this as No Opinion although it almost near a No. I put here his thoughts because he is giving us a idea of how should be the signup system)
"I think playing several games at a time is OK. I guess people do know themselves how many games they can play at a time. For some players even one game seems to be too much and some can do very well in 4 at the same time. Especially when Doug seems to be running more than 20 games now, restrictions don't have much point."
"No problem, but priority in joining a game should be given to people that isn't already playing in another game."
(Due to the high amount of citations I decided to put them instead of a aggregate graphic)
a)"I never play more than one at a time, but on occasion some of my allies have confused games, resulting in sending the wrong commands to the wrong game."
b)"I think there SHOULD be a limit to the number of games you can play, even if you are (E). I'd suggest about 5. This may sound strange coming from someone near the top of the rankings, but I'd like to see the rankings determined more on ability, and not on how many games you can play at once. Some people can only handle one or two games at once. Others THINK they can handle playing in 8 or more, but you almost never hear from them sometimes. It's better to be in a game where everyone can give it their full attention."
c)"I think it must be hard to play lots of games at the same time. Sometimes you must get confused. Moreover, I think they should let other players play.(That does not concern those who take lots of dropped positions)"
d)"There are two reasons why to set limit for playing more games at a time:
- capacity of the game server: if there would be a lot of people wanting to play and they would have to wait for a long time for a game
- if someone plays more games at a time, he will not take them all too seriously. It can harm the game and other players. But it can be very individual. I suggest the player to be allowed to play maximally three games together and maximally two games of the same game (for example someone can
play maximally two GD games and one WW game)."
e)"If such player engages in all the games to the end, it's all right. I do so. But sometimes players playing in several games drop out just when they are starting to lose. Such players should be punished by removing their experienced status after second dropped games"
f)"Or: Players should be awarded E-status, when they complete three games in a row without dropping out, regardless of their result. They should lose this status always, when they drop, regardless of reasons."
g)"More than 4 seems a bit too many to give justice to the game. However, I've seen some players carry it off better than players playing only one game. So don't mind if they are pickups."
h)"I don't like it much. I prefer to concentrate on just a couple of games at a time, and I wish other people did too! Plus it makes it too easy for the (E) crowd to just rack up more and more points - not that points are the main reason for playing! it'd just be nice if they had a life."
i)"I believe that a player should not play more than 4 games at the same time or only one game per 5 games started, because player who play many games:
i) Spend less time per game. This limit diplomacy and make GD more boring after first turns.
ii)Can use it to threat other player to not attack them. Attacking one of this players is also a great probability of fighting them later.
iii)If one of his games are going bad they can pay little attention to it and spend their time with their other games.
iv)Have less trouble to find alliances. As they have a bigger chance of meeting players who play in more than one game. They will also not attack his ally as that can put his other game in danger."
"I don't know how they manage it! (even one game seems to take up a lot of time)"
"Playing many games, but only one nation in each game, right? I see no problem with that."
"Well, if they can still remember which game is it..."
"As long as they play each game seriously, it's ok with me."
"It's their choice."
"If it's good for them, it's good for me. when I have the Time, I do it."
"Nothing wrong with it, to my mind, it allows players to make a quicker progress up in the honour roll. I have nothing against unless they take too many games at a time and neglect their obligations due to the lack of time."
"Well here I offer a view that has seen both sides of the coin. I have played in as many games as 8 at one time and as few as one. I find that 2 or 3 considering the Country you are playing is more the enough. I enjoy playing one game at a time more then a bunch because I can really get into the game, I seem to do better when I can concentrate on one game as well."
"I tried it a couple of times (had three games going, some two turns a week). I went from loving the game to hating it. I got my moves and e-mails confused. I would just get home from work and start on the game. My wife hated me. I will never do that again. I don't care if others do it, however, there is a chance that players may form extra-game alliances, that is alliance from one game grows to include the same players in another game. I would hate that to happen to the game. Each game should be an independent event."
"Meanwhile the player plays every game as it was the most important, I don't care how many games a time he is in. I play 5 at the same time. X plays much more, but I think that both of us are deeply in those games." (X to protect the player name)"
"I think that it's ok as long as the waiting list is short. I'm in 5 games right now and I can handle, I REALLY CAN! ;-) I don't sign up if I see a long waiting list and I'm already in a game or two."
"I do that currently, and it isn't a problem as long as they don't miss their turns."
The majority would not like to see limitation to games by player. The same number of players do not worry if others play more or less games at the same time.