MArcomage

I don't like it. Could we leave an option for playing only one game vs a player?

why not like it??? It's quite fun. Besides you could always reject multiple invitations from one player

or you could write down in your profile saying you don't like multiple games (like a lot of people do with Hidden mode)

I think Dimitris' problem is making a bunch of open challenges and having lots of them accepted by the same person. Putting a note in your profile could help, but people probably aren't going to be reading it if they're just taking your challenges from the games page.

Personally, I don't mind if one person takes all my open games. I'm happy to have lots of games going at once :D

Perhaps accepting a hosted game should limit you and restrict your ability to accept if you already have a certain number of games against that opponent, but accepting direct challenges could continue to have no limit.

DPsycho wrote:
Perhaps accepting a hosted game should limit you and restrict your ability to accept if you already have a certain number of games against that opponent, but accepting direct challenges could continue to have no limit.

Yes, this sounds as the best idea.

Some people wouldn't want that restriction though. I don't think it would make sense to make it mandatory. Maybe it could be an optional setting.

Added an option to disallow simultaneous games against the same opponent. Implemented in r1399.

I disabled the option but there's still someone joining more than 1 of my games ...

The option to prevent one player from joining multiple games is disabled by default. You have to enable it to prevent the multiple joining.

No it seems to work correctly, it just seems that ended games are no longer actual games. Early it wasn't possible to join ones game if it was not ended by both players.

Yes, this check only counts active games. So it's little different then before, however I think it suffices.

Too bad... it was a nice nuisance filter...

He makes a good point. If someone is playing each of your hosted games in rapid succession and you wanted to politely (and quietly) refuse, not immediately leaving the previous game was a simple way to accomplish this.

I've heard the argument that someone being able to join all your games at once is bad because they could idle for weeks and waste your free slots, which makes sense to me. Clearly that argument doesn't apply here though. So, I don't get it. Why would you not want to play with a particular person? Oh god... are people secretly boycotting me?!

DPsycho wrote:
He makes a good point. If someone is playing each of your hosted games in rapid succession and you wanted to politely (and quietly) refuse, not immediately leaving the previous game was a simple way to accomplish this.

Well, I didn't thought about that. The requirement was to prevent one player to join multiple games at the same time, not emulate ignore list. However, the implementation of such change should be trivial.

dindon wrote:
Why would you not want to play with a particular person? Oh god... are people secretly boycotting me?!

No, it's more like I enjoy playing random deck games. And I know a lot of people do as well. But certain people just use i.e. common card rush decks, where of course, I don't stand a chance with my random decks. Now one of these people joining all your games at once was super annoying, so now I'm quite happy about the option to have only 1 game at a time.

Thanks! That's cool.