Seeing how slow the site is becoming perhaps they should do what the guys down the road did and impose limits on games. Its too easy for people to start 1,000 games and then put the vacation flag. Wouldn't it take a day just to open and see what your opponent has moved if you had 1,000 games and the site was this slow?
That is the problem of the guys with 1000 games, the site should not impose game limits on subscribers, that is what we pay the fee for. The people with a lot of games are not the reason the site is slow and they don't use that much more bandwidth, since they aren't displaying or playing all the games at once. Two people with 500 games would be much worse.
And as for moves per day, there are times when I've had 10 games in progress and been averaging far more moves/day than when I have 60-80 games in progress.
And if you have 1000 games, you don't move in all of the every day, it is a cycle usually. You'll notice people like galaxyshield play a lot of their games on a 7 day timeout or more.
Originally posted by jsmith Seeing how slow the site is becoming perhaps they should do what the guys down the road did and impose limits on games. Its too easy for people to start 1,000 games and then put the vacation flag. Wouldn't it take a day just to open and see what your opponent has moved if you had 1,000 games and the site was this slow?
Why would you open each game to see if someone moved, when it tells you right from your game page?
So what if someone makes 1000 games and goes on vacation, I'm not following that point.
Originally posted by Phlabibit Why would you open each game to see if someone moved, when it tells you right from your game page?
So what if someone makes 1000 games and goes on vacation, I'm not following that point.
P-
A site that started not long ago has a feature where for every x moves you make you get to start another game. Having moved enough moves one guy started 1000 games then when the load became too much went on vacation. Still moving in some games he continued to start more games but was on vacation in the others. Finally he started a new account and did the same thing. As that site has few members, it was agonising for his opponents.
He finally started a 3rd account before the dozy admin noticed but you can tell how out of hand things can become if a site has few members/or is new.
Originally posted by jsmith A site that started not long ago has a feature where for every x moves you make you get to start another game. Having moved enough moves one guy started 1000 games then when the load became too much went on vacation. Still moving in some games he continued to start more games but was on vacation in the others. Finally he started a new account and did the same ...[text shortened]... noticed but you can tell how out of hand things can become if a site has few members/or is new.
Well, that would be an ass thing to do... but what does it have to do with how slow the site is now?
We've had this user already, DustnRogers I think. He'd start tons of games, promise his services to a 'sucker clan'... people would warn the sucker not to take him on.... he'd swear he's changed... and next thing you know he's got hundreds of timed out games and vanishes again.
Anyone can be an ass, and there are hundreds of ways to be an ass.
Originally posted by Phlabibit Well, that would be an ass thing to do... but what does it have to do with how slow the site is now?
.......
Anyone can be an ass, and there are hundreds of ways to be an ass.
P-
The site's bandwidth is being eaten up so a limit on games would reduce this. Ever heard of the slashdot effect? How many users with high game loads do you think it would take to consume resources?
Originally posted by jsmith The site's bandwidth is being eaten up so a limit on games would reduce this. Ever heard of the slashdot effect? How many users with high game loads do you think it would take to consume resources?
How much server load does a subscription buy? How much server load have you paid for?
Originally posted by jsmith The site's bandwidth is being eaten up so a limit on games would reduce this. Ever heard of the slashdot effect? How many users with high game loads do you think it would take to consume resources?
Do you seriously think that the number of games has ANYTHING to do with the bandwidth being consumed?
The number of HTTP requests to the server is what counts and that has nothing to do (at all) with how many games anyone has going at once.
Originally posted by jsmith The site's bandwidth is being eaten up so a limit on games would reduce this. Ever heard of the slashdot effect? How many users with high game loads do you think it would take to consume resources?
I've got a better idea: Drop all non-subs who have used the site for more than 2 weeks.
Originally posted by jsmith The site's bandwidth is being eaten up so a limit on games would reduce this. Ever heard of the slashdot effect? How many users with high game loads do you think it would take to consume resources?
I take up as much bandwidth as a chess player when I'm bouncing around the forums. I click links into pages, read profiles, etc... all this while a guy with 1000 games goes into a game, and spends 50 or so seconds thinking... and clicks move.
Should we limit total access to the site? Monitor how much bandwidth each user is sucking up? There are users with 6 games going that use up more bandwidth just perusing chess games and profiles... or the forums.
You'd probably have better sucess limiting the number of moves per day that non-subs can make. Moves count more than games.
(Note: not a serious suggestion, just fighting fire with fire) But seriously, tell me why it isn't a better idea, seeing as I pay for the bandwidth I use.
19 Mar '07 18:17
Games Limits for subscribers
Back to Top