Its annoying to have to wait so long for some players to make a move [Archive]

oliathsg

08-11-2012, 09:56 AM

Well yes - but I suppose the point is that you don't expect the games to come thick and fast.

Also consider that it IS cross platform and that a majority of people you play with will have it on the iphone.... so they will respond quite quickly.

I have been playing for five hours straight!

I have about 20 games on the go.

Once I find someone who seems to be active / in my timezone i start a few more games with them, so i have about four games with the same person.

Its great... and my only problem is that its impossible to walk away from since I keep getting the 'new game' notification!!!! AAAHHHH I need a break.

Spattercat

08-11-2012, 10:29 AM

Also, as in the case above, some folks are going to be playing 20 games or more concurrently. It may take awhile to cycle through to their turn in your game.

KOX

08-12-2012, 03:23 AM

Culgan

08-12-2012, 03:28 AM

i have currently over 20 "waiting for opponent" games. Some of them didn't make a move for more than 24 hours, and it seems they don't plan to continue.
That's just ridiculous, there should be some kind of time-out, if you don't make a move for an hour, you lose.

The time-out is if you don't make a move in 7 days you forfeit the match...pretty ridiculous if you ask me. It would certainly be nice if they included the option to set time limits for each turn for those of us that would like to have quick games and not takes forever and a day to make 1 turn.

Statue

08-12-2012, 03:29 AM

A simple option added to the game would keep everyone happy on the timing front. Just see how online chess sites do it. You click your preferred time-out setting and they match you with other players choosing that option. E.g. 10 mins for whole game, 3 mins for each move is generally listed as the 10/3 option and is one of the most popular on online chess sites.

Some may like the 7 day limit AH has. Plenty don't. Adding more time options wouldn't hurt the existing players that like 7 day time-outs, but would just extend the appeal to the substantial number of people that want a faster continuous game.

Culgan

08-12-2012, 03:38 AM

You can guarantee that even if they added in that timer people would complain that it's 'not what the game is about'. Even though it's just been released and with 20+ games going at once, I still find myself waiting a rather unpleasantly long time before being able to make my next turn because everyone else is running the same if not more games. Then there are some people who when losing, just lose interest in the game and instead of resigning, they just refuse to take their turn for a long time to drag it out.

PsyErotica

08-12-2012, 04:48 AM

That is why OPTIONS are always a good thing. If the devs see this please add an option to set a move timer or something. Like say 1,2,3,4 or 5 minutes to take your turn or the default unlimited (7 days or whatever) time limit. I want to sit down and play a game at one sitting, not wait 7 days to continue playing. Heck if it takes a day or longer I'll probably just cancel that session.

sitebender

08-12-2012, 05:28 AM

I totally agree. I'm not sure most players play past 1 turn. I'm playing 2 games at once and no one is playing...

KOX

08-12-2012, 05:31 AM

yeah, there should be two options 'relaxed mode' like the one we have now, where the match can last even for months, and quick match, with 15 minute time out, or even less

sitebender

08-12-2012, 05:33 AM

I have a feeling people are playing 5+ games at once.

KOX

08-12-2012, 05:39 AM

I have a feeling people are playing 5+ games at once.

i always play at least 5 games at once, this way there are chances i will not fall asleep waiting for a move.

sitebender

08-12-2012, 05:42 AM

Maybe the real LOL is these aren't real players, but the game's AI making the single player everyone talks about. Just kidding... the single player are the challenge rooms.

sitebender

08-12-2012, 05:45 AM

.... this is getting really dull. :-( I could be playing TF2. or a Facebook game.

sitebender

08-12-2012, 05:50 AM

Lovely. I'm playing against someone that says its his 1,000th game. Its totally not my 1,000th game but I did say random.

... and now I just quit all of my matches. I won't be playing this game again.

Statue

08-12-2012, 07:25 AM

Maybe it's the 1000th game he's started, probably not the 1000th he's finished. Not with.... the.... gaps....

KOX

08-12-2012, 07:35 AM

if my oponent will be timed-out after a week, or whatever it is, will i actually get a victory or that will just cancel the match?

Culgan

08-12-2012, 07:45 AM

if my oponent will be timed-out after a week, or whatever it is, will i actually get a victory or that will just cancel the match?

You get a victory if they take more than a week to make their move. They forfeit the match.

KOX

08-12-2012, 08:08 AM

You get a victory if they take more than a week to make their move. They forfeit the match.

thats good, because i keep getting "one time" players, apparently people who just check out the game on iphone since its free, they have default avatar, play council, and only make few turns, then they get bored/dont like this game and never make their turn. I have about 10 matches like that, i would be furious if they would waste my time.

Culgan

08-12-2012, 08:14 AM

thats good, because i keep getting "one time" players, apparently people who just check out the game on iphone since its free, they have default avatar, play council, and only make few turns, then they get bored/dont like this game and never make their turn. I have about 10 matches like that, i would be furious if they would waste my time.

You're not the only one, I've got 2 people on my list that made 1 move then vanished. That was nearly 30 hours ago.

TroubleGirl

08-14-2012, 05:17 AM

i like the game but at some point in almost every game the other player just goes idle and doesnt make a move for 10 minutes or longer. sometimes they dont make a move ever again. cant anybody finish their game?
Non of your friends has the game?
When I want to play without waiting on opponents I just play versus friends or players who I know will stick around, but you get that once you played lots of games versus randoms.

SixOkay

08-14-2012, 09:24 AM

I totally agree. I'm not sure most players play past 1 turn. I'm playing 2 games at once and no one is playing...

Frankly, 2 is a tiny game list. The game is made for asynch play, which means that people play it when they have a chance to. I have about 68 games going in my list right now and I ALWAYS have someone to play against.

SixOkay

08-14-2012, 09:25 AM

You're not the only one, I've got 2 people on my list that made 1 move then vanished. That was nearly 30 hours ago.

This is very common in Hero Academy. That how MANY asynchronous games work. That's also why our time-outs are so long. It definitely takes some getting used to if you don't play a lot of asynch gaming.

Culgan

08-14-2012, 09:39 AM

This is very common in Hero Academy. That how MANY asynchronous games work. That's also why our time-outs are so long. It definitely takes some getting used to if you don't play a lot of asynch gaming.

I've got at most times now over 40 games going at once and while most people get back and make their turn within 20-30 minutes, I now have about 20 games with people having not made a move in 1-4 days after their first turn.

It is my first time playing an asynch game, it has taken some getting used to with the long turns but it's not really bothering me anymore. I'm okay with people taking a few hours in between turns, but when people make 1 move every few days it makes me lose interest in completing that game with them and I'll likely just ignore it entirely.

I guess it's just gonna take some more getting used to.

Statue

08-14-2012, 11:08 AM

This is very common in Hero Academy. That how MANY asynchronous games work. That's also why our time-outs are so long. It definitely takes some getting used to if you don't play a lot of asynch gaming.

I can understand the benefits of asynch play for some players. I understand the preference of some to want to play from beginning to end in one sitting and the benefits that has (it's my preference in general).

The thing I don't get is why Robot felt it necessary to only provide for long delay play when it could easily have provided for that and at the same time provided for immediate one-sitting gaming too (which has its own set of benefits and appeals to some players too), with the simple addition of time limit options and by having players matched on their time limit option choice (for example many chess sites offer time limit options that mean you can play a longer paced game or multiple games at that longer pace, or play from beginning to end in one sitting, and that works; someone chooses 10/3 and when they click to play it matches them with someone else who also selected 10/3 (and meets the other parameters they selected for such as their chess rating)).

I understand that the more options like that there were, the fewer people in each choice category to match with and the more chance of it taking longer to find an opponent, but I'm sure the player numbers would easily support at least two, if not more, time limit choices without compromising the experience for either preference: the current long limit *and* a more immediate time for those prefering to play from beginning to end in one sitting.

Could you maybe shed some light on whether it was considered, and if so why it was decided against; and, most importantly, whether it is something that might be implemented in future updates?

SixOkay

08-14-2012, 11:34 AM

I can understand the benefits of asynch play for some players. I understand the preference of some to want to play from beginning to end in one sitting and the benefits that has (it's my preference in general).

The thing I don't get is why Robot felt it necessary to only provide for long delay play when it could easily have provided for that and at the same time provided for immediate one-sitting gaming too (which has its own set of benefits and appeals to some players too), with the simple addition of time limit options and by having players matched on their time limit option choice (for example many chess sites offer time limit options that mean you can play a longer paced game or multiple games at that longer pace, or play from beginning to end in one sitting, and that works; someone chooses 10/3 and when they click to play it matches them with someone else who also selected 10/3 (and meets the other parameters they selected for such as their chess rating)).

I understand that the more options like that there were, the fewer people in each choice category to match with and the more chance of it taking longer to find an opponent, but I'm sure the player numbers would easily support at least two, if not more, time limit choices without compromising the experience for either preference: the current long limit *and* a more immediate time for those prefering to play from beginning to end in one sitting.

Could you maybe shed some light on whether it was considered, and if so why it was decided against; and, most importantly, whether it is something that might be implemented in future updates?

The biggest reason that we don't have single-session type of quickplay in there right now is that the more you fragment matchmaking, the harder it becomes to matchmake.

As you pointed out, if we have normal random matchmaking and then a bucket for "quickplay," we've now reduced the number of players in each, and the fewer players there are in each bucket, the longer it could take to matchmake. Further, if we broke quickplay down into subsegments like 5-10-20 minute move allowances, those buckets get even smaller.

That said, we've just launched and are monitoring forums and game usage closely. If it comes to pass that there's now a greater desire among our now larger audience for such a feature, then it's something we'll look at. But we also want to give people a fair shot at getting their feet wet with the game in it's "natural" state and getting comfortable with asynch gameplay. Quickplay, like MANY other features have been considered and are on a list of possible future features. But we constantly reevaluate those features after every patch and release to update priorities based on community feedback.

KOX

08-14-2012, 11:59 AM

matchmaking is instant right now, there are no reasons not to put quickplay option

Statue

08-14-2012, 12:00 PM

Thanks for the answer. Makes sense and sounds like the best way to go about it, balancing what the players would like with what their numbers can support and what would be an acceptable hit to the time to make a match (and of course costs of development vs sales).

Put me down as a +1 desiring it :), and also keep in mind that the presence of such an option might by itself increase the number of people available to match with (just by appealing to some gamers that are less attracted to the slower asych-friendly time-out) - again that would be something, as you said, that you'd glean some intel on from monitoring forums and such. I am glad it's up for consideration at least, and also pleased that player feedback and game usage is being monitored to inform the game's evolution.

Angus Kart

08-14-2012, 12:50 PM

matchmaking is instant right now, there are no reasons not to put quickplay option

Right now the game is brand new on PC and still a novelty.

I imagine the concurrent player numbers will drop substantially with time, and when the next big release comes out and steals away a lot of players.
That's when it will be more important to avoid fracturing the playerbase.

I wasnt fond of the idea at first but now that Ive been playing multiple games, the sometimes very slow pace doesnt bother me in the least.
Plus plaing multiple games at the same time has allowed me to learn new stategies while being beaten horribly in one game and turn around and use them to win other games, all of them being played simultaneously.

Jontia

08-14-2012, 01:19 PM

The biggest reason that we don't have single-session type of quickplay in there right now is that the more you fragment matchmaking, the harder it becomes to matchmake.

As you pointed out, if we have normal random matchmaking and then a bucket for "quickplay," we've now reduced the number of players in each, and the fewer players there are in each bucket, the longer it could take to matchmake. Further, if we broke quickplay down into subsegments like 5-10-20 minute move allowances, those buckets get even smaller.

That said, we've just launched and are monitoring forums and game usage closely. If it comes to pass that there's now a greater desire among our now larger audience for such a feature, then it's something we'll look at. But we also want to give people a fair shot at getting their feet wet with the game in it's "natural" state and getting comfortable with asynch gameplay. Quickplay, like MANY other features have been considered and are on a list of possible future features. But we constantly reevaluate those features after every patch and release to update priorities based on community feedback. It's really good to hear that you're interested in community feedback and that this is one of the options you're considering. The main point that I'd like add to the thinking about fragmented pools, is that I'd much rather wait 10 or 20 minutes to get a game that will finish within an hour, than to start a game instantly that wont complete for days.

I'd much rather that, than have 20 plus games running at once just to have something to do. A wait to get started I can fill, numerous waits of indeterminate lenght between turns is a bit more of a pain.

Captain Morti

08-14-2012, 03:44 PM

Does anyone know how long someone has time until he has to do his turn? In some of my matches the opponent did not do his turn in 3 days.

Culgan

08-14-2012, 03:48 PM

Does anyone know how long someone has time until he has to do his turn? In some of my matches the opponent did not do his turn in 3 days.

In a random match they have 7 days to take their turn, if more than 7 days go by they forfeit and you win.

It's 14 days for rematches and against friends.

KOX

08-14-2012, 10:38 PM

Right now the game is brand new on PC and still a novelty.

I imagine the concurrent player numbers will drop substantially with time

oh i guarantee you the playerbase on PC will drop rapidly, if they DON'T release quickmatch. I'll be one of them, i love this game but this - what you call it? - asynch gameplay? Sorry its just horrible and kills all the fun. It maybe works for ipoo, but on PC it doesn't.

Just read the damn comments, nobody likes it.

sm00th

08-14-2012, 10:48 PM

Games like Hero Academy are somewhat like mail games. I used to play chess over standard mail letters until the internet was reliable. You send your move in a normal letter, reaction time sometimes was months, so 7 days auto-forfeit is no problem for me, no reason to change that. longest mail chess game was 2 years and 3 months, for me, 122 moves, 66 mails sent, on paper. a friend currently plays against a grandmaster, since 6 years.

What I wish to see, is to implement somewhat kind of an elo ranking but that would end in to much fakers. Tournaments(simple k.o.) should be doable, therefore you can limit the gametime of a match, so that one match has to be finished in a day

oh i guarantee you the playerbase on PC will drop rapidly, if they DON'T release quickmatch. I'll be one of them, i love this game but this - what you call it? - asynch gameplay? Sorry its just horrible and kills all the fun. It maybe works for ipoo, but on PC it doesn't.

Just read the damn comments, nobody likes it.

You always will find more people complaining on forums then you will find people who actually like something. it's in the nature of our society to go on rant if something doesn't fits in their desirements.

A group of 10 people going for 5 apples. which group will be louder, the ones with an apple or the ones without an apple?

DanielGames

08-14-2012, 11:37 PM

In case you didn't know, I created a steam group dedicated for players who want fast games. Join us and rejoice!

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/HeroAcademyFastPacedAction

Angus Kart

08-15-2012, 12:19 AM

The slow pace of asynchronous gameplay doesn't bother me in the least.

Im not arguing against more gameplay options however, but I had to contradict the "nobody likes it" claim above made on behalf of the entire steam HA playing community.

I like having basically unlimited time to think out my move, being able to try out every combination of actions until I get the best possible outcome for my team. A 1 or 2 minute per move limit would make that very hard and every move would be rushed.

Even with a reasonable time limit, these games will take a LONG time to complete, and I would rather not have to commit to a large chunk of time to finish a game with a time limit per turn.

The extremely low time limit needed to make a game finish in one sitting would make the play too rapid for my taste, at least at this time.
Maybe I will get a lot quicker as I get better at the game, but at this time I prefer the slower pace with no limits.

KOX

08-15-2012, 12:25 AM

A group of 10 people going for 5 apples. which group will be louder, the ones with an apple or the ones without an apple?

there wouldn't be a problem if someone brought a knife.

I like having basically unlimited time to think out my move, being able to try out every combination of actions until I get the best possible outcome for my team.

oh, so you need 4 days to think out your moves? becuase thats how long it takes for many people to make a move.

i understand why you don't want to rush your moves, but be realistic, 2-3 minutes is more than enough, even a minute. It's not like HA is a very complex game with infinite possibilities, usually there are few good moves you can do at any given round. Strategy games should challenge your wits by making you think fast.

I want to finish a game in 15-30 minutes, not in a ♥♥♥♥ing month.

Jontia

08-15-2012, 11:40 AM

there wouldn't be a problem if someone brought a knife.To cut up the apples one assumes...

I think you might find benifits both ways if you introduced a fast and slow lane. I'm sure there are people out there who are feeling rushed or annoyed by the quick responses of people trying to play a game in a single sitting. The Beep, Beep might be getting too much for some people.

Rellik_pt

08-15-2012, 12:49 PM

i agree i have player that played the first moves and went away for more that 5 hours. anoying. the game needs a timelimit turn

Angus Kart

08-15-2012, 01:05 PM

there wouldn't be a problem if someone brought a knife.

oh, so you need 4 days to think out your moves? becuase thats how long it takes for many people to make a move.

i understand why you don't want to rush your moves, but be realistic, 2-3 minutes is more than enough, even a minute. It's not like HA is a very complex game with infinite possibilities, usually there are few good moves you can do at any given round. Strategy games should challenge your wits by making you think fast.

I want to finish a game in 15-30 minutes, not in a ♥♥♥♥ing month.

If 2-3 minutes is more than enough then you must barely try out any other moves at all.

For a complete game to end in 15-30 minutes, even with a per move timer, then at least one of those players must really suck.

Have you even played out an entire game yet?

99A

08-15-2012, 01:38 PM

yes but its still fun to play

Spattercat

08-15-2012, 01:58 PM

blastpop

08-15-2012, 02:56 PM

Seriously... I like knowing I have games to return to. I haven't had a problem yet checking in daily, like roster moves in a fantasy baseball league, or a play by mail game (as has been mentioned). I'm all for the options, too, but seriously play more games and forget about your idle matches. Soon enough you'll be hitting that "next game" button until it's you who's leaving others hanging (and they aren't going to care). I'd say the rush folks are in the minority. The claim that "no one" likes the current pace is petulant and absurd.

If one has several games ongoing what is the problem with someone taking longer? I can see myself playing the game while I am working on something else- check in make my move and go on with whatever I was doing in the first place. If your opponent quits or don't make another move, you win. I like the idea of Asynch because it can fill a gaming nitch for casual play. Frozen synapse does the same thing for me. YMMV

sm00th

08-15-2012, 03:44 PM

oh, so you need 4 days to think out your moves? becuase thats how long it takes for many people to make a move.

i understand why you don't want to rush your moves, but be realistic, 2-3 minutes is more than enough, even a minute. It's not like HA is a very complex game with infinite possibilities, usually there are few good moves you can do at any given round. Strategy games should challenge your wits by making you think fast.

I want to finish a game in 15-30 minutes, not in a ♥♥♥♥ing month.

you dont understand the game at all, it is not meant to be real time because that is what you calling for. if you want that, play starcraft 2 or if you want turn-based, go play civ5. even in civ5 there is a not so tiny community who plays the game by trading save files to get exactly the effect HA already provides, there is even a tool (http://multiplayerrobot.com/), that automates the process. HA is a casual game, meant to be played when you have absolutly nothing else to do, to trash time.

HA started on iOS devices.
so you driving 2 hours on a highway, your iphone makes a notify noise that KOX-bro wants to play and made his first move. u would really stop driving and finish the game against you? nope you will drive to your stuff, get things done and then maybe respond later.

if you want dedicated gaming, play other stuff.

Achievement unlocked:
Take All Day Academy

Take all day to put in your turn after your opponent does.

KOX

08-15-2012, 05:13 PM

If 2-3 minutes is more than enough then you must barely try out any other moves at all.

For a complete game to end in 15-30 minutes, even with a per move timer, then at least one of those players must really suck.

Have you even played out an entire game yet?

I have 50 hours played, and over 50 games won +some lost ones, but these are not tracked anywhere. So as you see it takes less than an hour to finish a match, and that's when people don't care about time. So what exactly is your problem?

Revpeachs

08-15-2012, 08:24 PM

10 games going at once. 1 person made a move in the last hour, waiting on all 10, 5 of them have not made a move in over 3 days.

Culgan

08-16-2012, 03:48 AM

10 games going at once. 1 person made a move in the last hour, waiting on all 10, 5 of them have not made a move in over 3 days.

If it makes you feel better, you can have over 40 games going at once and experience the same thing.

I currently have over 25 games at the moment where my opponent hasn't made a move in 1-6 days.

Angus Kart

08-16-2012, 04:06 AM

I have 50 hours played, and over 50 games won +some lost ones, but these are not tracked anywhere. So as you see it takes less than an hour to finish a match, and that's when people don't care about time. So what exactly is your problem?

Your math is the problem.
It does not work out that way when you can have multiple games running simultaneously.

With your numbers you could just as easily have had all your games take over 24 hours each.

Plus the games continue when you are not running the app and having steam count time.

Figure the lost games into that average and then multiply by the number of simultaneous games played to get a more accurate figure.

I seriously doubt it is possible with this game to finish 50+ random games in 50 hours while playing only 1 game at a time.

CobraA1

08-19-2012, 03:10 PM

Not sure many of you really understand the game type . . .

It used to be that games such as Chess and Checkers were often played by mail, where a single turn would take as long as it took to deliver an envelope, which could easily be a week or so.

Later, it became play be email. Before we got this push email stuff on our phones, most people checked their email once a day. So turns took a minimum of 24 hours or so.

Today, we have async games, where you can play any time you please.

It's okay to not play every 24 hours. Sometimes people want to take a break. Sometimes real life comes around and people HAVE to do other things. Shocker, I know. When it comes to my priorities, yes, games are rather low. Sorry, but that's life.

I've had times with Words With Friends where I don't play for several days because I just don't have the time. Same will likely be with this game. But hey, when I have time again, I'll just go through my games list and catch right back up.

floyd_99

08-20-2012, 11:14 AM

The problem with really long turn times is that sometimes I come back to a game and forget my overall strategy. Its much easier to plan and execute a strategy if you aren't waiting days between turns.

I think it would be great if there was a single 'fast' gametype. Yes it would split the userbase, but I've never had problems finding a game. And now with the influx of Steam players, it seems like it would be a reasonable sacrifice to split the userbase once. And for many people, waiting a little bit longer for a game to begin is totally fine if the game itself is then much faster.

The only question is what kind of timelimit to use for it. First, I think turn times are dumb. Its better to specify time for the entire game, like Ascension does on iOS. So each team has perhaps 1 hour to play out their moves overall. If you make some quick, simple turns you can save up time for more complex turns later.

And finally, I do think time forfeited games should count as wins. If you start getting beaten down and just stop playing, your opponent should get the win.

KOX

08-20-2012, 01:46 PM

I think it would be great if there was a single 'fast' gametype. Yes it would split the userbase

no it wouldn't... everyone would play the fast game mode :)

floyd_99

08-20-2012, 01:58 PM

I do think that a sizeable chunk of players would play fast. But sometimes I'd like to start a game, but don't necessarily have 2 hours free time to finish it. So for me I'd use both types.

no it wouldn't... everyone would play the fast game mode :)

Culgan

08-20-2012, 02:12 PM

I'd still play both types but I'd likely spend the majority of my time playing a fast game mode.

KOX

08-20-2012, 02:22 PM

PsyErotica

08-20-2012, 03:19 PM

at this moment im more concerned about whats discussed in THIS thread

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2889791

what good will be fast mode if you don't get the win when your opponent is timed out?

So instead lets wait 7 DAYS for someone to forfeit the match, great logic. Some of us couldn't care less about wins/losses, just being able to finish a game before the next ice age would be nice. Give us a quick play option, if you don't like it play the default way.

Rellik_pt

08-21-2012, 06:32 AM

this is the waiting game. for people that dont like to game for 20 minutes in one match. terrible ideia for pc to be honest

KOX

08-21-2012, 02:53 PM

So instead lets wait 7 DAYS for someone to forfeit the match, great logic. Some of us couldn't care less about wins/losses, just being able to finish a game before the next ice age would be nice. Give us a quick play option, if you don't like it play the default way.

if i can get a win in 7 days, or NOT GET A WIN AT ALL, is it really a big brainer which one i'd pick?

Deign35

08-25-2012, 08:08 PM

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you guys here. I like that the timeout is a week. I like to play at my leisure and while I may have 15 games open at a time, the other people also only make a move every so often and so throughout a week I maybe finish 5 to 10 games. Adding in the option for forced timeouts would destroy the game for me =(
I like to make a move or two while I'm at work taking a break or something, but most of my playtime is at night after work while I'm on the computer doing other things.

KOX

08-26-2012, 02:43 PM

Adding in the option for forced timeouts would destroy the game for me =(

common definitions of "option":
1.the power or right of choosing.
2.something that may be or is chosen; choice.
3.the act of choosing.

Deign35

08-26-2012, 04:45 PM

common definitions of "option":
1.the power or right of choosing.
2.something that may be or is chosen; choice.
3.the act of choosing.

And you think anyone worth playing against will still be playing without forced timeout?

Winijaw82

08-27-2012, 03:41 AM

I prefer the slow pace nature, it'll give me something to do in the morning before I go to work. I'll only send about 20 - 30 min on it, depending on how many moves I have. This isn't a game I could play for hours on end. Besides I doubt iOS players would go for the "quick play" option. Most of them just play it when they have a few minutes to kill.

in.meinem.turm.

08-27-2012, 03:57 AM

.... this is getting really dull. :-( I could be playing TF2. or a Facebook game.

Then why don't you do so?
This game isn't meant to be played constantly.

PsyErotica

08-27-2012, 01:20 PM

if i can get a win in 7 days, or NOT GET A WIN AT ALL, is it really a big brainer which one i'd pick?

In the grand scheme of things is your win really that important to you? Like I said wins/losses mean nothing to me, just to play and have fun win or lose is good enough. Some do care sure but me I don't really give a ♥♥♥♥, not like a win or loss in a small insignificant game like this will change my life forever sheesh (albeit a fun game O_o).

sativa303

09-04-2012, 12:08 PM

I would love a training mode/bots, level/skill matchmaking, or a forum/group for noobs. I have NEVER played chess in my life and this game will take some time to get used to.

Although I must say @ this point I luv it :)

Mangekyou

09-06-2012, 11:14 PM

I looked forward to this game, and found out that the people dont actually play. Ive had to resign from 6 games, just because of the opponents.

Deign35

09-07-2012, 08:29 AM

I looked forward to this game, and found out that the people dont actually play. Ive had to resign from 6 games, just because of the opponents.

I don't understand why you would have to resign cause of your opponents. If you just wait 7 days, you get a free win. Meanwhile, you just play your other games with people who are being active.

Gerk

09-08-2012, 04:40 AM

I don't understand why you would have to resign cause of your opponents. If you just wait 7 days, you get a free win. Meanwhile, you just play your other games with people who are being active.

Shhh, you're ruining my master strategy against him.

Fl4k

09-08-2012, 06:02 AM

Everyone I plays with knows I only play on the weekends. Last weekend I had to travel and couldn't update the game on the road. I lost all of my games. :(

Poker Indarear

09-22-2012, 12:28 AM

Games do time out if someone doesn't make a move for a while week. That's pretty lame though. I don't want to play with anyone who doesn't make a move at least EVERY single day. It needs to be 24 hours cause maybe you don't have time to finish the game but will pick it up the next day. Why the hell would I want to play with someone who makes a single move every 6 days?

They need to give us the open to only play with other people who want shorter time limits. I wasn't able to play at all for about a week because I had 40 games "waiting" so I couldn't even make a new move. Giving people 7-14 days to move is ridiculous.

I realize there are groups out there that do fast games but I am not interested in playing a closed group of people. I like playing random people where I may go up against a pro who smashes me but i learn something or a noob and I get to eat his heart while it beats in my hand.

Trip

09-22-2012, 03:48 PM

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/HeroAcademyFastPacedAction

KOX

09-24-2012, 03:25 PM

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/HeroAcademyFastPacedAction

this just proves how many players wants the quickplay mode

Trip

09-24-2012, 04:09 PM

this just proves how many players wants the quickplay mode

92? ;)

Don't get me wrong -- I want more modes, and a shorter timer option. In the meantime, though, the best way to get good matches is to avoid randoms and find like-minded opponents through outside means.

KOX

09-24-2012, 07:18 PM

92? ;)

much more in reality, not everyone who wants quickplay is in that group, i'll be an example

oh and btw

http://oi49.tinypic.com/2ltim3a.jpg

waiting a month to finish a single match with a random. Wow! That sounds soooo fun, doesn't it?

Trip

09-24-2012, 08:03 PM

much more in reality, not everyone who wants quickplay is in that group, i'll be an example

Hence the ;).

oh and btw

http://oi49.tinypic.com/2ltim3a.jpg

waiting a month to finish a single match with a random. Wow! That sounds soooo fun, doesn't it?
I don't understand what you hope to achieve by keeping that game in play... I would have resigned it weeks ago without thinking twice.

PsyErotica

10-11-2012, 04:18 PM

The devs said they'd listen to us if there was enough people who wanted a quickplay option. It seems to me alot of us do but I think they wont do squat to change anything, they couldn't care less they already have our money. People say well play the game while youre doing stuff, sorry I don't feel like starting a steam game everytime I want to check if Bob from Toronto has made his 2nd move in 5 days it's rediculous, and I don't feel like having 40 games going at once. It's difficult to remember what strategies or moves that have happened in certain games with that many games going.

As I've said before it's a good game for the ios system for people on the move but bringing it to Steam and PC just doesn't cut it with the you have 7 days to make a move crap. I played the game when I first got it and havn't touched it since because of the stupidly long wait times it's nonsense. As for people who say well I like being able to take my time and play when I want, well fine, that's why they need 2 options, one for quickplay and one for the default play. To the devs who say it would split the playerbase too much, you're full of ♥♥♥♥ sorry. There will still be tons of people playing the async way (most likely on ios), and enough to get quick games going which would most likely be on PC. But I know I'm talking to a wall because the devs just feed people what they want to hear.

Vaka

11-15-2012, 02:04 PM

Go play something else instead of waiting, login a couple of hours later just to check. THAT SIMPLE.

I don't think that the concept of this game was to finish a game in 20 minutes, so play your move, logout and play something else, then later on login to check, and logout again....and so on...

Lobotomas

11-27-2012, 06:14 AM

i always play at least 5 games at once, this way there are chances i will not fall asleep waiting for a move.

I have about 15-20games in my "library".. still have to w8 30-40min till smb make a move

Raxyz

01-02-2013, 12:35 PM

I agree with @Statue here, Robot Ent could make the chess thing.

NCPereira

01-16-2013, 12:34 PM