Hi. Yes, unless an adhoc tournament is scheduled to start immediately after one finishes, there will always be a "wait" version (version with no tournament) in between scheduled adhoc tournament versions.
And when it comes to the retained versions, we skip counting the wait versions.

Hi,

I know we have some Apple IAP improvements coming in 5.9. I'll check on the details of that...

Paul.

Ok, I found it. It wasn't a global setting, it was a filter on the reports. Thanks!

Posting a copy of the AWS service health page for posterity.

It mostly refers to the outage impacting DynamoDB - but a lot more services than that were impacted. We expect that just means that a lot of AWS services use DynamoDB under-the-covers to operate.

2025-10-20_05-58-47.png

Hi,

Actually - voting leaderboards are implemented via the PostScoreToLeaderboardOnBehalfOf() call - where you can basically vote for someone else's score. [i.e. voting for that person].

Create the leaderboard as a "Cumulative" leaderboard - and basically the player votes for the score of another player - incrementing it by +1.

I suppose we should add those details to the roadmap item!

I hope that helps to clarify things!

Paul.

As I mentioned in the support chat - the issue is that midnightPSTinUTC isn't dynamically calculated for midnight today -- it's midnight PST on Oct 4th. [i.e. over a week ago].

What's happening is the call is accepting that past date - which puts the script in the front of our queue to be run ('cause we think we're late!) - and it gets run in the next 60 second job interval. And then reschedules itself in the past again.

So basically this script is running roughly 60*24 = 1440 times a day.

Anyway - I'll have the devs look into it - we should return an error if you are scheduling the script too far into the past... [i.e. a second or two in the past is probably fine - and best to do in case the scheduling script has delays of some sort... but clearly 10 days in the past is too far! Probably 60 mins in the past is too far! 🙂 ]

HI @richard - we're currently working on a feature that will handle this directly for brainCloud 5.9.

In the meantime, an interim approach would be to:

Manage the Lives in a virtual currency. In the item catalog - you can indicate the currencies to award from the offer via the extra data JSON. And create a post-hook on PurchaseUserItem - calling a script to award the appropriate currencies - and immediately consume the new "item" that was purchased...

Just a thought...

[But yeah - we're going to have a more direct solution in 5.9 - which is currently targeted for November release.]

Paul.

Thanks for reporting this. I’ll forward it to our team and get it fixed.

@devsleeper - we hope you like it! 🙂

Cool. Thanks for the update @MattForemanDev !

@JasonL @Paul-Winterhalder Thanks for your help, the error no longer appears after the Google Android platform was enabled.

@william Thanks a lot for your feedback and suggestions! It’s really helpful, and we appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.

Just a heads-up, our team is working on this bulk userItem feature.

@JasonL
Yes we can do that too, I was just wondering how granular our control over the segment is, as one of the requirements for our testing was to have a precise number of users for each group.

Thank you so much for the info, I'll write again if I have more questions.

Cool - good to hear it. And once again: thanks for reporting it!

Hi @richard,

Hmm - yeah - I don't think that JSON is currently editable in the portal.

Paul.

Please refer to the article -- Implementing Continuous Lobbies in the brainCloud Help Center for details.

Apologies for the late reply, but thank you! This really clears up the flow for me. 🙂

The only thing regarding FindOrCreateLobby instead of CreateLobby is that the request to CreateLobby is deliberate. While I do intend to integrate FindOrCreateLobby as a "just throw me into a running game" option (which probably is the desired flow in most cases), I also want a player to be able to say "I want to start a game for my friends, and I also want to be the host and set the rules of the room".

I'm just clarifying that in case I'm misunderstanding the intent between the two calls, and that FindOrCreateLobby can indeed be used for either flow that I just described.

Sorry for the confusion, I was under the impression a publisher key gave you certain read-only permissions on a user given they own your game (this was silly in hindsight)

While the users in question had public profiles, their privacy settings for friends lists were set to private.

Thank you for your help! I now understand what you meant by "as long as users grant your app permission".