<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 25 of 25   
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/4/2012 08:40:53


[REGL] Pooh 
Level 60
Report
Can we implement a Chess match clock?

Everyone has a set amount of time to start with, when they commit, their clock stops. When your clock runs out, you can't do any more turns.

You can add, like banking time, that so many seconds get added to a players bank each turn.

An example would be that a host could set up a game that everyone has 30 minutes to start, they get 15 seconds each turn.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/4/2012 09:12:06


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
this could actually solve the problem of people making vast delays to troll late game in RT games
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/4/2012 09:51:01


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
That'd only be doable with Fischer time
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/4/2012 10:00:09

BishesUpInErr (AHoL)
Level 4
Report
Wouldn't you have to guess how long the game would take before a clear winner is determined? Some games can end in 3 turns, and others can still be about even on turn 20.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/4/2012 10:24:56


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
Read my post and google Fischer time.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/4/2012 13:45:24

Qi 
Level 55
Report
i'd prefer turn limits as an option.

x turns (can be set by the creator of the game) and the game ends. then count the territories, bonuses, armies to determine the winner.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/4/2012 13:58:39


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
Gui, your situation is completely different from the one being described here. You want a game that rewards expansion (which is fine) while they are advocating a new timing system that would minimize the slowing of games.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/4/2012 14:12:48

Hennns
Level 58
Report
I think it sounds as a god idea to have chess clock system:) Fischer time is one opertunerty, others not mentoned yet is: hourglass, and "tournement time"*.

*Each player has X time to do Y turns, then he get more time to do the next Y turns;)
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/4/2012 22:58:52


Wolfman100
Level 51
Report
Thats a pretty good idea
For example, for a Europe RT match, 3-4 minutes to start off and an additional 10 secs with each confirmation. Players might be a bit pressured for time but that adds to the challenge
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/4/2012 23:08:59

Qi 
Level 55
Report
richard, you are incorrect. i do not care about expansion. pogo's risk game has a turn limit option. it is a good way to end FFA games. some games can last 50+ turns. nobody acts. if turn limits existed, this would encourage players to make a move, to try to increase their points.

also, swezen is advocating a fixed time to play games. turn limits does that too: set the limit to 20 turns of 8 minutes each: that's 160 minutes each person has to play, max. the difference between his idea and mine: extra time can be used to play extra turns (for him), while i don't see how that is fair.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/5/2012 07:40:18


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
20 turns of 8 minutes each, or 8 minutes + 1 minute a turn..
while at 20 turns you will have at most spent 28 minutes per player, and it could be delayed up to 56 minutes depending on how they alternate waiting out their turns...

Gui's idea will slightly add pressure to each turn as your amount of choices increase, but not really change the game except for the fact that it is ended early and a scoring system *must* be implemented..

John's idea will add pressure to make your turns as fast as possible for the entire game, and will include the attitude of slower player loses.. \*aka, turn 45, I'll just deploy and end, because he only has 35 seconds left while I have 2 minutes, and he'll be forced to lose before I am\* OR, delay to end game when you're at a slight advantage \*this is presuming at the end of the game you are rated by scores.. obviously whoever forced the end would have a negative, but if you're looking at a 3:2 ratio, you could just leave the game and come back when however much time you accrued has ended to see how your victory turned out\*

Both \*could\* be useful for keeping RT matches in a realistic timeframe.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/5/2012 14:10:38

dylanhoward2012
Level 8
Report
The time spent watching the turn, and potential variance in how long it takes to cue that up might pose an issue here.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/5/2012 14:57:36


x 
Level 58
Report
gui's idea is pretty much impossible. theres no way to balance territories, reinforcements per turn and standing armies to provide one score. it would be unsuitable to have a system such as whoever has the highest reinforcements per turn wins, if this is equal whoever has the most standing armies wins, etc. this would also mean that draws would be a possibility.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/5/2012 19:36:43


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
Gui's idea would also make full-game truces more likely.. since there will be no need to defeat your ally to win
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/5/2012 22:01:57

emoose 
Level 3
Report
The only way I can see this idea being effective is:

*Sudden Death + **x** seconds per turn*

Reasons other clocks wouldn't work well:

-A general rule: If players who run out of time are *not* instantly eliminated, people who play in a timely manner suffer as they are forced to manually eliminate players who have run out of time, while still facing their own timer. The timer is part of the game - being unable to play within the timer shows either you don't care about respecting the other player's time, or you aren't skilled enough to keep up with the other players (no different than losing to someone in an time-unlimited game). Furthermore, if multiple non-allied players remain and no one has time remaining, either the game is forced into a draw, or you must create a scoring system that is perfectly balanced across all maps. As it is impossible to do this by scoring armies, territories or any such variables, you are only left with creating a score based on the timer - hence **Sudden Death**. This also means that having a set number of turns is ineffective, as it creates the same issue of a potential stalemate, except each player has the same timer and therefore there is no fair system for determining a winner, even less so than all players in a game becoming boot-able simultaneously.

-Hourglass: This would be relatively effective in 1v1 games: start the hourglass when the first player commits, stop it when the second commits and add the difference to the the timer of the faster player. However, this can potentially be abused: In chess, each player is forced to make a move before turning the hourglass (I think?); therefore, you are forced to make moves that either your opponent must take time to think about or which give your opponent an easy win, which means you can't simply make a quick move and wait out your opponent. In WarLight, this creates the issue of players simply deploying armies and committing, which then requires the opponent to seek out and fully eliminate a player within the allotted time - hardly what one would call defeating your opponent. *(This can be argued as part of the intent of the timer, but I strongly disagree.)* Furthermore, this timer becomes rather complicated as more players come into the picture: How do you enforce a constant total time remaining in a way that is fair according to the turn speed of each player? How do you factor in player eliminations/boots/surrenders into the total timer? There are definitely solutions, but there is no simple solution, and winning a game would often come down to having the best understanding of the timer rather than having stronger strategy (and luck, where present).

-Fischer: I can't effectively comment on this as I don't think I properly understand it. From what I read on [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_control), it seems to be no different than hourglass timing. The only difference I can imagine is that this adds *x* seconds per turn or doesn't come into effect until *x* seconds have passed, neither of which really seems to achieve the intended result of creating time pressure on both players (although it would perhaps solve the "sitting" issue).

**Hennns**, I'm not really sure what you mean by "tournament time". Also (to everyone), it would be much appreciated if you give a quick overview of any timing method you present so people who aren't familiar with that method understand your meaning. Google doesn't always explain clearly.

To elaborate on my proposed timer:

Sudden Death is necessary because it is the only method that is fair across all maps and settings (assuming players determine the time settings are within their capability before joining the game - which they should be doing anyways) in determining who should win in a situation that comes to, or would otherwise come to, a stalemate (for reasons stated earlier in the post). Gaining time each turn is important as it compensates for the time needed to take take your turn, as well as time between the last commit and each player's auto-refresh. It may be a good idea to also add the time elapsed from the player's previous refresh and the refresh on which the new turn commences, so that players aren't unfairly losing time simply because they have bad luck with the refresh timer.

One thing to mull over regarding Sudden Death timers is whether or not booting should be part of the game, and which types of boot as wells as timers for each boot type should be allowed. Personally, I don't see booting of any sort being fair; the point of this timing system is to create time pressure on all players, and that once a player's time runs out they are no longer able to compete. If you allow VTB or DB, anyone remaining in the game can freely decide to boot someone with no time left, even if they themselves have no time left - hardly fair. If you enable AB and have it boot once a player is out of time, although it would stamp a boot on the record of people who intentionally delay the game, those people are likely smart enough to keep themselves clear of the boot timer (or they have a significant boot rate to begin with), which means a portion of the players running into the boot timer are people who sincerely can't play fast enough, in which case it's no different than a newbie wandering into a game with 1- or 2-minute boot. Although that can be considered fair, I think it would tarnish the strategic spirit of the timer. VTB and DB could also be considered fair as it gives leniency if players are forced away from the game, but I don't see the point of adding such a timer if that is the case. Also, in the case of AB, giving additional time between a player running out of time and getting booted completely negates any point in this timer as regardless of how fast a person plays, they ***always*** have at least the AB time to complete their turn, which brings us right back to people intentionally delaying the game. As such, I feel in all cases, this type of timer should auto-eliminate players immediately after they run out of time rather than enabling any booting (although it does present extra work for implementation).

---

Apologies for the exceedingly long post and any mistakes within.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/5/2012 23:36:26


x 
Level 58
Report
the fischer thing seems to be that there is overall, say, 10 minutes on the clock, and at the start of each turn you get an extra amount of time, for example 30 seconds, to compensate for the time spent physically entering in the orders. i would say that this would be more complicated for warlight than for chess, because as games progress, the time spent physically entering the orders increases. so it should be 3 or 4 seconds multiplied by the turn number, perhaps. another problem with this is the differences in maps and distribution.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/5/2012 23:45:42


Moros 
Level 50
Report
3 or 4 times the turn's number? How many times have you finished the territory picking under 4 seconds, or even 30 seconds?
I'd say you get 30 seconds for territory picking, after that you get 1 second for each of your territories, at a minimum of 15 seconds.
E.g. player X starts with 5 territories, after 5 turns he's got 15, and on turn six he gets one extra second for every territory above 15.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/6/2012 07:22:29


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
Moros, in true warlight fashion, it would have to be X seconds per territory minimum Y, rather then any pre-set limit.. customization ftw
I don't see a problem with these issues being implemented, beyond the obvious refresh problem..
emoose, I agree completely with a sudden death being *required* having someone with no time still bootable doesn't seem like it should be possible.. visualizing the chess timer, when the timer dings, you lose, not your turn ends and you get a chance to come back next turn for an extra *X* seconds.. However either could be taken, when and If fizzer ever decides to implement a temporary AI solution.. as then the AI could take your turn if you didn't, then would allow you X seconds to take your turn before the AI does each turn therafter.. with it in mind ofc' that AI's discard all cards but R, and use R *except when on teams*
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/6/2012 07:25:35


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
another thing that could be done, instead of adding time onto the clock.. give a base time.. customizable by the host ofc' then give bonus time for each turn.. meaning effectively you have that much time to use that turn, and any past that uses your permanent time.. say you are given 30 seconds, and you only use 15 seconds, the last 15 seconds are lost..
that way, someone couldn't play really fast the first half of the game, then drag out the end of the game, with time he had accrued, because he was losing..
it would guarantee a game wold not take longer then
(Base Time * Players) + (Bonus time * Turns)
no matter how hard someone tries to troll you
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/6/2012 10:17:50

emoose 
Level 3
Report
I strongly agree with having the bonus time relative to the number of territories owned, as having more territories to attend to is the only valid reason for needing more time (other than perhaps strategizing with teammates, which is not something that can be measured). Basing the bonus time on the elapsed turns only extends people's ability to delay the game. There is no reason to give someone with 1 territory *any* increasing amount of bonus time, even without considering the increased bonus time someone with *100* territories deserves.

Perrin: Regarding AIs, I don't feel any system where an AI automatically takes your turn if you reach the end of the timer. This is true with all current boot timers, and is even more true with this timer. As you said, in chess, when your time is up, **you lose**. If you give players the opportunity to reclaim their position from beyond the timer limit, it is little different from resurrecting the dead; furthermore, if players are given such an opportunity, how do you determine whether or not they've lost? The only sure way to remove someone from the game would be to physically eliminate them, and the timer then holds no real value. Furthermore, players can then potentially use the AI as part of a strategy, in that you can play mind games with your opponent - hardly fair use of **any** timing system. I have no arguments against having a setting that optionally turns players who run out of time into AIs, as well as optionally having AIs surrender when the last human remains, but nothing more.

I also agree that giving players "free time" each turn would be better than simply adding *x* seconds each turn, but I think the only way to effectively do this would be to add a 2nd timer - 1 counting the "free time" each turn, and another separate timer keeping track of the "base time" you have left. Although it means added work for implementation, I feel the conditions of the "free time" would make it slightly confusing if both were factored into a single timer. Also, the effectiveness of this change depends on how the game creator uses the settings. To elaborate:

-Game **A**: Players are given 10 minutes "base time", and gain 1 second per owned territory each turn. No matter how fast you take your turn, your timer will always decrease, which means there is no way for people to "store up" time to further delay others later in the game.

-Game **B**: Players are given 2 minutes "base time", and gain *30 seconds + 1 second per territory* **or** *(1-2) seconds per territory, minimum 30 seconds* each turn. Players who take their turn quickly can very easily achieve a high amount of "banked" time, and the amount of time they are able to delay the game is extended by a greater amount each turn.

Therefore, your situation is only present if the times settings are aimed at giving a longer, smoother game flow, rather than competitive, quick-moving game flow as is (I believe) the idea of the timer. IMO, if that's the case, the creator should simply stick to normal boot timers. The idea of the chess clock is "The clock is always ticking," not "The clock is always ticking... Slowly." That's not really intended as an argument in either direction, just something to think about.

---

These are the two ideas I can imagine, detailed according to what needs to be physically implemented to achieve the idea:

Idea **A**:

-As an *alternative* to booting, Sudden Death Clock with *X* seconds given as "Base Time", and *Y* seconds per owned territory added to the remaining time each turn.

-Players who run out of time are *eliminated*, not booted.

-Option to have players that run out of time turn into AIs rather than be eliminated.


Idea **B**:

-As an *alternative* to booting, Sudden Death Clock with *X* seconds given as "Base Time", and *Y* seconds per owned territory (minimum *Z* seconds) given as "Free Time" each turn.

-An extra clock frame added, with 1 clock showing "Free Time Remaining" and the other showing "Base Time Remaining"

-Players who run out of time are *eliminated*, not booted.

-Option to have players that run out of time turn into AIs rather than be eliminated.

Although you might disagree with the details of one or both ideas, if these ideas were both posted on UserVoice, I would pick **A**.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/6/2012 13:37:25

xDerivative 
Level 2
Report
A chess clock is the most simple thing ever. One person makes a turn, and their clock stops. Other clock starts. After the turn, that clock stops and the other stops. Each player gets x minutes. No crazy supplement systems necessary. Players with more pieces or more complex situations get no "bonus time," as the clock should have enough time to play a full game with these situations.

So how about just keeping it simple? You get x minutes to play this game. The reason people's ideas are rarely used is because you all make them way too complicated. Clock goes when you are moving, clock stops when you finish. Players with more territories do not get anything special in terms of timing, because the clock should have reasonable time to play a full game.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/6/2012 14:15:57

Hennns
Level 58
Report
@emose:

I play chess and will decribe tournamet timer based on my expirience, it is very simple. In chess it is usall to have a base time for reaching 40 moves (move 40 have to be played/commitet). 2 houers for 40 moves is simple to use (in chess, warlight maby need more/less time).
I name that clock variaton "tournament time" (probly not real name)
a) in the start you can give each player 2 houers, when they reach 40 moves they get (for example) 30 min to the rest of the game. This way the player can use his/her time at will
B) other ways to use this is f.eks 1,5h at start and 30sec per move. for the rest of the game. time choosen by crator;)
C) it can to be a god idea to give players (f.eks) 5-30 min on the whole game. this way the game won`t be laesting forever.

hope you understand:)

Houerglass can ony be used in duel (1v1) it culd been usfull in 2v2 (etc) but then the wohle team will need to sheare the same clock (clock stops when team have commited orders) and get booted togheter. that would be a problem in larger gams (12v12)if the hole team lose due to one player....


I agree on sudden death, to make the game more even booted players culd turn to AI (decided by game crater).

However a large problem culd be the idea be to complex (xDerivative) so I suppose the simplest is the best! I think fizzer (if he will ever invent this) think so to;)

btw: have this idea been suggested on UV?

sry for bad english....
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/6/2012 14:44:58

emoose 
Level 3
Report
xDerivative: I think most of us understand that overcomplicating an idea makes it impossible to implement. However, WarLight is not Chess. Chess has a single set of rules, a single board for pieces to move on, and the pieces present on both sides are always the exact same at the start of every game. Even if you ignore all but a single combination of map & settings on WarLight, WarLight's turns are executed in a manner that is fundamentally different from turns in Chess. Because of this, there is no easy way to cut & paste an absolute clock in a way that is *fair to **all** players in **all** games*, at least prior to reaching the potentially misusing hands of game creators.

Hennns: Thanks for the explanation, and that type of timing does seem to be the one of choice. I would like to see a single idea that most thread participants agree on prior to anyone posting this on UserVoice.

Personally I would also like to know what Fizzer thinks of it - I don't see this having a chance at being implemented if he's not specifically interested.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/6/2012 22:15:41


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
xDerivative, warlight is also about allowing players to customize their matches, as opposed to trying to have things limited.. Fizzer has tried very hard to allow us to make each match as individualized as possible, and the idea of a chess clock has already been established in the initial posts.. that Idea is out there, if Fizzer decides to use it, then I am all for it. That, However, should not prevent us to continue brainstorming other methods of quick-match clocks that may or may not be more suitable for the situation, and particularly, one that would match as many possible situations as possible..
the main problem *any* of these solutions have is refresh time..
I recomended X time + Y Bonus time primarily to give a refresh time.. but then to not give too strong an advantage to the person just sitting there spamming the refresh button.. not Ideal Ofc' but this kind of clock, using a flash system in the way that WL does, will never be Ideal, and changing how matches are displayed only for a select few games would definitely not be worth Fizzers time, Imho.

Since I know that Fizzer overlooks a vast majority of the forums, I use these sort of threads to discuss the possible positives and negatives of each idea presented, and to present ideas that might also have positive and negative effects in the playstyle, and then let Fizzer decide what he thinks is best... in this way IMHO these forums are better then UV, since so many more opinions frequent here.
New Clock Idea - Chess Clock: 1/7/2012 01:46:47


x 
Level 58
Report
ive got to agree with xderivative. for example, the only reason we have the terrible system of booted players being turned over to the ai in team games, which ruins so many games (especially when people refuse to vote to end), is because all the solutions people have been provided, almost any of which would be a vast improvement, have been criticised over problems that might occur in rare circumstances. (as well as there being 10 solutions to each problem, so that no consensus can be reached.)
Posts 1 - 25 of 25