Game length statistics
Posted:
Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:55 amby lackattack
I recently ran some interesting stats on game lengths, and I figured I'll share them...
How many days does a casual game last?
- Code: Select all
2P 3P 4P 5P 6P
Freestyle 1.1 2.7 4.3 5.9 5.9
Sequential 1.1 5.3 7.6 12.6 13.2
By the way, we're going to revamp freestyle soon. Please comment on the proposed changes here:
[Official] Freestyle Changes -- Give us your feedback!
Posted:
Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:26 amby rebelman
Are you taking an average of both rt and non rt here lack ? as obviously rt games would skew your figures making your average time lower than it actually is.
Posted:
Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:37 amby Titanic
Wow, after 1v1, freestyles almost twice as quick...
I think the time limit on sequential needs to be lowered, to about 18 or 16 hours, because 24 hours, especially in 5 or 6 players, just makes it too long till your next go.
Posted:
Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:01 amby lackattack
rebelman wrote:Are you taking an average of both rt and non rt here lack ? as obviously rt games would skew your figures making your average time lower than it actually is.
Yes, it's an average, because we have no way of distinguishing ad-hoc "rt".
Titanic wrote:I think the time limit on sequential needs to be lowered, to about 18 or 16 hours, because 24 hours, especially in 5 or 6 players, just makes it too long till your next go.
I think we need to keep it at 24 hours. That way you can always play during your 4pm coffee break
Posted:
Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:06 amby nagerous
Got any stats on game lengths regarding different card settings? No cards games can last months whilst escalatings are normally over in a week.
Posted:
Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:51 amby DAZMCFC
Titanic wrote:Wow, after 1v1, freestyles almost twice as quick...
I think the time limit on sequential needs to be lowered, to about 18 or 16 hours, because 24 hours, especially in 5 or 6 players, just makes it too long till your next go.
that is so wrong. Lack is right say you can only get on once a day at the same time. if it was less than 24 hours you would miss your go, if the others went between them few hours.
Posted:
Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:06 pmby RobinJ
Stopper wrote:MeDeFe wrote:lackattack wrote:Titanic wrote:I think the time limit on sequential needs to be lowered, to about 18 or 16 hours, because 24 hours, especially in 5 or 6 players, just makes it too long till your next go.
I think we need to keep it at 24 hours. That way you can always play during your 4pm coffee break
Thank you.
Exactly - we'd have to change part of the home page otherwise and we wouldn't want that, would we?
Posted:
Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:42 amby Fircoal
rebelman wrote:Are you taking an average of both rt and non rt here lack ? as obviously rt games would skew your figures making your average time lower than it actually is.
so no cards build games would skew it the other way.
Posted:
Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:02 pmby Coleman
This is interesting. I'm assuming you used the mean.
Could you do a median version of this? I think that may be more enlightening. Assuming you have this data in a database or excel. It would help combat abnormally long or short games messing with the results.
Posted:
Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:12 pmby lackattack
nagerous wrote:Got any stats on game lengths regarding different card settings? No cards games can last months whilst escalatings are normally over in a week.
Sure! Casual sequential game lengths by type of cards:
- Code: Select all
2P 3P 4P 5P 6P
No Cards 1.2 7.3 9.2 20.0 15.0
Escalating 1.1 4.9 7.0 10.1 11.9
Flat Rate 1.0 5.1 7.7 13.0 14.0
Strange how 6P No Cards is faster than 5P No Cards, eh?
Popularity:
No Cards 15%
Escalating 45%
Flat Rate 41%
This got me thinking of ways to make No Cards faster and more popular. Please comment on the proposed changes here:
[Official] "No Cards" Change -- Give us your feedback!
Oh, and popularity of Turn Order:
Freestyle 25%
Sequential 75%
Posted:
Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:15 pmby lackattack
Coleman wrote:Could you do a median version of this?
Sorry Coleman, I'm too lazy to calculate medians or even figure out what that means
Posted:
Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:57 pmby naktay01
lackattack wrote:nagerous wrote:Got any stats on game lengths regarding different card settings? No cards games can last months whilst escalatings are normally over in a week.
Sure! Casual sequential game lengths by type of cards:
- Code: Select all
2P 3P 4P 5P 6P
No Cards 1.2 7.3 9.2 20.0 15.0
Escalating 1.1 4.9 7.0 10.1 11.9
Flat Rate 1.0 5.1 7.7 13.0 14.0
Strange how 6P No Cards is faster than 5P No Cards, eh?
Popularity:
No Cards 15%
Escalating 45%
Flat Rate 41%
This got me thinking of ways to make No Cards faster and more popular. Please comment on the proposed changes here:
[Official] "No Cards" Change -- Give us your feedback!Oh, and popularity of Turn Order:
Freestyle 25%
Sequential 75%
I can't remember the last time I had a 6 player no cards game go for only 15 days. That would be nice though
Posted:
Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:11 pmby Fircoal
lackattack wrote:nagerous wrote:Got any stats on game lengths regarding different card settings? No cards games can last months whilst escalatings are normally over in a week.
Sure! Casual sequential game lengths by type of cards:
- Code: Select all
2P 3P 4P 5P 6P
No Cards 1.2 7.3 9.2 20.0 15.0
Escalating 1.1 4.9 7.0 10.1 11.9
Flat Rate 1.0 5.1 7.7 13.0 14.0
Strange how 6P No Cards is faster than 5P No Cards, eh?
Popularity:
No Cards 15%
Escalating 45%
Flat Rate 41%
This got me thinking of ways to make No Cards faster and more popular. Please comment on the proposed changes here:
[Official] "No Cards" Change -- Give us your feedback!Oh, and popularity of Turn Order:
Freestyle 25%
Sequential 75%
it doesn't surprise me, when I looked at the longest ganes going on almost all of them were 5 players.
Posted:
Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:18 pmby reverend_kyle
lackattack wrote:nagerous wrote:Got any stats on game lengths regarding different card settings? No cards games can last months whilst escalatings are normally over in a week.
Sure! Casual sequential game lengths by type of cards:
- Code: Select all
2P 3P 4P 5P 6P
No Cards 1.2 7.3 9.2 20.0 15.0
Escalating 1.1 4.9 7.0 10.1 11.9
Flat Rate 1.0 5.1 7.7 13.0 14.0
Strange how 6P No Cards is faster than 5P No Cards, eh?
Popularity:
No Cards 15%
Escalating 45%
Flat Rate 41%
This got me thinking of ways to make No Cards faster and more popular. Please comment on the proposed changes here:
[Official] "No Cards" Change -- Give us your feedback!Oh, and popularity of Turn Order:
Freestyle 25%
Sequential 75%
one more player to go psycho and attack all the others instead of building.
Don't change no cards I love it.
Posted:
Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:05 amby decoulombe
RobinJ wrote:Stopper wrote:MeDeFe wrote:lackattack wrote:Titanic wrote:I think the time limit on sequential needs to be lowered, to about 18 or 16 hours, because 24 hours, especially in 5 or 6 players, just makes it too long till your next go.
I think we need to keep it at 24 hours. That way you can always play during your 4pm coffee break
Thank you.
Exactly - we'd have to change part of the home page otherwise and we wouldn't want that, would we?
Lack, do you think it may be possible for players to chose thier own times (NB: 24 hrs, 18 hrs, 12 hrs, 6 hrs, 1 hrs, 30 min (Premium), 5 min (Premium). I prefere the longer hours since I work for a living, but for people who's CC is life to them, perhaps shorter times better. I for one hate it when someone complains I take to long. Maybe they should join the 6 hr game, while people who enjoy thier coffee breaks could stick with the 24 hrs.
Posted:
Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:13 amby lackattack
I don't like variable times. Either you want to play in realtime or you don't. If you don't, 24 hrs is the only thing that makes sense because people need to sleep. Maybe 12 hrs would work for some people but really we have other topics to discuss this in so I'll shut up now
Posted:
Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:30 amby Blitzaholic
lack what about adding this as a possible option, i am not sure what to call it, but in your next update I would highly encourage you to implement something like this example I am going to provide.
option #1. 1st set of all players cashing any set of cards is 3, the next 4, next 5, next 6, etc. or 1st set 2, then 4, 6, 8. this could be called escalating +1 or esc +2
so if we played
lack
blitz
ak
wicked
lack you cashed 1st, you would get 3, then if if cashed next i would get 4, ak 5, etc, or in increments of 2
option #2. any player who cashes in any set worth 3 for the 1st set, then the next player to cash in, well its only 3, and next different player 3, meaning whoever it is, there 1st cash is worth 3, it goes up to 5 lets say on there 2nd set cashed in, then 3rd set 7, 4th set 9etc.
meaning if
lack
blitz
ak
wicked
if us 4 were in a game and lack you cashed 1st, only worth 3, then i get a set and cash only worth 3, then if ak gets a set, only worth 3, it would only go up if the you get a 2nd set or cash, so all players get same amount of armies to cash, maybe called same amount, i dont know what to call them, lol, but you get the idea.
i think adding these 2 options would create for a little for skill, what you think? would you consider conferencing your staff to discuss these?
Posted:
Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:51 amby Robinette
Blitzaholic wrote:lack what about adding this as a possible option, i am not sure what to call it, but in your next update I would highly encourage you to implement something like this example I am going to provide.
option #1. 1st set of all players cashing any set of cards is 3, the next 4, next 5, next 6, etc. or 1st set 2, then 4, 6, 8. this could be called escalating +1 or esc +2
so if we played
lack
blitz
ak
wicked
lack you cashed 1st, you would get 3, then if if cashed next i would get 4, ak 5, etc, or in increments of 2
option #2. any player who cashes in any set worth 3 for the 1st set, then the next player to cash in, well its only 3, and next different player 3, meaning whoever it is, there 1st cash is worth 3, it goes up to 5 lets say on there 2nd set cashed in, then 3rd set 7, 4th set 9etc.
meaning if
lack
blitz
ak
wicked
if us 4 were in a game and lack you cashed 1st, only worth 3, then i get a set and cash only worth 3, then if ak gets a set, only worth 3, it would only go up if the you get a 2nd set or cash, so all players get same amount of armies to cash, maybe called same amount, i dont know what to call them, lol, but you get the idea.
i think adding these 2 options would create for a little for skill, what you think? would you consider conferencing your staff to discuss these?
FYI - In the official rules, under game options for experts, they list escalating by 1 (4,5,6,7,8....)
Posted:
Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:15 amby AAFitz
I couldnt find the no cards change option with that link...but personally I wouldnt make any changes to it. Granted there are a few 200+ round games, someone named fitz is in 3 or more of them, but the players that join those typically know what they are getting into. Those that dont typically find a way out, but some of my most fun games have been no cards where one false move can bring the whole house of cards falling in. You build it for months, but one aggressive move, or overly defensive fortification, will make you watch possibly months of deployed armies disappear.
At least keep the current option available.
Oviously its not the most popular, but those that play them, play them a lot.
Posted:
Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:18 amby Blitzaholic
Robinette wrote:Blitzaholic wrote:lack what about adding this as a possible option, i am not sure what to call it, but in your next update I would highly encourage you to implement something like this example I am going to provide.
option #1. 1st set of all players cashing any set of cards is 3, the next 4, next 5, next 6, etc. or 1st set 2, then 4, 6, 8. this could be called escalating +1 or esc +2
so if we played
lack
blitz
ak
wicked
lack you cashed 1st, you would get 3, then if if cashed next i would get 4, ak 5, etc, or in increments of 2
option #2. any player who cashes in any set worth 3 for the 1st set, then the next player to cash in, well its only 3, and next different player 3, meaning whoever it is, there 1st cash is worth 3, it goes up to 5 lets say on there 2nd set cashed in, then 3rd set 7, 4th set 9etc.
meaning if
lack
blitz
ak
wicked
if us 4 were in a game and lack you cashed 1st, only worth 3, then i get a set and cash only worth 3, then if ak gets a set, only worth 3, it would only go up if the you get a 2nd set or cash, so all players get same amount of armies to cash, maybe called same amount, i dont know what to call them, lol, but you get the idea.
i think adding these 2 options would create for a little for skill, what you think? would you consider conferencing your staff to discuss these?
FYI - In the official rules, under game options for experts, they list escalating by 1 (4,5,6,7,8....)
ty robin, i like this to be an option, name it (escalating by 1) or wahtever but add it please
Posted:
Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:20 amby wacicha
I agree lack 24 hours is the best format. even for us game hogs.
Posted:
Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:06 amby Aerial Attack
Blitzaholic wrote:lack what about adding this as a possible option, i am not sure what to call it, but in your next update I would highly encourage you to implement something like this example I am going to provide.
option #1. 1st set of all players cashing any set of cards is 3, the next 4, next 5, next 6, etc. or 1st set 2, then 4, 6, 8. this could be called escalating +1 or esc +2
option #2. any player who cashes in any set worth 3 for the 1st set, then the next player to cash in, well its only 3, and next different player 3, meaning whoever it is, there 1st cash is worth 3, it goes up to 5 lets say on there 2nd set cashed in, then 3rd set 7, 4th set 9etc.
i think adding these 2 options would create for a little for skill, what you think? would you consider conferencing your staff to discuss these?
Blitz,
You have been on the site long enough to know that this suggestion has already been considered. To "bump" this topic (Pending), you should start a new thread, or go to the
original thread
Posted:
Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:47 pmby lackattack
Aerial Attack wrote:To "bump" this topic (Pending), you should start a new thread, or go to the
original thread
Don't start a new topic when you can post to an existing one
