Suggestion: Time Per Round Rating

[Wooden Rabbits]

Concice description:

• A statistic would be placed in the user's profile for the average time they take from when it is their turn and when they start play

Specifics:

• For example, if your turn in the game begins at 1:00pm and you don't start play until 6:00pm your time between would be 5 hours. This would be calculated for each game you participate in and allow other users (and yourself) to access this information

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Some games take weeks to resolve themselves because people check the site more frequently than others. It would be nice to see if a player typically takes 3 hours or 21 hours to take their turns, and it may allow people to setup games with players that are as casual (or obsessive) as they are.
• I've often seem compliments on positive feedback to the effect of "Player took quick turns/moved the game along/etc" so there might be a large population of users on the site that would like this feature!

[Ditocoaf]

first thought: well that's not fair, some people just can't get to their computer at every minute; what if the player before them goes right after their free time?
second thought: of course, that won't happen every time. Since it's an AVERAGE, it'll work out perfectly. I say yes!
third thought: people who play realtime (non speed-games) games might screw this up, though. They might be spot-on playing realtime, but then they almost deadbeat on every other game. This would cause an undeserved low average.

[cicero]

First off I'm pretty sure this has been suggested and rejected relatively recently.

Second off, here's why.

The statistic would be all but meaningless.

First let's assume I'm in the UK and you're in the US, say 8 hours behind me.
In one game I play just before you in the round. I take my turns around 8pm here and you take yours at about 8pm there.
You'll take your turn about 8 hours after me.
In another game I play just after you in the round. I take my turns around 8pm here and you take yours at about 8pm there.
I'll take my turn about 16 hours after you.

Now let's assume we're both in the same time zone.
In one game I play just before you in the round. I log on to take my turns around at 7am and 7pm because I like to play quickly. You log on to take yours at about 8pm.
You'll take your turn about 1 or 13 hours after me.
In another game I play just after you in the round. I log on to take my turns around at 7am and 7pm because I like to play quickly. You log on to take yours at about 8pm.
I'll take my turn 11 or 23 hours after you.

OK, factor in more games and the best the average will tell you is (a) who tends to play with others in a similar time zone to themselves [though not necessarily to you] and (b) who has habits which fit with the players in the games concerned [though not necessarily with you].

Ultimately, because of the above, if you factor in enough games the lower averages will simply be for those players who are in the time zone(s) which CC draws most of its members from. So hypothetically (I've not checked the figures) if 70% of CC members are from the US they will have the lowest averages. The average won't tell you anything else.

[Wooden Rabbits]

first thought: well that's not fair, some people just can't get to their computer at every minute; what if the player before them goes right after their free time?
second thought: of course, that won't happen every time. Since it's an AVERAGE, it'll work out perfectly. I say yes!
third thought: people who play realtime (non speed-games) games might screw this up, though. They might be spot-on playing realtime, but then they almost deadbeat on every other game. This would cause an undeserved low average.

Good observation, I hadn't thought of that. It could be easy enough to have speed games not count towards the average.

[Wooden Rabbits]

Thanks for your feedback!

First off I'm pretty sure this has been suggested and rejected relatively recently.

Its possible, I searched all over for a thread about it and didn't find one. If its already been suggested at least other people are interested. Why was it rejected in that thread??

First let's assume I'm in the UK and you're in the US, say 8 hours behind me.
In one game I play just before you in the round. I take my turns around 8pm here and you take yours at about 8pm there.
You'll take your turn about 8 hours after me.
In another game I play just after you in the round. I take my turns around 8pm here and you take yours at about 8pm there.
I'll take my turn about 16 hours after you.

Yes that would be true if the statistic is calculated using a single time zone for all players! Clearly, the way to calculate such a statistic would be to not rely on time-of-day, but rather actual time between when the player before you ends their turn and you start play.

Now let's assume we're both in the same time zone.
In one game I play just before you in the round. I log on to take my turns around at 7am and 7pm because I like to play quickly. You log on to take yours at about 8pm.
You'll take your turn about 1 or 13 hours after me.
In another game I play just after you in the round. I log on to take my turns around at 7am and 7pm because I like to play quickly. You log on to take yours at about 8pm.
I'll take my turn 11 or 23 hours after you.

This is correct. If one were to only log onto CC once a day at 8pm you would have a large average. That's the point, to let people know you take that long to begin turns and might only log in once a day. I'm not proposing ranking people based on this statistic, it is by no means a measure of a person's skill.

OK, factor in more games and the best the average will tell you is (a) who tends to play with others in a similar time zone to themselves [though not necessarily to you] and (b) who has habits which fit with the players in the games concerned [though not necessarily with you].

Ultimately, because of the above, if you factor in enough games the lower averages will simply be for those players who are in the time zone(s) which CC draws most of its members from. So hypothetically (I've not checked the figures) if 70% of CC members are from the US they will have the lowest averages. The average won't tell you anything else.

I disagree this will end up averaging into who plays in the same time zone. First, use actual time and not time of day to calculate the statistic as explained above. Second, I know a lot of players in the same time zone as me who spend dramatically different amounts of time checking for their turns. I'm positive some would average between 1-2 hours and other 15-18 hours.

[greenoaks]

i saw the other thread. it was rejected.

wicked said something along the lines of "each player is allowed 24 hours to take their turn, blah, blah, blah." you will have to search wicked's posts if you want to find out exactly what she said.

[Ditocoaf]

first thought: well that's not fair, some people just can't get to their computer at every minute; what if the player before them goes right after their free time?
second thought: of course, that won't happen every time. Since it's an AVERAGE, it'll work out perfectly. I say yes!
third thought: people who play realtime (non speed-games) games might screw this up, though. They might be spot-on playing realtime, but then they almost deadbeat on every other game. This would cause an undeserved low average.

Good observation, I hadn't thought of that. It could be easy enough to have speed games not count towards the average.

Actually, a lot of people play "realtime games" using regular 24 hour turns, but only using 3-7 minutes of them. This would screw things up a lot.

And Cicero's right. He's not saying anything about absolute times, but if you're playing against someone in your timezone, you are more likely to be able to take your turn sooner.

[cicero]

First let's assume I'm in the UK and you're in the US, say 8 hours behind me.
In one game I play just before you in the round. I take my turns around 8pm here and you take yours at about 8pm there.
You'll take your turn about 8 hours after me.
In another game I play just after you in the round. I take my turns around 8pm here and you take yours at about 8pm there.
I'll take my turn about 16 hours after you.

Yes that would be true if the statistic is calculated using a single time zone for all players! Clearly, the way to calculate such a statistic would be to not rely on time-of-day, but rather actual time between when the player before you ends their turn and you start play.

Re-read my example Wooden. I am talking about the actual time between turns.

Now let's assume we're both in the same time zone.
In one game I play just before you in the round. I log on to take my turns around at 7am and 7pm because I like to play quickly. You log on to take yours at about 8pm.
You'll take your turn about 1 or 13 hours after me.
In another game I play just after you in the round. I log on to take my turns around at 7am and 7pm because I like to play quickly. You log on to take yours at about 8pm.
I'll take my turn 11 or 23 hours after you.

This is correct. If one were to only log onto CC once a day at 8pm you would have a large average. That's the point, to let people know you take that long to begin turns and might only log in once a day. I'm not proposing ranking people based on this statistic, it is by no means a measure of a person's skill.

???
Again, please re-read my example. Note that in the second part of the example even though I log on twice a day I get a higher average turn time than you even though you log on only on once.

OK, factor in more games and the best the average will tell you is (a) who tends to play with others in a similar time zone to themselves [though not necessarily to you] and (b) who has habits which fit with the players in the games concerned [though not necessarily with you].

Ultimately, because of the above, if you factor in enough games the lower averages will simply be for those players who are in the time zone(s) which CC draws most of its members from. So hypothetically (I've not checked the figures) if 70% of CC members are from the US they will have the lowest averages. The average won't tell you anything else.

I disagree this will end up averaging into who plays in the same time zone. First, use actual time and not time of day to calculate the statistic as explained above. Second, I know a lot of players in the same time zone as me who spend dramatically different amounts of time checking for their turns. I'm positive some would average between 1-2 hours and other 15-18 hours.

Again I am using actual time difference !!!. The times of day are to illustrate what it looks like from the differing perspectives.

To convince me, or anyone else, of the logic and benefit of your suggestion you'll need to understand and refute my examples. Just saying "I'm positive" isn't going to swing it ...

Good luck!

[Lance Thrust]

In between real-time games that are hard and fast and 8 player escalating games that that can move more slowly than a stoned sloth, there seems to be a wide range in the wait time between turns. As I usually play at work, I can't commit to real time, but it would be nice to have a game that I can make a few moves a day in; as opposed to a move every few days. Other than introducing games that are timed in hours, I thought of a couple of possibilities:

1) introduce a stat either in the player's profile, or even next to his name and rank, that indicates the average time it takes for them to move. That way, others can tell at a glance how fast certain players tend to move and can use that as a basis to join or not join a game. (This stat would be generated automatically by simply averaging the start times of all the player's games).

2) introduce a stat that indicates when a player is usually more active. For example, I would be more active M-F 9-5 PST, and hardly ever active on the weekend. Others may play more in the evenings and weekends. Again, this can let you know when others may be active at the same times that you are, and therefore increase the chances of a faster game. (This stat would probably have to be a field that the player entered manually).

I hope this hasn't been brought up before, but if it has, I'm sure I'll hear of it...

[insomniacdude]

I like it a lot, though it's a bit ancillary so you/we might have to push hard to get the suggestion accepted.

[cicero]

Re part 1) of your suggestion please see my post in the very recent thread "Statistic for average time before user starts turn" which suggested much the same thing.

If you can follow my post, which the OP there struggled to do, you'll hopefully see that the statistic would be all but meaningless in real life use.

Part 2) of your suggestion looks more useful, and it could be produced automatically, ... but how would we use that statistic ?

[Lance Thrust]

Thanks for the link, cicero. I can see the point that you are making. I'm not sure if I would call it meaningless, though. Perhaps it would be more like trying to open a can of beans at 50 yards with a pistol; not always successful, but definitely more so than just standing there without a can opener.

As far as the 2nd idea, I got that from http://www.chessatwork.com. In your profile, you click on a "move frequency" field, and indicate: all day, several a day, once a day, once a week, etc. Then, when you look at another players profile, an icon is displayed showing how often they move. If these icons were displayed in cc, perhaps next to rank insignia and feedback, it could give you a rough estimate of the tempo of the play in that room. Heck, maybe games could be built around it, with people filtering out slower or faster move freq's when they create a game.

BTW - Sorry about note seeing the other thread. Should we move our discussion there? I'm not too sure of the protocol...

[PLAYER57832]

In between real-time games that are hard and fast and 8 player escalating games that that can move more slowly than a stoned sloth, there seems to be a wide range in the wait time between turns. As I usually play at work, I can't commit to real time, but it would be nice to have a game that I can make a few moves a day in; as opposed to a move every few days. Other than introducing games that are timed in hours, I thought of a couple of possibilities:

1) introduce a stat either in the player's profile, or even next to his name and rank, that indicates the average time it takes for them to move. That way, others can tell at a glance how fast certain players tend to move and can use that as a basis to join or not join a game. (This stat would be generated automatically by simply averaging the start times of all the player's games).

2) introduce a stat that indicates when a player is usually more active. For example, I would be more active M-F 9-5 PST, and hardly ever active on the weekend. Others may play more in the evenings and weekends. Again, this can let you know when others may be active at the same times that you are, and therefore increase the chances of a faster game. (This stat would probably have to be a field that the player entered manually).

I hope this hasn't been brought up before, but if it has, I'm sure I'll hear of it...

Problem is that a lot of folks are "active" at varying times. For example, a surprising number of us use this to occupy ourselves when up with fussy/sick kids.

Best idea -- if you play a fair amount, you can sort of get a "feel" for who is quick, who is "present" and who isn't. Put them on your friends list and play them.

[PLAYER57832]

In between real-time games that are hard and fast and 8 player escalating games that that can move more slowly than a stoned sloth, there seems to be a wide range in the wait time between turns. As I usually play at work, I can't commit to real time, but it would be nice to have a game that I can make a few moves a day in; as opposed to a move every few days. Other than introducing games that are timed in hours, I thought of a couple of possibilities:

1) introduce a stat either in the player's profile, or even next to his name and rank, that indicates the average time it takes for them to move. That way, others can tell at a glance how fast certain players tend to move and can use that as a basis to join or not join a game. (This stat would be generated automatically by simply averaging the start times of all the player's games).

2) introduce a stat that indicates when a player is usually more active. For example, I would be more active M-F 9-5 PST, and hardly ever active on the weekend. Others may play more in the evenings and weekends. Again, this can let you know when others may be active at the same times that you are, and therefore increase the chances of a faster game. (This stat would probably have to be a field that the player entered manually).

I hope this hasn't been brought up before, but if it has, I'm sure I'll hear of it...

Problem is that a lot of folks are "active" at varying times. For example, a surprising number of us use this to occupy ourselves when up with fussy/sick kids. Also, the time to play is more a variable of the map, number of players and so forth than the person ... and it changes with experience. Some people switch computers and connections.

Better idea -- if you play a fair amount, you can sort of get a "feel" for who is quick, who is "present" and who isn't. Put them on your friends list and play them

But the REAL problem here is that you are limited to 4 games. Buy a premium and it won't matter... You can play multiple games and more or less "always" have some running.

[Lance Thrust]

I had a premium that I just let expire in the past few weeks. I was playing 10 - 20 games at a time, but things are too busy now at home and work to be able to dedicate that time. A few at a time is more my pace now.

But I am starting to think that the "move frequency" indicator may be an easier tool to implement than any recording of times to move. At least it would be something to give you an idea of approx how often they are able to check their games.

[greenoaks]

this has been rejected.

they have said repeatedly they are not going to allow us to discriminate against those who play within the rules by taking up to 24 hours to take their turns.

if you want to exclude people create private games, that is what they are for.

[Lance Thrust]

I didn't really think of it as discriminatory, but merely a way of getting an idea of how often certain players moved. But if it has previously been rejected, I won't beat a dead horse....

Thanks for the info.

[scottp]

The mods saw fit to bump this thread and delete my new one. It's not exactly the same idea, but I'll comply and limit my comments to this thread. I am not trying to imply fast players are "good, bad or indifferent". Just that sometimes I'd like to be able to find some others. This suggestion would allow that.

Add "Average time to initiate turn" to profile, right below "Attendance":

• Attendance is a nice addition to profiles. Allows players to make informed decisions when joining games.
• Another factor some MIGHT want to consider when joining games is how "speedy" or "responsive" opponents tend to be.

Specifics:

• I am fortunate enough to have access to the internet most of the day. I check CC a few times a day from work, and run Conquer Tell on my machines at home. Many or most of my turns are taken within minutes of the previous player finishing his turn. I don't expect everyone to be like that, but sometimes I would like to choose to play others who ARE.
  
• Real Time games are an option, but while I OFTEN or maybe even USUALLY have the ability to take a quick turn, I don't often have the luxury of committing the next half hour or hour to a game.
  
• Obviously, this should pertain only to casual games, as speed games are already timed.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Enhances the CC experience, by giving the ability to choose games based on how quickly other players usually take their turns, for those of us who care. "Attendance" was a great start, "Responsiveness" (or whatever it winds up being called) will be another step toward making CC "all it can be" for the users.

Thanks for your consideration. I previously suggested something similar, but it was focused on "recognizing" responsiveness, as if it's a virtue worthy of some reward. I now realize, it's just a player characteristic which can be easily quantified, and nothing more. Whether it's "desirable" or "virtuous" is in the eye of the beholder. I retract my previous suggestion in favor of this one. It's just information, to be used or not used as each person sees fit. I would like to have the information made available, please!

[*manimal]

I like it.

[lancehoch]

This has been rejected in many forms many times over.

[Simon Viavant]

That sounds like it would just reward super obsessive people who have no lives and play CC all day.

[PLAYER57832]

That sounds like it would just reward super obsessive people who have no lives and play CC all day.

AGREED!

[fireedud]

This game is based on the ability to play anywhere in the 24 hour time-frame, why should you be rewarded for being so lucky as to logging in right after someone has taken thier turn? You're premium, so if you can't wait, play speed games.

[max is gr8]

It means if you sleep your penalised, Send it to room 1.

[scottp]

Thank you all for your replies. I would like to address your comments:

This has been rejected in many forms many times over.

Care to share the reasons why? I'm new here, so missed the previous discussions. Maybe it's time to re-think things?

That sounds like it would just reward super obsessive people who have no lives and play CC all day.

Well, not so much as REWARD us (I confess) but to allow us to find one another so we can play fast-moving games without having to be tied down to a speed game.

This game is based on the ability to play anywhere in the 24 hour time-frame, why should you be rewarded for being so lucky as to logging in right after someone has taken thier turn? You're premium, so if you can't wait, play speed games.

I'm not asking for anyone to be penalized. If it takes 24 hours, so be it. However, I am fortunate enough to be able to log on from work a few times a day (when I get to the office, at lunch, and before I leave) and I have Conquer Tell as an add-on to my browser at home. Bottom line is I'm on or near a computer from early in the morning to late at night. I don't sit around and wait for my turn, but I DO check in frequently during the day to see if I have a turn pending. I sleep about 7 hours a night, so it's infrequent that my turn waits for me more than 8 hours. What's wrong with me wanting to find others who play with the same attentiveness?

I'm not suggesting a value judgment (good or bad) be associated with "fast" or "slow" players, only that fast players be able to identify one another. That's all.

The problem with speed games is that you're REQUIRED to stick with the game from start to finish without interruption. I can't devote that kind of time to the game. 10 minutes here, 10 minutes there, yes. 45 minutes or an hour at a stretch, usually not. I also am too new to have the mechanics "down pat". My two or three forays into speed games have been disastrous. I can't necessarily do a 5 minute turn under pressure...

It means if you sleep your penalised, Send it to room 1.

Like I said, no penalty is suggested. I sleep too. What is "room 1?" I'm not familiar with that phrase.

All I'm asking for is data to improve my CC experience.