Conquer Club

These may be too impractical to code, but this is a variations on the normal speed game 5 min turns that would give more options to speed players and allow more people to try out speed games.

Concise description:

When playing speed chess, the tradition is not a time limit per move, but a total time limit per game- each player has e.g. half an hour to move. Once they make their move and hit the timer button, time begins subtracting from the other player's total. If either player uses up all their time, they lose, even if they had better board position at the time.

Specifics:

• Timer-style would be an option at game creation. If chosen, each player would get X minutes of time. (Whether X varied by map, or was chosen by game creator, or was a blanket rank set time no matter what game, is a detail to be worked out.)
• The first player to move has his/her counter start counting down when he/she enters the game after the roster is full. Each time a player completes his move (by making his reinforcement or declining to do so) his counter freezes and the next player's counter starts counting down.
• If a player runs out of time, his armies go neutral.
• Players could win by conventially winning, or by forcing their opponents to run out of time.
• In team games (Doubles/Triples/Quads) a team's time would be pooled.
• If player A eliminates Player B, then just as A would get B's spoils, A would get B's remaining time, adding a new dynamic to strategy, as there would be strategy of time as well as of the map and of spoils.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

It would provide another option and way of experiencing ConquerClub,

I love it. I genuinely do. A changeable system would be more suited.

So cooool. I would play. Let's make it happen.

I've played online scrabble like this before. Makes it very easy to play a game at work and know that you can complete it before going home, going to a meeting, going to lunch, or going back to work after lunch, etc.

I think it is harsh and perhaps difficult to give the loss to the player who ran out of time, but perhaps that aspect could be worked out to give the win to the player with the most territories when time runs out? Not sure, but worth investigating.

Queen_Herpes wrote:I've played online scrabble like this before. Makes it very easy to play a game at work and know that you can complete it before going home, going to a meeting, going to lunch, or going back to work after lunch, etc.

I think it is harsh and perhaps difficult to give the loss to the player who ran out of time, but perhaps that aspect could be worked out to give the win to the player with the most territories when time runs out? Not sure, but worth investigating.

So you have more territories you let the timer run out?

Evil Semp wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:I've played online scrabble like this before. Makes it very easy to play a game at work and know that you can complete it before going home, going to a meeting, going to lunch, or going back to work after lunch, etc.

I think it is harsh and perhaps difficult to give the loss to the player who ran out of time, but perhaps that aspect could be worked out to give the win to the player with the most territories when time runs out? Not sure, but worth investigating.

So you have more territories you let the timer run out?

Ah, good point. I can't remember exactly how it works with the online scrabble, wait, with online scrabble you earn points every turn, every play, so that example isn't a good one.

Perhaps if this timer is somehow associated with freestyle play? I don't know. But I'd like to hear from the original poster...

mabey you get a set amount of time. when that runs out you get five minutes a turn

wercool wrote:mabey you get a set amount of time. when that runs out you get five minutes a turn

not a chance...

but i do like the idea. each map would have different time limits. i see it.

It seems to me that chess clocks time each player separately, so if your timer expires, you lose. Running out the clock when you have a lead should not give you the win. Also, I think that chess clocks are used to ensure that some initial number of turns are taken within a time limit. If those turns are completed within the time limit, then the remainder of the match is played without a time limit, just as it would be normally.

What about using Bronstein Clock method (You get an automatic X seconds to use before it digs into your time, but excess time is wasted)? Or Hourglass (For every x seconds you play your opponent gets x seconds) Though hourglass would be harder to use in larger games it could work as such:

For every x seconds you play your opponents get x/(p-1) seconds added to their clock. Where p donates the amount of players in the game.

Evil Semp wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:I've played online scrabble like this before. Makes it very easy to play a game at work and know that you can complete it before going home, going to a meeting, going to lunch, or going back to work after lunch, etc.

I think it is harsh and perhaps difficult to give the loss to the player who ran out of time, but perhaps that aspect could be worked out to give the win to the player with the most territories when time runs out? Not sure, but worth investigating.

So you have more territories you let the timer run out?

Exactly - would have to be like chess - you run out of time you lose, mate next move or not - you screwed up with the clock.
It's not harsh to the player that ran out of time - it's the point.

You can choose different settings e.g for chess I play 3 mins + 2 secs / move, but many options exist e.g 5 mins total.

Obviously would have to adjusted for CC but I don't see why not. There would be no missed turns!

I like this idea,because the speed is speed but can last several hours...and have played chess like that...if your time runs out it rans but I would give at least some time increasing like now in chess(now in official games you have 1:30h in total plus 30 seconds every time you end your turn) like that people won't abusse with the time(like can happen in chess) of course that also you could decide how much time or depending on the map...




And also about taking opponents times... I love it but maybe as an option would be better


And bout team mates time I think it would be better everyone have their own time (like the spoils) sometimes you kill your partner in order to you to take the spoils and not the opponent so with the time could happen the same thing,because if they only have one time,many teams would loose because one partner screws it...while now if this happens still you have a chance...and if they only have one time per team. when they kill someone of the other team what happens with the time? decreases 1/2 for double 1/3 for triples or 1/4 for quadruples?? and if there are 3 teams and team 2 eliminates one of the team 1 and the team 3 eliminates the other... really who would take the time if the only have one??? 1/2 1/2??

darth emperor wrote:I like this idea,because the speed is speed but can last several hours...and have played chess like that...if your time runs out it rans but I would give at least some time increasing like now in chess(now in official games you have 1:30h in total plus 30 seconds every time you end your turn) like that people won't abusse with the time(like can happen in chess) of course that also you could decide how much time or depending on the map...




And also about taking opponents times... I love it but maybe as an option would be better


And bout team mates time I think it would be better everyone have their own time (like the spoils) sometimes you kill your partner in order to you to take the spoils and not the opponent so with the time could happen the same thing,because if they only have one time,many teams would loose because one partner screws it...while now if this happens still you have a chance...and if they only have one time per team. when they kill someone of the other team what happens with the time? decreases 1/2 for double 1/3 for triples or 1/4 for quadruples?? and if there are 3 teams and team 2 eliminates one of the team 1 and the team 3 eliminates the other... really who would take the time if the only have one??? 1/2 1/2??

Sounds like sorting this out for teams could get hairy. MIght be best to concentrate on games with individual players each having their own clock.
As far as clock methods where you steal time from other players, that would also be weird if there were more than two players, because play order might let one player steal a lot from another, while a third gets no shot.
The Game clock entry in Wikipedia is an interesting reference, describing the various timing methods in use. Once I have a chance to read it in detail, I will try to comment on Bronstein versus Hourglass and whatnot. We may also have to be careful dealing with something like the Fischer clock, since there is a patent involved, but I'm not sure whether it would cover a software implementation. There are also links to browser based game clocks, which might be fun to use until this feature is implemented here at CC, but I'm not sure that two remote users can share one clock. Might be a project for a script-savvy CC user with the ability to host a webpage.

gotta make this happen

BAD idea. Really, really bad idea.


In my opinion at least.


Hourglass or a set amount of time for each player opens up a whole new possibility of farming for people with faster than average internet connections. Deployment, attacks, fortifications, there's always a little lag unless you're on a really fast connection. Even if you gain only a minute over 8 rounds or so you're getting a noticeable advantage.

A Bronstein variant would not be significantly different from the current settings of 5 minutes/move unless you add so little time that it's essentially indistibguishable from the first proposal.


In either case the game becomes one of seeing who clicks their mouse faster, strategy and tactics would hardly play any role any more. I recall some discussions about scripts that would automate cashing in cards and army placement, even ideas for scripts that would automate attacks and fortifications and allow people to eliminate people spread over a dozen territories in a matter of a few seconds, making clickable maps seem sluggish. All for the sake of some advantages in freestyle. With options like these those scripts will become reality if they aren't already.

MeDeFe, in the vast majority of speed games clickable maps help people by miles already, this would be no different, the only difference I can see is that it will add a new layer of strategy to freestyle escalating, waiting for the opportunity to strike also begs the question if it is worth waiting the extra minute. If you have 10 minutes for a whole game waiting a minute for another 5 units seems kind of pointless.

Bronstein I'd suggest seeing a 30 second base + 10 minutes
Hourglass I'd say it'd vary depending on how many players.