Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by thisisntme » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:05 am

Or we could have it handle time the way most applications do, by using a day box, an hour box, and a minute box with number inputs, that way we can have infinite time combinations (the drop-down menu is quite possibly the worst UI feature to have for a time length)

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Omniscient » Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:52 pm

Claesar wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:04 pm
Yes, providing the options wouldn't be the absolute worst. People can probably click through some more options.

I think the main problem lies with finding a new game. You could be looking at something like:
"No in-game messaging, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring, Hidden draw votes, Half-Length Retreats/Builds, Reliability Rating 90%"

What I'm trying to say is, the more narrow you make things (i.e. the more options you provide) the harder it becomes to bring people together to actually play a game.
Imagine you'd like to play a medium-speed game because you can commit to 1 move per day. Makes sense, you come home from work and enter some moves. Ah, but the retreats are 12h/phase, so it doesn't fit in your daily schedule - you can't join that game :(
I find this argument dubious.

Today there are 29 (!!) options for game speeds. In certain spots they are really granular (5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 30 minutes; 22 hours, 1 day, 1 day 1 hour, 1 day 2 hours). Then there are 9 other game parameters each with a number of options. You already have a ton of variations, many of which are probably very rarely used in combination.

Perhaps you don't want to add 29 more speeds to accommodate the half-length build/retreat variations for every permutation, but you could add a single boolean advanced option that turns half-length build/retreat phases on or off. You could maybe restrict that option to games greater than 1 day in length.

You could even compromise by adding a half-length build/retreat speed option for the 2 or 3 most popular speeds (1 day - 12 hour build/retreat & 2 days - 1 day build/retreat) upping the speed options from 29 to 31 or 32 which would be close to negligible. You could remove a few rarely used options (22 hours, 1 days, 1 hour and 1 days, 2 hours ?!) to maintain the status quo.

There's lots of solutions here. If having too many options was a major hindrance you wouldn't have 29 game speeds broken up into weird denominations.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Claesar » Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:41 am

Mercy wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:56 am
A_Tin_Can wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:48 am
Unfortunately, webdip's adjudicator was not written with forced options in mind. The part of the code that determines what options you have is totally unrelated to the part of the code that moves turns forward. It knows about "no orders" and "some orders" - but extending it to know about "each order has only one valid entry" would be a fairly major rewrite.
Would it be possible to just automatically ready all the moves of players that only have one option?
If I rephrase the text that ATC wrote to how I understand it:
We have three seperate pieces of code (relevant to the question). One that determines the options a unit has (moving to adjacent provinces etc.), another that realises whether a player has 0 or 1+ options during a phase, and one that determines whether the phase can move on. These three pieces of code do not communicate and to achieve this would require a major overhaul of the engine.

In other words, the website does not know whether you have 1 or 15 options.

tl;dr No, that is not possible. Unless I wildly misunderstand ATC.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Mercy » Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:56 am

A_Tin_Can wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:48 am
Unfortunately, webdip's adjudicator was not written with forced options in mind. The part of the code that determines what options you have is totally unrelated to the part of the code that moves turns forward. It knows about "no orders" and "some orders" - but extending it to know about "each order has only one valid entry" would be a fairly major rewrite.
Would it be possible to just automatically ready all the moves of players that only have one option?

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Terminus Est » Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:14 am

Thanks.

The timer, at least, has ticked down on our game and we can get back to backstabbing.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Claesar » Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:46 pm

Terminus Est wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:41 pm
I see. Good point!
Your point is very valid as well though. And we've had this request before. At this time we cannot offer a satisfactory solution.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Terminus Est » Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:41 pm

I see. Good point!

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Claesar » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:04 pm

Yes, providing the options wouldn't be the absolute worst. People can probably click through some more options.

I think the main problem lies with finding a new game. You could be looking at something like:
"No in-game messaging, Anonymous players, Draw-Size Scoring, Hidden draw votes, Half-Length Retreats/Builds, Reliability Rating 90%"

What I'm trying to say is, the more narrow you make things (i.e. the more options you provide) the harder it becomes to bring people together to actually play a game.
Imagine you'd like to play a medium-speed game because you can commit to 1 move per day. Makes sense, you come home from work and enter some moves. Ah, but the retreats are 12h/phase, so it doesn't fit in your daily schedule - you can't join that game :(

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Terminus Est » Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:22 pm

You could put the option for varying retreat and build phases into the advanced options. By default, length of all phases would be the same, just like before. But if someone bothers to go in advanced options, they'll be able to independently set different phase lengths.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by A_Tin_Can » Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:51 am

We dislike adding too many options to the game creation screen though
This is a really important point - analysis I ran a while back on finished games suggested that having more options for game types lead to fewer games being played overall. This is possibly supported by the low number of judge games being played, too - but I'm sure there are lots of reasons there.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by A_Tin_Can » Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:48 am

Not a programmer
Your example is a bit like saying "Shouldn't it be easy to turn my car stereo on every time the heated seats are on? We already have a light on the dashboard for heated seats, and the stereo has an on/off button - can't we just connect them together".

I am a programmer:

Unfortunately, webdip's adjudicator was not written with forced options in mind. The part of the code that determines what options you have is totally unrelated to the part of the code that moves turns forward. It knows about "no orders" and "some orders" - but extending it to know about "each order has only one valid entry" would be a fairly major rewrite.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Claesar » Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:52 pm

Laszlosaurus wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:18 pm
Claesar wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:16 am
If you're asking whether we can skip a player's retreat/build when they have 0 SC, cannot retreat into a centre and cannot retreat into the same province as another player.. That's hard to program. I believe Jmo once said it would require a major overhaul of the game code.
Not a programmer, but I feel like that can't be true. The game code already must determine the valid retreat options to list in the dropdown menu. It should be a simple addition to automatically select 'Disband' when that's the only available option.
The game already does that. It's not what I said though.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Laszlosaurus » Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:18 pm

Claesar wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:16 am
If you're asking whether we can skip a player's retreat/build when they have 0 SC, cannot retreat into a centre and cannot retreat into the same province as another player.. That's hard to program. I believe Jmo once said it would require a major overhaul of the game code.
Not a programmer, but I feel like that can't be true. The game code already must determine the valid retreat options to list in the dropdown menu. It should be a simple addition to automatically select 'Disband' when that's the only available option.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by CCR » Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:02 pm

This is a necessary "feature". I and others who once belonged to the Judge pbem community ser the 72/24/24 deadline scheme as natural... It was not complicated for the newbies of the 90's, and there were thousands of them back then as well.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Claesar » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:20 am

That would be technically possible. We dislike adding too many options to the game creation screen though (as well making game selection difficult), so in the past we've decided not to offer this option. If there's a lot of demand from the community, we may revisit this.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Terminus Est » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:32 am

Would it be possible to allow different time limits for retreat and build phases? Setting them to be shorter than the normal negotiation/order phase would reduce the onerous wait in the case where an eliminated player never bothers to come back.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Claesar » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:16 am

No, this is too advanced for the FAQ, I think. We're updating it however, so we'll keep it in mind.

Foxcastle , I presume what you're asking is whether we can have the site automatically disband a unit when there's no retreat available. I don't know how difficult that is, but it's low priority.

If you're asking whether we can skip a player's retreat/build when they have 0 SC, cannot retreat into a centre and cannot retreat into the same province as another player.. That's hard to program. I believe Jmo once said it would require a major overhaul of the game code.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Terminus Est » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:25 am

I looked at the FAQ (Yes, I actually read it!) and didn't find anything there related to this question.

Re: Phase length applies even to obvious disbanding?

by Foxcastle » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:48 pm

I'm sure this isn't the first time this has been asked. Is there a summary of previous responses from admins/developers on this (e.g., impossible to implement, or lower priority, etc)?

Top