I think the big thing that people are forgetting is the game is suppose to end quickly. While 2+ days would be nice, that's what MD games are for. I feel like the idea for this was to make RT games less of a sit down commitment by being able to step away for emergencies, dinner, etc. not a weekend vacation or trip. I personally think 1 day is sufficient. If one player has to leave, you just have to remember you have this game and check back every once and a while. They do as well and eventually within the 2 days (1+1) you will meet up at the same time and continue playing real-time.

Hourglass

Yeah, Tbest, this would be also an interesting option.


btw: no push notifications

I am hearing the auto-surrender might be more popular then auto-boot on this game type.

How about when a player doesn't play, is that fair?

I really like the idea of always having 3 minutes set/left on the clock if you are at the end of your boot time. So you can continue playing.

The only difference between a surrender and a boot is that a boot gets recorded on your profile as a mark of shame.

If you remove that, and just do auto-surrender, you're giving no incentive for people to actually surrender when they've lost. Instead, they can just close their browser and walk away without any penalty. This is *really* bad in this format, since you'd have to wait the entire bank time for them to be bootable (1-5 days). As an individual game it's just an inconvenience, but in a tournament this would slow things down a ton.

If anything, clocked games should go the other way, and try to really encourage people to use the surrender button when they've lost instead of just walking away. Auto-surrender is the opposite of what we should be doing.

I don't really like the idea. I can't think of any reason i'd play this. Either I want to play real time, or I want to play multi day. Or I want a quick 1 day boot multi-day - Or even a quick 6 hour boot multi day with banking boot times.

This seems like a shoddy way to make quick games, it can be abused pretty easy.

An agreement to change the boot times of a game by vote would be preferable to this in my opinion.

So, if a game drags on, the player who played last gets booted or auto-surrendered? So you have to play rashly if you are player 2 incase of that?

Very silly.

Edited 2/18/2015 04:10:49

While the goal behind this is to have a hybrid of RT and MD, I just can't see this working when I'm playing with someone in Europe/Asia. The time difference is almost 9+ hours which means that they play when I'm working and vice versa. So unless we happen to be online at the same time, these games are destined to end with a boot.

Let me address Europe/Asia verse North America.

Both players would sleep 8 hours, and we assume completely different hours. That is 16 hours.

There are still 8 hours left in the day for the players to play RT.

I personally have time to take out my phone and respond to push notifications all the time of course when I am not sleeping. ;)

If a player doesn't have push notification alerts on their phone enabled this game type may not be good for that player.

I know a lot of people work 8 hours (and can't play at work) and sleep 8 hours, so only have about 8 hours a day when they could play. Two people with that same scenario on opposite sides of the world may not have overlapping times to play.

Although, I guess if you are unable to play most of the day, you probably shouldn't be joining clock games unless you know that the people in the game/tournament have schedules similar to yours.

Seems like a pretty cool idea imo though I'm not the kind of guy who'd play it.

Well I don't play on the phone(because I can't..Let me take this opportunity to ask for a windows phone app :P).

Like jz said, I don't have more than 3-4 hours on a weekday when I can check on Warlight(due to work etc). Therefore, I get that this type of game is not for me. However, Master of Desaster mentioned implementing this on ladders, and that is something I am strongly opposed to.

The only difference between a surrender and a boot is that a boot gets recorded on your profile as a mark of shame.

If you remove that, and just do auto-surrender, you're giving no incentive for people to actually surrender when they've lost. Instead, they can just close their browser and walk away without any penalty. This is *really* bad in this format, since you'd have to wait the entire bank time for them to be bootable (1-5 days). As an individual game it's just an inconvenience, but in a tournament this would slow things down a ton.

Don't remove boots then.
At the beginning of every turn check if auto-surrender conditions have been met. If not, players have to commit their orders or be booted. It should at least reduce stalling lost games.

It would be an awesome enhancement to the seasonal ladder to make them this kind of hybrid games. Early games could have, say, a week per player or more, the last games could divide the time until the season finishes between the two players, so that there is no end of season "adjudication" that people may or may not try to abuse.

Real-time speed hybrid games (say, an hour per player) would be awesome and tense. I see no reason not to try that if implemented.

1 day limit per player is horrible, though. What that basically says is that you need to be available for that particular game for 24 hours within the next 48 hours (your part of the time on the clock). If you're available, say, 10 hours each of the two days, that lets your opponent boot you even if he misses 4 hours of your absence. But if 1 day is horrible, consider 4 days! Of the next 4 days, you need to be on Warlight for at least 12 hours on average each day!

So it's only playable for people who live in front of the computer with Warlight open - I bet those exist, but I am not in the target group :)

Allow the time to be customised. A 10 minute a side game would be awesome. It's an idea that's been suggested before.

put it into uservoice fizzer.

^+1

My fear is that it will turn into a booting competition. for example Imagine if one player takes his turn once in an hour (quick enough to make 24 turns, at which point most games are decided). While his opponent is a normal human who can't play 16h of the day (sleep/work/school/life/etc). He would not stand a chance against the guy who play once per hour, and eventually be booted. How do you guys plan to prevent strategically waiting like that? (Especially when you can see when your opponent was last active on their profile). Even if you're using push notifications (I don't) I don't think anyone would enjoy playing a game like that.
I do however like the idea, and it could definitely work with something like 1h games.

"Where should the open "Clocked" game be placed? RT or MD area?"
Why not make a separate category? I'd say anything >1 day is multi-day, but if lower time limits are added(like 1h) it is closer to RT. (imo rt are games you can finish in one sitting)

Instead of a boot time of 0, I'd suggest making it something like 2 min, it won't really affect how quick the games finish but will definitely feel better when you play (and encourage quick moves).

Also as this is specifically 1v1 an hourglass system would be cool (especially rt), might wanna make it so you add 50% of the time you spent (more than your opponent) to your opponents time to speed up the games. EX) Player a take 1h, player B takes 2h; player B spent 1h more-> 50% = 30 min->30 min added to player A.

Edited 2/18/2015 15:42:11

Basically just read what Yeon said, not much of a contribution to the thread, but there's not much else to add.

Don't think I'd use this if implemented. Blitz sounds cool though

Yeon's point was pretty solid, though it should be on a different (see: new) ladder and not the seasonal.

This would be for a very select group of players who can check their phone/laptop/desktop constantly and could prove pretty useful for them. Assuming the community explodes once you've implemented the new generic name, it may become more popular, but for the most part MD and RT meet the needs of most the community, I believe.

It's ok to have new features, but I doubt I would use it because I can only check PC at some hours, so I could only play with european players in good conditions (and depends on the day my I play sooner or later, so not the same countries all the days lol).
I'm ok with it but not with using it on ladders, at least the ones we have now, a new one could do it.

As a chess player I agree with the increment idea suggested before, to avoid players stalling games trying to win on boot. 0.25% of the initial time per move could do (3.6 min/move in 1 day games) or a customizable time (1-5min for example)

Using this in RT with little limits would be great. 20-30minutes games or 1hour for example. It's annoying when you join an RT game in a medium/small map thinking it will end "quick" and someone it's playing really slow and it takes 3 hours to finish >_> I stopped playing RT because a lot of games where longer than expected and I had to surrender because I needed to go.