Suggestion: Time Per Round Rating

[lancehoch]

The reason this has been rejected is, as others have mentioned above, you have 24 hours to take your turns. Why should people get a poor rating of sorts for playing the game the way it was intended?

[scottp]

Not a poor rating. I'm not looking for anyone to be ostracized or criticized... I just want to be able to find people to play with who typically take LESS than the allowable 24 hours. Why can't the data be revealed?!

I would like to join fast but casual (non-speed) games. That would be easier if that info was made available. That's all.

[scottp]

n/m

[lancehoch]

Try going into Live Chat. There are people in there all the time willing to play "real time" or 'rt' games. This may be more of what you are looking for.

[scottp]

okay, that's a good idea, and I'll try that.

Doesn't address the issue though. Can't we allow ourselves to identify players (somehow?!) that tend to take their turns quickly?

[Thezzaruz]

The reason this has been rejected is, as others have mentioned above, you have 24 hours to take your turns. Why should people get a poor rating of sorts for playing the game the way it was intended?

But that argument doesn't really cut it though. You are allowed to make suicide moves or be an ass in the chat and that is supposed to be shown in the ratings so why are people so against "Attendance" being used in the same way?

[PLAYER57832]

okay, that's a good idea, and I'll try that.

Doesn't address the issue though. Can't we allow ourselves to identify players (somehow?!) that tend to take their turns quickly?

Look at all the achievement medals one can win. I've seen players with 7 or 8. Couldn't one be established along the lines of

Bronze: average <15 hours to take turn (50 games completed)
Silver: average <10 hours to take turn (75 games completed)
Gold: average < 6 hours to take turn (100 games completed)

or something like that?

First, everybody varies, so the information you seek woud really be lost in the shuffle. I have days where its rainy, the kids are occupied and I will "stop in" here and there while working around the house. Other days, I might log in in the morning and again at night.

[scottp]

over a large number of games, your average time to a turn will be significant. It might not be representative of every day or every week of your life, but CHANCES ARE that if your average over 500 games is 3.5 hours, that you are likely to take your turns faster than someone whose average is 17.5 hours.

It's just data, people! It's 100% available already, if you want to look up everyone's game history and calculate the time delta between the previous player and the player in question for every turn they've taken. The burden of looking up the info is unreasonable, but the data exists.

Can't the proprietors of this site do us the favor of compiling the data, averaging it, and displaying it for those of us who would like to know? Why is this controversial?! I don't get it.

[scottp]

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.

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!

[jbrettlip]

this would be greatly weighted to those who play speed games to knock down their average. With people in different parts of the world, I don't know if this is actually "great" info to have. If you want fast players/turns use teh speed game option.

[max is gr8]

Lackattack would not spend time doing that. Instead why don't you make a script for something like that.

[lancehoch]

Hi, merged the two threads together, since they are the same idea. Please check your inbox. Thank you.

[Nickbaldwin]

Ever heard of a job?

[PLAYER57832]

Or, how about this...

How about a VOLUNTARY designation that someone can CHOOSE to associate with their name/profile. How about something you sign up for that tells others you like to take several turns in a day?

This sounds like a suggestion I made... to allow folks to label themselves in their profiles.

However, you also have to realize that everyone varies and it is easy enough to make a game, go play or visit the forums or just have to deal with something and forget.


A lot of people will see someone that intense as probably not very tolerant in general and probably someone they want to avoid.

[scottp]

Ever heard of a job?

LOL. Like I said, I am fortunate enough to have the ability to play pretty much throughout the day. I'm in charge at work, so I know when I can spare time for a quick look at CC and perhaps a turn or two. As long as my job gets done, and it does, no one will question how I use each minute of the day.

[scottp]

Lackattack would not spend time doing that. Instead why don't you make a script for something like that.

That's a great idea. Unfortunately, I am not a coder. My point in putting this suggestion here was to get the discussion going. If someone with a scripting background would read this and take up the challenge, I'd certainly use that script and be forever indebted!

[cicero]

multiple threads merged ...

Statistic for average time before user starts turn thread - posts on 16 April 08 - original post here
Timing of turns statistic thread - posts on 29 & 30 April 08- original post here
Show players average time to take turns / Recognize attentive players based on time to initiate turn thread - posts 17 to 27 July 08 - original post here (this consists of two threads previously merged).

[Nickbaldwin]

Ever heard of a job?

LOL. Like I said, I am fortunate enough to have the ability to play pretty much throughout the day. I'm in charge at work, so I know when I can spare time for a quick look at CC and perhaps a turn or two. As long as my job gets done, and it does, no one will question how I use each minute of the day.

That is fair enough but some people don't get that privilege, and alot don't even work with a computer, yet they may take their turns within an hour at weekends. Leaving them out would be unfair.

[scottp]

I think many are misconstruing my point.

I never suggested "leaving anyone out" of anything. I would like to actively pursue games that will be fast-paced and conclude rapidly, but do not necessarily have time to COMMIT to sit thru a whole real-time game. This would help me (and anyone else with the same desires) to achieve that.

Most people couldn't care less, and it will remain totally transparent to them.

[Nickbaldwin]

I think many are misconstruing my point.

I never suggested "leaving anyone out" of anything. I would like to actively pursue games that will be fast-paced and conclude rapidly, but do not necessarily have time to COMMIT to sit thru a whole real-time game. This would help me (and anyone else with the same desires) to achieve that.

Most people couldn't care less, and it will remain totally transparent to them.

What if someone has those desires but can't get on at work?

[cicero]

A couple of points.

First please, please, please, please, please use the 'search' box - right next to the new topic box - before posting a new suggestion. When used carefully/successfully you'll find that many ideas have been suggested before.

• I don't say this as a tidiness freak - although I am
• I don't say this because I don't enjoy merging all the duplicate suggestions - see my post detailing the four now merged here.
• I don't say this because I want to stifle new suggestions - I certainly don't. If there's a choice between posting your suggestion and not posting it because you're worried that you've not found a previous thread on the same idea - post anyway. We don't want to miss out on a great idea.
• The reason for searching first is that, if you do so successfully, you'll have the opportunity to see the discussion points that came up the last time the idea was raised.

Which leads me to ...

Second please see my post earlier in one of these threads which explains successfully I believe, why the statistic of average time to take a turn is all but meaningless.

Third, did I mention to search first before starting a new topic ?

[scottp]

What if someone has those desires but can't get on at work?

well, then they're unforunately not the type of person who can take several turns a day. some can, some can't. what's wrong with making those who CAN identifiable?!

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

maybe suggested and not adopted, but it's not on lack's "Rejected" list. I did check that.

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.

cicero,

I disagree with your logic. I am able to take turns at work, at various random intervals. I am able to take turns before and after work, at home. Regardless of what time zone ANYONE is in, I will see when it's my turn either right before I go to bed, or right after I get up. Any time in between, I'll discover my turn within a few hours. Except for the 7 hours or so when I'm asleep, my games DON'T wait on me to take turns, unless I'm traveling or something. VERY FEW of my turns have been taken with more than 7 hours "gone off the clock" and it's not time zone dependent at all. Worst case scenario for me is someone immediately before me takes their turn just after I go to bed. It'll likely be 7-10 hours before I get to that next turn. But for the few games where that happens, I have 10-15 other games where my turn comes up when I'm available and take my turn in a half hour or less. My AVERAGE time to a turn is probably under two hours. (you could prove me wrong, if you'd provide the data!!! ) Remember, there are usually 6 to 30 or more rounds per game, and many people have thousands of games in their history. That very large number of turns, in many games, which span weeks, weekends, holidays, vacations, etc will all settle in on a meaningful average, in time.

It's just a matter of curiosity to some, let's see if it becomes useful in any way (I think it will for some players). It is a minor matter to compile the data, no harder than compiling percentage of turns taken. Why not do it for those of us who want it? Those who don't want it will not be inconvenienced or hurt in ANY WAY!

[SayOw]

Is it possible to rate and rank a person's time per round they take and attach that to their profile?

A person get's 24 hours to take a turn and you could gauge how long a person takes for their turn and rank that for others to see.

You could rank the time rankings a variety of ways... into 3 categories, divided into 8 hour increments, all the way up to 8 categories divided into 3 hour increments.

Obviously any ranking wouldn't matter that much, but a player could anticipate the speed of a game they are involved in...

TYI...

[hecter]

Well, you could just lump that into their "Gameplay" rating and leave either a "quick" or "slow" tag... Look for those tags as well when viewing other peoples ratings.

[SayOw]

Well, you could just lump that into their "Gameplay" rating and leave either a "quick" or "slow" tag... Look for those tags as well when viewing other peoples ratings.

But some players don't rank and even if you do, you may not attach those tags, and irregardless, it doesn't give a true representation of how quick a player is taking their turn better than raw data.

Couldn't the 'game' just calculate the time a person takes their turn from when they are eligible too and average it out. You then could 'categorize' that and assign icons so others know who is able and willing to play quicker.