MArcomage

Hey all,

Rather than making a "quick" game become a "normal" game if it drags on, could it not be made so that any player who accepts a "quick" game knows that if they do not play their turns inside a certain time limit, they will lose the game outright?

Just a thought. I'm really, really tired of people joining games, playing one turn, and then doing nothing for 1-2 weeks (or more). This is both when they join my games and when I join theirs. I think this should be strict to prevent time wasters. I really enjoy this game but this is one of the main reasons I find it tedious to play / too time-consuming.

[Progressor: Moved from "game / quick game icons in hosted games" to it's own thread. It's a new, different suggestion.]

I suppose some people would like this.
I think it's a lame way to win.
I think it's kinda nice that you have a 'save game' automatically in case you got to go suddenly.

It seems odd to me to say that normal games are more time consuming.
In normal games you play 1 turn per day or even less, which takes a minute or 1-3 to go through all your games.
In quick games you play turn after turn after turn, wich keeps you busy slightly longer.

[Progressor: Removed redundant quotation]

Your assumption here is that everyone is a casual gamer.

I have set times in the day when I undertake certain activities, relaxation being one of them. Eg. during lunch hour I want to be able to play AND finish a game in one go.

I think there is a fundamental difference in mindsets between players that reflects this difference in how the game can be played. If the game supported a more "standard" way of playing which is that people sit down at your system to play a game and then get up after half an hour with a sense of completion, it would benefit this community a lot.

But hey -- I'm only a professional game designer. What do I know?

I don't think Progressor made the assumption you claim at all. He's looking at the suggestion from the logical standpoint that someone could "game" such a system if it weren't implemented carefully. As a professional game designer, you should understand that concern, naturally.

Have you used the MArcomage IRC channel? I don't use it often myself, but I understand that the most active of players (those who want to get many games done quickly) will chat and set up matches there with whatever conditions they desire. Not as intuitive as a system built into the site functions, of course, but using this feature could help you to avoid games where someone departs halfway in.

I hope this helps.

I think such a mode would not be such a bad idea, but the question is, how many people would really use it?? I would personally prefer to not use it, although I like quick games, because players need to rush in order to play, and when you are rushing you are not using enough your mind. Don't forget, this is not chess, especially in hidden mode, there's a lot of things you need to keep track of. Plus there's a lot of games going on with other players, and such a mode would exclude you from cycling through the rest of the games going on, thus keeping people waiting for you to play. Thirdly, the whole site would need to be restructured, in order to remove the manual refresh command and make the system update itself. As I understand it, the server is not the strongest one, and such a thing would prove to lead to a lot of crushes

DPsycho wrote:
I don't think Progressor made the assumption you claim at all.

Yes, I think he did when he implied that spending a few weeks playing a single game is normal. I don't think you'll find many hardcore gamers who look at gaming that way, because when they want to play, it means they want to play, not sit and twiddle their thumbs. One turn a day is pretty much synonymous with PBEM. What I'm trying to communicate is this: I'm unlikely to be the only one here who finds that playing such a long, broken up game destroys focus and concentration on that game. The game mechanics are great; the lack of a way to enforce timed games is definitely not. Remember that most if not all commercial card games eg. MTG use timed game tournaments; how else could they arrange large gaming tournaments, otherwise? And I totally agree with anyone who says that we should all have a choice as to how we want to play. So I'm certainly not voting out the existing system, I'm just voting in a new one.

DPsycho wrote:
He's looking at the suggestion from the logical standpoint that someone could "game" such a system if it weren't implemented carefully. As a professional game designer, you should understand that concern, naturally.

While that's a valid point, naturally a designer has got to accept that there are challenges to be overcome in any design. If you write them off as possibilities straight away, you're not going to get very far with finding innovative solutions to existing problems -- and this comes from my experience as a lifetime developer, also. I think the devs here have already done a good, innovative job on quite a few things, for which I applaud them. They certainly have the creativity to address issues like this.

DPsycho wrote:
Have you used the MArcomage IRC channel? I don't use it often myself, but I understand that the most active of players (those who want to get many games done quickly) will chat and set up matches there with whatever conditions they desire. Not as intuitive as a system built into the site functions, of course, but using this feature could help you to avoid games where someone departs halfway in.

That's a possibility (thanks for mentioning), but unlikely as it brings down the usability of the game as a whole like you suggest. Interface hassles can make or break a person's decision to play a game at all, even if they do like the core mechanics.

Unfortunately, you can only do so much with page refreshes. Maybe it's time to bring in a reliable JavaScript/AJAX lib such as JQuery, to improve the interface and address matters like timed games and synchronous chat? That might be more complexity than mojko & co. are willing to put into the system, however. I agree with you both (Progressor & Lord_Ornlu) about that and since this is not a commercial game it is doubly important to consider. I do think though that people would get used to using a timed system, and those who prefer that method would be more interested in focusing on one game at a time and finishing that game in a relatively short time period. I think overall it would increase the game's appeal to newcomers especially.

Lastly, because the game works a certain way at the moment doesn't mean there isn't room for new ways of playing, just as hidden games (which didn't used to exist) vs open games each use a different skillset, timed games vs untimed games would do the same. Those who like playing untimed games would be more skilled in that area and have better decks built around that playstyle, and the same applies again for timed games.

Food for thought.

I think the problem here would be how to approach such an implementation. You talk of a system that punishes a player who fails to play the game in a timely manner. A more appealing method (and one that comes up a lot in development discussions and keynote addresses) would be not to penalize for timing out, but to reward those who adhere to the guidelines.

People would only become disgruntled by falling prey to a system that forces a loss if something unavoidable occurs. However, if it's introduced instead so that they miss out on something that would have been "extra" like an experience award for never exceeding X minutes once it becomes your turn, it would probably feel a lot more fun to novices and veterans alike.

Arcturus wrote:
Maybe it's time to bring in a reliable JavaScript/AJAX lib such as JQuery, to improve the interface and address matters like timed games and synchronous chat?

I plan to completely redesign current system and use a web framework (Symfony probably). I also plan to use AJAX, since I really would like to try this out on a real project (I was only experimenting with this technology until now). Features you suggested clearly requires real-time connection and that is impossible in current system, as you pointed out. Actually, I originally planned to make a real-time card game, before MArcomage idea was even created (see Project history for more info).

I think the most important question is, if it is good to provide multiple game modes or gameplay styles. It brings a variety to the game which is nice, but it also has a negative effect - it separates players into groups which tends to specialize in a certain game mode. Players who play all game modes are rare. This separation is an issue in a small comunity like ours.

This can be observed with the hidden cards mode - when I implemented it I didn't realize that it would separtate players into such groups. This is also the reason why I suspended the long game mode, since it would further divide players into groups.

I know that some players would make use of the feature you suggested. Most players who want to play a quick game usually communicate via PM or some IM to "set up the game" and when they both agree on the quick game they start to play. With your feature this would be easier and quicker, so it makes sense. However, since it would serve only few players this feature would be placed in a low priority part of the implementation queue.

I like DPsycho's idea. I agree that rewarding players is a better approach than penalizing ;-)

Mojko wrote:

I think the most important question is, if it is good to provide multiple game modes or gameplay styles. It brings a variety to the game which is nice, but it also has a negative effect - it separates players into groups which tends to specialize in a certain game mode. Players who play all game modes are rare. This separation is an issue in a small comunity like ours.

This can be observed with the hidden cards mode - when I implemented it I didn't realize that it would separtate players into such groups. This is also the reason why I suspended the long game mode, since it would further divide players into groups.

Yes, this is all too true. This definitely constitutes a big problem.

Mojko wrote:

I know that some players would make use of the feature you suggested. Most players who want to play a quick game usually communicate via PM or some IM to "set up the game" and when they both agree on the quick game they start to play. With your feature this would be easier and quicker, so it makes sense. However, since it would serve only few players this feature would be placed in a low priority part of the implementation queue.

I think that having integrated IM would solve a lot of the problem, but not all of it. DPsycho's idea might solve the rest. It's certainly worth considering, in any case. I think that it's going to be easier said than done to give substantial awards just for playing your turns on time (enough to make it count against the overall winner's XP). The tough nut to crack here is balancing what would be a worthwhile "timeliness" award, vs what you stand to gain by taking longer on your turns and consequently winning the game through careful play. I find it hard to believe that the "timeliness" award is ever going to be worth going for if your goal is to *win*.

I must say that on the overall I don't think as timed system will be as big a problem as some might make it out to be (except in terms of splitting up players into groups), considering the reliablility of connections these days. That leaves cheating. But of course these two players are *agreeing* to a certain mode of play, and if they are aware of the possible outcomes then it's up to them to shoulder the risks. That doesn't mean that risk shouldn't be controlled, just that if something bad does happen, it's not because anyone was forced into playing a game mode that they didn't opt for in the first place. My 2 cents, anyway.

Fascinating how people always think how they can read other peoples mind from plain text. Obviously attempts to do usually fail, just as happened here.
If you'd read what I wrote, you'll notice there is absolutely no reference to 'everyone'. (Mainly to myself.)

For starters:
I opened with "I suppose some people would like this." By which I, in a way acknowledge that not everyone is a casual gamer.

When speaking about the normal games I intended the games called "normal" games in your post. (The one that drags on, as you say it.) The numbers I mention might assume 'the worst' so to say.

In 'normal' games (as you appear to define it) you don't get a counter-move quickly, so the normal game only costs the time of 1 move.
In a "quick" game you get a counter-move close to immediately, and if you play it to the end and it lasted say 30 turns, it costed the time of 30 turns, which is way more time then going through your normal games.
To me, someone who likes the PBEM-ishness of this site, with the above in the back of my head, a remark that the normal games are the ones that are time consuming, just doesn't make sense.

But if you intended something else by the terminology, I like to know what. The 'It seems odd to me' means I didn't quite get it (for the reason above) and that I like clarification.
It might be, now I think of it, that you don't really mean the time you put into the game, but the time from start to end.

So far an attempt to clarify what I said.
---
It is clear we deal with MArcomage in a very different way. I don't need to complete a game in one go, even if it started as a quick one. If my opponent needs to leave, so be it. I suppose sense of completeness has a kinda something for some players, I can wait another day for it. MArcomage is something that rarely has my complete focus. It's something I do while surfing the web for other stuff.

As for hardcore gamers, though there might be some among us, I don't think it's the majority. My prejudice for hardcore gamers is that they don't spend time to a silly fantasy card game, but want the newest graphics. (A sea of responses could prove otherwise, but the % of "looking for quick game"-icons also implies that the core of our comunity is not hardcore. ;-))

PS For further emphasis
Don't assume you can read intentions / thoughts out of plain text. If you don't really get what I'm aiming at, ask me.
I could have read

But hey -- I'm only a professional game designer. What do I know?

for pure arrogance, but who am I to say that?

Mojko wrote:
I plan to completely redesign current system and use a web framework (Symfony probably). I also plan to use AJAX, since I really would like to try this out on a real project (I was only experimenting with this technology until now). Features you suggested clearly requires real-time connection and that is impossible in current system, as you pointed out. Actually, I originally planned to make a real-time card game, before MArcomage idea was even created (see Project history for more info).

I think that's a great... wait, Symfony? Really? Come on, PHP is dead! Make it in Django. Pretty please? I'll help!

Awh... I thought it was a concept of the game only running like X rounds and then the one who is leading wins so that it's an all out kamikaze war. Because that sounds pretty awesome to me! :D

Just had an idea that would alleviate this problem considerably;
If, when creating a game you could define whether you're expecting a fast game or a slow one (similarly to your status, but only for the specific game). That way people will be able to avoid joining games they have no interest in.
I'm not against the idea of optional enforced time limits between turns to enforce this, but I think that should definitely remain optional.

Look at the thread called "game / quick game icons in hosted games"
That basically says what you say.

When you are playing someone eight time zones away your schedules obviously don't match and one of you may not be able to stick with a quick game to the end when the game goes long despite your best intentions when you started.