Have a button as an option to chose setbased. if button is not selected then single game system as normal. If button is selected then contract options pop up.
Contract Options; > if contract is selected, the table auto matically becomes named for example (Karlw vs Zoeyk). and the table remains open until either the set is completed or the time limit has expired.
> Time dead line to complete second game of the set by.
> Max time for completion could be 7 days, or optionally less,..minimum 2 hours from starting of game one should the calendar not be used.
> A calendar of the week, select day(s) and time(s) in 1 hour block(s) for a re-meeting,
> time zone selection available. (PST,..EST,..for examples) should either A. both players agree that they wish to finish later on the agreed date and time, or B. one of the players gets disconnected due to internet connection problems.
> in the final hour block of the scheduled re-meet, should a single player be on the named table waiting for 45 minutes with in the one hour block, and the other doesn't show, then the player who was waiting takes the win of game two. or has the option to cancel set.
> the table owner sets the contract options, then the guest reviews and either excepts the terms of the agreement or declines.
> set ditcher/glitch fix if the player is on the table in the last hour block, and the other player comes on the table too so as not to time out, to fix the problem of one of the players not pushing play in an attempt to glitch the set, the game will auto matically start a timer of when the game two starts,..60 seconds. at the end of 60 seconds the game starts, and if one disconnects, they have 7 minutes to return or the opponent gets the standard options of cancel force resign resign ext...
> Note; that the game two can start at any time should the players chose before the time limit expires, they are not limited to the one hour time blocks that are pre agreed upon for meeting, but when its not a meeting time, the players must push play manually to start the game. and only the last hour block agreed upon is judged by the system for set ditchers or ( no shows) in order to award points to those who showed up in time and waited the 45 required minutes with in the one hour block.
> if neither shows up with in the last hour block to complete a full (and not consecutive time, "Tallied time" due to connect problems they might encounter) 45 minute waiting time then the set is canceled.
Feel free of course to critique, this is just a first draft idea. it may need more options, it may need options replaced,..or it may need to be simplified down to much less.
perhaps there is another proposal that is more simplistic and just as logical if not more logical that can be easier for dweebo to script as well.
~Zoey
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
My experience in situations like these where a set of rules/scoring/whatever is being turned out for a new one, its best to keep things very simple to begin with and then add conditions, qualifications, etc. a la carte on an as needed basis as the system's strengths and weaknesses are revealed through useage. I think Peter's got the set ditcher base covered with a profile note being added to the effect that player 'x' had ditched say 10 games out of the 100 sets they've completed at dsg (coincidentally this is what they do at Yahoo! Pool which has many many thousands of players and it can be a real issue....and it seems to work pretty well).....at this point you can decide wether to play someone that for whatever reason takes off before 10% of their sets are complete. I seem to recall also that Peter had mentioned a reminder notice to be pinned to a players login notifying them that they have unfinished business to settle if they had ditched a set.....
I would like to see the idea that causes the least code modification for Peter's sake. haha I wonder what Peter would say.
I posted in the leaderboard thread about creating 2 rooms, one for Serious Players that only allowed Set Based games, the other for players that Play for Fun.
This (this implying zoey's idea lol) might be a better idea and easier to code. Just like in Yahoo Pool, the Table Creator can choose the games options and whoever chooses can enter the table and play with the proposed options. Details to be examined, etc...
Edited to add "(this implying zoey's idea lol)"
Message was edited by: partica at Sep 18, 2008 1:08 AM
Wouldn't 2 rooms be a coding nightmare? I get the impression that par of the reason that change has been slow to come is because the 2 systems aren't compatible......am I wrong on this?
Dependent upon how Peter has the code written, it might be easier with the two room option, because the games would be forced to setbased, and the rating system could start from there, all fresh and everything, just get recorded in a different database table. Who knows? LOL
I agree with redsky on this one. Keep it simple. What zoey describes might work, but it is complicated to code, and complicated to understand.
When thinking about sets long ago, I think I decided it didn't make sense to allow 2 ratings systems at the same time (set-based on non-set-based).
So, everyone would get switched to set-based ratings. If you don't care about ratings, play unrated games which don't have to be in sets.
Having 2 game rooms could of course be done but at this point I don't think it makes sense for the reasons given (not enough peeps for one room!)
As far as player's leaving after game 1 of the set, I can see it being nice to allow the second game to be completed at a later date, but that would be much more work to code. I know I've had to leave in the middle of a set before so might be a feature we need completed before switching to set-based ratings. Or maybe it could be something we live without in the beginning.
How would the ratings switch be accomplished? I am rated whatever playing willy nilly but mostly in sets, would it be recalculated or would we just start from where we are at and the new set based ratings be applied?
I think ratings should just stay where they are if we switch to set-based ratings.
Even if it were possible to go back and analyze all games played to find sets of games and figure out what the ratings "should" be, that does not seem like a good idea to me. Everyone has been playing to improve their ratings under the current system, not a set-based system. So changing the rules retroactively doesn't seem fair.
As you all know by now I'm sure, I am a big fan of set-based Pente. Because of the inherant advantage to one player or the other that cannot be eliminated with rule changes, playing a set (or many sets) is the only "fair" way to play a Pente match. This has become "convention" at DSG where players generally play a set without the software actually requiring it. But there are a few serious problems with this:
First, most new / casual players do not even know that this is expected here and are met with bad feelings immediately after "ditching" a set. Why would a new player want to come back when people are already angry with them for a reason that they do not even understand?
Second, it leads to an inaccurate and unfair rating system, especially for expert players in several ways which I have discussed in other threads (for example, it's mathematically better to start off as P2 than P1, unless the other player ditches). These inadequacies have historically resulted in the top players not wanting to play many games any more, if any.
Third, general bad feelings. How often have you heard "well I happen to be rated higher than you today, so here, take my points" -- meaning, hey, even if the expected result of a split set occurs I will lose points which sucks but oh well let's play anyway. Or how about this? "No, you are rated too low compared to me, I'm not gonna give away that many points".
So now we have a situation where a site (that wants to be in growth mode) has "regulars" who don't want to play and "new" players who don't want to stay. And many other players playing while grumbling under their breath. To me, this is a recipe for failure.
The solution, obviously, is for the software to require set-based play, at least in rated games. However, the above solution proposed by zoeyk is poor in my opinion.
First, the whole idea of adjourning after half-a-set and coming back several days later to finish it is, well, terrible. The most obvious reason is that things come up and one party may not be able to come back at an agreed upon time -- this is of course a site where we come to play when the mood strikes us and when we happen to have some free time with nothing else to do. So what if this party actually wanted to complete the set on the day but the other said they wanted to come back later? Now points are lost and feelings are hurt and everyone is generally unhappy. Scrap this idea completely.
The correct solution is actually quite simple. When the "rated" checkmark is checked, the software requires the set to be completed all at once. Some minor visual cues should be added to the game room, such as "Game 1 of 2" and "your seats have been switched automatically, prepare yourself to begin Game 2 of 2" just so that people don't actually forget and take off prematurely. (By the way, Dweebo, seat switching is STILL not completely accurate in D-Pente). Game play would be virtually identical to how it works now, complete with the normal Resign, Cancel, Force Resignation dialog that appears when someone ditches. The only minor changes I'd make are that when one player presses Play to begin Game 2, they get that same dialog -- i.e. the other player can take up to 7 minutes (for a bathroom break perhaps?) to begin. (On a tangent here, it might make sense for this 7 minute dialog to have memory -- if a person disconnects for a second time, maybe it should start the timer from where they last left off ... this would prevent a possible abuse that I actually haven't seen in a long time anyway, but the potential is there.)
Now, the real question is, how should all this be handled behind the scenes? I agree with dweebo that if this change were to be put into effect, all existing ratings should just transfer over. The other question is should set-based play somehow be optional for rated games? My answer is a resounding NO. That would mess with the rating system even worse than if nothing were done at all. IF you really wanted to make it optional, I would say that it would actually have to be a seperate GAME TYPE (with a seperate rating) for every single game type, effectively doubling the number of game types tracked. Nightmare! LOL No, all game types should simply be switched over to set-based play, and if someone wants to play a single game for whatever reason, they can always play unrated.
The real issue is that this would really change how things are stored in the database, and how database search results would look. When you search for a certain player's wins, are you talking about a game or a set? Or how about just the running list of most recently played games? Should this change to reflect grouping the games of a set together and somehow showing the result of the set? Or not? Remember a set result can now include a draw, so everyone's W/L record would now be a W/L/D record. (A draw of a single game, which should never happen, I would change to just be unrecorded and the game would have to be "replayed"). Remember, a set resulting in a draw should result in NO CHANGE to either player's rating.
Anyway, I hope this made sense. Don't implement contract options, don't even allow set-based play to be optional. DO implement set-based play ASAP and save your site! It's that important.
Make rated set-based, so anyone interested in furthering their rating has to play a set. Make sure to explain why clearly, so new players can understand the reasoning behind it.
