I love playing serious games in real life tournaments or with friends, but I miss them in the AST* offers.
I find the live settings of AST to be quite too blitzy: the 10 mn are quick finished and then with my somewhat slow connection, I cannot afford that much thinking with the 30s byo yomi if I want to avoid risks of timeout.
I would enjoy let say 20mn, 5*45s byo yomi
Is it something that some players would enjoy too?
Please answer here, comments will be appreciated too:
I would like more time (please comment)
I like this time setting
I like the idea but with another time system (which?)
I rarely play on live/blitz sitewide tournaments anymore, but for live i would prefer at least EGF C class time settings, for example 20min+5s/move fischer (which currently isnt supporter on OGS.) I personally like fischer timing more than byo-yomi, because with fischer i can always push some more time on my clock by playing some quick sequence, which makes me feel that i can have some control of my clock. With byo-yomi i will always eventually fall into my last byo-yomi, and then i’m just struggling with constant time pressure which negatively impacts my playing.
Thanks for your input.
I guess requesting a new format of time, would sadly put far away the suggestion in itself on the waiting list of OGS.
But maybe just a customized Fisher time would do the trick? For myself a 5s/move is too much a burden with low quality connection.
For me your suggestion is too slow. With 45s byo-yomi some rounds will last more than 1h30, and players finishing first can be waiting very long. One drawback of automatic site tournaments is that you do not know how many rounds will be played; even with just 3 rounds you can see the problem.
Already I feel that the slower tournaments in particular do not have enough players and this would make things worse. I think this time setting would be good for exceptional event like week-end special tournament, not for everyday.
Well most of games would run on 1hr a few 1hr30. It’s exactly what I would like just same as a respectful and friendly game in real life.
In a bit too serious tournaments (joking), max time is over 2hrs, some professionals recommend amateurs to play at most in 1hr30.
That could be one time every week, may last on one or two days may start each game at a fixed time so players can organize themselves.
Longer time setting yet may have less candidates, but at the same time they may not offer enough time for the slower players. And at opposite side correspondence games have the biggest success.
There is a huge difference with correspondance and real-life tournaments. In real life tournament you wait between games by chatting with friends and having a coffee. In correspondance you do not have to wait, the next game will come someday.
In online live tournament you have to wait in front on your screen for the last game to finish and the last players go through the whole endgame at 45s/move, but you can’t do anything else because one player might resign and your game starts immediatly. For me this is torture.
In my opinion, the only good way to have slower tournaments is to fix the number of rounds and starting time for each round in advance, before the beginning of the tournament (like an offline tournament). If you finish early, you can set an alarm and come back for your game. But this is not how OGS tournaments work.
That could be a good idea, having OGS make a reasonable prediction of how long a game could take, and set the next round to start at that time. Maybe add in an option that if all games finish early you could opt in to start the next round immediately?
Another idea might be to pair up the players for the next round but give them some option to agree on a start day/time. I’m imagining like a mini interface/chat command or something where you have to pick a time in the next couple of days (in the next week?) where one player suggests a time, another player accepts or suggests another time etc. Or you just have the option to withdraw if you can’t find a time (not resign as in a loss).
I expect that you’ll get people to sign up for the first round who probably don’t have the time to play all of the rounds. So if they win their first round they might not be able to commit to another hour long game an hour/half hour from the end of their game.
It depends on whether you’re ok with having some people drop out after the first round. If you happen to want to finish said sitewide tournament with in theory the most players playing on as far as possible, allowing an option to schedule the game would work better. There’s no reason that within this version you could just schedule your game immediately or say in half an hour from a finished game. It’d still be a live game if the tournament is live, but just at the convenience of the players.
Eg, the last two live sitewide tournaments I can see 1 and 2, in 1 it starts with seven players, then drops to five in round 2, four in rounds 3 and 4.
Similarly in 2, it starts with seven players, then drops to six in round 2, five in round 3 and four in round 4. I guess it’s not clear for the reasons of timeouts/resignations. I’m sure your point about people finishing a game, walking away from the computer or doing something else and not noticing a round starting could high on the list of reasons.
Sure, I do appreciate your input.
Still I think a fixed schedule is more fitted to long time games, I can’t ask players to wait in case of the round start sooner, I think it’s not really an advantage to spare some minutes on the day if you pass them checking and waiting the next round.
Anyway I m thinking already to have in a near future a test tournament to fix everything well and see if some more people would come in. Of course if someone do it before instead of me, that would be awesome too.
Now, following the idea to replicate a real life tournament, it comes about who can participate and we need some guaranty of fairness and being serious games.
Not using analysis tools and external help is a prerequisite. Registering at the correct level too.
We could ask to have not only a level on OGS but a certain quantity of games played around the level of registration (20?). We could accept less games, or even provisional for players with a real life rating, although it may be difficult to prove that the player is the player.