What do you think is the minimum amount of information you could display for an auto match type to satisfy 90% of people. Assuming there is always a custom type available as well.
Personally, I don’t think the copying is about functionality at all. The icon in the background for automatch doesn’t do anything haha.
I dont think copying/borrowing is bad (assuming it’s done legally). I do think we should ask ourselves which things are useful and which things are simply “what Lichess does”. I think someone mentioned above, Bullet doesn’t even exist here. IMO it would be a mistake to break up the automatch fields into smaller groups. (How long does it take to get a game with only 2 options??)
On the other hand, I think putting automatch front and center is a great idea and would be a massive improvement to OGS!
2 Likes
Lichess is licensed under AGPL3, meaning that its source code is free to use. Personally, if it works well for them I see no reason not to consider using it.
However, I much more agree with this idea. With as small a user-base as OGS has, splitting people into smaller categories is not going to help matchmaking times. I think the only way this would be a positive change is if people can use this layout if they want s specific type of game, then others can simply use automatch to pick from a broader spectrum of games.
1 Like
I agree that a direct copy doesn’t take into account user needs. I just thought it was a good starting point for discussion. Along those lines, what are your suggestions for what quick play buttons are needed?
1 Like
Well, as @teapoweredrobot mentioned, we don’t actually have only 2 options. And, although this is just based on my own anecdotal observations and speculation, there are probably a lot of people that would use automatch if it satisfied their purposes, such as finding a slow-paced game or a very fast blitz game.
I like the ones we have now (Live Blitz Correspondence). Probably a controversial opinion is that we should merge Live and Blitz too, at least until Automatch gets quicker.
If this is true, I think we should reduce the options. I know that’s not a popular opinion, but I think the added options are creating a reverse-network effect (people don’t use automatch because it’s hard to get a game, it’s hard to get a game because people don’t use automatch)
I don’t think it’s about displaying information. It’s about the minimum functions that
but why 90%? And what do you mean by satisfy?
How about “tolerable for 51%” 
I have in mind a new user (maybe a beginner but maybe not) who turns up. They can just click and get a game. And even not a new user might like not to have the think too much about settings and stuff and just play. And this might become a virtuous circle of so many people playing this type of “normal” game that anyone can get a game anytime and ranking system is lovely, everyone is used to handicap, pigs take to the sky, etc etc
2 Likes
Oh I bet we can fit at least one standard deviation in there… 68%? 
Edit: also I absolutely agree we should be aiming for “tolerable”, at least for automatch
1 Like
My prediction is that if we do this, automatch might actually get slower.
Some of the blitzers will start using the newly unified Live button, which will cause both them and their opponent to be dissatisfied with the game, which will cause many of them to stop using automatch, because now it’s even more unpredictable what kind of opponent they will find.
Instead of forcing everyone to play slightly unsatisfactory games, I think the secret to making automatch successful might be to give them a better guarantee that the games they do find will be with opponents that want the same kind of game.
What about this idea then? The goal being less options to get players into a game faster. Also I added the chat to the right side instead of the graph since I’m not sure if anyone even uses that. But if people are chatting this give the user something to do while waiting on a game.
5 Likes
We could allow multiple selection inducing a validation process.
3 Likes
@Groin
I think the idea might work, but only if we find a way to communicate clearly the possibility through the GUI
Validate button or just an indicator switching between “multiple choice possible” and “curently searching a game”.
Besides each button should have a clear difference between its 2 positions
Maybe no color better when not selected.
The color it to draw the user’s attention to the play buttons. It’s usually recommended in design.
But here there is no button to get a specific attention so i still think empty of color is better.
By the way, I think at this point the real question is more about analyzing some data to see if there is interest in more automatch options, and even more so, which automatch options could be removed without annoying too many people.
So the two questions would be:
- Do many people create custom matches for particularly slow or fast matches?
- Among automatch users, how many use each non-default option currently?
Edit: no offense meant to @Clossius1. I obviously like the idea, but any such proposal is a very long-term game in the current OGS situation (there are many bugs to fix and new urgent ones keep popping up occasionally).
Like, the dev/owner of OGS has declared several months ago that his main priority was improving the newcomer experience. From the fact that as far as I can’t tell nothing has changed in that regard, I’m not optimistic for any other proposal in the short term.
So the only way, if we realistically want something to happen, is to play the long game, gather data to make sure what we’re doing makes sense, and formulate a very clear proposal.
So while I’m the first one who enjoys daydreaming about cool GUIs, it’s kinda like starting the development of a videogame by drawing the graphics instead of thinking about how the game’s algorithms need to work 
2 Likes
Basic data is what is the pool of automatch running now at any time
Dividing 12 by 5 instead of 2 or 3 (or 60 in a more optimist count) is my first worry even if a larger offer could attract more maybe.