My current thinking is that it should be like this:
(*) Standard Go
[ ] Unranked
[ ] Private
( ) Casual Rengo
( ) Strict Rengo
A radio between three game-type/rules supported, plus options that appear for Standard Go, when it is selected.
I went to implement this, but found it was actually too hard for my feeble brain: the logic of that component is legendarily convoluted … and includes demos and forked game logic. The risk of messing with it and breaking some combination is too high!
Well that’s the point. If there is no such thing as “Ranked rengo”, then you don’t need the user to choose between “Ranked” and “Unranked” when starting a rengo.
Which is why I insist. Those are four mutually-exclusive options.
You appear to be unhappy because the option I list as “Unranked” should be “Unranked 1vs1” instead to make it clear it’s not rengo, but I think just “Unranked” is clear enough.
If “Standard Go” is a category, so should Reno.
a) Strict and Casual are just timeout rule flavours of the broader Reno.
b) I think a single option on the subcategory would be enough. Either “Strict” yes/no, or “Casual” yes/no.
Private games are always unranked, so should they be a subcategory of “Unranked”? It increases nesting, but would remove the dependency on an other option on the same level.
Also: Is private Rengo a thing?
This is my mockup variant:
(*) Standard Go
[ ] Unranked
[ ] Private
( ) Rengo
[ ] Strict/Casual (Whatever is not the default)
PS: Thank you for taking a look at the Challenge modal.
As rengo is a fringe use case, it shouldn’t take up too much screen and thus brain space of a user on the create game dialog. So 2 items “Casual Rengo” and “Strict Rengo” is too much. “WTF is rengo and why do I need to think about it” says random Joe who just wants to play a normal game without expending a lot of mental effort navigating the cockpit of doom.