If you have the idea that maybe you could replace players on the fly after the first two moves, that will be a problem for the already selected Handicap
Back on the individual confirm button.
2 main advantages in a somewhat long waiting time.
1: flexibility. Players go in, go out until the start, without having to relaunch multiple times a rengo offer (which mean that each time the most motivated will have to register again ). Switching places between teams is easier too.
2: contract ready to run. You sign it. Commitment improved at the start. Makes clear that the organization is finished and you can no more just leave like that.
Not really. One person may accept and then AFK because the others are taking too long.
Taking inspiration from online videogames which face this issue, an ideal solution when matchmaking with several strangers would be:
Players accept the challenge one by one;
Once all the spots are filled-in, each player is asked to confirm he’s ready before the game starts, and has 10s to do so;
If at least one player does not confirm, then the game doesn’t start and such player is kicked-out, so that the challenge may be accepted by somebody else.
Now I appreciate this might be quite complicated to implement, it’s just an idea… Personally I wouldn’t see it as a requirement for a first implementation, although it’s really for @gozart to define his expectations.
About handicap it would be nice to have the choices between
NoOGS players like it usually
Automatic (calculated by average of levels of each team) Default setting, fair games
Fixed manually by the creator himself (For special request like handicap -1) This last may be more difficult because it’s better if the owner can change it multiple times during the constitution of the teams. less crucial can be postponed for later
Yes, I think this is a good vision for how it should work. The “initial implementation” that’s proposed is a step along the way - it would just need the “kicking out” added.
Just because you like the product (that happened because of hard work, good ideas and the scrapping of bad ideas or implementations) so much that you’ll pay to support the creator(s)/maintainer(s) doesn’t mean you make for a good project manager.
That’s why donations/subscriptions are gestures of support, not the purchase of a service.
On topic: Rengo is a fringe feature for a fringe group. Even on servers that implemented the feature (KGS,IGS,VGS) it is not even remotely popular.
This is one of the challenges of software in general: the amount of work you have to do simply to “quote” it … by the time you know that it’s feasible and what the effort will be, you’ve done a lot of it just in exploration!
Clarification: the off-topic part of my post deals with yebellz’ suggestion of giving voting power to supporters, which clearly has nothing to do with rengo.
The on-topic part deals with considerations regarding rengo.
But fair point, I largely ignore the title because it contains a foregone conclusion (two actually) - “bounties are good”, “implementing rengo is good”. I disagree with the former postulate and I doubt the second is much of an urgent issue.
It’s true that bounties seem a pretty questionable prospect in general.
You only have to think about “so what happens now, if the bounty-sponsor pulls out, after generating lots of enthusiasm?” to see one of the paths that lead to tears.
Then “what if anoek doesn’t accept the pull request for rengo after all of that?” leads to another.
etc etc.
I guess we’ll see… maybe this episode will be a model that corrects the thinking
It’s also sweetened motivation. Sometimes the talent exists but with volunteers we typically work on what we’re interested in… A little money can certainly expand our interests.
If an extra “afk-check” is too difficult, I’d say it’s not required. So players just attempt to “join” the creator’s game when they spot it. But they should probably get a “rejected” message if the game creator doesn’t accept their join attempt? So they should get feedback whether their join-attempt was accepted or not, but after that initial thing, no further afk-check is needed before the game creator actually starts the game after all players have assembled?
As long as players can use the chat, it’s fine if one player can just resign for his team. It’d be rude not to ask, but I’d say it’s not required that really all participants press a resign-button in order for a team to actually resign.
Unranked, yes. I don’t think there is any server that actually has a Rengo-rank. Seems like a just-for-fun extra feature that isn’t really required.
Time system should be anything that otherwise is allowed on OGS too I guess, be it 10s per move or days per move.
The game creator should be the one who puts participants into the specific team slots, yes.
Regarding handicap, the game creator should have the option to set handicap stones and komi according to his wishes. I’ve actually never heard of automatically calculating rengo-handicaps…
I agree that (for English speakers) Pair Go will be more universally understandable. And there’s already precedent for preferring a “pure English” variant: Puzzles is not called Tsumego.
(Of course Joseki is not called Opening Corner Patterns, but that would be ridiculous )
EDIT: One other data point: Pandanet calls it Pair Go
The only thing I have against “Pair Go” is that Pair Go® has this weird gender rule where every team has to be a man/woman pair and the woman has to go first
I assume that won’t be terribly relevant, just a weird thing I read while checking out the Sensei’s article, and confirmed elsewhere.
The specific term “Pair Go” is usually used when referring to games where each team consists of one female and one male player. The more general form, where players can be of any gender, is usually referred to as Rengo. The rules are the same, however…"
Quoted on the AGA page:
Pair Go®, in which a man and a woman play alternate moves on the same side, is a relatively new way of enjoying Go.
EDIT: Beyond the gender thing, would registered trademark be an issue?
/j
)
