Suggestion: Turn sequence optimisation

[Escalus]

It seems to me that there is a better way of deciding the order of play in sequential games. As it stands, it is the order that players join the game that decides the sequence. The first to play from that sequence is chosen at random. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Concise description:

• Turn sequence could be decided first by time zone and then by joining order.

Specifics:

• Once the game is initiated, players could be re-ordered below the initiator from the nearest to the west to the furthest to the west. Eg. Europe-USA-China. The starting player remains random.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• In theory sequential games will go more quickly as every player (in a different time zone) will have a better chance of being offered their turn before bedtime.

If we don't play "round the table" any more, we could at least play round the world.

Escalus

[The Neon Peon]

Time zones are not a bad idea... put everyone in order of time zones then choose the starting player at random... I like it. Would be perfect for 8 player games especially, since they would go by a ton faster.

By the way, welcome to conquerclub. And congratulations on using the form correctly, you would be surprised how many people have been at the site for more than a year and still can't get it right.

[Blinkadyblink]

Once the game is initiated, players could be re-ordered below the initiator from the nearest to the west to the furthest to the west. Eg. Europe-USA-China.

Going from nearest to the west to furthest from the west is going west to east, but going from Europe to USA to China is going east to west . I think that for the idea to work it would have to be east to west.

[The Neon Peon]

Nope, he has it right. China is 8 or so hours ahead of Europe, than Europe is 7 hours ahead of the U.S. which means that if Europe starts, that will be the order, rather than having it go the opposite direction and take up loads of time. It does go from east to west, except the starting person does not have to be farthest east. Except he did get it backwards in the first post.

So, player who is closest to the east is first, player who lives farthest west is last on the game list. Starting player is chosen randomly.

[hecter]

Interesting, and certainly clever, but I'm going to have to say no... Besides the impact this would have on team games, it would be really quite confusing and probably really wouldn't solve that much, as we all check our games at different times. Some check in the mornings, before it's off to work, others check at work, plenty more check after work, some check at night after the kids have been put to sleep. See what I mean? The person in the US who checks his games at noon, while at work, would check his games before the guy in the UK who checks his games at 8, after supper and television.

[THE ARMY]

I am so confused

[Jeff Hardy]

a new recruit making a suggestion...
a bit suspicious...

the idea isnt bad but would be a lot of wprk and wouldnt improve the site that much

[Escalus]

Sorry for appearing suspicious.

Time zones are confusing. For those of us who've had to struggle with them (multi-continent conference calls are the usual problem) they become less confusing because there is usually only one way to deal with them. People in the US have to get up before dawn, people in Europe sit in the office as usual and the Asians stay up late.

In the game context, where ever you happen to be (there is no such thing as furthest east or west - they are relative terms), the guy sat to the west of you has been awake for less time. It is sequence that matters. Europe-USA-China is the same sequence as China-Europe-USA. The latter fits more neatly with the British GMT based conception of East to West.

I realise that this is work to implement. You would have to re-order the player list in the GUI at the start of the game to stop it being confusing. There is certainly a benefit though: Right now I'm waiting for a couple of Europeans to have their turn (perhaps before they go to bed at 4.00 AM my time) and the guy who is following me is in bed in the USA by the time I've taken my turn at lunch tomorrow (midnight for him/her).

Obviously I'm not the person who can decide if the work is worth the payback. Perhaps one of the probability gurus in the community could quantify the benefit. I'll keep playing anyhow.

Great site - keep up the good work.



Escalus
KL - Malaysia

[MrBenn]

I'm not convinced this idea would work - as hecter said, people make their moves at the best time for them, not the best time for everybody else.

I dip in and out of CC all day (workload permitting) and night, but don't always play my next available game... I might want to discuss a move with a teammate, or might need some time to think carefully about a crucial move in a tournament game, or I could be playing a new map that I need more time to understand how to play...

[Brian_c_m]

Sure, the times that people login and play their turns does vary from person to person. I generally play 07:00 -08:00 and 17:00 - 18:00. But if you took the community in general, we all play the majority of our games in the 14-16 hours of average day time... Leaving opponents waiting for 8-10 hours while we're sleeping. If the list was re-shuffled farthest-east to farthest-west, you'd definitely optimise gameplay which will improve player satisfaction.

Personally, I think this is an excellent idea. Especially if you look at 8 player sequential.... Those often have rounds spanning 3 days or more. Teams games wouldn't be affected since you would arrange player order only after teams are assigned. ie. team 1, east - west. team 2, east to west. (Unless of course if people are strategizing with their play order included.)

Do a quick hypothetical 8 player with 3 western, 3 central and 2 eastern. If by the time a players game becomes active it's 02:00 - 04:00 there's no way the average player will sign in for atleast another 3 - 4 hours. If you saved a couple hours for 3 separate players you've already reduced the round length by approx. 12 hours.

The only problem with shuffling the list that I can see would be that you affect anyone supersticious. P1 = red and for someone who gets re-assigned P3 = Blue, heaven forbid that they loss the game because they were the wrong color. lol.

Jokes aside, Good idea!! Maybe implement later on together with the choosing your color...