Idea for a game clock

[Hertz Doughnut]

Here are some thoughts on a game clock.

- In chess, when you run out of time, you lose.  However Dominion is not like chess in one a fundamental aspect: players MUST take a turn in chess for the game to progress.  One cannot simply "pass".  But in Dominion, a player can "pass"... they have the option of doing nothing (i.e. playing 0 actions, making 0 buys).  For this reason, let's think about creating a game clock around the concept that a player has X amount of time to take his turn, otherwise his turn abruptly ends... but he isn't forced to resign.  In essence, we're replacing the "Force Opponent To Resign" button with "Force Opponent To End Their Turn" button.

- The current timer is crude.  It just checks for a user response every 4 minutes.  This is easily abused.  I think a better system would be to start each user with, say, 1 minute per turn, but then to add, say, 10 seconds each time they make a decision.  (But build in a cap of, say, 4 minutes.)  This way, the more complicated turns accrue time to deal with their deck's complexity.

- Allow more time for the players' first turns, say, 5 minutes, so that they can get acquainted with the kingdom.

- The third time during a game that a player uses up all their time, the opponent now gets the "Force Opponent To Resign" button (in addition to the "Force Opponent To End Their Turn" button).

- Make the clock visible to all players and spectators.

- Timing for reactionary events (e.g. Playing Moat vs Witch or choosing which cards to discard vs Militia) would get, let's say, 30 seconds.  If time runs out, the prompt allows the opponent to make the decision for them.


Keep up the great work, SI!

Kind regards,
HD

[Jacob Marley]

Love this idea, with the exception of reactions, if the player does not make a choice, then he simply does not react.  In cases of ordering, it is done randomly.

Clock should flash or something when it is under say 15 seconds.

[Hertz Doughnut]

Love this idea, with the exception of reactions, if the player does not make a choice, then he simply does not react.  In cases of ordering, it is done randomly.

That's fine, too.

Clock should flash or something when it is under say 15 seconds.

Absolutely!

[markus]

I think there are two separate features: one is a good prevention of players deliberately playing slow. The other is having a mode that allows for fast games.

For the latter, I think it would be good to have table options that can set
a) time allowed per turn
b) added time for each action played during turn
c) time reserve that can be used to have some turns take longer than given by a) and b)

Just for informational purposes, it would also be interesting to see how much time each player took during the game.

[SkyHard]

I like these ideas, although I was sceptical at first. Of course the clock needs to be dynamic to allow long engines. Maybe as an option with absolute time per turn?

[AdamH]

Absolute time per turn seems like a really bad idea. Absolute time per game also seems like a really bad idea. It's just going to make some kingdoms unplayable and all it does is shift the way timers are abused to something different.

Maybe the type of people who would prefer timed Dominion are the same type of people who wouldn't want to play those kingdoms made unplayable in the first place. That's cool. I think it's a reason that whatever ends up being "pro games" should not be timed this way.

I'm sure that some improvements could be made to the current timeout system, but right now the proposed solution involves blacklisting people who you don't want to play with, which is a somewhat elegant solution to the only form of abuse that exists on the current system (slowrolling). Improving on that is difficult.

The main reason I don't like absolute time per turn is because it encourages people to try and frontload their thinking when they think they'll run out of time for thinking on future turns. I don't think that's what you want -- ideally you'd want the thinking to happen whenever it's necessary so the total thinking time is minimized.

A perfect system for timing people should have no effect on the actual gameplay, it just encourages people to not take any longer than they have to to make decisions. Most systems that differ from the current one will favor rushy strategies that are easy to execute; and (IMHO) most people who like Dominion enough to play it online would prefer to play more intricate decks that involve more complex and difficult decisions.

I don't know what the right answer is, I'm just saying that a compelling argument would have to be made to convince me that anything is better than the current system. I don't think there is one answer that will make everyone happy, and in that case, preserving the integrity of the game should probably be more important. The tabletop game Dominion has no time limits so you don't want to mess with that if you can help it.

[Hertz Doughnut]

Hi Adam,

I respect your opinion a lot, and am glad to hear your thoughts on this issue.  However, I was a bit confused by your post, can you help me understand the following points?

Absolute time per turn seems like a really bad idea. Absolute time per game also seems like a really bad idea.

Totally agree.  Dominion is not a good game for absolute time limits.  But, who is advocating either of those?  Only SkyHard mentioned that at all, and I think it's clear that that's secondary to "Of course the clock needs to be dynamic to allow long engines".

I don't think that's what you want -- ideally you'd want the thinking to happen whenever it's necessary so the total thinking time is minimized.

A perfect system for timing people should have no effect on the actual gameplay, it just encourages people to not take any longer than they have to to make decisions.

Totally agree.  However, I think my OP does this better than the status quo.  It's gentler to lose one's turn due to running over time than losing the whole game, no?  And in any case, it is still at the discretion of the opponent forcing the lost-turn upon you.  Just as now, players can not-click the button that pops up when they're over time.

Most systems that differ from the current one will favor rushy strategies that are easy to execute; and (IMHO) most people who like Dominion enough to play it online would prefer to play more intricate decks that involve more complex and difficult decisions.

Totally agree that the game clock should not affect intricate decks or one's inclination toward building them.  The thoughts I presented were intended to accommodate them in full.

preserving the integrity of the game should probably be more important. The tabletop game Dominion has no time limits so you don't want to mess with that if you can help it.

Definitely.  Again, I think you and I are in complete agreement the goals of a game clock.  I thought I constructed the OP with lots of attention to these issues.  Is there something there that you object to?

The current clock is already different from tabletop.  IRL, I would never sit down across the table from someone, watch him think about his Turn 28 buys for 4 minutes and 0 seconds, then instantly claim victory and leave his presence.  But I can do that at dominion.games.

I think my OP is better than the status quo because it:
- hedges slow-playing (e.g. no one can do a copper every 3 minutes and 55 seconds until their opponent resigns in frustration)
- scales dynamically to the complexity of the situation
- gives slower players a couple warnings before they lose the game for good
- shows players how much time they have left

Kind regards,
HD

[AdamH]

So I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. I've seen absolute time limits suggested elsewhere as well, and I've already made my opinion on that clear. The one thing I wouldn't agree with is your claim that your suggestion is better than the current way of doing things.

And that's not to say that I think you're wrong. I just think there are more steps to go through to show that it's better. A lot of them involve you just being more specific about your proposed solution, I think.

Mainly, something more concrete about how the time scales with respect to what's happening on your turns. When does the time increase? By how much? And then you have to show that it's not going to create situations under any circumstances that are going to cause people to choose strategies that they believe are suboptimal because of time constraints.

If that sounds impossible, umm, then I'd say it sounds about right. I don't think it's practical to show that. It may not even be possible.

It seems we both want the same things, but I'm much more skeptical on how to get them. I'm of the opinion that the real solution here is the blacklist. If someone doesn't like my pace (I'd say I'm a slower-than-average player, especially when I'm streaming) then they can blacklist me if they prefer faster games. If I'm getting slowrolled then I can blacklist that guy. Eventually most (close to all) of my matches will be with people who are OK with my pace and when I choose to stop and think. I feel like this is the best (only?) way to make everyone happy when peoples' preferences on game speed are so different.

And so I feel like any time constraint that exists should be as generous as possible to prevent the time constraint from affecting the game. In fact, I feel like the current implementation isn't generous enough! I wish there was a one-minute warning like MF had that told you that you need to do something or else the "make opponent resign?" window will appear for your opponent.

Maybe some day, far in the future, they can implement a timed variant of Dominion, but if that's what the pro leaderboard becomes then I'll be here to provide counterexamples for pretty much every timing scheme they can come up with that shows that a reasonable player would be restricted by it.

Anyways hopefully my position is more clear now :-)

[Jacob Marley]

Adam, you make a good point.  Ultimately, I am not interested in timed games as an exercise in speed dominion.  What I want is to prevent abuse.  However, blacklisting and enforcement from the developers may be a more productive way forward.

[Hertz Doughnut]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  I definitely agree that blacklisting will help with belligerent slow-players, and am all in favor of that.  But there also needs to be a mechanism that moves the game along even among well-intentioned players.  I have a brother who can take 10 minutes with each buy phase... and he's not trolling me by doing that, it's just his analysis paralysis.  Something has to keep the game moving along, it is disrespectful to your opponents' time to play that way.

And so I feel like any time constraint that exists should be as generous as possible to prevent the time constraint from affecting the game. In fact, I feel like the current implementation isn't generous enough! I wish there was a one-minute warning like MF had that told you that you need to do something or else the "make opponent resign?" window will appear for your opponent.

I am also a slower-than-average player for my skill group and empathize with this.  But no-timer (which sounds like your ideal) is open to all sorts of abuse.  I didn't log in to play a game of correspondence chess.  I mean for some people, it takes a long time for them to concretely determine which thing they want to do.  Some will obsessively review the log.  Some will keep track of cards in a spreadsheet for Keep/Palace/Orchard potential.  Some could run simulators to guide their gaining strategy.

We also have no way of knowing if our opponent is giving the game their full attention.  They could be watching TV, doing homework, cooking supper, driving a car, or who knows what else.  I once was playing from my tablet in bed and fell asleep.  A timer is necessary as a sort of contract that roughly defines how much time we strangers are going to spend together on this activity.

Maybe some day, far in the future, they can implement a timed variant of Dominion

We already have one.  It's 4-minutes-per-decision or your opponent can make you lose.  The question is whether we can create a better one.


You asked for specificity, so let me try to put this in pseudo-code-ey language.  The variables are in square brackets.

• Turn 1:
  
  • Set the active player's timer to [TurnOne] minutes

• Turn 2 and onward:
  
  • Set the active player's timer to [StartTurn] minutes
  • Every time the active player makes a decision on their turn, their timer is incremented by [ClickIncrement] seconds
  • The active player's timer has a cap of [MaxTime] minutes.  (If the increment increases above [MaxTime] the player instead gets [MaxTime].)

• Reactions (e.g. time to play a Moat, Beggars, Watchtower, Trader, etc. or discard from Goons, Militia, Vault or trash from Bishop and so on)
  
  • Set the opponent's timer to [ReactionTime] seconds

• If either player's timer runs out, a dialog box shows up on the opponent's screen asking them if they would like to force their opponent to "pass".  "Pass" is basically ending one's turn without any further actions or buys.  Same as now, a player can give grace to their opponent and not-click that option (just letting them continue their turn without interruption).

• In some situations, time could run out where a choice is mandatory.  Cases like: an opponent has to discard two cards to Militia, or the active player has to choose a gain for Hermit.  In those cases, when forced to "pass" the server chooses randomly.

• If a player has been forced to pass [StrikesAllowed] times, the opponent's dialog box now offers the options of "Force opponent to Pass" and "Force opponent to Resign".  Same as before, a player can give grace to their opponent and not-click those options (just letting them continue their turn without interruption).

• The player's clock would be visible at all times.  A bell rings when there's only 30 seconds left (and the clock turns red and flashy).

The current system could be represented as such:

[TurnOne]	4 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	4 minutes
[MaxTime]	4 minutes
[ReactionTime]	4 minutes
[StrikesAllowed]	0

But if we simply want to hedge slow-playing of coppers, we could use this:

[TurnOne]	4 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	10 seconds
[MaxTime]	4 minutes
[ReactionTime]	4 minutes
[StrikesAllowed]	0

That simple change would keep the system essentially as is... that players basically have 4 minutes to think on the tough decisions, but a troll can't drag out a 3-copper hand for 12 minutes.


Now, let's add in some more time for those complicated engine turns:

[TurnOne]	4 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	10 seconds
[MaxTime]	8 minutes
[ReactionTime]	4 minutes
[StrikesAllowed]	0

And I think it would be nice to give players a couple warnings, before forcing them to resign outright:

[TurnOne]	4 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	10 seconds
[MaxTime]	8 minutes
[ReactionTime]	4 minutes
[StrikesAllowed]	2

I don't think reactions need a full 4 minutes.  One should be sufficient.

[TurnOne]	4 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	10 seconds
[MaxTime]	8 minutes
[ReactionTime]	1 minute
[StrikesAllowed]	2

And finally, let's take an extra couple minutes at the beginning of the game to get acquainted with the kingdom.

[TurnOne]	6 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	10 seconds
[MaxTime]	8 minutes
[ReactionTime]	1 minute
[StrikesAllowed]	2

So here's the side-by-side comparison of the status quo VS the Hertz_Doughnut less-rushed and less-abused gentlemen's sport of kings.

-	Current	Hertz_Doughnut
[TurnOne]	4 minutes	6 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	4 minutes	10 seconds
[MaxTime]	4 minutes	8 minutes
[ReactionTime]	4 minutes	1 minute
[StrikesAllowed]	0	2

Point being that these are variables.  We start with something reasonable and gauge its impact.  What variables would you use in this schema?

Kind regards,
HD

[AdamH]

So yeah this seems pretty good. You're being more generous than the current implementation in almost every case so I will not complain about a lot of it. I can probably make decent arguments for a couple of things, though.

Why should there be a Max time? If the system works properly, this is just going to take away time from people that they otherwise would have had if they had acted slower. The existence of a max time can only encourage people to slowplay easier decisions if they're going to run into their max time, so they can front-load their thinking. I really think any working timing scheme would not have a max time to discourage this type of behavior. Yes, the intent is to reduce the amount of abuse that can happen but I think it just shifts the type of abuse possible to something else.

As for tweaking the numbers, well I feel like all kinds of people are going to disagree on what the appropriate numbers are because people prefer different paces of play. I imagine there being lots of sets of numbers for different styles of play. Blitz mode which nearly guarantees that most games are over within 5 or 10 minutes or something, then "normal" mode, then "slow" mode.

I'm not going to pretend that I can argue one way or the other on what these numbers should be without actually playing several games (probably on the order of 55 games or so). In order to be happy with a set of numbers, I think a variety of people would have to play with a variety of timing configurations on a variety of kingdoms and they would gradually hone in on what's desired.

I still think that until that kind of testing is performed, it's best to err on the side of being too generous. The system as it is, with a blacklist, is probably fine. The most important feature is that when I'm playing with my friends and chatting with them on Skype or in the game chat, they can choose to not kick me when I'm taking a while on a certain decision.

[TheDetour]

I don't know if a clock is needed (though I think the idea could be kind of fun as a variant kind of playstyle), I do know that the turn timer is FAR too high now.  There's no reason for a turn to take four minutes at the start of the game on their first turn.  It is boring and the idea is simply to earn wins by boring your opponent to death.

The timer should be shortened DRASTICALLY.

[AdamH]

There are plenty of reasons why the first turn of the game should take longer than 4 minutes that aren't just abuse. The current timer isn't generous enough IMHO.

If you honestly feel that way, that nobody could possibly want that much time on any turn, ever; I would encourage you to slow down your play and think critically about more of the actions you take. I imagine you would get much better at the game, it worked that way for me.

And if you don't want to do that, or you try it and see no benefit, then the answer for you is to blacklist people who don't play fast enough for you. The answer is not to impose a time limit that would restrict people like me who sometimes want to be more deliberate at certain points in the game.

It's not like I take 4 minutes to make every single decision in the game, but sometimes I want to stop and think carefully about something and yes, it can take longer than 4 minutes.

[TheDetour]

I cannot fathom how a first turn would ever require four minutes, even if a player is looking over cards they have never seen before... even if all ten cards are new to them.  I have played probably 100+ games between Make Fun, Shuffle It and in real life.  Even if a decision required multiple minutes on a turn, tens of decisions are made in certain Kingdom setups.  Not every decision should be allotted four minutes or even one minute.  Certainly some decisions require more careful calculation than others, but not that long... and not every decision.  The timer is abused far more often than it is used legitimately.

I don't have account permissions to blacklist players.  I certainly would if I could.

But... I forgot... I'm just a newb who doesn't know what he's talking about.  So forget I said anything.  I'd rather someone from Si with an open mind read it instead anyway.

[Donald X.]

I cannot fathom how a first turn would ever require four minutes

I confirm that a first turn can take more than four minutes, for players who are not trying to make anyone mad or anything. Who do not have to read the cards even, who are just thinking.

My first thought on the game clock topic is, what do other games do, is there some good solution people have found that's been put to the test already.

After that, there are two situations here: people who play slowly and people trying to get you to resign. People who play slowly, the way to detect that is to average game lengths, for matched-with-strangers games only (if you're playing with friends you may be more likely to e.g. ask them to hold on while you take a phone call), and allow that number as a matching criteria. Some people are slow and I mean ideally they get to play however slowly they want, but if you don't want to play against them it would be nice if you didn't have to.

For the evil people trying to get you to resign by playing slowly, the question is, what best detects this behavior. We can fall back on, humans can detect this behavior, and report it, and personal-blacklist those players, and they can be banned for repeated offenses. It would be nice to do better, if somehow the day comes when there aren't more important things to work on. I guess a thing is, if there's a good algorithm for identifying this behavior, it may be better to not make it public.