Game Clock Application Survey

[dupouletjeudi]

Hi!

I’m currently at the idea stage for a new game clock application that I want to develop.

I’m doing some research on the subject and I would like your opinions on the matter.

Here is the link to a survey that I conceived: https://goo.gl/forms/NklyRpY2i8tZWrMK2

It should take about 5-10 minutes.

Thanks for your attention!

[EdLee]

Did it. Good luck!

[Waylon]

The most general time control considerations I know can be found on the Arimaa website.
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/learn/matchRules.html

[yakcyll]

I gotta be nitpicky here a bit: on the pages where you get to choose a level of preference, 'I expect it' feels stronger than 'I like it'; defying an expectation would have a stronger response than defying a preference. I'm also curious if the answers in the mirrored questions will be different than simple axial opposites of the answers in the original ones. Other than that, solid questions; hope the information will be useful.

[Tryss]

Yeah, I would have used a scale closer to this :

It's mandatory - It's an usefull feature - It's nice, but optional - No opinion - I dislike it - It shouldn't exist

[EdLee]

Code: Select all

  0    .    .    n/2    .    .     N
Hate           neutral         Must-have

[sybob]

Done.
Good luck!
If I can be of assistance (translations, functions, testing, etc.), please let me know.

[Bonobo]

Done.

And you might want to look at TimeSqueezer, a nice online game clock: http://www.timesqueezer.de/index_31.htm

[Charlie]

The most general time control considerations I know can be found on the Arimaa website.
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/learn/matchRules.html

I am not entirely sure that I agree with those goals as set out by Arimaa -- particularly the one right at the top of their list about boring the spectators. In my opinion, while maintaining spectator interest is nice, it is entirely irrelevant when designing time controls.

Keep it simple. Time controls serve exactly one purpose: sharing an amount of available time equally and fairly between players. How those players choose to use that time is up to them. It is their game, they are not entertainers for a crowd.

EDIT: My statement could be interpreted as an outright declaration that absolute-time is the only worthy time control. I do not believe that it is but I'd argue against absolute-time because I think humans (particularly amateurs) are bad at managing absolute-time and need some sort of forgiving overtime mechanism. This has nothing to do with spectators.

[ez4u]

Yet the introduction of clocks into Go, at least in Japan, was at the behest of the newspapers who wanted their games on time in order to sell them to their customers, i.e. spectators. More complex time controls were developed to avoid spoiling the sponsored games with time crunches. This is according to a program I saw on Japanese TV some ten years ago.

[Charlie]

Yet the introduction of clocks into Go, at least in Japan, was at the behest of the newspapers who wanted their games on time in order to sell them to their customers, i.e. spectators. More complex time controls were developed to avoid spoiling the sponsored games with time crunches. This is according to a program I saw on Japanese TV some ten years ago.

Good counter!

I'd argue that finishing the game in time for the print run is still closer to my description than Arimaa's objective to "keep the game moving," even if the print run serves the interests of fans.