playing hours -- smaller intervals possible ????

[FrankJones]

Many people with normal lives are at or near a computer often enough to make moves in a 12-hour window. People have lunch hour, breaks, etc. Some people are retired or only employed part-time. There are lots of [possible explanations. Students might have availability on and off throughout the day.

This reminds me of the recurring discussion of being able to filter opponents by time zone because "normal" people only play during the same times as the person making the proposal. To them I say, "no, friend, your personal circumstances don't define what's 'normal.'"

Right. I mean, 2 people in the same time zone might nevertheless have little overlap in their available hours. People in the same time zone can still have very different sleep hours. Even people in the same time zone with the same sleep hours might have two completely different 8-hour windows in which they are generally available to make moves.

I think what the OP wants is "fast turn based 8 moves a day" but within a 6-hour window instead of 12.

Sure, I guess that would be cool. I have occasionally run into trouble because I typically select fast 8 moves per day and then find myself engaged in social activities or other activities most of the day and then realized, "Uh-oh, I hope I didn't run out of clock in any games; I should check immediately".

But there's an obvious problem. The fast turn based games are set up in a way that the number of moves matches the amount of incrementally added clock so ensure that the game moves along at the expected pace. Players selecting "fast turn based 8 moves per day" are expecting that the game will proceed at a pace of 8 moves per day, at worst. With this setting, a player who does not make 8 moves a day will run out of clock, because less clock will be added than the amount of clock being used.

So, perhaps a new category could be made? "fast turn based, 6 moves per day; +2:00 added per move, maximum of 12:00"? That's not exactly "fast" turn based, but it would follow the same mathematical logic as the other 3 settings.

Otherwise, as I have pointed out, there's the "4 moves per day, +6:00 per move", which I would think would work for the OP, who would be able to make 4 moves at any point in the day and never run out of clock.

Is it worth creating an entirely new category of fast turn based with a 6-hour window, with an expected number of moves and incremental clock that follows the existing mathematical formula? I would assert "probably not", since there exist so many options already and there should be an option that fits closely enough to suit any individual player.

[Fuchur]

Right. I mean, 2 people in the same time zone might nevertheless have little overlap in their available hours. People in the same time zone can still have very different sleep hours. Even people in the same time zone with the same sleep hours might have two completely different 8-hour windows in which they are generally available to make moves.

I think what the OP wants is "fast turn based 8 moves a day" but within a 6-hour window instead of 12.

Close, but not quite. I would like to able to choose short periods (3 hours or less) where high frequence playing is expected.

Right now, you have to choose an 12 hours interval in which you will be able to frequently check your tables and make a move if necessary.
In reducing the size of the interval the number of people able to subscribe increases, even without the natural assumption that more people will be able to meet the condition for a shorter period.

Need an exemple ? Here it is : lets fix a game and a pace and suppose for simplicity, that there are, for each playing interval (0-12, 1-13, 2-14, ..., 12- 24, 13-1, ...), 10 players willing to subscribe to that particular period (but not to any other of these periods). Lets name these players
A0, B0, ... ,J0 for l'interval 0-12
A1, B1, ...,J1 ---"----------- 1- 13
and so on.

If somebody proposes this game with the given pace with restricted playing hours from 9 -12,
100 players are able to subscribe, 10 times the number of the full 12 hour interval ( PLUS people who can't guarantee being able to play over the full 12 hours but are free to play during 3 hours) :
A0, B0, ... ,J0 from l'interval 0-12
A1, B1, ...,J1 ---"----------- 1- 13
...
A9, B9, ...,J9 ---"----------- 9- 21

Sure, I guess that would be cool. I have occasionally run into trouble because I typically select fast 8 moves per day and then find myself engaged in social activities or other activities most of the day and then realized, "Uh-oh, I hope I didn't run out of clock in any games; I should check immediately".

But there's an obvious problem. The fast turn based games are set up in a way that the number of moves matches the amount of incrementally added clock so ensure that the game moves along at the expected pace. Players selecting "fast turn based 8 moves per day" are expecting that the game will proceed at a pace of 8 moves per day, at worst. With this setting, a player who does not make 8 moves a day will run out of clock, because less clock will be added than the amount of clock being used.

8 moves a day doesn't mean that every player must make 8 moves : In a 4 player game 2 moves/player and day are enough.

Games proceed fast when all the players are on at the same time and not because a high speed was selected.

So, perhaps a new category could be made? "fast turn based, 6 moves per day; +2:00 added per move, maximum of 12:00"? That's not exactly "fast" turn based, but it would follow the same mathematical logic as the other 3 settings.

?? Your proposition doesn't seem to consider shorter playing hours ??

Otherwise, as I have pointed out, there's the "4 moves per day, +6:00 per move", which I would think would work for the OP, who would be able to make 4 moves at any point in the day and never run out of clock.

It doesn't as i have already explained. When the others players make their move after i have left the table for sleeping and working then my clock is ticking nearly 18 hours a day and i will run out of time in the first two days.

Is it worth creating an entirely new category of fast turn based with a 6-hour window, with an expected number of moves and incremental clock that follows the existing mathematical formula? I would assert "probably not", since there exist so many options already and there should be an option that fits closely enough to suit any individual player.

Well, it doesn't suit any player like me who can't play during office hours.

[FrankJones]

Your suggestion of a 6-hour window has some merit. Post it as a site suggestion (if none exists yet). I'll upvote it.

I might have incorrectly phrased parts of my last post. Let me think about this.

Okay, in a multiplayer game, if 3 out of 4 players make their moves immediately, and the 4th player does not make the 8 moves per day in "fast turn based 8 moves +1:30", that player's clock will run down. But, that's unlikely that the other three players will all move instantly.

I was writing specifically about 2-player games because I only play 2-player.

So, I get what you're saying. You don't want regular turn-based 4 moves per day because that dan drag. You like the fast turn based, but the 12 hour window creates problems for you. An option with a shorter window but high moves requirement and small increment added would be a good solution for people in your situation (a situation which is probably fairly common).

Seems reasonable to me. I do agree that most people likely do not have a 12-hour window. So basically, any option that has a window longer than 6-8 hours would mean your clock could potentially run for 16-18 hours and result in a forfeit. Even the regular turn-based 4 moves per day might not work for you.

I do see the difficult spot you are in. I guess a lot of us are BGA degenerates who keep our phone or tablet nearby when we are away from the computer.

[Shivaware]

Your suggestion of a 6-hour window has some merit. Post it as a site suggestion (if none exists yet). I'll upvote it.

https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=130167

[Fuchur]

Okay, in a multiplayer game, if 3 out of 4 players make their moves immediately, and the 4th player does not make the 8 moves per day in "fast turn based 8 moves +1:30", that player's clock will run down. But, that's unlikely that the other three players will all move instantly.

I'm playing a 5 player table -- 2 europeans and 3 americans (in that order) with 4 moves a day. (https://boardgamearena.com/1/khronos?table=741473162)
My clock got used up half way before my first move, and right now the other europeans clock is half way through and ticking : The 3 americans were able to make their moves without losing but a few minutes.
In this 3 player table (https://boardgamearena.com/1/tzolkin?table=740978173) we are all in the same time zone and each evening we are doing much more than 2 moves/day as described in the setting.

The sitting order decides who might run into problems : If the player before you makes generally his move right after you have left BGA for hours (sleeping/working/doing something else), you will use up your time in a few turns.
If the player before you makes his turns generally when you're on or shortly before, you will lose only minutes.

[nik592]

In this 3 player table (https://boardgamearena.com/1/tzolkin?table=740978173) we are all in the same time zone and each evening we are doing much more than 2 moves/day as described in the setting.

But even in this scenario, you can run into an issue with one player running out of time. Typically this only happens in games that play 24 hours a day, though depending on whether you and your opponents are playing throughout most of the 12-hour playing window. But basically, even if all three players are in the same timezone, one will take the last play of the day, and the player who follows them will use more time than the others. Timezones are not necessarily the issue here (though that can help with catching up time on subsequent turns), it is somewhat the nature of online play.