I’m really happy that this feature is getting implemented. Being a programmer myself I’m looking for simple minimalistic approaches where possible. Here are my $0.02 about why do I find the experience a little too inconsistent:

Three challenges types?

The idea behind auto-match is to make things easier for newcomers / not harder. We already have direct challenges and open challenges, having auto-matches as third category will make the whole experience unnecessarily conflated. From the design perspective I would see it as a new feature on top of existing challenge model rather than a completely new challenge type.

Where is my game…

For a new joiner who is trying to start a game, not seeing his game on a radar might be really confusing. After all he just wants to play a game, doesn’t he? If there are few players on a server, or your rank is very high (or low) - do you setup an auto-match and wait? But then noone can see you, or ask you “Hey, I’ve noticed you have a game open, but I’m just outside of your rank preference, would you adjust the setting for me please?”. In the end he might prefer to get his game on the radar, and to do that … he needs to click Custom button, intuitive isn’t it? But why do we need to make a choice at all?

Keep it simple

Why not keep the open-challenges as they used to be, with the small twist, that challenges with standard settings ‘attract’ each other. There is no good reason to not show them on the radar. As soon as two ‘compatible’ challenges are open an ‘auto-match’ should happen between those challenges resulting in a game. IF someone picks the game from the radar, the player that set up the game shouldn’t mind?

Timed wait

It may seem that timed wait is incompatible with open-challenges protocol, but the solution could be as simple as making fresh auto-match challenges disabled on the radar. Challenges player could pick could be restricted by the effective (time based) rank limit rather than full declared one.

Symmetric rank limits

If someone wants to play with player 2 stones stronger, there should be another person willing to play with player 2 stone weaker. So it’s natural to make the limits symmetric, isn’t it? However the limitation feels artificial - if someone does want to play stronger players, he is probably willing to wait until player happy to play with him shows up. Generally we should let users decide how and whom they want to play. Slight restrictions could be made in case of auto-match to improve pairability, but again I don’t see a reason why we need a different experience compared to open challenges.

No such thing as 'No preference’

I don’t mind the kind of time settings I play, but I do have preference. I believe everybody does. It feels like ‘No preference’ was introduced to get a better chance of finding a match, however ‘loose’ preference is as good. In case of mismatch server can always ‘throw a coin’. Again a minor thing, but makes the experience slightly less consistent.

Lost opportunities

Basing the auto-match on open challenges gives interesting opportunities - for example conditional ‘auto-matches’ allowing negotiation of mismatches, etc. That’s just nice to have, not needed right now. However if auto-match stays as a different category - these potential features will never be possible to implement.

New picker for board size!

I love it. If only all pickers were like that, ideally with 3 shades supported:

No, no! Hmm, maybe? Yes, please!

That would solve the ‘No preference’ problem while giving nice and consistent feel for all the game settings.

Whatever shape the auto-match feature takes, it will be a good addition to the server. I do believe however, that this is a great opportunity to implement the best and simplest game making experience available in the internet. Let’s use this chance well