You would start with the banked time. Im just worried about 15+ days on team games as 45 days of total banked time in a 3v3 is a bad idea. I could increase 2v2s though. My main fear is 3v3, because I know how much people end up stalling them.

It's also:
24 days to take 3 turns
27 days to take 4 turns
30 days to take 5 turns
etc.
See what's happening to the average? :p

Yeah, and if we're playing one game you're correct. However, say I'm playing 3 1v1 games. I can delay each game by 15 days, and (if I take my turns once every 3 days this would be 5 turns and 10 turns respectively). I can make 3 1v1 games take a minimum of 45 days. Say the game generation is such so that even playing 6 opponents on a 1v1 slot I can delay 15 days per game staggered. I now across 6 games have delayed 120 days. If you take the idea of capping vacations used at 3, then I can delay 30 total days which is 4x less.

Say I'm on a 3v3 team and we have 3 vacations each. We can delay the game a total of 90 days or less than my super-stally 1v1 player.

Long story short, I think long bank times is equivalent to granting vacations but has its own drawbacks. It's not a bad solution per se, just capping vacation number seems better. Just one player's opinion and a relatively new one at that.

Yeah, and if we're playing one game you're correct. However, say I'm playing 3 1v1 games. I can delay each game by 15 days, and (if I take my turns once every 3 days this would be 5 turns and 10 turns respectively). I can make 3 1v1 games take a minimum of 45 days. Say the game generation is such so that even playing 6 opponents on a 1v1 slot I can delay 15 days per game staggered. I now across 6 games have delayed 120 days

Yes, you do have the potential to delay more days in total. However, the games are created on a schedule. You can't delay the last game created for more than 15 days total, so the league can move on. Not respecting vacations is to speed up the league, not to push individuals to play faster. Also, since the games get created on a schedule, you're biting yourself in the foot by delaying everything. Games will start to accumulate and while you could indeed delay them, you won't have banked time or vacations anymore to save you.

This is the way to go:
Vacations honored, 3 days boot, no banked time.
Optional rule: max 1 vacation per team per game or 2 or something similar.

I think that point being missed is that scheduled games already kills stalling. A lot of time is lost with non-join for having already 2 active games. Also, taking a vacation/stalling for ending later with 4 active team games is not really ideal...

As it is now:
4 days boot: Imo this is terrible! that would dilute games to slow motion
Banked time: terrible as well. It is nice to expect a regular 3 days pace. Also, this time will be used just for inertia in all games by who has the attitude to delay!

Edited 10/2/2019 21:10:49

This is the way to go:
Vacations honored, 3 days boot, no banked time.

Has been tried, proven to not work

Optional rule: max 1 vacation per team per game or 2 or something similar.

Are you going to keep track of it all?

I think that point being missed is that scheduled games already kills stalling. A lot of time is lost with non-join for having already 2 active games. Also, taking a vacation/stalling for ending later with 4 active team games is not really ideal...

Yet you can still stall out the whole season, which is what we're trying to prevent.

Banked time: terrible as well. It is nice to expect a regular 3 days pace.

So ban vacations then? It is nice to expect a regular 3 days pace after all.

Also, this time will be used just for inertia in all games by who has the attitude to delay!

Delaying a game isn't advantageous for you as your games are being created on a schedule. Delaying a game for inertia means shooting yourself in the foot as games will start piling up.

Farah, I've accepted the 15-day bank solution, but these one-line put-downs don't help. Some are non-arguments. Others are just plain wrong. All they do is show you haven't thought through the issue being raised or the suggestion being made.

E.g.

Are you going to keep track of it all?

Why the hell would anyone need to do that?! Opponents can spot it (or it's their problem if they don't) and the evidence is there in the play speed stats.

Farah, I've accepted the 15-day bank solution, but these one-line put-downs don't help.

First of all, I could care less whether you accept any solution or not. This is not about convincing any individual, rather trying to work something out for the better of the league. If you accept that, be my guest. If you don't, still be my guest. I'll make you some nice dinner.

Some are non-arguments. Others are just plain wrong. All they do is show you haven't thought through the issue being raised or the suggestion being made.

Not everything needs an argumentation to prove a point. I hope it's clear i did think through the issue and suggestions being made, but if it wasn't already, here's a proper explanation of that line "are you going to keep track of it all?"

You pose that opponents can spot it (or not and that's their problem). The evidence is in the play speed stats.
This is not true of course, since a vacation will not always overlap with a turn going over the 3-day boot mark. But hey, you thought through it all, so some wizard jizz will get you your evidence.
The issue is that's it's rather hard to keep track of 'maximum n amount of vacations per game'. What do we do when a vacation is active but a game is created? What about a vacation that doesn't go over the 3-day mark, was spotted by the opponent team, but not by whatever panel has to decide whether it's a loss because of it? The only option is to define very clear rules and have code check it, which is a ton of work. Hence, is the guy proposing this idea going to keep track of all of it? I'm sure I won't.


Any other oneliners you have a problem with?

So...

I don't think 15 day banked boot is enough to carry a team. You should know what I mean when some players take 40 day vacations for just that one player. On 3v3's, you will need to honor vacations.

Though, as Edge mentioned, if we never do vacations aren't honored, we will never know the future outcome. But, it could really bring down top clans as in getting ranked top.

Maybe, honor vacations, but a team as a whole, can only use 3. If more than 3, the game counts as a loss no matter the future outcome?

if you want to try and make Clan League a better even in the Warzone community, honor vacations! But that draws me back to what Edge said. It is your decision, Cowboy. I, myself, go on many vacations in a year, (at least 3), so if I played in Clan League, that would not be good for HAWKS.

Yes, I may not have a really respected say in this, but, that is my opinion.

Not honoring vacations will make Clan League have above and beyond drama with all the substitutions.

This makes me go back to Min's post on the 2nd page. Think about, "why force rush through Clan League? Just let everyone take their sweet time! It is supposed to be an enjoyable experience, not a rushed one!

Also, think about this? What's more enjoyable?

1- Players getting booted left and right?
2- Or players not getting booted?

#2 is obviously better!

Edited 10/2/2019 22:54:25

Can we have one template with 'take turns mod'?

I actually agree with Viking.

Whats so wrong with it as it is?
Join Clan Cup when you want it fast. Why making Clan League to a '2nd Clan Cup' ?

Edited 10/2/2019 23:04:18

@Farah

max 1 vacation per game seems not that hard to enforce. You take a second, your opps or anyone else can point this out. Player receives warning to terminate it, if he does not within 1 day, then game is lost.

And that would really solve the issue combined together with scheduled games.

Thing when it comes to vacations, they can be activated at any time. Players were still delaying the league in August, and maybe even some right now. Banked time adds 15 extra days to the end of CL, on the other hand, vacations can add anywhere from 30-70 days to the end of it.

As far as a limit of 1 vacation, I don't see why that would be better than banked time, since that's literally the same as banked time, but having to be administered by us, instead of it being automatic.

I thought about a vacation limit of 3, but the problem is, while that's fine on 1v1s, I was having trouble figuring how this couldn't be gamed on team games, as they could just stack their vacations together.
This is not including the extra programming or management that would have to be included.

I see banked time as worse because it will be added by default to many games and it won’t give a regular pace to turns, e.g. a game starts and you do not know when it will actually start, maybe after 15 days. Same for each turn.

I quite like having a regular pace, definitely not longer than 3 days. Vacation is once, then you can expect to play, the system of 4 days boot + banked time will dilute games too much.

About efforts for managing the limit of 1 vacation, it seems just a problem in theory. In reality people won’t normally try take 2 vacations if this is not allowed... and stallers are not many and with all eyes looking at them. I feel it would work without much effort

Edited 10/3/2019 00:32:48

First, +1 what Beren said.

Second, I think a lot of the arguments that have been made by pro-vacationers were already answered or also apply to vacations.

I see banked time as worse because it will be added by default to many games and it won’t give a regular pace to turns, e.g. a game starts and you do not know when it will actually start, maybe after 15 days. Same for each turn.

And with vacations it could be up to 70 days. What about banked time makes this worse?

I quite like having a regular pace, definitely not longer than 3 days. Vacation is once, then you can expect to play, the system of 4 days boot + banked time will dilute games too much.

But you can take a vacation after every turn if you want. It's not like a vacation is just once and then it speeds up. What Cowboy said is true, banked time is the same as having max 1.5 vacations, but it doesn't have to be monitored. I don't know what "diluting" games means, but it would probably also be like that with vacations.

About efforts for managing the limit of 1 vacation, it seems just a problem in theory. In reality people won’t normally try take 2 vacations if this is not allowed... and stallers are not many and with all eyes looking at them. I feel it would work without much effort

This seems a little optimistic... Logging into other peoples' accounts isn't allowed, but people did it. It would likely take a whole new panel to monitor vacations (or it'd be up to ethics panel), and we all know how much everyone loves and always agrees with the panels in CL.

I'm pretty sure nobody reads my stuff, so let me reiterate. Why should a majority of players wait on a few who can't/won't play consistently? I have yet to find another competition taken remotely seriously, that pauses for the people who need to dip out. Nobody is trying to "rush" the clan league, but there has to be a plan to limit the delays.

(Edit: For tracking vacations. Probably easiest to just have notes on who goes on vacation during clan league. Have a max number of those before they get penalized. If someone is listed as having a vacation 11 days apart, you know they are at least on 2 counts, you don't need to know when exactly they started/finished it this way. It doesn't hurt anyone if they break their vacation and then re-enter it early. Even with a limit on vacations to reduce the huge delays, its still less flexible than banked time.)

"Also, think about this? What's more enjoyable?

1- Players getting booted left and right?
2- Or players not getting booted?

#2 is obviously better!"

Viking, this is overly simplistic and very, very incomplete. The whole point of either system is to avoid players booting, with different emphasis. It's ridiculous to imply otherwise.

Some of us have been explicitly attempting to keep a banking system effective for players with RL obstacles, not just the "rushing" players. I think most people might know in advance if they will be stuck without any form of internet for a month and a half. Barring an accident or an outage, of course. I'm not rewriting anything I wrote before in this thread.

Speaking of rhythm.

My games falls into 2 types:
1. Check over it a few times, and procrastinate
2. Check over it very frequently and actively analyze several times a day/turn.
^ In neither scenario do I have a "rhythm" that is disrupted by turns that can vary around 3 days. If anything, I would welcome the additional flexibility in the latter scenario, and my opponents wouldn't give a hoot. Perhaps other people are more regimented in their gameplay?

Here's a lost game that my opponents surrendered due to a boot. https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=19586320
BST didn't commit in time, and was booted, without being in vacation. My understanding of auto-commit is that he needed to input any orders to avoid being booted. Maybe he was up really late and fell asleep? Maybe he was waiting for a teammate's reply and forgot to check back? Maybe he was busy with work and couldn't check back in time. Maybe he had an argument with someone and couldn't concentrate? Maybe he had a power outage? Doesn't matter, he didn't take a vacation in advance.

If this was a Clan League game, that would be 5 points and a couple of weeks decided by something minor, not something vacation worthy. (I was losing.)

A banked time mode would have deducted some time, but not booted him. I don't know how that would work alongside auto-commit. I'd rather have turns that can consistently run an extra day, than a huge break that requires me to re-analyze the entire game.

I think "small" lapses like this are at least as important a case as the long-term vacationers, given that it can much more easily affect any of us.

Edited 10/3/2019 02:52:45

@Farah

max 1 vacation per game seems not that hard to enforce. You take a second, your opps or anyone else can point this out. Player receives warning to terminate it, if he does not within 1 day, then game is lost.

And that would really solve the issue combined together with scheduled games.

While that might be true, you take away even more flexibility from the player. One vacation can be one day or ten days. With the banked time, you have the added flexibility to take a few days off multiple times without setting a vacation. The added benefit of this (as long as it's combined with a schedule), is that no individual can stall the end of the season. The other added benefit is that delaying your turn in one game, doesn't affect others necessarily, while a vacation does.

I see banked time as worse because it will be added by default to many games and it won’t give a regular pace to turns, e.g. a game starts and you do not know when it will actually start, maybe after 15 days. Same for each turn.

I don't see how this is different. If your opponent delays the game for 15 days, he is now out of banked time and vacations aren't respected. Therefore you can expect a regular pace. The same is true for allowing one vacation per game. Your opponent could set a vacation for 10 days and after that the pace returns to normal. Again, the system with 15 days banked allows for more flexibility. I will reiterate that we're not looking to force players to play faster. The issue is that every season, the end gets stalled out by a few individuals who chain vacations. This solution combats that, while it still gives players the chance to take time off.

Can we have one template with 'take turns mod'?

No, because that mod is garbage.

Hi how do I join this

@Sparklemuffin, join a clan first step. Second, a clan that competes in Clan League.

@I Swear, a boot every once in a while is fine, but players constantly getting booted is no fun for all the clans, I think. As I am aware, I would want to have competitive games, not players getting booted.

Maybe just honor vacations? No big thing to do! Rushed play makes the game all that less enjoyable!