"In fact, I can't see how this could be called abusable at all. A 3v3 game in which two people on your team are good with one crappy player has a team with an inherent disadvantage compared to a team with three players that are already good. You can only start bringing back the disadvantage after booting the third player and controlling him. For those who don't know, I don't think the third player's territories should become part of yours, but simply that you're capable of controlling his actions."

That is the point!

I usually play 3 vs 3 or 2 vs 2 or more. I like to play real-time team-matches against other players along with my team-mates. It is so frustrating when almost always some players are unable to make their moves in time so they will get booted from the game. Then it means two thing: my whole team surrenders because we will lose (AI sucks usually) or we vote to end the game. Fair? And then I have to find new games...

That's why I hope that there would be that option to control your teammate's armies. Of course there is more work to do but if you are active you will be fine. The game can continue and everyone is happy.

And you can't cheat because you can't boot crappy players unless they are so crappy that they can't be fast enough to do their turns in time. They deserve to get booted if they are too slow.

So you want to prevent players from joining a game for having previously booted players, regardless of the reasoning.

So if I get stuck with a number of opponents who just disappear and I decide to boot them days after the boot time I should be punished for their inaction? That makes perfect sense...

"And you can't cheat because you can't boot crappy players unless they are so crappy that they can't be fast enough to do their turns in time. They deserve to get booted if they are too slow."
If they deserve to get booted, why do you want to punish the people that boot them?

If the problem is that it ruins the game for everybody else, you can just keep people that get booted a lot out: problem solved.

"So if I get stuck with a number of opponents who just disappear and I decide to boot them days after the boot time I should be punished for their inaction? That makes perfect sense..."

You can make up such an argument for every single open seat requirement. Some people don't want to play with "newbies" (even though this means they never get the chance to prove themselves). Others don't want to play with those who lose more often. They may just be players who play a lot of FFAs.

This is just a way of customising the type of people you want in your game. Consider it a lighter form of blacklist.

Booting is part of the game, and anyway who cares about loosing a game because teammates got booted ???
Really this is not a problem and should be the last thing to work on for Fizzer.

It would be nice to get a max boot percentage on the auto games though. Something relatively high like 25%. I mean, if you have more than a 25% boot percentage, you are a serial game abandoner. As it is, right now there are several players I keep running into in the auto games that have upwards of 50% boot percentages. Literally every game I play against them they abandon instead of surrendering when they get to a losing position. Its very annoying.

"Booting is part of the game, and anyway who cares about loosing a game because teammates got booted ???
Really this is not a problem and should be the last thing to work on for Fizzer. "

Who cares it is just a game...

Who cares if you do not have an umbrella and it is raining very hard...

You may not care but a lot of people cares if teammates get booted from the game. And when that shit happens almost always... That's why I hope that there would be an option to control your team-mates armies or something.

Aschenisto, could you please read what other people are posting; Perrin3088 already commented on your suggestion for "an option to control your team-mates armies or something":

the reason Fizzer has stated for not allowing teammates to take over troops.. *at no point should it be considered beneficial to be booted*

In other words, Fizzer said it's not going to happen (and no, I don't have a link to where exactly he said that, but I can second Perrin's recollection, he really did say that). That means reiterating your suggestion without extremely strong arguments (enough to make Fizzer reconsider) is completely pointless.

Montag, the thing is... the demand has nothing to do with number of times you've been booted. It's about number of times you HAVE booted.

He is advocating for a stat showing how often you boot opposing players, regardless of reason, and then making that a open seat requirement option

In other words, Fizzer said it's not going to happen (and no, I don't have a link to where exactly he said that, but I can second Perrin's recollection, he really did say that). That means reiterating your suggestion without extremely strong arguments (enough to make Fizzer reconsider) is completely pointless.

If Fizzer said that then he is wrong, it is so simply.

And there is below some strong arguments:

Note that you can't really logically argue against the latter option. You're not forced to include the option in your games and you don't have to join games that have these options turned on. Neither are they more imbalanced than a host sneakily changing a bonus from 2 to 100 to boost his stats or two players in a 1v1v1 game having discussed beforehand to troll the third player into being defeated and then voting to end. In fact, I can't see how this could be called abusable at all. A 3v3 game in which two people on your team are good with one crappy player has a team with an inherent disadvantage compared to a team with three players that are already good. You can only start bringing back the disadvantage after booting the third player and controlling him. For those who don't know, I don't think the third player's territories should become part of yours, but simply that you're capable of controlling his actions.

I hope that's a little clear. Short summary: Booting is part of the game (just as surrender is), but I'd like that not to force the end of the game even sooner.

Note that you can't really logically argue against the latter option. You're not forced to include the option in your games and you don't have to join games that have these options turned on.

By that logic it would be a good idea to have a filter for "what is the third letter of their username"; after all, you don't have to use it and you don't have to join games using it.

A 3v3 game in which two people on your team are good with one crappy player has a team with an inherent disadvantage compared to a team with three players that are already good.

Yes, they have a disadvantage, sucks to be them. Of course, they'd have an advantage if the opposing team has one good player and two lesser-skilled players. The point is, how would you feel if you were that lesser-skilled player and you got kicked out of the game by your own team mates because they feel they are better of without you?

Also, if number of times you booted someone becomes a filter that will cause all sorts of trouble, for instance people refusing to boot, waiting (if need be) for the abandoned games mechanism (which boots players after 100 days), just to keep their record clean. I don't think that's a desirable outcome...

He's now just arguing for the option for teammates to control booted players.

This option has been previously discussed: the forums have a search function, try using it.
In short, the problem is that booting is a penalty for not keeping your commitment to play on a given time-frame. Thus, being booted should not increase your chances of winning a game (or of your team winning, which is the same thing), ever.
Allowing teammates to control booted players may do that, if the booted player is much worse.

Yes, a bad player could just do what his teammates tell him. However, this is likely to be much slower, and may not be possible to do properly in the allotted time: thus, being booted provides an advantage if teammates are not just better but faster (which is quite possible).

The fact that a team with some bad players has a "disadvantage" is missing the point: Rules meant to penalize bad behavior (allowing players to be booted) should never benefit the penalized party. A team benefiting by their opponents being bad players is not in any way someone benefiting from being penalized, it's just how games work: if you (your team) are (is) better, you're more likely to win. Not alike at all.

"Rules meant to penalize bad behavior (allowing players to be booted) should never benefit the penalized party."

I think it is stupid logic. In icehockey if someone get hurt then there is substitute who then start to play for the team. It is stupid logic because lot of games end up poorly in real time matches 3 vs 3 or more when one or two player are too slow. It irritates lot of players.

Thus, being booted should not increase your chances of winning a game (or of your team winning, which is the same thing), ever.

It is not. When you get booted you will no longer play the game. You already get penalty about it and it's the boot. It is not necessary to PENALIZE WHOLE TEAM when some one is too slow and get booted.

thus, being booted provides an advantage if teammates are not just better but faster (which is quite possible).

It will not provide advantage to your teammates if you get booted: one player less to expand or attack, less armies and so on. It will usually never give advantage (unless your teammates attack against his own teammates lol)

By that logic it would be a good idea to have a filter for "what is the third letter of their username"; after all, you don't have to use it and you don't have to join games using it

Lot of people wants that latter option and not that option to search players by third letter of their username.

The point is, how would you feel if you were that lesser-skilled player and you got kicked out of the game by your own team mates because they feel they are better of without you?

The point is how the hell you can kick lesser-skilled players out? There is no such option. There is an option to kick player who are too slow (whether he is champion or newbie) and usually people kicks almost always out if you are slow. (An opponent team can do that too)

"I think it is stupid logic. In icehockey if someone get hurt then there is substitute who then start to play for the team. It is stupid logic because lot of games end up poorly in real time matches 3 vs 3 or more when one or two player are too slow. It irritates lot of players. "

That's a complete non sequitur. Ice hockey example is completely irrelevant, since when a player gets injured there's no attempt to penalize the player or team: getting injured is not against the rules. Note that you do not attempt to show how this "example" supports your argument that "it is stupid logic". You just claim that it is stupid logic because the policy it supports annoys you (or unnamed lots of players).
Unfortunately, that's not how logic works. The fact that something annoys you doesn't make the arguments supporting it "stupid logic".

"It is not. When you get booted you will no longer play the game. You already get penalty about it and it's the boot. It is not necessary to PENALIZE WHOLE TEAM when some one is too slow and get booted. "

I'm sorry, but that's how team games work: If your teammates break the rules and are penalized, that will hurt you. Since you like sports examples so much: If in ice hockey a player receives a penalty, their time may have to play shorthanded for several minutes; same in soccer if a player is red carded.
As I said before, somebody in your team breaking the rules should not increase the chances of you winning, which your proposed option would do.

"It will not provide advantage to your teammates if you get booted: one player less to expand or attack, less armies and so on. It will usually never give advantage (unless your teammates attack against his own teammates lol) "

I was talking conditional on your change being implemented, which I think was clear from context.

"Lot of people wants that latter option and not that option to search players by third letter of their username. "

Clearly you don't know how "latter" works. Other than that, are you saying it is a good idea to be able to set open seat prerequisites so that people with a given third letter in their username can't join?

In icehockey if someone get hurt then there is substitute who then start to play for the team.

Yes, when someone is hurt. But not when someone is send off the field as a penalty (I don't know the details of icehockey, but it must have something like the "red card" in soccer,right?).
In soccer, there is a limited number of substitutions the coach is allowed to make per match; if a player is hurt and replaced, it counts as a substitution. And yes, that means (meant??) the hurt player is not replaced if the team already run out of substitutions; this is to prevent players from faking an injury and getting an additional substitution that way.

It is not. When you get booted you will no longer play the game. You already get penalty about it and it's the boot. It is not necessary to PENALIZE WHOLE TEAM when some one is too slow and get booted.

It's even less necessary to penalize the opposing team. Letting a (potentially stronger) player take over for the booted player is a penalty for the opposing team!

are you saying it is a good idea to be able to set open seat prerequisites so that people with a given third letter in their username can't join?

No, he is saying he wants to filter his invite list (as proposed by Min34: http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=4076 ). But yes, I intended it as an open seat filter (in which case it would be an utterly stupid idea, which was the point of the example).

---

@FD:
"I was talking conditional on your change being implemented, which I think was clear from context." Oh come on, we both know English is not his native language, there's no reason to phrase your reply in such a way it's deliberately aimed at being difficult to comprehend.

"Unfortunately, that's not how logic works. The fact that something annoys you doesn't make the arguments supporting it "stupid logic"."

And when it annoys lot of people (their games will end up badly because of booting and not able to control other players armies) then it is fairly good logic to say that there must be changes. And when most of this game's players play real time matches it is important to make gameplay very pleasant.

since when a player gets injured there's no attempt to penalize the player or team: getting injured is not against the rules.

It is stupid logic to penalize whole team because of player expect ice-hockey. It is like you rob and bank and your mother and father goes a prison too because they are your "team" It annoys lot of people when they have to vote to end when lot of people get booted and so on.

"As I said before, somebody in your team breaking the rules should not increase the chances of you winning, which your proposed option would do. "

So fucking what if it increase changes of winning? It is better than whole team will lose again and again. It only makes games smoother and more pleasant when you do not need to worry about if your teammates get booted and then you have to find next 10 minutes an another game to join... and then one or two player get booted. See it is the real problem not that "should not increase the changes of winning.

Besides it rarery even "increase changes of winning" it just keep the game balanced 3 vs 3...

I'm sorry, but that's how team games work: If your teammates break the rules and are penalized, that will hurt you.

I am sorry, but that's how the earth is: flat..

It is still stupid and wrong. Soccer is different thing, if your team-player shoot David Becham it will give some advantage to your team without proper penalties. In Warlight if your teammates get booted it will ruin the game and no one is happy (expect opponent team when they win but usually they are irritated because good game is no good anymore)

Letting a (potentially stronger) player take over for the booted player is a penalty for the opposing team!

Most of cases it keep the game more interesting than you will be doomed to lose and your team too...

And it is not a penalty for the opposing team when they agreed to join such a game. I just want more pleasant games and freedom of choice.

OP, I'm guessing that there's been a misunderstanding with your use of English, amongst many of the respondants. No shame in it of course, but it might clear a couple of things up.

Were you suggesting that booted players be penalised, or that a player who boots another player should be penalised?

So, The opposition to the Original Posters seem to think that going over boot time is against the rules and thus deserving of a penalty.

So, that would assume that playing turns in a timely fashion is part of the strategy of winning a game, but it is not. Its just common courtesy to teammates to have games wrapped up in sufficient amount of time. The current boot system should only be used to keep games timely, but it is often used as a winning strategy.

The strategy of winning should be completely inclusive of only:
1) Deploying Armies,
2) Transfer/Attacking with those armies, and
3) Playing cards.

A) Time should have NOTHING to do with a winning strategy.
B) Time should be ONLY about being courteous to other players.

A&B are my opinions. What I see a lot of (name me as one of the unnamed players) is people using Booting as part of their winning strategy.

As it stands now, the team with a booted player is at a severe disadvantage and the majority of the time someone is booted, the team loses.

The original poster's opinion, as I see it, is that the boot system can be improved to ensure fair play between teams while still keeping the game courteous to other players that play on a timeline.

@John: Why is the current ability to set boot % as an open seat prerequisite not enough to achieve this? If you keep out players that have been booted a lot, most of your games will not be won by boot. Yes, even people that are booted a small % of the time are still booted sometimes, but playing with low boot % as prerequisite makes it a rare occurrence.

By the way, your assumptions regarding time may not always be correct (though they generally are): Having tight time constraints makes it harder to figure out your moves. In the same way different variants of fast chess exists, some people may want to play fast games of WL where time is an issue.
-------------------------

@Aschenisto:
"And when it annoys lot of people (their games will end up badly because of booting and not able to control other players armies) then it is fairly good logic to say that there must be changes. And when most of this game's players play real time matches it is important to make gameplay very pleasant."

The logic behind your argument being good would not imply that the logic behind mine is stupid; there may be logical arguments on both sides of an issue.
So, you're not addressing my point at all, either in your original reply or in this one.

In general, see point to John: why can't/shouldn't the problem be solved by keeping people that get booted a lot out of your games?