@Ben the Beast,

"Booting is part of the game, and anyway who cares about loosing a game because teammates got booted ???"

Because a boot is generally a loss to your team, except in maybe 10v10 or 12v12 due to the loss being relatively minimal. A boot in a 2v2 or 3v3 (common games), unless you were already massively beating the opponents, leads to the team's loss. People generally play Warlight to have a fun game, not to passively see their stats increase. A boot is not fun. It ends the match. Make the game more fun by keeping a match alive.

And implementing it as an option (default: off?) would not remove how it was before.

@RVW,

"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."

There is no demand for this at all. There is demand for control of teammates after a boot or surrender (I clearly don't want my teammates to surrender when they still can keep the opponent busy).

"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?"

This is a different issue. You can't get "kicked out", you can only get booted. Being booted means you passed the booting time. Not everyone might agree on how long you should generally wait before booting, but the matter of the fact is that you agreed to the booting time so you should know you can get booted if you cross it. In this thread, we don't discuss whether or not it is wrong to be booted. We discuss what should be done afterwards. If your team really dislikes you, they can't boot you unless you deliberately choose to cross the boot time.

"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..."

True, I'm thinking that there should always be an autoboot in the game, and a vote to boot (which wouldn't increase anyone's boot rate). So, you can't make it "never".

"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."

This is because in sport people get physically tired. Keeping fresh streams of players coming in would be unfair. However, this doesn't count in Warlight.

"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!"

That is like saying it's an (unfair) penalty to be randomly assigned with the weakest players in a 3v3, but that's part of the game. You don't have to join games with this option on. As much as you don't have to join a 1v1v1 game where the two other players are blacklisted by you due to always working together to force a loss out of you and then voting to end (trust me, I've seen it). There are even maps out there that are much more imbalanced than the standard maps you'll have a huge advantage by picking a certain spot. You don't have to join them. You can complain these maps exist, or these settings, or these people messing up your games, but that won't change the fact they exist. Which could be the same for this suggested option.

This option purely works to keep broken matches from being broken and allow the players to play on for more fun. My ally being booted in a balanced 3v3 game would almost always lead to a loss. It is not fun to play imbalanced games when aiming to play a balanced one. However, if I could control my ally, I could keep the game potentially interesting. Would it make it easier for us? Perhaps, perhaps not. With a relatively low boot time (real-time) it would make it harder. In multi-day with the controlling player being an incredible professional, it would be easier. But otherwise the match is over, and I don't know about you but I am not very proud if I win due to booting my opponents.

Agree with Darkruler2005
There should be an option to host games where if a team m8 is booted, one can take over his land but as a seperate player(can't join the army reinforcments)

Also this is in no way an advantage for the team with a booted player
Simply because whats the difference in playing a 3 vs 3 game or a 3 vs 3(2+1) game?

none have more army distribution
none have more tactics advantage(if there is good team work on both teams)

If all players are at same level the only advantage would be a faster planning(communication) of the team with booted guy in.
But that is reduced by time limitation, basically the lesser the time, the less comunication is possible but also less is the time to control of 2 armies(more chance to make errors)
So it evens it out.

If there are mixed playes(levels) then the control of the booted guy has nothing to do with the win or loss of the game.

The way I see it, if a guy gets booted(any reason) it gives a disadvantage to the whole team.
Now you can argue that this is how it is, but not that its right.
In any sports(official) the team is choosen, so if someone is out its the teams fault for not taking precautions for that senario.

This however does not apply in Warlight, since in most cases you don't even know your team m8(you cannot choose him) thus the game should provide a way to make the game balanced if this team m8 is booted for any reason.

This is not something new at all.

basic example:

If enemy joins and doesn't play the game provides a way for the game to end.
If team m8 has a land which you need the game provides a way for you to take it.

The game evolves and gets better with time for the needs of the players.

So if the players need this to get a balanced game, in my openion eventually it will happen.

Darkruler summed up things quite nicely. I'd only like to address one thing (correct me if i'm wrong) no one has mentioned directly in this thread before, but: the same very reason the teammate got booted is the same reason, why taking control over teammate's armies after he gets booted, even by a stronger player, is not very much of a disadvantage for the opponents, simply because: The controlling player must obey the same TIME frames, and can get booted because he has to think about two separate armies, two deployment phases and so on.. its a bit more than committing orders for a big territory imho.

I think making an option to go "back" from being booted, and the option to control your teammate's orders after boot would only balance the gameplay, and somehow UNruin some games.

By the way booting-to-win is a very big problem here on WL, both to newbies, who have to take their time sometimes and to their teammates, when they have to explain many issues to newbie teammates, and we all see the "strategy" used by both experienced/good and weak/newbie players to often and this is simply not the way a strategy game should be played.

Last, but not least.. I think if those two suggestions will ever be considered to application by Fizzer, it would be very simple to make it still a penalty for the bootee and to bootee only; every time you get booted, you should get bootrate +1 and a loss (to stats) regardless of your team's score.

Or maybe to encourage players to going back from boot-state: bootrate +1 every time you get booted, but a loss if you don't get back, and a the-game-never-happened to the stats if you win.. but this time im not sure if i didn't go to far with the idea...

Enabling players to return to the game, after suffering connection problems or whatever would be excellent in my opinion.