Tornado is right about this.

Long vacations are, at worst, a very minor irritant. If my opponents want to take a 40+ day vacation in CL, and one (I think two) did, that's none of my business.

Vacations-not-honoured makes the competition unplayable. I go places without internet access, both for work and leisure. Auto-commit solves nothing.

Kicorse and tornado are both right.

Just like kicorse said, if they want to go on a 40 day vacation, its fine. It's life. People also have life.

I also go to places without internet access and need to vacations not to get booted in 50+ games.

When vacations arent honored, it ruins the experience whole. people getting booted left and right is good for the other clans, but no fun for their clan. Just like kicorse said, "autocommit solves nothing." And many players playing in Clan League have no memberships.

It doesnt make Clan League better and more fun.

(saying this even though ive never played in clan league lol)

Edited 10/2/2019 11:51:56

Regardless of the initial intention, vacations not honored would erase many players from our lineup, make Lynx (and other clans) weaker and damage the competition. This is not what we should want.

vacations should not be honored. it would make the competition much better by eliminating all the stallers in lynx

I do understand the problems, that could come with no vacations being honored, but i would give it a shot. You just need to find a good balance with the amount of banked boot time and how can you find it, if u never try it out?

As the last seasons have shown, it's not possible to honor vacations, if a season gets extended for an unnecessary amount of time, due to players taking multiple vacations or sometimes even chain vacations. Just look at season 11. How long do we still have to wait until the last game is finished? The waste majority of games are done for multiple months now and yet some games aren't decided, yet. That just kills the fun of the competition for everybody.

I don't think it's perfect to not honor vacations at all. I think the best would be if people simply aren't using vacations to save teammates or to adjust orders and ofc not using them to chain vacations to drag games for months. But the experience has shown that there will always be people doing exactly that, so the only other option to do is just not allowing vacations at all and using banked boot time instead.

See i think 10 days in a teamgame isn't really good. That's not even 2 weeks, so if someone is away for 2 weeks within the next months after the start of the season it's simply not possible for that player to play teamgames. I like the 15 days for 1v1 better, but i understand the problems. If u give a person 15 days on a team game, both team members as well as the opposing team could drag a game for 2 months. So i get why u want to reduce it for team games.

Also i think it's not perfect that in 1v1 f.ex. a new game starts after 10 days. I'm not sure how the final schedule will look like, but if u play multiple tournaments you just need to be unlucky and play a slow player in your first game and all of a sudden, you're going to get multiple games at once stacking each other potentially up to an amount that's not enjoyable to play.

The 4 day boot timer doesn't help in that regard either, so i think it might be better to reduce it to a normal 3 day boot time again, but lengthen the overall banked boot time for a few more days.

Still i do think the general approach of not honoring vacations is worth a try. The question of how to do it right, should be answered with mor eexperience on that matter. After seeing those last seasons and experiencing the problems firsthand, i just come to the conclusion that honoring vacations is going to be misused and/or slows down the entire league to an unhealthy amount of time, so i understand the reasoning of Cowboy to try a different approach.

Edit: I also think if someone is going on a vacation for 40+ days, it might be in the best interest of the league if that player would simply not play in that season at all. Either substitute him into a game after he's back or substitute him out of the remaining games a week or 2 before his vacation starts, but one player with a 40+ day vacation just slowers down everything and takes the fun from everyone. It's not my buisness. That's right, but if i'm the opponent and i witnessed it already a few times in CL, it's annoying as hell, since u don't want to play those games for half a year and want to finish them in a reasonable amount of time, especially if you're getting more and more games, because you're playing in multiple tournaments.

Edited 10/2/2019 12:57:00

Vacations-not-honoured makes the competition unplayable. I go places without internet access, both for work and leisure. Auto-commit solves nothing.

Hence substitutions are a thing.

Whoever is wondering, where this mysterious white-sheet is:

It is a picture and does not show within the app!

Here's a link to it for mobile users:

https://i.gyazo.com/479c093683581f7158f5db01e3da2666.png

I agree with Edge here and am one of the biggest fans of limiting down vacations.

Last season was a horror, as vacations prolonged the season extremely. This kills the fun and leaves a few tournaments with a lot of games while others have finished 3 months ago. In the best interest of all of us, we need to reduce the time a season takes drastically:

1) Promotion/Relegation - balance of the divisions:
The way it is right now, clans and clan line-ups change much faster than the season progresses. There are dead clans playing in div A/B when new good clans arise in Qs and C.

2) player-pressure:
As a season takes that long, a season means a lot. Just think of it, having much more seasons and being able to not try hard every single season, as you have the next to show what you can.

3) rosters/line-up
You missed the start of the CL in January? Bad luck, now you have to wait a year to play CL ...
... and there are more advantages!

And now let’s look, why people take vacations:

1) You are in a bad mood, as some games the opponent has the edge.
The opponent has an edge and you need time to think and turn the game around. In addition to this you are procrastinating, as you don’t want to lose and the pressure on you might be big. This especially affects team leaders and “stars” of their clans.
The simple truth is: 3 days are usually enough time to discuss moves and communicate with your teammates. You are skipping this game, as you feel bad looking at it.
And a lot of chained vacations start at this point! And we need to reduce that one’s! 10 days bad mood because of one game, which you might lose is enough.

2) You are away for a few days (<10 days):
Nice! You have banked time and don't even need to use a vacation, if you don't want to.

3) You are away for a long-time frame (> 10 days):
Even today you need to login once for 10 days. Thinking about the game you can even do without internet. But I would be even up to say:
In the rare cases of someone being not available for more than 10 days for good reason, contact the organizer and ask for permission, which he grants, if there is a good reason.

And let’s be real:
If a season takes 3 month (which should be the goal!) and you are away for 1,5 months, you might consider skipping that season!

Edited 10/2/2019 13:51:25

>Vacations-not-honoured makes the competition unplayable. I go places without internet access, both for work and leisure. Auto-commit solves nothing.

Hence substitutions are a thing.

Last time I checked, you can't substitute in the middle of a game.

If a season takes 3 month (which should be the goal!) and you are away for 1,5 months, you might consider skipping that season!

So ban long vacations then. Make a rule that states that a >N day vacation (maybe N=30) equals a loss.

Plenty like me who have never taken more than two consecutive vacations will be unable to play under the proposed rule. In fact, anyone who thinks they might lack internet access for 3 days, at any point during CL, should not play CL. Is that really the intent?

EDIT: Apologies - missed the introduction of banked time. If it is enough banked time, that makes it more manageable. I still think that penalising the specific practice you are trying to prevent is better than not honouring vacations though.

Edited 10/2/2019 15:04:15

And let’s be real:
If a season takes 3 month (which should be the goal!)

Why should this even be the goal? Why would we have to force rush through Clan League games?

So ban long vacations then. Make a rule that states that a >N day vacation (maybe N=30) equals a loss.

Massively superior solution than the current "lets ban vacations"

Last time I checked, you can't substitute in the middle of a game.

True, since they aren't intended for that. If you know you're going to "go places without internet access, both for work and leisure", then what's the deal? Games are created on a schedule which you know beforehand and you have days of banked time. If you find yourself not being able to play, then woohoo, we've increased the substitution limit for ya.

Games are created on a schedule which you know beforehand and you have days of banked time. If you find yourself not being able to play, then woohoo, we've increased the substitution limit for ya.

Even if this is the case, and it hasn't been in the past, the finishing point of the game is undefined. You join a game in March, and then your vacation in June gets you booted due to your opponent's slow play.

Neither substitutions nor autocommit are any substitute for vacations. Banking of time might be if it is done well enough, but I think penalising long vacations is a much better solution.

Edited 10/2/2019 15:09:32

I agree with Kicorse. Don't Penalize players on the internet for activities in real life and vice versa.
Just discourage it by making it clear that if somebody delays an entire season for no good reason, they won't be regarded too well for that.

GG wil play
Primary contact is ADHDnl : https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=7296500493
Second contact is Po1onius : https://www.warzone.com/Profile?p=7950097528

Maximum of 2 or 3 vacations per season would seem to solve the problems of chained vacations. Long banked times and longer boot times could prolong the season by themselves. I think a 4 day boot will add a lot more time than banning vacations, that can add a day to each turn if someone wants to take their time. Long banked times can be used for every game and add up to more than 2-3 vacations.

Edited 10/2/2019 18:10:33

Two thoughts. I don't see the reason for increasing the time per turn to 4 days. 3 days is standard and works for most situations. I think 4 day boot might actually slow things down. The banked boot should be plenty (15 days is a long time).

So ban long vacations then. Make a rule that states that a >N day vacation (maybe N=30) equals a loss.

Secondly, people should recognize that while you may think that's a superior solution, it also requires more coding work than simply not allowing vacation which requires none.

In addition, 15 days of banked time (+ 3 days if you had your orders set before you go on "vacation" and use auto-commit to commit them) is essentially the equivalent of taking consecutive vacations. This is very nearly the equivalent of taking a full 20 days of vacation (which most people only do due to the broken nature of vacations in the first place which encourages everyone to take a full 10 day vacation every time they use one). If you are worried about the lack of vacations, just make sure not to unnecessarily eat into your banked time and you will almost certainly be fine.

Edited 10/2/2019 18:16:51

Death to Beren!!!

Also, penalizing an n-day vacation can still be abused; just take one turn when you meet the limit and set another one.

Farah, that's why I proposed max number vacations per season. Banked time can be used every game as well so could potentially be a lot more than vacations.