I will remove the 4 days and reset to 3 days. I thought the 5 day span would make things more easy than 3 as games might pile up.

As far as other concerns, I'll look into them when I get the chance.

I will say one thing. I really wish you would've expressed your opinions in the improvements forum rather than waiting until decisions were made. I took everything that was said into consideration and if you didn't voice your opinion earlier, then I had no information on your opinions to begin with.

Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong anywhere.

Vacations are pretty helpful for people who can lose internet due to travel and whatnot. Losing it really sucks for them. But why on earth should they be holding up the rest of the league?

"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." (kicorse)

Unfortunately, WL takes a lot longer to play than most games. Isn't this kind of case only possible because people can start chaining their vacations together? I did a cursory look at the 3v3 EU games. The longest I found took 14 turns. I'm aware there could be other games with substitutions, but that isn't important. 14 turns, with 3 days apiece, is already 42 days/1.5 mos. as an expected "maximum" time to completion. If your schedule is variable, that already sounds rough. But if one guy can chain a bunch of vacations together, then that 42 days becomes 92, IF nobody else adds their own vacations into the mix.

Why the hell should anyone/everyone else add 50 internet days into their schedule, if the vacationer isn't even fully available for the original 42?

Doesn't it penalize "faster" (or normal speed) players when others get to play much slower? If we are going to argue about fairness, how do we justify holding up the rest of the competition because someone is afk?

Banked time allows greater control over the timeframes, both for players and organizers. Organizers can set the effective vacation time/game themselves. People who take vacations outside of CL aren't effectively penalized. Players can choose to spend some extra time on specific games rather than hitting a pause button on everything. You lose the autocommit, but I think the flexibility regained helps immensely. You can spend a banked day instead of a vacation while waiting to see your teammate's orders or whatnot. The biggest downside imo, is that you can wait out the banked time on each individual game, separately, but this isn't functionally that different from the vacations. Except instead of holding up everyone at once, you slow the game down vs specific people.

I can't help but think that it's cyclical. The vacations required by slow games are often caused by vacations. I'm all for giving people wiggle room in their schedule, but not if it screws the rest of the competition, or enables an avalanche of scheduling conflicts. If it was anywhere else, we would never wait for the afk guy.

If vacations are required somehow, then I would agree with kicorse. Penalizing the vacation chainers would make things much more fair, and if one of their opponents boots later, it won't matter. This doesn't solve the waiting problems, but at least it fairs up the immediate game results. Theoretically, people in upcoming games could ask to be substituted. I feel like this is a good enough bandaid solution.

Disregard means nothing. Game results and bans are what people care about.

edit: about the 3 to 4 days thing. 3 days is normally fine, people only need the extra day for specific turns.
2nd edit: Yah, sorry Cowboy. :(

Edited 10/2/2019 18:57:07

@cowboy

that is the nature of public debates and decision making

Edited 10/2/2019 18:56:30

Of course it's the nature, but how am I supposed to read everyone's mind.

It's damned if you do, damned if you don't

Edited 10/2/2019 19:11:33

"how am I supposed to read everyone's mind."

you could always have a hard time limit for suggestions. Maybe a 3 day boot timer on thread replies, with vacations honored. :D

in all seriousness, i empathize with your frustration, even as I contribute to it. Sry .-.

edit - It seems like there are people who are slow to join CL games? That's probably a related but separate problem

Edited 10/2/2019 19:26:25

If you do not permit vacations, you have to permit Clans to share accounts.
My 2 cents

Wouldn't this both alleviate time constraints and enable more cheating?

@Cowboy, you do the best you can with the information you're given so I think you're doing just fine running things. I didn't speak my thoughts earlier, and that's on me. For the record 3 day boot + 15 banked = 21 days to take 2 turns which is not terrible. It prevents the whole 50 days to take a turn while letting people do RL things.

Sticky points I can think of with that system:

1) If the goal is to speed things up, adding 15 days per game may not actually do that if people use their full time whether they would vacation or not. Could actually slow CL down.

2) In team games if multiple players have RL things going on at different times it is only enough time for one of them to vacation.

If the goal is to speed things up, adding 15 days per game may not actually do that if people use their full time whether they would vacation or not. Could actually slow CL down.

Let's try to maximize our stalling. With the system of our last season, we can have three players in a 3v3 take 70 days of vacation, giving 210 days of vacation. With no vacations honoured, but 15 days of boot time per player, we could stall for a maximum of 45 days.
It might not speed up the league a ton (although i think it will speed it up significantly), but it will get rid of the excessive game-durations that we've seen over the past few seasons.

For the record 3 day boot + 15 banked = 21 days to take 2 turns which is not terrible.

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

Edited 10/2/2019 19:58:18

I will say one thing. I really wish you would've expressed your opinions in the improvements forum rather than waiting until decisions were made. I took everything that was said into consideration and if you didn't voice your opinion earlier, then I had no information on your opinions to begin with.

Sorry Cowboy. You are right, and you're a star for organising it. I was unaware of the other thread until today, because I only occasionally visit the forums.

The various criticisms of Glass's improvement on my suggestion would be easily dealt with. E.g. it's no coding issue at all if, on the very rare occasion that someone breaks the rule, you manually change the result to a loss for that team.

That being said, I am persuaded that the banking of time is almost as good if you start with a 15 day bank. Complaints about opponent-play-speed will probably get louder, because at least you had to take vacations in all games or none. But hey... there'll always be something to whine about.

So provided you start with 15 days banked, I withdraw my objection, your honour.

Edited 10/2/2019 20:26:34

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'?