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?

@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.