This approach mainly applies to stalling in the 1v1 and seasonal ladders. It would be an optional, non-default setting for other games.

approach: reduce a player's autoboot by 50% (or maybe a fixed interval) if they meet some criteria. For example: a player is behind on income, behind on armies armies and is 50% behind on income or armies

If the criteria is met at the end of a given turn, display a warning message the reduction will start the following turn if the criteria still applies. If the criteria no longer applies after a turn, the autoboot time is restored. However, if the criteria is met for successive turns, autoboot is cumulatively reduced.

The community seems to agree 1v1 ladder stalling is a problem, and kynte has done excellent work showing this with data. https://www.warlight.net/Forum/156499-rio-2016-stallympics

However, there is no consensus on a solution. So far, solutions have been extremely complicated or unfair to players who are genuinely trying to salvage a win. Any solution should not punish non-stallers.

Do you think auto boot decay per some criteria is a simple, fair and effective approach? Please discuss.

Edited 6/15/2016 23:44:05

You can still take a break if you're on the weaker side. But if you're far behind, you shouldn't be able to "take a break" every turn until forced elimination. Some players do this to slow the effect of loses on their current rating.

I've been thinking about the stalling issue...for me I am never trying to stall a loss for my statistics, i am simply building the will power to face the pain.

You could still do that under this approach, but it will help you face the pain sooner:) That will give you more time to analyze your loss and win the next game!

Again, this approach addresses stalling for multiple turns to delay a 1v1 or seasonal ladder loss for days, weeks or even months. Often this involves a high-ranked player stalling a loss against a lower ranked player. There is an "incentive" for high-ranked players to do this, but it has negative consequences for the other player and the ladder community.

Edited 6/15/2016 23:44:38

To be fair, the boot time of the winning player would need to be reduced at the same rate. However, I don't agree that reducing the auto boot is a good idea. People can just accept that while stalling is annoying, it's within the rules, and you just have to deal with it. Maybe you can buy a membership and use autopilot if you're getting frustrated.

Following situation.

I am playing 1vs1 ladder games... 5 of them... I took my turns, but my opponents didnt, I leave Warlight at Friday in the believe that I can come back at Sunday.
Sunday Evening: I get booted from my games, because your rules apply and my boottime was lowered to 1,5 days without me knowing that.
Sorry but this is not a satisfying solution. Not at all. Instead it lowers the fun for people who dont want their enemies to get booted. YES, there are ACTUALLY people who are playing the ladder for FUN! People who play the ladder to get experience and not to farm points. People like me who dont have much time and rely on the 3D boot.

Sorry but your "solution" is ******** and only increses the overall bootrate on the 1vs1 ladder, and helps no one here.
The purpose of Multi-day games is that they are slow-paced and not supposed to be played in a matter of days. If someone plays slower, they play longer. They have a good reaosn to play slower, because the boottime is 3 DAYS. I repeat 3 DAYS. Deal with it.
Not to mention its a confusing rule for newcomers (Fizzer switched to SR, because of the newbies).

My tip is to not behave like an impatient child (typical behaviour of kids) and set your game count higher if you really wanna play ladder games, or join the RT-ladder.

huddyj: believe it or not, rules can be adapted.

Don't worry, for pub games and tournaments you'd still be able to create games without this proposed optional setting.

The changes you are asking for will never be implemented. Changing boot times mid-game is just not worth it.

Cata: Your example is not valid. The approach proposes a warning 1 turn prior to going into effect. So in your example, you would get a warning on Friday (assuming you met the criteria for time decay) and still take the weekend off.

Edited 6/15/2016 23:45:11

Rather than connecting it to winning or losing, why not just have it be connected to time spent on previous turns.

For example, if I'm taking 2 Days, 23 Hours each turn, why not start slowly dropping my boot time (with the actual new boot time being prominently displayed) on future turns to start thwarting repeat behavior. For example, the rules could state that every turn taken in over 2 Days results in a 1 hr boot time deduction. If its cumulative, you'll only be able to stall for so long... And this allows for one off events where a losing player legitimately goes AFK briefly.

Edited 6/15/2016 23:08:12

It's certainly a good choice to get, but it's not needed much, just make games with shorter autoboots.

The changes you are asking for will never be implemented.

Maybe so. Maybe it's not the right solution. However, there haven't been any valid downsides identified yet.

If the purpose behind this is to try and alter a consistent behavior, then this solution is too broad and will punish those not stalling as well. Don't use a bomb to kill a mosquito, especially if there are flyswatters available.

Xy: Until you've seen someone stall for weeks or make a threat to stall for over a month, I agree it doesn't seem like a big problem.

Dogberry: You make a good point about applying an auto-boot reduction regardless of income/army criteria.

We agree that any solution should not punish non-stallers. Maybe a 50% reduction after a warning is too much. Maybe a fixed reduction as you suggested is better.

Waiting almost 3 days is fine every so often. We also agree this isn't a problem in pub games. Someone who doesn't like 3 day boot times can chose to not join md pub games.

Cata: Your example is not valid. The solution proposes a warning 1 turn prior to going into effect. So in your example, you would get a warning on Friday (assuming you met the criteria for time decay) and still take the weekend off.

Rather than connecting it to winning or losing, why not just have it be connected to time spent on previous turns.

For example, if I'm taking 2 Days, 23 Hours each turn, why not start slowly dropping my boot time (with the actual new boot time being prominently displayed) on future turns to start thwarting repeat behavior. For example, the rules could state that every turn taken in over 2 Days results in a 1 hr boot time deduction. If its cumulative, you'll only be able to stall for so long... And this allows for one off events where a losing player legitimately goes AFK briefly.

But what if someone (like me) often takes like 2days 12 hours not because you are stalling, but simply because you are playing slow in general? Why should people who join a game with 3 DAYS boot and make use of those 3 DAYS be penalised?
To go back to my example with the weekend off.

Okay fine, game tells me next weekend I only have 2 days to take my turns. Doesnt change the fact that I am not available the next weekend. So I get booted from my games, ruin the game and am forced to leave the ladder, only because I cant take my turns within (example) 2 days in a 3 DAYS boot game?

Sorry, but your idea is not optimal, since slow players are being under more pressure then.

Until you've seen someone stall for weeks or make a threat to stall for over a month, I agree it doesn't seem like a big problem.

That's your blame for playing with banked time that strong.

I'd like to make a counter proposal. Massively increase the taxes for second homes and expropriate all the real estate sharks. Give all those fance schmancy appartments back to hard working people, who have been expelled during rent price increase, in the first place ...