Booting players will get banned from this game. If your booting ratio is over 5 % then you can't play Warlight.

If booting people were a bad thing, do you think it would be possible in the first place? If you try to report a player because "they booted me or another player", WL will not even allow you to file the report at all, instead telling you:

Booting players is not against the rules, and you should not report players for booting. Instead, if you're having trouble completing your turn before the boot time expires, please create or join games with higher boot times that you're comfortable with.

---

Or there should be option to prevent boot-players to join our games.

Similarly: no, because booting someone isn't against the rules; it's not a bad thing to do. Getting booted is, since it is the penalty for playing slower than you promised you would (by agreeing to a certain boot-time).
Note that it is possible to filter out players who get booted (as opposed to booting someone) through the open seat prerequisites. Without often-booted players in a game, it is far less likely someone will be booted, since there likely will be no opportunity for it.

---

And if a player get booted from the game then his team-mate can control his troops (booting is not a problem then) so easy.

Booting is a penalty. While it is aimed at one player (the one going over the boot time) and isn't designed to hurt the rest of his team (apart from losing a player), that is unfortunately an unsolvable problem. You see, it wouldn't be fair if the booting team was hurt by having to boot an opponent (after all, they didn't do anything wrong), so when the situation before and after the boot cannot be perfectly balanced (neither having the booted player be removed from the game, nor having him being taken over by a team mate is "fair"), unfortunately the only option is to err on the side of hurting the team mates who's player got booted.

---

Some additional notes:

I do agree with you it is possible to abuse the booting system ("boot-to-win"). However, I do not think this is solvable, since it is a very grey area. Let's say you have a game where one team hasn't lost yet, but is clearly in trouble. If their strongest player goes over the boot time, it's very unsportsmanlike to boot him, okay. But what if he goes over the boot time really, really badly? At which point does he become unsportsmanlike and booting the only viable option?

WL is just a game (and nobody is making money playing it professionally that I know of), so when real life interferes, in just about all cases it will automatically take precedence. Combined with the very hard-to-predict duration of a game, it cannot be helped that sometimes people cannot finish a game.

When you are the one being booted, you know why you were over the time limit and how close you were to submitting orders. However, unless you say so in chat, the other people in the game cannot; it is impossible for everyone else to tell the difference between "he'll commit orders one second from now" and "he gave up on this game and won't submit orders ever". Please remember that before getting angry!

Saying its not a problem because its the way it was designed is not addressing the issue.

Booting to win shouldn't be part of the game, and neither should dragging a game out too long.

There are some things that need to get fixed:

1) First Turn Boots: These are the worst. First turns are slow for two main reasons: first people don't just sit around waiting for the game to start if tis slow to fill and Second, there is a lot of coordination on first turn. Especially with territory selection, there should be an option to have 2x or 3x time for the first turn.

2) So you say, "Join games with longer boot times." That is a problem because invariably, games once started, can drag on forever. Especially when you get a player that will intentially take 99% of allotted time. This is not a strategy that should be endorsed. A solution to this: vary the banked boot time by putting a non-refillable amount of time on the bank that you can tap into.

Example: Boot time at 3 min/turn. Bank Starts with 9 minutes. Players are able to dig into the bank up to X times for Y minutes each game.

3) So you say, "Play your turns faster". However, this is a game. It needs to be fair to all players. Both the other 4-5 others waiting for you taking your turn, and to the player that may have an occassional real life interruption during the middle of the game.

Possible Solutions. In additon to implementing number 2 above, you could add a feature for vote to boot is a majority, or multiple people voting, to prevent the rogue booter.

4) But Boot Percentage isn't enough. Yes there is a pre-req for disallowing people that get booted from joining, but there could also be a pre-req that looks at the average time after boot that a person initiates a boot. A good indicator would be that if on average Player A boots someone within 10 seconds after time running out, I wouldn't want that player in my game.


So, in conclusion, the current boot system is inadequate and leads to unfair games and a lot of hurt feelings. There are multiple ways to improve the boot system, but not if you don't first acknowledge a problem.

Although I was initially dismissive of the OP (because his problem is solvable on his own), I will agree with you John that things could be remarkably better.

I used to post about solutions as well, but I stopped when I realized that I had the opportunity to pick who I played with and avoid the whole problem. That's not a realistic solution for everyone, especially people who just want to join pick-up real time games.

I also agree with you on every single suggestion you had. I might also add that allowing people to return from being booted would help out a whole bunch as well, especially for the people who get booted immediately after the time limit. I believe Fizzer has actually commented before that he wants people to be able to take back control at a later time, as well.

I think my favorite solution of yours was to add a type of banking boot time, which need not allow for additional time to be built up. It takes care of your turn 1 problems if necessary, but also allows for small emergencies or bathroom breaks between turns.

I will still say that 2 minute boot times has to be the worst possible idea, and I have no sympathy for people who have boot problems in a 2 minute game. To me, that sounds like a game build intentionally around booting people who can't keep up.

- Booting players will get banned from this game. If your booting ratio is over 5 % then you can't play Warlight.


- Or there should be option to prevent boot-players to join our games.
- And if a player get booted from the game then his team-mate can control his troops (booting is not a problem then) so easy.

Disregard previous post, I don't know what the heck happened.

Just wanted to say that a nice feature would be to allow booted players to come back to the game and reclaim their seat if they were replaced with an AI.

yes, but that should be an option which can be turned off in the game settings.

1) First Turn Boots

See below.

2) So you say, "Join games with longer boot times." That is a problem because invariably, games once started, can drag on forever. Especially when you get a player that will intentially take 99% of allotted time. This is not a strategy that should be endorsed. A solution to this: vary the banked boot time by putting a non-refillable amount of time on the bank that you can tap into.

Example: Boot time at 3 min/turn. Bank Starts with 9 minutes. Players are able to dig into the bank up to X times for Y minutes each game.

Actually, if games "drag on forever", wouldn't that also mean the number of occurrences of "valid reasons" for going over the boot time would be ever-increasing? I actually think the current system is better than a non-refillable amount (that would make sense to take care of first-turn booting, but I think simply overriding the first turn boot time is better).

3) So you say, "Play your turns faster". However, this is a game. It needs to be fair to all players. Both the other 4-5 others waiting for you taking your turn, and to the player that may have an occassional real life interruption during the middle of the game.

Possible Solutions. In additon to implementing number 2 above, you could add a feature for vote to boot is a majority, or multiple people voting, to prevent the rogue booter.

How is that better than the current (unanimous-except-for-bootee) vote-to-boot? I do agree that in large games (especially with many people you don't know) you should be careful with your direct-boot time.

4) But Boot Percentage isn't enough. Yes there is a pre-req for disallowing people that get booted from joining, but there could also be a pre-req that looks at the average time after boot that a person initiates a boot. A good indicator would be that if on average Player A boots someone within 10 seconds after time running out, I wouldn't want that player in my game.

Interesting suggestion... Can I think about it a little longer before replying?

---

Some existing UV suggestions you might be interested in:

Allowing people to take over again from the AI:
http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/2148913-soft-boot

Extra time on first turn (and some related things):
http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/2355006-variable-turn-length-and-3-n-strikes-option-for-bo

"Booting players will get banned from this game. If your booting ratio is over 5 % then you can't play Warlight."

Booting is part of the game. It would be utterly ridiculous if you'd get banned for using one of Warlight's features (note that it's not an exploit either).

"Or there should be option to prevent boot-players to join our games."

I agree that, if not already implemented (I rarely create and never set requirements), you should also be allowed to include boot rate in open seat requirements.

"And if a player get booted from the game then his team-mate can control his troops (booting is not a problem then) so easy."

You can already turn on the option to turn booted players in AIs. This is much better than having them turn into neutrals. However, I agree there should be two additional options. The option for a player to take his place back later in the game, and the option for teammates to take control.

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. Neither are they more imbalanced than a host sneakily changing a bonus from 2 to 100 to boost his stats or two players in a 1v1v1 game having discussed beforehand to troll the third player into being defeated and then voting to end. In fact, I can't see how this could be called abusable at all. 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. You can only start bringing back the disadvantage after booting the third player and controlling him. For those who don't know, I don't think the third player's territories should become part of yours, but simply that you're capable of controlling his actions.

I hope that's a little clear. Short summary: Booting is part of the game (just as surrender is), but I'd like that not to force the end of the game even sooner.

the reason Fizzer has stated for not allowing teammates to take over troops.. *at no point should it be considered beneficial to be booted*

I disagree with that reasoning. I don't disagree with his choice, as it's his game, but with that type of reasoning. It's probably not going to be changed, so I won't go into much detail, but I really can't see any abuse in it. If a team wanted to have one person do all of the orders, he can just follow the advice of his teammate to the letter. No need to get booted. If you have a crappy teammate, it'll only ruin your game any way. Having him booted and making an actual decent player take control will at least keep the game exciting.

But all of that is moot as it would be an option. Just as much as I don't like the fact it's hard to miss there are changes in bonus income (leading to people messing with a specific bonus to give 100 times as much), it still exists. Custom scenarios exist (even though they can be horrifyingly imbalanced). It's fun to play, and it isn't so much abuse as it is using a feature.

No matter, though, I think the best suggestion here would be to allow for open seat requirements such as boot rate (the amount of boots you have performed).

"In fact, I can't see how this could be called abusable at all. 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. You can only start bringing back the disadvantage after booting the third player and controlling him. For those who don't know, I don't think the third player's territories should become part of yours, but simply that you're capable of controlling his actions."

That is the point!

I usually play 3 vs 3 or 2 vs 2 or more. I like to play real-time team-matches against other players along with my team-mates. It is so frustrating when almost always some players are unable to make their moves in time so they will get booted from the game. Then it means two thing: my whole team surrenders because we will lose (AI sucks usually) or we vote to end the game. Fair? And then I have to find new games...

That's why I hope that there would be that option to control your teammate's armies. Of course there is more work to do but if you are active you will be fine. The game can continue and everyone is happy.

And you can't cheat because you can't boot crappy players unless they are so crappy that they can't be fast enough to do their turns in time. They deserve to get booted if they are too slow.

So you want to prevent players from joining a game for having previously booted players, regardless of the reasoning.

So if I get stuck with a number of opponents who just disappear and I decide to boot them days after the boot time I should be punished for their inaction? That makes perfect sense...

"And you can't cheat because you can't boot crappy players unless they are so crappy that they can't be fast enough to do their turns in time. They deserve to get booted if they are too slow."
If they deserve to get booted, why do you want to punish the people that boot them?

If the problem is that it ruins the game for everybody else, you can just keep people that get booted a lot out: problem solved.

"So if I get stuck with a number of opponents who just disappear and I decide to boot them days after the boot time I should be punished for their inaction? That makes perfect sense..."

You can make up such an argument for every single open seat requirement. Some people don't want to play with "newbies" (even though this means they never get the chance to prove themselves). Others don't want to play with those who lose more often. They may just be players who play a lot of FFAs.

This is just a way of customising the type of people you want in your game. Consider it a lighter form of blacklist.

Booting is part of the game, and anyway who cares about loosing a game because teammates got booted ???
Really this is not a problem and should be the last thing to work on for Fizzer.

It would be nice to get a max boot percentage on the auto games though. Something relatively high like 25%. I mean, if you have more than a 25% boot percentage, you are a serial game abandoner. As it is, right now there are several players I keep running into in the auto games that have upwards of 50% boot percentages. Literally every game I play against them they abandon instead of surrendering when they get to a losing position. Its very annoying.

"Booting is part of the game, and anyway who cares about loosing a game because teammates got booted ???
Really this is not a problem and should be the last thing to work on for Fizzer. "

Who cares it is just a game...

Who cares if you do not have an umbrella and it is raining very hard...

You may not care but a lot of people cares if teammates get booted from the game. And when that shit happens almost always... That's why I hope that there would be an option to control your team-mates armies or something.

Aschenisto, could you please read what other people are posting; Perrin3088 already commented on your suggestion for "an option to control your team-mates armies or something":

the reason Fizzer has stated for not allowing teammates to take over troops.. *at no point should it be considered beneficial to be booted*

In other words, Fizzer said it's not going to happen (and no, I don't have a link to where exactly he said that, but I can second Perrin's recollection, he really did say that). That means reiterating your suggestion without extremely strong arguments (enough to make Fizzer reconsider) is completely pointless.

Montag, the thing is... the demand has nothing to do with number of times you've been booted. It's about number of times you HAVE booted.

He is advocating for a stat showing how often you boot opposing players, regardless of reason, and then making that a open seat requirement option

In other words, Fizzer said it's not going to happen (and no, I don't have a link to where exactly he said that, but I can second Perrin's recollection, he really did say that). That means reiterating your suggestion without extremely strong arguments (enough to make Fizzer reconsider) is completely pointless.

If Fizzer said that then he is wrong, it is so simply.

And there is below some strong arguments:

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. Neither are they more imbalanced than a host sneakily changing a bonus from 2 to 100 to boost his stats or two players in a 1v1v1 game having discussed beforehand to troll the third player into being defeated and then voting to end. In fact, I can't see how this could be called abusable at all. 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. You can only start bringing back the disadvantage after booting the third player and controlling him. For those who don't know, I don't think the third player's territories should become part of yours, but simply that you're capable of controlling his actions.

I hope that's a little clear. Short summary: Booting is part of the game (just as surrender is), but I'd like that not to force the end of the game even sooner.