Massive Assault
http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/

POLL - introducing time limit on sending turns in clanwar
http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1328
Page 2 of 4

Author:  Quitch [ Sun Jun 27, 2004 2:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

To be honest I don't really follow Maelstrom's idea. Care to explain that again?

Author:  Maelstrom [ Sun Jun 27, 2004 5:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

1) When an attack is declared and defender is assigned, the battle is created with (for arguments sake) a 4 day time limit.

2) If one of the players goes over 3 days, the respective clan leader has one day to assign a new player. If they assign a new player, a new battle is created with a 3 day limit, and the first battle is cancelled.

3) If either battle goes over time, the opponent may finish the game as a victory by timeout.

So in effect, if one player goes inactive, the clan leader has a chance to reassign his battle. If the second player goes inactive, that clan loses.

If, however, a clan leader isn't paying enough attention and they don't assign a new defender in time, the opponent can end the game by timeout.

In this example, the worst case lag in a clan war battle turn is 7 days... 4 for the first battle, and if that lags the clan leader assigns a new player and a 3 day turn limit game is created.

Author:  Artanis [ Sun Jun 27, 2004 7:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

Man, I step away for two days to return home from a living hell of a job, and I fall two pages behind on this thread... :-?

While I agree that somebody should be expected to put a certain amount of dedication into the game, I want there to be some leeway in case something happens. For example, I don't think it's fair if, say, the most active person in all of MAN comes down with food poisoning and suddenly loses four planets because of some bad Burger King. Maelstrom's idea seems pretty good in this respect, in that a player who's slacking off gets the boot while a dedicated player can afford to be hospitalized once or twice without losing the entire war for his clan.

Author:  Enforcer [ Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:12 am ]
Post subject: 

1 other thing is if both me and mael don't have time to check for emails 1 day and there's a game that's jsut gone over 3 days, the clan picks a 2nd person to start the 3 day limit game, but we don't set it up before the 1st hits 4 days. The clan is gonna lose the planet even tho they have picked a 2nd player.

Altho i do like the idea i feel the limits may be abit much.

I'd suggest a 5 day limit, then a 3 day limit. If the 5 day 1 goes over 3 days then it gives the offending clan and me and mael 2 days to get the replacement game setup.

Author:  Quitch [ Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:53 am ]
Post subject: 

Enforcer wrote:
1 other thing is if both me and mael don't have time to check for emails 1 day and there's a game that's jsut gone over 3 days


Which could happen with a four day or four year limit.

Author:  Enforcer [ Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:57 am ]
Post subject: 

yes but if we increase the window that u ahve to assign a new player/cerate the gam there's more chance of the game being setup in time.

Author:  Mrakobes [ Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

actually i think that even 3 days limit is no good
suppose you send turns each 3 days and game on wasserland lasts 20 turns
you will be playing it TWO MONTHS!!
and if you start 2 battles each week...and not finish them properly you will have 8 clanwar games after that 2 months...and Maelstrom says he can not do more that 4 per day.
that's all just slow...why dont make it 1 turn per day..
but all vote for longest limit...
arent you all....slow...

Author:  Maelstrom [ Tue Jun 29, 2004 4:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

If we do games with a short turn limit, people with time constraints (like myself) would be hard pressed to keep up with more than a few games at a time. If we do longer turn limits the games take longer overall and you'll have more to do. I personally don't think that turn limits quicker than 3 days are feasible for many people involved in the war as people can't get to their games every day.


If we have assign too many battles overall, a slow person will get bogged down. If we don't assign enough overall a quick person will not get enough games to keep themselves busy.

What we have done here is come up with a solution that can solve lagging games, which has been a major problem in the current war. Trying to satisfy those that have more time to play is a different issue entirely. Artanis has presented a couple good solutions to that problem in another thread: http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1326.

Author:  Enforcer [ Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:00 am ]
Post subject: 

i play every day, but now adn then i go out in the evening with my m8 (i do have a social life) so then i take no turns for a day and go over the 1 day limit, can't see 1 day limit working.

Author:  mwigor [ Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:40 am ]
Post subject: 

Any scheme of time limits needs to have some flexibility.

Author:  Enforcer [ Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:57 am ]
Post subject: 

i don't think it does, i suggest we have a flat limit of 4 days for a turn, u hit 5 days u lose. Obviously occasionaly lea way may be needed (done on a case by case basis) but most ppl should know if they are going on holiday and plan accordinly.

If people go awol, tough it happens and the clan will just have to live with it and try harder.

Or i might suggest 2 time limits, 3 days for small maps, 4 for the others.

Author:  Maelstrom [ Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:08 am ]
Post subject: 

Ugh, back to hard limits again after all our discussions about that? Why punish the clan? You and I both know that we can't control our clan members! People leave. And they don't tell us. That's just how it works and I don't see how to change that with a game like this. Force people to sign an agreement when they join? Get everyone's phone numbers and call them up every couple days to tell them to do their turns, rain or shine? Life happens.

There have been a few good suggestions on how to deal with it without killing the clan. Lets use one of those.

Author:  mwigor [ Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:14 am ]
Post subject: 

Glad to see the voice of reason coming from maelstrom. Some variation on Rocklizard's time-out idea has to be the way to go.

Author:  Enforcer [ Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:44 am ]
Post subject: 

prob is, is taht anything otehr than ridgid limits means taht it's gonna require alot of work from the guys that run it. Really wish i coudl get the automated system working grr.

Author:  Quitch [ Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:00 am ]
Post subject: 

So, rather than punishing the clan who are, whether they wish to or not, vouching for this player by putting him forward, we should punish all the other clans by making them wait around while one clan gets its act together.

Get reliable players, and finding out whether they're that or not really shouldn't be overly hard, and if they're not, too bad.

It's hard limits or nothing. Soft limits are a waste of everyones time.

Author:  Enforcer [ Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:17 am ]
Post subject: 

the current system doesn't work, ppl abuse it too much. Don't get me wrong alot fo the players are fine and stick to the 3 day limit. But in roder to keep the war moving we need tog et onto slow players asap. But here's a time example..

Day 1: Clan A
Day 5: Clan B is now overdue, hopefully this is picked up by one of us and the clan leader is emailed.
Day 6: is we're very lucky the clan elader has got the email and replaies that he;ll look into it.
Day 8: Clan B is emailed again
Day 9: Clan B replaies they are sorry but no replay from the player.
Day 10: Clan A is contacted for a replay of the game.
Day 11: Clan A contacts their player
Day 12: Player sends replay to devs
Day 13: Devs decide game is too close and has to be redone
Day 14: New player for Clan B is selected
Day 15: Games restarted

So 2 weeks to chase up a game. Obviously this is prob a worst case scenario but Clan A who may have been counting on taking this planet is now 2+weeks behind in their plans. Altho iu've had cases where times between cotnacts are 2*3 times what i've suggested so can get a 4-5 weeks turn around time on this...

Author:  Maelstrom [ Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:18 am ]
Post subject: 

Quitch wrote:
Get reliable players, and finding out whether they're that or not really shouldn't be overly hard, and if they're not, too bad.


I agree that should be possible. But in practice, thats not how it has worked.

Magistr Honna and MortonHQ were very dedicated players. MortonHQ dissappeared from our clan with no warning whatsoever. The same thing happened with Dracovious, who up until then was very active. We knew that Honna was going to have a time where he couldn't play, but it crept up on us without us realizing and he didn't give final warning.

For Tiger's clan there was Vixen who dissappeared. The Devs all got busy but they at least warned their clan.

For FoR, there was Zakuwa that dissappeared without a trace. For the RN, they had a few players leave suddenly, including Arebane, a Marshall at the time I believe.

Where do these players go? I don't know. They don't tell us.

I still haven't seen anyone refute the idea I presented earlier:

A battle has a 5 day turn limit.

If the clan leader spots one of their players going over 3 days, they reassign a new player and inform the clan war admin and a new battle is created with a 3 day limit. The same clan cannot reassign a new player after that point.

If the clan leader didn't notice the battle in time, its their fault for not keeping up on the status of their clan's battles (which can be easily found from the tournaments section of the main MA page BTW). The admin has very little to do, about the same as they would when declaring a new attack. They change some names, cancel a battle, and create a new one when a clan leader sends them an email.

Author:  Maelstrom [ Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

I just discussed this idea further with Mrakobes. He raised a couple problems with this idea:

1) What's to keep people from playing with their full 5 day limit if their clan leader isn't paying attention? At a 5 day per turn rate some maps could go up to 3 months or more.

This problem needs to be fixed somehow. Any ideas?

2) This could also be used as an escape if someone is losing a game. In order to avoid this kind of abuse we can do a combination of two things:

When choosing a different player, that clan has to pay a penalty. That amount is still up for discussion. I think that 10 is enough, but Mrakobes thinks it should be 30 or 100 :).

Secondly, if this option is used, the player that is replaced is forced to be inactive... or we can have a 3 strikes you're out policy where if they do that 3 times without warning they are out of the war permanently.

Author:  Quitch [ Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:14 am ]
Post subject: 

If you calculate how long a 3 day limit would take, assuming the players stick to the limit, then you'll realise that anything longer than this is insane. If anything, you should have an overall game limit, perhaps on a per map basis, and then if that limit is hit decide who wins based on some rules to do with army size, income and the like.

Author:  Mrakobes [ Wed Jul 21, 2004 8:14 am ]
Post subject: 

my opinion is
games should be created with 3 days limit
if player not makes turn within 2 days the leader can change player
if other player not makes move within said day - the game can be autofinished after 3 days
i personally would prefer 2 days limit (actually even 1 day for me i only make it 2 days cuz we all are in different time zones.)
if someone can not make it within 3 days he just should not be allowed into clanwar.

Page 2 of 4 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/