We are all on the same side here, we are all go players, trying to look for a better solution. Lets keep that in mind.
palapiku wrote:
I'm also very perplexed by this decision.
From a business perspective, why are you giving players a legitimate need to play on other servers?
From a potential for abuse perspective:
* Players know what they are signing up for;
* Admins should deal with blatant abuse;
* If someone wants to waste their opponent's time, a time-honored way to do it is to finish the game then never accept the result. This can happen in games with any time limit. On KGS people occasionally do this (happened to me once) but it's not a big deal because admins are there to deal with it.
* No other server has this limit and yet this does not seem to be an issue in practice.
From an esthetics perspective, it's ugly to have an arbitrary time limit where none is needed.
From a practical perspective, I personally occasionally want to play or watch games slower than 30 minutes, so I'm against this
Leaving the game as it is for 40-45 minutes hoping for a disconnection is not against the rules of the system itself. An admin cannot intercede in those cases.
If one user decides to lose on time, there is nothing to do but to wait. Can you imagine the helplessness of dealing with this over and over?
Quote:
Their stats should be accessible. What percentage of their wins were escapes? With this knowledge in hand, you can constrain the time limits accordingly.
This is not useful at all. First of all, there is a lot of work to do on statistics just to try to predict your opponents behavior, which is a very complex solution for a user to learn to use.
Second, those users are more likely to WIN games because their opponent escaped, if there is any forfeit at all. And lastly, they are playing within the rules of the game their opponent accepted.
Bear in mind that the whole point here is how to respect the rating system, and how good a game with long settings is to the rating system itself.
Figure that if 20% of the 60m+ games ended up in forfeit, they would be pretty terrible.
Quote:
Of course there will be some arbitrary time limit. But you don't seem to be acknowledging that currently it's WAY TOO LOW.
There is more than one conversation ongoing here. Some believe there should be no upper limit. You imply that you do believe there is a need for one.
They could be different arguments. I said before im not opposed at all to change it. But if i change it to say, 45, then why not 46? and so on. Thats why i asked a very important question in bold.
topazg wrote:
Ok Gabriel, quick question:
You're seeing lots of people opposing this here, and quite a few of them opposing it strongly. Do you have a similar number of people feeling it's a superior decision to the alternatives? From a business perspective, it's clear you want the best for your server, yet opinion here is that the decision is to the detriment of the server. Much like wms' decision on Fischer timing, it's your prerogative to do whatever you like ... but I'm surprised you seem to be unswayed by the proportionally large lack of support it seems to be getting.
Do you have another reason for the policy that isn't related to the players' desires that over-rides the popular opinion in this thread, or is it a case of you feeling you know what's best for the players more than the players do?
First of all, let me summarize the request:
I want to be able to play a long time settings with:
1- with any kind of time configuration.
Remember that right now, as it is speedchase can get a slow or even slower game than 40mins 40/5.
If you assume byoyomi starts around move 125, and there are in average 120 moves more, 40mins 40/5
is a maximum of about 168 minute game. (80 min + ((120moves + 10 periods)*40 secs/60secs))
With a 30 minute main time, 50 second/5 byoyomi, he gets a 168 minute game.
Even better, in the second case, if he gets to byoyomi early, the game lasts even longer!
But, the difference stalling in one game to the other is 43 minutes to 34, Might not seem like a lot, but each minute added to the main time enlarges this scenario even more.
Even more, you have up to 120 secs byo-yomi. With this calculation,
the longest live game right now for Byo-yomi is over 5.5 hours! 2- and force my opponent to be online/live all the time during the game
When deferred go is in, any player could step out, disconnect, etc and deal with any situation that could arise in a game.
EDIT: As per a user's suggestion on Kaya, im expanding on this:
Deferred game on a live server like ours basically means there is no escaper clock. The clock would still be running, but the user has the option to leave for a certain amount of time, or deal with any technical issue he has with some time to spare.
So if a user is actually planning to spend more than 5hours on a game, he can easisly set up a deferred game, and the case where a user stalls is not terrible: several deferred games could be played at once, and you dont have to wait online for your opponent to lose on time.
3- and has to be rated
Free games have laxer limits and they could easily get expanded. In any kind of problem scenario, resiging is a viable option for any player.
Its a VERY specific request. If any of the above options is ceded, you can play it with the current system.
On the other hand, after hearing some people saying they want exactly this i said:
1- There is the problem of users stalling games, preventing you to play another, or finish the current one, and having to be online for a very long period of time doing nothing but waiting.
2- The current number is arbitrary, but any other number also would be arbitrary. How to make a less arbitrary decision? or
How can we measure what would be the best maximum time allowed for rated matches?3- From personal experience, and by example on FoD, this problem is real
It happens all the time. It happens on 10 minute games. I know for sure that this will happen even on 30 minutes, that we will have to deal with people in that situation that will be much more angry during the occurrence, and there is nothing to do for that case as there is no rule violation.
4- Many games will not be played under high time settings, mainly because only a few handful of users could take up all long games without ever actually playing, just fooling around. Personally i havent seen many non-tournament-rated-equally-handicapped 5.6hour games online.
Even after exposing all this, i still said i would change it to another number we can find suitable, however the only proposal has been "limitless", which is not a viable option without adjourning.
All voices are heard and votes are counted.
This debate could have been the other way around , "why not allow 1 minute absolute games be rated?" And many ultra-blitzers could have the opinion that it should.
This is in the interest of slow players, which are very likely to receive abuse and also affect the rating system with matches as valid as throwing games away.
Are you sure that 5.5 hour games are not enough? And if not, what is enough?
As i said, changing the limit is a single number, i can do it in a second, and im not too attached for a number i picked 4 months ago. IM looking for the next number being less arbitrary than this one. Also, what should we do if we do increase the number, and stalling becomes a regular issue?