I agree, there is room for improvement. It’s not that we don’t want to!
But how to do it? Ladders are meant as a fast-paced, competetive thing, and the public voting confirmed that. If you auto-activate vacation, we are back at the problem of people forgetting about OGS. Waiting 4 weeks for someone who doesn’t care about OGS anymore is no fun. Maybe lock the auto-vacation to 1 week?
Making different ladders (with different time settings) is also an option. Like: Fast Ladder, Slow Ladder, etc.
There is no simple solution. You will always find someone who is upset.
@Francisa: I like fast ladders as much as the next guy. I’ve moved from the bottom of the ladder to the top, and yes there were annoyingly drawn out games along the way. But I don’t believe this change has significant impact on the speed of the ladder. Game speed, in Fischer time, is determined almost entirely by the time added per move, not by the cap.
So all this talk about speed is irrelevant. The difference is negligible. So lets talk about the other impacts that an increased cap will have, such as reducing time-outs and increasing ladder participation (by at least @trohde). I think both of those are good things. I’ve not, so far, heard of any realistic downsides to an increase to 7 days.
Well, I just responded to “Ladder time limits are currently 1 day added per move with a maximum of 3 days” I have edited my post to make it a bit clearer, thanks.
For the record, for the way I play, 7d+1d would probably result in longer games on the average. I’m probably someone the fast-paced players would find frustrating to play against.
I probably go about a move per day and occasionally play through variations ~quickly. However when the move is complicated - taking lots of reading or evaluating value of multiple feasible positions on the board - I will often take my time. That means I would alternate between filling in the max clock time and spending it.
With 3d+1d I only have at most 3d to waste considering a move (I don’t really spend all my day thinking of the move ofc, but I do come back and take a look 1 or more times per day). With 7d+1d I would have 7d to waste.
(Personally, I would be super happy with 7d+1d, I’ve come close to timing out games during busy periods as well as others on this thread)
I don’t think it will make games significantly longer, just that there will be occasional pauses.
I take many three-day weekends. I have to take vacation when this happens. This is only a minor inconvenience for me, but I would rather I didn’t need to take it.
I think this entire thread is a lot of personal preference, and flipping it either way will upset people. It seems to have degenerated into a rather pointless back-and-forth, with nothing positive coming forth.
The thing is, there are two different ideas for ladder play styles. There was a poll (seemingly back in 2014) that overwhelmingly demonstrated that the most preferred style was 3+1 and that’s what has been put in place.
I’m playing a correspondence game on the ladder (9x9). I’m black, which may or may not be relevant. Just moved a few minutes ago. Opponent moved immediately. I have 35 hours to move. My opponent has three days. I’ve noticed with some other games I’ve played on the ladder that the time limitations are inconsistent. Any reason? thanks
Ladders are Fischer timing 3days + 1 day/move. So if you have 11 hours left and made a move, you would then have 35 hours (1 day 11 hours) after that more. If your opponent had >48 hours, any move would top them back up to the max of 72 hours/3 days. If you made another move at 35 hours remaining, you’d have 59 hours left after the move. (2 days 11 hours).
I have edited my post to make it a bit clearer, thanks.