Ladder timeout reprieve unfair

[alemitrani]

@Lys

The only reason for kicking off people is because they don’t actually play at all. There are a lot of players who subscribed the ladder, played for a while and then forgot about it or simply stopped playing but didn’t drop off.
This is an issue because they remain in their place forever. They will take years to slowly fall down naturally. In that time many other players could challenge them just to find out they didn’t get an actual game.

We can’t check constantly thousands of players for their activity so the check is left to challenges: if the challenged is inactive he will be kicked off, thus cleaning the ladder.

This is helpful. Maybe what is needed is a better way of dropping inactive players, because as you say, my opponent is actively participating, and probably didn’t deserve to be dropped. Perhaps a “three strikes and you’re out” approach - 3 timeouts within a certain period of time.

[shinuito]

@alemitrani

3 timeouts within a certain period of time.

I think this could still a bit lax, depending on implementation.

There’ll still be hundreds of inactive people in the middle of the ladder who get challenged about once a month or less frequently, but who might’ve even just left OGS altogether but won’t get dropped out of the ladder because it’d take two or three people to challenge them sufficiently close together.

This is more or less what would happen before the timeout bug got fixed. One would have to manually report these players to get them removed from the ladder, otherwise someone else challenges them next month and the same timeout happens after 3 days.

Of course some users would just adjust their choices when challenging, like challenging only players with other ongoing games.

[g-g-g-g-g-g-Go]

Am I missing something? If you challenge an inactive player, won’t they timeout and be ejected from the ladder anyway? You get a free jump up the ladder, and inactive players get pruned. Is this not how it works?

[shinuito]

@g-g-g-g-g-g-Go

Am I missing something?

With respect to…?

@g-g-g-g-g-g-Go

If you challenge an inactive player, won’t they timeout and be ejected from the ladder anyway? You get a free jump up the ladder, and inactive players get pruned. Is this not how it works?

It’s how it works now yes.

[alemitrani]

The point raised in this topic is about how someone dropping out due to timeout and rejoining might affect their other opponents, who don’t get a win from the timeout and who might lose the possibility of climbing the ladder that they would have expected. If you read the topic from the start all of this will be explained in more detail.

[yebellz]

[suggestion] "Limbo" State for Ladder Exits

Current implementation and issues: When a player withdraws from a ladder, they automatically resign all of their ongoing games in that ladder, which is usually undesirable. The workaround is to play out those games, while canceling any new challenges. However, this has the drawback of potentially giving a bunch of people free climbs up the ladder. When a player times out in a ladder game, they are removed from the ladder ranking, however their other games in that ladder are kept ongoing but ar…

Feature Request: new way to handle timing out

A long time ago (around mid 2014 and earlier), the ladders did not punish time outs at all. They simply counted as a loss and players would stay on the ladder. This had the drawback of inactive players cluttering up the ladder and giving people an easy way to climb up the ladder (just by challenging them and waiting for them to time out). When the system changed to the current implementation (where a time out drops the player from the ladder, unless a rare bug occurs), I made a proposal regardi…

[alemitrani]

I like the ladder limbo proposal. That would resolve the issue raised in this topic.

A simpler approach might be to keep the existing system with one modification: people only get dropped on timeout when they are not playing any challengers. The reprieve system would then work as intended (if they are playing games in which they have challenged someone else) without adversely affecting anyone.

[g-g-g-g-g-g-Go]

Yeah, sorry, I misread your comment describing what would happen if there were a 3 strikes per month rule and thought you were talking about how things are now. Thanks for the clarification.

I don’t think the current system is so bad. OK, it is a little unfair to the challenger of the timeouterer, but people choose to drop out of the ladder all the time and it sucks if you were beating them, but that’s life. As to denying the timeouterer a reprieve, well that still doesn’t help the challenger. They still miss out on the promotion, so the only purpose it would serve would be spite.

I think the best solution is to message the timeouterer and agree to pause your game until the others are resolved. I doubt they would object unless they were a complete dick.

[g-g-g-g-g-g-Go]

[ug. This is supposed to be a reply to alemitrani, not yebellz (no offense yebellz)]

That sounds fair to me. So to clarify:
If a player times out but has other games active, they forfeit that game but keep their place on the ladder and continue their other games.
If a player times out of their last active game they are ejected from the ladder (so that will still take care of inactive players). This also means that them being ejected will effect no other players.
A player who has timed out may neither make nor receive new challenges until they win one of their current games (otherwise inactive players could keep receiving challenges and remain on the ladder indefinitely)

Would be fair but might be a pain for the devs to implement.
A simpler (but not quite as nice) workaround: challenger and timeouterer agree to pause game until timeouter completes other games.

[alemitrani]

@g-g-g-g-g-g-Go

[ug. This is supposed to be a reply to alemitrani, not yebellz (no offense yebellz)]

That sounds fair to me. So to clarify:
If a player times out but has other games active, they forfeit that game but keep their place on the ladder and continue their other games.

I think that is actually @yebellz 's ladder limbo idea you are referring to…

@g-g-g-g-g-g-Go

As to denying the timeouterer a reprieve, well that still doesn’t help the challenger. They still miss out on the promotion, so the only purpose it would serve would be spite.

I wouldn’t say spite, but I agree that eliminating the reprieve is not the best solution.

The simplest solution would be to only drop people from the ladder when they time out if they don’t have any ongoing games with other challengers.

@g-g-g-g-g-g-Go

A simpler (but not quite as nice) workaround: challenger and timeouterer agree to pause game until timeouter completes other games.

“Ladder Shenanigans”, involving this and other ways of exploiting the rules of the ladder, could be a topic to itself.

[g-g-g-g-g-g-Go]

@alemitrani

@g-g-g-g-g-g-Go

A simpler (but not quite as nice) workaround: challenger and timeouterer agree to pause game until timeouter completes other games.

“Ladder Shenanigans”, involving this and other ways of exploiting the rules of the ladder, could be a topic to itself.

True, this does not compel the timeouterer to act honourably, but I believe the vast majority of people who time out do so accidentally and would be happy to do the right thing. Anyway, There’s no harm in asking them.

Gaming the system would be (is) difficult.
You would have to notice that you were about to lose to a challenger.
You would have to deliberately time out of a challenge you were making.
You would have to be absolutely sure that you could win another challenge you were making.
You would have to be sure that the challenges against you will complete before the challenge you are making completes.
You would have to act like a dick and refuse a direct request to do the fair thing.

And for what? You’ve prevented a slip of two rungs on the ladder(!) at the cost of all honour!? Is it worth it?

[g-g-g-g-g-g-Go]

@alemitrani

I think that is actually @yebellz 's ladder limbo idea you are referring to…

I had not read yebellz’ suggestion in full when I wrote that. Great minds think alike! (or fools never differ).

The only difference is that he offers no reprieve which seems unduly harsh to me.
I think you should be allowed back from limbo if you win a challenge you are making. This would also benefit people who are challenging you (as it does usually).

[Samraku]

@g-g-g-g-g-g-Go

fools never differ

I’ve never heard that proverb, but I like it. A good complement to “great minds think alike”.

[g-g-g-g-g-g-Go]

@shinuito

what about just promoting the winner to the position of the challenger when the game was started in some way.

That doesn’t seem fair either. Usually the challengee will have slid 20 or 30 places by the time the game finishes (if they are not actively winning their own challenges). If you used this rule, you would have to apply the same rule for every game.

[dragon-devourer]

For comparison, DGS does this (here: DGS - Dragon Go Server):

@DGS

• If a player loses on timeout, the losing player will receive a penalty of some points (see ladder configuration) and will be withdrawn after a certain limit of points is reached. Playing in tournament games will recover from the penalty.

…

• On each timeout the losing player will receive a penalty of 100 points.
  The penalty points can be reduced by one with each own move played.
  If 500 penalty points are reached, the user will be automatically withdrawn from the tournament

To be clear, there is no reprieve in DGS; when you’re out, you’re OUT. Importantly, this means the DGS system is inherently safe from the OGS issue raised by the OP.

500 is a bit generous. Maybe 200 would be better. But, in principle, it’s a good system as it prunes inactive players (or habitual escapers) but makes some allowances for occasional mishaps so long as they are actually only occasional. And, of course, doesn’t have any unfairness due to any sort of reprieve.

[shinuito]

They also have

• The user will be withdrawn from the ladder, if player hasn’t accessed the server
  within the last 30 days (excluding vacation).

Which is pretty handy way to keep the ladder with active players on the site at least also.

[NeilZeBub]

Good day folks.

I have just today finished a 9X9 ladder challenge and have 1 ongoing challenge.

When I check my position and who I can challenge in the ladder I get the option to Join the ladder!

How can I be currently playing games in a ladder I’m not in?

I guess I have been kicked even though I’ve been playing daily and the games continue anyway!?

Should I maybe call a moderator on my last current ladder game?

[NeilZeBub]

Just realised this is about actual games that have timed out. Not just being in a ladder. Hope I haven’t confused anyone besides myself!

[alemitrani]

If you timeout of a ladder game you will get dropped from the ladder, even though you may have other ongoing games in the same ladder. If you win one of those ongoing games you will jump back up the ladder as if you had never been dropped.

If you look at your list of recent games you will probably find that you timed out of one of your ladder games.

[alemitrani]

This thread is specifically about what happens when people time out of ladder games. You posted in the right place.