Poll: What time settings do we want for correspondence ladders?

Since we can’t add options to running polls, this poll has been recreated here with extended options:


Alrighty folks, there’s been no end of suggestions / complaints about what for what the standard time control system for ladder games should be, so hopefully with this poll we can settle on what the majority of people actually want and settle the debate once and for all.

Fischer is by far the most popular correspondence time control system so in the interest of brevity we’re only listing out Fischer options.

  • 1d max, 12h increment
  • 1d max, 12h increment+ weekend pausing
  • 2d max, 12h increment
  • 2d max, 12h increment + weekend pausing
  • 2d max, 1d increment
  • 2d max, 1d increment + weekend pausing
  • 3d max, 1d increment
  • 3d max, 1d increment + weekend pausing
  • 4d max, 1d increment
  • 4d max, 1d increment + weekend pausing
  • 5d max, 1d increment
  • 5d max, 1d increment + weekend pausing
  • 7d max, 1d increment
  • 7d max, 1d increment + weekend pausing
  • 7d max, 2d increment + weekend pausing
  • 7d max, 3d increment + weekend pausing

So vote and let us know! Thanks!

So, I’m assuming that the first time value is the max time rather than the initial time? The initial time for Fischer correspondence games is largely irrelevant as long as it’s above some reasonable minimum to ensure that you have time to get your first move in. The max time plays a much more important role in the overall game.

I voted for 5d(max) +1d (per turn), but I would actually prefer something with a shorter increment, like something from +12h to +16h. I would also be okay with 4d (max). 3d (max) is manageable, but seems a bit tight and restricts flexibility.

So, my real preferences lies in the range 4d to 5d (max), with +12h to +16h (per turn).

I have a feeling that this is the kind of debate that will never be settled. At least after this vote you will have some (slightly) more concrete data to point to and say “This is what we based our decision on.”

I suspect that a very small percentage of site users actually monitor the forums, so you probably won’t have a great sample size. In fact, those persons that are monitoring the forums are more likely to be regular site visitors, so you may see a bias towards shorter time limits.

2 Likes

True on all accounts :slight_smile:

In my personal opinion, the ladder is a nice addition to the website and provides fun climbing up and down the ranks. There’s a lot of challenges between the various people, and the pace should not be too slow. If the games have a 7 Day Max-timer with 3 days increment per move, then it will be eternally boring to climb the ladder.

I see that some people don’t have so much time to visit OGS every 3 days (Weekends excluded), but then again, a competitive system where people climb for the “leadership” of the ladder might not be the right thing for you?

I’d like to see 3d max, +1 day increment and pause the thing on Weekends.

Looking back at an earlier discussion:


it seems that the motivation for reducing the time settings from “7d(max), +1d(inc)” to “3d(max), +1d(inc)”) was the concern that ladder games lasted too long.

I agree that ladder games seem to be a bit too slow. However, I don’t think that reducing the “max” setting was the proper way to address that. Unfortunately, that above thread was closed and the change was hastily implemented before much input could have been considered from the community.

I made some points in this thread (see subsequent replies):


but I want to reiterate them here, since I think last time, they seem to be just summarily dismissed.

Ultimately, it’s the increment that enforces the pace of the game. For example, consider that a “2d(max), +1d(inc)” game can last just as long as a “7d(max), +1d(inc)” game. Reducing the increment is the only way to actually force players to play faster on average.

The approach of reducing the maximum will also tend to speed up some games, but does so in a very different manner. Limiting how much time players can accumulate reduces the length and frequency of their absences. However, consider that this limiting behavior only comes into effect when players are already moving faster than pace enforced by the increment. Thus, the games that are being sped up are ones that are generally moving faster than the enforced pace already. It makes the faster games faster, but doesn’t actually compel the slower games to progress faster.

The benefit of being able to accumulate time up to some maximum is to give players flexibility. Having a 7d max does not mean that players will frequently be gone for weeks at a time, since an increment setting of +X will ultimately enforce that they move at least once per X on average. However, it does give them the flexibility to be occasionally absent for several days without worrying that they might time out or having to be able to switch to vacation time.

Well lets add some more options then :smiley: - I’m closing this poll, recast your votes in the redo