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.