I would like to propose changes to the implemented rules for the 9x9 Ladder. I specify 9x9 because it is possible that these changes are less motivated for games on larger boards. Each change is motivated by a wish to reduce the frustration of myself and other players with the current implementation.
Decrease the initial Fischer time from 3 days to 24 hours.
Rationale: Currently, when joining the Ladder, one must challenge another player already on the Ladder, and my experience is that they almost always do not respond to the challenge (they may not understand how the Ladder works, or they may have forgotten that they joined the Ladder, or they may just not care about OGS).
This proposed change would cut the waiting time for nonresponsive people to 1/3 the current time. Note that Fischer time increases automatically after the initial time period. It could increase to the current 3 day period after a move or two, if there is a good reason for the 3 day period.
Increase the number of people one can initially challenge from 3 to 10.
Rationale: This proposed change would allow challenging more people, so that three or four actual games could be maintained ongoing. It works well in combination with the increase in initial Fischer time previously proposed.
I am hoping that readers will express their opinions and reasons either for or against these proposals, so a consensus can be found without burdening any one person with making the decision.
As long as the total receivable challenges stays at 3, I think it should be fine to increase the amount of challenges one can make.
As for reducing 3 days initial time to 1, not everyone logs onto the server every day… this would lead to a lot of otherwise active ladder participants being kicked from the ladder unnecessarily.
As a general observation, I think someone who only a few days ago hadn’t played in ladders and didn’t know how ladders worked should be cautious about proposing fundamental changes to ladder design until they have more experience of ladders. Such a user is better placed to provide “This wasn’t intuitive to a new user” type feedback.
On the actual suggested changes:
Decrease the initial Fischer time from 3 days to 24 hours.
Bad idea because it means people who don’t play on weekends could no longer participate in ladders without being susceptible to challenges on Saturdays (or late Fridays) kicking them out the ladder losing their hard-earned place. Or just not logging in every day, that is an acceptable usage of OGS by correspondence players, so if you are primarily a live-game player then you just need to accept things happen more slowly in correspondence land. There may be other groups/tournaments/ladders with “fast correspondence” time settings, but the main ladders are for traditional correspondence game cadence.
Increase the number of people one can initially challenge from 3 to 10.
Is this just initially (like the first day you join the ladder), or ongoing new rule? Are you also proposing that the number of challenges a single user can receive increases from 3 to 10? That is a substantial increase in game burden which could put people off participating in ladders, I know it would have me (on the 19x19 ladder long ago). And if not, by the pigeonhole principle, you could end up with greedy challengers saturating the challengees so other people have no one to challenge.
Sure, but wouldn’t it be simpler just to make it a bit harder than a single mouse click to join a Ladder? Like have three dialog boxes, one after another, that each ask, “are you sure that you will respond to a challenge in this Ladder by actually playing the game? Click OK or Cancel.”
I think that in general we prefer to encourage people to participate, and dislike dialog-gates or other forms of “friction”.
In particular, the dialog-gate you suggested implies poor-faith of the person you’re asking, which is not something we generally want ( * )
( * Don’t talk to me about the rengo-resign-dialog Yeah yeah I know, very poor faith, still thinking about that But it genuinely is trying to discourage that behaviour .)
There is no reason to change the rules just for 9x9 and not for 19x19. With Fischer time +1 day/move, you are expected to make at least 1 move/day regardless of board size. Playing a 25x25 game isn’t more burdensome than 9x9.
I think the one day start thing could only be implemented of ladder games also paused on weekends, which I don’t personally like. Essentially I agree with Uber on this.
On increasing the number of challenges, I think 10 is maybe too many but 5 or 6 could be good.
I think it depends on whether or not we want more churn on the ladder. If people are challenged and feel they have too many games, don’t want to start another but still want to stay on the ladder, then they can just cancel and lose their place. The problem with this is that the challenger might get an undeserved place on the ladder (i.e. a high spot not sure to skill but business of opponent). However I’m not sure this is such a bad thing. If they can be challenged 6 or 10 times they are likely to rapidly be pushed down anyway.
I actually agree with this. Not three dialogs ofc but an info box with basic explanation of ladders and the option to join or not the ladder at that point. And maybe only for the first time anyone joins a ladder anywhere.
And also this. If changes make sense for 9x9 they sound also make sense for 19 I think.
I think increasing the number of challenges someone can make to 10 (or 8 or 6 or 5) is a great idea. The number of receiving challenges could be kept at 3. Nobody would get overwhelmed but active players get a chance for more games if they want.
I also think joining is a bit too easy. It’s very frustrating to scroll through hundreds of inactive players to find a suitable challenge when starting out. Would it be possible to require a challenge when joining? For example when joining the ladder, the view could scroll to the highest challenge possible and ask the new joiner to pick an opponent?
I actually like the current timesettings for ladders, i’ve found them very fast-paced for correspondence games due the lack of weekend pauses. Dropping the max time from 3 days to 1 would prolly cause ton of timeouts (tho there already is a lot of timeouts happening with ladder games)
But something ive always desired is the option for group admins to change the settings for group ladders. Faster settings for those who want to run faster ladders, chinese/AGA/NZ rules for those who prefer it over japanese rules, more/less open games per user etc etc.
I think it would require a lot of coding to make that feature happen, but i feel like it would be worth it. Allowing group owners/admins to adjust those group ladders into something more unique might give those smaller ladders more meaning, and also make groups bit more active than they are now.
Morejelly, I like your thinking. I want to be active in the Ladder, but playing three moves a day, average, is not very exciting. I’d love to have a conversation with the designer of these Ladders to find out why they are set up the way they are. I’m really very curious.
I’m not at all disputing this. After all, the present settings must have been thought about and decided long ago, possibly in the late 1950s. I’m just very curious why the designers are happy playing an average of three moves a day. To me it is frustrating. I cope by playing on a mobile site that will give me a live 9x9 game with someone near my rank almost always within 30 seconds.
Yeah yeah I know, very poor faith, still thinking about that 
But it genuinely is trying to discourage that behaviour