Time limits in ladder challenges


How are time limits in ladder challenges set? Somone challenged me recently, and the time limit is 3 days per player. In all other challenges, it has been 7 days per player.

3 days is less than I like. If I go away for the weekend, it potentially means I need to use up my vacation allowance.

1 Like

The moderators made this change about a few weeks to a month ago. I dislike this move as well.

I had to withdraw form all ladders (was a member almost in all of them). 3 days is too short! For me, minimum acceptable time is 5 days, but I prefer 7 - as it was earlier.

Another recent change that most players may not be aware of: if you time out on 1 of these games, you get kicked out of the ladder and you have to start at the bottom. They sure educate us in playing fast.

Also, if you haven’t seen it, there is a poll at the moment in the forums about time settings for ladders. Your opinion might get more exposure in the thread of the poll.

1 Like

Discussion in this thread indicated that the change was made for the sake of having the ladder games move faster. It’s a shame that the potential impact on the thousands ladder players wasn’t more thoroughly considered.

The irony is that the change doesn’t really even force games to move faster, it just reduces the flexibility for players. With either a 7 day max or 3 day max (or even a 1 day max, which would be equivalent to simple timing with one day per move), a player still just has to average 1 day per turn to avoid depleting their clock (given that the +1 day/turn increment stays the same). The change only limits how much of a cushion players are given to accomodate for unexpected situations where they are occasionally away for a few days.

From what we’ve heard the majority of people were happy with the change. I’ll also point out that thread was open for 10 days before anything was done with no other feedback.

In the end, we have to try to make as many people happy as possible… if you want your feedback heard then vote in the poll:

[quote=“matburt, post:6, topic:1493”]
In the end, we have to try to make as many people happy as possible…[/quote]

Yes, and it is obvious that you‘re doing a LOT to make it so. Just please don’t let this become a majority vs. minority thing … before p!ssing off any minorities it will always be better to make some things optional instead of restricting too much.

Greetings, Tom

I didn’t see the earlier thread about it. As I said, my preference is for longer limits (but 1 day increments) - failing that, my preference is for weekends off if limits are relatively short (e.g. 3 day max.)

The reasons for my preference are pragmatic - I am quite often awy at weekends. If I’m scuba diving, I may have no access to wi-fi and so I am not able to play. The vacation allowance isn’t sufficient to cover both my holidays and weekends away.

Would one idea be to bifurcate the ladders - set up one with longer time limits and also a shorter time limit version?

If they do eventually get more ladders going with different time settings, I wonder if they could make a “relegation” ladder (with relaxed time limits) that people automatically join with a timeout in the main ladder.

(I apologize, I’m going to start my brainstorming here… I may ramble a bit.)

If they want to move back up, they must finish a “promotion” game (perhaps tournaments could be to decide who deserves to move back up). Alternatively, players who complete a relegation ladder game may be promoted automatically. As for players who timeout in the relegation ladder, they are removed from the ladder completely (forcing them to start from the bottom).

The downside is that the ladder ranks would become more complicated to deal with. A #1 player in the main ladder should move to #1 in the relegation ladder with a timeout, but should be “punished” for the timeout by not going back to #1 upon promotion.

To do this properly, the ranks of players in both ladders would have to be considered together rather than separately. To wit, the timed out player would slide down next to the next best ranking player within the relegation ladder. So if the #1 player on the relegation ladder is #5 overall, then a #1 from the main ladder would slide to #4 and everyone else’s rank would adjust accordingly. This means that upon promotion, the former #1 would have to work a little bit to get back to the top.

For the sake of clarity, another example: #123 on the main ladder times out and gets relegated. The next best player on the relegation ladder is #234 overall. This means that the timed out player drops to #233; players #124 to #233 move up one position and player #234 stays the same. It’s harsh, but isn’t as nearly as bad as starting from the very bottom.

Yeah… That’s just my crazy idea.

Prior to your Jul 8 post in that thread, it wasn’t clear that any change was imminent.
Only one person, mlopezviedma, had suggested that they wanted a timing change. The only other posters, anoek and trohde, seemed quite neutral. Following that, there was just 10 days of silence before a sudden decision to make the change.

I’m sure more people would have spoken up if it was clear that a change down to a 3day max was about to be decided. I certainly would have, if at least to express the opinion that preventing eternal games would be better addressed by reducing the increment instead.