Time settings?

[topazg]

You could always test out the alternative - remove the limit, and wait for someone complain that there really should be a cap on the limit on rated games to prevent abuse

[MarkSteere]

let's avoid offending the developers if possible

Maybe the developers should avoid offending their potential membership by dismissing their concerns.

They do have that "Your Feature" donation option...

I'd like to see some accommodating taking place amidst these calls for more donations.

[Kaya.gs]

As is today rated games have a "practical limit" of 5.5 hours.
When the game is longer than that, the game will have to be deferred to be rated, which means:

1) The players are not locked into playing that single game
2) The players can disconnect for any time period they wish.

You will be able to play rated games at any time you want. What is the problem? Who is being punished?

[oren]

From the opening...

I tried to start a 45min 40/5 overtime game, and it said it wasn't allowed in a rated match.

This seems to be a completely valid timed game that someone would want to have as rated. I think it's being "punished" to not be able to accomplish that on a server.

[Kaya.gs]

From the opening...

I tried to start a 45min 40/5 overtime game, and it said it wasn't allowed in a rated match.

This seems to be a completely valid timed game that someone would want to have as rated. I think it's being "punished" to not be able to accomplish that on a server.

The compromise i can think of right now, is to lighten restrictions until deferred go is available. However , and i note again, 30min 50/5 would yield a similar time game.

[Dazz]

However , and i note again, 30min 50/5 would yield a similar time game.

I don't think a misunderstanding of how to calculate the time limit is what is at issue. What bothers people is having personal choice and freedom restricted with the rationale being that you have decided you know what is best for them. Nobody wants a nanny go server.

[lemmata]

You could always test out the alternative - remove the limit, and wait for someone complain that there really should be a cap on the limit on rated games to prevent abuse

This seems like Solomon's solution given that the issue is a trivial one for a server that isn't fully open to the public yet.

[shapenaji]

The compromise i can think of right now, is to lighten restrictions until deferred go is available. However , and i note again, 30min 50/5 would yield a similar time game.

If people abusing the time controls IS an issue, it will very readily become apparent. If a fix is required, I think it should happen after there's some test data showing that this is a problem. I don't think anyone would fault a new server for having a problem like that and then dealing with it.

But they certainly WOULD fault a server for instituting a disruptive fix for a problem they aren't aware of having.

It's your server and you can do what you like. But I recommend taking a reactive approach to these kinds of problems, rather than a proactive one, no one knows exactly what the best go server will look like in 10 years. If you're reacting to the player base, and improving it organically, you'll have the best server.

The top down approach is great for a lot of things that can't easily be changed, but this doesn't seem like one of them.

[ez4u]

...

The current settings are maximum 30 minutes main time, and its trivial to change that to another number.

How can we measure what would be the best maximum time allowed for rated matches?...

Thanks for this. I think it is the spirit that we need to make Kaya a great experience.

My suggestion is to start by setting the limit deliberately high, e.g. 5-6 hours main time per player (after all it is still a beta server). Then we use this forum to actively review and analyze all reported cases of abuse through the time controls (admins should sanitize the data so we are discussing techniques of abuse rather than individuals). Based on a community discussion of actual experience, we could then tighten the limits if and when it is deemed necessary.

[MarkSteere]

Nobody wants a nanny go server.

This is the consensus, Gabriel. All of your "features" won't mean a whole lot without a solid foundation. And they'll mean even less without a critical mass of active members, whom you're alienating by insisting on nannying them. Do you get that??

[palapiku]

More on topic: Personally, I would prefer it if all rated games were forced to be under fixed time settings. We cannot even pretend that 10m/3x10s is even remotely close to being the same game as 20m/3x30s or 45m/5x30s.

A similar solution is to have ratings for different time settings. We could have a "blitz" rating, a "middle" rating, and a "long" rating.

This is perhaps aside from the point of the thread, but I agree. On KGS, many people have separate blitz and slow game accounts for this reason. My blitz and non-blitz accounts are several stones apart.

[adoreme]

Having read the thread so far this is mostly about the freedom of choice vs accurate rating and the rating system aspect is not considered by most posts as far as I see.

So I think preventing people from abusing the system is only one aspect of the limited time for rated games but the main purpose is to ensure a tighter and more accurate rating system for everyone.

I hope this helps to enlighten the more restrictive perspective.

[oren]

So I think preventing people from abusing the system is only one aspect of the limited time for rated games but the main purpose is to ensure a tighter and more accurate rating system for everyone.

I think he's said you can just as easily abuse the system with allowed time settings for rated games, so I'm not sure this is correct.

[Gegenzeit]

I've followed the thread since it started and want to share my thoughts.

First: I'm not a big fan of the idea of having max time limits either. I like long games. I want them to be rated.

As the argument goes, there seem to be two main issues:

a) abuse
b) rating

About abuse: I think this is not a good argument for time restrictions. While I see that having a choice might not save a user from "unpleasent experiences", it allows him or her to decide whether to accept the risk or not. I do not think it is the server's job to protect me here. Choice is good.

About rating: This is more complicated. I could imagine that there is a real difficulty here. Some people might be stronger in slow games, others in fast. But, the time restriction does not solve this. I just favours the ones who are better in the type of rated games allowed by the server.

As to the question what would be a good way to determine a good setting: I like the idea to purposely start with high settings and reduce them, if there is a real problem. Beta is for testing after all

Last, but not least: I'm completly flabbergasted at the hostility some people show discussing issues like that - in this thread as well as in others. It is quite despicable and I would not mind the L19 mods being way more aggressive in dealing with it. If you enter a discussion about time settings and get bitter and hateful about it, you should maybe start some soul searching.

[speedchase]

As is today rated games have a "practical limit" of 5.5 hours.
When the game is longer than that, the game will have to be deferred to be rated, which means:

1) The players are not locked into playing that single game
2) The players can disconnect for any time period they wish.

You will be able to play rated games at any time you want. What is the problem? Who is being punished?

I don't really Undertand this post. Does this mean that you can play up to 5.5 hours? what does deffered mean?