Laughing all the way to the timebank

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
Timebanks shouldn't cater only for withdrawels, but deposits too.

When a player moves before his timeout period, a portion of the remaining time should be deposited into the player's timebank. The timebank should be allowed to grow beyond its original size.

This will give players more control over time management, and allow them to prepare better ...[text shortened]... n a good case for allowing unlimited growth. But these are variables that can be debated.

How bout not entering tournaments or games that you cannot in the foreseeable future keep up with the time? How bout that? What ever happened to playing a game within the agreed time period and not crying when you get timed out?

I would possibly accept a game with added time per move but not likely. I think it should be an option for me to choose and not have dictated to me thank you very much.


RTh

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I just recced GC's original post taking this proviso into account.

While implementing this and leaving the vacation flag as a purely informational tool, I think there would be much less hard feeling about people being timed out with the vacation flag up.

If I know I'm going on a trip in a week or two, it is my responsibility to ensure I build up som ...[text shortened]... to make moves fast now to compensate for my lack of moves while I'm away.

Great idea.

D

If you know you are going to go on a trip ever take on longer time outs with time bank. Don't make you opponent suffer your poor planning.


RTh

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Relax buddy, we're just exchanging ideas here, which is what this forum is for. Most of the people who have stated that they don't like it so far haven't understood the proposal, as highlighted by the fact they go on about game draggers.

You tried to infer that you are in the same situation as Xanthos, when in fact you're not.

[EDIT] You recently lo ...[text shortened]... ys onto your timebank before you went away, so that you could have completed the games?
D

Apparently he got timed out, but does not care because he understands that it was his fault for not moving, not his opponents for taking the time out.

I have never ever ever had an opponent sitting accross from me sit down, agree to the time on the clock, lose on time and get mad about it. You know what happens....we shake hands an play another game thats what. You don't go crying because you cannot hold up your end of a contract you just do better next time.

This is specifically what is wrong with society these days, people failing to do what they agree to and blaming others for their inablility to funtion as a grown up.

I fully support this idea. Especially if the alternative is an enforced vacation system.

Ringtailhunter, your objection seems to be based on the fact that a person playing a 3/7 game could, in theory, move fast all game and then later on spend more than 10 days away without losing by timeout. However, as only a fraction of remaining time adds onto the timebank they would still finish the game faster than someone moving once every 3 days without fail.

Why does the possibility that people could take a break and make up for by faster play irk you so much?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I fully support this idea. Especially if the alternative is an enforced vacation system.

Ringtailhunter, your objection seems to be based on the fact that a person playing a 3/7 game could, in theory, move fast all game and then later on spend more than 10 days away without losing by timeout. However, as only a fraction of remaining time adds onto the t ...[text shortened]... s the possibility that people could take a break and make up for by faster play irk you so much?

I am not interested in it. It should be an option not automatic. I can live with the system we already have. The problem comes from people taking and making game they cannot live up to, be it time or the amount. If you cannot live up to your game contract you can always message your opponent.

And no, a game that is set up as a 3/7 time out should end on those terms, If you want a 3/7 game with increments that is the option you should ask Russ to put into the challenge settings dont ruin my options. You all just want more options which I have no problem with, it just seems that it does not fit my options which have been fine for a long time. People wanted faster time outs and longer time outs, then they wanted time banks....Russ came through.

I don't play 30+ games here because I can manage what I have, but if some clown starts fooling around with this, I may not even have a move to make in any game for days.


RTh

Originally posted by Ringtailhunter
I am not interested in it. It should be an option not automatic. I can live with the system we already have. The problem comes from people taking and making game they cannot live up to, be it time or the amount. If you cannot live up to your game contract you can always message your opponent.

And no, a game that is set up as a 3/7 time out sho ...[text shortened]... ts fooling around with this, I may not even have a move to make in any game for days.


RTh

That's fair enough. Perhaps it could be set as a further parameter on the game timelimits.

Timeout: 1, 3, 7, 14, 21
Timebank: 0, 7, 14, 21, 28
Timegain: 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%

Originally posted by David Tebb
I really like this idea.

Being forced to use several days at a time in one chunk, would prevent players from casually dipping into their vacation allowance, as if it was just another form of timebank.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the chunks were a bit smaller. For instance a minimum of 4 days per use of the flag might be sufficient to deter abus ...[text shortened]... ould post your suggestions in the thread in the General Forum so that they get more attention.

The idea about the timebank regeneration or extension is flawed when it comes to breaks early on in a game, and I think making it more complex in order to resolve these issues is flogging a fairly dead horse. A second very much missed point about using longer timebanks is that every game you setup would need these extra 7 or 14 days (yes and whom knows what that would be in advance, crystal balls issued FOC?) and thus every game you play would last that much longer, not just the ones that span genuine holidays.


Vacation Chunkiness
---------------------

I think this idea is a good one to discourage misuse. An ability to select the number of days for the break, minimum of 4 (say) will encourage the proper use of the facility. Basically I would see the vacation flag freezing the time counters, so there is no issue with having to move in X games at the same time on return, that aspect of time management is the responsibility of the individual. The idea about being able to post but not play games is garbage - the point is if you can get onto the site you can play the games.

Another benefit of having the vacation flag enforced is that while timeouts might not change much I'll bet that more people feel more comfortable with a smaller timebank overall.

Oh and

No, the Sky is not falling on your head, RingTailhunter, so don't panic.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
That's fair enough. Perhaps it could be set as a further parameter on the game timelimits.

Timeout: 1, 3, 7, 14, 21
Timebank: 0, 7, 14, 21, 28
Timegain: 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%

Exactly Xanthos. That is the best solution I have seen. That is something I believe everyone Should be able to live with. You then have the options to accept the games under the conditions set. And not have it forced upon you. I like it. Everyone can set their own parameters.

However not playing as many games as you and most subscribers do. I was wondering if there would be a problem in the natural flow of the game sequencing? What game to play next? For example setting games to which game has less time available on your turn, verses which game has less time available for your opponents turn? Shouldn't a player have the ability to sort their games in different ways since there would be more options available. Or do you not see that as a problem with the way things are set to function now? I may just be dreamining up a problem that wouldn't be there. What do you think?

Originally posted by cashthetrash
Exactly Xanthos. That is the best solution I have seen. That is something I believe everyone Should be able to live with. You then have the options to accept the games under the conditions set. And not have it forced upon you. I like it. Everyone can set their own parameters.

However not playing as many games as you and most subscribers do. I was won ...[text shortened]... function now? I may just be dreamining up a problem that wouldn't be there. What do you think?

I actually like the idea of having a flexible timebank that allows a player to manage time better. Just remind me again how that deals with the issue of holidays, eg at the start of a game?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
I actually like the idea of having a flexible timebank that allows a player to manage time better. Just remind me again how that deals with the issue of holidays, eg at the start of a game?

It doesn't have to. Remember, if you haven't made 2 moves in a game timing out will not lose you rating points. Sure it could mean that you don't get to compete in a tournament that you progressed in as all the game timed out (without consequence) while you were on vacation but there is no real solution to that that doesn't slow up tournaments.
Clan games don't come into it because your clan leader shouldn't be setting you up with games with short timeouts while you are on vacation.

As for how people sort their games to play in next that is their concern. Currently I have folders for each timeout length so I can easily see which games need to played in when (I sort based on last move). If the timegain was introduced I'd wait for ouroborous to come out with a greasemonkey extension that displayed how much timebank I would gain by moving right now for each game right there on the My Games page (like I have timeout remaining currently). Easy.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
It doesn't have to. Remember, if you haven't made 2 moves in a game timing out will not lose you rating points. Sure it could mean that you don't get to compete in a tournament that you progressed in as all the game timed out (without consequence) while you were on vacation but there is no real solution to that that doesn't slow up tournaments.
Clan games ...[text shortened]... ch game right there on the My Games page (like I have timeout remaining currently). Easy.

So you think it would be something easy for Ourborous to be able to do then. Then I am definiatly for that scenario as opposed to the forced vacation option. The more I think about it the more it seems fair to all. And I can see how it could really speed things up in the end while it probably wouldn't matter much in the beginning. I suppose some might still try to drag a game out to some extent, but I think not as much. I find I need more time in the middle and end games anyway. I think most players would be about the same. It would be fun to at least experiment with.

I would still like to see some kind of a forced time out though. I think it would stop most of the crying and or begging when someone times out and an opponent has to decide whether to click on a skull or live with death threats. For me it is not a difficult desision. I like living a life of danger. Yet I am a real sucker when it comes to women and children. God I hate being so weak. If it wasn't for them I might be a 2000 plus player.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
That's fair enough. Perhaps it could be set as a further parameter on the game timelimits.

Timeout: 1, 3, 7, 14, 21
Timebank: 0, 7, 14, 21, 28
Timegain: 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%

Yes, this is what I proposed. People should be able to have the choice to play in a time increment game. Personally I loath the idea of fischer time in a rhp environment. It can be fun in a blitz game accross the board but to me during this type of play is sounds a little silly....to each his own I guess.


RTh

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
That's fair enough. Perhaps it could be set as a further parameter on the game timelimits.

Timeout: 1, 3, 7, 14, 21
Timebank: 0, 7, 14, 21, 28
Timegain: 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%

please explain better how each factor might work so it makes sense to the rest of us; please correct me if I am wrong:

Timeout: the ammount of time you can use before you start to use your Timebank. Timeout does not carry over from move to move except via Timegain.

Timebank:the ammount of emergency time you can use before you can finally lose on time; it carries over from move to move.

Timegain: the percentage of unused timeout which is added to you existing timebank, only until a certain maximum timebank allowed for that tourney.

My suggested numbers;
Timeout: 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16
Timebank: 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128
Timegain: 0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%

Originally posted by flexmore
please explain better how each factor might work so it makes sense to the rest of us; please correct me if I am wrong:

Timeout: the ammount of time you can use before you start to use your Timebank. Timeout does not carry over from move to move except via Timegain.
Timebank:the ammount of emergency time you can use before you can finally lose on time; i ...[text shortened]... s;
Timeout: 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16
Timebank: 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128
Timegain: 0%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%

I don't think the original time should be adjusted, say you set up a 3/0 game. You could select bonus time that would show up in a time bank.


Time out: 3
Time bank:0
Time gain per move: 15% or what ever value.

When you start the game if you choose to have incremental time it would add onto the time bank and not the original time out of the game.

[edit] I also think that the time out should be automatic at the end of time for any game.

Originally posted by flexmore
i could resurect this thread over and over til i am dead ... then do it a few more times from my grave ...

let fast movers regenerate their timebank ...

give us freedom to play fast when it suits us and slow when it suits us ...

What he said!