I would like to see a "No Vacation" option added to the game creation menu.

This could either be a "scenario" or a stand-alone option, like fog, and would ideally be listed as such under the game name like scenarios are listed now.

The effect of this option would be to process turns normally regardless if a player took vacation time.

So you want to create a feature that negates the perk given to those who support the site? Cause why would anyone without premium or even those who have run out of vacation days ever start a game without this option?

Not fighting you, but doesn't make sense to create a feature to harm the feature that was made for those who support the site.

Maybe only premium members could create games with 'no vacation' mode?

Anyway, I personally would almost never want to join a game like that.

Johasi Vidad wrote:

So you want to create a feature that negates the perk given to those who support the site? Cause why would anyone without premium or even those who have run out of vacation days ever start a game without this option?

Not fighting you, but doesn't make sense to create a feature to harm the feature that was made for those who support the site.

Make it a super-premium option 

I would make my games with this option. It's annoying to have a game with 1 day turn limits get held up by a long vacation, especially when people will abuse the feature because they're just mad about bad rolls.

Nobody HAS to join a No Vacation game.  Even if everyone else but you created only No Vacation games 100% of the time, you are free to create your own vacation-hobbled *cough* -enabled games.

I don't think this option need be a premium feature (power to the people!), and its use need not affect any Premium members at all.

While I'm on the subject, I would like to believe that the intent of Premium membership is to provide perks for that member, and not to enable the power to create an imposition on other members, Premium or otherwise, such as having to wait weeks or even months to take a turn, when more than one player decides to go fishing (or just wants to be a jerk and stall a game).  Don't argue; it happens.

A compromise for Premium members that do go on vacation mode in a No Vacation game might be getting skipped an infinite number of times but never booted.

camel wrote:

A compromise for Premium members that do go on vacation mode in a No Vacation game might be getting skipped an infinite number of times but never booted.

Doesn't sound like much of a compromise. How many games have you played where getting skipped several times wouldn't have reduced your winning chances?

It's not a compromise versus not being skipped at all in regular vacation mode game, it's a compromise versus being booted for joining a No Vacation game and then going on vacation.

> its use need not affect any Premium members at all.

How would its use not affect Premium members?  At the least, I'd have to remember to check every game I join and it would limit the # of open games I'd want to join.  Those are both effects, and they cause Premium membership to be less valuable.

The only way I could see something like this being reasonable, is if you had to be premium to start a game like this & you had to spend a vacation day of your own to create a "no vacation' game.  That would limit the # of games that are started like this and keep the value of paying for wargear high.

But either way, with all the things on the wish list, and Tom's limited time, I doubt anything like this will ever get implemented regardless of any of our comments.

Ozyman wrote:

> its use need not affect any Premium members at all.

How would its use not affect Premium members?  At the least, I'd have to remember to check every game I join and it would limit the # of open games I'd want to join.  Those are both effects, and they cause Premium membership to be less valuable.

The only way I could see something like this being reasonable, is if you had to be premium to start a game like this & you had to spend a vacation day of your own to create a "no vacation' game.  That would limit the # of games that are started like this and keep the value of paying for wargear high.

 

But either way, with all the things on the wish list, and Tom's limited time, I doubt anything like this will ever get implemented regardless of any of our comments.

You do already have to check to see what the turn limit will be, so it'd only be an extra field.

But you're right, the odds of this happening are definitely low anyways

i could easily see this be an option for private games. for public? i'm on the fence (granted i haven't put much thought into it). 

Just pointing out the ironies: 

1. The pro-no-vacation-game crowd is asking for a feature to be created to remove the inconvenience of a non-premium player having to wait for a paying player who is using a feature that was created to remove the inconvenience who has an event IRL that limits the player's ability play WG.
2. The pro-no-vacation-game crowd is offering the pro-vacation-crowd, as an olive branch, that they can just "create another game" to avoid a No Vacation game.
   However, that same crowd sees no possible solution for the annoyance of waiting for game X, which is on vacation hold for a player, not even, perhaps, creating another game to occupy one's time....

Two more personal notes:

1. I know that my game stats don't compare to the likes of many of you (I certainly don't have 7000 games under my belt like Camel does) but if you (Camel et al) are seeing people using vacation as a means to pout about dice, maybe you might want to focus more attention on non-WGWF boards, where more experienced players are playing.
   A) That's where I spend most of my time and I don't think that I've EVER seen that happen (again, granted, I've only played 500+ games).
   B) More experienced players are probably less likely to blame dice and pout in the corner like the less experienced players who frequent only WGWF, for instance.
2. If someone is THAT upset with the dice that they want to throw a wrench in your game by going on vacation to boycott it, so they choose to PAY Tom for a Premium Membership for that right, then I say, let them do it.  There are LOTS and LOTS and LOTS MORE players here who don't pay a dime into the kitty, so if someone wants to contribute to a site that I'd like to see stay afloat, then I'm willing to give them that right, no matter the reasoning.

It's not a bad idea but may have unwanted secondary effects in the long run, so to prevent that, I suggest limiting the amount of No Vacation games that can be in Open or Live status at any given time.

Also agree with the idea of this option upon game creation be available to premium members only, would be another incentive for players to pay for the game.

To add to BorisTheFrugal's reply:

I'd say there is more than a little irony when a player with 22 boots in the last 30 days, most in live games (may even be all - I  didn't bother checking that much), complains about other people making him wait.

Pratik wrote:

I'd say there is more than a little irony when a player with 22 boots in the last 30 days

What a hypocrite you are!  You just posted a thread about continued site instability

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/4736/Continued_site_instability

in which I remarked that I been booted multiple times from the same game while the site was lagging.  Just this morning I got another 5 boots from 1 game while the site wouldn't refresh for an hour.

Get the facts before you hijack threads and try to besmirch the OP with ad hominem attacks.  This was a suggestion for a game creation option, and your comments are wholly inappropriate for this thread.