I was reading/participating in a recent thread about how frustrating it is to have to wait for players who go on extended vacations in multiple games and thought of a different paradigm for vacations. The point of the “Vacation by Game” system is to entice players to manage their game-count AND/OR try and make a modicum of moves while "on vacation", especially if they wish to maintain a high game count.

Summary: There is a “Vacation Point” (VP) cost for every 24 hours a game goes over its time limit when a player fails to take a turn - assessed on a game by game basis.

Description: 1 VP is spent for each 24 hour period that a game goes over the time limit.  Each Premium Member is allotted a certain # of Game Days - say 300, allowing..

Example 1: 30 games can go over the limit for 10 days each.
Example 2: 10 Games can go over the limit for 30 days each.

Additional Features/Advantages:

• Players will no longer have to put themselves “On Vacation.”  VP’s are accessed automatically. As a result, players would be much less likely to be booted, for instance because they “miss a day.”  Games would simply display that the player is on vacation for that game only.

• A 30 day cap (or less) on the total number of days a player is allowed to be on vacation for any individual game would prevent a player from being able to put a game on virtual hold. Once the cap is reached, the player is booted.
• Accidental boots would not happen - VPs charged because of a glitch in the system (e.g. system down time) could be reinstated when necessary.  Boots only occur once a player has spent all of their VPs - on a game by game basis of course.
• Players would be able join 1-day games knowing they could use some of their VPs if their weekends get too busy, etc. (not sure if some of you would consider this to be a feature - but I think it is).

Additional variations are possible to entice players to further manage games so they don’t sit unplayed for extended periods by ramping VPs over time..

First five days = 1 VP per Day
Next five days = 2 VPs  per Day

etc..

Existing Standard members could get a one-time allocation of 10 free VPs to see how it works and further entice them to become Premium Members.

Since premium members have unlimited games and 1 year premium gives 1 month of vacation (I think?)... It makes more sense to me to give them a carrying capacity greater then 10.  Say perhaps 20 games for 30 days for 600 VP's per year and if unused an additional 600 would add on top each year.  150 for a 3 month membership.  If they vacation > 20 games they use their VP's faster then the existing system.  If they vacation < 20 games they use their VP's more slowly.  The added benefits are interesting too!

berickf wrote:

Since premium members have unlimited games and 1 year premium gives 1 month of vacation (I think?)... It makes more sense to me to give them a carrying capacity greater then 10.  Say perhaps 20 games for 30 days for 600 VP's per year and if unused an additional 600 would add on top each year.  150 for a 3 month membership.  If they vacation > 20 games they use their VP's faster then the existing system.  If they vacation < 20 games they use their VP's more slowly.  The added benefits are interesting too!

Yeah - I was just pulling 300 out of my butt. On the other hand, it seems to me that with just a modicum of management, players could avoid a paying a high amount of VPs quite easily: 300 VPs could go a long way.  For starters, if you play mostly games with many players, where it usually takes 4 or 5 days between turns, getting just one turn in at any point after VPs kick in could save you an additional 4 or 5 VPs on that board alone.

no more of this... (posted within hours of my initial post).

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/4034/Skipped_while_on_vacation#post_14

One other thing I just thought of... What you are proposing sounds great for a regular vacation that you can plan ahead for, but what about an emergency.  Some players play like 100 games.  What about if a death in the family had them have to fly off for and manage a funeral or something.  3 days later all their VPs are gone!  You might consider vacation VPs and then on top of that perhaps one week of emergency vacation where a day is a day no matter how many games you have turns in.

berickf wrote:

One other thing I just thought of... What you are proposing sounds great for a regular vacation that you can plan ahead for, but what about an emergency.  Some players play like 100 games.  What about if a death in the family had them have to fly off for and manage a funeral or something.  3 days later all their VPs are gone!  You might consider vacation VPs and then on top of that perhaps one week of emergency vacation where a day is a day no matter how many games you have turns in.

I think this is an extreme example - and though I don't doubt that it could happen - it would be quite rare. Besides, the whole point of the system is to get players to manage their games.  100 games 'on vacation' gums up the whole experience for a LOT of people, especially a standard member with 3 or 4 of those games with the 100-gamer.

If we try to address the extreme examples, we have to be careful that we're not heading back to square one.  If something like this idea were to be accepted, it would have to be simple enough for everyone to understand.  Something like a 3-Day EMERGENCY button might be a reasonable solution, but If I had a close death in the family - I might not even think to hit it and 'some' of the games would expire (see below*) - and I would be fine with that.

* In the case of your example - for a good percentage of those games (say those with 5 or more players) it won't even be their turn for 2 - 4 days - and even more for others.  A cost of 150 VPs sounds more likely to me. - and that's for 100 active games!

M57 wrote:

* In the case of your example - for a good percentage of those games (say those with 5 or more players) it won't even be their turn for 2 - 4 days - and even more for others.  A cost of 150 VPs sounds more likely to me. - and that's for 100 active games!

Keep in mind that you are typing to someone who currently has 54 games in their games list and has frequently had 60+ in the last couple weeks and the majority of those are/were 1v1's...  Also, new games are constantly adding on by them self because I am continuously in so many tournaments.  I'm pretty sure that if I missed the next week because of an emergency it would probably cost me something like 350-400 VPs... or even more... So the "good percentage" thing doesn't always pan out.  Their are many different types of players with different habits.  I'm not saying you are not onto a good idea, just pointing out that it might need some tweaking.  Whether it were a one week or 3 day emergency button, I think that that is something that needs to be considered.

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

* In the case of your example - for a good percentage of those games (say those with 5 or more players) it won't even be their turn for 2 - 4 days - and even more for others.  A cost of 150 VPs sounds more likely to me. - and that's for 100 active games!

Keep in mind that you are typing to someone who currently has 54 games in their games list and has frequently had 60+ in the last couple weeks and the majority of those are/were 1v1's...  Also, new games are constantly adding on by them self because I am continuously in so many tournaments.  I'm pretty sure that if I missed the next week because of an emergency it would probably cost me something like 350-400 VPs... or even more... So the "good percentage" thing doesn't always pan out.  Their are many different types of players with different habits.  I'm not saying you are not onto a good idea, just pointing out that it might need some tweaking.  Whether it were a one week or 3 day emergency button, I think that that is something that needs to be considered.

b, I don't think even you would argue against the notion that you are, in so many ways, "the exception to the rule." :P

I'm sure I'm not the only exception and the current system doesn't discriminate against the exceptional... :-p  All jokes aside, do you see anything wrong with an emergency button so that your VPs could be saved for planned vacations?

berickf wrote:

 do you see anything wrong with an emergency button so that your VPs could be saved for planned vacations?

As long as it's a rather short duration.. Like a 2 or 3 day button.  The problem is that the current system lets you prematurely end your vacation before your original stop date. I can envision someone hitting the 3 day E-button only to realize there was no emergency - so they effectively waste two days.

Regardless, my concern about the E-button is not about its fairness or efficacy, I actually think it's a good idea, but rather how it might confuse people's understanding of how the vacation feature works. 

That said, and as I think about it even more, one of the nice things about a switch to VPs is that players wouldn't have to do anything.  They wouldn't even need to be aware that a system switch has been made because Vacation Points would be debited automatically. Some will figure it out when they accidentally wait too long to take a turn and find that they haven't been booted, while others may go to their preferences with the intention of scheduling a vacation, but instead find a message/description that starts with something like..

There is no longer a need for you to schedule vacation days.  You currently have 297 vacation points that will automatically be tapped in the event you are unable to take a turn...

This getting too complicated.  This site needs more simple.  I like the idea, but IMO it should be as simple or simpler than the current system.  How about just a hard limit on # of VPs lost in 24 hours.  Like no more than 25? 

Ozyman wrote:

This getting too complicated.  This site needs more simple.  I like the idea, but IMO it should be as simple or simpler than the current system.  How about just a hard limit on # of VPs lost in 24 hours.  Like no more than 25? 

Good idea.  So basically if you have an emergency and 40 games are ticking over, the 40 games only cost the hard cap of 25 VP.  A worst case scenario of 300/25=12.  So, I think that your total VP are still a bit low given the current 1 month of vacation time M57.  600/25=24, which seems more reasonable given that perhaps an emergency situation should chew up your VP quicker then in a month and well managed VP could last much longer?

In fact, with a hard cap of 25, I think even 500 VP giving a 20 day cap burn is ok given that even if someone finds them self in a cap situation they probably wouldn't be in it for all those 20 days and could manage their remaining VP more wisely once they get back and still get roughly their one month of vacation over the long term.

Sorry, duplicate post.

Good solution O.

I thought of another one that scales with players who keep a heavy game load. Every Game gets 1 Free VP.  I'm gonna guess that for the player with a 100-game load, with a lot of 1v1s, that'll save him well over 50 VPs over a 3-Day emergency..

But the more I think about it, the more I like the "O-Cap." 

Does the 30 VP per game limit seem a little too much?  I mean, I can see that someone would take a month Vacation, but you would think they might/should be able to squeeze in a few moves here and there.  21 (Three Weeks) to 25 seems more than adequate to me.

Remember, one of the major points of such a system is to encourage game management so an inordinate amount of games don't bog down.

M57 wrote:

Does the 30 VP per game limit seem a little too much?  I mean, I can see that someone would take a month Vacation, but you would think they might/should be able to squeeze in a few moves here and there.  21 (Three Weeks) to 25 seems more than adequate to me.

I was just thinking about this same thing and also defaulted to the 'in the spirit of the 1 month as it is now' 30 day max idea as well.  But, I also too feel that 21 should be adequate, even 14 days, then I remembered I'm the exception and kept my mouth shut.  Good to see that you were thinking in the same vein! ;-)

M57 wrote:

Additional Features/Advantages:

• Players will no longer have to put themselves “On Vacation.”  VP’s are accessed automatically. As a result, players would be much less likely to be booted, for instance because they “miss a day.”  Games would simply display that the player is on vacation for that game only.

• A 30 day cap (or less) on the total number of days a player is allowed to be on vacation for any individual game would prevent a player from being able to put a game on virtual hold. Once the cap is reached, the player is booted.
• Accidental boots would not happen - VPs charged because of a glitch in the system (e.g. system down time) could be reinstated when necessary.  Boots only occur once a player has spent all of their VPs - on a game by game basis of course.
• Players would be able join 1-day games knowing they could use some of their VPs if their weekends get too busy, etc. (not sure if some of you would consider this to be a feature - but I think it is).

When you say "the player is booted" or, "Boots only occur once a player has spent all their VPs", you mean that their turn is skipped and then are booted if they miss their next turn, yes?  The way you wrote it it sounds like they are to be immediately booted, but, missing their turn first as it works now seems prudent...

Ozyman wrote:

This getting too complicated.  This site needs more simple.  I like the idea, but IMO it should be as simple or simpler than the current system.  How about just a hard limit on # of VPs lost in 24 hours.  Like no more than 25? 

CPs are complicated - GR is complicated - Factories are Complicated - but the commonality with all of these things (and the proposed VP system) is that they are automatic. You don't even have to know they exist.

In fact, the current Vacation System is quite complicated AND requires members to be proactive:

• find an obscure part of the site in settings
• pre-plan how many days they need
• remember to stop the vacation if they get back early
• make sure that they move in all affected games first or they're screwed

VP's may be just as complicated mechanically speaking, but it doesn't matter because for the user they are automatic. The system actually makes things much less complicated for them. Not only that, but if there's a running VP tally on each players main page, players who do understand it will leverage that number by managing their games. Everybody wins.

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

Additional Features/Advantages:

• Players will no longer have to put themselves “On Vacation.”  VP’s are accessed automatically. As a result, players would be much less likely to be booted, for instance because they “miss a day.”  Games would simply display that the player is on vacation for that game only.

• A 30 day cap (or less) on the total number of days a player is allowed to be on vacation for any individual game would prevent a player from being able to put a game on virtual hold. Once the cap is reached, the player is booted.
• Accidental boots would not happen - VPs charged because of a glitch in the system (e.g. system down time) could be reinstated when necessary.  Boots only occur once a player has spent all of their VPs - on a game by game basis of course.
• Players would be able join 1-day games knowing they could use some of their VPs if their weekends get too busy, etc. (not sure if some of you would consider this to be a feature - but I think it is).

When you say "the player is booted" or, "Boots only occur once a player has spent all their VPs", you mean that their turn is skipped and then are booted if they miss their next turn, yes?  The way you wrote it it sounds like they are to be immediately booted, but, missing their turn first as it works now seems prudent...

Yeah - I wasn't clear with the wording. You could still have a "skipped" turn, but in reality, under such a system skipped turns will be quite rare, as they will only occur once a player runs out of total VPs OR it reaches the per/game cap.  Skipped turns ruin games anyway, Really, I wouldn't have a problem with just getting rid of them, but I guess they are necessary for Standard Members unless they get something like one complimentary VP per game.

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

Additional Features/Advantages:

• Players will no longer have to put themselves “On Vacation.”  VP’s are accessed automatically. As a result, players would be much less likely to be booted, for instance because they “miss a day.”  Games would simply display that the player is on vacation for that game only.

• A 30 day cap (or less) on the total number of days a player is allowed to be on vacation for any individual game would prevent a player from being able to put a game on virtual hold. Once the cap is reached, the player is booted.
• Accidental boots would not happen - VPs charged because of a glitch in the system (e.g. system down time) could be reinstated when necessary.  Boots only occur once a player has spent all of their VPs - on a game by game basis of course.
• Players would be able join 1-day games knowing they could use some of their VPs if their weekends get too busy, etc. (not sure if some of you would consider this to be a feature - but I think it is).

When you say "the player is booted" or, "Boots only occur once a player has spent all their VPs", you mean that their turn is skipped and then are booted if they miss their next turn, yes?  The way you wrote it it sounds like they are to be immediately booted, but, missing their turn first as it works now seems prudent...

Yeah - I wasn't clear with the wording. You could still have a "skipped" turn, but in reality, under such a system skipped turns will be quite rare, as they will only occur once a player runs out of total VPs OR it reaches the per/game cap.

So the final thing you need is an aggressive warning system for when each game's VP limit has been reached, whichever way it has gotten there, and to have that clearly labeled in the table that lists a player's current games.

berickf wrote:

So the final thing you need is an aggressive warning system for when each game's VP limit has been reached, whichever way it has gotten there, and to have that clearly labeled in the table that lists a player's current games.

Right - You could have it in a number of places, I'm thinking the player view page, the Vacation portion of the settings page, the games page and maybe the home page are all candidates. Even just two of them would make it much more accessible than the current system.  It's a single number, which is cool, and the more places it is seen, the more players are likely to manage it just like they manage any other stat on this site.  Gamers!  They're so predictable.