Tisaac wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 23:03
Ceaseless wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 13:28
Tisaac wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 10:36
Again, you seems to talk about ONE very specific game and yet you are not providing the name of the game.
Not sure what you're saying with "again", when this is the first reply you've even made to my post in this thread. Are you even replying to the right person here?
I wrote "again" because the two previous answer before mine also went in the same direction and you kind of ignore them by not providing the name of the game :
" I wouldn't call it unfair, but a game bug, or at least a significant flaw
. Is it a beta game? Those are expected to have bugs, and you get a warning that it may affect your reputation, so you "know" what you're getting. "
"That is just a bug
in the game. The 'quit' and 'concede' are site-wide features that work fine, but the game progression is worked out individually by each developer. The same is true for games in which you agree to a draw - that is a game specific feature. Whatever issues there are with BGA the site-wide implementation of the 'quit' and 'conceded' functions aren't part of it - they work as intended."
Ceaseless wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 15:22
ufm wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 14:59
Perfect or unacceptable? In this case, it's just a bad dichotomy.
Of course there wouldn't be a general procedure, as each game has a different standard of 'progression'.
Just report the problem. It is the implementation's issue.
Yes, each game does have a different one, and it's not even going to be the same measure of progression per game. One game of Chess may have a completely different standard of progression than another game of Chess. It's unreliable, and there's not even a need to track it in the first place. Just delete the concept completely and wipe out its use in every game on BGA.
I dont follow you at all here. Why would the fact that some game could have unreliable percentage means that the whole concept should be wiped out completely ??
There are some games, and actually a lot of them here, that have a pretty straightforward way to compute percentage since they have a fixed number of turn/round.
So again, tell us about that one game that seems to have upset you with an unreliable percentage thing so we can understand you a bit more instead of trying to discuss that on a very general way.
The fact that some games have unreliable percentages are one issue, as those games aren't properly trackable. And I'll point out even having a fixed round count doesn't guarantee anything, as actions in early rounds may very well dictate the flow of the game far beyond what an average round would. If someone hangs their queen in Chess, a lot of the game is generally dealt with. But the thing is, there's no need for any such inaccuracy at all, because there's no value in tracking it in the first place. For some reason the game can't be conceded at <50%, meaning in order to save time a player needs to use the quit feature. And on top of that, if a player does use the quit feature, their opponent is penalized for whatever percentage of the game is unfinished, rather than getting the score for winning the game.
So say Player A is playing Wingspan and plays 2 of the power 4 by round 1, with Player B not wanting to watch Player A play with themselves for the next 15-20 minutes. The opponent can't concede. They can quit though, and Player A will take a deduction in their winnings as a result. Both players suffer additional penalties through no fault of their own, Player A in their rating deduction and Player B's additional rating penalty for quitting, as well as a karma penalty.
What's the gain? Some sort of anti-boosting measure? The sort of boosting this would try and curb is rather blatant, no trickery to make the mods thinks or fool players, would be easy to spot, report, and deal with. You don't see wild boosting flying through games like Boop that were sure to start the game properly at 50%. And that was before they added the consecutive win changes, which further weaken an already underwhelming case.
ufm wrote: ↑15 May 2024, 01:49
Ceaseless wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 15:22
ufm wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 14:59
Perfect or unacceptable? In this case, it's just a bad dichotomy.
Of course there wouldn't be a general procedure, as each game has a different standard of 'progression'.
Just report the problem. It is the implementation's issue.
Yes, each game does have a different one, and it's not even going to be the same measure of progression per game. One game of Chess may have a completely different standard of progression than another game of Chess. It's unreliable, and there's not even a need to track it in the first place. Just delete the concept completely and wipe out its use in every game on BGA.
In almost all games it works well, especially when the game is using points or rounds as the end condition.
Why should it be completely scrapped because of few exceptions or faulty implementations? It just doesn't make sense.
Saw this popped up after I hit submit. Edited to note this quote.