Ranking based on remaining time

[Meeplelowda]

(since there are no mobile notifications…)

There are mobile notifications. That doesn't mean the other problems mentioned in this thread aren't real issues, but that isn't one of them.

That pages says: Sorry, web push notifications are not supported on your browser.

It doesn’t like safari apparently.

I get them on my browser and my phone. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Een]

That pages says: Sorry, web push notifications are not supported on your browser.

It doesn’t like safari apparently.

More exactly: iOS doesn't support webpush notification. It didn't when we first implemented notifications in 2018. It still doesn't today.
https://www.izooto.com/blog/ios-safari- ... ns-in-2021

If you want, you can join the petition: https://www.change.org/p/tim-cook-apple ... os-devices

[Hardin2000]

I share your thoughts. This isn't fair at all.

All the people that was with positive time played by the rules. So why give the victory to one, just because he spent less time.

So My suggestion when a game is closed by the server when game maximum duration is reached is:

1) All the players with positive time to use will tie on first place.
2) All the players with negative time will be classified on remain places ordered by less negative to more negative.

For example, in a 6 players game with pontuations like (10,8,6,4,2,0) where players A,B,C was with positive time at end, and player D was with 6 hours negative, E with 12 hours negative and F with 24 hours negative:

- Players A,B,C will tie on first place and will split points for places #1,#2,#3 between them so all will receive (10+8+6 ) / 3 = 8 points.
- Player D will finish on 4th place and will receive 4 points.
- Player E will finish on 5th place and will receive 2 points.
- Player F will finish on 6th place and last place and will not receive any points.

Have a nice day

[Great_Martini]

It's tricky to solve this one. I've been the victim of a game where I had most points, but the win went to the one with most time, but I've also benefited from the reverse. Using VPs is too variable, because not every game has points that accumulate evenly through the game. My suggestion would be to use Karma as a factor, which would reward players who are more reliable.

[Rango64]

- the ranking of Players who have not exceeded the time should be determined by their score at that time (this will motivate all players to play seriously until the end).

This is not a good solution. There are so many games where current score does not reflect win chances. So what you're doing is you artificially increase the value of grabbing early points instead of building a good economy that scores many more points later in the game (or whatever similar mechanism the game has). That's not in the spirit of the game. You would need an individual solution for every game.

But I give you that it would be a solution for SOME games. Maybe there should be the option to flag this on tournament creation when it makes sense. But I think on many many games it does not. As painful as it is: The implemented "least used thinking time"-tie-breaker is the only universal solution I can think of that is not meddling with game strategy. At least until we have a universal game-AI that simulates game finish and calculate win-chance-% from that

I don't think you're right.
At the beginning of the game no one knows if someone will exceed the allowed time, and that is why everyone plays optimally. I think it would be a big risk for someone to try to take as many points in the beginning if the game ended on time.

Also, I think there is room for manipulation here. If there are two people in the game who know each other and one of them wants to help the other to win, it is enough for him to play as long as his partner does have the most time, and then he simply stops playing...

[Silene]

I don't think you're right.
At the beginning of the game no one knows if someone will exceed the allowed time, and that is why everyone plays optimally. I think it would be a big risk for someone to try to take as many points in the beginning if the game ended on time.

Ok let me put it in other words then: I don't want the back-up-plan solution be something that potentially rewards suboptimal play.

I agree that people would probably still try to make the best moves that they can think of for the reasons you explained. But of course some do that better and some do that worse. And in many games grabbing early points is just bad because building an economy is a better strategy. Or aiming at the big endgame-bonus-points that you just won't get should the game not end regularly.

Long-Term-Planning which is often a more skillful way of playing would be punished in a decision by actual points. There are huge points handed out in the last phase of the game in games like Terra Mystica or Through the ages. The correlation between actual points and end of game points is very low.

It might be ok for Takenoko (even though holding back objective is often good) or Carcassonne (where you kill the points from farmers) but at least it's a bit more related.

But for games like Martian Dice, 6nimmt etc. where there are several rounds that all work the same way without long-term-effects it seems fine to use actual score to decide the advance in tournaments. So I imagine a good solution would be the chance to choose among different options when creating the tournament.
a) actual points
b) thinking time
c) random
d)...?

[Two-Sheds]

Are there different tie-breaker rules for the Championship game of a tournament? I just finished a Lucky Numbers single-elimination tournament where my opponent and I tied in the championship match, 1 point apiece. I used far less thinking time than he did, but he was awarded 1st place in the tournament, and I was awarded 2nd. (Here is the match: https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=249989724)

Honestly, he deserves 1st place more than I do, because more of his matches were outright wins rather than ties. Maybe that's how it was determined? But, if I had known I was at a disadvantage in the tie-breaker, rather than thinking I was at the advantage, I would have played the endgame of the final game differently.

I'd just like to know what the rules are ahead of time! Or, was it supposed to be based on time, but a mistake was made?

[Two-Sheds]

I've done a little more digging into other tied tournament games, and I can't find any consistent criteria for the tie-breaker. Check out this one: https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=245529469

Here, the player who advanced used more thinking time; has a Standard membership vs. the other player's Premium membership; and joined BGA at a later date than the other player.

I've seen some games where the lower ELO advanced, and some where the higher ELO advanced.

The average ELO of prior opponents also does not seem to be a consistent deciding factor.

Is the winner simply being selected at random?