Remove from tournament games the ability to skip players out of time

[Alloran]

There is no reason that games in tournaments that have round time limits should also have the functionality of kicking players who are out of time, if there is still time left in the round.

It is very frustrating to be playing in a tournament that still has 10-15 days left in the round, but one player in your game is playing slow, so someone kicks them, which ruins your game, and now you still have to wait 10-15 days for the other games to finish anyway. It doesn't save anyone any time, it just ruins games that we have been playing sometimes for weeks.

The round will end and kick that person anyway, if the game isn't over by then. There's no need for players to arbitrarily enforce time limits in their own game (usually for selfish reasons, like they are losing) in tournaments that are already being automatically enforced equally for all games by the tournament's round timer.

[DrRockenheimer]

As I understand it, a tournament game cannot run out of time if none of the players run out of time. But as soon as a player runs out of time (and if it is early in a game, that is very slow play), then if the player is not kicked out, it becomes possible for other players potentially to manipulate the result by stalling out the game until the deadline. So there will always be a trade-off among possibilities for gaming the system by stalling. Which is I why I believe it should be automatic that a player loses when out of time in a tournament game. There are issues with players unable to complete games because of time zone differences, but that should be solved in other ways (inevitably making tournaments longer), not by relying on the good will of players in a competitive format.

[DashingDonnie]

As I understand it, a tournament game cannot run out of time if none of the players run out of time. But as soon as a player runs out of time (and if it is early in a game, that is very slow play), then if the player is not kicked out, it becomes possible for other players potentially to manipulate the result by stalling out the game until the deadline. So there will always be a trade-off among possibilities for gaming the system by stalling. Which is I why I believe it should be automatic that a player loses when out of time in a tournament game. There are issues with players unable to complete games because of time zone differences, but that should be solved in other ways (inevitably making tournaments longer), not by relying on the good will of players in a competitive format.

I've seen that happen.

[Alloran]

As I understand it, a tournament game cannot run out of time if none of the players run out of time. But as soon as a player runs out of time (and if it is early in a game, that is very slow play), then if the player is not kicked out, it becomes possible for other players potentially to manipulate the result by stalling out the game until the deadline. So there will always be a trade-off among possibilities for gaming the system by stalling. Which is I why I believe it should be automatic that a player loses when out of time in a tournament game. There are issues with players unable to complete games because of time zone differences, but that should be solved in other ways (inevitably making tournaments longer), not by relying on the good will of players in a competitive format.

I did not consider the possibility of other players stalling, that is true. However, that would generally require the other players to work in tandem to stall. Under the current system, a single player can end the game if one person runs out of time, without cooperation from the other players. Here is an example:
Let's say it's a 4 player game, where players 1-3 all have 4 days remaining on their clock, and player 4 runs out. Let's say player 3 is the only player that wants to skip player 4.
Under the current system, any player can skip player 4 and end the game, so player 3 simply does it whenever they feel like it, game is ruined and there is nothing any other player can do about it.
If that is no longer possible, because players can't skip during tournament as per my proposal, there are still 12 days remaining in the tournament, so it is very possible player 3 would have to stall so much to time out player 4 that they would then actually lose themselves instead of player 4. For example, I had a game where a player had literally one turn left before the game would have ended, and they were at -30 minutes on their clock, on a 28 day game, when they got skipped. If a player didn't have an option to skip them, another player would not have been able to stall long enough to prevent the game ending without them being the one to actually lose.
Of course, if multiple players want to skip player 4, there is no system where that wouldn't happen. But at least mine prevents a single person from doing it alone.

Maybe I am overestimating the player base, but I don't think there are so many people on here that want to kick other players for imaginary board game points that my proposal wouldn't prevent the majority of game-ruining kicks.

[DrRockenheimer]

Most of the big forum threads on tournaments are about time issues and unscrupulous behavior of various sorts. It may be that occasional abuses get magnified, but there seem to be problems that people here are quite concerned about and do not have a consensus solution (except maybe for harsher penalties directed at obvious, habitual abusers of the system). Problems that happen at the end of a long game, and/or that disrupt the fairness of an elimination tournament, generate a lot of turmoil.

The time penalty system does not really translate well to the turn-based mode. In real-time, I believe being able to kick out players is based on the idea that players should have the absolute right to cut their losses (meaning their own time commitment to a game) and get out of a game that is not being played in a timely manner. That doesn't really apply completely for turn-based mode. But playing through a game that is too sluggish to necessarily be completed on time has a similar effect, being dragged along in a game that has already notably gone bad. Perhaps requiring all opponents to agree to kick a player out should be the rule? I doubt all will agree with this idea, which does not bode well for players facing that situation in a game being able to agree amicably on what to do.

[mturton]

People might be stalling hoping to be kicked. One solution might be to allow players to concede tournament games, and let the game continue with the remaining players.

I've wanted to leave some in which I was doomed from the start, but couldn't. My solution was to basically stop playing tournaments since they are so inflexible, which helps no one.

[MarcinKamil]

I'm relatively new to this but it seems like the time available for move is virtually useless... Players who run out of time should be (in best case) awarded 0 points and the rest of the game should continue.
I've had games where I had plenty of time left and winning, but game timed out because of other players... and these players finally were counted as winners due to account seniority rule or whatever.

[DashingDonnie]

How are the other players judged as who gets to advance then? Most time? Most points?

[nik592]

I've had games where I had plenty of time left and winning, but game timed out because of other players... and these players finally were counted as winners due to account seniority rule or whatever.

If the game times out, standings are awarded based on whoever has most time remaining. So what you're describing doesn't happen.

If players are booted however, the booted player is judged last and ALL other players are judged equal first. In a tournament where more than one player is eliminated per round, those players (other than the booted player) are determined at random. Hence why allowing a tournament game to time out is usually the better option (unless you're definitely losing, in which case, it encourages people to boot rather than see it out, because a random chance is better than no chance).

Also, as has been stated in other threads, timings aren't always an indication of someone playing slowly. On 24-hour turn-based tournaments, if you get placed after a player with a very different timezone to you, you can easily end up in negative time within a few days. And some games frankly need longer times generally. The problem is that tournaments are pretty limited in the time available for games and how that time is allocated. I don't generally run over time on turn-based games except occasionally in tournaments (I'd like to say I never have in fact, it's that rare that I can't remember it ever happening).

[MarcinKamil]

If the game times out, standings are awarded based on whoever has most time remaining. So what you're describing doesn't happen.

You're right. I was mistake here. Thank for the explanation.

If players are booted however, the booted player is judged last and ALL other players are judged equal first. In a tournament where more than one player is eliminated per round, those players (other than the booted player) are determined at random. Hence why allowing a tournament game to time out is usually the better option (unless you're definitely losing, in which case, it encourages people to boot rather than see it out, because a random chance is better than no chance).

What happened here then?
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=390037133
4 players with remaining time voted to end the game but in the final standings theeveryone was awarded 1 point, including the player with no time left.
https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=216250

Also, as has been stated in other threads, timings aren't always an indication of someone playing slowly. On 24-hour turn-based tournaments, if you get placed after a player with a very different timezone to you, you can easily end up in negative time within a few days. And some games frankly need longer times generally. The problem is that tournaments are pretty limited in the time available for games and how that time is allocated. I don't generally run over time on turn-based games except occasionally in tournaments (I'd like to say I never have in fact, it's that rare that I can't remember it ever happening).

I don't mind waiting for players in different time zones. I'm happy to do so. And I don't suspect bad will in all cases. I know real life happens.

I just think these situations make players focus less on the game itselft and more on the system.