The way ELO is structured is so toxic

[fleezybaby]

unpopular opinion.

the structure of ELO on BGA incentivizes kicking users as soon as a timer expires. there needs to be control such that ELO is only awarded after X% of game has progressed, regardless of whether the player has already been expelled.

i've been in so many games where players want to kick someone as soon as the timer expires, and when I don't agree, i get red-thumbed to hell.

these are online games, with people from literally all over the world and varying strengths in internet connection, computer performance, home environments etc. grow up and consider a little patience.


feel free to flame.

[Jellby]

That's why there are different speed settings, from fast real-time games, with a few seconds per move, to slow turn-based games, with one move every 2 days. Feel free to choose the speed that best fits your internet connection, mood and personal circumstances, but don't blame others for expelling you (or anyone else) if you don't comply with the time settings of the table.

[Ceaseless]

Actually, I'd say the elo should be given a full 100% for someone being kicked out. While BGA already has a rather extreme policy for not auto-lossing players for time running out, that's probably as far as they need to go. The whole elo percentage thing is just silly. Player should not be penalized for opponents stalling in the earlygame. Players shouldn't be able to try to weaponize elo gains like that.

[fleezybaby]

Players shouldn't be able to try to weaponize elo gains like that.

what i'm saying is that they are.

That's why there are different speed settings, from fast real-time games, with a few seconds per move, to slow turn-based games, with one move every 2 days. Feel free to choose the speed that best fits your internet connection, mood and personal circumstances, but don't blame others for expelling you (or anyone else) if you don't comply with the time settings of the table.

so in your opinion, if you join a game where someone is 20s late on their first turn, you should be awarded full ELO gains for kicking that person? you disagree that you should have to continue on in the game for some time before you are awarded full ELO?

[Blacktango]

Unfortunately, if you can't expel, you will have the opposite problem.
Some people obsessed by their ELO will just (intentionally) play very, very slowly, just to make you leave because you won't like a game like that.

[ufm]

the structure of ELO on BGA incentivizes kicking users as soon as a timer expires. there needs to be control such that ELO is only awarded after X% of game has progressed, regardless of whether the player has already been expelled.

ELO gained in neutralized games are already multiplied by X% as you said.
For example, in games progressed 0% nobody gains ELO.
What do you want exactly then?

[Cile]

so in your opinion, if you join a game where someone is 20s late on their first turn...

If I'm playing a game and someone is in the red on their first turn I am absolutely booting them and finding a new table.

You start the game with a full time bank. If a player has used up not only the time they get per turn but also their entire time bank early in the game there is no reason to believe they can play the game within the time frame set by the table. I've joined this table because I want to play at this speed, if they can't do it I'm going to cut my losses early and try again. It has nothing to do with ELO.

If you're the one being booted I recommend joining tables with more turn time. If it's someone else I'd personally recommend red thumbing the person that ran out of time (if you end up in a game with them again in the future someone else may boot them again) and you can also red thumb the person who did the booting if you find them to be too impatient and don't want to be matched with them in the future.

[nik592]

the structure of ELO on BGA incentivizes kicking users as soon as a timer expires. there needs to be control such that ELO is only awarded after X% of game has progressed, regardless of whether the player has already been expelled.

ELO gained in neutralized games are already multiplied by X% as you said.
For example, in games progressed 0% nobody gains ELO.
What do you want exactly then?

I think they're saying they want it to award no ELO until progress reaches say 50%. But if a game only gets 10% through, the amount oF ELO would be pretty small, so yeah, I'm not sure what the issue is.

I'm a bit confused anyway, as booting is not a group decision and I don't think I've ever been asked, except by players actually with a negative clock sometimes (as in, X happened, sorry for the delay, please don't boot me). When I see gratuitous booting (that is, booting clearly to avoid a loss, which I mostly see in tournaments), I tend to red thumb those players, not that it will keep them away from me in future tournaments anyway.

The other point is, as red thumbs no longer affect reputation (which the OP may not know), unless you're taking a LOT of red thumbs (relative to green thumbs) and getting the banner to tell you that, which only appears on the player's profile for their viewing, not to everyone anyway. So apart from people who boot when others are still regularly playing but have gone negative for some reason (which I personally don't agree with booting in that case), I don't know what this thread is about.

[ChiefPointThief]

The whole elo percentage thing is just silly.

Not only is it silly but the game progress % is inaccurate most of the time and you are not rewarded the correct elo relative to game progress even with the estimation it uses.

For example, in games progressed 0% nobody gains ELO.

I haven't been in a game in awhile that someone was kicked at the start but I believe you can receive elo in this situation. Maybe those games were marked as being further in progress than 0% but I have seen it. I know in arena you advance in your league.

[ufm]

The whole elo percentage thing is just silly.

Not only is it silly but the game progress % is inaccurate most of the time and you are not rewarded the correct elo relative to game progress even with the estimation it uses.

Still better than setting a completely arbitrary and irrelevant standard, I guess.

For example, in games progressed 0% nobody gains ELO.

I haven't been in a game in awhile that someone was kicked at the start but I believe you can receive elo in this situation. Maybe those games were marked as being further in progress than 0% but I have seen it. I know in arena you advance in your league.

The shield changes in Arena mode are not affected by the progression ratio. It's not ELO.
Also, some games start from >0%. Ask the developer.