Are we ever going to change the system to stop hurting honest players vs quitters?

[Ceaseless]

At an absolute bare minimum #1 needs to change, so that all players actually gain ELO from the quitter. Also, this doesn't actually bother me, as I don't mind more ELO in the system at a time when that's become problematic because of other changes, but if we're really concerned about players unfairly gaining ELO, it should be noted that players gaining ELO from tying high ranked players, especially if they'd actually lost, is actually farcical if we're talking about fairness. As said before a tie because the game was voided is not the same thing as a tie because we ended on the same points at the end of a game, the system is currently treating them the same, but it shouldn't be.

Yeah. I'm not understanding justifying low ranked players receiving double digit elo in games they are projected to win 5% of the time and opposing to high elo players receiving a few more points in games they are projected to win +80% of the time.

They're not complaining about low rated players getting double digit gains, that can happen even from beating just 1 player. They're complaining that there's rating exchanges between the players that didn't quit. They're not asking for any handouts that assume they won the game just because they had more rating.

The opponent by quitting caused a situation in which they can't get their fair rating from anyone but the opponent.

The problem is that 'fair' cannot be defined in a universal way. What about games where there is a quitter 2-3 turns before the end, but the other players are very close, so the winner isn't even decided? Also, the player leading by any game metric at any point before the end might not be actually winning. Also, with 2-3 turns left, players might still make mistakes. (Just to be clear, I offer no hard conclusions, I just want to highlight that the concept of 'fair' is complicated.)

While the current situation of getting rating denied due to circumstances outside of a player's control is definitely horrible, giving extra rating for high-rated players due to whatever reason (circumstances outside their control or not) is not a good idea either. I would hate to see rivals gain free rating like that, and to be honest, I don't want it even for myself; I'd rather earn rating the hard way. Unfortunately, I do not see any perfect solution for quitters in multiplayer games; the best attempt I could think of was what I described above, which essentially cancels the part of the game between the non-quitters, similar to when players agree to cancel a game.

This. ^

[Ceaseless]

The opponent by quitting caused a situation in which they can't get their fair rating from anyone but the opponent.

The problem is that 'fair' cannot be defined in a universal way. What about games where there is a quitter 2-3 turns before the end, but the other players are very close, so the winner isn't even decided? Also, the player leading by any game metric at any point before the end might not be actually winning. Also, with 2-3 turns left, players might still make mistakes. (Just to be clear, I offer no hard conclusions, I just want to highlight that the concept of 'fair' is complicated.)

Yes the highest elo player isn't winning every game. But on average they are winning x amount (the majority) of these games so them only getting a small % of what the total would've been had the game completed doesn't seem fair to me. Also in this situation with the quitter a winner is decided. There are multiple winners of a multiplayer game due to the quitter.

While the current situation of getting rating denied due to circumstances outside of a player's control is definitely horrible, giving extra rating for high-rated players due to whatever reason (circumstances outside their control or not) is not a good idea either. I would hate to see rivals gain free rating like that, and to be honest, I don't want it even for myself; I'd rather earn rating the hard way. Unfortunately, I do not see any perfect solution for quitters in multiplayer games; the best attempt I could think of was what I described above, which essentially cancels the part of the game between the non-quitters, similar to when players agree to cancel a game.

To be clear at no point do I think a player should be able to gain more than they would if there was no quitter. It sounds like you may have some concerns about your rivals possibly cheating the system but people can cheat the system now as is. The only difference now would be the higher elo players wouldn't be the victims of the system abuse. You are looking at this from a standpoint of a player with 900 elo and so your rivals are in the ballpark as well. Just for the record you don't have to have extremely high elo for you to be stiffed in this system. All you need is to have more elo than your opponents.

I did offer two solutions the other being continue the game if there was a quitter. I'm not going to count every game on the platform but I looked at 50 games in which I play. 90% of those can just continue after a quitter. So depending on the game there can just be an option that the game continues even if there is a quitter.

And they are losing more rating for their losses to offset that, an amount that would cancel out their expected winnings. So even if they were expected to win 5 out of 6 times, the 1 out of 6 times they lose would cost them enough to put them right back. So high rated players get the benefits of far better rating protection due to this system than low rated players as well.

[ChiefPointThief]

Also, your obsession with getting the rating from losses is just bizarre. If a player gets a penalty, then they lose the points and they go nowhere. If someone was supposed to get more rating but for some reason didn't, and they needed some kind of compensation, the bonus could be added the same way, such as how a high k factor just keeps adding points to the system. That said, what you're talking about is just giving players wins because they somehow "deserve" them because they have a higher elo, and therefore are supposed to win, lol. That's not how it works.

What exactly would be the difference in adding the bonus from a high k factor and just taking it from the penalty? The point is it needs to come from somewhere and that somewhere can't be from the non quitters.

To be clear at no point do I think a player should be able to gain more than they would if there was no quitter. It sounds like you may have some concerns about your rivals possibly cheating the system but people can cheat the system now as is. The only difference now would be the higher elo players wouldn't be the victims of the system abuse. You are looking at this from a standpoint of a player with 900 elo and so your rivals are in the ballpark as well. Just for the record you don't have to have extremely high elo for you to be stiffed in this system. All you need is to have more elo than your opponents.

I did offer two solutions the other being continue the game if there was a quitter. I'm not going to count every game on the platform but I looked at 50 games in which I play. 90% of those can just continue after a quitter. So depending on the game there can just be an option that the game continues even if there is a quitter.

And they are losing more rating for their losses to offset that, an amount that would cancel out their expected winnings. So even if they were expected to win 5 out of 6 times, the 1 out of 6 times they lose would cost them enough to put them right back. So high rated players get the benefits of far better rating protection due to this system than low rated players as well.

You did a lot of talking about when they lose in your recent post. There is no if they lose. They are winning 100% of the time when someone quits. There is no offsetting wins, assumptions of victors, or handouts. Just the non quitters being declared winners of a multiplayer game (not 2p) 100% of the time. So these 100% of the time victorious players of multiplayer games shouldn't be stiffed just because they have more elo than other players.

Also another thing that needs to be addressed in the 1v1 fix is that the elo exchanges would still be for 3+ players while also pretending like its 1v1 game. If a 200player beats a 200player 1v1 it would be 10 elo but with 5 players it is more like 6.

[Ceaseless]

Also, your obsession with getting the rating from losses is just bizarre. If a player gets a penalty, then they lose the points and they go nowhere. If someone was supposed to get more rating but for some reason didn't, and they needed some kind of compensation, the bonus could be added the same way, such as how a high k factor just keeps adding points to the system. That said, what you're talking about is just giving players wins because they somehow "deserve" them because they have a higher elo, and therefore are supposed to win, lol. That's not how it works.

What exactly would be the difference in adding the bonus from a high k factor and just taking it from the penalty? The point is it needs to come from somewhere and that somewhere can't be from the non quitters.

To be clear at no point do I think a player should be able to gain more than they would if there was no quitter. It sounds like you may have some concerns about your rivals possibly cheating the system but people can cheat the system now as is. The only difference now would be the higher elo players wouldn't be the victims of the system abuse. You are looking at this from a standpoint of a player with 900 elo and so your rivals are in the ballpark as well. Just for the record you don't have to have extremely high elo for you to be stiffed in this system. All you need is to have more elo than your opponents.

I did offer two solutions the other being continue the game if there was a quitter. I'm not going to count every game on the platform but I looked at 50 games in which I play. 90% of those can just continue after a quitter. So depending on the game there can just be an option that the game continues even if there is a quitter.

And they are losing more rating for their losses to offset that, an amount that would cancel out their expected winnings. So even if they were expected to win 5 out of 6 times, the 1 out of 6 times they lose would cost them enough to put them right back. So high rated players get the benefits of far better rating protection due to this system than low rated players as well.

You did a lot of talking about when they lose in your recent post. There is no if they lose. They are winning 100% of the time when someone quits. There is no offsetting wins, assumptions of victors, or handouts. Just the non quitters being declared winners of a multiplayer game (not 2p) 100% of the time. So these 100% of the time victorious players of multiplayer games shouldn't be stiffed just because they have more elo than other players.

Also another thing that needs to be addressed in the 1v1 fix is that the elo exchanges would still be for 3+ players while also pretending like its 1v1 game. If a 200player beats a 200player 1v1 it would be 10 elo but with 5 players it is more like 6.

If a rating gain was required for some reason, it does not need to come from somewhere, just as a deduction to a player for a penalty doesn't need to go anywhere. They can just add/subtract what is necessary to fix the problem.

I keep talking about what happens if they lose because you keep talking about the expected outcome as a reason to modify their ratings. Now, if we want to skip over that, there's no need for additional modification at all, the game's already scored for them. They were given the points for their win, the OP just has an issue with them scoring points for draws, which I agree shouldn't happen.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about "winner of a multiplayer game" as though it's some title that magically awards you a certain number of points for achieving it. You get points for the players you beat, lose points for the players that beat you, and get whatever outcome happens for the players you drew vs. They only beat 1 player, the way you're talking sounds like you think they beat 4. BGA might still stick a "winner" label on both, but they don't award the same numbers of points for the achievements, nor should they. You get more points for beating all 4 of your opponents in a 5-player game than you do for only beating 1 player in your 5-player game.

[RazorOz]

And they are losing more rating for their losses to offset that, an amount that would cancel out their expected winnings. So even if they were expected to win 5 out of 6 times, the 1 out of 6 times they lose would cost them enough to put them right back. So high rated players get the benefits of far better rating protection due to this system than low rated players as well.

One thing on this is I think high ranking players are absolutely net losers under this system, at least on a game like Heat, which has the highest % of quitters on any game I've ever encountered here (I think this is likely because it's very explicit in you're losing where other games it can be much more subtle).

The reason for this is high ranked players will invariably not quit any game, but any quit will come from a player who was not going to win the game. This means in practice the high ranked players will be winning a higher % of these games than average based off their current level of ELO. And because these players then are certain to gain 0 when the result is voided, they gain nothing from these games, whereas lower ranked players will still gain when the result is voided. The end result is lower ELO for the higher ranked players as their ELO is being stunted by the current system.

This comes across elitist, that isn't my intention, I'm more interested in the system being fair for all players, but I did want to address the point of high ranking players getting the benefits of rating protection from this system, as I think in reality those players lose out significantly from this system.

[ChiefPointThief]

If a rating gain was required for some reason, it does not need to come from somewhere, just as a deduction to a player for a penalty doesn't need to go anywhere. They can just add/subtract what is necessary to fix the problem.

Despite what you may think I'm not in favor of handouts or adding a bunch of rating gains into the community. Just like I am not in favor of the unnecessary deductions like the horrible consecutive win penalty. Although I'm not against it because it is to deter quitters you can argue that there shouldn't be a elo hit for the quitter. They already lose the max points possible. If you want to punish them for behavior that is what karma is for. The -10 elo can be simply looked at as a "help repair the game you just ruined" penalty.

They were given the points for their win, the OP just has an issue with them scoring points for DRAWS, which I agree shouldn't happen.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about "winner of a multiplayer game" as though it's some title that magically awards you a certain number of points for achieving it. You get points for the players you beat, lose points for the players that beat you, and get whatever outcome happens for the players you DREW vs. They only beat 1 player, the way you're talking sounds like you think they beat 4. BGA might still stick a "winner" label on both, but they don't award the same numbers of points for the achievements, nor should they. You get more points for beating all 4 of your opponents in a 5-player game than you do for only beating 1 player in your 5-player game.

Nope. We can't look at this situation as draws. Otherwise op doesn't deserve any elo because they "drew" to weaker opponents. There are no draws. Just multiple winners and 1 loser. A weird situation I know. One that the quitter created. The quitter took the opportunity away from all the players to gain elo they should gain for winning a 5p game. But, we could use the "help repair the game you just ruined" penalty to help slightly (if you want it to come from increased k factor or give it another name that works too).

Also I understand bga made it so you can't go under 100 elo to not hurt players feelings but that should only apply to honest players and the karma hit for quitting should be higher.

[Ceaseless]

If a rating gain was required for some reason, it does not need to come from somewhere, just as a deduction to a player for a penalty doesn't need to go anywhere. They can just add/subtract what is necessary to fix the problem.

Despite what you may think I'm not in favor of handouts or adding a bunch of rating gains into the community. Just like I am not in favor of the unnecessary deductions like the horrible consecutive win penalty. Although I'm not against it because it is to deter quitters you can argue that there shouldn't be a elo hit for the quitter. They already lose the max points possible. If you want to punish them for behavior that is what karma is for. The -10 elo can be simply looked at as a "help repair the game you just ruined" penalty.

They were given the points for their win, the OP just has an issue with them scoring points for DRAWS, which I agree shouldn't happen.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about "winner of a multiplayer game" as though it's some title that magically awards you a certain number of points for achieving it. You get points for the players you beat, lose points for the players that beat you, and get whatever outcome happens for the players you DREW vs. They only beat 1 player, the way you're talking sounds like you think they beat 4. BGA might still stick a "winner" label on both, but they don't award the same numbers of points for the achievements, nor should they. You get more points for beating all 4 of your opponents in a 5-player game than you do for only beating 1 player in your 5-player game.

Nope. We can't look at this situation as draws. Otherwise op doesn't deserve any elo because they "drew" to weaker opponents. There are no draws. Just multiple winners and 1 loser. A weird situation I know. One that the quitter created. The quitter took the opportunity away from all the players to gain elo they should gain for winning a 5p game. But, we could use the "help repair the game you just ruined" penalty to help slightly (if you want it to come from increased k factor or give it another name that works too).

Also I understand bga made it so you can't go under 100 elo to not hurt players feelings but that should only apply to honest players and the karma hit for quitting should be higher.

The -10 elo is just an increase to losing. So the maximum point count has increased if you quit vs if you lose. Karma is largely meaningless, laughably easy to acquire and maintain. An elo hit to players as an additional deterrent to quitting is a nice touch. As for fixing the game for other players, that is a completely separate issue from the karma and elo deduction to the quitter. Unfortunately, the quitter did ruin the game, and there aren't really great ways to fix it that I've seen so far. Maybe case by case reviews for players wanting to show the game was pretty much played out and get the ratings dealt based on those demonstratable outcomes, but that looks like more work than would seem practical to go through.

As for the "we can't look at the situation as draws" comment of yours, you seem to be several posts behind. It has been stated numerous times by myself and others that if players are getting draws vs each other for the quitting scenario that it should be removed. The outcome between them should be neutralized. Not really part of the conventional list of "win, draw, loss" but it would be another outcome between players to throw in there. Maybe there's more I'm not thinking of, but in any case, you play out the multiplayer games and afterwards the players get their gains/losses based on their outcomes with each other. I'd agree with the OP, the quitter gets a loss vs each player, and each player gets a win vs the quitter, and that's it.

[ChiefPointThief]

Unfortunately, the quitter did ruin the game, and there aren't really great ways to fix it that I've seen so far. Maybe case by case reviews for players wanting to show the game was pretty much played out and get the ratings dealt based on those demonstratable outcomes, but that looks like more work than would seem practical to go through.

There doesn't need to be a full investigation with detective work. Just give each player a few points. My god! There is already a bunch of elo being taken out of communities. Players getting a few points in these situation won't hurt and it somewhat remedies the situation.

In the 1vs1 "fix" several of the op games they would've been in 1st place had it finished but instead they would only get 0.4 or somewhere around that ( I would post more of their games but bga is hiding elo calculation now) because the quitter was in the low 100s. Even though they were beating the other 3 players as well. So we wouldn't be changing the system to stop hurting honest players vs quitters.

But can the play on option be discuss now? Anyone disagree to that?

[Ceaseless]

Unfortunately, the quitter did ruin the game, and there aren't really great ways to fix it that I've seen so far. Maybe case by case reviews for players wanting to show the game was pretty much played out and get the ratings dealt based on those demonstratable outcomes, but that looks like more work than would seem practical to go through.

There doesn't need to be a full investigation with detective work. Just give each player a few points. My god! There is already a bunch of elo being taken out of communities. Players getting a few points in these situation won't hurt and it somewhat remedies the situation.

In the 1vs1 "fix" several of the op games they would've been in 1st place had it finished but instead they would only get 0.4 or somewhere around that ( I would post more of their games but bga is hiding elo calculation now) because the quitter was in the low 100s. Even though they were beating the other 3 players as well. So we wouldn't be changing the system to stop hurting honest players vs quitters.

But can the play on option be discuss now? Anyone disagree to that?

Giving a few players free points they didn't earn is not a good thing, especially higher up, where it becomes more and more unfair to everyone else near that ladder. You keep going back to that "would've, could've, should've" stuff you say shouldn't be involved again. In the end, as far as BGA can tell, they didn't.

As for play on, I see an issue with games where there's actual player interaction and the quitting player being done can impact the direction of the game. At most I don't see this working out unless there's some kind of unanimous vote requirement to continue to play and score accordingly.

[Gulchen]

...

As for play on, I see an issue with games where there's actual player interaction and the quitting player being done can impact the direction of the game. At most I don't see this working out unless there's some kind of unanimous vote requirement to continue to play and score accordingly.

I'm for, allow game implementations to indicate if they have a good-enough way for the game to continue. ​ (with the default being no)