Teammaking

[Aleksandar1231]

My question is simple - Why is there no punishment for people who get boosted by others? Neither the one getting boosted nor the one boosting get any sort of punishment. I try to report such behavior and get told to give them a red thumb so I will not be joining games with them.

This has been a problem for a while, but today it got out of hand when I called out a player for throwing the game and casually told me that the third person needed the win more. Sarcastic or not, neither of them felt threatened to boost in any way.

As it stands this website is promoting boosters by not punishing them in any way. I am specifically talking about 7 Wonders, but I doubt the situation is different for other games. It is also very likely that if I look into the top elo players they will have a history of getting boosted.

[euklid314]

If the players you are talking about did a team play (in your opinion) only in your game: Give them a red thumb and move on. You were unlucky to be in this game - perhaps they had a bad day and behaved badly a single time. There is no moderation for that.

If you view the user stats and you realize that they are playing together and helping each other in a systematic cheating way then you can report them.

Go to one of the players and report him via "XX uses multiple accounts to unfairly gain ELO."

Add as much evidence from as many games as you can find. Be detailled! They will be punished if the evidence is clear. Been there, done that, was successful.

[RobertBr]

I am specifically talking about 7 Wonders, but I doubt the situation is different for other games. It is also very likely that if I look into the top elo players they will have a history of getting boosted.

Unlikely. This is in the same category as the belief that people are using bots to win or that the die roll algorithm is rigged to help a particular group of players. The problem exists almost entirely in the perception of a group of players who are paranoid and prone to conspiratorial thinking.

To be explicit - the site punishes players who use multiple accounts to boost their Elo. It is unlikely that compacts (players actively working in concert to boost each others Elo - because if you think players are doing it just to boost a strangers Elo at their own expense you are in dice roll conspiracy territory) are a major issue. There is no reason for BGA to concern themselves much with something that isn't really a problem.

[Cile]

I am specifically talking about 7 Wonders

How does one Kingmake in 7 Wonders? Choosing to purchase resources from one player over another? There's all sorts of reasons to choose the player on my left over the player on my right: I could choose one player because they are further behind and need it more, or the other because they are further ahead and "deserve" it more, or avoid the player that I feel I am closest competition with and give it to the player that is less likely to affect my final ranking. Any of these are impossible for a mod to distinguish if that is what I felt was the best play or if I had joined the game specifically to "help" that specific player.

If they aren't throwing their own game to help someone else win then the play is valid. Just because it isn't what you would do doesn't mean it's malicious. (I've been playing Evolution and have seen plays where a player creates a new species that is completely defenseless to a revealed predator's traits. I don't worry that they are "boosting" the predator, I just consider it a bad play.)

[euklid314]

I am specifically talking about 7 Wonders, but I doubt the situation is different for other games. It is also very likely that if I look into the top elo players they will have a history of getting boosted.

Unlikely. This is in the same category as the belief that people are using bots to win or that the die roll algorithm is rigged to help a particular group of players. The problem exists almost entirely in the perception of a group of players who are paranoid and prone to conspiratorial thinking.

To be explicit - the site punishes players who use multiple accounts to boost their Elo. It is unlikely that compacts (players actively working in concert to boost each others Elo - because if you think players are doing it just to boost a strangers Elo at their own expense you are in dice roll conspiracy territory) are a major issue. There is no reason for BGA to concern themselves much with something that isn't really a problem.

Robert it can happen also in Top Elo spots.

The Catan players I reported half a year ago exclusively played 3 player Catan and played as a team. 50-100 games with the same strategy:

They shared all their ressources and via trades they took whatever they needed. So if one player had wood + sheep and the other clay+wheat they would "trade", i.e. gift, ressources such that one of the players could build a settlement. A few turn later they would put their ressources together for the other player to build. In the very end always the same player, the main account, would end the game, the second account would even avoid getting 10 VP at all cost and would usually get 2nd place.

They never, ever traded with the 3rd players.

The main account was Elo Nr. 1 at the time of my reporting. He won approx. 95% of his games with mediocre play. After he lost all Elo via moderation the 2nd account was used as main account and the game started from anew - till my 2nd report and a new moderation.

So, yes, such cases happen but if they are reported the moderators react as they should. Such accounts are set to 0 Elo or the are even banned from BGA.

[Aleksandar1231]

I am specifically talking about 7 Wonders

How does one Kingmake in 7 Wonders? Choosing to purchase resources from one player over another? There's all sorts of reasons to choose the player on my left over the player on my right: I could choose one player because they are further behind and need it more, or the other because they are further ahead and "deserve" it more, or avoid the player that I feel I am closest competition with and give it to the player that is less likely to affect my final ranking. Any of these are impossible for a mod to distinguish if that is what I felt was the best play or if I had joined the game specifically to "help" that specific player.

If they aren't throwing their own game to help someone else win then the play is valid. Just because it isn't what you would do doesn't mean it's malicious. (I've been playing Evolution and have seen plays where a player creates a new species that is completely defenseless to a revealed predator's traits. I don't worry that they are "boosting" the predator, I just consider it a bad play.)

I was Olympia, player on right Alexandria and player on left was Halikarnassos. Alexandria discarded one of the first era red cards, me and Hali had taken one each. At high level play this makes it impossible for me to win red at any stage of the game and gives the Alexandria player no benefit. We were all high elo and we all know what had happened and what would come of it. It wasn't a bad play, but a calculated decision, backed by him saying that the other player needed the win more.

[euklid314]

I am specifically talking about 7 Wonders

How does one Kingmake in 7 Wonders? Choosing to purchase resources from one player over another? There's all sorts of reasons to choose the player on my left over the player on my right: I could choose one player because they are further behind and need it more, or the other because they are further ahead and "deserve" it more, or avoid the player that I feel I am closest competition with and give it to the player that is less likely to affect my final ranking. Any of these are impossible for a mod to distinguish if that is what I felt was the best play or if I had joined the game specifically to "help" that specific player.

If they aren't throwing their own game to help someone else win then the play is valid. Just because it isn't what you would do doesn't mean it's malicious. (I've been playing Evolution and have seen plays where a player creates a new species that is completely defenseless to a revealed predator's traits. I don't worry that they are "boosting" the predator, I just consider it a bad play.)

I was Olympia, player on right Alexandria and player on left was Halikarnassos. Alexandria discarded one of the first era red cards, me and Hali had taken one each. At high level play this makes it impossible for me to win red at any stage of the game and gives the Alexandria player no benefit. We were all high elo and we all know what had happened and what would come of it. It wasn't a bad play, but a calculated decision, backed by him saying that the other player needed the win more.

As I wrote, bad play (even on purpose) will not be moderated. Give a red thumb and get over it.

It would be impossible for BGA staff to judge those hundreds of games each day where this happens. Who should judge which bad moves were done intentionally? What do you expect? Do you want to have a jury of expert players (in each of the hundreds of games on BGA!) that judge those situations? I am not an expert at 7 Wonders and I cannot judge how wrong/bad the situation really was. You cannot expect that from BGA staff either.

Please note that kingmaking is not avoidable in many situations. Often you know that you will not be winning but your move(s) will decide who wins. In this case you are even forced to kingmake and every decision you make is correct and ok. Even if you base your decision on ELO and let the stronger player or the weaker player win, in certain situations that is just fine - because you cannot avoid it. Thus kingmaking is not a reportable offense.

As you describe it - the recommendation of giving a red thumb seems exactly the correct way for you to react!

If you detect systematic (!) cheating/teammaking over many games by the same group of players, then there is the possibility of moderation. And such a moderation will result in severe punishements if there is evidence beyond doubt.