Major improvement about quitting players

[Liallan]

Then, some (very bad) players are quitting games when they are losing, because they prefer to get a penalty instead of loosing some precious ELO points.

Sorry, what? It was my understanding they do lose ELO points when they abandon a game. It wasn't solving anything.

Few month ago, we post a message on BGA Facebook account to propose you a new way to handle these players, and you were very excited about it. We are proud today to introduce it.

Except of course, those who don't have a Facebook account did not get to participate in that. I'm glad that people who don't choose to use Facebook were not important enough to have their opinions count. The fact that I only play a few turn-based games might make my personal opinion worth a little less, but it shouldn't be worth less due to lack of a Facebook account. You should not have taken this off this site.

* There is now a unique time limit for each player of a game.

And exactly how does this work, since you chose not to explain it?

* As soon as a player is out of time (ex: because he left the game), you can make him skip his turn.
* If this player get back in the game, he can continue to play normally.
* In any case, the game continue to the end, and ELO points are scored.

What good does this do? Sorry, bad solution. Skipping turns is not a way to play a game. I don't want to play a game where a player gets to skip a turn, however it works. The point is, the player is not there taking their own turn. It messes with the integrity of the game. I would never choose an option to have a turned skipped, but that doesn't mean I can control what some other player might do. And this would ruin the game for me, but I wouldn't be allowed to abandon just cause someone's turn got skipped cause the game is still going to continue. And ruining a game and screwing with the integrity of it also screws with the integrity of the ELO.

In my opinion, terrible idea.

This way, this is really unuseful to quit a game to avoid a defeat, and if you are disconnected during few minutes you can try to join again the game.

I can pretty much guarantee they'll abandon them anyway. I came over to the forums to post a complaint about people abandoning games, and the situation I just encountered (again) would never be solved by this. First, I'm not sure if you can apply all this the same way to both real-time and turn-based. Second, every time I try to play a game of Perudo, someone who has lost all their dice abandon the game. I have been able to finish ONE - yes, ONE - game of Perudo where every player had good enough gamesmanship to actually stay with the game even when they were out. But every other game I've tried to play, someone whose dice are gone abandon. The game doesn't need to skip their turn - they have no more turns. So they'll just keep abandoning them to avoid losing the ELO.

And since I'm really tired of never being able to finish Perudo, this solves nothing and I'm ready to never play this game again. If I don't want to play your games, what is the point?

In fact, I'm about ready to leave the site altogether because of problems like this. I see no solution here, and skipping turns in a game isn't right. I don't want turns skipped. I came here cause I was completely fed up with people leaving games, just to find what I think is a really bad solution to the problem.

And I also see lots of other problems with this, some of which have already been addressed.

At this point, since I'm on the verge of just leaving anyway, may as well spill the rest. When you first started the turn-based, you claimed your aim was to be the best turn-based site on the internet. If you ever expect that to happen, which isn't happening in the near future, you need to seriously re-think how you solve problems... from what I see, thought is not put into improving the turn-based games, even if it solves something with real-time. And you need to seriously consider making an effort to actually respond to some of the things that get posted about, even if it's just to disagree... but so many posts around here just get flat-out ignored, making people feel like no one even cares.

[Fishwick]

I don't play Perudo, but perhaps an option to resign would be beneficial. It's a normal part of chess, if someone is beaten they throw in the towel. It's good sportsmanship and perhaps would improve the abandonment situation. Obviously this only really helps 2 player games.

[glitter and doom]

In my opinion, this is not a good solution.

The old system wasn't perfect. It had some flaws, but, in general, it was very good and effective system. Players who were quitting games would get penalties AND they would loose ELO points (more points than if they conceded the game).

The new system actually encourages players to quit the games.

It seems that a majority of players would prefer to abandon a game instead of playing a game when the other player isn't there. Waiting for a timer after each turn would be extremely frustrating (especially in turn based games). If that is true, quitters would get away without penalties, and they would preserve their elo.

Not to mention that the new system is terrible for multiplayer games. Most of the games would get very unbalanced after someone quits. A missing player could be an advantage to one player and disadvantage to another.

[glitter and doom]

Then, some (very bad) players are quitting games when they are losing, because they prefer to get a penalty instead of loosing some precious ELO points.

I don't think this is correct. In the old system, players would lose more elo points for quitting.

[sourisdudesert]

Thanks for your answer. I tried to build a little "FAQ" below:



Why give ELO points even when they some players quits?

Since the creation of BGA, we have daily complaints from players who suffered from "rage quitters" who quits game just few moves before the end to save ELO points (and because they don't care about leave penalties).

A lot of players don't understand why the results of these games are "cancelled" with no ELO points awarded.

We decided to address this problem by giving ELO points based on the most reliable game result available (ie: when you continue the game and pass the turn of the quitter).



Is there less punishement for quitters?

No.

Before: quitters was getting a "leave" penalty plus a ELO loss. Opponents were penalized too (no ELO points win).
Now: quitters gets a "clock" penalty plus an ELO loss. Opponents still gets the ELO points they deserve.

So actually the "punishment" is higher than before,


Should I play a game until the end when there are some quitters?

Yes, and it should'nt take you much than one minute or two. This has 3 benefits:
_ in case of a sore loser that quits few move before the end, you just have to do few moves and gets a (almost) reliable result.
_ the other player can eventually get back to the game if his disconnection was unvolunteer.
_ although this is not 100% reliable, ELO points win by opponents will depend on the game situation when the quitter left the game.

And if you find boring to spend one minute or two playing againt an absent player, you can abandon the game.



There are bugs during the "turn pass"

Yes, for some games there may be some bugs (ex: no "zombie" code). We are going to spend times on these ones and they are going to be fixed. Please report them in the BGA bug reporter.


Games with a quitter are unbalanced

In some game this is true. If there is a quitter, you get a 99% chance not to be the last player, and you may have less chance to be 1st.

So there are good and bads


Skipping turn ruins the game

So does "expelling player". At least skipping turn allow you to have an almost complete game when only few moves are missing.

[Fishwick]

A clock penalty isn't worse than a leave penalty.

I'd be very hesitant to play with someone who leaves games. For someone who times out occasionally I'd have no problem.

Would agree that there's lots of games where a player being skipped gives a big advantage to a certain player. It shouldn't be a one size fits all.

[glitter and doom]

A clock penalty isn't worse than a leave penalty.

I'd be very hesitant to play with someone who leaves games. For someone who times out occasionally I'd have no problem.

I completely agree.
I always restrict table based on leave penalty, but never based on clock penalty.
I'm afraid with the new system we won't be able to distinguish between slow players and quitters.

[sprockitz]

How will this work with skipping turns? In a game like reversi you are almost always improving your position by skipping your turn (until very late in the game). In this case there are two issues.

First if the player has truly disconnected and you are playing solo you will very quickly run out of legal moves and be forced to pass. In this case both players would be in a 'pass' state. If this doesn't cause the game to end, the disconnected player returns they will have a huge advantage when they return (less is more in reversi).

The other scenario being they haven't actually left, in this case they can wait until their turn is passed and then force the other player to move more than once in a row since playing is actually a disadvantage.

[Claude Chabrol]

A clock penalty isn't worse than a leave penalty.

I'd be very hesitant to play with someone who leaves games. For someone who times out occasionally I'd have no problem.

I completely agree.
I always restrict table based on leave penalty, but never based on clock penalty.
I'm afraid with the new system we won't be able to distinguish between slow players and quitters.

+1
I agree with Fishwick and glitter and doom, it is now more difficult to identify quitters.

Then, some (very bad) players are quitting games when they are losing, because they prefer to get a penalty instead of loosing some precious ELO points.

I don't think this is correct. In the old system, players would lose more elo points for quitting.

+1
Glad you notice it.
I wrote it in the French forum too, but I was not taken seriously

The new system actually encourages players to quit the games.

It seems that a majority of players would prefer to abandon a game instead of playing a game when the other player isn't there.

+1
Logical.

And you need to seriously consider making an effort to actually respond to some of the things that get posted about, even if it's just to disagree... but so many posts around here just get flat-out ignored, making people feel like no one even cares.

+1
Regular players' / best players' advices are ignored.
Only because they don't post on Facebook ?

Few month ago, we post a message on BGA Facebook account to propose you a new way to handle these players, and you were very excited about it. We are proud today to introduce it.

Except of course, those who don't have a Facebook account did not get to participate in that. I'm glad that people who don't choose to use Facebook were not important enough to have their opinions count. The fact that I only play a few turn-based games might make my personal opinion worth a little less, but it shouldn't be worth less due to lack of a Facebook account. You should not have taken this off this site.

+1
Board Game Arena should rather listen to Very Regular Players / Players in the Top 5.
They know the website far better than the average users and would prevent wrong "improvements".

You should include glitter and doom, Tejo, Jest Phullin... or such players in your managing team.
Or at least listen to their advices, in order not to do the same mistakes in the future,
Experienced Players can prevent a lot of mistakes

Just my two cents

[Maranos]

Would it be possible to give players which run out of time a "clock penalty" if they come back and a "leave penalty" if they don't come back? This would keep the original meaning of the penalties and solve some of the concerns in this thread.