Players eliminated when a player do not show up

[kingdream99]

Hello,
I hope this is the right forum section to ask my question below.
Sorry in advance for the noob's question, it's the first time I joined a tournament on BGA :
https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=325825

In this tournament there are 5 players/table and only 3 are qualified to next round.
On my 1st table, 1 out 5 players did not show up for 24hrs so the match was canceled and the other 4 players were declared winners.
But as only 3 players can be qualified to next round, I don't know why I was the one eliminated amongst the 4 winners.

What's the logic behind the choice of the player eliminated amongts the winners ? Is it totally random ?
Just to understand for the next time this scenario happens again, because honestly it's a bit frustrating to have to wait for 24 hours for a player that did not show up and then being eliminated without any clear reason.

Thanks in advance for your help!
Cheers

[Calmon70]

When nobody skips the player it's usually time remaining of each player.

When somebody skips - which seems to be the case: "Move 18 : 3:18:35 PM Apoka2 is out of time, so sandwhich skips his/her turn" from your game log the order is account age. So with relatively new account you suffer from this most!

[kingdream99]

Hello,
Thanks for your reply.
So basically are you telling me that "new" players on BGA are actually penalized beacause of the "low seniority" of their account ?
Honestly that's not the right way to encourage the new players to keep subscribing for tournaments...

[Meeplelowda]

Hello,
Thanks for your reply.
So basically are you telling me that "new" players on BGA are actually penalized beacause of the "low seniority" of their account ?
Honestly that's not the right way to encourage the new players to keep subscribing for tournaments...

Your frustration is justified, and unless you are in the small subset of players who read the Tournaments forum regularly there was no way for you to be forewarned that this is how things are handled. The intricacies of the tournament framework are conspicuously poorly documented.

As I recently wrote in response to someone else asking about a tournament edge case:

The original tournament framework was built for two-player games. Period.

Everything else beyond that was implemented with pressure from players who always demand more more more (like how people cry about not having all the expansions 30 seconds after a game is released on here). Tourneys with 3+ players per game are held together by duct tape and frequently break or have annoying consequences from having more than two players, such as how the advancing player(s) is determined if someone gets expelled.

This is why I only play two-player games in tournaments despite there being many games I enjoy at higher player counts.

[kingdream99]

Hello,
Thanks for your detailed message.
As I am quite new to BGA, the only scope of my post on the forum is to understand the rationale behind the elimination of a player in unfortunate cases such as mine.
Now that I have more info thanks to the replies received, I understand this should be accepted as a "limitation" for "more-than-2-players per game" tournaments, even thought I am wondering the % of this kind of tournaments comparing to "2-players" ones. Maybe they are the majority, maybe not...

Again, IMO the selection criteria based on account "seniority" feels a bit silly and should definitely be changed for improvement, if there is the time and the will from BGA developers, of course

[nik592]

It's one of several problems with the tournament framework that is pretty much ignored. There are suggestions/bugs around to vote on (if you search in the forums, you'll probably find one of several posts listing them all), and I would encourage you to do so, but don't hold your breath on anything changing. Just chalk it up as one of life's unfair experiences, and find another game (or tournament) to play.

[kingdream99]

It's one of several problems with the tournament framework that is pretty much ignored. There are suggestions/bugs around to vote on (if you search in the forums, you'll probably find one of several posts listing them all), and I would encourage you to do so, but don't hold your breath on anything changing. Just chalk it up as one of life's unfair experiences, and find another game (or tournament) to play.

Indeed, searching the forum I found many other people complaining about the abuse of skipping functionality done by some players and I have also voted on the bugs related to this subject.
Anyway, it's just a game as you say it's nothing serious, but now that I know such "limitations" I will think twice now before enrolling in some multiplayer tournament and choose carefully the tournaments i'll play next.
Thanks everyone for the kindness in your replies

[yodamus]

When looking for a multi player tourney to join. Check to see how many are needed to start the game. If the same amount as tourney is for. Do not join ! Or what happened to you will keep on happening as usually 1 person at least does not show up. Example. 4 player tourney. Better say 3 or less needed to start for me to join. If it says all 4. Do not join. If all 4 don't show. You will be eliminated before you even play a game. Needs fixing badly. Had many bad things happen in multi tourneys when everyone has to be there. That is also a notice to all tourney makers. Do not demand everyone has to be there to start a game. Leave room for at least 1 person not to show

[nik592]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you mean the minimum number of players per game, isn't that just about how many to place at a table? As in, if I have 7 players left in a tournament that says minimum 3 players per table, but generally 4, then it will make one table of 4 and one of 3. But if it says always 4 players per table, it will make 1 table of 4 and give the other three players byes for that round. That was my understanding anyway, but someone please correct me if I am wrong.

If someone who is allocated to your table doesn't play any turns, that game is going to end either by someone booting the inactive player, or maximum table timeout. If it's single player elimination, then the person out of time just gets booted - but if it's multiplayer, well, then yes, you might be eliminated through no fault of your own. And that is something of a problem with the tournament framework but I don't think the tournament creators can do anything to mitigate that scenario.

[RazorOz]

It would be nice for the tournament framework to be addressed. I actually think you'd get a lot more players playing tournaments if this was addressed, but with things how they currently are many players avoid tournaments like the plague, too many tournaments just end in a total mess, some is organisers fault for putting on too ambitious clocks etc., but a lot is just a total lack of flexibility in the framework.

It says it all the extent I go to put on tournaments whereby I will literally hand invite every player rather than make them open, purely to avoid players not turning up/slow players/quitters ruining the tournament for someone. It shouldn't have to be that way where there's a fear of a few players ruining it for lots of players.

Some of the things I'd like:

- Ability to manually put a preferred player count by round. Or generally a preferred player count to take preference if possible. Right now it defaults to the max and tries to setup around that, but that can cause a # of problems in itself if you have a open tournament in terms of determining an eventual winner. Look at this tournament I setup: https://boardgamearena.com/tournament?id=323651, and the absolute mental gymnastics I had to go to to get what I wanted to happen. If I could have set player count by round, I could then have a lower min player count so the tournament wouldn't end up absolutely ruined if everybody didn't turn up.

- Some utility for the creator for who enters. So an invite feature would be nice, like that tournament above would be pretty much unviable if I made it open, but at same time sending out invites right now is asinine because there's a DM limit for spam. At the other end of the scale the ability to either remove or block players from entering that you know will cause problems (could even be linked to your red thumbs etc.), I know the reputation restrictions are meant to be this, but that is nowhere near enough.

- Greater flexibility how to handle quitters/timing out. Like for tournaments specifically some kind of option/box to tick that would make the game play to completion if someone quits regardless, there are some games it probably doesn't work, but many where it would be fine, and even in many where it would change the game dynamics a bit, it would still be better than how it is currently handled, and would at least leave everyone knowing where they stand from the off. The round not completing in time is a bit more difficult to handle, and you probably would have to ultimately do it on time left on clock as fairest method, but some flexibility here would be nice too. For starters I think options of rounds longer than 30 days would be appreciated for some games, so take Heat 30 days should be enough time to complete a race in normal mode for a round, but this clock is really tight if you wanted to hold a Championship tournament, to the point it basically makes it unviable, because 4 races in 30 days requires all the players to play fast. Is there any reason to not have options for a tournament max round length for 45 days, 60 days etc.?