Player quits in arena game

[All-is-not-lost]

I was leading by 18 points in my "arena game". when another player raked higher than me (505 points) quits and I end up being tied with the other player whose ELO was 140. As a result I believe my ELO points that I gain ( which were a whopping 4) should have been more since I beat both players. Am I wrong to believe that this results in fewer points for me in a game I was clearly going to win?

[Ceaseless]

You only beat the player that quit. BGA is not going to try and what if a game already finished by a player quitting.

[ChiefPointThief]

I was leading by 18 points in my "arena game". when another player raked higher than me (505 points) quits and I end up being tied with the other player whose ELO was 140. As a result I believe my ELO points that I gain ( which were a whopping 4) should have been more since I beat both players. Am I wrong to believe that this results in fewer points for me in a game I was clearly going to win?

You are not wrong! It does result in you getting fewer pts. It is a very bad system. Not only does it pretend like you weren't in a game w/ multiple ppl after 1 person quits but it also doesn't even give you the proper elo as if you defeated that person in a 1v1 match.

I am going to assume that the game could've carried on w/o this person? If so there are bug reports suggesting that devs be allowed to let games carry on when someone quits. You should find them and give them a vote. If there is a race and someone in last place trips over a hurdle and decides to stop running then they are disqualified. The person 5 meters away from the finishing line doesn't lose their ability to get gold and come in 1st. That same principle should be followed on bga.

Looking at your history it appears this sort of behavior is common in this game which is too bad because it is rather lengthy.

[Komandor Tarkin]

you get points for victory over 505 player, and you lose for tie with 140 player. Thats why you get only +4

[Meeplelowda]

you get points for victory over 505 player, and you lose for tie with 140 player. Thats why you get only +4

It is a bug if that happened because a while ago the ELO scoring was readjusted so that non-expelled players were not penalized as a consequence of someone being expelled (which used to happened when a higher ranked player artificially "tied" due to a player being expelled).

[Shivaware]

you get points for victory over 505 player, and you lose for tie with 140 player. Thats why you get only +4

It is a bug if that happened because a while ago the ELO scoring was readjusted so that non-expelled players were not penalized as a consequence of someone being expelled (which used to happened when a higher ranked player artifically "tied" due to a player being expelled).

I agree that it's a bug, but I think this is somewhat intentional behaviour from BGA. They still do the calculation where higher Elo players lose some rating to lower Elo tied players, but they just ensure that the total change in rating is not negative.

[RazorOz]

You are right, but I've brought this up before, and seemingly nothing will change. Just red thumb the player who quit.

There's multiple problems with how it currently works. For starters how ELO is handled in these scenarios is completely flawed. If you have a high ELO you can never gain any ELO in multiplayer games where someone quits, because although you nominally gain ELO from the play who quit, you are assigned a tie with everyone else which you lose ELO from. The overall result is neutralised so you can't lose ELO so you stick at 0, but this is silly on 2 points, #1 it means a lower ranked player gains a lot of ELO this way from ties, and #2 the game shouldn't really treat everyone else as ties if it's going to handle it this way at all, it should be if player C quits the result between A and B is void/neutralised to 0, that way at least you would gain the ELO you should from the quitter which currently doesn't happen. It's particularly ridiculous because eg. people are mentioning here BGA aren't going to what if the result, but at some games someone can quit voiding the game literally after someone has already won.

On top of this people can game the system. If someone knows they have lost, it can be in their interests from an Arena point of view to void the game purely to stop you getting Arena points, and of course it makes collusion easier too.

[Jellby]

Many games could technically continue with one less player, but most, if not all, of them would be affected in their balance. Some games have different setup depending on the number of players and having a player quit mid-game may leave the rest in an unbalanced situation. Even if there's no different setup, the fact that the game started with N players has probably shaped the game and strategies, and removing one player will harm some (who where relying, for example, on piggy-backing on that player's actions) and favor others (who were competing with them for resources). There is just no fair and abuse-proof way of dealing with a player quitting mid-game, except when the game rules explicitly consider this case, and even then.

[ChiefPointThief]

Many games could technically continue with one less player, but most, if not all, of them would be affected in their balance. Some games have different setup depending on the number of players and having a player quit mid-game may leave the rest in an unbalanced situation. Even if there's no different setup, the fact that the game started with N players has probably shaped the game and strategies, and removing one player will harm some (who where relying, for example, on piggy-backing on that player's actions) and favor others (who were competing with them for resources). There is just no fair and abuse-proof way of dealing with a player quitting mid-game, except when the game rules explicitly consider this case, and even then.

I believe that due to bga's policy this isn't a valid reason to not allow the game to continue. Bga stance is that they cannot control how players play. So ppl can pass every turn for the whole game, kingmake, simply just be inexperienced which helps certain players more than others, etc and the results for such games are still valid. You aren't guaranteed the right to piggy back off another player or have player x compete with player y for resources.

I will give 2 examples of popular games that I've played with rage quitters that remain in the game. Although they don't leave the game they completely give up on achieving the best results possible.

1. Catan - You can come across a game in which player a & player b are competing for the same spot to build a settlement and player a gets there 1st. Now player b completely gives up on the game. They start making trades that benefit player c & d and place the robber every chance they get on player a even though player a is clearly in 3rd place due to player b playing abnormally because they rage quit.

2. Terra Mystica - There are rage quitters in this game but I usually play w/ strong players and above (or good+). Higher elo players care a little more about their elo and they are typically more legit gamers so they won't flat out quit. But I have been in games in which players recognized early that their game is going bad so they stay in the game but just pass on the 1st move every rd. Now they are not giving any power to their neighbors. Passing is a key part to the game and them passing early and blocking cards or making valuable cards available early in the turn alters the game. They can also not be competing in cults etc. etc. If they believe their failure is due to another player they can just do everything in their power to try and make the player finish poorly while hurting themselves in the process.

So how are the results in games like this more legitimate than what the results would be if these rage quitters left the game instead of remaining and playing abnormally which alters the results? They aren't. The results of a game in which the rage quitter leaves and play continues are more valid.

Some games are affected little from having someone leave the game and some none at all. Razor mentioned this topic for heat in which players were quitting when ppl already crossed the finish line and gained 1st place.

Another issue which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned yet is that games w/ a high quit rate are losing revenue by not allowing the game to continue because games make money from how long they are played. For instance, when this debate was being had for heat I checked the quit rate for games 4p+ on 3 different occasions. On average 23% of games where being quit.

[Ceaseless]

So how are the results in games players [stay and play bad] more legitimate than what the results would be if these rage quitters left the game instead of remaining and playing abnormally which alters the results? They aren't. The results of a game in which the rage quitter leaves and play continues are more valid.

Replaced your examples with bracketed text for space. The answer is that BGA can register a player quitting and can automatically end the game. BGA cannot automatically register a player intentionally throwing.