Skipping must be stopped! Action eeded!

[FrankJones]

Another one I have thought of:
Skipping is only allowed if a player has exceeded double the allowed playtime. If a player exceeds playtime just moderately, no skipping, the player wil- l get a penalty for overtiming, but no option to cancel the game. This is imho even a bitter solution for all games (incl 2p and non-tournament games)

Isn't this just equivalent to choosing a game setting with extra time? What happens when someone goes just slightly over the new limit and people complain that there should be some leeway, do we increase the time again?

Yeah, the "2 extra minutes" suggestion has been made many times, and I agree with JimBut here.

Unless we're saying that a player could have an "emergency": time bank of, let's say, 4 minutes? To be used throughout the course of the game when something comes up, doorbell, cat pees on the carpet, important phone call, whatever. Sort of like a "time joker" similar to a vacation joker. One time joker per game, but the 4 minutes from the joker can be used whenever needed until they have been cumulatively used up.

[RazorOz]

I've heard so many conflicting statements regarding this issue.
SO, it's accurate to say that each game's individual developer can implement this if desired? Because, in some games, in some games, it would essentially have zero adverse effect so simply skip absent players and continue the game as normal and award the proper Elo.

Apparently "heat" is one such game (I am not familiar with it).
Terraforming Mars, one of the more widely played games, can easily have that same feature. Any game where players do not take an equal number of turns anyway should have few issues continuing a game in which one player abandons.
Wingspan is another good example. If a player leaves, so what? Just continue the game.

I'm sure there are many more examples.

I do not know who's decision it is, but when it came to Heat it was said initially it was a trial, I presume with a plan it could be introduced to more games. You can read the Heat announcement here: https://boardgamearena.com/group?id=14686320.

I guess you can either post in the forum for the games in the question to drum up support, or contact the developers of those games directly.

The point is the framework to solve a big part of this does already exist, because it does solve most of the OP's issue, of the skip of where someone plays 90% of the game, sees they're not going to win so times someone out, no longer stops the player who was going to win under these rules.

[ufm]

I've heard so many conflicting statements regarding this issue.
SO, it's accurate to say that each game's individual developer can implement this if desired? Because, in some games, in some games, it would essentially have zero adverse effect so simply skip absent players and continue the game as normal and award the proper Elo.

Apparently "heat" is one such game (I am not familiar with it).
Terraforming Mars, one of the more widely played games, can easily have that same feature. Any game where players do not take an equal number of turns anyway should have few issues continuing a game in which one player abandons.
Wingspan is another good example. If a player leaves, so what? Just continue the game.

I'm sure there are many more examples.

I do not know who's decision it is, but when it came to Heat it was said initially it was a trial, I presume with a plan it could be introduced to more games. You can read the Heat announcement here: https://boardgamearena.com/group?id=14686320.

I guess you can either post in the forum for the games in the question to drum up support, or contact the developers of those games directly.

The point is the framework to solve a big part of this does already exist, because it does solve most of the OP's issue, of the skip of where someone plays 90% of the game, sees they're not going to win so times someone out, no longer stops the player who was going to win under these rules.

Yes, the feature is currently in the trial stage. I'm looking forward to the official release.
This can be applied to games where removing one player does not significantly affect other players, like many roll & write games.

[Ceaseless]

There is a 100% sure way to prevent that: do not run out of time. Once everyone does this, no one will be able to skip anyone.

I agree with you, generally speaking.

But in a game of

player A
player B
player C
player D

What is to stop player C, who is assured of a defeat, from allowing his clock tun out so that player D (Also losing), can kick player C, this stealing a win from player A or player B? They could even do this intentionally if they are friendly for friends with each other.
In that situation, player A did everything right and still got screwed.

That is called cheating. It's a common tactic for boosters to have an account quit to prevent the boosting account from losing. Intentional timeouts are just that with different steps. If you see players doing stuff like this report them. That said, if you're dealing with collusion, this has less to do with BGA policy and more to do with malicious behavior. There's no way to expect a good game if you're having opponents colluding, the best BGA policy can do is help catch and penalize these users to help prevent future issues. While I guess cheating technically is a counterexample to the "100% guarantee" unintentional overtimes are probably a more reasonable issue under the premises of this thread that should still cover your intended target.

That said, it's unlikely for a game with more than 2 players to be fair. The more interaction there is, the more impossible it becomes, as the interaction serves to create more chances for variance. The only real chances come from games where the players are more or less playing simultaneous solitaire with each other.

[nik592]

That said, it's unlikely for a game with more than 2 players to be fair. The more interaction there is, the more impossible it becomes, as the interaction serves to create more chances for variance. The only real chances come from games where the players are more or less playing simultaneous solitaire with each other.

This is put perfectly. I'm not saying to continue on a game without the missing player isn't a reasonable solution, but it is not the perfect panacea that some believe, and will still get complaints I'm sure.

What actually happens in Heat, when a player quits before game end? Does the game act as if the player was never there, or does it take some passing action (which I don't believe there is anything in Heat, so I'm guessing the former)? If a game just removes a player, then it's probably more workable, and based on the comment about roll & writes, I'm guessing that's what happens? As most roll & writes I know don't have a suitable passing action to take, but would easily continue on as if the quitting player was never there in the first place.

[alexsim]

In Heat: Pedal to the Metal, players who withdraw have their cars removed from the track, so they have no further effect on the game.

Vektorace, another car-racing game on BGA, also allows players to withdraw (and have no further effect on the game).

Through the Ages (both versions) allows for player resignation. TtA is such a long and brutal game that withdrawal is actually covered in the rules of the game, which is a rarity. (Resigned players have no further effect on the game, and their position (board, cards, resources, etc.) are removed from the game.)

[alexsim]

Another possible solution to at least part of this problem would be to remove the option - if any player runs out of time, the game is immediately ended.

(This doesn't fix the problem of a player leaving, but at least it would prevent a third party from leveraging the situation (that is, using a kick-out to prevent a loss only if needed.) I suppose this is actually the right solution if you assume all players only care about the winning and the non-winners will always take the last minute kick-out option instead of losing, so a win is no longer possible.)

[FrankJones]

Another possible solution to at least part of this problem would be to remove the option - if any player runs out of time, the game is immediately ended.

(This doesn't fix the problem of a player leaving, but at least it would prevent a third party from leveraging the situation (that is, using a kick-out to prevent a loss only if needed.) I suppose this is actually the right solution if you assume all players only care about the winning and the non-winners will always take the last minute kick-out option instead of losing, so a win is no longer possible.)

I've suggested this before in in other threads:

It's absurd to allow players to let the game to continue (after a player runs out of time, and let's say, goes so negative that he or she still will be negative at the end of the game) AND then allow those same players who allowed the game to continue to then kick the player at the end once they realize the game did not go their way.

When a player runs out of tie, the options should be:

1) Wait for the player to return without penalty and finish the game; that player's clock will be fully restored, or
2) Kick that player and end the game immediately.

[FrankJones]

In Heat: Pedal to the Metal, players who withdraw have their cars removed from the track, so they have no further effect on the game.

Vektorace, another car-racing game on BGA, also allows players to withdraw (and have no further effect on the game).

Through the Ages (both versions) allows for player resignation. TtA is such a long and brutal game that withdrawal is actually covered in the rules of the game, which is a rarity. (Resigned players have no further effect on the game, and their position (board, cards, resources, etc.) are removed from the game.)

In these times of internet gaming, I wish every game designer would include an official for a situation in which a player leaves a multi-player game.
It wouldn't be that difficult.

Terraforming Mars: The player simply takes the "pass" action every generation.
Wingspan: The player cycles through the three habitat actions every 3 turns, decline all gains and declining all brown powers.
7 Wonders; The player randomly picks a card and sells it.
Splendor: The player's turns are simply skipped (even though that would not usually be a valid action).

For some games there is no solution that would work: In Multi-player Azul, passing is not a valid action, since people would simply pass if they could when the only other option is to take a huge pile of penalty tiles. Having an absent player pass his turns could cause the wrong player to end up with penalty tiles. (I think Azul should be a 2-player game anyway).

Etc.

[Dr Wilson]

I agree with Frankjones (if I understood him correctly).
Kicking a player out of the game should only be possible DIRECTLY after the turn he exceeds the time limit.
If the player(s) decide to let the game continue, they have to live with this decision until...the time debt increases.

Maybe there are mean loopholes I dont see yet, but this should solve at least part of the problem - kicking out a player at a convenient time when the game goes south.