Why can we not decline a turn-based game, but we can for real-time?

[FrankJones]

I am puzzled by this.

If I create an open table in real-time, I must manually click "accept" before the game starts.
For turn-based, the game just starts. And it might be someone I do not wish to play with at that time.

Can anyone help explain why this is the case?

[Jellby]

Because real-time games are real time, and you want to have all players at the table when the game starts.

Turn-based games don't need everyone present to start. Adding an extra "accept" screen would only create additional delay. You can set karma and/or elo restrictions in your tables. If that's not enough and you want to cherry-pick your opponents, you can invite them, or red-thumb those you don't want, or fill the last spot of already open tables you like instead of creating a new one.

Also, because of this, in real-time games you can change the settings before the table starts, or start before all places have been filled, as players will have to accept anyway. In turn-based games, once a second player joins you cannot change the settings of the table, and you cannot start with fewer players than expected. It wouldn't be fair for other players to join a 5-player game with no expansion and 1 move per day, and next day find themselves in a 2-player table with an expansion they don't know about and 4 moves per day that's already started.

[FrankJones]

True. I just feel bad giving someone a red thumb only because I temporarily do not want to play that player.

For example: I have noticed that after 2 wins against the same opponent, a 3rd win results in decreased Elo. I understand why that system is in place, but since I often do a "rematch", if I win both, I will not want to play that player again... temporarily. As soon as I play another game against someone else, I would have no issue playing that person.

In the moderation policy, it says that they do take into account the number of red thumbs a person has (I think this should not be the case).

As you noted though, there are other ways around it.

(A good extra setting for the game creator would be a checkbox for, "Do not accept any player against whom I would receive reduced Karma for a win".)

[Jellby]

As soon as I play another game against someone else, I would have no issue playing that person.

Hmm... As far as I know, the consecutive win count is only reset when you lose/tie against that same player, or after some time (which seems to be game-dependent), but not when you play against someone else.

[FrankJones]

As soon as I play another game against someone else, I would have no issue playing that person.

Hmm... As far as I know, the consecutive win count is only reset when you lose/tie against that same player, or after some time (which seems to be game-dependent), but not when you play against someone else.

That's probably correct; otherwise, the system would make no sense and could easily be circumvented.

In a way, that's rather unfortunate. Some games with low player counts (I play several of them) are likely to have 3+ wins against the same opponent without either player even realizing it is happening and without and real way they can reasonably avoid it.

I would hope that "after some time" is relatively short. Winning a pair of games against the same person (not uncommon when using the "rematch" feature), then playing a bunch of other people in that same game, and then having that first player join a game for another game or 2-game set really shouldn't be penalized. There's obviously no cheating going on there.

There really should be a warning at the start of the game, or a restriction to prevent this.

If the entire purpose of this system is to prevent people from farming Elo with a friend (or by using a dummy account), I would think that BGA would be happy to implement a setting that would prevent such games altogether.

[FrankJones]

As soon as I play another game against someone else, I would have no issue playing that person.

Hmm... As far as I know, the consecutive win count is only reset when you lose/tie against that same player, or after some time (which seems to be game-dependent), but not when you play against someone else.

You are correct. (You know the working of this site very well; I've noticed you give a lot of correct answers when people ask questions about the mechanics of the site.)

I think this system, though well intended, is unfair.

I just earned 2 less Elo because I was playing Race for the Galaxy, creating open tables, and The same player joined 3 of my games, though not consecutively. I played 4 total games. I was able to win all 3 against the same player (I'm not great at RFTG), and the third game gave me less ELo than usual.

Do you think it's even worth posting a suggestion in the suggestions forum? I'm guessing dozens of people have probably raised this point already, and if nothing has been done, it means the developers have decided it's not worth doing.

So, temporary red thumb with a note to myself to remove it in a few days?