Quitting gives almost no elo to winner.

[Gh0stdragon]

Recently had this game https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=755273742.
Where my opponent quit very early, this resulting in me getting almost no elo.
I get it is annoying when your opponent gets ai central gen 3, but they should change this system.

[Agbisweird]

At least it was arena, so you got your arena points? The arena point hit should in the end make it such that you match up less and less with that player?

[Jellby]

The arena point hit should in the end make it such that you match up less and less with that player?

I don't think so. Once in Elite, there's no filtering that can keep other players out (unless it's something implemented behind the curtain by BGA). What can make a difference is the karma hit, you may be able to filter low-karma players, and if they do it often, their karma will be low enough that they cannot play Arena games at all.

[xspuipuke]

Is it really such a big problem though? The quitting player loses an extra 10 ELO or so for quitting so
- if they are a weak player, they will thus lose more ELO than they would have for normally losing this game (assuming you are a much stronger opponent)
- if they are a strong opponent, they lose almost the same as playing out the game if not more (depending on how quickly they quit). For strong players that are serious about their ELO this is just not worth it so they wouldn’t do it.

Winning against a much weaker player will only give you a laughable amount of ELO while risking much ELO if you happen to lose. So, isn’t them quitting actually a favor? You save time playing a game with almost no gain and can play a more interesting game right after.

Honest question.

[rambling_coherently]

Is it really such a big problem though? The quitting player loses an extra 10 ELO or so for quitting so
- if they are a weak player, they will thus lose more ELO than they would have for normally losing this game (assuming you are a much stronger opponent)
- if they are a strong opponent, they lose almost the same as playing out the game if not more (depending on how quickly they quit). For strong players that are serious about their ELO this is just not worth it so they wouldn’t do it.

Winning against a much weaker player will only give you a laughable amount of ELO while risking much ELO if you happen to lose. So, isn’t them quitting actually a favor? You save time playing a game with almost no gain and can play a more interesting game right after.

Honest question.

The ragequitter gets -10 Elo on top of whatever they would have lost if they had lost the game normally. OP of this thread is a bit annoyed because they get practically 0 Elo (+0.27 in the linked game) for their win, they don't really care that the opponent gets an Elo penalty when they get zero Elo.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter, but the frustration is easy enough to understand. Ragequits are rare enough that it's not really a problem.

[Agbisweird]

Thanks for the useful discussion including the karma bit which I forgot about.

[Gh0stdragon]

Tbh I feel like the main issue is just not being able to concede, cause the game felt quite over with gen 3 ai central en dev center.
I get why my opponent did it , game is not that interesting. If you quit you can play next game quicker without 20 min of wasted time.
Maybe they should just allow conceding earlier. Not sure why it is capped to 50. Perhaps for longer games 50 min + they could change that only 20 procent progress or something is needed.

[Agbisweird]

There's been a few posts about the conceding earlier option on this forum (may be hard to find with the search function). Basically, as I recall, the BGA powers that be are balancing ELO , arena rating and... bots and farmers. If everyone could concede first or second turn and have the game 'count' for ELO / arena points, there would be (even more than currently) bot farming, multiple account shenanigans etc. .

Every solution is less than ideal; it is what it is. Hope your games are fun.

[ChesterDeBester]

An option to concede earlier will lead to a very disappointing environment. I've seen it in various other online boardgaming communities for a few games.

You'll end up with a lot of games being conceded very early because people will judge their chances in (for example) gen3, give themselves a 35% winchance (once again, for example) and decide that instead of spending 45 extra minutes on that 35% winchance, they'd rather take the loss right now and move on to the next game where they will have a fresh 50-50% winchance.

I am aware that the current rules means you are sometimes held hostage till 50%, but the alternative is proven to be so much worse.

[FrankJones]

An option to concede earlier will lead to a very disappointing environment. I've seen it in various other online boardgaming communities for a few games.

You'll end up with a lot of games being conceded very early because people will judge their chances in (for example) gen3, give themselves a 35% winchance (once again, for example) and decide that instead of spending 45 extra minutes on that 35% winchance, they'd rather take the loss right now and move on to the next game where they will have a fresh 50-50% winchance.

I am aware that the current rules means you are sometimes held hostage till 50%, but the alternative is proven to be so much worse.

Agreed, sort of. If a concession at round 3 gives full Elo to the other player ... It that really such a terrible thing?

Yes, the person might be miscalculating mis win probability and conceding early unnecessarily. But I have had opponents concede occasionally at 50% in one game or another even though I did not think I had the win assured. So, that can happen anyway. I received full Elo, so I didn't care that much. AN opponent who has decided not to wish to finish the game is not likely to play a serious game from that point onward anyway, and may well just make whichever moves get the progression to 50% ASAP.