Skipping player turns and coding - curious question

[Dr Wilson]

Recently a 4p-Terraforming Mars game ended when a player run out of time once, and another player - after playing a few more turns - conveniently decided to skip his turns and wreck the game when he was behind in current VP.

A very obvious solution to this tricky behaviour would be, to allow the skip-player option only the first time the situation occurs. If the player(s) decide to continue the game, then this option is lost until the player in question "increases" (whatever that could mean technically) the time-debt.

I have not the slightest knowledge of coding games, so would that solution be feasible? Would it be needed to be implemented for every game separetely? Did I miss any strong counterarguments process-wise? And if not, what were the reasons of BGA against such a solution?

No2): Can the great red "would you like to skip another players turn"-message please strongly decreased in size, to avoid unintenionally clicking?

[dschingis27]

I like the idea. Suggestions are collected here, you can create one yourself, and people can vote on it. https://boardgamearena.com/bugs

This would be something to be implemented for BGA as a whole, and not for individual games separately. Is it feasible? Yes, absolutely. However, when a good idea does not get implemented, it's almost never because it is "too tough to code" but almost always because of sth else, usually, other things are just higher up in priority.

When it comes to new implementations, the main coding is only half the work, you have to test and debug, make sure that the change does not cause any harm to any other system, and you have to maintain the changed code. People who don't maintain code often underestimate these extra-parts, it's hard work to keep a system running when you make changes, that's usually the tough part, not the change itself.

Other than that, I don't think there are very good counterarguments to your idea, other than it increases complexity and people are not used to it. It's just that many design features of a web service are often not deliberate choices but just happen to be that way because of resources and priorities.

[Jellby]

You could just change your mindset. As long as a player is in the red, every other player has an available "end this as a tie" move. It may be annoying, but I think we should all accept it. If you want to continue playing, fine, but perhaps you'd like to use that move yourself... And if anyone is to blame, it's the player who ran out of time.

Your "very obvious solution" includes a "whatever that could mean technically", which makes it not that obvious to me. The fact is it's implemented in a slightly different way: instead of "until the time-debt increases" it's "until it's in red again".

[Dr Wilson]

You could just change your mindset. As long as a player is in the red, every other player has an available "end this as a tie" move.

It is about cherrypicking. If a player is upset that someone is in the red: Fine. If a player doesnt care and continue playing: Fine. But changing the decision as soon as the board situation get worse is bad style IMHO. And if I am correct it is not a tie but a mutual victory?

[Jellby]

A tie between all remaining players. A win against the expelled one.

[FrankJones]

You could just change your mindset. As long as a player is in the red, every other player has an available "end this as a tie" move.

It is about cherrypicking. If a player is upset that someone is in the red: Fine. If a player doesnt care and continue playing: Fine. But changing the decision as soon as the board situation get worse is bad style IMHO. And if I am correct it is not a tie but a mutual victory?

I've been banging this drum for a while now. At least, I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing.

Player A has gone into the red.
Player B could expel that player and end the game, but, player B expects to win and would rather play it out and gain the full win instead of the partial Elo awarded based on game completion percentage. So, player B elects not to expel player A.
But, player A has a red time clock such that it will take a few moves to get back into the black.
Three moves later, player A is still in the red but has made an excellent play and now player B realizes player A might win, and so now elects to expel player A.

Personally, I find that objectionable. When a player runs out of time, decide then and there whether to expel the player or continue playing with the other player's clock restored to some positive number. If that player then messes up again and goes back into the red, then the same option would be again presented.

[Jellby]

The more over time you go, the longer you are vulnerable you are to being expelled. If you only get to -5 seconds, you'll probably be back in positive next turn and no one will be able to expel you.

If I put myself in a vulnerable position in chess, and the opponent chooses not to check-mate me (or does not see it), should I get my queen back?

[FrankJones]

The more over time you go, the longer you are vulnerable you are to being expelled. If you only get to -5 seconds, you'll probably be back in positive next turn and no one will be able to expel you.

If I put myself in a vulnerable position in chess, and the opponent chooses not to check-mate me (or does not see it), should I get my queen back?

That seems like an apples to oranges comparison to me.

[Jellby]

And what do you like more, apples or oranges? Who said they cannot be compared?

[FrankJones]

And what do you like more, apples or oranges? Who said they cannot be compared?

True. Makes me wonder where that silly expression came from in the first place