Skipping player turns and coding - curious question

[Dr Wilson]

It seems that Jellby thinks in 2p/ realtime while I play almost 99% multiplayer/turnbased where the issue is different. The current process gives every non-red player a loaded gun to wreck a game at any convenient moment. Most players will not use it due to fairplay and bc they like playing but the gun exists.

[FrankJones]

It seems that Jellby thinks in 2p/ realtime while I play almost 99% multiplayer/turnbased where the issue is different. The current process gives every non-red player a loaded gun to wreck a game at any convenient moment. Most players will not use it due to fairplay and bc they like playing but the gun exists.

Correct.

Going into the red is already a disaster. It allows any other player to expel the red-Playter, induce a loss, and a Marka penalty AND an Elo penalty of +10.

As it stands now, ADDITIONALLY, the opponent(s) of the red-clock player can "allow" the red-clock player to "continue" playing, only to expel that player a few turns later if that red-clock player starts making good/winning moves.

Not cool.

[FrankJones]

It should b:

"Your opponent has run out of time. Do you wish to expel that player with penalty, or, allow the game to continue without penalty? "

The option of

"Do you wish to let that player keep playing with the option to expel that player on subsequent moves even if that player is making every effort to get out of the red" is a bogus option.

[Shivaware]

As long as we're talking about options that will never happen, I'd like the option to configure a game so that a person is automatically expelled the moment they run out of time. At least there will be no whining about "unfair" players in those cases.

[BarnardsStar]

I think about this when it comes up—which is a lot—and the idea I keep coming back to is this: make it so that the person doing the expelling doesn’t get to share in the win, by which I mean have it be an Elo-neutral outcome for them—they shouldn’t be seen as losing to the other players either.

If the game isn’t going anywhere, they’re 3 days in the red, etc, then you can expel them still. Expelling should be a solution to a real problem (and you get to decide what constitutes a “real problem” still). But I think removing the incentive could solve a lot of the problems.

You know, as long as we’re discussing things that won’t happen.

[tbhp]

If that was implemented, then the player running out of time could avoid getting kicked the first time, then after that take forever to play their moves since they aren't under threat anymore, which would kinda defeat the purpose of the kick out function.

I have rarely seen the issue you mention arise, because in a multiplayer game, players need to unanimously vote on the expulsion of a player who ran out of time. So, if there is a player who would be innocently harmed by the expulsion (say in a 4 players game where 2 players get eliminated), then this player would have to agree to their own downfall. Very unlikely to happen unless they don't know how the system works.

The bigger problem with multiplayer games is when the game reaches its maximum duration, in which case no matter what the players decide (kicking someone out or letting the game end), a player may be unfairly eliminated from the situation.

[FrankJones]

If that was implemented, then the player running out of time could avoid getting kicked the first time, then after that take forever to play their moves since they aren't under threat anymore, which would kinda defeat the purpose of the kick out function.

If a player takes forever to complete turns after the mulligan/reset, that player could be expelled. It would be a one-time mulligan, not a permanent one.

[Jellby]

I play almost 99% multiplayer/turnbased where the issue is different.

In that case, my suggestion is: As soon as player goes over time, ask all other players to reply to "Do you want to give this player more time?" (send notifications, allow some reasonable time to answer). If any single player says no, or just doesn't reply in time, the offending player should be automatically expelled. It's not a full suggestion, but that's the idea, it would remain to be defined in which conditions the question will be asked again.

in a multiplayer game, players need to unanimously vote on the expulsion of a player who ran out of time.

What? Where? When? Players have to agree to abandon the game, but not to expel someone out of time.

[tbhp]

What? Where? When? Players have to agree to abandon the game, but not to expel someone out of time.

It happened to me once that someone wanted to kick out a player, and I had to vote yes or no. Isn't that how it works?

Not needing it to be unanimous would clearly be wrong because that would mean the moment a player runs out of time, a player could unilaterally decide to eliminate a player who is winning both according to game state and according to remaining time.

In other words, there would be no way to be safe anymore in the multiplayer games you play. You'd have no control over whether you might get eliminated just because someone else ran out of time.

[FrankJones]

Unfortunately, for better or worse, any player in a multiplayer game can expel a player out of time. It does not need to be unanimous. And, yes, it means a player in last place can expel a player in 3rd place (if the 3rd place player is out of time), which is frustrating for the player in first place.