Skipping player turns and coding - curious question

[tbhp]

So all this time, I thought that the players who expelled me on my last turn in the final of that big tournament had made that decision collectively, when actually, it was the doing of just one player…

This means that the player who would have won otherwise, finishing just ahead of me, instead had to take a shared victory with the three other players, even though they did nothing wrong…

Now I feel bad that I felt asleep at the worst possible time, but none of this would have happened without the terrible action of that one player, or if the system simply required the vote to be unanimous.

[FrankJones]

Tournaments seem very poorly designed.

But, I thought there was no timer in tournaments from one move to the next, but rather, a specific overall time frame in which players must complete their total moves.

I also was under the impression that if one player goes beyond that allotted time, the system automatically handles the situation.

[tbhp]

Tournaments seem very poorly designed.

But, I thought there was no timer in tournaments from one move to the next, but rather, a specific overall time frame in which players must complete their total moves.

I also was under the impression that if one player goes beyond that allotted time, the system automatically handles the situation.

You’re right about the first part, though that changes nothing about the issue.

I’m not sure how you think the system would handle things. The only correct way to handle it is to let the game go on so that hopefully the fair outcome is achieved.

The game only ends automatically when the sum of all remaining times reaches zero, which leaves a good chance that the game will complete even if one or more players run out of time.

[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.

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.

But in op’s suggestion, the reset happens when they get back in the black. So they’d just have to make sure to always remain in the red to be safe from expulsion.

In order for the suggestion to work, you’d have to totally overhaul how time works on this site. In other words, instead of having negative clocks, you get a second positive clock if the other players decide.

Edit: I see now that Jellby already made that exact point on the second page. I should probably read the whole thread before I keep posting.

[Meeplelowda]

But, I thought there was no timer in tournaments from one move to the next, but rather, a specific overall time frame in which players must complete their total moves.

That's not quite right. There is a total time for the entire round set by the tournament host. Each player's individual time is that total time divided by the number of players in the game (and further divided by two if there are playing hours set).

I also was under the impression that if one player goes beyond that allotted time, the system automatically handles the situation.

However, just because there is a clock for each individual, that doesn't mean the system "automatically handles the situation" as soon as one person reaches zero. That only happens when the total time for the entire round runs out and no one has been expelled.

[tbhp]

And I dont get the chess/queen analogy either.

You make a mistake. Your opponent has winning move, but they don't take it. Until you put a remedy to your mistake and defend appropriately, your opponent will still be able to take the winning move. That goes for a weak position or for running out of time.

Saying that once you "pass" on expelling you should, so to say, put the counter back to zero (which would mean "some positive time") is like saying that once you don't take a winning move you should let the opponent get back to the starting position (i.e. get their queen back), until they do another mistake.

I know it's not the same, no need to point the differences. What I'm doing is highlighting the similarities, which hopefully someone can grant that they exist, even if we can disagree on their relative weight.

The apples and oranges comparison here (a justified accusation in this case, even though the idiom itself makes no sense) is that you are comparing a winning metric to a time metric, which not everyone may see as a winning metric per see.

You think of time as a component of the win itself, when the people who replied to you seem to see it more as a practical thing, where they may be willing to give someone a second chance if they run out of time. So this is not comparable to losing a queen, which is inarguably a part of the game itself.

[BarnardsStar]

The game only ends automatically when the sum of all remaining times reaches zero, which leaves a good chance that the game will complete even if one or more players run out of time.

That’s not quite true. The game itself has an overall clock and will end automatically when *that* clock hits zero. Each player’s allotted time is the game’s duration divided by the number of players.

But this means that for games where players take simultaneous turns (like a lot of roll-and-write games, for example), multiple player clocks will all be counting down at once. It’s possible for all player clocks to be negative and yet the game isn’t over.

[RazorOz]

I don't know Terraforming Mars, but Heat solved this issue ages ago. At Heat the game always plays to conclusion regardless of a player leaving the game. As someone who played before and after the change, I can say it did basically stop the concept of tactical timeouts, albeit that wasn't the reason it was implemented, it was because of quitters having the same effect, where somebody could and often would quit on the last turn when the game result was already decided or effectively decided, and it would void the result.

I am kind of surprised more games don't have this, because this topic constantly comes up for many games, and there always seems a lot of posts acting like nothing can be done, yet like I say the issue was solved for Heat over a year ago. It's also a way, way better implementation for tournament play.

[ufm]

I am kind of surprised more games don't have this, because this topic constantly comes up for many games, and there always seems a lot of posts acting like nothing can be done, yet like I say the issue was solved for Heat over a year ago. It's also a way, way better implementation for tournament play.

Heat is a special case because BGA introduced an experimental system for Heat only.
They promised it would be applied to other suitable games (e.g. Roll & Write games) if it is successful, but haven't heard anything since then.

[nik592]

I am kind of surprised more games don't have this, because this topic constantly comes up for many games, and there always seems a lot of posts acting like nothing can be done, yet like I say the issue was solved for Heat over a year ago. It's also a way, way better implementation for tournament play.

I see ufm already responded, but yes, I was going to say that Heat is a case where dropouts don't really impact the outcome. Roll and Write games would absolutely be another category where this is true (and would be nice if this was implemented there), but for the majority of games (including Terraforming Mars for the most part), this doesn't work. Dropouts have a big impact on how the rest of the game plays out - you can't really continue if a player leaves.