Done with tournaments

[nik592]

Telling people to just stop playing those tournaments is not an acceptable solution. By this logic, we should just stop playing the things that don't work, instead of asking that they get fixed. No progress ever gets made then.

No, you should ask for them to be fixed, but if the person responsible ignores you or refuses to do so, then your only recourse is to not use the broken thing. What point is there in continuing to use the broken thing while it's broken?

As I said very clearly in my previous post, you should still be upvoting bugs, making comments where reasonable, but what exactly are you suggesting that this specific player should do beyond that? Post daily on the forums complaining? Really not sure that's going to be helpful either. As I also said, I don't think the issue is that BGA are not aware that people are bothered by this problem.

[tbhp]

Telling people to just stop playing those tournaments is not an acceptable solution. By this logic, we should just stop playing the things that don't work, instead of asking that they get fixed. No progress ever gets made then.

No, you should ask for them to be fixed, but if the person responsible ignores you or refuses to do so, then your only recourse is to not use the broken thing. What point is there in continuing to use the broken thing while it's broken?

As I said very clearly in my previous post, you should still be upvoting bugs, making comments where reasonable, but what exactly are you suggesting that this specific player should do beyond that? Post daily on the forums complaining? Really not sure that's going to be helpful either. As I also said, I don't think the issue is that BGA are not aware that people are bothered by this problem.

I'm just saying it's not a solution because, well, not playing doesn't solve the issue. I'm not blaming people who won't play the tournaments, but to frame it as an acceptable solution makes no sense when it solves nothing at all.

If BGA is aware of it, yet doesn't do anything for some reason, then more people being more vocal about it is something that could make them realize they need to do something about it. That could be a solution.

[FrankJones]

If one player refuses to move, and the game exceeds the maximum duration allowed, the game will end and the winner will be whoever used the least amount of time, even if that player is way behind in the actual game.

This makes no sense, and I hope BGA addresses this at some point.

[pualukka]

I find it quite unfair too, that you can get kicked out from a tournament game simply for the reason that the person before you always plays their turn during the night (yes I understand time zones, but for the next player it will be night and they're sleeping). Voting someone out would definitely be an improvement.

Another solution could be an option to add a bit of extra time (10h?) for a person who still plays at least one turn per day.

[Andrei3009]

The recently released ban on excluding people option helps a lot in cases where one player almost have time to finish the game. Since with this option enabled, the game can end prematurely only if the total playing time runs out, in which case the seats are allocated according to the remaining time.

This means that the losing person will most likely not be able to forse premature game end and get good placement at the same time.

[tbhp]

I find it quite unfair too, that you can get kicked out from a tournament game simply for the reason that the person before you always plays their turn during the night (yes I understand time zones, but for the next player it will be night and they're sleeping). Voting someone out would definitely be an improvement.

That's not what we are talking about. In the current system, you can be kicked out from the tournament just because someone other than yourself went out of time.

[RazorOz]

The recently released ban on excluding people option helps a lot in cases where one player almost have time to finish the game. Since with this option enabled, the game can end prematurely only if the total playing time runs out, in which case the seats are allocated according to the remaining time.

This means that the losing person will most likely not be able to forse premature game end and get good placement at the same time.

Not sure it truly fixes anything. Given the player who has the most time on their clock could be miles behind in the game, and end up qualifying as a result of having the most time on their clock. It's just as frustrating to have someone disappear in a game you were confident you were going to win or qualify in, only to go out because you had less time than someone else on the clock. At the most extreme level, it can be straight up ridiculous, because say you were the first player to act in a game, and then player B behind you doesn't turn up for the duration of the game, you're automatically out because by definition the players who haven't taken a turn will have more time on their clock than you.

[tbhp]

The recently released ban on excluding people option helps a lot in cases where one player almost have time to finish the game. Since with this option enabled, the game can end prematurely only if the total playing time runs out, in which case the seats are allocated according to the remaining time.

This means that the losing person will most likely not be able to forse premature game end and get good placement at the same time.

Not sure it truly fixes anything. Given the player who has the most time on their clock could be miles behind in the game, and end up qualifying as a result of having the most time on their clock. It's just as frustrating to have someone disappear in a game you were confident you were going to win or qualify in, only to go out because you had less time than someone else on the clock. At the most extreme level, it can be straight up ridiculous, because say you were the first player to act in a game, and then player B behind you doesn't turn up for the duration of the game, you're automatically out because by definition the players who haven't taken a turn will have more time on their clock than you.

That's a very specific example. In most cases, you would be eliminated because you took longer to play than your opponents. It's not ideal, but at least it's something of your own doing. Versus being eliminated just because someone decided to kick out someone out of time, which puts you in a totally powerless position.

Another aspect is that those problematic cases are much less likely to happen if we let people play to the end of the maximum game duration, than if the game can just end any time someone goes out of time.

[Andrei3009]

At the most extreme level, it can be straight up ridiculous, because say you were the first player to act in a game, and then player B behind you doesn't turn up for the duration of the game, you're automatically out because by definition the players who haven't taken a turn will have more time on their clock than you.

In this case, nothing can be done, and the result will be the same as when playing without a new option, because the same player will be eliminated immediately after his timeout expires.

Not sure it truly fixes anything. Given the player who has the most time on their clock could be miles behind in the game, and end up qualifying as a result of having the most time on their clock. It's just as frustrating to have someone disappear in a game you were confident you were going to win or qualify in, only to go out because you had less time than someone else on the clock.

This option gives players a reason to finish the game before it times out. Let's say one person will finish all his moves in 4.5 days instead of 3.5. In a regular game, he can be kicked by the losing player after 3.5 days. With the new option, the losing player can't force the game to end on its own by not making moves, because it will most likely finish second to last or even last this way. Furthermore, knowing that the game can time out, other players will start to play faster so they will place higher or make the game not time out in the first place; that makes stalling the game even more harder and increases chances of game finishing properly.

[RazorOz]

That's a very specific example. In most cases, you would be eliminated because you took longer to play than your opponents. It's not ideal, but at least it's something of your own doing. Versus being eliminated just because someone decided to kick out someone out of time, which puts you in a totally powerless position.

Another aspect is that those problematic cases are much less likely to happen if we let people play to the end of the maximum game duration, than if the game can just end any time someone goes out of time.

It has nothing to really do with competition though, and that's what you want, tournaments decided on merit. One of the major reasons tournaments don't do as well as they should is because there's an underlying feeling amongst players of poor rules, unfairness etc. I remember when I first created tournaments, I got tons of reluctance from players with bad experience of tournaments, and one of the top complaints was being eliminated in a position they would have qualified from, it turns players off immediately.

The best solution by far for most games is to let them to play to conclusion regardless and have the actual winners qualify.