Players out of time - code of conduct

[expoolman]

You got a pretty nice looking game going so far. It would be a shame if something unfortunate would happen to it.

[Suoivax]

You got a pretty nice looking game going so far. It would be a shame if something unfortunate would happen to it.

Lol, now THAT is a threat.

[tbhp]

I'm surprised that so many people in this thread have this multiple instances of a game issue. Like I said, I basically never run into them when I check the profiles of people I encounter in my games.

Hey tbhp

You and I have discussed a lot of these matters in our private messages. For the benefit of everyone in the thread, I'll elaborate further here.

I like to play games, and ideally, I would be playing more total games, and perhaps more than one at a time of my favorite specific games. But, for me, turn-based is already susceptible to errors resulting from the intermittent nature of making moves. Though I don't expel players, I do prefer the turn-based games to move at a quick pace. The more time elapsed between moves, the more likely I am to lose my train of thought, forget or mix up my intended plan and upcoming moves, or get the goals confused.

I would probably play real-time but that's not a realistic option for me.

I want to play every game to the best of my ability. I want to win every game, and I want to reach or maintain master, expert, or strong Elo ratings (depending on the game, any of those 3 might essentially be "master elite" status).

My arena ranking suffers each season because I just don't play enough volume. But, for complex thematic games with a point-salad scoring mechanic and numerous goals, each additional game in progress of that same game reduces the quality of my plan in each of those games. There is just a lot of information to be keeping track of.

Heck, in some games in which I should play better than I do, I lose my focus and plan even when playing just one game. Wingspan, for example, where I seem to have fallen into a bad habit of losing to players rated a lot lower than I am, by making mistakes that are obvious on replay viewing. Having a second Wingspan game would exacerbate the problem.

Different people can better juggle multiple games of the same game simultaneously. This also depends on the type of game. For abstract strategy games such as Connect6 or Pente, I could probably play several of those at a time.

So, with a slow opponent, I'll just shrug and accept that my next game of that type might have to wait a bit longer than usual, because I do not like expelling players. If the delays are frequent and early, I'll likely just neutralize and move on. Especially if no explanation is given. Sometimes I'll even reach out and ask if everything is okay and get no reply back.

I have only expelled once, I think, and neutralized once. In the expulsion game, I was obviously going to win, and in the neutralized game it was early and undecided, but I thought I had a better than 50% chance of winning.

This is all just my personal approach and personal reasoning. Other people's approach may vary for various reasons.

That's an interesting explanation. Your reasons seem to differ from the flow perspective that's been discussed earlier.

I wonder though, if a player is taking forever in one table, doesn't that also mean you could step back from that game and fully focus on an other? I mean, does the timed out game really matter at this point? If that player is not playing because their interest is wavering, then they may not be a very good player or may not be having a very good game, so the odds would be in your favor even if you aren't at the best of your capabilities when you have to show up to make your moves against them.

All in all, since players being very slow is a fairly rare occurrence, I think making some exceptions here and there wouldn't necessarily impact your Elo goals.

Also, think of it in terms of diminishing returns. Sometimes we spend so long thinking about one particular game, because we want to give ourselves the best chances of winning that game, when maybe it would be preferable for us on the long term to be playing more games. Losing a higher proportion of them, maybe, but climbing faster in real time terms.

I have the same issue in arena, where my winrate is usually very high, but I struggle to start games (because of perfectionism and fear of failing reasons). My second season of Harmonies I had only one loss while in elite league, but since that was out of only 25 games it was only enough to reach the top 20. If instead I had accepted to play more games, while maintaining a slightly lower winrate of maybe 90%, that probably would have been enough to reach the top 10 eventually.

People who do very well in arena all seem to be playing a ton of games, probably in the hundreds, and that's a mindset I haven't been able to get into so far. Tournaments work better for me because you don't have to schedule, they do the scheduling for you. You just show up when they ask you to. It's like when I was in school I did well when I was given an assignment (although due to procrastination I usually started them at the last minute, just like on this site) but in the real world I struggle to be disciplined and keep up with all the goals I set for myself.

So yeah, although I think there may be cases where not kicking out a player wouldn't really have affected your goals, I also relate to the idea of wanting to give it your all in every game you play.

[tbhp]

I think many games have a beauty in their final state but maybe not always one you'd describe as "looking beautiful". Like, an elegant final situation in Chess could be described as "beautiful", but you probably wouldn't word it as "looking beautiful", because it is more in an abstract sense (although the board and the pieces themselves are aesthetically beautiful).

I mostly play Harmonies on here and that's the game I generally have in mind when I make references to games that can be considered beautiful in all possible senses (although obviously it's subjective and people may disagree on which games are beautiful in which senses).

That wasn't my point. My point was you seem to hold an unusual position in looking at a finished game as "beautiful". I'm well aware you do this - not for the first time are you bringing this up. But I suspect you are in a much greater minority there than the one you suggested was present about people who don't like to play two tables of the same game. As such, you're unlikely to ever have a conversation like the one you're suggesting. They're not going to tell you that the game is shaping up to be beautiful and they'd hate to see it it ruined. You bring up kicking someone off a table, they're going to assume you're considering doing that, and probably apologise. Or say nothing because they probably figure you'll do it whatever they say (or because they're not checking the table anymore).

On a related note, I've been thinking for a long time that BGA should give us a feature where we can rate and comment the games that have been played. So you would be able to give a rating to the individual player's boards and/or to the overall game. And you'd be able to leave a review where you can get in details on your judgement of the strategic, narrative and aesthetic qualities of the game.

Maybe part of the reason why you think it's uncommon to think like that is because players have never been given a platform where they are able to express their thoughts and create a culture where games are judged. I mean, if movie critics didn't exist, if academic work on them didn't exist, it would have been easy too for people to assume that for everyone movies are just entertainment, and that those who may view them as art are only a small minority. There can't be a cultural acceptance of something if nothing concrete is done to give visibility to it. In this case, then everyone just remains in their own bubble where they may feel admiration for a game's final state, but they have no way to express it and share their feelings with others. Every individual is their own island.

[FrankJones]

I'm surprised that so many people in this thread have this multiple instances of a game issue. Like I said, I basically never run into them when I check the profiles of people I encounter in my games.

Hey tbhp

You and I have discussed a lot of these matters in our private messages. For the benefit of everyone in the thread, I'll elaborate further here.

I like to play games, and ideally, I would be playing more total games, and perhaps more than one at a time of my favorite specific games. But, for me, turn-based is already susceptible to errors resulting from the intermittent nature of making moves. Though I don't expel players, I do prefer the turn-based games to move at a quick pace. The more time elapsed between moves, the more likely I am to lose my train of thought, forget or mix up my intended plan and upcoming moves, or get the goals confused.

I would probably play real-time but that's not a realistic option for me.

I want to play every game to the best of my ability. I want to win every game, and I want to reach or maintain master, expert, or strong Elo ratings (depending on the game, any of those 3 might essentially be "master elite" status).

My arena ranking suffers each season because I just don't play enough volume. But, for complex thematic games with a point-salad scoring mechanic and numerous goals, each additional game in progress of that same game reduces the quality of my plan in each of those games. There is just a lot of information to be keeping track of.

Heck, in some games in which I should play better than I do, I lose my focus and plan even when playing just one game. Wingspan, for example, where I seem to have fallen into a bad habit of losing to players rated a lot lower than I am, by making mistakes that are obvious on replay viewing. Having a second Wingspan game would exacerbate the problem.

Different people can better juggle multiple games of the same game simultaneously. This also depends on the type of game. For abstract strategy games such as Connect6 or Pente, I could probably play several of those at a time.

So, with a slow opponent, I'll just shrug and accept that my next game of that type might have to wait a bit longer than usual, because I do not like expelling players. If the delays are frequent and early, I'll likely just neutralize and move on. Especially if no explanation is given. Sometimes I'll even reach out and ask if everything is okay and get no reply back.

I have only expelled once, I think, and neutralized once. In the expulsion game, I was obviously going to win, and in the neutralized game it was early and undecided, but I thought I had a better than 50% chance of winning.

This is all just my personal approach and personal reasoning. Other people's approach may vary for various reasons.

That's an interesting explanation. Your reasons seem to differ from the flow perspective that's been discussed earlier.

I wonder though, if a player is taking forever in one table, doesn't that also mean you could step back from that game and fully focus on an other? I mean, does the timed out game really matter at this point? If that player is not playing because their interest is wavering, then they may not be a very good player or may not be having a very good game, so the odds would be in your favor even if you aren't at the best of your capabilities when you have to show up to make your moves against them.

All in all, since players being very slow is a fairly rare occurrence, I think making some exceptions here and there wouldn't necessarily impact your Elo goals.

True; if someone is moving very slowly (and indeed this is rare), I don't mind starting a second game of that same game. I essentially put the first one on "pause", write myself some notes on what my upcoming plan is, and focus on the new game.

[nik592]

On a related note, I've been thinking for a long time that BGA should give us a feature where we can rate and comment the games that have been played. So you would be able to give a rating to the individual player's boards and/or to the overall game. And you'd be able to leave a review where you can get in details on your judgement of the strategic, narrative and aesthetic qualities of the game.

For one, you can comment on any game you like (in your and/or other players) profiles. But I suspect most people would assume you were rating the players or the game itself as a whole, not the individual table of it. People deconstruct their gaming sessions sometimes, and they might describe it as interesting, etc. but as I say, I've yet to meet any other person who believes the play of a board game is a piece of art (as you do). After all, I can create a particular board in Harmonies for it's aesthetic arrangement - for me, that would probably be highly symmetrical - but to do so would likely impact my ability to score well in the game, because symmetry is not the goal.

[tbhp]

On a related note, I've been thinking for a long time that BGA should give us a feature where we can rate and comment the games that have been played. So you would be able to give a rating to the individual player's boards and/or to the overall game. And you'd be able to leave a review where you can get in details on your judgement of the strategic, narrative and aesthetic qualities of the game.

For one, you can comment on any game you like (in your and/or other players) profiles. But I suspect most people would assume you were rating the players or the game itself as a whole, not the individual table of it. People deconstruct their gaming sessions sometimes, and they might describe it as interesting, etc. but as I say, I've yet to meet any other person who believes the play of a board game is a piece of art (as you do). After all, I can create a particular board in Harmonies for it's aesthetic arrangement - for me, that would probably be highly symmetrical - but to do so would likely impact my ability to score well in the game, because symmetry is not the goal.

I think when it comes to games, the way we feel aesthetically about the result is not just how someone would look at it in a vacuum, but how the aesthetics come together with the mechanics in order to create a board that is smart, elegant, and atmospheric all at once. Certainly someone who is new to the game wouldn't see things the same way, just like someone who is new to experimental movies for example may not get the same reading of them as someone who is used to them.

I've read that in this game sometimes people will make choices that they know are not the best in terms of winning odds, just because it feels more right or more elegant to them. It's an interesting phenomenon. But what is so good about this game is that broadly speaking, the highest scoring boards also tend to correspond to the ones that look the most beautiful.

[teallite]

There is a karma penalty to being kicked from a game. Strange to have a karma penalty for behaviour they think is acceptable.

As others have said, the fact that being kicked from a game is punitive, the fact that you get a screen that pops up to tell you "Ooops! You did something you shouldn't have and here's some tips on how to be a good player who doesn't do that again" (as people on forums have also complained about) would suggest that the BGA stance is that people shouldn't be exceeding their timers.

Yeah, I should have worded it better. I was talking only about kicking for running out of time. Running out of time is not good, which BGA acknowledges. And there is karma penalty, and if player is kicked, there has to be an explanation why and what they should do, etc. But there is no imperative to kick. No rule that BGA somehow forgot to automate, and so now players have to kick manually to enforce that rule.

Also if player is not kicked and makes a move, their time is restored (unless it's a tournament). So, BGA also allows to come back from that mistake.

I think it's more a point that some people will accept people exceeding their timers, so they made it a player decision so those who wanted to could continue the game (which I appreciate, as I wouldn't want to play with auto-booting - but again, some people do and I don't see that as a problem to offer as a choice).

Well, you basically said what I said. It's a player decision, BGA doesn't have a preferred option and they don't say anything about what you should do. Only what you may do.

[teallite]

Fair enough. I didn't really go looking, was just going off of this post that said it wasn't anywhere in the "rules":

Again, there is a rule "don't run out time", there are no rule "you should kick those how run out of time". Like, maybe a player ran out of time while you looked away. They broke the rule. But they also made a move while you looked away and restored their time and played a game to completion. So, BGA itself offered a way back for that player. Was the rule unbroken? No, there is still a mark that this player ran out of time. But you can't kick them anymore. Which is pretty strange if kicking is some manual way to enforce the rules, that BGA didn't automate for some strange reason. Saying that kicking players is rules enforcement is the same as saying that kicking is actually a fail-safe option in case a player disappears, becomes uncooperative or even goes hostile (stalling on purpose). Both are just personal opinions.

[nik592]

I think it's more a point that some people will accept people exceeding their timers, so they made it a player decision so those who wanted to could continue the game (which I appreciate, as I wouldn't want to play with auto-booting - but again, some people do and I don't see that as a problem to offer as a choice).

Well, you basically said what I said. It's a player decision, BGA doesn't have a preferred option and they don't say anything about what you should do. Only what you may do.

Well, I felt like your post was saying, BGA don't enforce ending the game when the timer runs out, but some players can choose to if they want. In some ways, I feel like that would be the default state - most (video) games with timers, when the time runs out, that's game over. Many people around here believe that exceeding the timer means you've lost that game because you didn't play within the conditions (I am not among them). But by BGA making it a player choice, that allows people who want to accept players over time continuing to do so (or as you say, allows players who exceed time but their opponents don't notice a chance to recover and avoid losing on time). So I was trying to say I think it's probably default would expect kicking (or game ending) when over time, but allows players to choose NOT to. I get they're two sides of the same coin, but I saw it as slightly different to what I thought you were saying.