Suggestion: Add auto-pass for 3+ player matches (equivalent to 50% concede for 2 players)

[xspuipuke]

Sometimes the game is over for the 3rd or 4th player, with 2 leading players duking it out 40+ points ahead & no chance to catch up. In duels you can just concede at 50%, but in 3+ player matches there is no way to do so. My suggestion: Add an concede-light option for multiplayer that will simply auto-pass all actions, so you don't have to wait forever or loose karma for leaving. Also often happens that a player hits (regular) pass in last round and leaves before the last green tile placement, invalidating the game...

Edit: Just added it as a suggestion, if you want to vote for it https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=190529

I think this is cool idea, but it doesn't work in draft games, because you steel need to make decisions on the draft and making random decisions could gave other players big advantage

Also this. The player still needs to make those choices even if they roll the dice. This is still different from the platform rolling the dice for them. At least the other players can have the illusion that someone made a (potentially very poor) choice.

[philTS]

I really don‘t get what the problem is with checking in once or twice a day and hitting the regular autopass button if you don’t want to participate any longer. Do you leave the table in real life too when the game is not going your way?

That may be true for offline games, but i'm talking about live games. So its not about checking in once or twice per day, but about staying in a live game for ages when its over. Gen 10 and 11 can take forever, and i really have better things to do with my time than waiting 20 minutes for them to finally end gen 10, then waiting another 20 till the end. And i need to stay and actively watch, just in case i'm forced to react to some action & would create a timeout if not.

But i also don't like leaving because the other players won't get points for their win (even if they continue after kicking me out, its only 1 point). Basically, give me an option to leave the game without destroying it. I can take the karma hit if thats whats needed, but i don't want to ruin their fun doing so.

[xspuipuke]

If you‘re not actively participating in a game you deem lost, you already destroyed the fun for others, as you call it. If I go into a game as a 3- or 4-player game, I will naturally play differently than I would in 2-player. So with you dropping out in whatever way, you change the game mid-game.

[FrankJones]

If you‘re not actively participating in a game you deem lost, you already destroyed the fun for others, as you call it. If I go into a game as a 3- or 4-player game, I will naturally play differently than I would in 2-player. So with you dropping out in whatever way, you change the game mid-game.

Yes.

I know I might get some brushback here, but...

I tire of seeing these threads/posts rom people whining/complain about how they are "forced" to keep playing a game that is hopelessly lost.
Just, Stop. Stop already.

You signed up for a 3+ player game knowing that

1) The game might become hopelessly lost, and
2) There is no mechanism to concede in a 3+ player game.

So, instead of whining and complaining, just play the game. Finish your moves, play the best you can, and try not to engage in kingmaking. Engage in good sportsmanship. Your life is not being ruined because you are "forced" to keep playing. You are not being subjected to torture or agony. Just pretend you are playing a home game at the dining table. Put on some good music, crack open a bottle of fine wine, and proceed. This is not a big deal. Are people really unable to entertain themselves while making a few cursory clicks on a lost game? Come on.

Ot just, you know, DON'T PLAY 3+ player games.

This is not rocket science.

This is whiny people whining about a nonexistent problem of their own creation.

[philTS]

If you‘re not actively participating in a game you deem lost, you already destroyed the fun for others, as you call it. If I go into a game as a 3- or 4-player game, I will naturally play differently than I would in 2-player. So with you dropping out in whatever way, you change the game mid-game.

Yes.

I know I might get some brushback here, but...

I tire of seeing these threads/posts rom people whining/complain about how they are "forced" to keep playing a game that is hopelessly lost.
Just, Stop. Stop already.

You signed up for a 3+ player game knowing that

1) The game might become hopelessly lost, and
2) There is no mechanism to concede in a 3+ player game.

So, instead of whining and complaining, just play the game. Finish your moves, play the best you can, and try not to engage in kingmaking. Engage in good sportsmanship. Your life is not being ruined because you are "forced" to keep playing. You are not being subjected to torture or agony. Just pretend you are playing a home game at the dining table. Put on some good music, crack open a bottle of fine wine, and proceed. This is not a big deal. Are people really unable to entertain themselves while making a few cursory clicks on a lost game? Come on.

Ot just, you know, DON'T PLAY 3+ player games.

This is not rocket science.

This is whiny people whining about a nonexistent problem of their own creation.

Or maybe people have other preferences than you personally have? Especially if its apparently not just one person. Calling other people whiny when they ask for a feature they would like is pretty arrogant imo. I could just as well call you whiny for complaining about this - that also would be no content or argument, just a personal attack imo.

Regarding your actual arguments:
* its not torture & i never said that - thats just hyperbole. But it IS a waste of time.
* You have 1:30 min to react, so its not like you can read a book and just check back occasionally. You DO have to be there & pay attention. Esp. with Colonies, the number of actions by other players that require an active reaction (e.g. triggered by colony activation) are more common. But even without Colonies, you never know when the round will end and the timer for card draw starts.
* When at home, nobody forces me to continue playing when i have lost.
* No mechanism to concede in 3p+ is not some god given law, its a decision. Quite the opposite: there is a perfectly working mechanism for those games already that requires (almost) no extra effort since its already implemented: currently its triggered by a player simply leaving/being kicked after timeout & then continue the game with the remaining players.

In short: you may not share my opinion and think people should just tough it out. Thats valid even though i disagree. But your arguments beyond that personal opinion are not convincing me.

[philTS]

If you‘re not actively participating in a game you deem lost, you already destroyed the fun for others, as you call it. If I go into a game as a 3- or 4-player game, I will naturally play differently than I would in 2-player. So with you dropping out in whatever way, you change the game mid-game.

The remaining active participation would be pointless and may be even less fun for the other players. Since gaining a few extra SP would do nothing, all you can do is push terraforming hard to get to the finish line faster, or maybe play kingmaker - both of which isn't great for the other players imo. Also you can already pass as soon as the card draw phase is over. This request is more about not getting the game stuck when the other players trigger a reaction and you are afk.

[FrankJones]

Or maybe people have other preferences than you personally have? Especially if its apparently not just one person. Calling other people whiny when they ask for a feature they would like is pretty arrogant imo. I could just as well call you whiny for complaining about this - that also would be no content or argument, just a personal attack imo.

Regarding your actual arguments:
* its not torture & i never said that - thats just hyperbole. But it IS a waste of time.
* You have 1:30 min to react, so its not like you can read a book and just check back occasionally. You DO have to be there & pay attention. Esp. with Colonies, the number of actions by other players that require an active reaction (e.g. triggered by colony activation) are more common. But even without Colonies, you never know when the round will end and the timer for card draw starts.
* When at home, nobody forces me to continue playing when i have lost.
* No mechanism to concede in 3p+ is not some god given law, its a decision. Quite the opposite: there is a perfectly working mechanism for those games already that requires (almost) no extra effort since its already implemented: currently its triggered by a player simply leaving/being kicked after timeout & then continue the game with the remaining players.

In short: you may not share my opinion and think people should just tough it out. Thats valid even though i disagree. But your arguments beyond that personal opinion are not convincing me.

You are correct to call me out - my post was not constructive and needlessly aggressive. I apologize for my tone and word choice.

I do realize that no perfect solution exists. Personally, I feel as though signing up for a 3+ player game means I am agreeing to play the game out to the best of my ability, not quit, not leave, and not engage in kingmaking, even if the game is not going well. I wouldn't want other people to quit/forfeit/leave, so I won't do it either. It's not fair to the other players. Suppose player A, low Elo, has gotten lucky and/or played well, and is guaranteed to get a big win against both opponents of higher Elo. That's a great accomplishment, and a big well-deserved boost in Elo (and possibly Arena points too).

But now player B decides, "I don't feel like finishing a game I cannot possibly win; I quit". Can we at least agree that player A gets screwed there? Can we acknowledge that maybe (just maybe, not definitively) player B is being a bit selfish by not allowing player A to see the game to completion? How would player B feel if the same thing was done to him/her in a similar situation?

A ruined game is not good. And as of now, any 3+ player game is ruined when someone quits/leaves/forfeits. The FAQ and BGA code of conduct make it clear players are expected to finish the game. Hence the Karma penalty for failing to do so.

So, is it fair for me to call these players "whiny"? No. I was wrong to do that. I should not have said that.

But I will say that personally, subjectively, I find it to be poor sportsmanship.

Also, we are in the TFM forum, but this is not a TFM issue. This is a BGA issue. As things stand now, we do not have a convenient mechanism for someone to exit any multiplayer game that is not going well. That's just the way it is, and everyone KNOWS that when they choose to join a multiplayer game. TFM or otherwise.

As for home games -

Well, sure, nobody is "forced" to continue playing a lost game. But in my home, if anyone decided to rage-quit and potentially ruin the game, I would say, "Okay. You are unhappy because the game isn't going well. You do not want to continue playing. I obviously cannot force you continue playing. If you want to leave the game, do so. While you're at it, leave my house, do not eat any more of my food or drinks, and do not come back, because quitters and poor sports are not welcome here."

I cannot force that person continue playing, but I sure as hell do not need to allow him to remain under my roof because he cannot be bothered to be a good sport and finish the game. I mean, I serve food and drinks to my guests, I put on whatever music we all like, I do the chores and cleanup, and someone cannot be bothered to finish a game? Would that person quit if he were winning?

Back to BGA,
If people want to quit, fine. But I would increase the Karma penalty from minus 10 to minus 100. You want to rage-quit? Fine. Now your Karma is at zero. Good luck getting into other games.

[philTS]

Well first i want to say, thank you for changing the tone of this discussion, appreciated.

I never rage quit a game, if you look at my profile i have 100% karma, 0 leaves and 3 time penalties in the last 179 games (the majority of which are Terraforming Mars).

However i do sometimes pass in a late generation even if i still have resources and cards left. This might be because i think my lead is already strong enough to win, or because i am too weak to get anywhere close to winning. I don't really see the point of dragging the game out & wasting everyones time (including mine). Players that endlessly delay the game by >always< only using one action & think forever are also horrible imo (i understand the tactical benefit of later playing without allowing reactions, but its super annoying).

Lets say i pass in gen 10, but the other 2 players decide to not end it but play to gen 11 (maybe nobody is confident enough in their lead, or they have many good cards but not the resources to play them this gen). This can mean waiting 40 minutes, esp. if they do the "1 action per round" delay tactic on top.

My main point is this: i can already pass. I rarely do so, but if i want to do it, I have to do it manually and still pay attention for a potentially long time. Don't really see how doing it automatically would change the game for the other players - the actions don't change after all, just the time i spend paying attention.

Regarding what you do in your home: your table, your rules. But at home, staying at the table is not a comparable problem anyway, since its a far more social setting: you can comment, cheer and simply talk and thus have a good time even if the game is lost for you. On BGA communication is (often) limited to gl&hf + gg.

[FrankJones]

My main point is this: i can already pass. I rarely do so, but if i want to do it, I have to do it manually and still pay attention for a potentially long time. Don't really see how doing it automatically would change the game for the other players - the actions don't change after all, just the time i spend paying attention.

Regarding what you do in your home: your table, your rules. But at home, staying at the table is not a comparable problem anyway, since its a far more social setting: you can comment, cheer and simply talk and thus have a good time even if the game is lost for you. On BGA communication is (often) limited to gl&hf + gg.

True, you're correct; that's a key difference - if we're playing at home, we're engaging in social interaction in addition to the board game, which makes it much less of a big deal to finish out a bad position in a game. Which likely explains why no one in our group rage-quits. Provided the host is doing a good job of ensuring everyone is happy with the temperature and has snacks and beverages, a comfortable chair, etc. It would be a bit rough if the host said, "Sorry everyone, no Air-conditioning on this 95-degree day; I have no food or drink so you'll need to go to the convenience store if you want anything, and the only chair I have is this lumpy old bean bag."

Regarding the extended "auto pass", I can see some merit to the idea but I can also see drawbacks. You're correct, someone could just pass every generation anyway, with relatively minimal effort (once per generation on the first action would essentially be the equivalent of leaving the game). I'm guessing this is not implemented because the game designers don't want to encourage this decision, since the awards and other scoring aspects of the game could be affected in a way that results in unintended kingmaking.

[philTS]

My main point is this: i can already pass. I rarely do so, but if i want to do it, I have to do it manually and still pay attention for a potentially long time. Don't really see how doing it automatically would change the game for the other players - the actions don't change after all, just the time i spend paying attention.

Regarding what you do in your home: your table, your rules. But at home, staying at the table is not a comparable problem anyway, since its a far more social setting: you can comment, cheer and simply talk and thus have a good time even if the game is lost for you. On BGA communication is (often) limited to gl&hf + gg.

True, you're correct; that's a key difference - if we're playing at home, we're engaging in social interaction in addition to the board game, which makes it much less of a big deal to finish out a bad position in a game. Which likely explains why no one in our group rage-quits. Provided the host is doing a good job of ensuring everyone is happy with the temperature and has snacks and beverages, a comfortable chair, etc. It would be a bit rough if the host said, "Sorry everyone, no Air-conditioning on this 95-degree day; I have no food or drink so you'll need to go to the convenience store if you want anything, and the only chair I have is this lumpy old bean bag."

Regarding the extended "auto pass", I can see some merit to the idea but I can also see drawbacks. You're correct, someone could just pass every generation anyway, with relatively minimal effort (once per generation on the first action would essentially be the equivalent of leaving the game). I'm guessing this is not implemented because the game designers don't want to encourage this decision, since the awards and other scoring aspects of the game could be affected in a way that results in unintended kingmaking.

I'm glad our positions don't seem to be as far away from each other as it seemed in the beginning. Thanks for turning the discussion around - even if i (likely) won't get that feature, i at least don't feel like i was making an completely outrageous & game destroying demand - and its also not like the lack of that feature would make the game unplayable for me

Cheers & have a good time on BGA