[Suggestion] Reworking ELO & Win Distribution for Early Player Quits

[brave-squirrel59]

I recently ran into a match-forfeiture situation that felt really unfair, and I’d like to suggest an improvement to how early quits are handled.

The Problem

In a recent match, I was leading with 190+ points, while the closest opponent was at 115 points (and the others were even further behind). A player quit, causing the game to end early, and all three remaining players were awarded an equal win.

While awarding a win to everyone makes sense when a match is close and anyone could still take it, applying a flat rule when one player has a massive lead undermines competitive play. Given that my nearest opponent needed 85 points to reach the target while I only needed 10, a comeback was statistically almost impossible.
Proposed Solutions

Instead of a flat win distribution in every early termination scenario, the game could use one of the following approaches:

[*] Threshold/Comeback Check: Only award win/ELO gains to players who were within striking distance of the leader (e.g., within a standard round's median score of the target).

[*] Proportional ELO Distribution: Calculate ELO gains based on point differentials and winning probability at the time of the quit. A player with 190 points should receive the lion's share, while players far behind receive minimal to no positive ELO.

[*] Full Win for Clear Leaders: If a player is within one average round of winning and holds a substantial lead over the field, award them the full solo win.


The current system works fine when the remaining players are close in points, but it falls short when a clear winner is already established. A leading player shouldn't be forced to split victory credit with players who were effectively out of the running just because someone else forfeited.

Curious to hear what the rest of the community and devs think about this!

[BarnardsStar]

Curious to hear what the rest of the community and devs think about this!

I think somebody comes in to the forums with similar suggestions every few months or so, and don't take into account two key factors:

1. Many games have an end-game final tallying of points or assign bonuses to players that may not be evident at the ⅔ point or whatever.
2. Often times players engage in strategies that may result in being behind at the halfway point of the game but they are setting themselves up for a roaring second half.

Now, I recognize neither of these factors really applies to Flip 7 (although you'd be surprised at some of the comebacks I've seen), but any solution like this needs to be universal and not just for your preferred game, since the assignation of Elo happens outside the game and within the general BGA framework.

However, it's worth noting when you say "A player quit", that's not exactly true. Somebody ran out of time, and somebody else skipped them. I do think there's a simple fix that could be applied to these circumstances: if you skip/kick somebody, you do not share in the win. The person being kicked definitively loses, the kicker neither wins nor loses, and everybody else wins. That small change would significantly reduce the number of kicks that happen.

As for actual quits? I think the penalties should be harsher, but I haven't thought much on specifics.

[Jellby]

I do think there's a simple fix that could be applied to these circumstances: if you skip/kick somebody, you do not share in the win. The person being kicked definitively loses, the kicker neither wins nor loses, and everybody else wins. That small change would significantly reduce the number of kicks that happen.

Why would you want to reduce the number of kicks? If that's your goal, just make kicking impossible. Why should the player enforcing the rules be "punished"? It would also lead to even worse abuse: 1 player with two accounts, one account stops playing, the other waits for the 3rd player to kick.

[BarnardsStar]

It would also lead to even worse abuse: 1 player with two accounts, one account stops playing, the other waits for the 3rd player to kick.

Couldn't this happen now? Why would my proposal change this?

As for why I would want fewer kicks, because of precisely the scenario OP lays out. Kicking somebody is immensely disruptive to the game and to people's expectations. At some point, somebody going AWOL is more disruptive, but that sort of decision should be made independently of getting rewarded for it.

And to be clear, I don't see this as punishing the kicker. It's simply not rewarding them. There is a difference.

[Ceaseless]

Curious to hear what the rest of the community and devs think about this!

I think somebody comes in to the forums with similar suggestions every few months or so, and don't take into account two key factors:

1. Many games have an end-game final tallying of points or assign bonuses to players that may not be evident at the ⅔ point or whatever.
2. Often times players engage in strategies that may result in being behind at the halfway point of the game but they are setting themselves up for a roaring second half.

Now, I recognize neither of these factors really applies to Flip 7 (although you'd be surprised at some of the comebacks I've seen), but any solution like this needs to be universal and not just for your preferred game, since the assignation of Elo happens outside the game and within the general BGA framework.

However, it's worth noting when you say "A player quit", that's not exactly true. Somebody ran out of time, and somebody else skipped them. I do think there's a simple fix that could be applied to these circumstances: if you skip/kick somebody, you do not share in the win. The person being kicked definitively loses, the kicker neither wins nor loses, and everybody else wins. That small change would significantly reduce the number of kicks that happen.

As for actual quits? I think the penalties should be harsher, but I haven't thought much on specifics.

Forcing someone to kick you because you ran out your entire clock is worse than if you had immediately quit. No reason to penalize the kicker, if anything they were the most productive member of the group for taking care of the issue.

[Ceaseless]

As for why I would want fewer kicks, because of precisely the scenario OP lays out. Kicking somebody is immensely disruptive to the game and to people's expectations. At some point, somebody going AWOL is more disruptive, but that sort of decision should be made independently of getting rewarded for it.

And to be clear, I don't see this as punishing the kicker. It's simply not rewarding them. There is a difference.

Kicking players allows players to eliminate stallers and put an end to absurd timewasting. Many sites take care of this themselves rather than forcing the players to handle it, as well sites with moderators that even apply penalties such as banning users that stall games.

Not adding positive points an account deserves isn't really different than deducting points for a player that didn't deserve it. The difference is an identical gap on what the player should be rated compared to what they are. The main difference is just in when you timed it, if you applied the deduction at a point where there rating was going up, vs applying it when their rating wasn't getting changed or even going down.