Problem with Civilized Society

[EuroGamez]

So this just happaened:

Last orund of scoirng and i go up to 11 points to win. The person after me decided to time out so that another player will kick them. Denying me a win with the gae at 100% completion.

Losing a bit of karma and neutralizing the scores of a 3 hour already finished game needs to have other consequences or the scoring needs to work differently. It's not worth investing time into a game where this happend all the time. I playing leaving should not neutralize the scores for this game.

If you toop at the top ranked player for TI4 they have only actually won like 4 games, the other 7 have been neutralized. There is a problem with quitting in TI4... I am not gonna play any more unfortunately.

[GTSchemer]

As I understand, in general all rated games on BGA award partial elo depending on how close the game is to the end. So if a game is 100% done, players are awarded 100% of the elo, as shown on the end screen: https://snipboard.io/1sQXax.jpg

However, I agree it is frustrating. That is the nature of long games on BGA, and TI4 is one of the longest of them all. The only advice I am aware of is to give players who quit a personal red thumb (click the red thumb, then choose "Just for me"). This avoids playing against them in the future.

Sometimes there is discussion about it in forum, I am not aware of any general BGA plans to change the karma system.

[EuroGamez]

Yes, but all players will split the ELO, so if i am first i would have gotten maybe +ELO for every oponent in the game. But now i am drawing the game against all players who didn't ragequit. The system works in a 2 player game, but not in a game where there are ofter 6 players.

I think the only and best way to fix it for this game is not not neutralize results because of one player quitting. You just have to play it out, playrs could of course quit wihtout a penatly, but their positions would be accordingly. I.e. 2nd to quit gets second last, 3rd to quit 3rd last. And last player standing wins. This would make it so 1 player can't hold all other players hostage.

[GTSchemer]

Yes, but all players will split the ELO, so if i am first i would have gotten maybe +ELO for every oponent in the game. But now i am drawing the game against all players who didn't ragequit. The system works in a 2 player game, but not in a game where there are ofter 6 players.

I think the only and best way to fix it for this game is not not neutralize results because of one player quitting. You just have to play it out, playrs could of course quit wihtout a penatly, but their positions would be accordingly. I.e. 2nd to quit gets second last, 3rd to quit 3rd last. And last player standing wins. This would make it so 1 player can't hold all other players hostage.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I think all multiplayer games on BGA use the same system of all other players being treated as shared winners.

If so, it is not something individual module developers can change. The website in general would have to support a new system like that.

[Dywnarc]

Yes, but all players will split the ELO, so if i am first i would have gotten maybe +ELO for every oponent in the game. But now i am drawing the game against all players who didn't ragequit. The system works in a 2 player game, but not in a game where there are ofter 6 players.

I think the only and best way to fix it for this game is not not neutralize results because of one player quitting. You just have to play it out, playrs could of course quit wihtout a penatly, but their positions would be accordingly. I.e. 2nd to quit gets second last, 3rd to quit 3rd last. And last player standing wins. This would make it so 1 player can't hold all other players hostage.

I agree - I would like it to play that way.