Overall XP declines?

[Meeplelowda]

For me, the biggest deterrent from playing tournaments is the bizarre manner the site determines who advances if a game is not completed in the pre-defined time frame. Something about the "oldest account" being the one that advances. That's utter nonsense.

That's what happens if someone gets expelled. If the round just times out, it's based on the time left on your clock.

So playing two-player games in tournaments or playing in tournaments with expelling disabled resolves that issue. There's no need to avoid tournaments entirely.

[FrankJones]

For me, the biggest deterrent from playing tournaments is the bizarre manner the site determines who advances if a game is not completed in the pre-defined time frame. Something about the "oldest account" being the one that advances. That's utter nonsense.

That's what happens if someone gets expelled. If the round just times out, it's based on the time left on your clock.

So playing two-player games in tournaments or playing in tournaments with expelling disabled resolves that issue. There's no need to avoid tournaments entirely.

Yes, that's right, my mistake.

And the "most time left on clock" method is almost as silly as the expulsion rule.

I'm possibly a bit confused. Why would this not come into play in a 2-player game? Both players could be playing at a reasonable pace, only to have one of them lose and be eliminated because of having too much overall time elapse but being the slightly slower player.

[Ceaseless]

For me, the biggest deterrent from playing tournaments is the bizarre manner the site determines who advances if a game is not completed in the pre-defined time frame. Something about the "oldest account" being the one that advances. That's utter nonsense.

That's what happens if someone gets expelled. If the round just times out, it's based on the time left on your clock.

So playing two-player games in tournaments or playing in tournaments with expelling disabled resolves that issue. There's no need to avoid tournaments entirely.

Yes, that's right, my mistake.

And the "most time left on clock" method is almost as silly as the expulsion rule.

I'm possibly a bit confused. Why would this not come into play in a 2-player game? Bot players could be playing at a reasonable pace, only to have one of them lose and be eliminated because of having too much overall time elapse but being the slightly slower player.

At the time of Meeple's post, your issue was with "oldest account advances", not "most time left on clock".

[Meeplelowda]

And the "most time left on clock" method is almost as silly as the expulsion rule.

What are you proposing as an alternative?

[FrankJones]

That's what happens if someone gets expelled. If the round just times out, it's based on the time left on your clock.

So playing two-player games in tournaments or playing in tournaments with expelling disabled resolves that issue. There's no need to avoid tournaments entirely.

Yes, that's right, my mistake.

And the "most time left on clock" method is almost as silly as the expulsion rule.

I'm possibly a bit confused. Why would this not come into play in a 2-player game? Bot players could be playing at a reasonable pace, only to have one of them lose and be eliminated because of having too much overall time elapse but being the slightly slower player.

At the time of Meeple's post, your issue was with "oldest account advances", not "most time left on clock".

I had momentarily forgotten that two nonsensical tournament-mechanics existed.

[GTSchemer]

Yes, that's right, my mistake.

And the "most time left on clock" method is almost as silly as the expulsion rule.

I'm possibly a bit confused. Why would this not come into play in a 2-player game? Bot players could be playing at a reasonable pace, only to have one of them lose and be eliminated because of having too much overall time elapse but being the slightly slower player.

At the time of Meeple's post, your issue was with "oldest account advances", not "most time left on clock".

I had momentarily forgotten that two nonsensical tournament-mechanics existed.

Do you have an idea for an alternative solution? It seems clear that rewarding the player with the highest score would also be bad (if someone is temporarily leading but knows they will lose in the next round, they can guarantee victory by simply stopping play until time expires). It also seems clear that punishing both players would be bad, since someone who knows they will lose can also stall the game.

[FrankJones]

And the "most time left on clock" method is almost as silly as the expulsion rule.

What are you proposing as an alternative?

Many years ago, I played regularly on a site where tournaments were by far the main way people played. For every game, the system auto-generated at least 2 tournaments a week: 1 "fast" (24 hours per move) and one "slow" (48 hours per move). Each player's clock was frozen for 48 hours during whichever 2 days that player selected as his or her "weekend". Major holidays also froze the clock.

Each round grouped players into sections of 4 or 5, round robin, play 2 games against each opponent, the best in each round advanced. If multiple players tied, they all advance, and then in round 2, players were group again randomly. Eventually there would be one final round, and the winner ... wins the tournament.

There was no specified duration for the tournament. It ended when it ended.

It worked fine, and rarely did people complain about it. Because the tournaments were so frequent, it wasn't so crucial that the tournaments had some sort of arbitrary duration limit to each round or the overall tournament.

[FrankJones]

At the time of Meeple's post, your issue was with "oldest account advances", not "most time left on clock".

I had momentarily forgotten that two nonsensical tournament-mechanics existed.

Do you have an idea for an alternative solution? It seems clear that rewarding the player with the highest score would also be bad (if someone is temporarily leading but knows they will lose in the next round, they can guarantee victory by simply stopping play until time expires). It also seems clear that punishing both players would be bad, since someone who knows they will lose can also stall the game.

I don't have a good solution for expelled/abandoned players in 3+ player games. There's no good solution to that problem in non-tournament games, so of course there isn't one for tournaments.

There are so many problems here at BGA with abandoned games, players being expelled, etc. This is all relatively new to me. On the various sites I played on back in the day, people didn't quit. They finished the games. And this was on sites where the only penalty for quitting or forfeiting on time was losing the game. No Karma penalty, no additional Elo penalty.

I have no explanation for this significant shift over the last couple of decades. Decreased attention span of younger players? Less patience? Less sportsmanship? (for those who consider it bad sportsmanship to abandon or quit a game when it obviously affects others; I realize not everyone agrees on this point).

[nik592]

There are so many problems here at BGA with abandoned games, players being expelled, etc. This is all relatively new to me. On the various sites I played on back in the day, people didn't quit. They finished the games. And this was on sites where the only penalty for quitting or forfeiting on time was losing the game. No Karma penalty, no additional Elo penalty.

Were they TB or RT games? Cause I've tried to get some of my RL board gaming friends to play on here, and the biggest problem when it doesn't take is that they just don't check in with the website and basically forget they joined the game. Obviously after that happens I just figure online gaming is not for them and leave them to their life, but I'd be surprised if people still weren't doing that "back in the day". Of course, that's a problem purely for TB games. I'm guessing there were TB games, based on your description of tournaments in your other post, but just curious anyway. I don't feel like forgetting that you signed up for an online game would be a problem that's more prevalent now than back then. I suppose it could be, because if you're talking decades ago, internet wasn't necessarily something everyone was on all the time, so maybe only people who were on the internet regularly enough even joined games in the first place, and therefore didn't forget? But seems a bit of a stretch to me. Anyway, just speculating.