Overall XP declines?

[FrankJones]

This may be a silly question, but how would that handle the situation of someone simply refusing to play (or getting sick and not logging on)? I assume letting someone hold a tournament hostage if they decided not to play would be very bad.

It is very bad (and I mentioned above this has very much been an issue before), so I'm also curious about the answer to your not silly question.

Agreed; definitely not a silly question.

I would take the obvious solution of having a turn timer just like a standard turn-based game.

[Meeplelowda]

This may be a silly question, but how would that handle the situation of someone simply refusing to play (or getting sick and not logging on)? I assume letting someone hold a tournament hostage if they decided not to play would be very bad.

It is very bad (and I mentioned above this has very much been an issue before), so I'm also curious about the answer to your not silly question.

Agreed; definitely not a silly question.

I would take the obvious solution of having a turn timer just like a standard turn-based game.

But what happens when you run out of time? If there is no possible consequence (like with the no skipping tournaments), then the timer is just a suggestion and doesn't really solve the issue. If you allow them to be expelled, then we're back to the issue of how you decide who advances when someone gets expelled.

Or are you suggesting that when your timer runs out a random legal move is made, or something like that? But that's not a tournament framework issue. That would have to be implemented across all games, which is not really feasible.

[tbhp]

I don't think RazorOz is saying that tournaments should go on indefinitely, what they meant is that the game could continue after someone has dropped out (whether by quitting or by being expelled). That's how it works currently in Heat and they've been pushing for it to be implemented in other games.

[FrankJones]

It is very bad (and I mentioned above this has very much been an issue before), so I'm also curious about the answer to your not silly question.

Agreed; definitely not a silly question.

I would take the obvious solution of having a turn timer just like a standard turn-based game.

But what happens when you run out of time? If there is no possible consequence (like with the no skipping tournaments), then the timer is just a suggestion and doesn't really solve the issue. If you allow them to be expelled, then we're back to the issue of how you decide who advances when someone gets expelled.

Or are you suggesting that when your timer runs out a random legal move is made, or something like that? But that's not a tournament framework issue. That would have to be implemented across all games, which is not really feasible.

Agreed. This is why I do not play tournaments. Essentially, we have

5/x = 0.

No solution.

[GTSchemer]

I don't think RazorOz is saying that tournaments should go on indefinitely, what they meant is that the game could continue after someone has dropped out (whether by quitting or by being expelled). That's how it works currently in Heat and they've been pushing for it to be implemented in other games.

I feel this might encourage bullying players to get them to drop out in some interactive games, giving remaining players massive advantages depending on their map position etc.

[tbhp]

I feel this might encourage bullying players to get them to drop out in some interactive games, giving remaining players massive advantages depending on their map position etc.

But why would people cede to the bullying anymore than they currently do? I mean, you can already bully a player by telling them to concede or whatever. But that's not a thing and if it was it would be reported pretty fast.

Maybe you mean that in multiplayer someone who is losing might be more likely to accept the bully's requests, but then again that's something you already technically can do, like pressuring certain players to make certain choices. It's a possibility no matter the system, but fortunately I've never encountered someone try to do something like that.

[FrankJones]

Or rather, no solution when N = number of players in a game and N > 2.

I would set up and/or play a tournament in which all games are 2-player, and the number of entrants is a power of 2.

32 players, 5 rounds, one winner, no issues with people quitting or timing out; it would just be a loss and an advancement for the opponent.

This is not helpful at all for players who enjoy 3+ player games, obviously.

[ChiefPointThief]

I don't think RazorOz is saying that tournaments should go on indefinitely, what they meant is that the game could continue after someone has dropped out (whether by quitting or by being expelled). That's how it works currently in Heat and they've been pushing for it to be implemented in other games.

Yeah. I remember Razor talking about the issues with heat constantly in forums. On several different occasions I checked the 100 most recent Heat games. And every time there was a quit rate of 20-25%. They fixed that problem and I’m sure Heat players are much happier now than before.

To all the people who say “oh. You can’t continue on with 3+ players because that player can make moves change the outcome” is it better instead to strip someone from a 1st place tournament because another player timed out? Outside of team games, drafting games, (maybe a few other exceptions), most games would be better off continuing than fake results due to who had the most remaining time.

[FrankJones]

Agreed.

Ideally, with the advent of online implementations of multiplayer thematic strategy games, game designers would include rules mechanisms for dealing with such situations.

[RazorOz]

This may be a silly question, but how would that handle the situation of someone simply refusing to play (or getting sick and not logging on)? I assume letting someone hold a tournament hostage if they decided not to play would be very bad.

You time them out, and the game goes on.

I feel this might encourage bullying players to get them to drop out in some interactive games, giving remaining players massive advantages depending on their map position etc.

You'd have to give examples for me to visualise what you mean. In my mind I sort of feel like in what you're describing, someone can already effective kingmake who they want the winner to be anyway. This idea would also work both ways, you could theoretically bully someone to drop out because you know you're going to lose, it's not impossible, but I'm a little doubtful how much it would go on, just because how much attention are others going to pay to randoms on the internet.

What I am saying is it should be an option anyway, much like the option to turn off kicking is now an option. They should be an option "game always plays to conclusion", ala what's already implemented at Heat, Formula D etc. Then would be up to creators if they think this is a good option for their tournament.