This is the key point, it's not whether something is perfect for every scenario you can imagine of, it's whether it's better than the solution you have now which seems pretty universally disliked.ChiefPointThief wrote: ↑06 September 2026, 23:52 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.
For example, it's not like hypothetically dropping out at Heat has no effect. Especially if they drop out mid-turn. There's plenty of hypotheticals I could come up with, for example adrenaline can be a key tool in a Heat race, say you are in 5th in a 6 player race (the last 2 players have adrenaline), and then for whatever reason someone 1st-4th drops out, this could hurt you a lot, but here's the thing in practice these are very rarely the scenarios players drop out. What happens is you either get the players who don't turn up at all, or they drop out at the end when they have no prospects of winning.
What I have to think, is I know Heat was almost certainly an extreme case of this, hence why it got the changes it did, but I have to think this pattern, especially in tournaments isn't uncommon. You will get 2 types, one is the player who is just obviously too slow to be playing the tournament to begin with, someone who is in the red on their clock with less than 20% of the game played, who you can just time out and adapt to the situation you're now in, or you get the player who knows they're not going to win/qualify etc. who disappears at the end of the game, which I have to think in a lot of scenarios you can time them out without it even having any real effect on the result, because they've given up anyway.
You're also debating it against what exists now. Because take a game like Wingspan, let's say I have a 4 player tournament, now some people will say well someone dropping is influencing how the game plays if it's now a 3 player table. But the question should be is that fairer than the alternative of having whoever has the most time on their clock advances, and I have to think for the majority of games it is.
