Arena Season 4 - let's start!

[geoffmacknish]

In reply to your comment, yes, I have seen that happen a lot. However, many times players will attack someone in an already weak position, effectively enabling someone else to run away with the win. Some players just play to avoid being the person who comes last, with no thought of actually winning themselves. It ruins it for serious players. We should all be entitled to assume that all players are trying to win each individual game, not just hammer someone with a higher Elo or Arena rank. It is the lowest form of cheating to solely aid one other player to win.

[chrysanthemum454]

What are you doing about kingmaking?

What are you doing about kingmaking?
Players of card games Hearts, and to a lesser extent Oh Hell, will often target a player who is not in the lead. This cripples that player’s chances in that game. They assist another player to win. So far, BGA has been silent on this form of cheating, but it is time to clamp down on these cheats. Please advise what you intend to do about this. The current reporting system is inadequate to address kingmaking cheats. While you can red thumb players and say no one should play with them because they are kingmaking cheats, this information goes nowhere and is not visible by other players. BGA moderators ignore kingmaking when it is reported too. So there are no adequate controls in place to prevent or police this practice.

I suggest reintroducing the visibility of red thumbs and expanding this system to show how many times other players have noted a kingmaking behaviour. Balance this by showing how many games the player has played. Allow players to filter out kingmakers from their games, especially in Arena where it matters more, in the same way as you choose to avoid players too far from your current level. You could filter based on overall or just the current Arena season. We need something other than in-game chat comments getting out of hand and where players who cheat get away with it. Also let us block in-game chat comments from one or all players. Some players are nasty and some just talk and talk and talk. It should be easy to click “Mute Player x” or “Mute All”. Extend this to onlookers. Players should be able to mute them too or remove them. But kingmaking is the issue here. It is cheating. And it happens A LOT in Hearts. And there is nothing preventing it from continuing. The honour system we have now is inadequate, because cheats have no honour.

What are YOU going to do about kingmaking?

This seems challenging to address because there are a variety of other reasons why someone could be targeting a player who is not in the lead, ranging from just plain making a mistake to having a specific strategic reason for targeting someone else.

In the first case, I don't think it's appropriate to penalize people for being human and not always playing perfectly. (I played Hearts semi-regularly at one point and whenever I made a play that benefited the current leader? It was usually because I'm not a stellar Hearts player and *I had flat out messed up.* And yes, this sometimes happened repeatedly in a single game. See: am not a stellar Hearts player.)

In the second case, it is not "cheating" merely to pursue a different strategy or play philosophy than one that another player considers correct or optimal. Though I think that it is *usually* the right move to target the person currently winning, there have been moments in some games where I have considered it strategically correct to target some player that is not in the lead for one reason or another.

To me, kingmaking means actively colluding with one or more other people to specifically boost or impede a player for some profit/benefit external to the specific game itself. That *should* be harder to report and clamp down on because it is harder to discern - identifying it requires seeing a pattern of interactions between the same players across games. (When I suspect it, I actually do go back into a player's play history and start looking at other games they've played with the people in the current room.) I don't think that even a pattern of moves within one single game is determinative - as discussed above, there are plenty of other reasons that someone could've made those choices.

I would find it very stressful to play games in an environment where an opponent who disagreed with my strategy or who was a sore loser could report me for cheating, and have it taken seriously, merely because a legitimately innocuous move/strategy on my part angered them.

I see people complaining about the way people are choosing to target other players in, e.g., Love Letter with some regularity and it's quite frustrating. I often make a note of and/or red thumb *those* players, because they inevitably make the playing experience much more unpleasant than whatever behavior they're getting all salty about. (This is one area where we 100% agree - yes, a "mute" button for specific players would be fantastic! Even better if it could be tied in to a system where a muted player's recent chats were automatically sent for moderator review.)

And yes, I've been targeted plenty of times when I thought I shouldn't have been, and seen other players targeted when I think they shouldn't have been. Sometimes repeatedly in the same game. Unless I see something else that is weird happening, I just chalk it up to a different play style/strategic approach and move on.

[geoffmacknish]

I agree that we all make innocent mistakes. Personally, I think I make a lot of these. The cheating I referred to is around players blatantly assisting another player to win. In Hearts, this is often attacking last place so that the game finishes. When the player who has caused this to happen is not in the lead, this is assiting another player to win. Granted, there are plenty of situations where it is appropriate. For example, when all players are so close to zero and the game must mathemtically end that round, of course it is every man for himself. I am suggesting that BGA take kingmaker red thumbs seriously and publish the statistics for all to see. This way, the players themselves can decide to risk playing with a known cheat or not. While I would prefer BGA moderators to examine kingmaking more seriously, I know there is not the manpower for this. Which is why I am suggesting publishing the statistics for players to vote with their feet and avoid playing with kingmaking cheats.

[paolof]

- At the end of the season, all turn based games will be stopped, and the player who consumed the most time will lost the game (all the opponents will be winners).

I followed the whole discussion at the beginning of Arena 3 and now at the end.

I think you are doing a great job.

On the quoted point, I agree with some other players that it could be improved.
The game should go on.

Probably you need some more time to devolop the technical solution but the main goal of BGA is the Game, so when you stop a game, you fail in that goal.

I suggest to sligthly change that point:
- At the end of the season, all turn based games will be changed to non Arena games. For the purpose of Arena points, the player who consumed the most time will lost the game (all the opponents will be winners).

[sourisdudesert]

I suggest to sligthly change that point:
- At the end of the season, all turn based games will be changed to non Arena games. For the purpose of Arena points, the player who consumed the most time will lost the game (all the opponents will be winners).

This is technically not easy to achieve (and may not be easy to explain to players in the interface), but this would probably be the best solution. We'll try to investigate how to do it.

[laiayo]

I like all the changes and hard work doneM I'd like to pass to non-arena games the turn-based non ended games as suggested above

[varietyCH]

I agree that we all make innocent mistakes. Personally, I think I make a lot of these. The cheating I referred to is around players blatantly assisting another player to win. In Hearts, this is often attacking last place so that the game finishes.

Are you sure this is kingmaking? I've just checked a game of hearts I've played and there the ELO gained/lost is different depending on my rank. I've won this game. But just thinking trough your example: In a case where there is a point where it is or seems clear to me that I can't win. My Goal shifts to becoming second or third as I receive more ELO Points than being last.

The easiest way I can think of is to target a player around or below my own rank, isn't it?

[Ranior]

Yeah, much of what is being described as "kingmaking cheats" comes across as someone who just shouldn't be playing multiplayer games. Multiplayer games have some kingmaking inherent in them, my moves impact who else can win, and sometimes it gets to a point where I can't win, but I have to make a call about who will. It's easier in some games to point to exactly when this is happening, but it's ultimately happening in many games, and much of the time is probably happening without anyone being aware of it. It's very hard to punish these "kingmaking cheats" as it's a completely subjective opinion if the player is engaging in behavior that simply is trying to maximize their position or if they really are throwing the game--especially since much of the time lower skilled players really aren't at the point of knowing they are doing either.

[geoffmacknish]

I agree that we all make innocent mistakes. Personally, I think I make a lot of these. The cheating I referred to is around players blatantly assisting another player to win. In Hearts, this is often attacking last place so that the game finishes.

Are you sure this is kingmaking? I've just checked a game of hearts I've played and there the ELO gained/lost is different depending on my rank. I've won this game. But just thinking trough your example: In a case where there is a point where it is or seems clear to me that I can't win. My Goal shifts to becoming second or third as I receive more ELO Points than being last.

The easiest way I can think of is to target a player around or below my own rank, isn't it?

Yes, it certainly is kingmaking. Until a game is over, there is still a chance that you can win it. Giving up and assisting another player to win is kingmaking. I agree that when the game is lost, you are free to maximise your position. The grey area is in deciding when the game is no longer winnable. Too many players give up and just beat up on some other poor sod so that they can avoid last place. This is unacceptable and *should* be penalised. Realistically, this endgame scenario is very subjective and depends on the player’s ability to salvage a possibly dire situation as well the state of the hand in question. In these grey areas, it is easy to forgive people when they make a bad decision. Courtesy would be to apologise to others at the time too. HOWEVER. The most blatant dark side of kingmaking is easy to spot and occurs when one or more players continuously attack a non-leader when the leader was easy to attack. *THIS* is the sort of kingmaking that should see players banned indefinitely and only reinstated on probation upon their promise to reform the sportsmanship of their gameplay.

So, blatant kingmaking is what should immediately be stamped out. Ban the cheats.

The indirect kingmaking, which is much more subjective, can be addressed by a simple popularity checkbox (either Kingmaker/Non-kingmaker, or a 1 2 3 4 5 rating for kingmaker about each player), just like the Red/Green thumb used to be visible to allow players to avoid nuisance players. A simple glance at the Kingmaking stat would at least give some insight into the risk of playing with such a player or they could be avoided altogether, as well as by use of an additional filter in the game restrictions.

So the grey areas of kingmaking, which require a lot of skilled manpower to police (manpower that is not available), can be easily solved through the use of a popularity vote on each player. Extending the Red/Green thumb to a 1-5 or 1-10 rating system works fine for movie ratings, eBay sellers and boardgamegeek. I see no problem in making this rating system accessible to BGA players. It will help reduce the angst felt when yet another player lets another player win thus cheating the other players out of the fair play which they should expect on BGA. As per boardgamegeek, you can change your rating of another player. It should be a simple matter to click on “Show all players I have rated” or “Show all players I have rated above/below 3 (say)”.

So, in summary, I agree there are endgame scenarios where it is not possible to win, or not likely to win given the player’s estimation of their position and skill. These grey areas are a matter of opinion as to the intention behind possible kingmaking play. So they should be addressed with a ranking system similar to boardgamegeek’s rating system. However, the dark side of kingmaking, defined above, should be policed heavily and players suspended or banned or sanctioned in some meaningful way, with reinstatement only possible after contrition is evident.

[failedatquittingBGA3]

Any way that you guys can get the algorithm that decides which arena turn based match of a game I have to play in next to match the algorithm that runs the "go to next table" turn based button? I am frequently getting the message about "you have to play in this game first" when I am just trying to go through all my turn based games where it's my turn as the button intends.

Vote for this bug here if you are having the same issue: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=28136&vote