Why is kicking people from tournaments allowed?

[ardrummo]

So why is kicking people from tournaments allowed?

I have had many experiences recently where I was winning a tournament game, but one player was out of time so their turn got skipped.

That gives everyone an average+ result rather than ranking us by performance in the game.

If the tournament games all have time restrictions set for the game, why is skipping an individual player even allowed?

[compte obelète]

So why is kicking people from tournaments allowed?

I have had many experiences recently where I was winning a tournament game, but one player was out of time so their turn got skipped.

That gives everyone an average+ result rather than ranking us by performance in the game.

If the tournament games all have time restrictions set for the game, why is skipping an individual player even allowed?

because defultly, a tournament in a 1v1 ends when:

-the other player lose/game ends
or
-one of the players have taked too many time (overpassed his limit) and make the timed out lose. And in more than 2 should not impact the score for everyone, but instread remove 1 or 2 points to the timed out as he was last and the rest still get what they was supposed to have.

[RobertBr]

The answer is that it is entirely fair in a 1vs1 tournament game for a player to win on time (it is called 'clocking' your opponent). It shows good time management and reflects on your commitment, concentration, and skill at the game, so should not be seen as any less of a win than defeating the opponent any other way. And until very very recently BGA only allowed 1vs1 games to be played in tournaments.

Obviously this does not work well in multiplayer games. It has been raised on the forums. But no doubt it would take work to apply a change and the developers cannot be expected to work on it unless it is something player clearly want. I've created a suggestion in the bug reports, if you feel strongly then upvote it and encourage others first.

https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=35289

[ardrummo]

The answer is that it is entirely fair in a 1vs1 tournament game for a player to win on time (it is called 'clocking' your opponent). It shows good time management and reflects on your commitment, concentration, and skill at the game, so should not be seen as any less of a win than defeating the opponent any other way. And until very very recently BGA only allowed 1vs1 games to be played in tournaments.

Obviously this does not work well in multiplayer games. It has been raised on the forums. But no doubt it would take work to apply a change and the developers cannot be expected to work on it unless it is something player clearly want. I've created a suggestion in the bug reports, if you feel strongly then upvote it and encourage others first.

https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=35289

Thank you for the clarity here (and report upvoted).

I had only been thinking about multi-player tournaments and I can see why this is entirely reasonable in a 2p game.

Thanks for submitting the report.

[Yobust]

Anyway imagine there would not be a clock ( timing) each players could take a long they want to play so example a game of real time could take a month to finish so if many do so tournament would never end lol

[shadowphiar]

The answer is that it is entirely fair in a 1vs1 tournament game for a player to win on time (it is called 'clocking' your opponent). It shows good time management and reflects on your commitment, concentration, and skill at the game, so should not be seen as any less of a win than defeating the opponent any other way.

In real-time tournaments, I completely agree. In turn-based tournaments over several days, the clock doesn't reflect skill at the game, it almost entirely corresponds to whose time zone is further west when you go to sleep. One player will *always* be able to take a later turn every day (and, yes, the opponent can take the first turn the following day but it's not symmetric - e.g. if the time zones are two hours apart when you've just slept for eight).

I agree there needs to be a timeout, for tournaments to be able to function. And at the limit, if the game has to end, the player who used more time should be the loser - it's imperfect but I don't think there is a better measure. But, there's no need for any player to be able to end the game any earlier than it absolutely has to.

[RobertBr]

In real-time tournaments, I completely agree. In turn-based tournaments over several days, the clock doesn't reflect skill at the game, it almost entirely corresponds to whose time zone is further west ...

There is an option in tournament set up that prevents your clock from counting down during your 'sleeping' hours. I'm testing how much difference it makes in a tournament at the moment. But I agree with your general statement that my statement is more true of real time than turn based.

[RobertBr]

Anyway imagine there would not be a clock ( timing) each players could take a long they want to play so example a game of real time could take a month to finish so if many do so tournament would never end lol

This is a misunderstanding of the discussion. What is being discussed is whether a game should time out because one player has exceed their time or if it should wait for the time to end.