"Sorry, I have to leave"

[North2]

To start, none of what I'm asking for is necessary. This is just a suggestion for a better community and playing experience.

I was playing a ranked Through the Ages game when my opponent suddenly says, "sorry, I have to leave" and offers to abandon game. By suddenly, I mean when Napoleon showed up on my turn(an extremely strong card that can often single-handedly decide games).

I've had similar situations happen many times, regardless of what board game I'm playing, and it leaves a sour taste in my mouth regardless of what I decide to do. What if the other guy really did have an emergency, and Napoleon showing up was a mere coincidence? In this case, refusing to abandon game doesn't sit well with me morally. But what if he's trying to take advantage of goodwill? Then I'm encouraging a terrible behavior by accepting to abandon game.

"Let the players decide what's right and what's wrong on a case-by-case basis" doesn't encourage a good RANKED community. I know that this is how it's always decided in real-life board games and it's part of the charm, but real-life board games don't have a ranking system(well, typically). In a community with no ranking system, I don't have to worry about whether my opponent is trying to take advantage of me to avoid losing ELO or not, and I can immediately abandon game without question.

I've seen many players use the argument of, "I'll always accept to abandon match, I don't care about ELO. I expect others to do the same". My counterpoint is "I'll always surrender immediately if I need to leave, I don't care about ELO. I expect others to do the same". Either one works, but these viewpoints are completely incompatible with each other. We all need to agree on one or else it's always going to spark arguments, and I've seen way too many players on both sides who's absolutely sure that the other side is being an ELO tryhard. We need to agree on one side, and there's only one option which deceitful players can't try to take advantage of.

I'm not asking for it to be completely forced on players. I'm just asking for one option to be the clear "default act of courtesy". Something simple like, "If this is a ranked game, it's common BGA courtesy to surrender the match" as part of the pop-up message when someone tries to Abandon Game.

Again, none of this is necessary at all. I just see it as an obviously better playing experience for anyone who's used to playing any sort of ranked game, board game or otherwise. As it stands now, I've seen multiple people try to guilt trip me into abandoning game just to avoid losing ELO. I've also seen some people that probably genuinely had to go, and proceed to hurl insults at me for refusing to abandon game.

[phludowin]

I assume that "abandon game" means: The game is aborted as if it had never been played; no ranking consequences for anyone; while surrendering means: The person who surrenders loses ELO points. I'm asking because I've never been in that situation.

If that is the case: I agree with you to refuse to abandon game. My opinion: You quit, you lose.

If a person decides to enter a real-time game which takes time, they know what they are getting themselves into. If whatever happens outside of BGA is more important to them than the BGA game, then they shouldn't care about ELO points.

So: Do not feel bad about asking quitters to surrender.
Just my two cents.

[Silene]

If you want to be nice, you can offer them to switch to turn-based-mode and finish the game another time (or just slowly playing turn-based).
If they don't respond because they already left, wait for them to go over time and THEN switch to turn-based. Don't do it earlier because then they won't automatically agree when their clock is positive. They will however when they're over time.

[North2]

I assume that "abandon game" means: The game is aborted as if it had never been played; no ranking consequences for anyone; while surrendering means: The person who surrenders loses ELO points. I'm asking because I've never been in that situation.

If that is the case: I agree with you to refuse to abandon game. My opinion: You quit, you lose.

If a person decides to enter a real-time game which takes time, they know what they are getting themselves into. If whatever happens outside of BGA is more important to them than the BGA game, then they shouldn't care about ELO points.

So: Do not feel bad about asking quitters to surrender.
Just my two cents.

Yes, that is the function of abandon game and surrender.

To be perfectly clear, this isn't really about which side is right and which side is wrong. The main point I wanted to show was that the two viewpoints are absolutely incompatible with each other, and this type of ambiguity ALWAYS leads to general toxicity in a ranked setting.

As a more clear example, let's say Player A's idea of being a good sport is to always accept to abandon game if asked to do so, and that's what he's always been doing. Now, he's playing a ranked game and he has to leave, so he asks Player B to abandon game. However, Player B's idea of being a good sport is to always surrender if you have to leave, and that's what he's always been doing. What do you do here? No matter what happens, 99% of the time both sides are going to walk away thinking, "Man I can't believe what people are willing to do for ELO", and yet as far as both sides are concerned, they are acting as the good guy.

[phludowin]

To be perfectly clear, this isn't really about which side is right and which side is wrong. The main point I wanted to show was that the two viewpoints are absolutely incompatible with each other, and this type of ambiguity ALWAYS leads to general toxicity in a ranked setting.

In that case, one possible solution is: If you are about to play a long real-time game, agree among the players on what to do in case of someone leaving, before you start to play the game. Meaning: Decide if it's ok to abandon a running game, or if the quitter should surrender. And put it to a vote.

If there are players who refuse to accept the vote, or if an agreement can not be reached, then all players can still decide to abandon the game before the first move has been played. In that case, there's no suspicion of people abandoning the game because they realize they will lose.
And for a new game, you can red-thumb the players who don't accept to play according to the rules you support. I learned about that feature yesterday.

Just a suggestion.

[JackKey]

I'd like to share my opinion, as a person who has been several times in a situation of external emergency to leave the game.

The suggestion to abandon the game is not respectful to other players. They spend their time to increase their ELO (otherwise, why does one play rating games at all?), so I must respect their efforts here.
The same about me: I have entered the rating game in order to increase the ELO, and the suggestion to resign is the same offensive, as it is not fair to lose the scores due to external reasons, not the skills.

The only fair solution I can see for both sides: to suggest switching to the turn-based mode and finish the game later. That's also what @Silene has suggested here. In this scenario the game will be finished and both the winner will get the deserved ELO points, and the one in emergency will be able to take a break.

[phludowin]

If switching from real-time mode to round-based mode is possible, then it might indeed be the better option.
I didn't know it was possible.

[North2]

The suggestion isn't terrible in theory, but it does still sound like it's coming from people who aren't used to playing online in a ranked setting. I mean no disrespect here, but the naivete to assume that everyone is only wanting to play fairly is a rather refreshing sight.

One of many unavoidably exploitable problems is that real-time is simply not the same as turn-based, since there is no time limit to think about moves. If a player always plays better if he has more time to think about moves, then he can always go, "oops, I gotta go" and offer to play turn-based at a later date.

If the player that "has to leave" can fake it, then there's going to be a problem. Period.

The only "reasonable" way to implement such a feature would be to make a completely different rating system for turn-based and real-time. This highlights what would be the biggest problem for me, in that it would split the player base. It already takes a fairly long time to find a game, and realistically I'm not going to have a choice on which mode I play since all the other top players will also flock to the mode that has a shorter wait time. No matter how it's implemented, I'm not going to have a real choice. Even when we take my personal views out of the picture, everyone has to wait longer to find games regardless in order to accommodate for a few players who's 'emergency-prone' and wants a fail-safe. It doesn't sound like it's worth it.

I'm not going to explain every other possible problem in detail, so I'll just list a few and you'll have to either think I'm crazy or get what I'm trying to say here. What stops players from trying to offer real-time in the hopes of the other player not wanting to go through the hassle? How do you agree on a fair "later date"? What stops players from dragging their feet for the maximum possible time once it goes to turn-based in the hopes that the other player will get bored? What stops players from asking for advice from anyone anywhere when given near-infinite time to complete their moves?

I don't want to make online ranked games sound like a terrible thing because it isn't. I've been playing various games competitively for nearly two decades. It's a part of life for me, and I wouldn't have it any other way. However, there's a bit of a ranked online Murphy's Law that's true for all games: Whatever that can be exploited, will be exploited. This a a very critical point since most ranked players(including myself) values competitive integrity very highly. If there's a possible exploit that isn't fixed, then the game is simply not worth playing.

As a final note, having to surrender a few games here and there will have no impact whatsoever in your final rating(unless it's in the final couple of days). If you lose a game you otherwise would have won, your rating will probably go lower than the actual rating which your skill can achieve. This means you'll have an easier time winning the next game. You'll get it back, don't sweat it.

[Sushiyum]

"I'm not asking for it to be completely forced on players. I'm just asking for one option to be the clear "default act of courtesy". Something simple like, "If this is a ranked game, it's common BGA courtesy to surrender the match" as part of the pop-up message when someone tries to Abandon Game."

Let's face it. I have seen how people on here argue over even something so simple as "gg" - the views represented run through the entire gamut of common civility, through to general indifference, and to the other extreme of it's completely insulting in some situations. Bearing in mind also that people don't commonly agree on whether resigning in a two player game is acceptable either, I really think your suggestion is never going to happen. There is no etiquette for playing on here, or at least none that is written down. There isn't anything to say what you SHOULD do, just what you SHOULDN'T, ie. no insults, kingmaking, etc etc.

For what it's worth, I agree that turn-based games are different to real-time, so the option to convert isn't always the best one. However, short of agreeing up-front what the rule is when someone wishes to leave early, I can't see any solution. Do what's best for you, and if they don't like it, just not play them again because you obviously have different values to each other.

[North2]

What I've been trying to highlight is that this type of disagreement can lead to awful experiences for both players, specifically in a ranked setting.

I have personally also experienced disagreements over whether resigning in a two-player game is acceptable or not. This situation may look and feel like the same thing for players that are not used to online ranked games. I'm trying to tell you guys that there is a massive difference, and that difference is the possibility of ulterior motives. Whether resigning a game is acceptable or not is clearly a matter of preference, and it's hard to imagine any other reason that someone might want to resign a game. It's not like someone can resign a game in an attempt to gain ELO(that's a bold strategy Cotton). However, as I've attempted to explain in multiple different ways already, it's not clear whether the person that tries to abandon game is trying to save ELO or truly has an emergency. It's not clear whether the person that refuses to abandon game is just trying to gain ELO or has different values.

Perhaps it may be better for me to bring up an example of something that is mostly okay to leave up to players, and that is the player time limit. There's plenty of players(including myself) that will not grill people for time the moment they reach 0:00, even in a ranked setting. In this case, keeping the option open for players to allow the opponents' player clock to go into overtime can be a pretty good thing, since it can't really be interpreted in a negative way. I have the option to win by time(or at least make my opponent hurry), and I choose not to. If I choose to make the other person hurry, I can't really be blamed for it since that's the point of the time limit. It's a clear act of courtesy to wait in which I've been on both ends, and it feels pretty good either way.

Even this has some dark side to it. I've been in couple of Through the Ages games where I let the time run to -4:00(four minutes overtime) since I wasn't really going anywhere and I understood that the past couple of turns have been a rather difficult board state for my opponent. Unfortunately, my courtesy wasn't reciprocated since he had no reservations about grilling me for time the moment I reached 0:00. This does leave a bitter taste in my mouth, but these cases are rare and I can understand that leaving the time limit up to players has more upsides than downsides.

I have this feeling that the web site...creators? owners? developers? are hoping the Abandon Game feature to work in the same way most of time. Someone has to leave, they offer to Abandon Game, the other person accepts, "Oh thank you very much!" with flowers and rainbows. If the other person refuses, "Oh, well that's okay, I'll just surrender then", handshake and move on. I'm telling you that's not how it works in an online ranked setting. Well, actually it could work that way, but ONLY if we agree for the site as a whole on a default act of courtesy.