Running out of time when taking a turn

[BoredAkin]

I mostly play turn based game modes (not real time) I've had quite a few games (some of them have been when I'm the current leader) where I've run out of time to take my turn and someone who is not in first place (more often than not they are in last or have messed up and won't catch up) skip my turn and cause the game to effectively end. When this happens everyone else has their ELO score go up (not a problem), everyone has a chance to quit the game without penalty to their Reputation (not a problem), my reputation goes down (that's my problem).

I understand this system is in place to help keep the game moving, however I feel that if you are in last place you should be given the chance to skip someone's turn who is ahead of you. Or if someone does run out of time for their turn, can we have the option of a Voting system, so that people who are looking solely to save their ELO score don't abuse the system. I say "abuse the system" because I've had players express their frustration at other players skipping my turn.

Someone will say that I have control over the games that I join, yes that is true. The reason why I joined faster moving games is that there were a group of players that I enjoyed playing with so when their created games I didn't hesitate to join their game. But on the flip side, I also don't have control over the location of players who join the game. So if I join a game and the majority of players are in the EU region, well I will definitely not make the time requirements if it's anything above 1 turn per day, because I'm on the other side of the globe.

Anyway, my point is that I hope there are discussions about a better way to handle the skip turn system that is currently in place. I feel that it can be improved or to give players more options to control how the kick system works for their game.

Thanks.

[MoiMagnus]

The clock system was designed primarily for real time, and has two purposes:
(1) To constrain thinking time. Handling your clock is a question of skill, and it is reasonable to lose ELO when timing out. Arguably, your opponents should not even have the opportunity to forgive you and you should be automatically kicked-out, in the same way your opponents cannot grant you "bonus points" or a "take-back" just because they think you deserve them.
(2) To maintain a steady playing rate, so that peoples that want to play a short game do not end up committed to a game much longer than what they intended. Handling your clock is a question of respecting your opponents, and losing Karma when timing out is reasonable. Since the goal is to make sure you are not an inconvenience to your opponents, it makes sense to keep the decision to kick you out in their hand, rather than automate it.

[Note that in classical Chess, the goal of the cloak is purely (1), hence losing on time is not frowned upon. It's part of normal play.]

For the most part, (1) is absent from turn-based games. You can pretty much take the time you need to think about your turn. So the ELO penalty is not as much justified as in real time.

(2) is still relevant, but in the end, the clock does a pretty bad job at it as soon as peoples come from far away time zone (or live in the same time zone with vastly different hour schedule). In the end, if peoples want to play more than one move a day, there should be a way to specify when are the "playing hours" for the table, so that only peoples available during those hours join the game. And player's clock should not tick outside of those "playing hours".

[Jest Phulin]

So, BoredAkin, let me get this straight:

You voluntarily joined every game.
Every game stated that you were playing against real people.
Every game clearly stated that there was a time limit for you to make your moves, and that you would be penalized if you didn't make your moves in a timely manner.
Every game clearly stated what that time limit was.
Every game required you to accept this before the game started, and you had the opportunity to leave the table if you didn't accept.
You decided not to play in a timely manner, and caused other people to wait for you.

And now you're upset that your karma went down because someone enforced the rules of this site?

On a site dedicated to playing by the rules, I fail to see why people get upset at this one. Do you get upset at having to pay victory points in Stone Age if you cannot feed your people? Do you get upset in backgammon if someone lands on one of your checkers and sends it to the bar? Do you get upset in Can't Stop if you can't move a temporary marker, and lose all progress made so far?

The main difference between the game rules and the site rule on time is that the clock rule is unenforced by default: people can choose to keep playing when someone goes over time.

[BoredAkin]

Hey Jest,

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as upset at the rules of the site. My frustration is that there are no other options available to us as players in how the skip rule is enforced.

For example, it would be nice if there was a way I could join games which players who are around the same timezone as I am. To avoid situations where everyone everyone whose time zone different is 6 - 8 hours. There was one such game I joined early and by the time the game started I realized that everyone was in the EU (I'm in America) and it was too late for me to exit the game.

Another example for skip turn options would be to have a voting system in place.

As I mentioned in my original post, I've had players, in games where my turn was skipped, tell me how lam it was that someone who was in last place, or cannot catch up, skips the turn of someone who is ahead.

[Jest Phulin]

For example, it would be nice if there was a way I could join games which players who are around the same timezone as I am. To avoid situations where everyone everyone whose time zone different is 6 - 8 hours.

You might want to check into the options of "playing hours" when joining fast turn-based games. I think on any turn-based game with more than 4 moves a day this can be set. Basically it stops the clock for everyone for a period of time each day, to allow things like sleeping...
(I could be wrong on the "faster than 4/day" bit --- I don't use the feature myself.)



I am also curious as to the details of what you are proposing with the "only people in the lead" can skip mechanism (or the "not in last place/unable to catch up mechanism). Realize that this mechanism must work for all games on BGA, and not be on a per-game basis.
Does this mean that if you jump out to an early lead, you can ignore the time requirements because you cannot be skipped?
What determines "unable to catch up"? (Even in chess, having just a king left is not a losing position.) Many games on BGA have quite a few victory points assigned at the end.
What if the player in 1st place doesn't want to skip the player in 3rd place, but the player in 2nd place does?
Two friends join a table with a random third person. Can they drag the game out forever without the third player being able to do anything about it?

Any change will have issues. The benefit of the change must outweigh these issues. I do not see how this suggested change will provide much benefit, but do see several issues with it.

[BoredAkin]

You might want to check into the options of "playing hours" when joining fast turn-based games. I think on any turn-based game with more than 4 moves a day this can be set. Basically it stops the clock for everyone for a period of time each day, to allow things like sleeping...
(I could be wrong on the "faster than 4/day" bit --- I don't use the feature myself.)

Thanks Jest, I'll look for it.

To provide more context the game I play that has brought on these frustrations with the skip turn rule is Rallyman GT

I am also curious as to the details of what you are proposing with the "only people in the lead" can skip mechanism (or the "not in last place/unable to catch up mechanism). Realize that this mechanism must work for all games on BGA, and not be on a per-game basis.

On review of what I wrote I realized that "unable to catch up" is not accurate or fair. I should have said the based on the number of laps/turns remaining and how far they are from finishing the game the probability of the player catching up to the leader or winning the game is low. This thought won't work for every game though, for example some games have hidden scoring. So I understand that this is not a good idea, but I hope it helps plant the seed for a better skip turn mechanic in the future.

Does this mean that if you jump out to an early lead, you can ignore the time requirements because you cannot be skipped?

In this case I wonder if a voting system would solve this problem? In the case of a there not being enough members to have quorum, the player who has run out of time automatically receives one vote in favour of being skipped.

What determines "unable to catch up"? (Even in chess, having just a king left is not a losing position.) Many games on BGA have quite a few victory points assigned at the end.

There are a few games where being able to determine if you can catch up is very hard or near impossible, in the case of Rallyman GT, there is no hidden abilities or scoring. Everything the player can or cannot do is available to every player.

What if the player in 1st place doesn't want to skip the player in 3rd place, but the player in 2nd place does?

Again I wonder if a voting system would solve this problem, as mentioned above.

Two friends join a table with a random third person. Can they drag the game out forever without the third player being able to do anything about it?

A very good point! I don't have an idea for how to solve this problem