Skipping must be stopped! Action eeded!

[RobertBr]

That's just a terrible way of handling it. There has to be a better way.

Then tell us all what it is ...

This has been a problem since BGA implemented multi-player games in tournaments (at the request of the vast majority of players on the forums). The facts are simple. The timer works exactly as intended in two player games, noone has any legitimate gripe for being skipped at any time for any reason in any two player game.
It creates a problem in multiplayer games because a player who is neither over time nor taking the skip action can be affected. But how do you fix that? How do you resolve a multiplayer game in which one player runs out of time in a way that is fair to all players.

There have been a lot of suggestions to tinker with the system to make it work a little better but despite literally years of discussion noone has come up with an actual solution.

[nik592]

The most supported suggestion I've seen is for skipping to either be a majority decision in tournament games (for all players not over time), or allow the creator to disallow it entirely, and let the max table time determine if a game finishes pre-emptively. Neither is perfect, but both are probably better than the current scenario.

[FrankJones]

Then tell us all what it is ...

[ truncated ]

There have been a lot of suggestions to tinker with the system to make it work a little better but despite literally years of discussion noone has come up with an actual solution.

I must admit, I don't know the answer either. You are correct; there is no obvious easy way to deal with this. It's why I never play 3-player games for any game that can be played 2-player. But I do like playing Hearts and spades, which are, by design, 4-player. I probably just need to avoid those games.

It's also why I do not play 7 Wonders on here, despite liking the game very much.

In a game such as Hearts or Spades, the player who ha abandoned the game could just simply have his cards auto-played, following suit with the highest (or lowest) card held.

In a game such as terraforming Mars where simply taking no action would be allowable by rule, the game could just continue without that player doing anything other than "pass" each action.

But, there are some games that would not function without the absent player actually doing something. Well, in 7 wonders, maybe the card could just be auto-played and the card effect resolved as though a human played it. (But if buying resources is necessary, that would be a problem). Or, just have the absent player "sell card for 3 coins" every turn.

But in Race for the Galaxy, it would be a problem and would require actual Bot programming to carry out the effects of some of the cards. Well, maybe not. The absent player could just "choose" a pre-decided action each time and do nothing else. (But those pre-decided actions would likely benefit some players more than others. Though, that's true anyway even if the human player had remained.)

But, yeah, it would require specific programming on a game-by-game basis, and I understand the logistical issues there.

Also, the proposed idea to make it be a vote among the remaining players is a good idea on the surface - but what if the abandoned player actually has no intent to ever come back? The player isn't simply taking a bathroom break that went long, but rather, has just rage-quit in bad sportsmanship?

So, there really are no good solutions to this. It's an unfortunate situation that luckily does not really come up all that often.

Increasing the penalty would be helpful:

1st offense - no penalty, because maybe the person's internet legitimately crashed.
2nd offense within 2 days - the existing penalty along with a suggestion to not play real-time until a more stable internet connection id found.
3rd offense in a 7-day period: Severe penalty.

I don't know; this still could be problematic and result in unfairly punishing people who were not intentionally doing this.

[actaion]

There is a 100% sure way to prevent that: do not run out of time. Once everyone does this, no one will be able to skip anyone.

most * comment

I get that takes effort to respond in an intelligent manner instead of just saying something is stupid.

A proper response to Jellby would have been that you aren't the player being skipped who is complaining in this case, so their response was not addressing the problem you raised because you have no control over whether other players run out of time.

thx for putting it in good words

[actaion]

That's just a terrible way of handling it. There has to be a better way.

Then tell us all what it is ...

There have been a lot of suggestions to tinker with the system to make it work a little better but despite literally years of discussion noone has come up with an actual solution.

The most supported suggestion I've seen is for skipping to either be a majority decision in tournament games (for all players not over time), or allow the creator to disallow it entirely, and let the max table time determine if a game finishes pre-emptively. Neither is perfect, but both are probably better than the current scenario.

These are very legitimate solutions.

Another one I have thought of:
Skipping is only allowed if a player has exceeded double the allowed playtime. If a player exceeds playtime just moderately, no skipping, the player wil- l get a penalty for overtiming, but no option to cancel the game. This is imho even a bitter solution for all games (incl 2p and non-tournament games)

[FrankJones]

Another one I have thought of:
Skipping is only allowed if a player has exceeded double the allowed playtime. If a player exceeds playtime just moderately, no skipping, the player wil- l get a penalty for overtiming, but no option to cancel the game. This is imho even a bitter solution for all games (incl 2p and non-tournament games)

Jellby has pointed out (in multiple treads) the problem with this. Where do we draw the line, and why/how do we decide?
I agree it's questionable sportsmanship to just instantly kick someone for a minor clock violation, but what about players who have actually rage-quit and are not returning?

I think people should not play real-time if they have unreliable internet without a backup. I play real-time on m computer. If the internet goes out, I can switch to me phone, which obviously does not require an internet connection.

And if something were to occur to cause me to be unable to finish the game (doorbell, cat issue, whatever), I would type something explaining to the opponents what is happening. (This has never happened to me in 800 games. My one and only "forfeit" occurred when my internet went out and I had not yet realized I could easily switch to my phone. My internet returned in 3 minutes, but the player had instantly kicked me at first opportunity in a game in which my score was double his. On the final action of the game, literally.)

[RazorOz]

One thing as a player I would strongly recommend is just don't join tournaments with ridiculous clocks. Tournaments where most the games won't complete because of time are a complete waste of time.

Then tell us all what it is ...

This has been a problem since BGA implemented multi-player games in tournaments (at the request of the vast majority of players on the forums). The facts are simple. The timer works exactly as intended in two player games, noone has any legitimate gripe for being skipped at any time for any reason in any two player game.
It creates a problem in multiplayer games because a player who is neither over time nor taking the skip action can be affected. But how do you fix that? How do you resolve a multiplayer game in which one player runs out of time in a way that is fair to all players.

There have been a lot of suggestions to tinker with the system to make it work a little better but despite literally years of discussion noone has come up with an actual solution.

You post this a lot, but it's not true. This has already been solved for Heat, so the solution already exists, so it's about players for those games pushing for it to be implemented for their games.

At Heat if a player is skipped, the game plays to the conclusion regardless, full ELO is awarded, qualifiers in tournaments work as they should. This could easily be applied to many other games.

[nik592]

Also, the proposed idea to make it be a vote among the remaining players is a good idea on the surface - but what if the abandoned player actually has no intent to ever come back? The player isn't simply taking a bathroom break that went long, but rather, has just rage-quit in bad sportsmanship?

For a tournament, there is a pre-determined end time for the game - even if players can't unanimously agree to boot, if the player never returns, the game will end anyway. I understand that still results in the same situation of the game everyone else has been playing is now somewhat wasted, but that is a much harder problem to solve as you say, because there are some games that don't have an easy "pass" or equivalent option. And even where games do have an easy "pass" option, to do so does change the game for the other players. The out-of-time player was competing with an opponent for science cards in 7 Wonders, and now your opponent has a free(er) run at science cards because that player is now just randomly choosing a card to discard for coins every round. The impact obviously depends on how many turns are left in a game, but I can easily see a person complaining about the fact that "the stupid AI bot ruined my game and made me lose" just as easily. And I know it is often argued that a player can choose to make similar "pass" turns anyway, and that's perfectly legitimate, but again, people already complain about the way others play. I've had a game or two with someone who just plays strangely, not seeming to follow the intended purpose of a game, and while I do red thumb those players so I don't need to see them again, it does mean that game was "ruined" for me. That said, I accept that some games get ruined. Including those in tournaments where someone boots strategically and I get eliminated in the cross-fire.

A vote wouldn't be suitable for a non-tournament setting, but I'm not sure anyone is proposing that.

My one and only "forfeit" occurred when my internet went out and I had not yet realized I could easily switch to my phone. My internet returned in 3 minutes, but the player had instantly kicked me at first opportunity in a game in which my score was double his. On the final action of the game, literally.

You are fortunate then. The few times I've been kicked for being overtime on a real-time game, I also had internet issues. Unfortunately, your time continues to tick and it may take a bit to even realise you're the one disconnected, not whichever opponent appears to be ticking away without playing. You then refresh your page and it takes another small chunk of time to realise your internet is out. I don't always have my phone sitting beside me, perhaps it's charging. Now I have to go find my phone, login, open up the BGA app, etc. and by the time I get there, my turn time is up anyway and I've been booted. Just saying, it's not always so simple to maintain your connection. But I accept that as being my problem, and I take my penalty feeling disappointed, but ultimately respecting the choice of my fellow players. Similarly when someone chooses to boot an opponent - I recently asked an opponent who wasn't playing if they were there, but within about 10 seconds of that, they'd been booted anyway (by another player). I'm disappointed the game didn't get to run to its conclusion, but it is what it is.

Aside from this, I've been booted in turn-based tournaments a number of times, in spite of playing regularly, just due to poor timing with my opponents. The way the turns fall means my night clock is the one ticking (in those particular games). Playing hours tends not to be workable because I've never seen a tournament with what I'd deem suitable playing hours for me. And while I could start one, the fact that they don't already exist suggests they probably wouldn't have a lot of takeup.

One thing as a player I would strongly recommend is just don't join tournaments with ridiculous clocks. Tournaments where most the games won't complete because of time are a complete waste of time.

Knowing what a ridiculous clock looks like isn't always easy. I now know a 12h clock is ridiculous. I typically don't choose anything with less than 48h, preferably 72h per player. I still regularly get booted from those, even though I wouldn't consider those timings ridiculous. It's a risk I have to take, or I just play a lot fewer tournaments (and sometimes, I take a break from tournaments because I get tired of putting up with that risk).

[FrankJones]

One thing as a player I would strongly recommend is just don't join tournaments with ridiculous clocks. Tournaments where most the games won't complete because of time are a complete waste of time.

Then tell us all what it is ...

This has been a problem since BGA implemented multi-player games in tournaments (at the request of the vast majority of players on the forums). The facts are simple. The timer works exactly as intended in two player games, noone has any legitimate gripe for being skipped at any time for any reason in any two player game.
It creates a problem in multiplayer games because a player who is neither over time nor taking the skip action can be affected. But how do you fix that? How do you resolve a multiplayer game in which one player runs out of time in a way that is fair to all players.

There have been a lot of suggestions to tinker with the system to make it work a little better but despite literally years of discussion noone has come up with an actual solution.

You post this a lot, but it's not true. This has already been solved for Heat, so the solution already exists, so it's about players for those games pushing for it to be implemented for their games.

At Heat if a player is skipped, the game plays to the conclusion regardless, full ELO is awarded, qualifiers in tournaments work as they should. This could easily be applied to many other games.

I've heard so many conflicting statements regarding this issue.
SO, it's accurate to say that each game's individual developer can implement this if desired? Because, in some games, in some games, it would essentially have zero adverse effect so simply skip absent players and continue the game as normal and award the proper Elo.

Apparently "heat" is one such game (I am not familiar with it).
Terraforming Mars, one of the more widely played games, can easily have that same feature. Any game where players do not take an equal number of turns anyway should have few issues continuing a game in which one player abandons.
Wingspan is another good example. If a player leaves, so what? Just continue the game.

I'm sure there are many more examples.

[JimBut]

Another one I have thought of:
Skipping is only allowed if a player has exceeded double the allowed playtime. If a player exceeds playtime just moderately, no skipping, the player wil- l get a penalty for overtiming, but no option to cancel the game. This is imho even a bitter solution for all games (incl 2p and non-tournament games)

Isn't this just equivalent to choosing a game setting with extra time? What happens when someone goes just slightly over the new limit and people complain that there should be some leeway, do we increase the time again?