Board Game Arena

expoolman wrote: ↑28 May 2026, 13:08 You got a pretty nice looking game going so far. It would be a shame if something unfortunate would happen to it.

FrankJones wrote: ↑27 May 2026, 20:49

tbhp wrote: ↑27 May 2026, 15:02 I'm surprised that so many people in this thread have this multiple instances of a game issue. Like I said, I basically never run into them when I check the profiles of people I encounter in my games.

Hey tbhp

You and I have discussed a lot of these matters in our private messages. For the benefit of everyone in the thread, I'll elaborate further here.

I like to play games, and ideally, I would be playing more total games, and perhaps more than one at a time of my favorite specific games. But, for me, turn-based is already susceptible to errors resulting from the intermittent nature of making moves. Though I don't expel players, I do prefer the turn-based games to move at a quick pace. The more time elapsed between moves, the more likely I am to lose my train of thought, forget or mix up my intended plan and upcoming moves, or get the goals confused.

I would probably play real-time but that's not a realistic option for me.

I want to play every game to the best of my ability. I want to win every game, and I want to reach or maintain master, expert, or strong Elo ratings (depending on the game, any of those 3 might essentially be "master elite" status).

My arena ranking suffers each season because I just don't play enough volume. But, for complex thematic games with a point-salad scoring mechanic and numerous goals, each additional game in progress of that same game reduces the quality of my plan in each of those games. There is just a lot of information to be keeping track of.

Heck, in some games in which I should play better than I do, I lose my focus and plan even when playing just one game. Wingspan, for example, where I seem to have fallen into a bad habit of losing to players rated a lot lower than I am, by making mistakes that are obvious on replay viewing. Having a second Wingspan game would exacerbate the problem.

Different people can better juggle multiple games of the same game simultaneously. This also depends on the type of game. For abstract strategy games such as Connect6 or Pente, I could probably play several of those at a time.

So, with a slow opponent, I'll just shrug and accept that my next game of that type might have to wait a bit longer than usual, because I do not like expelling players. If the delays are frequent and early, I'll likely just neutralize and move on. Especially if no explanation is given. Sometimes I'll even reach out and ask if everything is okay and get no reply back.

I have only expelled once, I think, and neutralized once. In the expulsion game, I was obviously going to win, and in the neutralized game it was early and undecided, but I thought I had a better than 50% chance of winning.

This is all just my personal approach and personal reasoning. Other people's approach may vary for various reasons.

nik592 wrote: ↑28 May 2026, 04:24

tbhp wrote: ↑28 May 2026, 04:00 I think many games have a beauty in their final state but maybe not always one you'd describe as "looking beautiful". Like, an elegant final situation in Chess could be described as "beautiful", but you probably wouldn't word it as "looking beautiful", because it is more in an abstract sense (although the board and the pieces themselves are aesthetically beautiful).

I mostly play Harmonies on here and that's the game I generally have in mind when I make references to games that can be considered beautiful in all possible senses (although obviously it's subjective and people may disagree on which games are beautiful in which senses).

That wasn't my point. My point was you seem to hold an unusual position in looking at a finished game as "beautiful". I'm well aware you do this - not for the first time are you bringing this up. But I suspect you are in a much greater minority there than the one you suggested was present about people who don't like to play two tables of the same game. As such, you're unlikely to ever have a conversation like the one you're suggesting. They're not going to tell you that the game is shaping up to be beautiful and they'd hate to see it it ruined. You bring up kicking someone off a table, they're going to assume you're considering doing that, and probably apologise. Or say nothing because they probably figure you'll do it whatever they say (or because they're not checking the table anymore).

tbhp wrote: ↑28 May 2026, 16:51

FrankJones wrote: ↑27 May 2026, 20:49

tbhp wrote: ↑27 May 2026, 15:02 I'm surprised that so many people in this thread have this multiple instances of a game issue. Like I said, I basically never run into them when I check the profiles of people I encounter in my games.

Hey tbhp

You and I have discussed a lot of these matters in our private messages. For the benefit of everyone in the thread, I'll elaborate further here.

I like to play games, and ideally, I would be playing more total games, and perhaps more than one at a time of my favorite specific games. But, for me, turn-based is already susceptible to errors resulting from the intermittent nature of making moves. Though I don't expel players, I do prefer the turn-based games to move at a quick pace. The more time elapsed between moves, the more likely I am to lose my train of thought, forget or mix up my intended plan and upcoming moves, or get the goals confused.

I would probably play real-time but that's not a realistic option for me.

I want to play every game to the best of my ability. I want to win every game, and I want to reach or maintain master, expert, or strong Elo ratings (depending on the game, any of those 3 might essentially be "master elite" status).

My arena ranking suffers each season because I just don't play enough volume. But, for complex thematic games with a point-salad scoring mechanic and numerous goals, each additional game in progress of that same game reduces the quality of my plan in each of those games. There is just a lot of information to be keeping track of.

Heck, in some games in which I should play better than I do, I lose my focus and plan even when playing just one game. Wingspan, for example, where I seem to have fallen into a bad habit of losing to players rated a lot lower than I am, by making mistakes that are obvious on replay viewing. Having a second Wingspan game would exacerbate the problem.

Different people can better juggle multiple games of the same game simultaneously. This also depends on the type of game. For abstract strategy games such as Connect6 or Pente, I could probably play several of those at a time.

So, with a slow opponent, I'll just shrug and accept that my next game of that type might have to wait a bit longer than usual, because I do not like expelling players. If the delays are frequent and early, I'll likely just neutralize and move on. Especially if no explanation is given. Sometimes I'll even reach out and ask if everything is okay and get no reply back.

I have only expelled once, I think, and neutralized once. In the expulsion game, I was obviously going to win, and in the neutralized game it was early and undecided, but I thought I had a better than 50% chance of winning.

This is all just my personal approach and personal reasoning. Other people's approach may vary for various reasons.

That's an interesting explanation. Your reasons seem to differ from the flow perspective that's been discussed earlier.

I wonder though, if a player is taking forever in one table, doesn't that also mean you could step back from that game and fully focus on an other? I mean, does the timed out game really matter at this point? If that player is not playing because their interest is wavering, then they may not be a very good player or may not be having a very good game, so the odds would be in your favor even if you aren't at the best of your capabilities when you have to show up to make your moves against them.

All in all, since players being very slow is a fairly rare occurrence, I think making some exceptions here and there wouldn't necessarily impact your Elo goals.

tbhp wrote: ↑28 May 2026, 17:25 On a related note, I've been thinking for a long time that BGA should give us a feature where we can rate and comment the games that have been played. So you would be able to give a rating to the individual player's boards and/or to the overall game. And you'd be able to leave a review where you can get in details on your judgement of the strategic, narrative and aesthetic qualities of the game.

nik592 wrote: ↑28 May 2026, 22:28

tbhp wrote: ↑28 May 2026, 17:25 On a related note, I've been thinking for a long time that BGA should give us a feature where we can rate and comment the games that have been played. So you would be able to give a rating to the individual player's boards and/or to the overall game. And you'd be able to leave a review where you can get in details on your judgement of the strategic, narrative and aesthetic qualities of the game.

For one, you can comment on any game you like (in your and/or other players) profiles. But I suspect most people would assume you were rating the players or the game itself as a whole, not the individual table of it. People deconstruct their gaming sessions sometimes, and they might describe it as interesting, etc. but as I say, I've yet to meet any other person who believes the play of a board game is a piece of art (as you do). After all, I can create a particular board in Harmonies for it's aesthetic arrangement - for me, that would probably be highly symmetrical - but to do so would likely impact my ability to score well in the game, because symmetry is not the goal.

Cile wrote: ↑27 May 2026, 03:58 There is a karma penalty to being kicked from a game. Strange to have a karma penalty for behaviour they think is acceptable.

nik592 wrote: ↑27 May 2026, 09:32 As others have said, the fact that being kicked from a game is punitive, the fact that you get a screen that pops up to tell you "Ooops! You did something you shouldn't have and here's some tips on how to be a good player who doesn't do that again" (as people on forums have also complained about) would suggest that the BGA stance is that people shouldn't be exceeding their timers.

I think it's more a point that some people will accept people exceeding their timers, so they made it a player decision so those who wanted to could continue the game (which I appreciate, as I wouldn't want to play with auto-booting - but again, some people do and I don't see that as a problem to offer as a choice).

nik592 wrote: ↑28 May 2026, 00:17 Fair enough. I didn't really go looking, was just going off of this post that said it wasn't anywhere in the "rules":

teallite wrote: ↑30 May 2026, 03:21

nik592 wrote: ↑27 May 2026, 09:32 I think it's more a point that some people will accept people exceeding their timers, so they made it a player decision so those who wanted to could continue the game (which I appreciate, as I wouldn't want to play with auto-booting - but again, some people do and I don't see that as a problem to offer as a choice).

Well, you basically said what I said. It's a player decision, BGA doesn't have a preferred option and they don't say anything about what you should do. Only what you may do.