Board Game Arena

Yeah, that's the most simple way to do think to it. And that's what bga does.
But if you read again my post, you will see arguments to change that way, and you could even punish more the player with a better connection.

The usual argument for not changing the system is that you can't know if the player makes an effort to resolve its problem or not. I just gave you a strong argument to know if that player is more likely or not to have problems or not.

Now do I personnally think it should change with my proposition? Nope, that would be weird to take one thing into account but not everything else.

I think, that it is ridiculous to make them pay a lot of elo. Sometimes people (as me) don’t even understand, that the game has started, because of the “searching 0 players” note. I think, that only for the people, who quit the game (not loose by time!) should be more penalties in elo (like -40, -50). And the elo shouldn’t move at all. So is for the arena. I was playing a game first time, and I was kicked just because I couldn’t tap so much (the game was hard) at one time. I also think, that for people, playing the first or second time there would be more time (like x2 a least)

Not that I'm in agreement with necessarily raising ELO, but the first time this happens, you are only hit with a 10pt penalty. Which restricts nothing for you on the site. Even the next one at 20pts does not limit your ability to do much (you might get excluded from some games, where people have the 85% karma filter on, but I doubt you'd struggle to find games anyway). If that happens, then maybe take stock of what you're doing, and work out why you're getting penalised. If you're new to a game, maybe look to start with a friendly match, or a slower speed game. If your connection isn't reliable, maybe stick to turn-based until you're more sure of it (or until you've recovered your penalties). It's really not that hard to manage. I can understand if someone has a lot of turn-based games and gets hit with a week or more length emergency and suffers a reputation blowout due to that, but otherwise, most unintentionally earned penalties should be fairly easily reversible.

The thing is that I don't actually see most people quit games, they mostly just disappear and either we wait til the game times out, or someone boots them. So setting punishments (or higher punishments) to only be for people who actually quit wouldn't do very much, and if anything, would probably just prompt people to not quit, and just disappear so they don't get the higher punishment. But for the other players at the table, there's little difference.

Quitting is not always voluntary.

I recently found myself in a situation when playing Catan. An opponent realised he'd set his settlements poorly and suggested quitting the game. Myself and the other player refused. We played for a few minutes and then he proceeded to suggest trading materials over 70 times during his turn. I tried talking on the chat, I suggested quitting the game (which he declined) so after 4 or 5 minutes refusing his trading offers, I resorted to quitting myself because I was running out of time anyway while he still had plenty left. I was penalised with -20 karma points (having lost another 10 on the same night because I got disconnected - I had a connection but BGA wasn't loading).

This was over a week ago and I still haven't got back to 100%, which was always my XP. Needless to say, I think this was too severe a penalization.

nvallet wrote: ↑29 June 2025, 23:34 Quitting is not always voluntary.

I recently found myself in a situation when playing Catan. An opponent realised he'd set his settlements poorly and suggested quitting the game. Myself and the other player refused. We played for a few minutes and then he proceeded to suggest trading materials over 70 times during his turn. I tried talking on the chat, I suggested quitting the game (which he declined) so after 4 or 5 minutes refusing his trading offers, I resorted to quitting myself because I was running out of time anyway while he still had plenty left. I was penalised with -20 karma points (having lost another 10 on the same night because I got disconnected - I had a connection but BGA wasn't loading).

This was over a week ago and I still haven't got back to 100%, which was always my XP. Needless to say, I think this was too severe a penalization.

FYI you can decline trades automatically so opponents don’t eat your clock

nvallet wrote: ↑29 June 2025, 23:34 This was over a week ago and I still haven't got back to 100%, which was always my XP. Needless to say, I think this was too severe a penalization.

But you are back over 85% which means nothing should be restricted for you. Even at 70%, likely you weren't blocked from doing anything you wanted to. I get it, I'd prefer to keep my karma at 100% too, and the other player's behaviour wasn't cool - I'd almost definitely red thumb a person who did that. But has it really had an impact on your gaming here, apart from your reputation score having a lower number than you'd otherwise like?

At the same time, how bad were their initial placements? Cause if they really were terrible and were about to make for an unwinnable game, then I get why they may have wanted to abandon. Taking a look at the game in question, it looks like they weren't that terrible, so I think you're perfectly within your rights to refuse to abandon. But you also can't make a person play with you - if they really don't want to, they'll find a way, and sometimes you're better off cutting your losses and agreeing to the abandon (and then red thumbing the person anyway).

The other point is, how do you expect BGA to arbitrate this? Should they review every situation where a person says they quit due to behaviour of another player? What about where people say it was a connection issue that wasn't their fault? What about people who say they had a genuine IRL emergency? How does BGA verify that last one? Or are you arguing that all people who quit/time out shouldn't be punished at the level they are now, because sometimes it's not really their fault? Do you think the majority of quit/time outs are from people who were being forced into it by the behaviour of another player (or connection issues, or IRL emergencies)? As I've said before, if you don't think that (and I don't, and I suspect many other players here don't), then what is the argument for reducing the penalty? And if you do think it's mostly people who couldn't entirely help their quit/time out, then we may have to agree to disagree.

nik592 wrote: ↑30 June 2025, 03:45

The other point is, how do you expect BGA to arbitrate this? Should they review every situation where a person says they quit due to behaviour of another player? What about where people say it was a connection issue that wasn't their fault? What about people who say they had a genuine IRL emergency? How does BGA verify that last one? Or are you arguing that all people who quit/time out shouldn't be punished at the level they are now, because sometimes it's not really their fault? Do you think the majority of quit/time outs are from people who were being forced into it by the behaviour of another player (or connection issues, or IRL emergencies)? As I've said before, if you don't think that (and I don't, and I suspect many other players here don't), then what is the argument for reducing the penalty? And if you do think it's mostly people who couldn't entirely help their quit/time out, then we may have to agree to disagree.

Yes, this.

Well said.

What it comes down to is:


1) The system is imperfect.
2) Perfect systems are nearly impossible.
3) Most suggested improvements rely on, to some extent, volunteer admins to sort through games on a case-by-case basis and make judgment calls, possibly on games for which they are not experts or might not even know the rules. And that's just not feasible.

For example, the "percentage of the game completed" is often arbitrary and not based on any actual reality.

In "Connect6" it sets the percentage based on the fact that 361 stones can be places, so, after 10 stones, it will be 3.6% "complete", even though some games of connect6 end in 6 or 7 turns.

Some games might have the algorithm declare it to be "25% complete" when one player has an imminent game-winning move.

Etc.

why? there is so much fun quitting games, and I speak up for 0 reputation community who can't say anything in the game.
(I personally quit 50-60% of all games)

warrior of hell wrote: ↑01 July 2025, 06:41 why? there is so much fun quitting games, and I speak up for 0 reputation community who can't say anything in the game.
(I personally quit 50-60% of all games)

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Then why is it not programmed like this: if someone quits, the others get Elo equal to the position they have at this moment?

I have to quit a lot of games due to the 24/7 point of my work to be available for the customers. So if I am in a game and a customer calls, I have to leave.

I don't understand why everyone has to accept ending the game. Just take the status of the moment and give them the point related to the time played.

This karma system is good, but not for people who can't say how much time they have until the next time they have to leave.

For example, I play 80 games to get back to 100 karma. One call, and I dropped back to 80.

I got back to 89… one call, back to 69. And so on.

I have to play short games to get my karma up because I have no possibility to play with free leave.

Make an option of a free game with free leave. Or 5 free lives per day...

Others have children and have to do things and get time-outed.

Here it is only friendly for singles without a job...

Tournaments at 2 in the morning are a good example of this...