Board Game Arena

tarongot wrote: ↑02 July 2026, 12:43 A simple way to all players agree that current score order (who is first who second etc..) will be same at end of game, and agree to end it at this point, with additional option for player wanting to concede (set him/herself as last). A similar way that players agree to abandon or turn to play by mail mode.

But of course that would need all players to agree, and if there is no agreement, your obligation is still to play, even that you feel its pointless and waste of your time. That's just good sportsmanship.

I've thought of something like that before, where players vote on a ranking order and, if a unanimous agreement is reached, then that will be the game result.

Now, that may be easier said than done, because if some players in the game are willing to kick out, they may not be interested in reaching a fair outcome either. And if a game is running low on time, people may prefer to wait and see if maybe they can win rather than vote on an order that is disadvantageous for them.

Maybe it could be something like a virtual vote. Like, the vote only takes effect if the game runs out of time. Before that, it is allowed to keep playing normally. I've certainly had a few multiplayer games where someone went out of time and the game was threatening to run out of time and the other players seemed to be a good sport about it, so in those cases the feature could work.

tbhp wrote: ↑02 July 2026, 14:07

tarongot wrote: ↑02 July 2026, 12:43 A simple way to all players agree that current score order (who is first who second etc..) will be same at end of game, and agree to end it at this point, with additional option for player wanting to concede (set him/herself as last). A similar way that players agree to abandon or turn to play by mail mode.

But of course that would need all players to agree, and if there is no agreement, your obligation is still to play, even that you feel its pointless and waste of your time. That's just good sportsmanship.

I've thought of something like that before, where players vote on a ranking order and, if a unanimous agreement is reached, then that will be the game result.

Now, that may be easier said than done, because if some players in the game are willing to kick out, they may not be interested in reaching a fair outcome either. And if a game is running low on time, people may prefer to wait and see if maybe they can win rather than vote on an order that is disadvantageous for them.

Maybe it could be something like a virtual vote. Like, the vote only takes effect if the game runs out of time. Before that, it is allowed to keep playing normally. I've certainly had a few multiplayer games where someone went out of time and the game was threatening to run out of time and the other players seemed to be a good sport about it, so in those cases the feature could work.

It will never be for all. But option itself its easy do make, don't harm anyone, and have potential to lower frustration when you have to play a match that is resolved for few more week, just because. Its would just be a improvement players can use. Nothing more.

I get that by digging through my game history, anyone can form their own opinion about me and feed their ego with personal attacks.

But I do understand your point of view. And for many of you, starting a game is a formal commitment to play to the very end, and any premature ending ruins your playing experience. However, it seems you are unwilling to see my pragmatic observations on the system design.
For me, online gaming is a hobby that must adapt to real life. If I have 10/15 minutes of free time, I open a quick game. If the match drags on past that limit because of an opponent's slow pace or an unexpected emergency, real life must take absolute priority. And if I am forced to leave, actively clicking 'Quit' is the most polite gesture possible. I am conceding defeat, giving the opponent their ELO points, and most importantly, saving them from wasting precious minutes waiting for my timer to run out.
I simply have to leave the game, it is not a choice driven by boredom or poor sportsmanship.
Punishing this polite exit with the exact same Karma penalty as someone who simply closes their browser and walks away, leaving the opponent waiting for a countdown in an empty room, is a logical contradiction and and a system design with room for improvement. That is the core issue I am pointing out, and it has nothing to do with being a poor sport.

Perhaps, but there is no way to distinguish between a rage quit and a "polite" or emergency quit, or between someone who just disappears and a network issue or a real-life incident. Some of those would deserve a harsher penalty, some should be less punished. But since all look the same from the outside, the current status is that all get the same "middle-ground" penalty.

LorenZo-M wrote: ↑05 July 2026, 12:43 I open a quick game. If the match drags on past that limit because of an opponent's slow pace or an unexpected emergency, real life must take absolute priority. And if I am forced to leave, actively clicking 'Quit' is the most polite gesture possible. I am conceding defeat, giving the opponent their ELO points, and most importantly, saving them from wasting precious minutes waiting for my timer to run out.
I simply have to leave the game, it is not a choice driven by boredom or poor sportsmanship.
Punishing this polite exit with the exact same Karma penalty as someone who simply closes their browser and walks away, leaving the opponent waiting for a countdown in an empty room, is a logical contradiction and and a system design with room for improvement. That is the core issue I am pointing out, and it has nothing to do with being a poor sport.

Do you have a suggestion for how the BGA interface is supposed to determine which of these two things has happened?

LorenZo-M wrote: ↑05 July 2026, 12:43 I get that by digging through my game history, anyone can form their own opinion about me and feed their ego with personal attacks.

The martyrdom here is a bit much, don’t you think?

LorenZo-M wrote: ↑05 July 2026, 12:43 if I am forced to leave, actively clicking 'Quit' is the most polite gesture possible. I am conceding defeat, giving the opponent their ELO points, and most importantly, saving them from wasting precious minutes waiting for my timer to run out.

For an alternate perspective, consider this thread. The summary of the summary is that the poster is complaining that, because somebody quit his game at the 96% mark, he only got 3 ELO when he would have gotten a lot more had the game actually finished. Reason being, in that scenario he was deemed to have tied with all the other players instead of actually winning.

LorenZo-M wrote: ↑05 July 2026, 12:43 I simply have to leave the game, it is not a choice driven by boredom or poor sportsmanship.
Punishing this polite exit with the exact same Karma penalty as someone who simply closes their browser and walks away, leaving the opponent waiting for a countdown in an empty room, is a logical contradiction and and a system design with room for improvement. That is the core issue I am pointing out, and it has nothing to do with being a poor sport.

Referring back to the thread I linked above… if you—fine, if a player leaves a 3+ player game, how can the system know who wins? It can’t. There are too many games with end-of-game tallying, too many games where a player’s strategy may rely on late-game developments, or just plain luck. It can say that player lost but it cannot say who won.

Given that, a mid-game quit isn’t fair to the other players, and it doesn’t matter why the quitter does it. They are punished with the reputation hit etc for this reason, and also to deter future quits, but it boils down to this reason.

And it is very easy to avoid putting yourself in this situation. For example, I have never quit a game, I have never been expelled, and can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve even gotten a negative clock. (And yes, I have a life, a family, etc and like you often don’t have huge stretches of time for this site.) It’s quite possible to do, and the system is trying to encourage you to do just that.

LorenZo-M wrote: ↑05 July 2026, 12:43 For me, online gaming is a hobby that must adapt to real life. If I have 10/15 minutes of free time, I open a quick game. If the match drags on past that limit because of an opponent's slow pace or an unexpected emergency, real life must take absolute priority. And if I am forced to leave, actively clicking 'Quit' is the most polite gesture possible. I am conceding defeat, giving the opponent their ELO points, and most importantly, saving them from wasting precious minutes waiting for my timer to run out.

Like you acknowledged in your post, quitting might be seen as ruining the game for some people, so you don't actually know if you would be wasting their time or if they would be grateful that you didn't quit the game.

The system on this site already takes care of your concern, I would say. If it is a real time game, it will only be a few minutes before the ball is in their camp and they can choose to either kick you out or leave the game running if they prefer to keep playing when you come back. If it is a turn based game, then you leaving is inconsequential since players are already supposed to wait long stretches of time in that mode.

So there is no reason to take the decision in their place by quitting the game yourself. The only reason someone might want to quit is because it can avoid them getting a penalty later. But if you have an emergency and need to leave a game, then it's normal that you would be the one in position to potentially receive a penalty. Even though it's not technically your fault in this case, the issue is still happening on your end, not theirs, so you should just accept the penalty if it comes. That's better than the alternative of potentially ruining the game for a player who didn't do anything wrong.

Sorry, bud.

Any complaining dealing with karma is not going to be met with support here. No one is going to be on your side.

FrankJones wrote: ↑05 July 2026, 15:03
Do you have a suggestion for how the BGA interface is supposed to determine which of these two things has happened?

BGA has an option to "Propose to abandon the game collectively", but I've been ignored or rejected every single time I've tried. So, in my experience, that tool is basically useless.
Anyway, the system should reward good manners. If you have to leave for whatever reason and you actively click "Quit", the game should just end on the spot.The opponent immediately receives 100% of the ELO points for the win, and the player who quits loses 100% of the ELO (regardless of the game's completion percentage). Since this is a clean exit that doesn't waste anyone's time, the Karma penalty should be tiny (say, I don't know... only -5%).
But if a player just ghosts and lets the clock run down, forcing everyone to sit there and wait, then the current incremental Karma penalty is perfectly fine.
Still, real life happens (an unexpected event, a blackout, a dead battery). The system needs to be flexible. What if each player got one "Emergency Pass" for every 100 games they fully complete? Using this pass for an unavoidable emergency would still mean losing the ELO (because the opponent absolutely deserves the win), but your Karma remains unchanged.

For multiplayer games, the ideal solution would be for a player who clicks "Quit" to be instantly replaced by an bot, allowing the remaining players to finish the game normally.

Archisian wrote: ↑06 July 2026, 00:09 Sorry, bud.

Any complaining dealing with karma is not going to be met with support here. No one is going to be on your side.

I get that, but as I've been trying to explain, this isn't about my personal situation. I am just trying to bring up a constructive idea that could actually improve the platform for everyone.