Are we ever going to change the system to stop hurting honest players vs quitters?

[ChiefPointThief]

Unfortunately, the quitter did ruin the game, and there aren't really great ways to fix it that I've seen so far. Maybe case by case reviews for players wanting to show the game was pretty much played out and get the ratings dealt based on those demonstratable outcomes, but that looks like more work than would seem practical to go through.

There doesn't need to be a full investigation with detective work. Just give each player a few points. My god! There is already a bunch of elo being taken out of communities. Players getting a few points in these situation won't hurt and it somewhat remedies the situation.

In the 1vs1 "fix" several of the op games they would've been in 1st place had it finished but instead they would only get 0.4 or somewhere around that ( I would post more of their games but bga is hiding elo calculation now) because the quitter was in the low 100s. Even though they were beating the other 3 players as well. So we wouldn't be changing the system to stop hurting honest players vs quitters.

But can the play on option be discuss now? Anyone disagree to that?

Giving a few players free points they didn't earn is not a good thing, especially higher up, where it becomes more and more unfair to everyone else near that ladder. You keep going back to that "would've, could've, should've" stuff you say shouldn't be involved again. In the end, as far as BGA can tell, they didn't.

As for play on, I see an issue with games where there's actual player interaction and the quitting player being done can impact the direction of the game. At most I don't see this working out unless there's some kind of unanimous vote requirement to continue to play and score accordingly.

I don't see them as "free" points. Imo they earned them by winning a 5p game. The game didn't finish like normal therefore no one is receiving anywhere near what they would had it finish and they came in first. The slight higher k can be looked at as a winner's bonus and the quitter's deduction can be looked at as a ultimate loser's penalty.
You keep talking about higher up players. How much higher are we talking? The average players being affected by this are not master level players. Even if the proposed bonus (higher k or whatever we are calling it) wasn't a fixed number but some sort of rate to have a safety net so master level players couldn't get elo they shouldn't that would be fine also. I don't see a problem with the op getting a total of 3 or 4 pts when they wouldve got 6 or 7 in a game had it finished. But them only getting 0.4 - 1.1 with the fix is not good. If the "you will naturally get back to your elo" theory is true which is being used as a reason why high elo players should be stiffed then these few added points shouldn't be a problem correct? They should lose them back on their next loss. The fact that it is harder to gain elo the higher you get is a reason to find a solution to not stiff high elo players not a reason for them to be stiffed.

Care to elaborate more? Which and what % of your games do you see an issue with the play on scenario? From my first 50 games I only counted 5 (10%) that this would be an issue. Mainly because those are games that must be played with a certain # of players like hearts and sparts. If this is about the average for bga's entire catalouge then this is a better solution than what we have now. Also a voting system would not work. It would have to be an option before the game starts. Otherwise 3rd is going to veto the vote.

[Ceaseless]

I don't see them as "free" points. Imo they earned them by winning a 5p game. The game didn't finish like normal therefore no one is receiving anywhere near what they would had it finish and they came in first. The slight higher k can be looked at as a winner's bonus and the quitter's deduction can be looked at as a ultimate loser's penalty.

This has been covered several times. They beat 1 player out of 5 and got their points for it. They didn't beat all 4 of their opponents. If you're just counting both as "winning a 5p game" and expecting the same rating for it, you're going to be disappointed. They didn't beat the other 3 players and so won't be scored points for those.

You keep talking about higher up players. How much higher are we talking? The average players being affected by this are not master level players. Even if the proposed bonus (higher k or whatever we are calling it) wasn't a fixed number but some sort of rate to have a safety net so master level players couldn't get elo they shouldn't that would be fine also.

High enough that they're only getting 0-1 points for beating a player, which is not an issue by itself within certain ratings gaps. The OP of this very thread is a 600s rated player who at this moment is ranked first place their game of reference. You act like 0-1 points for a win is a problem in itself. It's not. Sometimes that's the answer, and the reason is the ratings gap. A lot of your arguments are little more than "I feel like more rating should be given" or "they deserve to win this because higher rating, so just assume that they did". That's why I have an issue with your arguments. I don't have a problem with increasing the points players get for their wins, there are cases I believe this should happen, but the details matter. So for the cases where 0-1 isn't the proper gains, I do have some modifications that I think would help with that. I'll name one in my next paragraph, and there's another one coming up later in my post as well.

For instance "I'm losing points because I'm awarded draws vs players because of the quitter even though they didn't actually score an equal game vs me, but an unknown outcome. Instead of drawing, don't score our outcomes vs each other at all." I agree with this argument. It's one of the arguments the OP has raised. The higher rated player will score more points for their win over the quitter now, but not due to any kind of arbitrary bonus, but the removal of unearned losses for misapplied outcomes. Also, it's based on information available to BGA, which is that the game was unfinished due to someone quitting. This would fix some of the games where players improperly scored 0-1 points where they should have scored more, without causing any problems in games where someone actually did score 0-1 points because that is what the outcome deserved.

I don't see a problem with the op getting a total of 3 or 4 pts when they wouldve got 6 or 7 in a game had it finished. But them only getting 0.4 - 1.1 with the fix is not good.

You say "would have", when you already stated you aren't relying on such assumptions. Stop giving layers outcomes they didn't earn. If they didn't beat the other players, they shouldn't get points as if they had. On the other hand, here's something that would increase ratings vs quitters for players that doesn't rely upon assuming the outcome.

Delete game progression entirely. BGA has some nonsensical system in place saying a game has "progressed" a certain amount because of x thing. Whether it be moves taken or pieces captured, when in reality this is a loose correlation at best and hardly representative of the game's actual progression. For some reason, that is also a label for the gains a player gets for winning, if someone quits at 50% progression they only get 50% of the points, etc. As the game has been ended, players should get 100% of the points for their win. This is a case where BGA actually tries to predict stuff it doesn't know anything about and give rating for it. They won their game vs the quitter, they should get the full points for that win.

If the "you will naturally get back to your elo" theory is true which is being used as a reason why high elo players should be stiffed then these few added points shouldn't be a problem correct? They should lose them back on their next loss. The fact that it is harder to gain elo the higher you get is a reason to find a solution to not stiff high elo players not a reason for them to be stiffed.

I can think of several issues with this paragraph, but I'll start with the most obvious one. I'm not aware of "you will naturally get back to your elo" being raised as a reason to "stiff high rated players" in the first place.

Care to elaborate more? Which and what % of your games do you see an issue with the play on scenario? From my first 50 games I only counted 5 (10%) that this would be an issue. Mainly because those are games that must be played with a certain # of players like hearts and sparts. If this is about the average for bga's entire catalouge then this is a better solution than what we have now. Also a voting system would not work. It would have to be an option before the game starts. Otherwise 3rd is going to veto the vote.

Your percentage ask is an odd one, as it would vary wildly depending on the player. Ask someone who plays 1 v 1, and the number is 0%, as they wouldn't ever have a play on scenario be of value in the first place since it never comes up. Other players could have something closer to 100% if they exclusively play games where this would actively be an issue. Assuming your gameplay would represent BGA's average is questionable enough, but for that matter you've also not stated why you think what we currently have is worse than your 10%. Your statements here are all over the place.

Regardless, I see obvious issues with games that require a lot of player interaction. Bang!, 4 player Ticket to Ride, etc. where players either work together for a common goal or may be actively compete for resources based on location, etc. I know BGA doesn't have Risk but I'd be surprised if BGA didn't have any games like it when it comes to clashes over territory, etc. Lose that player and their allies are artificially blasted or their rivals for the competed resources are artificially boosted compared to what would happen if that player had stayed to play out their impact on the game. Removing the player changes the game.

[Jellby]

There could be an argument for "race" games, where the winner is the first one to reach some goal, and nothing that happens after can change that. In that case, if someone leaves after one or more players have already "won", it would be fair to still consider those players as having beaten the rest. Note I'm not talking about "mathematically impossible" to be beaten, but about "rules-wise impossible", and I don't think Heat fully qualifies here.

Also in elimination (non-team) games, a player that has been eliminated should count as losing against all remaining ones (at least), even if the game is later neutralized because some other player leaves. I don't know how this is handled at the moment.

[ChiefPointThief]

Care to elaborate more? Which and what % of your games do you see an issue with the play on scenario? From my first 50 games I only counted 5 (10%) that this would be an issue. Mainly because those are games that must be played with a certain # of players like hearts and sparts. If this is about the average for bga's entire catalouge then this is a better solution than what we have now. Also a voting system would not work. It would have to be an option before the game starts. Otherwise 3rd is going to veto the vote.

Your percentage ask is an odd one, as it would vary wildly depending on the player. Ask someone who plays 1 v 1, and the number is 0%, as they wouldn't ever have a play on scenario be of value in the first place since it never comes up. Other players could have something closer to 100% if they exclusively play games where this would actively be an issue. Assuming your gameplay would represent BGA's average is questionable enough, but for that matter you've also not stated why you think what we currently have is worse than your 10%. Your statements here are all over the place.

Regardless, I see obvious issues with games that require a lot of player interaction. Bang!, 4 player Ticket to Ride, etc. where players either work together for a common goal or may be actively compete for resources based on location, etc. I know BGA doesn't have Risk but I'd be surprised if BGA didn't have any games like it when it comes to clashes over territory, etc. Lose that player and their allies are artificially blasted or their rivals for the competed resources are artificially boosted compared to what would happen if that player had stayed to play out their impact on the game. Removing the player changes the game.

I disagree with several things you said about the previous topic but no point in continuing that with you. Moving on.....

The % ask isn't odd at all. We are engaging in a topic about a fix for this situation. I presented a fix. If said fix works for the majority of the games on the site then the discussion can be had. Obviously if the game is 1vs1 and someone quits the game is over . That doesn't apply to this situation so not sure why you said ask someone who only plays 1vs1 and it would be 0%. This solution is clearly for 1vsall 3+ players. Now as for the one game you did mention that raises an issue in your opinion (ticket to ride) I see no problem with the game continuing if one person quits. That person comes in last and play continues. Now we don't have to worry about someone being stiffed. Everyone else's place will fall in order.

As to why this is better. Now instead of razor getting 0.4 elo like you are proposing the game can finish and the rightful first place winner can get their appropriate elo (which would be razor in this scenario (getting +7). Which we know for a fact because they actually finished the race in first). If razor was going to come in second or third they still get their rightful elo. No one is stiffed. That sounds better to me.

[Ceaseless]

I disagree with several things you said about the previous topic but no point in continuing that with you. Moving on.....

I see you realized you overlooked too many things there, lol. You got told these things multiple times, got to pay attention or your comments just won't make any sense. The question was asked, solutions that would actually work are proposed, and you ignore them.

Care to elaborate more? Which and what % of your games do you see an issue with the play on scenario? From my first 50 games I only counted 5 (10%) that this would be an issue. Mainly because those are games that must be played with a certain # of players like hearts and sparts. If this is about the average for bga's entire catalouge then this is a better solution than what we have now. Also a voting system would not work. It would have to be an option before the game starts. Otherwise 3rd is going to veto the vote.

Your percentage ask is an odd one, as it would vary wildly depending on the player. Ask someone who plays 1 v 1, and the number is 0%, as they wouldn't ever have a play on scenario be of value in the first place since it never comes up. Other players could have something closer to 100% if they exclusively play games where this would actively be an issue. Assuming your gameplay would represent BGA's average is questionable enough, but for that matter you've also not stated why you think what we currently have is worse than your 10%. Your statements here are all over the place.

Regardless, I see obvious issues with games that require a lot of player interaction. Bang!, 4 player Ticket to Ride, etc. where players either work together for a common goal or may be actively compete for resources based on location, etc. I know BGA doesn't have Risk but I'd be surprised if BGA didn't have any games like it when it comes to clashes over territory, etc. Lose that player and their allies are artificially blasted or their rivals for the competed resources are artificially boosted compared to what would happen if that player had stayed to play out their impact on the game. Removing the player changes the game.

The % ask isn't odd at all. We are engaging in a topic about a fix for this situation. I presented a fix. If said fix works for the majority of the games on the site then the discussion can be had. Obviously if the game is 1vs1 and someone quits the game is over . That doesn't apply to this situation so not sure why you said ask someone who only plays 1vs1 and it would be 0%. This solution is clearly for 1vsall 3+ players. Now as for the one game you did mention that raises an issue in your opinion (ticket to ride) I see no problem with the game continuing if one person quits. That person comes in last and play continues. Now we don't have to worry about someone being stiffed. Everyone else's place will fall in order.

As to why this is better. Now instead of razor getting 0.4 elo like you are proposing the game can finish and the rightful first place winner can get their appropriate elo (which would be razor in this scenario (getting +7). Which we know for a fact because they actually finished the race in first). If razor was going to come in second or third they still get their rightful elo. No one is stiffed. That sounds better to me.

You just asked a primarily 1 v 1 player what percentage of their games would be assisted by a play on feature and wonder why they'd bring up the strangeness of such a question? Pay attention. That kind of question is one open to some very wildly differing possibilities depending on which account you happen to be looking at, case in point being what you just did.

I'd also like to point out you made no comment on 1 vs all, you managed to walk into asking a 1 v 1 player earlier, but the less clear cases of team games with 2+ players a side also is a thing, AKA Bang! (I definitely mentioned more than just Ticket To Ride, lol.)

And yes, it would be bad to force a continue play for Ticket to Ride 4 player, as the players fighting for space close to the quitting player get benefits from their exit, and the players not competing for those slots get harmed by that gain. Not to mention any of the basic game politics when dealing with over 2 player games and someone taking a noticeable lead. Having a player leave the game is going to be a significant change to the way the game plays out, hence why BGA defaults to ending it. No reason to force someone to play with a sudden handicap added on to them like that. You talk about some "rightful first place winner", but having a player exit the game can change quite a bit about how that goes.

Other solutions have already been posted that would suit this far better, but as has been noted already, you keep ignoring those.

[ChiefPointThief]

Your percentage ask is an odd one, as it would vary wildly depending on the player. Ask someone who plays 1 v 1, and the number is 0%, as they wouldn't ever have a play on scenario be of value in the first place since it never comes up. Other players could have something closer to 100% if they exclusively play games where this would actively be an issue. Assuming your gameplay would represent BGA's average is questionable enough, but for that matter you've also not stated why you think what we currently have is worse than your 10%. Your statements here are all over the place.

Regardless, I see obvious issues with games that require a lot of player interaction. Bang!, 4 player Ticket to Ride, etc. where players either work together for a common goal or may be actively compete for resources based on location, etc. I know BGA doesn't have Risk but I'd be surprised if BGA didn't have any games like it when it comes to clashes over territory, etc. Lose that player and their allies are artificially blasted or their rivals for the competed resources are artificially boosted compared to what would happen if that player had stayed to play out their impact on the game. Removing the player changes the game.

The % ask isn't odd at all. We are engaging in a topic about a fix for this situation. I presented a fix. If said fix works for the majority of the games on the site then the discussion can be had. Obviously if the game is 1vs1 and someone quits the game is over . That doesn't apply to this situation so not sure why you said ask someone who only plays 1vs1 and it would be 0%. This solution is clearly for 1vsall 3+ players. Now as for the one game you did mention that raises an issue in your opinion (ticket to ride) I see no problem with the game continuing if one person quits. That person comes in last and play continues. Now we don't have to worry about someone being stiffed. Everyone else's place will fall in order.

As to why this is better. Now instead of razor getting 0.4 elo like you are proposing the game can finish and the rightful first place winner can get their appropriate elo (which would be razor in this scenario (getting +7). Which we know for a fact because they actually finished the race in first). If razor was going to come in second or third they still get their rightful elo. No one is stiffed. That sounds better to me.
[/quote]

You just asked a primarily 1 v 1 player what percentage of their games would be assisted by a play on feature and wonder why they'd bring up the strangeness of such a question?

Wait! What? So the topic at hand really doesn't affect you but yet you are one of leading voices saying how players who are affected should be treated? This is like the people in the elo update thread who don't have any elo to take saying that elo decay is good or a co op player saying consecutive win streak is good. It's always the people who aren't actually affected.

And yes, it would be bad to force a continue play for Ticket to Ride 4 player, as the players fighting for space close to the quitting player get benefits from their exit, and the players not competing for those slots get harmed by that gain. Not to mention any of the basic game politics when dealing with over 2 player games and someone taking a noticeable lead. Having a player leave the game is going to be a significant change to the way the game plays out, hence why BGA defaults to ending it. No reason to force someone to play with a sudden handicap added on to them like that. You talk about some "rightful first place winner", but having a player exit the game can change quite a bit about how that goes.

By the person quitting they simply give up their turns. If they continue to play you cannot force them to play normally. You cannot force them to fight for space. The player could stay in the game and kingmake. Which is better? The cancer removing themselves or them staying and disrupting the game in a negative way?

When you try to report someone for playing randomly, which is the case here, this is what bga says

"We totally understand that this behavor is painful, especially in cooperative games.

However, we cannot force players to play in a given manner, as long as they follow the rules."

So yes! Play can most definitely continue in ticket to ride as well as most other games on the platform.

I'd also like to point out you made no comment on 1 vs all, you managed to walk into asking a 1 v 1 player earlier, but the less clear cases of team games with 2+ players a side also is a thing, AKA Bang! (I definitely mentioned more than just Ticket To Ride, lol.)

I thought it was common sense that a 1v1 game wouldn't apply to this situation and thus wouldn't be apart of the discussion. I didn't know I needed to explain that to you. Team games like spades where there is a fixed number of players (which i mentioned that with hearts, and sparts reference) I assumed it was common sense play cannot continue. As for bang, that is an elimination game. People are killed off one by one. Bang can definitely continue on if someone quits. If that someone is the sheriff then the outlaws just win.

I disagree with several things you said about the previous topic but no point in continuing that with you. Moving on.....

I see you realized you overlooked too many things there, lol. You got told these things multiple times, got to pay attention or your comments just won't make any sense. The question was asked, solutions that would actually work are proposed, and you ignore them.

Uh. No. We both stated our points and the conversation wasn't progressing any further so I moved on.

[Ceaseless]

You have some giant quote section of your old posts and mine, and then nothing, so I just removed that in my quote for space since you didn't type anything in there.

You just asked a primarily 1 v 1 player what percentage of their games would be assisted by a play on feature and wonder why they'd bring up the strangeness of such a question?

Wait! What? So the topic at hand really doesn't affect you but yet you are one of leading voices saying how players who are affected should be treated? This is like the people in the elo update thread who don't have any elo to take saying that elo decay is good or a co op player saying consecutive win streak is good. It's always the people who aren't actually affected.

And yes, it would be bad to force a continue play for Ticket to Ride 4 player, as the players fighting for space close to the quitting player get benefits from their exit, and the players not competing for those slots get harmed by that gain. Not to mention any of the basic game politics when dealing with over 2 player games and someone taking a noticeable lead. Having a player leave the game is going to be a significant change to the way the game plays out, hence why BGA defaults to ending it. No reason to force someone to play with a sudden handicap added on to them like that. You talk about some "rightful first place winner", but having a player exit the game can change quite a bit about how that goes.

By the person quitting they simply give up their turns. If they continue to play you cannot force them to play normally. You cannot force them to fight for space. The player could stay in the game and kingmake. Which is better? The cancer removing themselves or them staying and disrupting the game in a negative way?

When you try to report someone for playing randomly, which is the case here, this is what bga says

"We totally understand that this behavor is painful, especially in cooperative games.

However, we cannot force players to play in a given manner, as long as they follow the rules."

So yes! Play can most definitely continue in ticket to ride as well as most other games on the platform.

I'd also like to point out you made no comment on 1 vs all, you managed to walk into asking a 1 v 1 player earlier, but the less clear cases of team games with 2+ players a side also is a thing, AKA Bang! (I definitely mentioned more than just Ticket To Ride, lol.)

I thought it was common sense that a 1v1 game wouldn't apply to this situation and thus wouldn't be apart of the discussion. I didn't know I needed to explain that to you. Team games like spades where there is a fixed number of players (which i mentioned that with hearts, and sparts reference) I assumed it was common sense play cannot continue. As for bang, that is an elimination game. People are killed off one by one. Bang can definitely continue on if someone quits. If that someone is the sheriff then the outlaws just win.

I disagree with several things you said about the previous topic but no point in continuing that with you. Moving on.....

I see you realized you overlooked too many things there, lol. You got told these things multiple times, got to pay attention or your comments just won't make any sense. The question was asked, solutions that would actually work are proposed, and you ignore them.

Uh. No. We both stated our points and the conversation wasn't progressing any further so I moved on.

If by "leading voices" you mean one of the more frequent posters of this particular thread, sure. Just because I don't directly get nailed with the elo shenanigans doesn't mean I don't care what happens to the elo. Not to mention any future games I might join or the elo of other players in games I play 1 v 1 that have ratings from those who play the same game with more players. That's also not to say I've never played games with more than 2 players in my past, I have a history with Bang!, though it's been a bit. Though trying to continue a rated game of play if a player just quits is a terrible idea for obvious reasons. Deleted team members midgame is definitely going to mess things up.

When a player quits, you can't force them to play normally, nor do you want to deal with kingmaking or any of that other nonsense. That's why BGA has the obvious solution, to just end the game.

As for our previous points, you seemed to just skip entire sections entirely, despite them being repeated to you. A bit behind the curve on this thread despite how often you've posted in it. Doesn't look like you've moved on though, you just keep repeating the same old points covered by the replies you ignored.

[ChiefPointThief]

If by "leading voices" you mean one of the more frequent posters of this particular thread, sure. Just because I don't directly get nailed with the elo shenanigans doesn't mean I don't care what happens to the elo.

So you do agree that the op is getting nailed in this situation (nailed/stiff = same thing) but you think them going from 0 elo to 0.4 is them no longer getting nailed? Ok. You say you are against handouts but you are also against the game being played out and everyone getting a placement based on play. Ok. But you are in favor of getting rid of game progress to determine elo distribution. So a player like razor, who played the entire game and crossed the finish line in 1st, shouldn't get anymore than 0.4 elo when someone quits in your opinion? But, a 100elo player who kicks a strong player at game start who didn't know the game started because they queued for arena deserves to get double digit elo? Ok.

Considering that you are "primarily a 1v1 player' there is no point in continuing a conversation with you about playing on as this situation doesn't relate to you and you have limited experience in an array of games to determine whether or not playing on is a good option for the majority of games here. Have a good day!

[ChiefPointThief]

So consider this when determining if a game should be able to carry on. You are having a game night with 3 friends over. You are midway or further into the game progress and friend #3 gets a call. They must leave. If you are playing ticket to ride do you gather that person's trains cards, put them in the discard, and continue? Or do you call off game night without finishing the game? I'm finishing the game and friend #3 finishes in last. The majority of games here that are every person for themselves that I ever played I would continue to play also IRL in this situation.

Obviously if the game is 1vs1 and someone quits the game is over . That doesn't apply to this situation so not sure why you said ask someone who only plays 1vs1 and it would be 0%. This solution is clearly for 1vsall 3+ players.

Edit: I meant a game in which it is every player for themselves like the topic being discussed. A 1vsall would be something like not alone.

[Ceaseless]

If by "leading voices" you mean one of the more frequent posters of this particular thread, sure. Just because I don't directly get nailed with the elo shenanigans doesn't mean I don't care what happens to the elo.

So you do agree that the op is getting nailed in this situation (nailed/stiff = same thing) but you think them going from 0 elo to 0.4 is them no longer getting nailed? Ok. You say you are against handouts but you are also against the game being played out and everyone getting a placement based on play. Ok. But you are in favor of getting rid of game progress to determine elo distribution. So a player like razor, who played the entire game and crossed the finish line in 1st, shouldn't get anymore than 0.4 elo when someone quits in your opinion? But, a 100elo player who kicks a strong player at game start who didn't know the game started because they queued for arena deserves to get double digit elo? Ok.

Considering that you are "primarily a 1v1 player' there is no point in continuing a conversation with you about playing on as this situation doesn't relate to you and you have limited experience in an array of games to determine whether or not playing on is a good option for the majority of games here. Have a good day!

Nope, all I'm saying is that the situation not having a direct hit on my rating doesn't stop me from having an interest/viable opinion on it, as I already mentioned before. That red herring isn't going to work. Like I've said several times before, Razor should get the full points for beating the player they beat. If that's only .4 points, that's fine. If it's only .4 points because it's getting bogged down by draws that didn't actually happen, that should be corrected and the draws removed from their score.

As for Arena, players can't quit upon seeing their opponent, that's part of the point of Arena in the first place. If they leave the game after it starts, their opponent should get full credit for the win. The issue of a player not realizing the game has started is a separate problem entirely. I believe there have been threads on that with suggestions somewhere, feel free to go there if you want to cover that issue.