Skipping player turns and coding - curious question

[RazorOz]

We don't have to choose between two bad options. We shouldn't be encouraging or normalizing leaving games and expelling players because "the game will still go on". We should instead do our best to avoid those things as best as we can.

Do you realize the consequences of such a system? It would likely be chaos where people feel free to leave and expel anytime because after all, it's no big deal. Your confidence when starting a game that it will end properly and with all players remaining would be much lower than what it is now.

But that's not meant to be a functional implementation, it just exists so that people can get the feeling that they are wrapping up their board after a player has left.

The results are neutralised precisely because it's understood that this "aftergame" doesn't have a real competitive value.

Given I have probably played more games than anyone under this system, I'm pretty sure I understand the system yes. None of what you say is what happens, you're talking like we don't have over a year of evidence how it plays out, if anything the number of quitters has decreased since this system was implemented, it could just be the quitters have deserted Heat, but there's also no incentive anymore to quit a race at the end that you've for sure lost like could potentially exist under the old system, where you could deny someone else getting Arena points for example at the cost of a little ELO and karma, which is virtually irrelevant given how easy it is to rebuild your karma.

Speak to anyone who has actually played under this system, ie. Heat players, I don't know anyone who thinks it's been bad for the game, it's pretty much unanimously agreed it's a much better system that greatly improved the experience of playing Heat here.

[Suoivax]

We don't have to choose between two bad options. We shouldn't be encouraging or normalizing leaving games and expelling players because "the game will still go on". We should instead do our best to avoid those things as best as we can.

Do you realize the consequences of such a system? It would likely be chaos where people feel free to leave and expel anytime because after all, it's no big deal. Your confidence when starting a game that it will end properly and with all players remaining would be much lower than what it is now.

But that's not meant to be a functional implementation, it just exists so that people can get the feeling that they are wrapping up their board after a player has left.

The results are neutralised precisely because it's understood that this "aftergame" doesn't have a real competitive value.

Given I have probably played more games than anyone under this system, I'm pretty sure I understand the system yes. None of what you say is what happens, you're talking like we don't have over a year of evidence how it plays out, if anything the number of quitters has decreased since this system was implemented, it could just be the quitters have deserted Heat, but there's also no incentive anymore to quit a race at the end that you've for sure lost like could potentially exist under the old system, where you could deny someone else getting Arena points for example at the cost of a little ELO and karma, which is virtually irrelevant given how easy it is to rebuild your karma.

Speak to anyone who has actually played under this system, ie. Heat players, I don't know anyone who thinks it's been bad for the game, it's pretty much unanimously agreed it's a much better system that greatly improved the experience of playing Heat here.

Heat has GREATLY improved since that implementation.

[ufm]

I am kind of surprised more games don't have this, because this topic constantly comes up for many games, and there always seems a lot of posts acting like nothing can be done, yet like I say the issue was solved for Heat over a year ago. It's also a way, way better implementation for tournament play.

Heat is a special case because BGA introduced an experimental system for Heat only.
They promised it would be applied to other suitable games (e.g. Roll & Write games) if it is successful, but haven't heard anything since then.

It was implemented for Formula D about 3 weeks ago.

Looks like there are some resident bugs in the system, but I'll ask them again then. Thanks for the info

[tbhp]

I am kind of surprised more games don't have this, because this topic constantly comes up for many games, and there always seems a lot of posts acting like nothing can be done, yet like I say the issue was solved for Heat over a year ago. It's also a way, way better implementation for tournament play.

Heat is a special case because BGA introduced an experimental system for Heat only.
They promised it would be applied to other suitable games (e.g. Roll & Write games) if it is successful, but haven't heard anything since then.

It was implemented for Formula D about 3 weeks ago.

Is it a coincidence that both are car games?

Maybe it works for car games because in a real race, it's already typical for cars to have issues and drop out of the race as a result. So it doesn't shock players when this happens in those board games.

[Suoivax]

Heat is a special case because BGA introduced an experimental system for Heat only.
They promised it would be applied to other suitable games (e.g. Roll & Write games) if it is successful, but haven't heard anything since then.

It was implemented for Formula D about 3 weeks ago.

Is it a coincidence that both are car games?

Maybe it works for car games because in a real race, it's already typical for cars to have issues and drop out of the race as a result. So it doesn't shock players when this happens in those board games.

Or in an economics based euro, would the same not be true, since companies often go bankrupt and drop out of the competition?

[FrankJones]

All kidding aside ,

I believe it comes down to the game mechanics.

Without a specific rule by a game designer, there is usually no way to proceed with an absent player in a game in which taking some sort of action is mandatory. In a multiplayer game in which an action is mandatory, players will make their decisions accordingly. If suddenly one player is gone and not taking any actions, that will cause what had been good decisions into bad decisions.

Even in games in which it is valid to "pass" (take no action), the outcome could be affected in an undesirable manner.

[ufm]

Is it a coincidence that both are car games?

Maybe it works for car games because in a real race, it's already typical for cars to have issues and drop out of the race as a result. So it doesn't shock players when this happens in those board games.

I requested Yahtzee, Farkle, Shut the Box, Poker Dice as the current developer to adopt this system as well, and now the ticket has been processed.

The requirement was:

games with no interaction between players, and where zombie mode is supported so game can continue

I assume this means 'players left the game do not affect other players in any sort of way and still the game can continue'

[NPC6]

Recently a 4p-Terraforming Mars game ended when a player run out of time once, and another player - after playing a few more turns - conveniently decided to skip his turns and wreck the game when he was behind in current VP.

A very obvious solution to this tricky behaviour would be, to allow the skip-player option only the first time the situation occurs. If the player(s) decide to continue the game, then this option is lost until the player in question "increases" (whatever that could mean technically) the time-debt.

I have not the slightest knowledge of coding games, so would that solution be feasible? Would it be needed to be implemented for every game separetely? Did I miss any strong counterarguments process-wise? And if not, what were the reasons of BGA against such a solution?

No2): Can the great red "would you like to skip another players turn"-message please strongly decreased in size, to avoid unintenionally clicking?