Board Game Arena

In this post I am referring specifically to turn based tournaments with multiple players per game. One of the issues that has come out of the new system for multi-player games in tournaments is that it is much easier for a player who is actually making genuine effort to find themselves beyond their allotted time. The option to skip players is often being used in these tournaments to alter the final result (essentially a player in last place can move themselves to joint first by skipping someone who is out of time). This is, of course, completely legal. In a a two-player game it simply isn't a problem, you ran out of time, you lost, that's the rules. In a multi-player setting it affects players other than the person who is skipped - a player in first place can suddenly find themselves sharing points they should in fact have had to themselves, completely beyond their control.

I think the only reasonable solution is for skipping players in these tournaments to be turned off. Now, this doesn't stop people being penalised for poor time keeping, the game will time itself out after a certain point and awards positions based on time - but what it does is stops penalising players karma scores for a timing problem inherent in the tournament and ensures results are always based on a players performance rather than on factors beyond their control.

I'm not sure how practical this is for the developers but having run and participated in a number of tournaments using the new system this is quite a serious problem and I cannot see an alternative for addressing it.

How is a game final standings based on time spent better than skipping running out of time players?

Because, if your suggestion is to remove skipping player option and in case of games ended by time limit to use the standings at the time of the game ending, I'm afraid it would be even more unfair in some situations, as players could just stop playing when they find themselves in 1st position and wait for the time to pass.

Only skipping isn't the Problem here, it's skipping and then quitting or not counting the game regularly.

If the player out of time would literarlly be skipped till they rejoin the game the remaining players could finish the game normally.

Maybe there could be some completely different timeouts in such Tournaments?

In my first multiplayer Tournament game of 6 nimmt there was a point all players had negative time.

traddles27 wrote: ↑14 January 2021, 17:52 How is a game final standings based on time spent better than skipping running out of time players?

Imagine a four player game in which players C and D have both exceeded their time. C is clearly in last place. C can then skip D and they are promoted to joint winner with A and B. If A was in a clear lead and had the most time left they go from gaining points over three opponents in the tournament to gaining points over just one.
It is entirely legitimate for players to score points for better time management, all tournaments with a clock accept implicity that winning on time is just as valid as winning by getting a better score. So final rankings based on time if the game length is exceeded is entirely fair. The issue at present is purely in multiplayer games where the performance of a player can be affected by elements entirely beyond their control.

RobertBr wrote: ↑16 January 2021, 21:14

traddles27 wrote: ↑14 January 2021, 17:52 How is a game final standings based on time spent better than skipping running out of time players?

Imagine a four player game in which players C and D have both exceeded their time. C is clearly in last place. C can then skip D and they are promoted to joint winner with A and B. If A was in a clear lead and had the most time left they go from gaining points over three opponents in the tournament to gaining points over just one.
It is entirely legitimate for players to score points for better time management, all tournaments with a clock accept implicity that winning on time is just as valid as winning by getting a better score. So final rankings based on time if the game length is exceeded is entirely fair. The issue at present is purely in multiplayer games where the performance of a player can be affected by elements entirely beyond their control.

Here's a different scenario:

Player A - 50 points - 3 minutes left
Player B - 40 points - 7 minutes left
Player C - 30 points - 25 minutes over the time allocated
Player D - 0 points - 15 minutes left

So, player D will win the game on time spent, even if they're clearly the weakest player in the game and even if both player A and B haven't spent their allocated time. I really can't see the fairness in this.

I believe that, as long as players are still inside the time they shouldn't be punished because another player spent all the time allocated to the respective game.

My example is very common and has been encountered repeatedly in just a few months of testing of the system, your example is so rare I have never seen it. As such it is irrelevant to a discussion whether its fair (and by analogy with a two-player clock game it is entirely fair the player wins).