Why would anyone finish their games?

[smattathias]

Ok, maybe someone from BGA can explain this to me... I'm currently in a Hive game with a player who has exceeded their time limit. (Please note that I'm two moves from winning.) I look at my options and discover that if I skip their turn and eventually win that my win will only earn 83% of the ELO that would be allotted me for a "pure" victory.

Here's my question: why would anyone finish their games? If we're just looking at ELO, BGA appears to be actually incentivizing game abandonment. Again, keep in mind that I'm looking at this situation through the lens of a clenched victory. It's not at all evident why this approach was adopted. A win is a win, with turn skipped moves or not. If BGA wanted to sway action, they should actually increase the ELO gained/lost from such a game.

As it stands now, this is actually a reward for bad behavior, namely a 17% reduction for losing/not moving.

[Jellby]

Why? Because not finishing (and being expelled by the opponent(s)) means a karma penalty, and low karma means it will be more difficult to find games.

[smattathias]

Why? Because not finishing (and being expelled by the opponent(s)) means a karma penalty, and low karma means it will be more difficult to find games.

Sure, sure. But if we're just talking ELO points, what sense does it make?

Losing Karma points and a normal loss of ELO is what makes sense to me.

[Trepiastok]

Полностью согласен. Просрочка времени должна означать проигрыш как в реальных шахматах.

[Shivaware]

Ok, maybe someone from BGA can explain this to me... I'm currently in a Hive game with a player who has exceeded their time limit. (Please note that I'm two moves from winning.) I look at my options and discover that if I skip their turn and eventually win that my win will only earn 83% of the ELO that would be allotted me for a "pure" victory.

Here's my question: why would anyone finish their games? If we're just looking at ELO, BGA appears to be actually incentivizing game abandonment. Again, keep in mind that I'm looking at this situation through the lens of a clenched victory. It's not at all evident why this approach was adopted. A win is a win, with turn skipped moves or not. If BGA wanted to sway action, they should actually increase the ELO gained/lost from such a game.

As it stands now, this is actually a reward for bad behavior, namely a 17% reduction for losing/not moving.

The skipped player loses the full amount of Elo plus an extra penalty. See https://boardgamearena.com/faq?anchor=f ... notplaying

The remaining players receive a reduced boost to their Elo depending on the game progression.

[smattathias]

I see. So, if I had chosen to skip, I would have been awarded 83% because we had played 83% of the game to completion. There are a lot of games where that might make sense. Depending on the game, I could come around on this percentage rule. But in a game where a win/loss is imminent and can be proven, this rule is broken.

I happened to be playing someone whose ELO was greater than my own but by only 50 points or so. Unfair but no big deal. However, if this scenario had played out with someone whose ELO was significantly higher, this rule would really be unjust.

[Jellby]

What is "broken" is the 83% progress when the game is about to end, it should maybe be 90% or 95%. Unfortunately, assessing the progress is not trivial, and downright impossible (imagine chess, where you can maybe have a checkmate in 3 moves... but what if you don't see it and make a different move?). Some games are even more badly broken and stay at 1%, or 50% the whole time.

There are many reasons why a player may run out of time and be expelled, some of them don't seem quite punishable, like network problems. I do however think it would make sense, in 2-player games only, to award full ELO to the winning player whenever the game completion is above 50%. That is, consider an expulsion as a resignation.

[compte obelète]

I do however think it would make sense, in 2-player games only, to award full ELO to the winning player whenever the game completion is above 50%. That is, consider an expulsion as a resignation.

Hum, I don't like what you proposed, 1st it gonna persuade people to kick, 2nd of all, if the other player was having trouble whit connection and it's wasn't like a ending of his internet service or something, but rather a shortage of electricity on his city/sector, he might get mad and everything. And lastly, it will totally broke up the system, even more than now, since people get easier wins whit that, even if normally, they where losing and was obvious.

[Trepiastok]

I do however think it would make sense, in 2-player games only, to award full ELO to the winning player whenever the game completion is above 50%. That is, consider an expulsion as a resignation.

Hum, I don't like what you proposed, 1st it gonna persuade people to kick, 2nd of all, if the other player was having trouble whit connection and it's wasn't like a ending of his internet service or something, but rather a shortage of electricity on his city/sector, he might get mad and everything. And lastly, it will totally broke up the system, even more than now, since people get easier wins whit that, even if normally, they where losing and was obvious.

В шахматах тоже бывают проблемы с сетью, но систему это не разрушает.

[smattathias]

What is "broken" is the 83% progress when the game is about to end, it should maybe be 90% or 95%. Unfortunately, assessing the progress is not trivial, and downright impossible (imagine chess, where you can maybe have a checkmate in 3 moves... but what if you don't see it and make a different move?). Some games are even more badly broken and stay at 1%, or 50% the whole time.

There are many reasons why a player may run out of time and be expelled, some of them don't seem quite punishable, like network problems. I do however think it would make sense, in 2-player games only, to award full ELO to the winning player whenever the game completion is above 50%. That is, consider an expulsion as a resignation.

So many good points here... First, you're right. Percentage completion is, at times, completely arbitrary. A human player would assign most obvious losing positions as being 100% completed because the ending is just a matter of playing out the final few moves. That's one reason why people resign games. Some games have a built-in timer mechanism, so it's easy to measure game progression. But other games like Hive and Chess have variable game lengths, making a percentage completion much more complicated.

I think players who do not play in good faith are going to do whatever they want to do. They are not considering the finer points of who gets what percentage of ELO points. They are going to abuse the system no matter what the system is. That is why I propose, especially in 2-player games, that game abandonment end in the gain of 100% of the available ELO points for the player who stays, whether it occurs on move 2 or move 200, as well as the loss of 100% of the available ELO points for the player who leaves. Connectivity errors, as someone brought up, are just part of the system. People make the wrong moves in online play, people drop their connections in online play, people cheat in online play, and yet everything continues. Gaining or losing 100% of ELO points for a game isn't going to make a huge difference in any of our game experiences, and it will be more equitable for all.