Quitting in the last move to change outcome of game

[nicch]

In the OP case it looks like the out of time player quit rather than been kicked out.

Players should be aware of time commitments before joining, but often aren't. There can be reasons sometimes, but often it's a slow player not having the time to commit to playing at the tempo needed. Thing is you do often see players in multiple round tournaments be out of time in successive rounds even quitting/being kicked out of more than one. So no real consequence!

The problem with the current system is the gamification of the process.

If one player is out of time, a player who believes they are winning will want to continue and wait - maybe they'll contact the out of time player or the tournament organiser, but they will usually want to carry on. Another player may assess where they will finish and if it looks like they will be last may well be tempted to kick the out of time player. Perfectly allowable, even if unsporting, unless say the organiser specifically says it's not allowed.

[Jegpeg]

I agree basing place on age of account is not fair. An alternative to current score would be to randomly alocate places. This would prevent players kicking out out an out of time player because they know it would guarantee a win for them

I thought it was random. What makes you think age of account is used?

It was my understaning of what Shivaware said.

[Shivaware]

I agree basing place on age of account is not fair. An alternative to current score would be to randomly alocate places. This would prevent players kicking out out an out of time player because they know it would guarantee a win for them

I thought it was random. What makes you think age of account is used?

It was my understaning of what Shivaware said.

It's only my understanding from checking a bunch of tournament games where someone left early. I don't think anyone from BGA has ever actually confirmed how it works. If you have a counter-example where the newest account was not eliminated, please add it here.

[frogstar_A]

I thought it was random. What makes you think age of account is used?

It was my understaning of what Shivaware said.

It's only my understanding from checking a bunch of tournament games where someone left early. I don't think anyone from BGA has ever actually confirmed how it works. If you have a counter-example where the newest account was not eliminated, please add it here.

I have certainly known an example of a tied game where I progressed even though my opponent had the older account. Here #297362621

However there the tie was because we bo5h had the same score not because of a time out

I wondered whether it was random or my higher ELO was the reason

[Shivaware]

It was my understaning of what Shivaware said.

It's only my understanding from checking a bunch of tournament games where someone left early. I don't think anyone from BGA has ever actually confirmed how it works. If you have a counter-example where the newest account was not eliminated, please add it here.

I have certainly known an example of a tied game where I progressed even though my opponent had the older account. Here #297362621

However there the tie was because we bo5h had the same score not because of a time out

I wondered whether it was random or my higher ELO was the reason

Thank you for posting this example.

I notice there is another game from the same tournament that also ended in a tie. It looks like the player with the higher Elo advanced there as well.

It's kind of strange, since ties usually punish the player with the higher Elo, so one might expect the lower Elo player to advance.

On the other hand, in games where someone times out, it might make more sense to advance the remaining players with the highest Elo. That seems better than going by account age.

[pastor8226]

If you check their account you can see they do this in a lot of tourneys

[blamoy]

I'm currently playing a Puerto Rico tournament, the game in question is "100% complete". The last player has to take one more turn to end the game and they've gone AWOL.

https://boardgamearena.com/9/puertorico?table=364232544

I've (politely) messaged the player and asked them to take their turn with no response, yet I can see they are actively playing other games on BGA.

It's very frustrating, not because I'm winning, but because we've spent the last month playing this game!

In my opinion:
1) This type of play falls under "griefing" and will lead to people leaving the community, therefore it needs to be bannable.
2) Tournament administrators need the ability to take proxy turns for players in final round or two.
3) Otherwise, if games go the full duration without resolution it seems like it would be pretty easy to use AI to determine win probability of players from the current game position.

[Gulchen]

I'm not part of it, since I only play 2-player games here, but I'm again pointing
people to ​ https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=121542 .

[T72on1]

It's only my understanding from checking a bunch of tournament games where someone left early. I don't think anyone from BGA has ever actually confirmed how it works. If you have a counter-example where the newest account was not eliminated, please add it here.

I have certainly known an example of a tied game where I progressed even though my opponent had the older account. Here #297362621

However there the tie was because we bo5h had the same score not because of a time out

I wondered whether it was random or my higher ELO was the reason

Thank you for posting this example.

I notice there is another game from the same tournament that also ended in a tie. It looks like the player with the higher Elo advanced there as well.

It's kind of strange, since ties usually punish the player with the higher Elo, so one might expect the lower Elo player to advance.

On the other hand, in games where someone times out, it might make more sense to advance the remaining players with the highest Elo. That seems better than going by account age.

The creator of a tournament can set which factors to use in case of a tie. Could bepoints gained by opponents, average ELO of opponents, ... IIRC one of the factors, in case all those other factors are identical, is how long one has been a member of BGA, with the oldest one winning in that case. Might sound very random and unfair, and it probably is, but at some point of course there has to be a decisive factor or it can become a blocking issue and the tournament can't continue.

I haven't seen it happen much though.

[mrdoctor]

The creator of a tournament can set which factors to use in case of a tie. Could bepoints gained by opponents, average ELO of opponents, ... IIRC one of the factors, in case all those other factors are identical, is how long one has been a member of BGA, with the oldest one winning in that case. Might sound very random and unfair, and it probably is, but at some point of course there has to be a decisive factor or it can become a blocking issue and the tournament can't continue.

I haven't seen it happen much though.

No they can't.