Lost ELO and Arena ranking in a [timed-out] game that I would have won

[Cile]

I realize I must be missing some detail, but if I were to naively program such a check it would be, using pseudo-code:


gainedElo = someCalculation();

if (isSingleWinner && wasResultCancelled) {
gainedElo = max(0, gainedElo);
}


That would mean the single winner of the game earns 0 elo if gainedElo calculates to negative in a cancelled game situation.

It's a good idea, but there's no reason to limit it to the winning player. If a player times out or quits none of the remaining players should be able to lose ELO from that. ELO calculations should only occur between each player that remained individually with the player that left / was expelled. That should not exchange ELO with each other for the "tie".

[GTSchemer]

That may be reasonable, but I was trying to think of the minimum we might be able to convince BGA to do. If even the winner doesn't lose elo then it would still be better I would think...but maybe I'm missing something.

[Cile]

From a programing standpoint the simplest thing to be done is if the game ends due to quit or expulsion, ELO change for the remaining players must be 0 or higher. Singling out the winning player is more effort.

[h_illes]

The ELO calculation for multiplayer games is currently carried out for each pair of players in the game, then added up for each player. So if player D quits, player A has a tie with player B, a tie with player C and a win over player D, which altogether might end up negative due to the ties.

As far as I can tell, the following fix should be pretty good: if a player quits and the game ends, only do the pairwise calculation between the quitter and the other players, but do not do the calculation among the remaining players. That way, everyone would gain some ELO from player D, but between players A, B and C, there would be no exchange of ELO.

[ChiefPointThief]

When this thread was created this thread https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35359
was at the top of the message board. Same topic. There should be a way to merge them.

[detlefchef11]

From a programing standpoint the simplest thing to be done is if the game ends due to quit or expulsion, ELO change for the remaining players must be 0 or higher. Singling out the winning player is more effort.

This seems like the most reasonable solution. I'm very much on the record as saying that the ELO on this site is needlessly complicated and not actually useful at doing what it's supposed to. But, trying to actually measure who was going to win would just be another horrible complication in an already massively flawed system.

It will still * to be on the verge of winning a game and then getting zero ELO because someone got booted and you had to share first with 1 or more players ranked far lower than you. However, at least you wouldn't LOSE points, which just adds insult to injury.

*Moderator edit: please refrain from swearing on BGA, this is a family-friendly platform.

[Phoxtrot]

Somewhat relevant to this discussion, I have created a discussion and suggestion about allowing the framework to give more flexibility to games to implement their own game specific behavior as to what happens when someone quits / is booted.

See the discussion here:
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36255

And the suggestion report here:
https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=121841

[jamesgore]

My solution: only those who time-out have their ELO affected as if they lost and everyone else would have nothing happen to their rating as if the game had been aborted from the start. For tournament games, a computer player, with the same skill level based on the ELO rating of the timed-out player so that the game could end properly.

* * *

It's been frustrating lately as I find that over the last two weeks, I've had more people time-out than usual.

I used to have a hair-trigger when it came to ending the game because I'm of the mindset that the clock, like in chess or physical sports, is a constraint that you have to work with and you need to play within your time allotted.

However, after someone wrote in chat during a game that they needed more time which I had not seen, I reflected on it and I've become a little more tolerant. I give them a heads-up once their time has expired. If they respond and good about it, then I'm easy going about it. However, if I get no response or attitude about it, then I will end the game.

Which is fine for two-player games. However, I'm currently playing Heat with others and two people have timed-out. I asked them to keep their eye on the clock and I got push back because of time zones or other commitments. Which I could understand, but I and most others have the same issues too and are (mostly) are able to play the game without timing-out.

I would have ended the game, but it's a game with five players (in a tournament). If I end the game, then I could either be screwing someone over because they might be winning and end up not being the one who makes it to the next round (which has happened to me several times even when I'm not the one ending the game because of someone timing out) or it could affect the rating of others who are more casual about it.

Also, I'm currently in a Ticket to Ride tournament where it's a Swiss system of play. I've been grouped three times with the same player who enters the match but either doesn't play or takes days to take one turn.

It's a problem that could be solved by turning the role of the player who timed-out over to the computer for tournament games and not modifying the ELO rating to all players except for the one(s) who timed out as if they had lost.

[nik592]

Timezones are a huge problem in tournaments, depending on how the players fall. If you happen to be placed in a game where the opponent before you has the opposite timezone (where they typically take moves just after you've gone to bed), you can easily blow through your entire time within 4 turns (or less) even if you're coming on multiple times per day in your waking hours. I should also note (in case you're not aware) that tournaments use fixed time, not time per turn. So you never gain any time back once the tournament has started, which is why it's much easier to run your time down.

I will strongly argue that expulsion should not be a thing in tournaments (there's several suggestions on this point), especially since expulsion results in players being ranked by the age of their BGA account, which is completely arbitrary (time remaining, which is used when a game reaches maximum time is at least a little less arbitrary).

As to shifting to an AI player, this requires suitable levels of AI player for EVERY game. Designing a satisfying AI can be a tricky thing - you don't want an AI that plays the perfect move every time because humans aren't like that. But if your AI is too simplistic and only considers a couple of factors in determining the best move, then they can become too easy, or even non-sensical in their play. Switching to an AI player is unlikely to become an option across the board because of this (especially when you consider there's over 900 games available here).

In non-tournament games, booting is a bit more of an individual preference. Many players consider the clock as part of the game, and will kick based on time. Personally, I'd rather actually play the game, so as long as the other person is playing regularly, I'll usually let the game continue. I find it frustrating to have games ending halfway through on any sort of regular basis. However, I will always red thumb someone who is habitually late with their play - I have no interest in playing that person again.