Board Game Arena

During a tournament game my opponent exceeds his playing time and doesn't explain to me why. Do I win if I choose the “skip” option?

I mean, you've already answered your own question here. Tournaments are fixed time, meaning that you never gain back time on your turns, you just get all the time you start with in the game. In this case, you were both in similar timezones (as differing timezones can easily cause big issues with timing of turns - if one player's turns fall constantly just after they sleep for the day), so it's not as obvious why your opponent fell behind. That said, the game was 89% complete and your opponent was playing regularly, so if it had been me, I would have let the game play out - personally, I feel a game won on time, especially in a tournament, where times are less flexible, is something of a hollow victory. However, there are plenty of players on BGA who feel the clock is an integral part of the game and winning because your opponent ran out of time is just as valid a victory as any other. You may fall in the latter group, which is perfectly reasonable. It's up to you to decide what your personal opinion on how the clock should be enforced is. You may want to consider what courtesy you hope a player might extend to you if you happened to run out of time - or if you think the other player would have been well within their rights to boot you had the situation been reversed. You mention the other player didn't explain why, which is also a fair enough reason to decide to boot them (though I'm not sure if you asked them why, or are just saying they didn't offer any explanation).

Note that running out of time in a non-tournament game is something of a different prospect due to the fact that you are given extra time at each turn, and you may feel differently about booting players there (or not, again, it's up to you).

I'll also point out that in tournaments, if multiplayer elimination is happening (which was not the case here, as the game was only 2p), the game is considered a tie between players who were not out of time, and tiebreaks in this case are apparently decided based on the age of BGA accounts, which can mean that the player who was previously in the lead, or the player who chooses the boot the player out of time can also end up being eliminated along with the player who ran out of time.

Gérard 37 wrote: ↑02 May 2024, 22:36 During a tournament game my opponent exceeds his playing time and doesn't explain to me why. Do I win if I choose the “skip” option?

If this is a 2p game, then you'll win. If this is a 3+p game, then skipped player will lose and you'll tie with everyone else.

Thanks nik592 and teallite

When I questioned him about running out of time, my opponent never apologetically acknowledged it or explained why it happened. Apparently, it was more of a false move while staying connected to the game. But he didn't apologize and after warning him that I could enforce the rules, he continued as if nothing had happened.

With a little regret I ejected him from the game in accordance with the tournament rules. Too bad for him, he just had to apologize for running out of time.

Gérard 37 wrote: ↑03 May 2024, 09:25 With a little regret I ejected him from the game in accordance with the tournament rules. Too bad for him, he just had to apologize for running out of time.

Just to be clear, no rule made you eject him. It was your choice. It is a choice that is completely acceptable as an option provided to you by the BGA framework. You don't even have to justify it. But please own it.

OK the difference is understood

Gérard 37 wrote: ↑03 May 2024, 09:25 Thanks nik592 and teallite

When I questioned him about running out of time, my opponent never apologetically acknowledged it or explained why it happened. Apparently, it was more of a false move while staying connected to the game. But he didn't apologize and after warning him that I could enforce the rules, he continued as if nothing had happened.

With a little regret I ejected him from the game in accordance with the tournament rules. Too bad for him, he just had to apologize for running out of time.

Why would they apologise or explain? Most people aren't logged into BGA all the time every day.It was a 10-day maximum Ark Nova game, and they ran out of time/you skipped them when there was 2 days left to finish the game. From their own perspective, I imagine they were trying as hard as they could to ensure the game was finished in the 10 day limit.

It was a turn-based game of Ark Nova - a long and complex game with many turns per player. Unless there are times within the 10 days where you're both online at the same time to play in almost real-time, I'd expect a game of AN entirely turn-based to mostly take around 10 days anyway. Looking at the game log/replay - it looks like you would have easily been able to finish the game if you hadn't rushed to skip them.

No 'rule' was enforced beyond one that you invented yourself. By the looks of it - the opponent you skipped seemed on course for an almost certain victory if you'd let them play another 5-15 moves across the next 2 days - after they'd already played 100-150 moves already - and played about 10 moves on the day you chose to skip them!

nik592 wrote: ↑02 May 2024, 23:06 That said, the game was 89% complete and your opponent was playing regularly, so if it had been me, I would have let the game play out - personally, I feel a game won on time, especially in a tournament, where times are less flexible, is something of a hollow victory.

Less flexible times is one of the points of tournaments. Additional constraints make the difference between tournaments and regular games. It's one thing to be able to start and play games at your leisure with little pressure. It's another thing, when your have to adhere to strict timing and schedule your time accordingly. But what's really baffling is that this ambiguity even exists in tournaments on BGA. The rule set should be universal and equally applied to all participants. And players can't be judges, who decide if they should enforce time constraints or not. It has a direct influence on results, when some players are booted and others get lucky and can play overtime.

teallite wrote: ↑04 May 2024, 17:39

nik592 wrote: ↑02 May 2024, 23:06 That said, the game was 89% complete and your opponent was playing regularly, so if it had been me, I would have let the game play out - personally, I feel a game won on time, especially in a tournament, where times are less flexible, is something of a hollow victory.

Less flexible times is one of the points of tournaments. Additional constraints make the difference between tournaments and regular games. It's one thing to be able to start and play games at your leisure with little pressure. It's another thing, when your have to adhere to strict timing and schedule your time accordingly. But what's really baffling is that this ambiguity even exists in tournaments on BGA. The rule set should be universal and equally applied to all participants. And players can't be judges, who decide if they should enforce time constraints or not. It has a direct influence on results, when some players are booted and others get lucky and can play overtime.

If tournaments had the option of fixed time or time-per-turn settings, I'd say sure, the creators obviously meant it that way. But tournaments are ONLY fixed time. But fixed time can end up unfair based on the timezones of opponents - if the player before you plays their moves just after you have gone to sleep each day, you can easily run your time out within a couple of days. And I'm not sure why that makes you a worse player (who is more deserving to be booted) than anyone else.

When I was less experienced with what tournaments offered, I wondered why creators always chose fixed time for tournaments. After getting booted in the last moves of a game for ending up 45 minutes over time, I noticed that the tournament creator had strongly suggested in the comments that players should not be booting other players and should let the game play out. I commented that if they wanted this to happen, they should really give players just a bit more time each because that's all I would have needed to finish things. They then told me that tournament timeframes are really restrictive - this one was set to 15 days per game, and the next setting up (and in fact, the maximum) was 30 days per game which would potentially make the tournament twice as long. And I was surprised at how little choice the tournament creators have over the timings.

Yes, playing hours are a thing. Restricting to playing hours makes the player pools for tournaments a lot smaller, and makes it even less likely that some people can participate in tournaments. Frankly, I've never seen a tournament with playing hours that would suit my sleep/wake times (I live in Australia), which would mean I just don't get to play tournaments. I'm not sure why that would seem reasonable either.

Finally, how much time a player is given is based on the amount of time allowed for the game equally divided among the players. This means there is already another strict time constraint to the game - although, my understanding of why this is there is to give some consistency to the rounds, that is, that you know every round will take a maximum of however many days to complete, so they whole tournament will be done in x rounds multiplied by max time. I think you're arguing that people should be auto-booted when they run out of time in tournaments, which would again make them less accessible to players (because of differing timezones). And there are several threads and suggestions of people arguing the exact opposite - that booting should not be allowed because it is often (but not always) abused by players who are otherwise losing, and that the only constraint on tournament tables should be the maximum time per table (at which point the game ends, and players are ranked based on remaining time anyway).

I personally don't believe that tournaments are supposed to have additional constraints and that's what makes it different to normal play. I thought it was more, hey, all of these people want to play this game in a round-robin or an elimination style or whatever and see who comes out top. Though I would also argue that I don't know if the BGA admin meant tournaments to be much of anything, since they get no attention at all, despite several issues (timing being among the most discussed). They could be so much more than they are - I'd even happily accept a tournament creator setting for whether auto-booting happens, or booting is disabled for a particular tournament, and I would happily avoid tournaments where the creator (and one assumes, the participants) want auto-booting.

nik592 wrote: ↑05 May 2024, 02:25 But fixed time can end up unfair based on the timezones of opponents - if the player before you plays their moves just after you have gone to sleep each day, you can easily run your time out within a couple of days. And I'm not sure why that makes you a worse player (who is more deserving to be booted) than anyone else.

It can make you a worse player. It depends on the criteria we use. I also don't quite get a timezone argument. Same timezone or not there is always someone who makes the last move on each day and someone else will lose time. Usually, it's not just about a timezone. It's more like "we have different timezones and also I can't play in the morning when I wake up and I can't play when I go to sleep and I can't play at work, etc". Well, I also would like to play when it's optimal for me. But there's timer. So, I play when I have to. I play on mobile, I make quick moves when I have small breaks, I pre-plan my moves, etc. I play less optimally, make more mistakes, but I stay within allotted time.

They then told me that tournament timeframes are really restrictive - this one was set to 15 days per game, and the next setting up (and in fact, the maximum) was 30 days per game which would potentially make the tournament twice as long. And I was surprised at how little choice the tournament creators have over the timings.

Well, if 15 days really wasn't enough, then this tournament should have lasted 30 days. Yes, there should be more flexibility in tournament setups. But I also see that sometimes tournament creators have unreasonable expectations and make tournaments that are quite tough even with current limitations. Which is fine if they wanted their tournaments to be tough, but that it's not always the case.

I think you're arguing that people should be auto-booted when they run out of time in tournaments, which would again make them less accessible to players (because of differing timezones).

I'm arguing for consistency. It would be best to have it as an option. Also it may further divide players into different groups, but there is no perfect solution. But it's not okay when players can act as judges and decide an outcome of a match (or even a whole tournament).

And there are several threads and suggestions of people arguing the exact opposite - that booting should not be allowed because it is often (but not always) abused by players who are otherwise losing, and that the only constraint on tournament tables should be the maximum time per table (at which point the game ends, and players are ranked based on remaining time anyway).

Yes, I'm fine with such rules too. Though I want to note, that if someone is able to exploit a timer to expel another player, then in some cases they'll be able to exploit a timer to win when maximum time is reached.

I personally don't believe that tournaments are supposed to have additional constraints and that's what makes it different to normal play.

I'm talking about tournaments in a general sense. They have a list of participants, starting date, ending date, schedule, consistent settings and rules for all matches and all players, etc. Some additional constraints always exist, it's by design.

I thought it was more, hey, all of these people want to play this game in a round-robin or an elimination style or whatever and see who comes out top.

Well, there can be different kinds of tournaments. They can be more competitive or less competitive, with more constraints or less constraints. I can play in tournaments that you describe. But I also like tournaments where I have to adapt, where I have to play fast or play a whole day and so on. That tryhard tries to make me lose on timer? I'll set up my alarm for every three hours and we'll see who has more endurance.

Though I would also argue that I don't know if the BGA admin meant tournaments to be much of anything, since they get no attention at all, despite several issues (timing being among the most discussed). They could be so much more than they are - I'd even happily accept a tournament creator setting for whether auto-booting happens, or booting is disabled for a particular tournament, and I would happily avoid tournaments where the creator (and one assumes, the participants) want auto-booting.

Oh, you hit it on the nose. I totally agree with that. Tournaments are neglected by BGA and that makes them even less popular when they are already pretty niche. There should be more options and more visibility for tournaments, so that players can choose formats that suit them best.