• Mar-plij, eilit/pegit ar gemennadenn fazi a zo war ho skramm, ma zo unan.

A player abandoned a game on the last hand. The points awarded to the remaining three players did not reflect the relative scores of the players.

Specifically, the player in first place (me) had an overwhelming lead..."uncatchable" at level 17 of the game...whereas the player in last place had less than half the score of the other players. This last place player and the other remaining player were awarded almost double the points of the player with the highest score.

I understand that points are calculated based on relative strength/elo of the players. However, the calculation needs to better reflect how far the game has progressed. In this case, the game was on the last level, yet the points the leader received were about 25-33% of what he would have received had the game completed.

If the scoring algorithm is not improved, there becomes an incentive for a player to abandon a game at a late stage so that another player is awarded or not awarded the points (s)he would have earned had the game finished. In this particular game, the abandoning player lost points; however, by abandoning the game at the end, he prevented the leader from moving up in ranking and allowed the other two players to move up in ranking more than they would have had the game completed.

I am not claiming that the abandoning player in this game was malicious. His action highlighted a flaw in the scoring algorithm that should be corrected.

Thank you for objectively evaluating!

• Displegit deomp, mar-plij, ar pezh ho poa c'hoant d'ober, ar pezh ho peus graet hag ar pezh a zo c'hoarvezet 'benn ar fin

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Mar-plij, eilit/pegit an destenn e Saozneg ha n'eo ket en ho yezh. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Ha dibres eo an destenn-mañ er sistem treiñ? Ma ya, daoust ha troet eo bet ouzhpenn 24 eur 'zo ?

A player abandoned a game on the last hand. The points awarded to the remaining three players did not reflect the relative scores of the players.

Specifically, the player in first place (me) had an overwhelming lead..."uncatchable" at level 17 of the game...whereas the player in last place had less than half the score of the other players. This last place player and the other remaining player were awarded almost double the points of the player with the highest score.

I understand that points are calculated based on relative strength/elo of the players. However, the calculation needs to better reflect how far the game has progressed. In this case, the game was on the last level, yet the points the leader received were about 25-33% of what he would have received had the game completed.

If the scoring algorithm is not improved, there becomes an incentive for a player to abandon a game at a late stage so that another player is awarded or not awarded the points (s)he would have earned had the game finished. In this particular game, the abandoning player lost points; however, by abandoning the game at the end, he prevented the leader from moving up in ranking and allowed the other two players to move up in ranking more than they would have had the game completed.

I am not claiming that the abandoning player in this game was malicious. His action highlighted a flaw in the scoring algorithm that should be corrected.

Thank you for objectively evaluating!

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Displegit ho kinnig mar-plij, e berrgomzoù met en un doare resis, evit ma vefe an aesañ posupl kompren mat ar pezh ho peus c'hoant lâret.

A player abandoned a game on the last hand. The points awarded to the remaining three players did not reflect the relative scores of the players.

Specifically, the player in first place (me) had an overwhelming lead..."uncatchable" at level 17 of the game...whereas the player in last place had less than half the score of the other players. This last place player and the other remaining player were awarded almost double the points of the player with the highest score.

I understand that points are calculated based on relative strength/elo of the players. However, the calculation needs to better reflect how far the game has progressed. In this case, the game was on the last level, yet the points the leader received were about 25-33% of what he would have received had the game completed.

If the scoring algorithm is not improved, there becomes an incentive for a player to abandon a game at a late stage so that another player is awarded or not awarded the points (s)he would have earned had the game finished. In this particular game, the abandoning player lost points; however, by abandoning the game at the end, he prevented the leader from moving up in ranking and allowed the other two players to move up in ranking more than they would have had the game completed.

I am not claiming that the abandoning player in this game was malicious. His action highlighted a flaw in the scoring algorithm that should be corrected.

Thank you for objectively evaluating!

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Petra oa diskouezet war ar skramm pa 'z oc'h chomet stanket (Skramm goullo ? Ul lodenn eus etrefas ar c'hoari ? Kemennadenn fazi ?)

A player abandoned a game on the last hand. The points awarded to the remaining three players did not reflect the relative scores of the players.

Specifically, the player in first place (me) had an overwhelming lead..."uncatchable" at level 17 of the game...whereas the player in last place had less than half the score of the other players. This last place player and the other remaining player were awarded almost double the points of the player with the highest score.

I understand that points are calculated based on relative strength/elo of the players. However, the calculation needs to better reflect how far the game has progressed. In this case, the game was on the last level, yet the points the leader received were about 25-33% of what he would have received had the game completed.

If the scoring algorithm is not improved, there becomes an incentive for a player to abandon a game at a late stage so that another player is awarded or not awarded the points (s)he would have earned had the game finished. In this particular game, the abandoning player lost points; however, by abandoning the game at the end, he prevented the leader from moving up in ranking and allowed the other two players to move up in ranking more than they would have had the game completed.

I am not claiming that the abandoning player in this game was malicious. His action highlighted a flaw in the scoring algorithm that should be corrected.

Thank you for objectively evaluating!

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Pesseurt reolenn n'eo ket doujet gant azasadenn ar c'hoari-mañ ?

A player abandoned a game on the last hand. The points awarded to the remaining three players did not reflect the relative scores of the players.

Specifically, the player in first place (me) had an overwhelming lead..."uncatchable" at level 17 of the game...whereas the player in last place had less than half the score of the other players. This last place player and the other remaining player were awarded almost double the points of the player with the highest score.

I understand that points are calculated based on relative strength/elo of the players. However, the calculation needs to better reflect how far the game has progressed. In this case, the game was on the last level, yet the points the leader received were about 25-33% of what he would have received had the game completed.

If the scoring algorithm is not improved, there becomes an incentive for a player to abandon a game at a late stage so that another player is awarded or not awarded the points (s)he would have earned had the game finished. In this particular game, the abandoning player lost points; however, by abandoning the game at the end, he prevented the leader from moving up in ranking and allowed the other two players to move up in ranking more than they would have had the game completed.

I am not claiming that the abandoning player in this game was malicious. His action highlighted a flaw in the scoring algorithm that should be corrected.

Thank you for objectively evaluating!

• Ha posupl eo gwelet torridigezh ar reolenn e replay ar bartienn ? Ma 'z eo ya, da be niverenn taol ?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Peseurt taol ho peus c'hoant c'hoari ?

A player abandoned a game on the last hand. The points awarded to the remaining three players did not reflect the relative scores of the players.

Specifically, the player in first place (me) had an overwhelming lead..."uncatchable" at level 17 of the game...whereas the player in last place had less than half the score of the other players. This last place player and the other remaining player were awarded almost double the points of the player with the highest score.

I understand that points are calculated based on relative strength/elo of the players. However, the calculation needs to better reflect how far the game has progressed. In this case, the game was on the last level, yet the points the leader received were about 25-33% of what he would have received had the game completed.

If the scoring algorithm is not improved, there becomes an incentive for a player to abandon a game at a late stage so that another player is awarded or not awarded the points (s)he would have earned had the game finished. In this particular game, the abandoning player lost points; however, by abandoning the game at the end, he prevented the leader from moving up in ranking and allowed the other two players to move up in ranking more than they would have had the game completed.

I am not claiming that the abandoning player in this game was malicious. His action highlighted a flaw in the scoring algorithm that should be corrected.

Thank you for objectively evaluating!

• Petra emaoc'h o klask ober evit delankañ an ober c'hoari-mañ ?

• What happened when you try to do this (error message, game status bar message, ...)?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Da be bazenn ar bartienn eo en em gavet ar gudenn (petra oa testenn kemenn ar c'hoari) ?

A player abandoned a game on the last hand. The points awarded to the remaining three players did not reflect the relative scores of the players.

Specifically, the player in first place (me) had an overwhelming lead..."uncatchable" at level 17 of the game...whereas the player in last place had less than half the score of the other players. This last place player and the other remaining player were awarded almost double the points of the player with the highest score.

I understand that points are calculated based on relative strength/elo of the players. However, the calculation needs to better reflect how far the game has progressed. In this case, the game was on the last level, yet the points the leader received were about 25-33% of what he would have received had the game completed.

If the scoring algorithm is not improved, there becomes an incentive for a player to abandon a game at a late stage so that another player is awarded or not awarded the points (s)he would have earned had the game finished. In this particular game, the abandoning player lost points; however, by abandoning the game at the end, he prevented the leader from moving up in ranking and allowed the other two players to move up in ranking more than they would have had the game completed.

I am not claiming that the abandoning player in this game was malicious. His action highlighted a flaw in the scoring algorithm that should be corrected.

Thank you for objectively evaluating!

• What happened when you try to do a game action (error message, game status bar message, ...)?

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Mar-plij, diskrivit kudenn an diskwel. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here.

A player abandoned a game on the last hand. The points awarded to the remaining three players did not reflect the relative scores of the players.

Specifically, the player in first place (me) had an overwhelming lead..."uncatchable" at level 17 of the game...whereas the player in last place had less than half the score of the other players. This last place player and the other remaining player were awarded almost double the points of the player with the highest score.

I understand that points are calculated based on relative strength/elo of the players. However, the calculation needs to better reflect how far the game has progressed. In this case, the game was on the last level, yet the points the leader received were about 25-33% of what he would have received had the game completed.

If the scoring algorithm is not improved, there becomes an incentive for a player to abandon a game at a late stage so that another player is awarded or not awarded the points (s)he would have earned had the game finished. In this particular game, the abandoning player lost points; however, by abandoning the game at the end, he prevented the leader from moving up in ranking and allowed the other two players to move up in ranking more than they would have had the game completed.

I am not claiming that the abandoning player in this game was malicious. His action highlighted a flaw in the scoring algorithm that should be corrected.

Thank you for objectively evaluating!

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Mar-plij, eilit/pegit an destenn e Saozneg ha n'eo ket en ho yezh. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Ha dibres eo an destenn-mañ er sistem treiñ? Ma ya, daoust ha troet eo bet ouzhpenn 24 eur 'zo ?

A player abandoned a game on the last hand. The points awarded to the remaining three players did not reflect the relative scores of the players.

Specifically, the player in first place (me) had an overwhelming lead..."uncatchable" at level 17 of the game...whereas the player in last place had less than half the score of the other players. This last place player and the other remaining player were awarded almost double the points of the player with the highest score.

I understand that points are calculated based on relative strength/elo of the players. However, the calculation needs to better reflect how far the game has progressed. In this case, the game was on the last level, yet the points the leader received were about 25-33% of what he would have received had the game completed.

If the scoring algorithm is not improved, there becomes an incentive for a player to abandon a game at a late stage so that another player is awarded or not awarded the points (s)he would have earned had the game finished. In this particular game, the abandoning player lost points; however, by abandoning the game at the end, he prevented the leader from moving up in ranking and allowed the other two players to move up in ranking more than they would have had the game completed.

I am not claiming that the abandoning player in this game was malicious. His action highlighted a flaw in the scoring algorithm that should be corrected.

Thank you for objectively evaluating!

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?

• Displegit ho kinnig mar-plij, e berrgomzoù met en un doare resis, evit ma vefe an aesañ posupl kompren mat ar pezh ho peus c'hoant lâret.

A player abandoned a game on the last hand. The points awarded to the remaining three players did not reflect the relative scores of the players.

Specifically, the player in first place (me) had an overwhelming lead..."uncatchable" at level 17 of the game...whereas the player in last place had less than half the score of the other players. This last place player and the other remaining player were awarded almost double the points of the player with the highest score.

I understand that points are calculated based on relative strength/elo of the players. However, the calculation needs to better reflect how far the game has progressed. In this case, the game was on the last level, yet the points the leader received were about 25-33% of what he would have received had the game completed.

If the scoring algorithm is not improved, there becomes an incentive for a player to abandon a game at a late stage so that another player is awarded or not awarded the points (s)he would have earned had the game finished. In this particular game, the abandoning player lost points; however, by abandoning the game at the end, he prevented the leader from moving up in ranking and allowed the other two players to move up in ranking more than they would have had the game completed.

I am not claiming that the abandoning player in this game was malicious. His action highlighted a flaw in the scoring algorithm that should be corrected.

Thank you for objectively evaluating!

• Peseurt merdeer eo hoc'h hini ?