Suggestion for improved "conceding game"

[Jaxxxis]

I know the topic of conceding games popped up enough here on the forum, but at today it doesn't seem solved.

1. Boardgames, especially euro's, are all about VP. I think most players like to know their end score in a game, it's just not all about competition and elo. For me the best reward is getting better in a game, I like to have my personal high score so that I can try to beat it.

2. This leads to conceding games here on BGA. Is it morally correct to concede? As you know BGA has a filter so you can concede only after 50% of the game. Starting from this , with a minimal correction, we could come to a happy ending for this topic.

3. Make the "concede game" option available between 50% and 90% of game progress. The real problem is quitting in the last turns. I admit I have also done it, because so many players have done this to me before. But it has to stop. Games feel like garbage when this happens.

4.It's fair enough to say that a player can evaluate, at 90% of game progress,if the game is lost for sure or if he still has a little chance. If he takes that chance he should be prepared to end the game no matter what. I'm all in for conceding games due to a variety of reasons, we're still in front of a pc and there is real life going on...but just not during those last moves.

5. The other thing is that the last 10% of the game normally is the most rewarding for a gamer, not finishing the game at this point feels straight like a coitus interruptus.

I'm sorry if someone else suggested this before, too lazy today to get through all the topics

[eoc]

I would humbly suggest using people to fix a people problem, not technology Progress will never accurately measure how far a game is along in terms of deciding the victor. Assuming you can put one number out there which will work for all games at the same time, that's a bold claim and one I cannot agree with.

Instead, how about a new profile setting, "I would like to be asked for confirmation when my opponent wants to concede games" that folks can enable or disable. If enabled, conceding pops up a yes/no vote much like abandoning already does, and if the opponent disagrees (this can be for various reasons!) then the game needs to be played out? That way, everybody can adjust how BGA behaves to their preferences, at least in 1v1 games. If the offer to concede was not accepted, you can still talk it over in the chat and figure out what you want to do, perhaps convincing the other to accept the next proposal where you feel like you cannot continue for some reason.

Personally, I had both cases where I would have wanted to reject such a decision because I did not believe the game was over, or where I agreed but wanted to see how it played out. Hell, even cases where I would have preferred a table abandon over conceding (when one player had to leave prematurely but was, in my perception, better positioned for a win) but the opponent conceded before I had a chance to vote for abandoning :-/

[Jest Phulin]

1. Boardgames, especially euro's, are all about VP.

Please be careful of your assumptions. Can you provide documentation for this? I would argue that boardgames, and games in general, are about having an enjoyable experience, not all about victory points. Read the quotes around the board of Uncle Chestnut's Table Gype.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing how you plan to beat your personal best score for some games on this site: Chess (1), Backgammon (15), Can't Stop (theoretically 5, but unwise to have a score higher than 3), Cinco (1), Quarto (1)....

3. .... The real problem is quitting in the last turns. I admit I have also done it, ...

So you want to force everyone to do something that you can't do voluntarily yourself?

4.It's fair enough to say that a player can evaluate, at 90% of game progress,if the game is lost for sure or if he still has a little chance. If he takes that chance he should be prepared to end the game no matter what. I'm all in for conceding games due to a variety of reasons, we're still in front of a pc and there is real life going on...but just not during those last moves.

Ah. OK. So when I'm home because my child is sick, and they start vomiting and need my help, it's OK for me to spend less than 10 seconds and click concede as long as we're within a certain 40% window of the game, but I have to stay possibly several minutes if we are not?

Also, many eurogames have hidden information and hidden end-game victory points, as well as various catch-up mechanics. 90% progress often does not reveal 90% of the final score or even who the winner definitely will be.

5. The other thing is that the last 10% of the game normally is the most rewarding for a gamer, not finishing the game at this point feels straight like a coitus interruptus.

Or, to continue the sex analogy, like you are being raped if you are forced to do something against your will, staying put while the other person just gloats over you.


And, it looks like you are trying to implement a one-size-fits-all policy with 90% progress. How is progress measured? While Catan is not on this site, I am going to ask how it would be handled because many gamers are familiar with the game. When is the game 90% finished? Since it is a race to 10 victory points, are you saying that when someone has 9 that the game is 90% done? But, wait, everyone starts with 2, so before the first roll of the dice the game is 20% done? That doesn't seem right. Or is is a race to gain 8 victory points? In that case, the game is never 90% done -- it will jump from 87.5% complete to 100% complete.

[RicardoRix]

I agree with Jaxxis, but yes it's very difficult (impossible sometimes) to judge 90% of a game's progress.

In tournaments you can't concede, so maybe you could have a new game mode; training, normal, and tournament.
Maybe this would also highlight you're interested in a competitive rather than a casual game.

I also have a problem with BGA giving out 0-0 as a result after a game is conceded, why not at-least 1-0 ? When looking back at past history this is very annoying. This is the main reason I don't like conceding now, it's not just about the win of an individual game as Jaxxis suggests, there is some fulfilment in finishing a game properly and it being correctly recorded.

@Jest. Why are you playing games when you are looking after sick children? Very irresponsible. If you join a game, then at the very least you are expected to complete the game within the allocated time-frame.

[Jaxxxis]

@Jest Phulin

I have a collection of about 300 games, all euro's, almost all of 'em have this line in the rulebook : "The player with the most VP's at the end of the game is the winner".

So, the correct assumption is: Most euro's are about VP's, that doesn't take away that one also wants an enjoyable experience. I am talking about a fact. And I am also saying that some players don't need to prevail on others, they just look at their score at the end of the game to measure their evolution. Take a look around on BGG how many topics there are about "high scores". I would say, reading those threads, that a lot of players "enjoy" knowing their progress based on the end scoring.

Of course there are exceptions, and I agree there are games where you cannot judge the game progress properly.

Anyway, for me a late concede feels as a tech KO if we play Chess, a plus 1 TKO in my book.... a late concede in Terra Mystica (or so many others) feels an incomplete experience, a scratch in my book.

I didn't argument too much my "90%" because BGA has a game progress meter even for those games where there are variable end conditions so I thought it would be simple to apply my suggested change. You should try to ask your question on "how to measure this or that" to BGA which apparently is already doing this with their game progress meter.

Instead of writing quotes of parts of my phrases to put me in a bad light, you could maybe try to help solve a problem which many already have brought up. If anything, I already put myself in a bad light by saying I'm no saint, so you like to turn the screw deeper?

I'm not Gandhi man, if a lot of folks keep conceding just before the last move, I will start doing the same, I'm sorry if this philosophy bothers you.

But look, I am here to find a solution, I'm redeeming myself my buddy

I will pass on commenting your sex analogy because it was really bad.

One solution could be the 90% progress I explained in the OP for all those games which have pre determined rounds, and leave it as it is for all those games like Chess and others.

But I'm sure there could be better solutions, I would just like to see implementations of my suggestions or new ideas to solve the "last move conceding".

For sure I don't like the idea to ask permission to other players to concede. I have had games where I asked in chat to abandon together for a variety of reasons, once I started to have very bad stomach nausea, cold sweating..the other player ignored me totally closing abruptly the window "abandon together"....I had to abandon and get penalty....well at that point who cares about the penalty...but it doesn't sound right. Reducing conceding in the end of the game would also lessen the occasions in which you would suddenly have a matter to abandon, could still happen, but for the sake of stats, the possibility would be reduced.

The problem is, we're generally not playing with friends and with a screen to hide, and many will not trust what is written in chat.

So, If I have to ask permission I expect it denied most of the times.

But yes, those are pure assumptions based on my experience.

[eoc]

if a lot of folks keep conceding just before the last move, I will start doing the same

Why is that?

[Jaxxxis]

if a lot of folks keep conceding just before the last move, I will start doing the same

Why is that?

Ohhh, finally, I've been rejected from all psychologists in the area because I'm a bad client...well, now I am happy that I found someone really interested in my mental health, do you also apply lobotomy in such desperate cases such as mine?

[Jest Phulin]

Perhaps one of the allowable reasons to give a public red thumb should be "concedes on the last (or nearly last) move." Since private red thumbs do not need a reason, they can already be used to limit meeting someone who did this to you again.

This will then encourage players who care about their karma/reputation to play to the end. For those that don't care, no amount of new rules will help; if they can't concede, I feel they'll most likely just abandon then.

[Jaxxxis]

@Jest Phulin

Yes that would certainly be already an improvement...obviously I red thumb those guys who quit the last moves, but a lot of people do this and it seems an endless affair.

Anyway, BGA doesn't chime in on the argument, your suggestions also seems fine, let's see if they solve this problem or maybe they think it isn't a problem?

[eoc]

Ohhh, finally, I've been rejected from all psychologists in the area because I'm a bad client...well, now I am happy that I found someone really interested in my mental health, do you also apply lobotomy in such desperate cases such as mine?

I'll have you know that the mix of straw-person arguments, aimless rambling, asking of others what you are not willing to follow yourself, and making (to the degree that I can judge them) false accusations that you're displaying here does not help discussion culture in general and your point(s), valid or not, in particular. So I kind of lost interest in following this topic which otherwise could have produced more good ideas and actual progress towards mitigation measures for the issues that are certainly there. Sorry!