Conceding 2 player games

[Han Shot First]

Why can you not concede 2 player games at less than 50% progression. Tried to play Barenpark but could not figure out how to place a tile. Explained my issue in the chat and got no response from my English speaking opponent, other than to kick me out. If I could have conceded it would have saved the karma penalty. (Clearly my opponent was a bit of a [], but that's aside from the issue I am raising.)

[Romain672]

You can only concede with 2 players when at least 50% of the game has been done.

On your case, you didn't wanted to abandon since you was losing, but you didn't played the game which is worst.
So the karma penality occurs.

Note that having a karma of at least 70 is still really good, make you still able to join any game (or nearly any game), and you can be back to 100 after 30 games not leaved and not out of time.

[Han Shot First]

Not fussed about the karma. (It goes to 90 but will be back to 100 in a few days.) Would have loved to abandon, but my opponent preferred to kick me out for +0 elo I know I cannot concede with less than 50% of the games played. The questions is why? For a two player game, where would be the harm in conceding at any time? Particularly in a case like this where I hit some kind of bug and could not make any move.

[Romain672]

From what I read in the forum, I think the threshold is too high for many game.

But it's to avoid players playing one or two turns and then abandonning. You lose elo, but you don't have much fun.
If the other player want to have fun, you just played two turns, and abandonned, you didn't played the game.


Regularly, you find complain on the forum about people which abandon, since they want to play the game until the end. While in most abstract competitive game, the most commun behaviour is to abandon and not 'waste time' when you don't have a chance to win anymore.

[Sheba-leila]

Ich möchte ein Spiel auch zu Ende spielen. Ich finde es unhöflich und respektlos ohne meine Zustimmung aufzugeben.

[Shivaware]

I agree with the original poster. You should be able to concede at any point in a 2-player game. If it's your first game, you may not be able to figure out the interface, or you may realize that the game just isn't for you. You may have an emergency and have to leave right away. You might have an issue with your opponent's avatar or something in their profile. And it is certainly possible to realize you have no reasonable chance of winning early in a game. Conceding allows you to avoid an unnecessary karma penalty and it also gives your opponent the full Elo credit.

If you are offended by someone conceding a game to you, you are always free to give them a red thumb.

[Romain672]

If it's your first game, you may not be able to figure out the interface, or you may realize that the game just isn't for you. [...]

Then you should still end the game in another way. Conceding is giving elo & victory to the other player. But the game didn't started: why would you want to give free elo to someone which played a game which didn't started? That will make him feel less bad for his wasting time, but that's it.
If like it's your friend, and you both try that new game, you can collectively abandon the game, no one get a victory or elo, which is normal.
You don't want to waste time of the other player which just wanted to play a game, and finally, the other player didn't played and conceded immediately. That other player should have a penality for it because he 'promesse' to play a game which he didn't played.
If you have an emergency same, take your karma penalty, and build it back without drawback if that's enough rare.
For avatar, you can report it with bga. I did it once already. But that's really rare anyway.

And finally, for your 'it is certainly possible to realize you have no reasonable chance of winning early in a game' I agree, and I see that a little on bga. That's why I said 50% seemed too high.

[RobertBr]

I know I cannot concede with less than 50% of the games played. The questions is why? For a two player game, where would be the harm in conceding at any time? Particularly in a case like this where I hit some kind of bug and could not make any move.

It would encourage the sort of poor behaviour you engaged in. Before agreeing to play a game you really ought to be familiar enough with the rules and interface to play - there is a training mode to allow you to play solo, so this is perfectly practical. If you turn up then don't play your opponent is quite justified in kicking you. Its right your opponent took the option to inflict a penalty rather than let you off in this case - I would not accept 'I have not learned how to play' as a legitimate reason to abandon a game.

Conceding exists to allow players to give up in clearly lost positions, which is why it is referred to as 'conceding' and there is a totally separate 'abandon' option. You cannot know the position is lost, usually until well after 50% of the game is played.

It would also be potentially open to abuse, so not a sensible change to make.

[Ehronde]

.

[euklid314]

In order to return to the original posters question:

The main reason for disallowing an early concede is that this could and would be used for ELO cheating. One player would concede the game after a few moves and gift ELO to a friend or to his second account.

This problem exists even now and it makes a lot of tedious work for the BGA moderators. But if it were possible to give up a game immediately and boost those cheated ELO within seconds, then the problem could not be handled anymore.

Thus we have to accept the 50%-rule, although it does not fit always perfectly...