Conceding whenever, in games of 2.

[asmallcat]

Conceding at 50% is a BGA-wide "feature" or policy. What's up to each game's developer (I believe) is defining when the "50%" is reached, it's not necessarily linear with the number of turns or rounds.

That should just be removed for all 2 player games. When one player concedes, the other wins! Who cares how it happens? Why is forcing someone to play a game to the halfway point when the result will be the same the standing policy?

I 100% understand why people can't concede from 3+ player games - it will often break the game, so there should be a penalty for doing so. But when you concede in a 2 player game, the other player wins, presumably the goal they were striving for in the first place anyway (co-ops excluded).

Someone above you posted the reason. Which is a fairly valid one. Elo boosting

It feels like warping how the system works for the everyone to curb a tiny minority of people from Elo boosting is not a sufficient reason. It should be trivial to look at someone in the top 10 of a game's Elo and see if their history is repeated plays against the same opponent who immediately conceded and where if someone is that interested in Elo boosting they'll find a way to do it anyway. Especially where I suspect the vast majority of users on this site don't care about Elo when it comes to ranking, they only care that the Elo is matching them against people of similar skill, and no one is Elo boosting just to be able to play against better players.

[paramesis]

It makes perfect from an organizational perspective at the scale of BGA. Why would anyone spend all those human hours ($$$) actively monitoring players and going through processes to punish misbehavior, when you could prevent the misbehavior entirely with one line of code?

I'd be willing to wager that only a tiny minority of players are conceding games before 50% for legitimate reasons, and even then I would consider it bad sportsmanship to decide that your opponent's strategic investment and time should go to waste just because you don't like your starting hand.

[asmallcat]

I would consider it bad sportsmanship to decide that your opponent's strategic investment and time should go to waste just because you don't like your starting hand.

It's never bad sportsmanship to concede a 1v1 game IMO. You're giving the other person the goal of the game - to win. Sure, you can be a bad sport then concede, but just conceding by itself isn't bad sportsmanship. In fact, it's often good sportsmanship - if it's clear I will lose but it will take 10 moves to get there, why am I wasting both of our times?

[SluggerBaloney]

Deleted

[Jellby]

Play in training mode and you have both no ELO and the possibility of conceding (quitting) at any moment without karma loss.

[Ze Monstah]

I think a perfect reasonable change would be to make the conceding possible after the first quarter, somehow.
That way, both elo-kingmaking issue and the annoyance of waiting for nothing, would be solved.

[wisherw]

ELO boosting is not a refutation for early resignation. If bots wanted to ELO boost, they could just take random actions till 50% and end the game. Anyway, you should obviously be able to resign at any time without losing karma - just losing ELO because you lost the game.