Can a change be made to conceding games in Arena Mode?

[painter3331]

I just had a player quit a game of Akropolis with me. They had a very high ELO (I do not). I was obviously going to win, by around 20 points. It appears they ceded in order to protect their ranking. Instead of them losing by 20, the game went 0 to 0, with me winning. From what I could find, it appears they most likely did that to protect their ranking/ELO.

I would like to see conceding not be allowed in Arena, or perhaps make the current score (not 0 to 0) of the unfinished game affect the ELO/ranking.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding how that would have impacted them (and me). If so, please let me know, and give me more information if you are able.

[Ez0ah]

Final score doesn’t impact the ELO / Arena points gains, it only takes into account who won and who lost. So in your case, them conceding didn’t impact the amount of changes in ELO/ranking.

For all intent and purposes, conceding is the same as loosing the game. It allows you to start another game faster, it can get you out of a frustrating game, but it can also dull the Victory for the opponent.

[Meeplelowda]

I just had a player quit a game of Akropolis with me. They had a very high ELO (I do not). I was obviously going to win, by around 20 points. It appears they ceded in order to protect their ranking. Instead of them losing by 20, the game went 0 to 0, with me winning. From what I could find, it appears they most likely did that to protect their ranking/ELO.

I would like to see conceding not be allowed in Arena, or perhaps make the current score (not 0 to 0) of the unfinished game affect the ELO/ranking.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding how that would have impacted them (and me). If so, please let me know, and give me more information if you are able.

The score of the game has zero effect on ELO, regardless of whether the game is played to completion, the player concedes, or the player is expelled. When this player conceded, they lost the same ELO as they would have if the game had played to completion. What they gained was the time that would have otherwise been spent on a losing scenario. I'll refer you to the numerous other threads discussing whether conceding is ever appropriate.

This is not to be confused with expelling a player, in which case the winning player(s) gains ELO based on how far the game had progressed, but the expelled player still loses full ELO, as well as -10 ELO penalty.

[frogstar_A]

I just had a player quit a game of Akropolis with me. They had a very high ELO (I do not). I was obviously going to win, by around 20 points. It appears they ceded in order to protect their ranking. Instead of them losing by 20, the game went 0 to 0, with me winning. From what I could find, it appears they most likely did that to protect their ranking/ELO.

I would like to see conceding not be allowed in Arena, or perhaps make the current score (not 0 to 0) of the unfinished game affect the ELO/ranking.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding how that would have impacted them (and me). If so, please let me know, and give me more information if you are able.

They just ceded to save time. Margin of victory has no impact on ELO or arena

[Sjarmtrollet]

I don't understand. If you concede, you lose the game AND ELO points just as if you had lost playing the match to completion. Conceding is only possible in two-player games, not multiplayer.

"Ceding" the game, is this normal English use? Is it the word "cede" as in ceding territory or position, or an implied shortening of "concede"? I have never before seen anyone use "cede" over "concede" in gaming discourse.

[nik592]

You're correct that concede is more correct when talking about a game. Technically, cede means to surrender possession of something, so not quite correct for a game. But the article I was reading about the difference between the two said that these words often get used interchangeably or the definitions are mixed. I think I'd probably always use concede myself, but I also didn't notice the use of cede until you mentioned it (so I understood the meaning of it, and it didn't stand out as an incorrect usage).

[Ceaseless]

I don't understand. If you concede, you lose the game AND ELO points just as if you had lost playing the match to completion. Conceding is only possible in two-player games, not multiplayer.

"Ceding" the game, is this normal English use? Is it the word "cede" as in ceding territory or position, or an implied shortening of "concede"? I have never before seen anyone use "cede" over "concede" in gaming discourse.

I don't recall seeing it often, but it's just a shorter version of the intended word, so uncommon as it may be, in context it seems obvious enough to not stand out.

[Meeplelowda]

I don't understand. If you concede, you lose the game AND ELO points just as if you had lost playing the match to completion. Conceding is only possible in two-player games, not multiplayer.

"Ceding" the game, is this normal English use? Is it the word "cede" as in ceding territory or position, or an implied shortening of "concede"? I have never before seen anyone use "cede" over "concede" in gaming discourse.

I don't recall seeing it often, but it's just a shorter version of the intended word, so uncommon as it may be, in context it seems obvious enough to not stand out.

Yes. The relevant context is that it literally says "conceding" in the title of the post and it says "concede" in the game interface (at least in English), so I don't see how one could be confused about what they meant, even with it being shortened.

[Sjarmtrollet]

I don't understand. If you concede, you lose the game AND ELO points just as if you had lost playing the match to completion. Conceding is only possible in two-player games, not multiplayer.

"Ceding" the game, is this normal English use? Is it the word "cede" as in ceding territory or position, or an implied shortening of "concede"? I have never before seen anyone use "cede" over "concede" in gaming discourse.

I don't recall seeing it often, but it's just a shorter version of the intended word, so uncommon as it may be, in context it seems obvious enough to not stand out.

Yes. The relevant context is that it literally says "conceding" in the title of the post and it says "concede" in the game interface (at least in English), so I don't see how one could be confused about what they meant, even with it being shortened.

i was never confused about the word, i was confused about the question/situation as described.