Conceeding?

[kloaf11]

I'm going to add my $0.02 as well.

I feel there's almost nothing wrong with the current state of conceding.

At the end of the day, games are supposed to be fun for all players. If the game stops being fun for one player, it seems to me quite selfish (as others in this thread put it) to force them to be part of the game, just so that you can complete your satisfaction.

It's a matter of understanding and putting yourself in the other persons' shoes - the conceder could respect the opponent's desire to fullfill their win (and not concede), while the opponent could accept the conceder's desire to stop playing (and take the win).

Thre main argument in favour of conceding is that things also happen in the real world. If you have a delivery, or your kids come home and require your attention, or you're playing during a meeting and you're asked to share your screen (definitely did not happen to me, no sir), then conceding is there as a great option to apologise and end the game, without ghosting the other player and making them timeout you.

The only small argument against conceding is the act of conceding out of spite, close to the end of the game, just to deny the winner their satisfaction of seeing their final score add up. For that I'd say that you shouldn't be able to conceed psat 85% of the game's progress (That should be roughly 5 minutes of play).

All in all, be nice and respectful through the use of the in-game chat - it makes a whole lot of difference if you say at least a 'gg' when you conceed.

And if the other person conceeds on you and you feel dissapointed, just imagine that their annoyance of playing the losing game is bigger than your annoyance of not finishing it. In the end, you still got the win.

There should be no limit on conceding. It's like you said to be very selfish if you think ending the game early is denying you something. I'll concede when I decide something is over. Sometimes that's very late. Maybe it let's me fit another game in. Go back to work early or go to bed just a bit earlier. But at no point should someone be forced to just sit the rest of a game.

As for the yahtzee guy. It's fine to have a rule on when to concede but an outright ban is silly.

[kloaf11]

Chiffa of Kettari wrote: ↑21 July 2023, 23:59
Well, I come here to play, not to win. I don't care if the win/loss is already clear, I want to see the cards shuffled around, to try more things (and to maybe be surprised by a sudden streak of luck, which turns "already decided" game 180°). I have no interest in rat race of emotionless "win-win-win" as fast as you can in as many games as you can, the treadmills belong to gym, not to relaxing hobby.
It's a pity we cannot really chose people based on such preferences. Unfinished game feels like it was a waste of my time, regardless of who wins.

What makes your motivations for playing the game the only valid one? If someone wants to concede, why should your desire to force them to play so you can enjoy yourself be more important then forcing them t play a game they don't want to play and be miserable?

If you want 100% control over the game, play solitaire. Otherwise the other players motivations for playing are just as valid as yours, and that could include not wanting to waste time on games they cannot win.

This poster wasn't saying that their motivation for playing was the only valid one, simply trying to explain their perspective to the 'conceders' who quit with one turn left and apparently fail to realize how frustrating this can be to those of us who enjoy the game for the game, not just the game for the win. When you've spent 30 or so minutes building an engine but most of the final points that influence stats play out in the last few turns, concessions that happen right at the end of the game take away the satisfaction of what we played for and are both rude and childish. It's like the kid playing monopoly who realizes he's lost and instead of finishing the game, throws the playing board off the table. Sure, the win/loss doesn't change but the human interchange experiences a vast shift--now both people are left with a bitter taste in what could have been an ending of calm camaraderie.

And I would argue this is what the conceders are trying to do--to 'get back' in an absurd, infantile way at the other player because they are sore losers. I have noticed a trend in the arena with player after player conceding a game in the very last turn, sometimes even the last move of the last turn. Any arguments that concessions should be allowed to 'save people's time' lose all their basis in this situation; conceding in the last few turns could only save a few seconds at most, a few seconds that anyone with a shred of decency and sportsmanship would see to the end. Conceding at 50% makes total sense, conceding over 90% reveals lack of sportmanship in the conceder.

You speak to 'forcing people to play' but the conceders that are irritating are those that choose to play up until the final seconds and then concede--no one forced them to start a game, no one forced them to play up to 90%, and no one forced them to finish the final seconds of the game, but the petty little tantrums players throw and quit seconds before the game ends is fairly telling as to their lack of what you describe as a 'valid motivation to play.' Ideally, people would express some basic understanding and play out the games they commit to, but unfortunately not everyone is considerate or mature. If people won't stop choosing to concede before the game reaches 90%, a rule to keep people behaving in a sportsmanlike fashion is a likely solution.

This is ironic that you would call concedes petty and childish. Because in all rationality. It's petty and childish to force someone to finish. It will make me feel better to see me when more. Is such a sore winner's perception and something my 5 yr old would say. You can easily self calculate the rest of the points. Anytime you force time from someone to please yourself that's insanely selfish. Especially from someone random on the internet lol

[drdeadpool]

Would it be possible to allow people to play out the rest of the game in case of an opponent conceding? (Like when players time out ) I feel like that would solve all these problems.

I'm definitely team "pro conceding" , but there was a game a week ago where I was going to potentially beat my high score, and the guy conceded with 2 turns to go. Fair enough, I was already really ahead and I definitely don't want to force him to sit and watch me play. But I would have liked to play those last two turns and finish "my" game at least (If I got lucky with the birdfeeder, I wouldve gotten a new high score).

[hwryu99]

You can just play it with 3 or more players

[Ceaseless]

Would it be possible to allow people to play out the rest of the game in case of an opponent conceding? (Like when players time out ) I feel like that would solve all these problems.

I'm definitely team "pro conceding" , but there was a game a week ago where I was going to potentially beat my high score, and the guy conceded with 2 turns to go. Fair enough, I was already really ahead and I definitely don't want to force him to sit and watch me play. But I would have liked to play those last two turns and finish "my" game at least (If I got lucky with the birdfeeder, I wouldve gotten a new high score).

Yeah, I am pro conceding as well, and even if the game itself is over, I don't mind the idea of BGA letting players keep going, even if they're the only ones there, just to see a hypothetical end score.