Additional penalty for conceding?

[Soetriet]

I’ve noticed that some players seem quick to concede when the game isn’t going their way — it’s pretty frustrating, especially when I’m finally getting the tiles/cards to fall just right.

Don’t get me wrong; I understand that conceding can be a strategic decision. Sometimes it’s clear that a win isn’t possible, and rather than prolonging the inevitable, a player might choose to concede and move on to the next game. But here’s the thing: when you’re on the other side, building a perfect strategy or seeing your hard work pay off, it’s a real downer to have the game cut short because your opponent concedes.

I’m starting to think that conceding shouldn’t just result in a regular loss. Maybe players should pay an additional penalty for conceding —something that discourages players from throwing in the towel too easily, yet still allows them an out when things truly are hopeless.

[Oxmeister]

When is it too early? Will it be the same for every game? Given leaving (only option <50%) a game incurs a penalty while conceding doesn't, do you propose a softer penalty, a 'yellow card' if you like? how will you communicate that in a way that most players will understand? What about the opposite problem of people conceding on the very last turn, which infuriates some people far more?

[DoctorFianchetto]

Don’t get me wrong; I understand that conceding can be a strategic decision. Sometimes it’s clear that a win isn’t possible, and rather than prolonging the inevitable, a player might choose to concede and move on to the next game. But here’s the thing: when you’re on the other side, building a perfect strategy or seeing your hard work pay off, it’s a real downer to have the game cut short because your opponent concedes.

It's more of a downer for them to have to keep playing and watch their opponent build a perfect game, they have no choice but to play on, where nothing they do will change their inevitable defeat, and when they could instead be halfway through a fresh game. Even more of a downer considering they've likely had to play a few useless turns just to reach 50%.

[euklid314]

I’ve noticed that some players seem quick to concede when the game isn’t going their way — it’s pretty frustrating, especially when I’m finally getting the tiles/cards to fall just right.

Don’t get me wrong; I understand that conceding can be a strategic decision. Sometimes it’s clear that a win isn’t possible, and rather than prolonging the inevitable, a player might choose to concede and move on to the next game. But here’s the thing: when you’re on the other side, building a perfect strategy or seeing your hard work pay off, it’s a real downer to have the game cut short because your opponent concedes.

I’m starting to think that conceding shouldn’t just result in a regular loss. Maybe players should pay an additional penalty for conceding —something that discourages players from throwing in the towel too easily, yet still allows them an out when things truly are hopeless.

Your point of view is completely understandable and valid. But please note that equally understandable and valid is the following argument:

If I get the tiles/cards falling just right and/or I have built a perfect strategy and I know that I will win, it can get quite frustrating if my opponent does NOT see it and does NOT resign but plays on and we have to play a lot of useless moves because the outcome is clear anyway. Why does he/she not concede the game sooner?

Please note that I am in fact feeling that way sometimes but most of the times I do not mind to play a game till the very end. It depends on the game. With my argument I just wanted to point out that your approach of punishing conceding will not necessarily make the majority of players happy.

[Ze Monstah]

I think that this is a non-problem and that BGA shouldn't invest in it.
Conceding means a loss (a win for you), which should be enough.

If you see your hard work getting destroyed by a reasonable concession, then chances are you're quite good in that game to:
1. anticipate the final result, had the player not conceded;
2. have many other similar games, in which the other player doesn't concede.

People feeling bad after someone concedes comes off as weird, to me. The other player's bad time should be more important than one's "hurt ego".

[Nekojin]

I’m starting to think that conceding shouldn’t just result in a regular loss. Maybe players should pay an additional penalty for conceding —something that discourages players from throwing in the towel too easily, yet still allows them an out when things truly are hopeless.

No. You've got your win. You don't get to automatically kick the other player while they're down, too. A concession saves time for both parties, which means you get to play more games. More people should be willing to concede when the outcome is obvious and unchangeable*.

Their concession is not something that should be punished. It's literally good sportsmanship. The reverse - an opponent deliberately wasting time and dragging out a game where they're obviously losing - is clearly bad sportsmanship.

Want more evidence? Tournament rules for nearly every** pro-level competitive game allows conceding at any point. Even games where you never see conceding - like pro Baseball and Football - have rules for it. Chess does. Magic: The Gathering does. Time is the one truly finite resource we have. Most people will respect not wanting to waste it on a forgone conclusion

* From their perspective. The game may still be "saveable," but if they don't see it, that's another reason they're losing.
** I'm hedging my bets here. I don't know of any that don't allow conceding, but if I say ALL of them do, we'll have some wag who pulls up the pro rules sheet for some game I've never heard of that doesn't allow it.

[buu441]

Yeah this is such a weird take. I don't understand why you need to rub it in to your opponent that you are winning.

[The Nuzzer]

I often concede when it's clear I will not win. I recently conceeded a Wingspan game in round 3 of 4 as it was clear from the birds I had in my hand and the lead my opponent already had that i would not win. Why should we play out the inevitable? My conceeding was the polite handshake to say "well done, you've bettered me today".

If you impose a penalty on conceding all that will happen is i will "pass" on my turns to the end of the game. Wheres the fun in that for anyone?

[Tricia87]

I’ve noticed that some players seem quick to concede when the game isn’t going their way — it’s pretty frustrating, especially when I’m finally getting the tiles/cards to fall just right.

Don’t get me wrong; I understand that conceding can be a strategic decision. Sometimes it’s clear that a win isn’t possible, and rather than prolonging the inevitable, a player might choose to concede and move on to the next game. But here’s the thing: when you’re on the other side, building a perfect strategy or seeing your hard work pay off, it’s a real downer to have the game cut short because your opponent concedes.

I’m starting to think that conceding shouldn’t just result in a regular loss. Maybe players should pay an additional penalty for conceding —something that discourages players from throwing in the towel too easily, yet still allows them an out when things truly are hopeless.

I agree. To only want to play when you are winning is poor form. You win some, you lose some.

[Grimwold]

When I play with friends
, I never give up. Because in that case, it's more the fact that I spend time with them that matter.

But with a stranger, once it's settled I have lost, there is no point pursuing that game.
But I understand why people continue playing after seeing they already lost.

For some, conceding is a mark of recpect (not wasting time), others thinks continuing is a mark of respect (letting your opponent see his great game to completion)

Just accept not everyone is like you and understand that someone conceding/continuing is not doing this to spite you.