Quitting on the last turn is RUDE!

[jonjacobmoon]

Don't be a bad sport. Let's the game finish. To me, it is a sign of a poor loser. It leaves the winner with a hollow victory, imo.

[MasterMystery]

yeah agree, but in the end everyones choice, but not nice

[TopTierReindeer]

Yeah I second this. Find it rude to concede last turn. Do it until 90%, but not literally the turn before the end

[David314]

More general discussions about conceding have come up before, with arguments both ways:
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39435

As a slightly different take on why your opponent might concede on the last turn, I'm assuming this mostly comes up when you're in the middle of a big complicated turn involving eagles or similar (if your turn finished quickly, they could just as easily X something down to quickly end their last turn). On your last turn, because you don't know exactly what the other player has (endgame cards, plus not knowing how many points they can get on their last turn), you should be taking your time and carefully thinking through how to maximize points, because it'd be really silly to lose by 1-2 points just because you played the last turn wrong. On a complicated turn, sometimes this means you'll get partway through, realize you need more money/X's, undo turn to spend less earlier, etc. The opponent conceding makes it clear that you shouldn't bother carefully optimizing that last turn, because they know they can't possibly beat your score even though you don't know that. This saves both players a few minutes. (Also, even though you might want to play out your double eagle sun bear double project turn, it's not particularly fun as the opponent watching three minutes of you chaining actions together when from their seat the game's already over.)

If you're thinking they should've conceded earlier, from their seat it's not always obvious how many turns they have before you plan to end the game (especially if you're ending with a big complicated turn and they didn't know you have an eagle). If the opponent can trigger a break before you end the game, it's possible it'll significantly improve their last turn (ex: eagle comes out as one of the new cards, and/or they need more money in order to play whatever they had in hand). It's also possible both people were sitting around 99 points waiting for someone to end the game, or that the opponent triggered a break but needs two turns to do animals and associate; if your next action from either of those spots is dumping an eagle and an elephant plus doing a project but your opponent didn't realize you had that many points of animals in hand, there's definitely no reason they would have conceded earlier.

That said, if your last turn was quick and they're conceding instead of just doing a quick useless action, I'd agree that seems silly (but I don't know that I'd mind if my opponent conceded there anyway, since I'm already done regardless).

[BroVi]

I sort of agree that in real life it feels weird (and I admit I also thought so in the beginning), but I came to live in peace with that on BGA - I understand it when my opponents concede on the last turn and do it myself sometimes as well.
A small illustration to what @David314 said above - in a recent game of mine the score was 72 - 68 in my favor when the opponent has caused the break. With the help of a snap and a lucky draw from the deck I suddenly made it 116 - 68 in just one turn. My opponent conceded before I even pressed Confirm. I believe I would have done the same if I were them. So I don't mind it either way...

[R-Cane]

More general discussions about conceding have come up before, with arguments both ways:
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39435

As a slightly different take on why your opponent might concede on the last turn, I'm assuming this mostly comes up when you're in the middle of a big complicated turn involving eagles or similar (if your turn finished quickly, they could just as easily X something down to quickly end their last turn). On your last turn, because you don't know exactly what the other player has (endgame cards, plus not knowing how many points they can get on their last turn), you should be taking your time and carefully thinking through how to maximize points, because it'd be really silly to lose by 1-2 points just because you played the last turn wrong. On a complicated turn, sometimes this means you'll get partway through, realize you need more money/X's, undo turn to spend less earlier, etc. The opponent conceding makes it clear that you shouldn't bother carefully optimizing that last turn, because they know they can't possibly beat your score even though you don't know that. This saves both players a few minutes. (Also, even though you might want to play out your double eagle sun bear double project turn, it's not particularly fun as the opponent watching three minutes of you chaining actions together when from their seat the game's already over.)

If you're thinking they should've conceded earlier, from their seat it's not always obvious how many turns they have before you plan to end the game (especially if you're ending with a big complicated turn and they didn't know you have an eagle). If the opponent can trigger a break before you end the game, it's possible it'll significantly improve their last turn (ex: eagle comes out as one of the new cards, and/or they need more money in order to play whatever they had in hand). It's also possible both people were sitting around 99 points waiting for someone to end the game, or that the opponent triggered a break but needs two turns to do animals and associate; if your next action from either of those spots is dumping an eagle and an elephant plus doing a project but your opponent didn't realize you had that many points of animals in hand, there's definitely no reason they would have conceded earlier.

That said, if your last turn was quick and they're conceding instead of just doing a quick useless action, I'd agree that seems silly (but I don't know that I'd mind if my opponent conceded there anyway, since I'm already done regardless).

Couldn`t have said it any better!!!

[IjinNoMigite]

Arena games are played to determine a WINNER...not a blowout. If you initiate the end of the game... and I'm down 30 points. Yes. I'm going to decline to prove that I lost.
Chess players resign. Poker players fold. Softball has the "mercy" rule. Get over it and move on the next game... or lunch... or coffee.

[Arnetto]

Arena games are played to determine a WINNER...not a blowout. If you initiate the end of the game... and I'm down 30 points. Yes. I'm going to decline to prove that I lost.
Chess players resign. Poker players fold. Softball has the "mercy" rule. Get over it and move on the next game... or lunch... or coffee.

This is an interesting discussion and I sympathize with various points of view here. This comment made me realize that for me it comes down to what I'll call a Competitive Intent Factor, which varies game by game and session by session. I don't mind resigning or a resignation if the Competitive Intent Factor is high, as it often inherently is in an arena or tournament scenario. I think it's also inherently high in some games mechanistically, and for me it's often higher in games I think I'm good at. I may be less likely to see them through if it's a lost cause because I perceive a lower return on the investment of time.

For me, CIF is lower in games that are inherently more social, more thematic or narrative oriented, or in sessions where I still feel like I'm learning or getting more out of the experience than a victory. In the case of a game like Ark Nova, which I am just learning, my CIF is very low now because I get a lot out of just playing the game and learning strategy from others whether or not I'm winning.

But then here's where it gets interesting: Even if I were proficient, I would be unlikely to play a game like AN out of sheer competitive intent in the first place because the time investment is fairly high, the strategic arc is fairly long, and the complexity is sufficient for me to want to see how my game goes regardless of the other players' scores. So, while it may be seen as selfish to quit, it's ironically self-interested to continue to the end of an inevitable loss. I don't feel the same way about some fast-moving trick-taking and abstract games. Accordingly, AN isn't a game I'd likely want to play in a tournament/Arena scenario. To each their own.

Lastly, it occurred to me that it might be useful if "Allow concede" were a BGA option at the individual game preferences level when setting up the game rather than at the site level. (There may be all kinds of problematic use cases for this, or it would probably already exist.) That way, we could be sure everyone at the table has compatible expectations when it comes to Competitive Intent Factor. If I were there to prioritize victory above all, I would be way less likely to join or create a game where conceding isn't allowed.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments,
/A

[jonjacobmoon]

More general discussions about conceding have come up before, with arguments both ways:
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39435

As a slightly different take on why your opponent might concede on the last turn, I'm assuming this mostly comes up when you're in the middle of a big complicated turn involving eagles or similar (if your turn finished quickly, they could just as easily X something down to quickly end their last turn). On your last turn, because you don't know exactly what the other player has (endgame cards, plus not knowing how many points they can get on their last turn), you should be taking your time and carefully thinking through how to maximize points, because it'd be really silly to lose by 1-2 points just because you played the last turn wrong. On a complicated turn, sometimes this means you'll get partway through, realize you need more money/X's, undo turn to spend less earlier, etc. The opponent conceding makes it clear that you shouldn't bother carefully optimizing that last turn, because they know they can't possibly beat your score even though you don't know that. This saves both players a few minutes. (Also, even though you might want to play out your double eagle sun bear double project turn, it's not particularly fun as the opponent watching three minutes of you chaining actions together when from their seat the game's already over.)

If you're thinking they should've conceded earlier, from their seat it's not always obvious how many turns they have before you plan to end the game (especially if you're ending with a big complicated turn and they didn't know you have an eagle). If the opponent can trigger a break before you end the game, it's possible it'll significantly improve their last turn (ex: eagle comes out as one of the new cards, and/or they need more money in order to play whatever they had in hand). It's also possible both people were sitting around 99 points waiting for someone to end the game, or that the opponent triggered a break but needs two turns to do animals and associate; if your next action from either of those spots is dumping an eagle and an elephant plus doing a project but your opponent didn't realize you had that many points of animals in hand, there's definitely no reason they would have conceded earlier.

That said, if your last turn was quick and they're conceding instead of just doing a quick useless action, I'd agree that seems silly (but I don't know that I'd mind if my opponent conceded there anyway, since I'm already done regardless).

Hard disagree. Its three minutes. If you can play a game for an hour or so, then you can be kind enough to wait through three minutes of a turn to let your opponent finish. I still say its a sign of a a bad attitude and a poor sport.

[danielvictor]

Can't do anything more to prevent players from quitting on the last turn.But you could mandate play to continue where a player quits on the last turn in a tournament game.