Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[nik592]

You're correct that there are issues with the progress trackers because those are developer programmed (and poorly in some cases, as far as I understand it). So there's unlikely to be a programmatic blanket solution.

To me, this isn't a make or break issue. It's a courtesy. If it's obvious that a game is about to end, let it end naturally. Beyond that, concede as you like. In either case, your opponent can red thumb you you so you can avoid each other in future - not necessarily that you've done something wrong, but just that your playing styles are different and perhaps not compatible. I personally don't like conceding because I'm here to play not see results and I'd rather finish a game, except in cases where a player has basically become trapped by poor play and it's just a long slow slog until the other player releases them or finally wins. I don't necessarily red thumb for someone who concedes (though I might, depending on my mood that day), but I agree with others that conceding at the absolute last second is discourteous, and I likely would red thumb for that.

Personally, I don't need any other solution. I posted in this thread because I agreed with the creator - it's discourteous and people ultimately shouldn't (concede with one move to go). But I was never looking for a programmatic solution. Though I guess having optional "no concessions" that the table creator can set could be useful (ie. no concessions at all, regardless of progress).

[FDHenneberg]

. Though I guess having optional "no concessions" that the table creator can set could be useful (ie. no concessions at all, regardless of progress).

I absolutely see that no one is held to have a solution for a problem they vent about, it’s just that it would be best to have a solution. And I like your proposal! This could maybe be a setting that, like game speed, can also be chosen as a preference.

[Jellby]

Perhaps it would help to have a concede option that would work like this:

1. Propose conceding.
2a. The other player accepts: the game ends.
2b. The other player refuses.
2c. The other player does not reply.
In case of 2b or 2c:
3a. Continue playing. Possibly try to explain to the other player why you want to concede.
3b. Concede anyway: the game ends.

At least with 2a everyone would be "happy", and with 3b you'd feel more justified to red-thumb the conceder.

There should be measures to avoid abuse, anyway. Like you can only propose conceding once per turn, or it's still your turn while you wait for a response...

[nik592]

. Though I guess having optional "no concessions" that the table creator can set could be useful (ie. no concessions at all, regardless of progress).

I absolutely see that no one is held to have a solution for a problem they vent about, it’s just that it would be best to have a solution. And I like your proposal! This could maybe be a setting that, like game speed, can also be chosen as a preference.

Someone else suggested that earlier in the thread, so it wasn't my suggestion. There's possibly even a suggestion raised about it somewhere in the bug forums. In fact, there is: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=76491 - there's also a bunch of other suggestions around concessions, particularly preventing concessions at end game. So there are certainly those who take issue with it, beyond those just on this thread.

[MarkSteere]

No, I don't think you should need permission to concede. That doesn't sound right. Sorry, I tried to butt out until now, but had to throw in my two cents on that point.

[FrankJones]

Perhaps it would help to have a concede option that would work like this:

1. Propose conceding.
2a. The other player accepts: the game ends.
2b. The other player refuses.
2c. The other player does not reply.
In case of 2b or 2c:
3a. Continue playing. Possibly try to explain to the other player why you want to concede.
3b. Concede anyway: the game ends.

At least with 2a everyone would be "happy", and with 3b you'd feel more justified to red-thumb the conceder.

There should be measures to avoid abuse, anyway. Like you can only propose conceding once per turn, or it's still your turn while you wait for a response...

I like these ideas.

If an opponent said to me, "Hey, I know the game is almost over, but is it okay if I concede?" I would appreciate the communication. I would likely reply, "I gain great value from the end-game position, statistics, etc., if it's not too much trouble, could we please finish it since we're only a minute or two away from doing so?"

In an actual emergency, I wouldn't expect someone to take the time to write "emergency, must concede and go", (although that would take only 5 seconds), but I really doubt any of these late-game concedes are an actual emergency.

If the opponent engages me in dialog and asks, "I'm curious, may I ask why this is important to you?" I would answer,

"Well, in a situation in which the game is nearly over and one person wants to concede and the other person wants to play it out, it's not possible for both players to get what they want. The reason I prefer to play it out is, among other things, the extensive statistics provided when the game is played to completion. These statistics provide value for any player who enjoys reviewing and analyzing games, and this information has been used to collect data over large sample sizes to create valuable strategy guides, and even rebalance some key aspects of games that were discovered to have balance issues as a result of this analysis. Additionally, the option to view these stats is a premium feature that I pay for, so it is disappointing to me when I am not able to utilize that aspect of BGA's services that I pay extra for just because the opponent prefers to save a minute or two, especially since part of the reason that opponent doesn't care about these end-game stats is that opponent cannot view them by not being a premium member."

or,

"I'm still learning the game mechanics of this game, and I'm not sure how the scoring works, or whether the cards I played scored what I expected, and I would appreciate being able to see the end-game state so I can examine all this."

So essentially, people who play for free and are not supporting the website can sometimes be in a position to deny to the opponent a feature that the opponent has paid for. And yeah, that's frustrating IF the game's natural conclusion is imminent anyway. If the game is only half over and a player really feels that continuing is pointless, then so be it. The half-game data is meaningless at that point anyway.

So, even though in this situation one of the two players is not going to get exactly what he or she wants, in a late-game concede the would-be conceding player would be losing a minute or two of time. The other player would be losing access to a paid feature, and the community as a whole loses the value added by the tracking and analysis of these stats.

I understand that some people will still say, "Well, whatever, I still don't care, and one minute of my life is still more important." But I don't understand why the people who feel that way seem to have such a difficult time understanding why that's frustrating to the people who hold the opposite opinion.

The reasons have been clearly articulated in full detail.

I suppose what's most frustrating is the lack of any way to screen out these players when setting the game table options. That would be great.

I just prefer in general not to play with or interact with people who I believe are acting in a selfish manner. I appreciate the input from one of the posters in this thread who said he or she was conceding late-game thinking it was actually gracious and congratulatory, similar to chess, but that really just isn't generally true for thematic strategy games.

And in light of the information presented in this thread, I wonder if that same person might be willing to reconsider that position. What I mean is, that person indicated he or she thought this late-game concession was what people wanted and appreciated. If that player (or any player in a similar situation) is truly aiming to be gracious and accommodating, the best action would be to finish the game, because the vast majority of the time, that's likely what the opponent would prefer, and the community of players who gain value from the collection and analysis of the end-game stats would prefer that also.

For my part, if conceding required agreement, similar to "collectively abandon game", and someone said, "This is truly an emergency, I usually finish but I can't this time", I would accommodate. But if the person (who I assume is being honest) said, "Look, I just don't care about the final move or two, please let me concede so I can start a new game," I would politely say, "I pay for premium features, one of which are the end-game stats, and we've already invested ____ minutes playing this game, and it's nearly over. Please just make the final move or two."

[FrankJones]

No, I don't think you should need permission to concede. That doesn't sound right. Sorry, I tried to butt out until now, but had to throw in my two cents on that point.

If it were a game setting agreed upon by both players before starting the game, why would it be an issue?

Also, it's not really about "needing permission", it's about being respectful of what is customary, expected, typical, and most beneficial to all parties involved.

People keep using the chess example. Well, in Chess, if it's customary to concede when the game is obviously over, what does that mean if a player insists on dragging the game out with a needless series of time-wasting moves?

I'm a bit puzzled how people keep making the chess analogy while ignoring the fact that in thematic strategy games, the reasons for a late-game concession are not analogous and are not generally viewed the same way.

[FrankJones]

Just to add another perspective:

I am generally not in a position to concede. I almost always have a chance of winning.
But right now I am in a game that is 100% hopeless. We are at 82% progression, with 6 more turns each (in a game in which turns take very little time. In real time, this would take maybe 10 minutes to finish, but it is turn-based).

I could concede. But I won't. Why?

1) Maybe my opponent is having an unusually fun and successful game and would like to play it to completion. I wouldn't want to deny my opponent that.
2) Maybe my opponent is working on a personal best for total score or bonus cards. I wouldn't want to deny that.
3) Maybe my opponent just finds it more fun when games are played to completion. I'm sure there are plenty of people out here who might be disappointed if an opponent says, "Ah screw this, I quit" when a game is going especially well against a high-rated player.
4) Maybe, like me, this opponent likes seeing the end game stats and uses them for analysis.

What would be my reason for conceding and possibly denying all this to my opponent? Because I can't spare the minutes it will take to complete the final 18% of the game? Because my ego "can't handle seeing a 20-point loss? That doesn't bother me. I'm actually curious to see how badly I lose this game, because, that's unusual, and I think seeing it play out is more interesting than just ending it abruptly.

I just get irked when people say (and several have said this), "Oh, the anti-conceders are just stroking their ego needing to see how much they crushed their opponent by".

No. I want to play the game out and congratulate my opponent on thrashing me by 20+ points. Maybe for some people it's about ego-stroking, but I think the much more likely explanation is, "people prefer to see a game played to its conclusion if the game is already 80%+ completed."

[Jellby]

You could find similar reasons for conceding, even if you still had a small chance of winning.

1) Maybe your opponent is sick and tired of the game and would like to finish it as soon as possible
2) Maybe your opponent is working on a personal best for fewest turns / fastest game
3) Maybe your opponent doesn't enjoy playing games when there isn't actual competition
4) Maybe this opponent wants to pack as many wins as possible in as short time as possible

Your not conceding when you could is against such an opponent's wishes.

You're free to concede or not, as you wish, but as long as you don't communicate with your opponent, don't pretend you do it for their benefit (even if that's what you feel).

[FrankJones]

You could find similar reasons for conceding, even if you still had a small chance of winning.

1) Maybe your opponent is sick and tired of the game and would like to finish it as soon as possible
2) Maybe your opponent is working on a personal best for fewest turns / fastest game
3) Maybe your opponent doesn't enjoy playing games when there isn't actual competition
4) Maybe this opponent wants to pack as many wins as possible in as short time as possible

Your not conceding when you could is against such an opponent's wishes.

You're free to concede or not, as you wish, but as long as you don't communicate with your opponent, don't pretend you do it for their benefit (even if that's what you feel).

I hear you.

I just figure that conceding is more likely to be frustrating to my opponent than not conceding, so I go that option to maximize the probability of being a good sport and doing what I think the opponent would prefer.

(In the game I referenced most recently, I actually ended up winning. Unbeknownst to me, the hidden information part of the game was incredibly lucky for me. I truly thought I had no chance, but my opponent may well have known that I had aa win I was completely unaware of.)