Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[tbhp]

Why does the loser get to decide how the game ends?

1. When games are played for fun, it makes a whole lot of sense that anyone can decide when the game ends: when you stop having fun there's no point going on.

2. When games are played as competition (for a win), it makes sense that the anyone can decide at any point that the game is over... if they agree to take a loss. After all, that's the point of the game.

3. When games are played for show (i.e. when others pay to watch the game), it makes sense that no one can end the game early, because the spectators deserve getting what they paid for.

Now, BGA is mostly a balance between 1 and 2, with the complication of multiplayer games that cannot continue when one player leaves and cheating and abuse prevention.

It's weird that you seem to understand what the problem is with your third point, but can't seem to apply that same point to the players themselves. Players are the first spectators of their own game, and that's why it hurts all the more when they have to see the game they invested themselves in end in such an incomplete, anticlimactic fashion.

Besides, I think most everyone here plays games for those three reasons, just to different degrees depending on the person. The reason that is relevant to conceding is indeed the third one, as seeing a game being conceded is like the equivalent of watching a movie you find amazing, only to have it finish before its natural ending, being left to wonder forever how it would have played out. Or, like an artist being very invested in a work that they never get to complete, for whatever reason. The frustration in those cases feels like a profound loss, as is the case when a game that you really cared about ends abruptly.

[Meeplelowda]

Not conceding, on the other hand, doesn't destroy anything that anyone cares about, so why is it not the preferred solution?

It's not like we have to choose between one value or another. Now that would be an unsolvable dilemma. In our case, we have on one hand conceders destroying something, and on the other non-conceders not doing anything bad, just trying to live their life and play their game. I don't understand why some people aren't able to recognize who is being hurt in the situation.

I've mostly moved to your side of argument, but you are doing the same thing you're accusing others of in failing to recognize that someone who wants to concede is also losing something they care about if you don't let them: their ability to walk away from the game and move on with their life. The only way to say you aren't choosing between one value or another is to give their desire to get out of being "trapped" (as some of them have put it) zero weight. It's ok to feel that finishing the game matters more, but you have to own that you are weighing it against something.

[nik592]

The point is that conceding destroys the thing that some people value in games. Not conceding, on the other hand, doesn't destroy anything that anyone cares about, so why is it not the preferred solution?

It's not like we have to choose between one value or another. Now that would be an unsolvable dilemma. In our case, we have on one hand conceders destroying something, and on the other non-conceders not doing anything bad, just trying to live their life and play their game. I don't understand why some people aren't able to recognize who is being hurt in the situation.

If a game still has a decent way to go, and one player feel that they have no chance of winning and to continue to play would just be a waste of their time, then NOT conceding would result in destroying their enjoyment of the game. I personally don't see being in a (probable) losing position as a waste of my time, and would continue to play, even if there's a decent amount of the game to go, but I respect the right of my opponent to choose something else. I might choose to block that opponent as their play style and mine are different, and we will both be happier not playing each other in future. But not everyone feels like I do, and to say that not conceding has no negative impact on either party is false.

I take your points on being disappointed not to see the outcome of a game - I feel the same. But that doesn't mean my opponent has to sit and not enjoy their time playing with me when there's still a significant amount of game to go. The problem is defining where is the barrier to "significant amount to go". People mostly seem to agree that last turn (or at least after your own last turn) is conceding for the wrong reasons. Some people have said 80%. Some people have talked about "a few minutes". In some games, that last 20% can be well more than a few minutes, so I'm not sure either threshold can be a definitive thing.

What I'd like from my opponents is if they are planning to concede, they're considering the impact of doing so on my game as well as their own. If they have to leave or are just hating the experience and feel like there's ages to go, they're probably going to concede anyway, so may as well just do it. In the case where a game is almost over, I'd like to think a player wouldn't concede and would just finish. In a borderline scenario, I'd hope that maybe they'd ask. But either way, they make their choice, and if I don't agree with it, red thumbs are there.

[tbhp]

Not conceding, on the other hand, doesn't destroy anything that anyone cares about, so why is it not the preferred solution?

It's not like we have to choose between one value or another. Now that would be an unsolvable dilemma. In our case, we have on one hand conceders destroying something, and on the other non-conceders not doing anything bad, just trying to live their life and play their game. I don't understand why some people aren't able to recognize who is being hurt in the situation.

I've mostly moved to your side of argument, but you are doing the same thing you're accusing others of in failing to recognize that someone who wants to concede is also losing something they care about if you don't let them: their ability to walk away from the game and move on with their life. The only way to say you aren't choosing between one value or another is to give their desire to get out of being "trapped" (as some of them have put it) zero weight. It's ok to feel that finishing the game matters more, but you have to own that you are weighing it against something.

That's not them caring about something about the game, that's them caring about their own life and outside interests. That's totally different. We are here to play games, this is a gaming website, the rules we put in place should be there to protect the value of the games themselves, just as any sport has rules that protect the integrity of said sport. The external things that may prevent someone from finishing a game are a totally independent matter and should always come with a penalty, because they disrupt the normal process of playing games that we are here for.

I'm not saying the other person's inconvenience doesn't exist, but the importance it has is in a totally different ballpark than getting a game conceded on you, both in terms of what the spirit of games should entail, and in terms of the intensity of the harm that is being inflicted upon the person.

[tbhp]

The point is that conceding destroys the thing that some people value in games. Not conceding, on the other hand, doesn't destroy anything that anyone cares about, so why is it not the preferred solution?

It's not like we have to choose between one value or another. Now that would be an unsolvable dilemma. In our case, we have on one hand conceders destroying something, and on the other non-conceders not doing anything bad, just trying to live their life and play their game. I don't understand why some people aren't able to recognize who is being hurt in the situation.

If a game still has a decent way to go, and one player feel that they have no chance of winning and to continue to play would just be a waste of their time, then NOT conceding would result in destroying their enjoyment of the game.

That's a fair point, I guess there is technically something being destroyed, but I would question the good faith of a player who is complaining about that. I mean, if you've lost a game, it costs you almost nothing to just show up when it's your turn and take a few seconds to play some random move. Since you've lost the game, it doesn't matter what you do, you can just go through the motions, so is this slight loss of enjoyment a significant factor that should be taken into account when weighing things? I don't see how.

I've played a few games where I had to go through a situation like that, and it would never have occurred to me to say that this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed with the option to concede. It's always been obvious to me that the integrity of my opponent's board and well being is infinitely more important than whatever inconvenience I might have. So I don't get how some people are able to just dismiss their opponent like that and decide that their person is more important.

To me it seems that the complains about being forced to finish a game are less about the concrete work it takes to make a move, or the loss of enjoyment of the game, and more about a misplaced sense of ego where they simply don't like being strung along in a game they've already lost. It seems to me that this is the real reason most people concede. Because if it's one of the other reasons, then it's really nothing and it shouldn't be hard to just play your move.

[Jellby]

I mean, if you've lost a game, it costs you almost nothing to just show up when it's your turn and take a few seconds to play some random move.

Are you assuming it's a turn-based game? It costs you:
- Having one useless game taking a spot in your games in progress list. Some users have a limited amount of simultaneous games allowed.
- Being forced to log in every now and then to make a useless move or face an expulsion and penalty. No holidays allowed.

It's worse if it's a real-time game:
- You cannot leave the room and do something else.
- You cannot log out and go to sleep.
- You cannot start playing a more interesting game.
- You have to wait and watch your opponent take their turns, possibly using all their thinking time, just to click pass.

On the other hand, as the winning player, what is really the enjoyment in playing your game while the opponent just clicks pass turn after turn? I get the satisfaction in playing combos, maximizing score, completing the board, etc., but should that really be at the expense of the other player?

[tbhp]

Jellby, I acknowledged those things when I said it costs you "almost" nothing.

I've been in those real time situations. It is a slight inconvenience, but how is it worth anything when put up against the harm you would cause to your opponent and to the integrity of the game itself if you were to concede? That's what I explained in my above post.

It doesn't matter that the opponent gave up, you are grossly underestimating the loss that people might feel if the game they are so invested in were to end before they could complete it (especially if it's a very important game, like in a tournament or such). This emotional, historical, and artistic concern should always take priority over mere practical concerns.

As for the turn based examples, this is really nothing, because if you end up getting a penalty for not being able to show up, then that's just normal, you should be penalized since you disrupted the normal process of the games, so why would you complain about that? Same thing for the limited number of games. If you got yourself in that situation, you should just accept it, why should it be your opponent who gets penalized for your own issues?

[nik592]

It doesn't matter that the opponent gave up, you are grossly underestimating the loss that people might feel if the game they are so invested in were to end before they could complete it (especially if it's a very important game, like in a tournament or such). This emotional, historical, and artistic concern should always take priority over mere practical concerns.

I think you're grossly underestimating how another person might feel about being forced to play a game they can clearly see they've lost and derive no further enjoyment from. I admit, I've VERY occasionally found myself in a game where I've completely misunderstood the rules or the strategy and made some early critical errors that make the rest of the game seem like an unbearable slog. I think that's almost always happened IRL, and I think quite often it happens because everyone (or almost everyone) at the table has misinterpreted/forgotten a rule and the game is now no fun anymore. We've basically agreed to abandon in that case (and usually restart or play another time). But where you do that online, and your opponent refuses? Well, concession is an option. This has never happened to me on BGA fortunately, probably because there is some degree of control over my moves and prompting for important actions. And BGA tutorials are usually more comprehensive than our usual IRL learning method which involves me trying to read the rulebook as fast as possible and get the gist of things and hopefully refer back to clarify when needed through of first game.

When it's a matter of a few minutes, sure, play it out. But even in a TB game, you want a person to revisit a game another 20+ times and make random moves? As an opponent, I actually DON'T want players doing that, I'd prefer they concede. If I get someone playing a nonsense game against me, they will 100% be red-thumbed at the end. I'm not looking to play solitaire (even if I sometimes do play games which are parallel multiplayer solitaire), I want competition in my games.

[tbhp]

It doesn't matter that the opponent gave up, you are grossly underestimating the loss that people might feel if the game they are so invested in were to end before they could complete it (especially if it's a very important game, like in a tournament or such). This emotional, historical, and artistic concern should always take priority over mere practical concerns.

I think you're grossly underestimating how another person might feel about being forced to play a game they can clearly see they've lost and derive no further enjoyment from.

I doubt it. As much as you may want to argue otherwise, it is a practical concern at the end of the day. Are those people going to feel a profound sense of loss that they will never be able to forget, that will always haunt them any time they think about it? No. This is a one time inconvenience, something that might piss them off in the moment, but it should never be compared to harms of the natures I listed in my linked comment.

And like I said before, if the situation really pisses them off, it probably comes from a misplaced sense of ego where they feel they are being humiliated by their opponent or something like that, which is not a mindset we should be encouraging on a gaming website.

As for your specific example, I'm sure most of us have experienced those games they don't really enjoy because they are still new at it, but this seems so insignificant I'm not sure why you think it even belongs to this discussion. If that happens then that's just a normal learning experience, I don't know why anyone would think this should give them the right to concede.

[Silene]

I also think it is just a question of where to draw the line. I do think it is impolite to concede with just <1min / very few turns to go. While on the other hand it's totally fine to concede when you get into a hopeless situation relatively early in the game. Where that line is - everybody has to decide by themselves.

When there is a sigificant amount of turns to go - I don't think doing random moves yields to useful end-game-stats or achievements for the other player.

You wanna see by how many points you can win? What's the info worth if I just pass and stop making points?
You want to see if you can get some combo / set / game-specific achievement / highest score? What's that worth if I just let you have everything you want?

If you want useful end-game-stats: you can only have them if i keep playing the best moves. And that is much more effort than you lined out @tbhp. So it is much more than a random click once a day and that shifts the amount of impact by a lot.

On a side note for some games: On games that are basically multiplayer solo-games (like some roll&writes) - a significant amount of them do have a solo-mode. If you want to play for achievements I think you're better off playing the solo-mode. Multiplayer is for seeing who can reach more points and individual achievements are just a very minor thing to look at.