Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[FrankJones]

Fuchur, you are a very rude person (constantly asking me if I have a memory problem, and often taking a needlessly aggressive tone).

I have answered your questions, and yet you keep re-asking them or phrasing them in slightly different ways.

What I said with regard to chess is that I personally have never seen chess statistics referenced or used in my many years of playing and studying chess. (If a master or grandmaster level chess player, or even strong player wrote a post saying that chess statistics are useful, I would eagerly read the post and perhaps learn something, rather than taking your approach of dismissing the statement based on an opinionated position of personal ignorance.) As usual, you completely changed the intent and meaning of my statement.

So, I am finished discussing this with you.

You have my blessing to take the final word with whatever insults you wish to throw at me.

I'm happy to discuss the topic further with anyone else in this thread.

[arya-banana]

Not a very good point. Sure, we can't literally force people to keep playing a game, but we can enforce punishments for those who leave. We already have punishments for offenses that are not as serious as deliberately leaving a game (like running out of time for reasons outside of one's control), so it should be a no brainer in my opinion.

Why would you punish someone for conceding when conceding is not against the rules?

The suggestion here is to prevent people from doing something that is normally allowed because it hurts your feelings or robs you of satisfaction.

That does not cross the threshold to enforcement of rules or disallowing something.

Well, when someone concedes on me, it feels a lot more like they did something wrong than when they simply run out of time (in which case I just let them play and don't hold it against them).

We are here to play games, so it seems logical to me the worst thing a player can do is to sabotage a game by interrupting it before its natural conclusion. When someone takes too much time to play, at least they aren't disrupting the normal process of a game.

It's not sabotage because conceding does not disrupt the game or interrupt it. It is part of the game, leading to one of the natural conclusions, which is to either win or lose. In this case, they lose and the other person wins.

[tbhp]

It's not sabotage because conceding does not disrupt the game or interrupt it. It is part of the game, leading to one of the natural conclusions, which is to either win or lose. In this case, they lose and the other person wins.

Except for rare exceptions like chess, conceding is not a feature. Most games are not made with concession in mind.

The natural conclusion of a game isn't just winning or losing, it's reaching the end state that the creators have defined as the end of the game. If you only care about whether you win or lose, you might as well play rock paper scissors.

[Ceaseless]

It's not sabotage because conceding does not disrupt the game or interrupt it. It is part of the game, leading to one of the natural conclusions, which is to either win or lose. In this case, they lose and the other person wins.

Except for rare exceptions like chess, conceding is not a feature. Most games are not made with concession in mind.

The natural conclusion of a game isn't just winning or losing, it's reaching the end state that the creators have defined as the end of the game. If you only care about whether you win or lose, you might as well play rock paper scissors.

Chess is not some rare exception, lol. It's just a regular game, if rather popular and long-lived. Many players like having agency, the ability for their choices to actually matter in a game. When what they choose no longer matters, there is nothing wrong with them seeing that as the game being over and resigning. A game's end condition is one way to finish a game, but it is not a mindless obligation for players to only end it that way.

[arya-banana]

It's not sabotage because conceding does not disrupt the game or interrupt it. It is part of the game, leading to one of the natural conclusions, which is to either win or lose. In this case, they lose and the other person wins.

Except for rare exceptions like chess, conceding is not a feature. Most games are not made with concession in mind.

The natural conclusion of a game isn't just winning or losing, it's reaching the end state that the creators have defined as the end of the game. If you only care about whether you win or lose, you might as well play rock paper scissors.

I think the issue here is you are not accurately portraying the nature of games. We do not play them to fulfill some sacred agenda where accomplishing it in a pristine and continuous manner is vitally important. It is a past time. It is a diversion.

Penalties for wasting people's time is one thing. Forcing them to reach "an end state that the creators have defined" every time even if it would be moot for them because there is no way for them to catch up is unnecessary. You have already won. If they do not want to reach the "designed end state" then that is their choice - and no one's choice should be taken away from them if they would only need to do so to serve the opponent's ego or worse to fulfill their childish fantasies about how serious a browser game should be.

[BananaHarambe]

The only thing annoying about conceding is that it invalidates the game stats for the "finished" game for all players. If conceding happens in too many games the game stats become pointless. Also, final scores are replaced with 1-0 records which doesn't say much about the game. I have a feeling many players prefer seeing 0-1 for their losses rather than the real score which is affect he concede rate.

For a player that always tries their best for personal score and finds player stats interesting it is annoying to have the personal statistics ruined, but not much you can do about it since it's not against the rules. Comparing game stats is pretty much meaningless because of it. I rarely encounter an early concede as a time saving measure in a losing game. It is always "1 move away" from an already known loss.

[tbhp]

It's not sabotage because conceding does not disrupt the game or interrupt it. It is part of the game, leading to one of the natural conclusions, which is to either win or lose. In this case, they lose and the other person wins.

Except for rare exceptions like chess, conceding is not a feature. Most games are not made with concession in mind.

The natural conclusion of a game isn't just winning or losing, it's reaching the end state that the creators have defined as the end of the game. If you only care about whether you win or lose, you might as well play rock paper scissors.

Chess is not some rare exception, lol. It's just a regular game, if rather popular and long-lived. Many players like having agency, the ability for their choices to actually matter in a game. When what they choose no longer matters, there is nothing wrong with them seeing that as the game being over and resigning. A game's end condition is one way to finish a game, but it is not a mindless obligation for players to only end it that way.

Playing is not just about having fun, you need to respect the historical and artistic importance of the game you are playing (not to mention of course the experience of your opponent, as has been repeated many times).

If a team left the pitch in the middle of a world cup final because "we are too many goals down, it's no fun anymore", would that be a way anyone would want that game to conclude? No. Treating board games differently is not giving them the consideration that they should be given.

[tbhp]

I think the issue here is you are not accurately portraying the nature of games. We do not play them to fulfill some sacred agenda where accomplishing it in a pristine and continuous manner is vitally important. It is a past time. It is a diversion.

Penalties for wasting people's time is one thing. Forcing them to reach "an end state that the creators have defined" every time even if it would be moot for them because there is no way for them to catch up is unnecessary. You have already won. If they do not want to reach the "designed end state" then that is their choice - and no one's choice should be taken away from them if they would only need to do so to serve the opponent's ego or worse to fulfill their childish fantasies about how serious a browser game should be.

So you are proving my point from my last post. The games you play don't matter that much to you and you are just looking to have fun, not admire them as art objects and respect the culture around them. That's okay, but that shouldn't go at the expense of the people who care, that's a basic rule we apply to most things in life, so why should board games be different.

You should at the very least ask your opponent before conceding what they think about it. If they are like you, then you will both happily end the game, and if they are not, then it's basic decency to respect the wishes of someone who cares more about something than you do.

[Kaladry]

The only thing annoying about conceding is that it invalidates the game stats for the "finished" game for all players. If conceding happens in too many games the game stats become pointless. Also, final scores are replaced with 1-0 records which doesn't say much about the game. I have a feeling many players prefer seeing 0-1 for their losses rather than the real score which is affect he concede rate.

For a player that always tries their best for personal score and finds player stats interesting it is annoying to have the personal statistics ruined, but not much you can do about it since it's not against the rules. Comparing game stats is pretty much meaningless because of it. I rarely encounter an early concede as a time saving measure in a losing game. It is always "1 move away" from an already known loss.

This is likely what happened to me yet again. I was playing against someone with 550+ ELO and on my last turn (I was the last player) after I had placed my tile but was in the process of clicking to claim it, they conceded and then proceeded to tell me in the chat that I had "ridiculous luck" and they'd beat me in a rematch. (They made so many questionable moves during the game I was surprised they had that high of an ELO to start with tbh.)

I made this suggestion if anyone wants to vote for it:
https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=200671

[FrankJones]

The only thing annoying about conceding is that it invalidates the game stats for the "finished" game for all players. If conceding happens in too many games the game stats become pointless. Also, final scores are replaced with 1-0 records which doesn't say much about the game. I have a feeling many players prefer seeing 0-1 for their losses rather than the real score which is affect he concede rate.

For a player that always tries their best for personal score and finds player stats interesting it is annoying to have the personal statistics ruined, but not much you can do about it since it's not against the rules. Comparing game stats is pretty much meaningless because of it. I rarely encounter an early concede as a time saving measure in a losing game. It is always "1 move away" from an already known loss.

This is likely what happened to me yet again. I was playing against someone with 550+ ELO and on my last turn (I was the last player) after I had placed my tile but was in the process of clicking to claim it, they conceded and then proceeded to tell me in the chat that I had "ridiculous luck" and they'd beat me in a rematch. (They made so many questionable moves during the game I was surprised they had that high of an ELO to start with tbh.)

I made this suggestion if anyone wants to vote for it:
https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=200671

If someone concedes literally right at the end of a thematic strategy game, more likely than not the reason is spite and pettiness, similar to the experience you described.

Most opponents won't actually make a spiteful or petty remark (though I had a nearly identical remark made in a similar situation by a high-rated player), but the odd part of this thread is then umber of people willing to assume the best intentions when someone does a last-move concession, when that is just not likely.

Maybe very occasionally someone's life is so hectic and frantic that the player truly does need that 1 minute of life saved, but I doubt that's anything mor than a very rare occurrence, and most people whose lives fit that description are probably not often playing games on BGA.