Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[tbhp]

Sadio Mané just proved why you don’t concede an important game!

[Ceaseless]

You really seem to be on a crusade against conceding, but i still don't get it why ? Seems nearly a religious fanaticism. What gives YOU the right to decide what should be done or not ?

That's what I don't get. People like me are on a "crusade", whereas on the other side people like you don't seem to care as much about it, and wouldn't lose much if the conceding feature didn't exist. So why fight so much about it? Why not recognize that it's not as important for you and just let people like me have what they want?

If it's obscure to you, I wonder why you are even playing games. That's like a movie fan telling me "I don't care if the ending is missing from the movies I watch". Don't you see how that doesn't seem to make sense?

If you want to go on a crusade for something, do it for something that has actual value, like conceding. It's a precious shield that's with us every game, letting us put an end to a game that's over without dragging through the unintended stretch of a dying game. If you want to talk about a game's culture, then conceding belongs at the top of the list. It's an integral part of the stories of the past and will continue to be essential to the games of the future. To remove conceding from games is to rip apart the ending of the game. It's like someone making a perfect 93 minute movie, but because the venue said it had to be 120 minutes, decided to add farting noises for the last 27 minutes to pad things up.

People who play competitively care about winning and how well they played. What difference does it make how the game ended if you can already determine the level of your game and get the best outcome?

Because as has already been explained, it's not just about the fact of winning. It's about the context, the storytelling and the aesthetics in which it all went down. A win can become anticlimactic and leave a sour taste if it's obtained in poor conditions, and it can be grandiose when those conditions are optimal or close to it.

If this is the case, then should we deprive them of a comfortable place to play when other people have their own?

How does not being able to concede make the place not comfortable? If it's turn based, it changes nothing about the experience. If it's real time, at worst it means you'll have to wait a few minutes in games you definitely lost. If you are competitive at a game, that shouldn't be a very common occurrence.

Defeat is the worst result for a competitive player, except maybe for a poorly played game.

This is a bit outside of the scope of the discussion, but this is not even necessarily true. For example, the world cup final between France and Argentina was such a legendary game of football that it can be considered that France gained something of great value by being an actor of it, even though they lost. Defeats can be magnificent too, and they have a tragedy aspect to them that isn't there with a victory.

I once lost a tournament final on this site that I now look at with the same reverence, if not more, than my tournament wins, because the conditions in which it happened make it arguably the greatest game I have ever played on this site.

You know, funny thing about conceding, it's something you choose to do. If the game was truly so incredible, is there a reason you require special rules to force everyone to stay? Why do you not trust the players will stick around?

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=735448113
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=751044838
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=762281704

I'm sure these players loved taking an extra rating hit and reputation loss just because they couldn't concede thanks to the 50% rule. I'd have offered it to them if I could, the game was over. I had locked them out of their turns as I progressed to an inevitable victory, using my reservations to pull each card one at a time. A beautiful demonstration of the dangers of overextending. You don't get to see locks this extreme very often in Splendor. That said, the execution of watching this cycle unfold was not designed for viewing, and in this case being online might actually make it harder since it makes go through the phases of your turn when IRL the players could agree to skip over such tedious cycles of basically passing.

Someone mentioned the fact that the home team does not bat in the bottom of the 9th when ahead.

I'm not sure how fitting that analogy is. I understand why that's the rule - and it is an actual rule, which is different than conceding before a game rule has declared the game over - but it does mean the home fans miss an opportunity to see some of their favorite players have a plate appearance.

A better analogy would be, the score is 9-0 in the top of the 9th and the losing team says, "Well, why should we finish this game when we could already be preparing to get on the plane to our next game?" This is not allowed.

And yes, NFL teams usually take a knee. But they still run the play. I've seen games in which the players left the field thinking the game was over and had to be called back to the field to actually run that last kneeldown because there was not yet 0:00 on the clock.

In basketball, the ball still has to be inbounded, and 24-second violations are still called, until the clock reaches 0:00.

They're paid to run the script given to them, even when it is a waste of time. They're actors as well as players. The details are going to be a script-by-script thing, ideally the writers help avoid some obvious problems, like the one you mentioned, but that's not going to mean every absurd scenario is handled. The players just have to make do, at least they're compensated.

I have been on this site for a couple of years, mostly Space Base. This week is the first time I've had opponents concede, and so much so that I came to the forum to post, only to find it is an ongoing discussion. 2 seconds before I click my final, winning purchase, the game is magically over because someone quit... agreed to lose. I get 1 star, as though they timed out after their first move. Repeat, I get 1 star in my rank after all that effort. And their consequence is 0 stars. Not even negative. The little things add up - game freezing, conceding, the guy in 1st place that plays like a bot, players telling others to hurry up when their time is still ticking, having to reload and the game replaying - and then timing out, and the nasty attitudes on Catan. The behavior here is such a downer. Y'all it's a board game. Can we just play like we r family?

Conceding doesn't affect rating changes. If you're problem is with the quit feature on BGA and the trollsy game progression modifications, you can focus your ire on the game progression setting, it's where the rating manipulation came from.

[FrankJones]

ceaseless brings up a related topic that I would say is a 4th different topic in this thread.

In some games, notably Splendor, it's possible for a game to become "locked", meaning the opponent cannot do anything.

I would assume even the most ardent opponents of conceding would understand that in that situation, a concession is necessary.

And at 50%, it's possible to do so. The issue is, the way the game tracks progression is sometimes arbitrary or completely nonsensical, such that a player cannot yet concede even though the outcome is clearly decided AND the player cannot even make a move.

I would argue that's a separate topic not entirely aligned with the other 3 topics in this thread.

[MarkSteere]

If a game is locked, due to a player permanently having no more available actions, shouldn't the program detect that and make the progression at least 50%? Or end the game?

In some games, it isn't possible to express the progression as a function of the position. In those games you can take the average game duration and make the progression a percentage of that.

[FrankJones]

If a game is locked, due to a player permanently having no more available actions, shouldn't the program detect that and make the progression at least 50%? Or end the game?

In some games, it isn't possible to express the progression as a function of the position. In those games you can take the average game duration and make the progression a percentage of that.

My apologies, I was imprecise in my statement. In Splendor, a player canbe blocked from doing anything useful, meaning, the only legal move is to draw tokens and return the same number of tokens, still being unable to buy or reserve a card afterward.

So, though the player is technically taking a turn, it might as well just be a "pass", and the other player can just keep reserving random row 1 cards and eventually random row 2 cards, eventually gaining all 3 royals and likely getting to 15 points in the process for a guaranteed unstoppable win.

Because 15 points is the end-game position, the progression meter likely adds 1/15 progression per point scored, and it's possible to have 7 points right before making the game-winning move, at which point progression would still be below 50%.

[Fuchur]

You really seem to be on a crusade against conceding, but i still don't get it why ? Seems nearly a religious fanaticism. What gives YOU the right to decide what should be done or not ?

That's what I don't get. People like me are on a "crusade", whereas on the other side people like you don't seem to care as much about it, and wouldn't lose much if the conceding feature didn't exist. So why fight so much about it? Why not recognize that it's not as important for you and just let people like me have what they want?

If you want me to give up on my liberties how to play, you have to give real good reasons for doing so. As for now (page twenty-something of this thread i haven't seen ANY valid reason which justifies any restriction.

And i have, on occasion, already given up (once, perhaps twice -- i don't remember), i've seen some others concede in lost positions -- nothing said here justifies to stay blocked in the game, making random moves just because some *** prohibited conceding.

Before claiming for hard measures i think everybody should calm down and lay some numbers on the table : How often does this happen to you (in proportion of all your games) and why did your gaming partner concede ?

Fortunately, it's never happened to me in games that mattered. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss measures. I mean, just because people haven't done something bad yet doesn't mean there shouldn't be a rule that specifies against it. Besides, it may have happened to other people.

THIS is ridiculous : It never happened to you ! and you still want to stop it. Seems quite troll-like to me.

Some obscure reasoning about the "beauty of a completed game" ??? Same with "properly played games" ? Sorry, i don't understand this.

If it's obscure to you, I wonder why you are even playing games. That's like a movie fan telling me "I don't care if the ending is missing from the movies I watch". Don't you see how that doesn't seem to make sense?

Again troll-like argumentation. When i watch a film i usually stay until the end -- but most times i don't stay for the credits nor any after-film discussion. You're the guy who would force everybody to stay seated until the lights go on.

[Fuchur]

Just speaking generally to the forum, how many games of the 1400+ here on BGA allow conceding in a 3+ player game? My understanding is close to zero, and only in games that explicitly have a game rule/mechanic in place to handle situations in which a player drops out early.

So what ? I know that there are some games where it is possible, it may be possible to implement it easily for others. In theory you could replace any leaving player with an AI playing at his skill level.

Additionally, my understanding (as someone who knows some low-level coding) is that individual game developers cannot choose to display stats from neutralized games, and that the BGA framework itself is not set up for this.

But it could be. As some people are asking for changes being made to BGA -- and one of the most vehemently presented reasons was the lack of statistics when the game ended by conceding -- it seems more logical to me to ask directly for these calculations than to stop conceding. (Because that's not the only way a game can end prematurely, especially on BGA : Someone leaves or gets kicked -- you might be interested in the statistics describing the last game state.)

[FrankJones]

General information for anyone reading this thread:

BGA games do not have AI (computer-controlled) opponents available. So, having an absent player replaced by an AI player is not an option.

[Godsmurf]

I recently had a close game of Lost Cities. It was turn-based but we were both online and played the whole thing live. Then with 1 turn to go - literally 1 click - it was clear I had won, and my opponent quit and proceeded to let the timer run out for the remaining 10 days. He kept playing other games meanwhile, so he had to actively ignore our game for the full 10 days just to not have to accept a regular loss.

Just to illustrate how incredibly frail some people's egos are, and how they'll do anything to avoid bruising it. The mind boggles.

This was table * btw.

*Moderation Edit: please do not use the Forums to call out specific tables or players by name. The Forums should remain a general discussion.

[tbhp]

Just to illustrate how incredibly frail some people's egos are, and how they'll do anything to avoid bruising it. The mind boggles.

The irony being that their ego would be preserved much better if they simply accepted the loss. Don't they realize how bad it makes them look?