Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[FrankJones]

I just saw one of the most epic games of all time, quite possibly the greatest single game of a specific game, that went 3x as many rounds as a typical game would go, and the results were neutralized by a final round concession.

It would take hours to recreate the end-game state and stats. I might do it anyway just because I am fascinated by the game that was played. I wasn't even in the game !

[Ceaseless]

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.

While frustrating to deal with, I will note this would not be what conceding with one move to go would look like, in fact this would be what refusing to concede with one move to go would look like.

[ChiefPointThief]

I just saw one of the most epic games of all time, quite possibly the greatest single game of a specific game, that went 3x as many rounds as a typical game would go, and the results were neutralized by a final round concession.

It would take hours to recreate the end-game state and stats. I might do it anyway just because I am fascinated by the game that was played. I wasn't even in the game !

I can’t recall, was it mentioned somewhere in this thread why stats can’t still be displayed when games are conceded.

[nik592]

I can’t recall, was it mentioned somewhere in this thread why stats can’t still be displayed when games are conceded.

I think there's been discussions that it's a dev choice - some games apparently do still show stats?

Where it doesn't, I'd assume the decision was that the game wasn't played out, many (possibly crucial) moves didn't happen, so stats don't make sense anymore.

[FrankJones]

I just saw one of the most epic games of all time, quite possibly the greatest single game of a specific game, that went 3x as many rounds as a typical game would go, and the results were neutralized by a final round concession.

It would take hours to recreate the end-game state and stats. I might do it anyway just because I am fascinated by the game that was played. I wasn't even in the game !

I can’t recall, was it mentioned somewhere in this thread why stats can’t still be displayed when games are conceded.

As someone who is involved in the development of one game here, I will say:

I believe it's a two-part problem:

1) The BGA framework is set up as such
2) Individual games might also be programmed as such.

The VAST majority of games (all but one that I play) display zero stats for a neutralized or forfeited game.

One game that I play displays only 4 out of 40+ statistics for such a game.

Intriguing... does that mean a developer for a game can choose to make some or all stats show for an incomplete game?
I don't know.

[tbhp]

I just saw one of the most epic games of all time, quite possibly the greatest single game of a specific game, that went 3x as many rounds as a typical game would go, and the results were neutralized by a final round concession.

It would take hours to recreate the end-game state and stats. I might do it anyway just because I am fascinated by the game that was played. I wasn't even in the game !

I can’t recall, was it mentioned somewhere in this thread why stats can’t still be displayed when games are conceded.

Well they could display some stats but the score itself would be rather meaningless to display, since generally a score doesn't tell you the whole story until the end of a game.

Then there's the problem that the stats of that game may be added to that player's general stats, or that game's general stats, which would be misleading since it wasn't a completed game.

[tbhp]

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.

While frustrating to deal with, I will note this would not be what conceding with one move to go would look like, in fact this would be what refusing to concede with one move to go would look like.

The effect and probably the intention are exactly the same. It's conceding just with a different name.

If they didn't want to concede, they'd just have played their last move. Instead, not content with conceding the normal way, they decided to add days of suffering to the ordeal.

[BarnardsStar]

Well they could display some stats but the score itself would be rather meaningless to display, since generally a score doesn't tell you the whole story until the end of a game.

Then there's the problem that the stats of that game may be added to that player's general stats, or that game's general stats, which would be misleading since it wasn't a completed game.

I have been thinking that, if we do think it’s people not wanting to accept they’ve lost (and I have a hard time believing this but an equally hard time finding any other reason for this behaviour) then the answer would be to show the stats in incomplete cases as well. But yes, the thought that those stats would then be used is untenable. I’d love to show them to the last-second conceder but not have them actually be used for anything. I don’t know if that’s possible though.

[Ceaseless]

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.

While frustrating to deal with, I will note this would not be what conceding with one move to go would look like, in fact this would be what refusing to concede with one move to go would look like.

The effect and probably the intention are exactly the same. It's conceding just with a different name.

If they didn't want to concede, they'd just have played their last move. Instead, not content with conceding the normal way, they decided to add days of suffering to the ordeal.

They are completely different things. Concession is an acceptance of defeat that generally saves the time of the players. Stalling is a refusal to admit defeat which generally wastes the time of the players.

[FrankJones]

Does it save time though for a player to play up until the final move and then concede, even though the outcome was clear and obvious well before that point in the game?