Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[Fuchur]

I think this is the type of behavior that would be much more common if people couldn't concede games anymore or were punished for it. I'd find that much more frustrating.

I have decided to red thumb opponents that concede on the last move. Fool me once, shame on you; I will not be fooled twice.

Does this happen regularly to you ? In other words, do you red thumb a lot of people for this reason ?

[FrankJones]

Well, if you choose to continue a game after someone has left, something has been implemented to replace the missing players. I've tried it once or twice -- the result is (at least for AZUL) catastrophic. But it is, in a way, a (really stupid) IA.

If someone is willing to invest (a lot of) time you could get much better results.

Some games do no function properly with an absent player. That's why the game result is decided immediately - the player who quits takes a loss, the other players share the win.

Likely this is why Conceding is not allowed in multiplayer games.

That's wrong. There ARE games on BGA where you can concede with more than 2 players.

And for better or worse, BGA does not have AI opponents.

Also wrong, It does -- as you can continue to play even if someone has left the game (at least i was proposed to do so in all the games here on BGA where someone left before the end).

Which games allow conceding when there are more than 2 players?

Also, continuing to play with an absent ("Zombie") player is not the same as playing with an AI opponent.

[ChiefPointThief]

Spades

[FrankJones]

As an example of a game that can be conceded that has mor than 2 players?

Spades is a game of one entity versus another, effectively making it a 2-player game for the intents and purposes discussed in this thread.

One team wins, one team loses, and there is no 3rd (or more) team that would cause complications in that regard.

[MarkSteere]

Are "winning" stats really important? So crucial that they warrant forcing the losing player to stay in the game?

Just logically... After you lose, you'd want to study the stats to see what went wrong. But after you win, the stats just confirm what you already knew. Right?

Maybe there are exceptions to this. "Why did I win? I'm shocked. [studying stats] Oh wow, I accidentally made some ingenious moves. That totally explains it."

[FrankJones]

Are "winning" stats really important? So crucial that they warrant forcing the losing player to stay in the game?

Just logically... After you lose, you'd want to study the stats to see what went wrong. But after you win, the stats just confirm what you already knew. Right?

Maybe there are exceptions to this. "Why did I win? I'm shocked. [studying stats] Oh wow, I accidentally made some ingenious moves. That totally explains it."

The value of the end-game stats has been stated and repeated numerous times in the 20+ pages of this thread.

As noted though, this only applies to games that are nearly over when the concession occurs.
If the game is at 50% progression, the stats don't mean much.

[Trailblazer23]

I think this is the type of behavior that would be much more common if people couldn't concede games anymore or were punished for it. I'd find that much more frustrating.

I have decided to red thumb opponents that concede on the last move. Fool me once, shame on you; I will not be fooled twice.

Does this happen regularly to you ? In other words, do you red thumb a lot of people for this reason ?

From January 14-January 26, opponents have conceded in 16 games. I'd guess 13 were last move, rather than mid-game.

[FDHenneberg]

Which games allow conceding when there are more than 2 players?

Not saying this means anything in our ongoing discussion, just since you asked: Through the Ages allows conceding in multiplayer games, as it’s in the rules.

Thanks to this lengthy discussion, I’ve already changed my mind about conceding outside of Arena, I’ll now only do that after asking for consent. I see that conceding in Arena is even worse for some but I agree to disagree on that.

[FrankJones]

Which games allow conceding when there are more than 2 players?

Not saying this means anything in our ongoing discussion, just since you asked: Through the Ages allows conceding in multiplayer games, as it’s in the rules.

Thanks to this lengthy discussion, I’ve already changed my mind about conceding outside of Arena, I’ll now only do that after asking for consent. I see that conceding in Arena is even worse for some but I agree to disagree on that.

Some (A very small number) games actually have conceding built into the rules, which is using a game mechanic to do so, not using BGA's "concede" to disrupt the game and end it prematurely.

Those in this thread who have referenced these few games are referencing situations which are not applicable.

[ChiefPointThief]

As an example of a game that can be conceded that has mor than 2 players?

Spades is a game of one entity versus another, effectively making it a 2-player game for the intents and purposes discussed in this thread.

One team wins, one team loses, and there is no 3rd (or more) team that would cause complications in that regard.

I get what you mean but often teammates don’t have the same ideology on conceding. It requires both losing teammates to agree on conceding and when there is a conflict it causes for an unpleasant experience for everyone involved. What happens is the person in favor of conceding will intentionally lose (going nil with ace of spade, bidding 13) in hopes that their partner will cave in and accept the concede and there are a lot of stubborn ppl who won’t bend for anything . If you see any spades game in which one team has a lot of negative points this is what most likely happened bc even if you’re the worlds worst player it’s pretty difficult to end games with scores of -hundreds of points. My most lopsided victory I won by over 2000pts because of a situation like this lol