Please Let Me Concede

[piglooozimbabwe]

Some games you can easily see your opponent has a winning hand from the very get go and no matter how you try to catch up, like 'fetch', it's just not going to happen. For a game like Terraforming Mars, where it can take over an hour to get to 50% in a 2 player game, please just let me concede early. Right now the options are: hang in there but suffer for an hour when you know it's pointless or quit the game and get a massive karma penalty. If you let me concede, I'd do it and take the elo hit; the karma one seems unfair when there isn't another option and it impacts joining other games.

[Tisaac]

Some games you can easily see your opponent has a winning hand from the very get go and no matter how you try to catch up, like 'fetch', it's just not going to happen. For a game like Terraforming Mars, where it can take over an hour to get to 50% in a 2 player game, please just let me concede early. Right now the options are: hang in there but suffer for an hour when you know it's pointless or quit the game and get a massive karma penalty. If you let me concede, I'd do it and take the elo hit; the karma one seems unfair when there isn't another option and it impacts joining other games.

The ELO is precisely the issue here. If concede is too easy, we would see too much ELO boosting with multi accounts

[FrankJones]

It shouldn't take an hour to get to 50% in Terraforming Mars. 9 oceans and 5 greeneries will do it. Just start doing standard project oceans on plant placement spaces, then start putting greeneries next to the oceans. Assuming the other player is doing some terraforming also, this should get to 50% rather quickly.

[wdspider]

The ELO is precisely the issue here. If concede is too easy, we would see too much ELO boosting with multi accounts

That seems easily countered by preventing the "winner" from getting any ELO unless the game is above 50%. The conceder should still lose the ELO for conceding though.

[FrankJones]

The ELO is precisely the issue here. If concede is too easy, we would see too much ELO boosting with multi accounts

That seems easily countered by preventing the "winner" from getting any ELO unless the game is above 50%. The conceder should still lose the ELO for conceding though.

What?

So, a player who has played a winning game through 40% progression should just not get the deserved Elo because the opponent feels like quitting?

That's a rather bizarre "solution".

[wdspider]

The ELO is precisely the issue here. If concede is too easy, we would see too much ELO boosting with multi accounts

That seems easily countered by preventing the "winner" from getting any ELO unless the game is above 50%. The conceder should still lose the ELO for conceding though.

What?

So, a player who has played a winning game through 40% progression should just not get the deserved Elo because the opponent feels like quitting?

That's a rather bizarre "solution".

If the "winner" should be guaranteed ELO at 40%, I should be able to concede at 40%.

I was more trying to point out that if the only reason you have to play to 50% before conceding is to help reduce kingmaking, there are ways to fix that.

That said, I would agree that a better solution might be something like:
The conceder loses full ELO for conceding.
The "winner" only gains ELO based on the current game percentage i.e. a 2% game would grant 2% ELO, 40% game would grant 40% ELO.

[FrankJones]

Why should a winner of a game be denied full Elo just because the other player does not feel like finishing the game?

I do not understand this line of reasoning.

[yodamus]

Nutso. Punish the player who is winning because the other player cant decide to play it out and learn how to make comebacks ? Quit. ? Concede ?. Why play a game that may take some time? . If you play the games out you might just learn new ways to play. Ways to comeback. Ways to win. I think out of 14k games. I have conceded 5 times. All due to emergency. Learn to finish games. Helps everyone.

[Michael Keating]

Some games you can easily see your opponent has a winning hand from the very get go and no matter how you try to catch up, like 'fetch', it's just not going to happen. For a game like Terraforming Mars, where it can take over an hour to get to 50% in a 2 player game, please just let me concede early. Right now the options are: hang in there but suffer for an hour when you know it's pointless or quit the game and get a massive karma penalty. If you let me concede, I'd do it and take the elo hit; the karma one seems unfair when there isn't another option and it impacts joining other games.

Just let the player enjoy the game and victory. I would not quit a game in real life and I would not do it here

[Archisian]

Nutso. Punish the player who is winning because the other player cant decide to play it out and learn how to make comebacks ? Quit. ? Concede ?. Why play a game that may take some time? . If you play the games out you might just learn new ways to play. Ways to comeback. Ways to win. I think out of 14k games. I have conceded 5 times. All due to emergency. Learn to finish games. Helps everyone.

There are games where you know there is absolutely no way you can make a comeback. If someone wants to bow out of that, then I think they should have the right to do so. I don't see how the losing play continuing to stay in the game past the final turn benefits them in any way. There will be some people who say they can analyze why they lost, but games usually come down to certain moments, whether that's in your starting hand or a mid-game mistake. Most people know the moment they lost if it's readily apparent they are going to lose (like being greatly behind in points with too few turns left to make any comeback). Some people say they stay in the game to achieve some personal best. Okay, good for them. But for me (and I assume others with the same thought process), I don't care about a personal best in an ultimately losing effort. Whether I lose by 1 point or 99, it literally does not matter. It's still a loss and I still lose the same amount of ELO. No amount of point differential will change that or make it better. I'd rather just get the L over with quickly and move on and try again. The only reason for the losing player to stay in the game is to either boost the ego of the winner or to not draw their ire. I had played a game a few weeks back where I was winning by a large margin (I'm sure Mr. Jones will doubt me ) and the losing player was complaining how much they hated this particular game because of the hand they got or cards they drew. The game was just past the 50% mark. I told them they could concede and move on, but they told me they wouldn't, because "It would diminish my win and it's not what they do." It was one of the strangest things I think anyone ever told me on this site. They would be staying in this game... to boost my win? They were doing it FOR ME? It seemed kind of arrogant, like I just didn't understand the personal sacrifice they were doing by continuing to stay in a game they had no chance to win. Like... okay. You do you. But I'm not going to see this as this grand, chivalrous gesture that will touch my life forever. Why people care about what random people on the internet think of them never ceases to amaze.

Some people don't care if they win or lose. Good for you. But I care about that and others do as well. Doesn't make us immoral degenerates as some tend to think here. In the end, staying through the final turn only benefits the winner, full stop. Unless the losing player has some weird complex that they need to fulfill or Ws and Ls don't matter to them. But taking away the right to bow out at a certain point, I think, is unfair and unjustified. I'm even totally fine with taking the full ELO loss and giving the winner their full ELO increase as long as the right for a player to concede when they feel they have no chance to win is left intact.