Please Let Me Concede

[FrankJones]

For me, the more I am getting crushed in a game, the more I want to finish it.

Because, it's an interesting result And I want to examine the final game state and stats, study it, learn from it.

And maybe the person breaks a record for highest points per round, or something.

Does that sound like I am "ego-driven"? quite the opposite.

Archisian, does that sound like I am "ego-driven"? Does it sound like "ego-stroking" is why I wan to finish games?

[Archisian]

Wanting to be able to complete your game to conclusion is not an ego thing. And the loser should get something out of it, they should be happy to see how their opponent is going to wrap up their game.

That is just so strange to me.

Feel good that your opponent whipped you. That's your consolation prize.

[Archisian]

Above, Wow. I am stunned. I completely agree with the above comment. And we rarely agree. But in this case. Well said. Play to the end. Learn from losing. Pay attention to what the winner is doing. Enjoy the playing of the game. Win, lose, or draw. Games will be much more fun to play. Thanks tbhp for making my day. Seeing that we can agree on some points.

Explain what you learn from losing, other than the fact that you lost. If you lose a game, you pretty much know why it happened and when: a crucial mistake you made, your opponent just had better cards/resources, skill issues, etc. Anyone can know that before the final turn clicks. I don't think I ever had a game, especially if I was losing badly, where I sit and thought "Wow, how did I lose this game? I have to make the final turn pass to know for sure/" I can always find the moment I lost long before the final turn.

So, please, explain to me how clicking on that final turn enhances my understanding of the loss more.

As for enjoying playing the game, if they removed things like ELO and rankings, then I'd be fine with it. I'd enjoy games much more with less stress. But since that's never going to happen and people are going to care about their ELO and ranking to some degree, then, at least in my case, I can't simply "enjoy playing the game" when my ELO, win-rate and ranking are publicly available for all to see. Which means they can know how bad I am at playing.

[Archisian]

For me, the more I am getting crushed in a game, the more I want to finish it.

Because, it's an interesting result And I want to examine the final game state and stats, study it, learn from it.

And maybe the person breaks a record for highest points per round, or something.

Does that sound like I am "ego-driven"? quite the opposite.

Archisian, does that sound like I am "ego-driven"? Does it sound like "ego-stroking" is why I want to finish games?

When you are in those situations (which might be rather rare, seeing your ELO and win-rate), are you totally stunned by how you are losing until you hear the click of the final turn, and then you suddenly understand why you lost just because the final turn concluded? I highly doubt that with a player of your skill.

[Cile]

For me, the more I am getting crushed in a game, the more I want to finish it.

Because, it's an interesting result And I want to examine the final game state and stats, study it, learn from it.

And maybe the person breaks a record for highest points per round, or something.

Does that sound like I am "ego-driven"? quite the opposite.

Archisian, does that sound like I am "ego-driven"? Does it sound like "ego-stroking" is why I want to finish games?

When you are in those situations (which might be rather rare, seeing your ELO and win-rate), are you totally stunned by how you are losing until you hear the click of the final turn, and then you suddenly understand why you lost just because the final turn concluded? I highly doubt that with a player of your skill.

The win rate and skill are likely correlated with playing the game to completion and watching their opponent's moves to learn from them.

"The goal of a game is to win, but it's the goal that's important, not the winning." Not winning doesn't mean there isn't value to be had in playing the game.

[FrankJones]

For me, the more I am getting crushed in a game, the more I want to finish it.

Because, it's an interesting result And I want to examine the final game state and stats, study it, learn from it.

And maybe the person breaks a record for highest points per round, or something.

Does that sound like I am "ego-driven"? quite the opposite.

Archisian, does that sound like I am "ego-driven"? Does it sound like "ego-stroking" is why I want to finish games?

When you are in those situations (which might be rather rare, seeing your ELO and win-rate), are you totally stunned by how you are losing until you hear the click of the final turn, and then you suddenly understand why you lost just because the final turn concluded? I highly doubt that with a player of your skill.

Every turn of every game is a potential learning opportunity. And now that I am starting a new game, Ark Nova, that is especially true.

Regardless, each time I make a final turn or two, that's more experience maximizing the value of my final turns.

The extent of the value gained from all this will vary from player to player, but for me I believe it's what helped me become as good as I am at several games.

[FrankJones]

Explain what you learn from losing, other than the fact that you lost. If you lose a game, you pretty much know why it happened and when: a crucial mistake you made, your opponent just had better cards/resources, skill issues, etc. Anyone can know that before the final turn clicks. I don't think I ever had a game, especially if I was losing badly, where I sit and thought "Wow, how did I lose this game? I have to make the final turn pass to know for sure/" I can always find the moment I lost long before the final turn.

Hey, I'm not trying to pick on you here, but ...

If you always know why you are losing, what's causing your stagnation at a game you have played so many times? Almost 2200 games of Wingspan, but stagnant. Something is holding you back. If you know why you're losing, then you should be winning more often, I would think?

So, please, explain to me how clicking on that final turn enhances my understanding of the loss more.

It's not just the final turn though. I've seen quite a few games in which you resign before round 4, sometimes early in round 3.

Also, anyone not master level at Wingspan surely loses some games by misplaying the final round, often without realizing exactly what the error(s) were until looking back at the replay and analyzing that final round.

[FrankJones]

The win rate and skill are likely correlated with playing the game to completion and watching their opponent's moves to learn from them.

"The goal of a game is to win, but it's the goal that's important, not the winning." Not winning doesn't mean there isn't value to be had in playing the game.

Exactly. When did I really start to become elite at "Earth"? When I encountered 700-Elo players, especially numerous games against the top dog, kevinsbane, and I played the game to completion, observing the highly tactical closing sequences he uses so well.

[Archisian]

The funny thing is that to the anti-conceders, finishing a losing game is not something that affects a person's ego or dignity, quite the opposite it is a rather honorable thing to do. So people like Archisian are themselves creating the idea in their head that being in this situation must be degrading, and therefore are hurting themselves over nothing.

My point is that it's degrading when you feel you MUST stay in a losing effort. That is my contention in all of this. If you want to finish a game because you want to, I have no problem with that. But if you feel you absolutely have to stay no matter what, then I'm asking what are those motivations for doing so. The loser is saying that they feel compelled in some way that they must do it. Why?

You bring up the subject of honor. Okay, honor, like sportsmanship, is a subjective viewpoint. People's definitions on those things vary. So, you could explain what "honor" means to you, and I can disagree with it. An argument based on a highly subjective viewpoint is not a good foundation for an argument to keep me staying in a clearly losing effort.

It's also not surprising then that they imagine the situation must be ego stroking for the winner, because they look at the reverse position and apply to their opponent the idea that they believe in, that the losing player is being degraded. So they picture their opponent as taking a sort of egotic pleasure in making their opponent play on, when in reality they just want to finish the game, and would probably have preferred a more suspenseful ending as well.

Let me ask you this then: in most competitive games, what value does the loser receive for their loss? In some, they actually do get some kind of value. 2nd place in the Olympics nets you a silver medal. In sports, you at least get a pennant and contract incentives for doing better. But what about other types of games? Let's take a tournament where the winner of the tournament receives a cash prize of $50,000, but there is nothing for 2nd to Last place. What value is gained losing in that tournament? Some will argue that the "experience" is all that matters. Right, tell that to 2nd place who missed out on getting $50,000 and gets nothing at all except the "experience" of merely being there. Now, the experience of just being there might be enough for you, but to many, they wanted $50,000 more than any experience of just being there could do for them, but they get nothing at all. So, definitely in that situation, losing is degrading. The winner of the tournament telling 2nd place "Hey, you did your best, bro." while holding a $50,000 check and you have nothing makes that sting even worse.

Now, let's extrapolate this to BGA. I don't know if BGA does cash prizes for tournaments, but what BGA does have is ELO and World Ranking. When you win, those go up. When you lose, those go down. There is no situation where a loser can gain in ELO or World Ranking. Now, you could argue that these amount to nothing more than bragging rights, but to be able to say that you're the best in the world is an incredible feat. 2nd place cannot say they are the best in the world because, well, they did not beat the best player in the world. They are only 2nd place. Nothing to sneeze at, but in reality, who are you going to take into consideration more in what they say or suggest: the best player in the world or the 2nd best? Worst positions have even less to stand on. So, what value do you gain from losing non BGA? Oh, you get the value of playing with another human being! You should be happy about that, even if they go up while you go down! Wow, whoop-dee-frickin'-doo.

Now, it is degradation when the loser feels compelled to do it. There are many people who wish they could just go next instead of spending another 10-20 minutes going through the motions to the inevitable conclusion. But, to them, they believe that should they concede, some kind of consequence they don't want will happen to them and they want to avoid it. A lot of it, I believe, is due to many in public spaces browbeating them for "not giving the winner their due", so to speak. I've seen that argued here. That it is the obligation of the loser for them to stay in the game. Why? Because it's for the winner to have a victory that the winner will enjoy. If the loser does not do that, then they are tarred and feathered as being a "sore loser" who nobody should ever play with again. So yeah, a loser doing that just so the winner can feel good about a victory they personally want is degradation.

As for the winner, when they know they've already won the game long beforehand, what other reason could they have to go through the final turn besides making themselves feel good? I don't buy the whole "suspenseful ending" when they are winning 100-50 in the final turns. Okay, the odds someone turning it around in that situation are like 0.00000000000024%, so yeah, they "have a chance." But c'mon, do I need to explain how ridiculous that is? "Be that 0.00000000000024%!" is NOT a good point, I'm sorry.

It seems that Archisian has a worldview where winning and losing are the only things that can possibly drive people, which then causes him to make some antagonistic assumptions. He also has a problem with the phrase "gg", because to him it can only be said as a way to either submit to the winner or assert dominance over the loser. Like he can't picture that people just sincerely think it was nice to play or that the game was good or even just that they think it's always good to acknowledge a game when it's over. That's because to him it seems to be all about win or lose, like the whole culture around games and the enjoyment of them that is not directly linked to the result is non-existent to him.

Now, that is actually not entirely true. I have agreed that people can have all sorts of motivations for people to play games. My point is, when it comes to most competitive-type games, the only thing that matters is winning because losing nets you nothing most of the time. It is the primary motivating factor, even for those who have other motivations like enjoyment or some other reason. Winning takes priority, because if winning isn't the priority, what's even the point of trying? Why not just mess around, play bad cards because you want to, put a piece in a position that makes you lose, or just keep doing the same action over and over again because having fun matters more? Why don't most people do this is if winning truly doesn't matter all that much?

Because, I believe, many people here aren't being all that honest when it comes to how they approach games. They DO CARE about winning and losing, they DO KNOW losing nets them nothing, they DO KNOW that clicking "end turn" on the final turn doesn't automatically increase their understanding of why they lost, they DO KNOW "just happy to be here" is incomparable to receiving a cash prize or being considered one of the best players in the world. They mostly want to feel sense of superiority over those who are honest about those things and want to call them "sore losers".

[Archisian]

Hey, I'm not trying to pick on you here, but ...

If you always know why you are losing, what's causing your stagnation at a game you have played so many times? Almost 2200 games of Wingspan, but stagnant. Something is holding you back. If you know why you're losing, then you should be winning more often, I would think?

There are a few reasons for it. The first one is I miscalculate which actions to do first, in what order, etc. Sometimes, I have really good cards, but I probably do them in the wrong turn order. I usually only realize this towards the end when I realized that I did something in the wrong turn order. It isn't always apparent in the moment. I try to take each turn as it's whole separate entity because something could potentially change on a dime. Only later did the "Well, I should have laid eggs first/taken food first/draw birds first/etc. on that turn." often dawns on me. But at that specific turn, how could I have known that was going to happen? It's asking me to have predictive abilities which I either do not have or the game expects you to have.

Another one is simple RNG, which usually goes against me. For example, I almost always lose the first round goal because my opponent, somehow either has all the cards in their opening hand, or they go first and draw a bird from the tray that fulfills that requirement. Sometimes, I do have birds that fulfill the requirement, but they are often bad and would put me in a much worse position later. For example, if the requirements birds with a nativity nest that has an egg and I have an Acorn Woodpecker and a Black-bellied Whistling Duck in my opening hand. I could play those cards, but those cards are terrible, so it's not worth investing 5 seed, wasting 3-5 turns (depending on what's in the tray) all just to hope my opponent doesn't have at least 2 birds to deny me winning that round. Now, the first round isn't always the deciding factor, but getting a hole early is very, very hard to claw back from. You have to hope the RNG gods will help you. And if you don't, well, what else could you have done? Not very fun to get screwed by RNG, unable to do much while you're opponent is cooking normally.

You could argue that on the first point, I could improve. But it feels like I'd have to know what cards my opponent potentially has. I've seen you say in responses to me saying, "What's the plan?" Well, I can't exactly have a plan because I don't have enough information most of the time to have a set plan throughout the game. I could be going along just fine, and then suddenly, my opponent plays an American Crow right next to their Spotted Towhee in the Grassland in early Round 2. All because they got lucky drawing the Crow or having had it in their opening hand, which I didn't know about. At point, there's nothing you can do to win unless you have cards that help you get a lot of food to throw down expensive cards to combat their double-action egg-laying and food gain on every turn.

Also, anyone not master level at Wingspan surely loses some games by misplaying the final round, often without realizing exactly what the error(s) were until looking back at the replay and analyzing that final round.

Okay, let's take for example someone who has an American Crow, Purple Martin, an American Robin, and a Barn Swallow in the Grassland by the end of Round 3. Let's also pretend they have around 25-30 egg slots available due to those birds and various other ones they played, and they have very few to no eggs going into Round 4. Let's also say the score going into Round 4 is you 45 and your opponent 55. They have two cards in hand. Would you agree that unless they had a stroke and just forgot how to play the game at that point, why would they not just lay eggs the entire round, save them drawing some expensive bonus card? How could you say, at that point, that you had not lost the game in that scenario?