Option to forfeit the game?

[SHOGUNArt]

Hello,

I am new here and i would like to know why is there no option to forfeit the game?

I am asking because i played so many matches in Ark Nova 3 player game where players got crazy good cards combinations at beginning and they run away within few brakes. It was impossible to catch up...

Then i have to play for next 40 minutes knowing who is the winner. Is there any way to forfeit the game and that the player who is so far away is declared a winner?

Thank you

[Shivaware]

Hello,

I am new here and i would like to know why is there no option to forfeit the game?

I am asking because i played so many matches in Ark Nova 3 player game where players got crazy good cards combinations at beginning and they run away within few brakes. It was impossible to catch up...

Then i have to play for next 40 minutes knowing who is the winner. Is there any way to forfeit the game and that the player who is so far away is declared a winner?

Thank you

You can forfeit 2-player games as long as the game progress is at least 50%. You can find this option in the menu near the upper right corner of your game. For games with more than 2 players, there is no way to end the game early by declaring one player the winner.

I should warn you that some people have very strongly held opinions about this...

[yodamus]

I am curious. If you were playing in real life with 2 friends and the same thing kept happening. What would you do ? Ask to forfeit.? Really. ? Quit ? You know how long a game lasts when you joined in. And yes, like someone just said. Beware for the fallout. Hotly debated subject

[SHOGUNArt]

ShivaWare

Thank you for the explanation.

Wow, I never thought that people would get so sensitive or triggered by me asking a simple question about forfeit the game option. I not talking about abusing the forfeit option, but talking about games where one player got so good hands at the beginning and got so far away that nobody could catch up.

@Yodamus
Of course, why not? I don't understand the logic. I it is very clear who is the winner and there is no option in the game to win or catch up in that situation ( except that the leading player do it on purpose ), why would we need to loose time and play for more 1.5 hrs if we could play a new game.
It is not a football match with determinate time. In chess there is an option to forfeit ( i know it is a two player game ).

[FrankJones]

I don't think it's people being sensitive or triggered, per se.

The problem is, in a 3+ player game, who wins if someone quits? Many games do not have a built-in mechanic to accommodate an absent player without fundamentally changing the game.

[SHOGUNArt]

I don't know that is why i am asking. I have only played 2 and 3 player games. In a 3 player game i had so many situations where one player got crazy good starting hand and was so far in front that it was impossible for other 2 players to catch up.

When we ended the game the player started apologizing..."sorry i had crazy good hand and i took off at the beginning". There is no need to apologize, he won fair...gg. It is just that there was no point in other 2 players to play for the next 1.5hr. He could get the win much sooner and we could all save time.

[FrankJones]

I don't know that is why i am asking. I have only played 2 and 3 player games. In a 3 player game i had so many situations where one player got crazy good starting hand and was so far in front that it was impossible for other 2 players to catch up.

When we ended the game the player started apologizing..."sorry i had crazy good hand and i took off at the beginning". There is no need to apologize, he won fair...gg. It is just that there was no point in other 2 players to play for the next 1.5hr. He could get the win much sooner and we could all save time.

You say "he could get the win much sooner..."

It's not always that easy though. I suppose one option would be to have a "mutual concede" option. In a 3+ player game, if all but one player agrees to mutually concede, that could work? But, how would it be determined which placement the other 2 players get? I suppose they would both get a loss against the winner, and a tie against each other. That could work.

[tarongot]

I don't know that is why i am asking. I have only played 2 and 3 player games. In a 3 player game i had so many situations where one player got crazy good starting hand and was so far in front that it was impossible for other 2 players to catch up.

When we ended the game the player started apologizing..."sorry i had crazy good hand and i took off at the beginning". There is no need to apologize, he won fair...gg. It is just that there was no point in other 2 players to play for the next 1.5hr. He could get the win much sooner and we could all save time.

You say "he could get the win much sooner..."

It's not always that easy though. I suppose one option would be to have a "mutual concede" option. In a 3+ player game, if all but one player agrees to mutually concede, that could work? But, how would it be determined which placement the other 2 players get? I suppose they would both get a loss against the winner, and a tie against each other. That could work.

Why not simple: give all players an option to end game with current result (including players order, who has most points, who i second etc..). If all think that game result is set already, all will agree, game will end, points will be given etc.
Someone gave example of analog table with friends, that's how friends in analog table would resolve this. Short discussion if all see situation same, and if so all agree to end game there accepting that result.

[Cile]

I am curious. If you were playing in real life with 2 friends and the same thing kept happening. What would you do ? Ask to forfeit.? Really. ? Quit ?

If I'm playing in real life with 2 of my friends I am spending time with my friends; We are chatting and joking about things together between turns. When I play on BGA the chat is usually silent other than some generic well wishing at the beginning and end of the match. I've never had a game on BGA where afterwards I am looking forward to playing a game with User X again more than I am looking forward to playing the game again.

If I was playing a game in real life with my friends and one of them is clearly not enjoying it we would stop and do something different. I've had games where there is still and hour left in it and someone said "You guys want to call it here? I think this other player has it in the bag" and the other players agreed.

Real life games are not analogous to BGA. At RL games we don't track our ratings, or have turn timers, we stop in the middle to have something to eat together, etc. In RL the main priority is the people, on BGA the main priority is the game. That's why conceding is an issue with more than 2 players: It affects the integrity of the game for the remaining players. I agree that an option for all other players to concede to first place would make sense, but also in a multiplayer game you can still play for second.

[Shivaware]

I don't know that is why i am asking. I have only played 2 and 3 player games. In a 3 player game i had so many situations where one player got crazy good starting hand and was so far in front that it was impossible for other 2 players to catch up.

When we ended the game the player started apologizing..."sorry i had crazy good hand and i took off at the beginning". There is no need to apologize, he won fair...gg. It is just that there was no point in other 2 players to play for the next 1.5hr. He could get the win much sooner and we could all save time.

You say "he could get the win much sooner..."

It's not always that easy though. I suppose one option would be to have a "mutual concede" option. In a 3+ player game, if all but one player agrees to mutually concede, that could work? But, how would it be determined which placement the other 2 players get? I suppose they would both get a loss against the winner, and a tie against each other. That could work.

This option used to exist on another site and worked exactly as you describe with the remaining players tied with each other. The site's webmaster says it was rarely used, and it was removed in some recent updates. I'm not sure if it would get more or less use if it used the current scores to rank the other players.