Conceding: is it bad?

[dschingis27]

I ask again here: if my opponent concedes, am I entitled to a victory? am I entitled to a star?
Thanks!

First: The game you linked to in the other thread literally displays "Winner Wentu" and "Loser bschnapp". You received +10 Elo and your opponent received -10 Elo. So what on earth made you think that you did not officially won this game?!

To be clear about the stars: These represent in-game scores. So e.g. in 7Wonders, the displayed number next to the star icon would be roughly sth between 40 and 60. In Santorini, there is not really a score in the game. So the developers artificially created a score by giving one point to the player who achieved the win condition in-game. But that doesn't mean that achieving the win condition is the only way to win, a conceding opponent is equivalent.

[nmego]

Honestly, I don't think conceding is nice, because you are depriving the opponent of a victory.

If you look up chess, not conceding in completely lost scenarios, or when you are down material and have no compensation, is actually poor sportsmanship. People expect you to concede, if you're lost.

I find this theme particularly common in many other games. For example, in TTA, games take a while. And it can be really hard to play turns if you're clearly-lost. That's why you can even concede in 3p/4p for this game.

I've watched this video last night. It is about a game called KARDS, which is a CCG. Basically, opponent was 100% lost by like the 32th minute in the video. It took the game an additional 13 minutes, because they wouldn't concede. The one who is winning was like "Why doesn't he concede? I'm going to fall asleep.. I want to play more games..".

Broadly speaking, the theme of 2p games in general is to outplay your opponent. For example, relative scores matter much more. You'd much rather take an action that gives you 10 vp and gives your opponent none, than take an action that gives you 100 vp while giving your opponent 95. That's why conceding makes a thematic sense in 2p games. Because, you're basically saying that your opponent have successfully outplayed you.

[Jest Phulin]

For example, in TTA, games take a while. And it can be really hard to play turns if you're clearly-lost. That's why you can even concede in 3p/4p for this game.

Just looking for clarification. Is this actually the BGA concede mechanism, or the "honorably retire" mechanism in TTA? I thought the BGA mechanism was only for 2-player games that had progressed more than 50% of the game.

[nmego]

That's the "honorably retire" mechanism for TTA. Which I think is basically the same, at least conceptually.

[Jest Phulin]

Thanks. Yes, it does sound conceptually the same. But I'm a rules technicality nerd....

[xxerox]

I constantly concede when i know i have no chance.

Playing more just wastes both our times. And only jerks want to win at all cost by personally breaking their opponents rather than conceding.

[jimbojonesunc]

people should be able to concede as early in the game as they like. the game should make this an option. bga should also change the board to contrast more sharply with the dice. games should also be played to 7 points with a doubling cube. it's not like you play love letter one point at a time.

it's just weird to me that bga can do a great job with 7 wonders but the backgammon is worse than yahoo games circa 2002.

[matsambal]

Is there some etiquette re: Seasons that you can't concede? I was way behind and the other player got upset when I conceded. Told me that i should 'learn to play the game' and 'not waste their time' :

[nmego]

Is there some etiquette re: Seasons that you can't concede? I was way behind and the other player got upset when I conceded. Told me that i should 'learn to play the game' and 'not waste their time' :

Checking out your history, I think you're referring to a game vs a 400+ player. I think they are just referring to the actual gameplay itself, not the conceding aspect. It is their fault for not restricting the game matchup according to their skill level. I don't think you should worry about that.

[gilco]

I say conceding is absolutely GOOD ! I learned conceding as part of he etiquette of game play on real boards like Chess and Go. How awful is a player who keeps putting stones on the goban when he is 50 points behind in the end of the game. How boring chasing a lonesome king around the chess board. As long as you concede in case of an inevitable loss it's ok. It's a sign of respect for your opponent : first because you don't waste his time and second because you don't seem to wait for the stupid and miraculous mistake he won't make. And also it demonstrate your understanding of the game. When at chess we say in French "je couche mon roi" by lying down the king you show that at least you foreseed the result and so you are not a complete zero at this game.
Something else is resigning in the beginning or middle of a game when nothing is done. In this case you should first send a message to your opponent and this way it's far better than stopping to play and getting off time with a penalty.
To conclude I had recently a game of hex in which my opponent was clearly doomed but as he commented in chat about having made a stupid mistake by getting mixed up with the sides I proposed out of fair play an "abandon collectif" with no points loss (I don't know how it's spelled in English in the 3 bars up and right). But he chose to play on and I then proposed he could concede as the result was clear but he played on. So I got a bit annoyed and continued the game but playing without care between moves on more interesting games. Guess what happens when you play a few moves not even looking at the board ? He won ! Great victory for him !