Why is there a button to quit the game??

[Isar]

I'm playing a game of kingdom builder, trying hard to push my Elo. I get into a game against a high ranked player and he makes some mistakes that basically lose him the game. Then, instead of conceding the game, he presses the "quit this game" button... The existance of this button makes absolutely no sense to me. If he concedes the game he loses less Elo, and by quitting he also loses karma. And most importantly, instead of getting my deserved Elo, I now get only 20% because "the game was only 20% played".... Sorry im a bit mad as you can probably tell, but I have lost too much Elo to people who quit at the start of games.

EDIT: just heard you can only concede after 50% of the game. Why?

[Tisaac]

EDIT: just heard you can only concede after 50% of the game. Why?

Precisely to avoid the kind of situation where you would leave just to avoid a loss once the game is advanced enough that it's become clear you will loose.

[Jest Phulin]

There are three options for ending a game prematurely. All are given for the situation where something in life is more important than playing to the last move.

1. Quit the game. 2. Concede the game. 3. Abandon the game.

1. Quit the game. This option is the least favored one. Using it states that the player does not value the commitment they made to the other player. Using this option invokes a karma penalty. As with getting expelled by timing out, the system does not know how the game would have ended in a multi-player game. ELO is assigned based on the quitter losing, all non-quitters tying for winning, and prorated for how much of the game was completed.

2. Concede the game. This option is only available for 2-player games, and only once 50% of the game has been completed. This option allows the player in a losing position to not waste the time of both players, and is actually encouraged in certain communities (the worldwide chess community, for example). Since the system knows that the player who initiated it thinks they would have lost, it awards the win to the other player. Full ELO is assigned. It is only available after 50% of the game progression because in many games (especially at the time the system was designed) winning/losing positions cannot be easily determined before that, and to prevent ELO manipulation.

3. Abandon the game. This option requires the agreement of all players at the table. The system treats it as if the game never happened. There is no adjustment to ELO or player statistics.

[Isar]

EDIT: just heard you can only concede after 50% of the game. Why?

Precisely to avoid the kind of situation where you would leave just to avoid a loss once the game is advanced enough that it's become clear you will loose.

Why does leaving avoid a loss? You still lose the game and even lose extra elo.

[Isar]

EDIT: just heard you can only concede after 50% of the game. Why?

Precisely to avoid the kind of situation where you would leave just to avoid a loss once the game is advanced enough that it's become clear you will loose.

Hey, im still interested in an answer, I dont understand the problem with being able to concede before 50%

[KongKing123]

Hey, im still interested in an answer, I dont understand the problem with being able to concede before 50%

Because then account boosting becomes extremely easy (play against a friendly account and just instantly concede).

[Romain672]

So the problem 'Isar' is talking about, is, at 2 players, after 50% of the game are played, if you want to stop the game:
- you either concede, and other is rewarded the full win
- or you leave, which make you lose karma some elo, and reduces the gain of elo of the others player (right?)

That just doesn't seem right for 2 players.
Leaving should be impossible, only conceding should be an option.
If that player goes out of time, full elo should be awarded for the other player.


Did I understood well the situation and sumarise it well?

[FireManBearPig]

Hey, im still interested in an answer, I dont understand the problem with being able to concede before 50%

Because then account boosting becomes extremely easy (play against a friendly account and just instantly concede).

I've always wondered why BGA doesn't combat this boosting by pro-rating ELO changes in these situations based on how much of the game was actually played. But now I realize that it's not fair for such a "winner's" ELO gain to be impacted by someone legitimately conceding very early in the game. I play a lot of 2-player stuff on the site and when I sometimes find myself in a losing position early in a game, I become completely disinterested in finishing it - I'd much rather concede and just start something new. It's really a catch-22.

[towehaal]

I'd like to see more people get in the habit of switching to turn - based if they need to leave quickly. Then perhaps later they can pick it back up, and still play in real time.

[hermit hev]

i just had someone concede a game before i had a chance to complete my moves in a game that would have ended with me hitting the games target.

this absolutely stinks of hard cheese. im a firm beleiver in concluding a game unless its obvious no more moves can be made.