Board Game Arena

tarongot wrote: ↑27 September 2026, 19:07

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.

No objection here. If the player in 2nd place is okay with mutually conceding and not gaining his reward for 2nd place, I have no objection.

There is likely already an open suggestion report for this idea, but if not, I recommend posting one.

So games with friends are a lot like... friendly games? Those can be abandoned at any moment with no consequences.

FrankJones wrote: ↑27 September 2026, 20:20

tarongot wrote: ↑27 September 2026, 19:07

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.

No objection here. If the player in 2nd place is okay with mutually conceding and not gaining his reward for 2nd place, I have no objection.

There is likely already an open suggestion report for this idea, but if not, I recommend posting one.

I think you didn't understand. its no mutual conceding is option of agreeing on result with full ELO, points, arena, tournament and whatever else. So player on 2nd place will get all what he would get for being second if game have ended normally.
And yes it is proposition only at this point. One that will NEVER BE IMPLEMENTED just like other propositions.

"Mutual conceding" is synonymous with what you are saying.

"Mutual concede": Two of the 3 players agree to concede to the leader and end the game, without any penalties.

Giving Elo to the person in 2nd place and taking Elo from 3rd place is problematic. In many games, the current score is different from the end-game score.

FrankJones wrote: ↑27 September 2026, 20:58 "Mutual conceding" is synonymous with what you are saying.

"Mutual concede": Two of the 3 players agree to concede to the leader and end the game, without any penalties.

Giving Elo to the person in 2nd place and taking Elo from 3rd place is problematic. In many games, the current score is different from the end-game score.

I see your point, but it is minor thing. People playing those games are aware of how scoring works in those games, so they can not agree in that case. Simple. So a minor problem really. Not to saying that competent programmer would include that and have procedure to count that extra score.

SHOGUNArt wrote: ↑27 September 2026, 08:51 Wow, I never thought that people would get so sensitive or triggered by me asking a simple question about forfeit the game option.

People don't care so much about the you wanting to forfeit part, they care about what the implications mean for them. When you decide to forfeit a game, it doesn't impact just you, it impacts them by suddenly stopping the game they were playing, so of course they are going to have strong feelings about that.

SHOGUNArt wrote: ↑27 September 2026, 08:51 It is not a football match with determinate time.

You sort of made our point for us. If you can accept that in games like football there is a determinate time, why don't you accept that certain board games have to go through a certain number of turns before they are considered over?

Are football players wasting their time when they have to keep playing a game that they are losing 10-0? Maybe on some level some of them feel they are. But they understand it would be bad form to leave the game. And football doesn't even have the "finished state" argument that board games can have.

tarongot wrote: ↑27 September 2026, 21:09 Not to saying that competent programmer would include that and have procedure to count that extra score.

The extra scoring is often dependent on the tactical plays yet to be made by the 2nd and 3rd place players. There's no way for any programmer to write code for that.

Regardless, once a game is past 50%, conceding should be allowed, just like in 2-player.

It would need to be mutual, and two options could be offered:

1) Mutual concede and agree to tie with the other player(s) conceding, or

2) Mutual concede and award any remaining placement by using the current score.

FrankJones wrote: ↑27 September 2026, 21:44

tarongot wrote: ↑27 September 2026, 21:09 Not to saying that competent programmer would include that and have procedure to count that extra score.

The extra scoring is often dependent on the tactical plays yet to be made by the 2nd and 3rd place players. There's no way for any programmer to write code for that.

Regardless, once a game is past 50%, conceding should be allowed, just like in 2-player.

It would need to be mutual, and two options could be offered:

1) Mutual concede and agree to tie with the other player(s) conceding, or

2) Mutual concede and award any remaining placement by using the current score.

I meant that competent programmer can run final score procedure on current game state, so actual game state include that for final players position. What you describe is part of players deciding if order of scores will change or not. But I think we both agree that can, and should be done something in that matter. Too bad it won't be.

Most likely, it will not be implemented.

Keep in mind, not all programmers are competent enough at the game to adequately figure out who is actually ahead at any point in a given game.

Furthermore, writing code to actually try to determine this information would be very difficult. There is no way to write code that will accurately predict what the player will do. Not when any given player could be a total beginner or an experienced expert.

FrankJones wrote: ↑27 September 2026, 22:05 Keep in mind, not all programmers are competent enough at the game to adequately figure out who is actually ahead at any point in a given game.

Estimating who is ahead is not just a programming issue but also an understanding of the game issue. Even top players often won't be able to agree on who is ahead. If we had those answers, we would be perfect at the games we play.

There's also a distinction between who is ahead and who is gonna win the game. For example, sometimes I play against players who have board situations that, while they may seem disadvantageous at a first glance, actually put them in a favorable position to win if they play things right. The problem is that they don't realize their situation, so they lose the game even though it could have been won if they had been a better player.

In that example, what would be the "correct" estimation of who was ahead? According to the game state, they were ahead since they had the possibilities for it, but considering that they may not have realized those possibilities, they probably would have lost the game in practice. So there isn't a single answer to who was ahead. It depends on how you look at it.