Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[tbhp]

sometimes people do things we don't like sorry

doing something to stop people from conceding with one move to go is like doing something to stop yall from going on and on about it

it's not the right thing to do

Not a very good point. Sure, we can't literally force people to keep playing a game, but we can enforce punishments for those who leave. We already have punishments for offenses that are not as serious as deliberately leaving a game (like running out of time for reasons outside of one's control), so it should be a no brainer in my opinion.

[Jellby]

We already have punishments for offenses that are not as serious as deliberately leaving a game (like running out of time for reasons outside of one's control)

The reasons are irrelevant, because there's no way to know what they are. And there's no penalty for running out of time. There's only a penalty for being expelled, which the same as quitting a game.

[FrankJones]

I still don't understand why a player whose internet dies at 99% gets hit with an extra 10-point Elo penalty and a karma penalty, whereas a player who intentionally quits at 99% by voluntarily pressing a concede button does not.

Essentially what I'm saying in this post is, if a player's clock runs out past 50% progression in a 2-player game, why not just convert it to a "concede", since the concede option is available anyway at that point?

(I stand by my previous statements in this thread about how I feel about intentionally conceding right at the end.)

[Jellby]

Because there's no way to know if the player lost connection or just left the building. And conceding is nicer to the other player than just leaving, forcing the opponent to wait until your time runs out, plus some additional minutes because they're being nice in case it was a temporary connection failure, then turning the game into turn-based and wait for a couple of days until the time runs out again, and even then being "scared" to kick you out because you may come back with some angry retort about how unfair they are, or choosing to abandon the game instead...

[Ceaseless]

I still don't understand why a player whose internet dies at 99% gets hit with an extra 10-point Elo penalty and a karma penalty, whereas a player who intentionally quits at 99% by voluntarily pressing a concede button does not.

Essentially what I'm saying in this post is, if a player's clock runs out past 50% progression in a 2-player game, why not just convert it to a "concede", since the concede option is available anyway at that point?

(I stand by my previous statements in this thread about how I feel about intentionally conceding right at the end.)

One player left the game themselves while the other forced someone else to take care of it. The penalty features exist to deter players from going "oh, I lost? Hahaha, I'll just do nothing and waste as much of your time as I can!". Making someone else have to remove you from the game is a great way to get yourself moderated/banned from several gaming sites, especially if you "lost your internet" ever so conveniently right before you'd have lost. There can be leeway for a perceived accident or fluke, but if they think you're doing it on purpose or it's become too recursive, away you go.

BGA seems to prefer an automatic system like reputation. It lacks the nuance moderators can provide in case-by-case analysis but takes less work to implement and will respond much faster. There might be some unfair moments with it, but the penalties from the occasional error are pretty low and can be shrugged off. Pros/cons, there's going to be trade-offs when it comes to handling these issues.

[Ceaseless]

I guess while I'm here I may as well post my take on this. Conceding right before you lose is hardly a real timesaving measure, it's generally just irksome for your opponent. When my opponents do it to me, I roll my eyes. I suspect in several cases it's to avoid the score displaying, especially if they had an embarrassing flop. Conceding is for when the game's outcome is decided but there's a bunch of formalities to make it official. I'm all for resigning and skipping over all that nonsense. But there is a point where there's barely anything left and you may as well just let it finish. So I'd agree with "you shouldn't concede right before you'd lose."

The real headache to me is how you'd realistically do anything about it. BGA tends to favor an automatic system, so you need clearly defined guidelines if you go that route. Keep in mind if it isn't defined in the system, it doesn't exist to an automatic implementation.

For instance, the thread complains about conceding "with 1 move to go". What does that mean? If we're playing a game like Wingspan with a predetermined turn count, that's fairly definable. Things get a bit murkier in a game like Chess. What's the last turn? The game ended on concession, so how would you know? Was there mate in 1? The system would need to calculate that. Keep in mind that even if there was a mate in 1, it might not have been spotted given the board state, how do you want to address that?

As far as solutions go the best I can imagine getting rather than prevention is the ability to just keep doing things after the game is over. Not certain how it would work with stats, but I guess that's for whoever wants to implement it to figure out. I couldn't tell you how broadly feasible this is myself.

[FrankJones]

I guess while I'm here I may as well post my take on this. Conceding right before you lose is hardly a real timesaving measure, it's generally just irksome for your opponent. When my opponents do it to me, I roll my eyes. I suspect in several cases it's to avoid the score displaying, especially if they had an embarrassing flop. Conceding is for when the game's outcome is decided but there's a bunch of formalities to make it official. I'm all for resigning and skipping over all that nonsense. But there is a point where there's barely anything left and you may as well just let it finish. So I'd agree with "you shouldn't concede right before you'd lose."

The real headache to me is how you'd realistically do anything about it. BGA tends to favor an automatic system, so you need clearly defined guidelines if you go that route. Keep in mind if it isn't defined in the system, it doesn't exist to an automatic implementation.

For instance, the thread complains about conceding "with 1 move to go". What does that mean? If we're playing a game like Wingspan with a predetermined turn count, that's fairly definable. Things get a bit murkier in a game like Chess. What's the last turn? The game ended on concession, so how would you know? Was there mate in 1? The system would need to calculate that. Keep in mind that even if there was a mate in 1, it might not have been spotted given the board state, how do you want to address that?

As far as solutions go the best I can imagine getting rather than prevention is the ability to just keep doing things after the game is over. Not certain how it would work with stats, but I guess that's for whoever wants to implement it to figure out. I couldn't tell you how broadly feasible this is myself.

It would vary by game - but, just to name a few:

1) Terraforming Mars. I was about to plant the final greenery during the post-final-generation plant conversion stage. My opponent did not even need to input any more moves. Definitely irksome, and not time-saving because of what has been said in this thread; time saving would have ben resigning way earlier.

2) Aquatica: The game end is triggered when one player claims all 4 goals (or sometimes by depleting a deck). Once that happens, the end-game is imminent.

3) Viticulture: The game ends when one player reached 20 VP, then the current round finishes, which takes very little time.

4) Splendor: A player is about to gain a card or royal to end the game and win.

Etc. In most games, it's fairly obvious when the game is about to end, even without using the sometimes inaccurate progression percentage.

[FrankJones]

I still don't understand why a player whose internet dies at 99% gets hit with an extra 10-point Elo penalty and a karma penalty, whereas a player who intentionally quits at 99% by voluntarily pressing a concede button does not.

Essentially what I'm saying in this post is, if a player's clock runs out past 50% progression in a 2-player game, why not just convert it to a "concede", since the concede option is available anyway at that point?

(I stand by my previous statements in this thread about how I feel about intentionally conceding right at the end.)

One player left the game themselves while the other forced someone else to take care of it. The penalty features exist to deter players from going "oh, I lost? Hahaha, I'll just do nothing and waste as much of your time as I can!". Making someone else have to remove you from the game is a great way to get yourself moderated/banned from several gaming sites, especially if you "lost your internet" ever so conveniently right before you'd have lost. There can be leeway for a perceived accident or fluke, but if they think you're doing it on purpose or it's become too recursive, away you go.

BGA seems to prefer an automatic system like reputation. It lacks the nuance moderators can provide in case-by-case analysis but takes less work to implement and will respond much faster. There might be some unfair moments with it, but the penalties from the occasional error are pretty low and can be shrugged off. Pros/cons, there's going to be trade-offs when it comes to handling these issues.

True, I just think it's unfortunate that a player who unintentionally runs out of time right at the end-game (internet failed, doorbell rang, whatever) gets a double penalty (presumably on the assumption that such things are intentional quitting), whereas someone who intentionally quits at end-game by conceding (likely for the reasons you cited) does not, even though the likely reason is petty and spiteful.

[Meeplelowda]

True, I just think it's unfortunate that a player who unintentionally runs out of time right at the end-game (internet failed, doorbell rang, whatever) gets a double penalty (presumably on the assumption that such things are intentional quitting)

I play on a [chess platform that cannot be named] and it's remarkable how many people "lose their connection" right after hanging a queen or when you have mate in 1 so that you have to wait for the clock to tick down. There even a message that pops up warning that letting your clock run down without resigning can be cause for temporary restrictions on play.

Of course not everyone is doing it intentionally on BGA, but it is also a narrow sliver of an edge case that it happens unintentionally right at the end of the game. So just to protect those edge cases we're going to let all the people doing it intentionally do it without consequences? That would incentivize the intentional behavior.

[Fuchur]

And again, off topic.

Sorry, still off-topic.

1) So, you are telling a top 10 player (at the game in question) on this website that the statistics are trivial? No, they are not trivial. It is meaningless that you, as a bad player at that game (by your own admission), do not see the value in those statistics. And that was just one example. Other more famous games have made modifications made as a result of detailed statistical analysis by strong and elite players.

Well, the exemples that you gave to me were trivial. I don't believe you that anyone can get useful information out of them (and that has nothing to do with the skill of the person which sees the statistics and tries to get useful information out of it).

Well, it really makes no difference whether you believe me when I say I gain useful information from those stats.
But since you're convinced you know how to play this game well, Maybe you can explain how I ascended to top 5 Elo and top 3 Arena?

So, you claim that you are in the top five because you have studied the statistics of Earth ? Are you sure that you haven't gained your place by playing a lot and thinking a lot about best strategies to follow ? Would you have gained that skill without playing, just on looking at these statistics ?

And no, analyzing statistics doesn't has as condition that you need to be (already) good at the thing there are about.

As i don't see the statistics of Earth (nor any other game) i obviously can't see any value in them. All i can say is that the statistics YOU showed me are clearly not worth all the fuss you're making.