Board Game Arena

FrankJones wrote: ↑13 January 2026, 01:35 Maybe very occasionally someone's life is so hectic and frantic that the player truly does need that 1 minute of life saved, but I doubt that's anything mor than a very rare occurrence, and most people whose lives fit that description are probably not often playing games on BGA.

Or you know, they mostly play turn-based so they're not affected by the distractions of their hectic life.

tbhp wrote: ↑12 January 2026, 21:32 Playing is not just about having fun, you need to respect the historical and artistic importance of the game you are playing (not to mention of course the experience of your opponent, as has been repeated many times).

Oh, c'mon. I'm sorry, but this point is just too ridiculous. Every game of backgammon ever played must be played as to honor it's multi-millennia legacy? Games are games. Unless you are playing in a tournament or something with actual stakes (like money, prizes, etc.), the idea that we must respect some historical and artistic importance of a game is just... silly. First of all, that importance is up to one's own subjective opinion. What you think is important about the game, I might disagree and find something else important. Or not at all. Not every game of poker is living up to the original game first played. Second, are you suggesting that people who don't are in the wrong? I'm very curious to see how you'd argue that.
[/quote]

tbhp wrote: ↑12 January 2026, 21:32 If a team left the pitch in the middle of a world cup final because "we are too many goals down, it's no fun anymore", would that be a way anyone would want that game to conclude? No. Treating board games differently is not giving them the consideration that they should be given.

That is a game with actual stakes. A random game on a website doesn't.

tbhp wrote: ↑12 January 2026, 21:47 So you are proving my point from my last post. The games you play don't matter that much to you and you are just looking to have fun, not admire them as art objects and respect the culture around them. That's okay, but that shouldn't go at the expense of the people who care, that's a basic rule we apply to most things in life, so why should board games be different.

You should at the very least ask your opponent before conceding what they think about it. If they are like you, then you will both happily end the game, and if they are not, then it's basic decency to respect the wishes of someone who cares more about something than you do.

Let's shift this to a different medium. Let's say you and I are watching Citizen Kane. We decided to sit down and watch it together. However, you find the movie boring and don't want to watch it anymore. You want to leave, but I stop you and say "You can't leave. If you do, you are disrespecting the importance this movie had on cinema." Would you agree with me?

Why is conceding not allowed in game with more than 2 players?

tbhp wrote: ↑12 January 2026, 21:32

Ceaseless wrote: ↑12 January 2026, 18:29

tbhp wrote: ↑12 January 2026, 16:11

Except for rare exceptions like chess, conceding is not a feature. Most games are not made with concession in mind.

The natural conclusion of a game isn't just winning or losing, it's reaching the end state that the creators have defined as the end of the game. If you only care about whether you win or lose, you might as well play rock paper scissors.

Chess is not some rare exception, lol. It's just a regular game, if rather popular and long-lived. Many players like having agency, the ability for their choices to actually matter in a game. When what they choose no longer matters, there is nothing wrong with them seeing that as the game being over and resigning. A game's end condition is one way to finish a game, but it is not a mindless obligation for players to only end it that way.

Playing is not just about having fun, you need to respect the historical and artistic importance of the game you are playing (not to mention of course the experience of your opponent, as has been repeated many times).

If a team left the pitch in the middle of a world cup final because "we are too many goals down, it's no fun anymore", would that be a way anyone would want that game to conclude? No. Treating board games differently is not giving them the consideration that they should be given.

This is a website to play board games online. This is not the world cup final. The gap between this and that are so wide that one would still have to go through online tournaments, games in person, official events, &c., before the comparison could be made side by side.

I think that ridiculous comparison shows really the massive issues with your line of argument.

arya-banana wrote: ↑13 January 2026, 08:51

tbhp wrote: ↑12 January 2026, 21:32

Ceaseless wrote: ↑12 January 2026, 18:29

Chess is not some rare exception, lol. It's just a regular game, if rather popular and long-lived. Many players like having agency, the ability for their choices to actually matter in a game. When what they choose no longer matters, there is nothing wrong with them seeing that as the game being over and resigning. A game's end condition is one way to finish a game, but it is not a mindless obligation for players to only end it that way.

Playing is not just about having fun, you need to respect the historical and artistic importance of the game you are playing (not to mention of course the experience of your opponent, as has been repeated many times).

If a team left the pitch in the middle of a world cup final because "we are too many goals down, it's no fun anymore", would that be a way anyone would want that game to conclude? No. Treating board games differently is not giving them the consideration that they should be given.

This is a website to play board games online. This is not the world cup final. The gap between this and that are so wide that one would still have to go through online tournaments, games in person, official events, &c., before the comparison could be made side by side.

I think that ridiculous comparison shows really the massive issues with your line of argument.

The value of things is subjective. You wouldn't disrespect the final of a tournament of fencing because "it's not as popular as football". For fencing fans, that final may be more important to them than the world cup final. In the same way with board games, you don't intrude into a culture that isn't very important to you and then ruin things for people who care about it. It's not technically illegal, but it's not being a considerate person.

I’ve recently had a few games of bärenpark conceded on the last move. I’ll chime in

As for all the talk about statistics, yeah the ability to concede games harms the real statistics. As mentioned it gives a final score of 1-0 so any stats involving overall scoring are affected.

As for the importance of stats, there are 1400 games here. For some games there are tons of stats and extremely useful ones and then others the exact opposite and everywhere in between.

I’m #1 at Sobek 2p and have introduced the game to a lot of ppl. 1 of which asked me if taking corruption is bad. This is what the game tells you (I’m sure it tells you that in the tutorial too). So I looked at my stats and I average way above the site average. I looked at 2 other top arena players who I think are solid and one was well below and the other was exactly average. We do all have our own styles of play but another thing to consider is that the expansion has way more available corruption. So looking at the stats of a player who mostly plays w/ expansion and one that doesn’t can be very misleading.

Archisian wrote: ↑13 January 2026, 05:09

tbhp wrote: ↑12 January 2026, 21:47 So you are proving my point from my last post. The games you play don't matter that much to you and you are just looking to have fun, not admire them as art objects and respect the culture around them. That's okay, but that shouldn't go at the expense of the people who care, that's a basic rule we apply to most things in life, so why should board games be different.

You should at the very least ask your opponent before conceding what they think about it. If they are like you, then you will both happily end the game, and if they are not, then it's basic decency to respect the wishes of someone who cares more about something than you do.

Let's shift this to a different medium. Let's say you and I are watching Citizen Kane. We decided to sit down and watch it together. However, you find the movie boring and don't want to watch it anymore. You want to leave, but I stop you and say "You can't leave. If you do, you are disrespecting the importance this movie had on cinema." Would you agree with me?

That's not the right analogy. Stopping a movie doesn't destroy the art object, it only affects the person who decided to leave. A game is an art object that, on top of the general game itself being an art object, gets created by the players as they play through it.

So, the right comparison would be Touch of Evil and The Magnificent Ambersons, which Orson Welles never finished to edit while he was alive. We know they would have been great, but we never got to see his own final versions. That's what happens when a game of high importance is interrupted before it can be completed. You're left forever wondering what it would have looked like if it had ended the way it was supposed to end.

And if you're the one playing and you were about to finish a masterpiece, it creates a sense of loss the same way as when a movie director is never able to finish their movie.

Kaladry wrote: ↑13 January 2026, 00:27

BananaHarambe wrote: ↑12 January 2026, 21:26 The only thing annoying about conceding is that it invalidates the game stats for the "finished" game for all players. If conceding happens in too many games the game stats become pointless. Also, final scores are replaced with 1-0 records which doesn't say much about the game. I have a feeling many players prefer seeing 0-1 for their losses rather than the real score which is affecting the concede rate.

For a player that always tries their best for personal score and finds player stats interesting it is annoying to have the personal statistics ruined, but not much you can do about it since it's not against the rules. Comparing game stats is pretty much meaningless because of it. I rarely encounter an early concede as a time saving measure in a losing game. It is always "1 move away" from an already known loss.

This is likely what happened to me yet again. I was playing against someone with 550+ ELO and on my last turn (I was the last player) after I had placed my tile but was in the process of clicking to claim it, they conceded and then proceeded to tell me in the chat that I had "ridiculous luck" and they'd beat me in a rematch. (They made so many questionable moves during the game I was surprised they had that high of an ELO to start with tbh.)

I made this suggestion if anyone wants to vote for it:
https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=200671

It happens most often when someone is butthurt about a loss like you are describing, but it is also very player specific and can vary a lot from game to game depending on how the scoring is done. If you want to be really petty in response you can comment on the game with the true score to send a message which may result in being blocked, but isn't against any rules (just trying to keep score).

Thank you for the bug report. One issue could be how statistics are counted from an early concession if the game is not 100% complete (in game progress) or final scoring hasn't been counted. This would vary from game to game. In Carcassone I would expect a 1-move away concession to skip farm scoring, then apply it as 0.

It is hard to make a universal rule for handling concedes across so many games. One idea could be to allow the winning player to decide if the game should count for statistics. The conceding player is expected to be biased so only the remaining player (winner) would be able to make a reasonable judgement. To be even more petty against conceding this could include the option to show the final true score instead of 0-1.

Conceding often seems petty because it often take longer to go through the menu to find the concede button and confirm it than it would take to finish your turn normally

tbhp wrote: ↑13 January 2026, 16:59

arya-banana wrote: ↑13 January 2026, 08:51

tbhp wrote: ↑12 January 2026, 21:32

Playing is not just about having fun, you need to respect the historical and artistic importance of the game you are playing (not to mention of course the experience of your opponent, as has been repeated many times).

If a team left the pitch in the middle of a world cup final because "we are too many goals down, it's no fun anymore", would that be a way anyone would want that game to conclude? No. Treating board games differently is not giving them the consideration that they should be given.

This is a website to play board games online. This is not the world cup final. The gap between this and that are so wide that one would still have to go through online tournaments, games in person, official events, &c., before the comparison could be made side by side.

I think that ridiculous comparison shows really the massive issues with your line of argument.

The value of things is subjective. You wouldn't disrespect the final of a tournament of fencing because "it's not as popular as football". For fencing fans, that final may be more important to them than the world cup final. In the same way with board games, you don't intrude into a culture that isn't very important to you and then ruin things for people who care about it. It's not technically illegal, but it's not being a considerate person.

But whether it's fencing or football any world Cup is being watched and followed by somewhere between hundreds and millions of people. Notnreally comparable to an online game of Yahtzee or whatver between two people with no spectactors.