Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[Fuchur]

Just wondering, as this discussion is quite heated :
Maybe you could give some numbers so that the size of the "problem" (if there is any) might be appreciated better :

How often did someone concede on you (in proportion to all the games you've played) AND how close were you to the ending ?? Did it bother you ?? Did you communicate with the conceder to ask him for his reasons ?

If this situation is rather anecdotic there might be other issues on BGA which should be the center of a debate. (Perhaps i've missed some posts but i don't remember more than 2 or 3 actual examples where a game ended by conceding and was close to the end).

P.S. Personally i don't remember any concedings but in a few "Through the Ages" and "VectoRace"-multiplayer games where the conceding changed nothing.

[Kaladry]

Just wondering, as this discussion is quite heated :
Maybe you could give some numbers so that the size of the "problem" (if there is any) might be appreciated better :

How often did someone concede on you (in proportion to all the games you've played) AND how close were you to the ending ?? Did it bother you ?? Did you communicate with the conceder to ask him for his reasons ?

If this situation is rather anecdotic there might be other issues on BGA which should be the center of a debate. (Perhaps i've missed some posts but i don't remember more than 2 or 3 actual examples where a game ended by conceding and was close to the end).

P.S. Personally i don't remember any concedings but in a few "Through the Ages" and "VectoRace"-multiplayer games where the conceding changed nothing.

I have experienced a handful of people conceding on me in recent weeks. It would still be a small proportion of all games I've played but probably ~10% of just Carcassone H&G games. Only the last two after I encountered this thread did I actually ask why they conceded on the last turn. The first said to save time and the second because I had "ridiculous luck" and that they'd beat me on a rematch. That second person definitely conceded in the final seconds of the game out of spite because they are in the top 10 for Carcassone H&G and did not have any recent losses when I checked their game history.

Yes, it does bother me when someone concedes on the last turn for a game like I was playing. It's petty and only done to clear out the statistics. I ha e no qualms against conceding prior to the last couple of turns, that does indeed save time, but it would still be nice to see the stats up to that point which was why I made the suggestion bug.

And to someone else's point, why is conceding allowed in 2 but not 3 player games? I've definitely had to sit through many turns of Catan where I was definitely not winning and had to uselessly play my turns while watching the other two players hash it out. If conceding is not a feature of the game then the game should run until game end (or someone quits, or it's abandoned, etc.). Or maybe the concede feature is only available up until the 95% mark of the game or so? All games have the percentage completed in the top left corner of the window, though it can be off a bit for some games where it can't definitively measure.

[FrankJones]

Conceding is not allowed at any progression if there are more than 2 players.

Presumably because it creates inconvenience to have a multiplayer game with a player dropping out early.

I raised the point because some in this thread have made it sound like such a hardship to play out the last few moves when the end is imminent anyway, saying it's so rough to "force" someone to finish a game that isn't going well.

Yet in anything other than 2-player, that's exactly what has to be done unless the bored/losing player is okay with taking a penalty.

[Archisian]

Note that conceding is not allowed in a 3-player game. Why not? Because it's inconvenient, unfair, etc. to the other players.

So, in a 3-player (or more) game, when one player is having a miserable time and losing badly, that player is "forced" to finish the game. Yet, in a 2-player game, it has been suggested in this thread that a player who is expected to finish the game is being put through some unbearable hardship.

I actually think that conceding or dropping out should be an option in games with more than 2 players. Really, what BGA (or whoever manages each individual game) is adjust the games to where, if someone concedes or leaves, the game isn't counted as "over." The player who left has the score that they had before they left displayed and the other players continue if they so choose without losing their score sheet at the end. Seems to me that would be an easy fix. Many multi-player games do this all the time, especially in video games. Since board games are slower paced, this should be an easy fix, I'd think. That way, everyone wins in this debate. People who don't want to play anymore can concede and those who still want to keep playing can keep playing.

[Andrei3009]

Conceding is not allowed at any progression if there are more than 2 players.

Presumably because it creates inconvenience to have a multiplayer game with a player dropping out early.

I raised the point because some in this thread have made it sound like such a hardship to play out the last few moves when the end is imminent anyway, saying it's so rough to "force" someone to finish a game that isn't going well.

Yet in anything other than 2-player, that's exactly what has to be done unless the bored/losing player is okay with taking a penalty.

When playing with more than 2 players, you can not give up because it is impossible to accurately determine the winner. I wouldn't mind a system that allows all players to collectively surrender to one of the players (he wins, all the others lose to him, and most likely a draw among themselves) or for each of the players to agree to some place (one for the first one for the second, etc.), but it's quite difficult to implement and not very requested.

[ChiefPointThief]

Conceding is not allowed at any progression if there are more than 2 players.

Presumably because it creates inconvenience to have a multiplayer game with a player dropping out early.

I raised the point because some in this thread have made it sound like such a hardship to play out the last few moves when the end is imminent anyway, saying it's so rough to "force" someone to finish a game that isn't going well.

Yet in anything other than 2-player, that's exactly what has to be done unless the bored/losing player is okay with taking a penalty.

When playing with more than 2 players, you can not give up because it is impossible to accurately determine the winner.

Not true

[Andrei3009]

Conceding is not allowed at any progression if there are more than 2 players.

Presumably because it creates inconvenience to have a multiplayer game with a player dropping out early.

I raised the point because some in this thread have made it sound like such a hardship to play out the last few moves when the end is imminent anyway, saying it's so rough to "force" someone to finish a game that isn't going well.

Yet in anything other than 2-player, that's exactly what has to be done unless the bored/losing player is okay with taking a penalty.

When playing with more than 2 players, you can not give up because it is impossible to accurately determine the winner.

Not true

I don't work for bga and I can't say exactly what they do or why. However, what other reason is there to leave it possible to give up only in two-player games?

[FrankJones]

Andrei3009 is correct.

In a 3 player game, it is essentially impossible for an automated algorithm to determine who among the other players would be the inner if the game had been played to its completion.

Could it be done for some games? Probably? For any and all games? No. Games such as "Earth" and "Terraforming Mars" have massive point-soring in the final round, and if one player quits, it's just not feasible for any automated algorithm to accurately determine the winner.

The point is, conceding right near the end is annoying and inconvenient and perhaps unfair, whether it's 2 player or 3+ players, but for different reasons. Those reasons are deemed acceptable for 2 players games, hence allowing conceding in 2 player games, but those reasons for 3+ player games are deemed not acceptable, hence no conceding in 3+ player games.

It all comes down to value and judgment and subjective analysis, but in either case, it's suboptimal when a player doesn't feel like finishing the game naturally.

[ChiefPointThief]

Andrei3009 is correct.

In a 3 player game, it is essentially impossible for an automated algorithm to determine who among the other players would be the inner if the game had been played to its completion.

I’m not advocating to allow a concede option for more than 2p but it is very possible to determine the winner for not just “some” but majority of non team games that don’t require a specific player count. Just let the players keep playing. Perhaps that option should be made available in 2p games then ppl who care about that precious last move can still play it out.

[FrankJones]

Andrei3009 is correct.

In a 3 player game, it is essentially impossible for an automated algorithm to determine who among the other players would be the inner if the game had been played to its completion.

I’m not advocating to allow a concede option for more than 2p but it is very possible to determine the winner for not just “some” but majority of non team games that don’t require a specific player count. Just let the players keep playing. Perhaps that option should be made available in 2p games then ppl who care about that precious last move can still play it out.

That would be a nice feature. It wouldn't work for all games - some games do not function if a player is absent. But for some games, it would work.