Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[Kaladry]

Well they could display some stats but the score itself would be rather meaningless to display, since generally a score doesn't tell you the whole story until the end of a game.

Then there's the problem that the stats of that game may be added to that player's general stats, or that game's general stats, which would be misleading since it wasn't a completed game.

I have been thinking that, if we do think it’s people not wanting to accept they’ve lost (and I have a hard time believing this but an equally hard time finding any other reason for this behaviour) then the answer would be to show the stats in incomplete cases as well.

I'm not sure how showing the stats would deter people from conceding (for any reason). They already know they lost, they already know what the stats look like, so even if you display them, they still get their desired outcome of the game not registering as a win.

Because those of us who wanted to see the final score when the other player denied us that opportunity out of spite still can. It's for the winner, not the conceder.

[tbhp]

They are completely different things. Concession is an acceptance of defeat that generally saves the time of the players. Stalling is a refusal to admit defeat which generally wastes the time of the players.

How much time is wasted doesn't change the meaning of the action. Obviously conceding immediately at least has the decency of saving people's time, but stalling a game with the intention of never coming back is also concession, just taking it to the extreme. Not only can the person not bring themselves to accept the loss, they also can't even bring themselves to say "I concede", choosing to flee instead. That's like next level concession!

You managed to contradict your own points within the very next sentences after making them.

The contradiction arises because the concept of conceding is hypocritical in the first place. Conceding is refusing to let the game end normally, all the while trying to give the appearance that it’s a fine way to end things that isn’t just the loser trying to salvage their ego.

Fleeing the game is what you could say the honest version of concession. The spite and the refusal to let the game end normally are the same, except the conceder isn’t trying to hide it and make it look like some honourable thing, they just leave the room. I’d consider it more respectable than regular conceding if it wasn’t for all the time wasted.

[MarkSteere]

The contradiction arises because the concept of conceding is hypocritical in the first place. Conceding is refusing to let the game end normally, all the while trying to give the appearance that it’s a fine way to end things that isn’t just the loser trying to salvage their ego.

Fleeing the game is what you could say the honest version of concession. The spite and the refusal to let the game end normally are the same, except the conceder isn’t trying to hide it and make it look like some honourable thing, they just leave the room. I’d consider it more respectable than regular conceding if it wasn’t for all the time wasted.

Is this a contest to see how much fallacy can be crammed into two paragraphs?

I'll just address one of the false premises. I don't want to exert myself.

"Conceding is refusing to let the game end normally."

Conceding is not only a "normal" ending. It's often the appropriate ending.

[tbhp]

The contradiction arises because the concept of conceding is hypocritical in the first place. Conceding is refusing to let the game end normally, all the while trying to give the appearance that it’s a fine way to end things that isn’t just the loser trying to salvage their ego.

Fleeing the game is what you could say the honest version of concession. The spite and the refusal to let the game end normally are the same, except the conceder isn’t trying to hide it and make it look like some honourable thing, they just leave the room. I’d consider it more respectable than regular conceding if it wasn’t for all the time wasted.

Is this a contest to see how much fallacy can be crammed into two paragraphs?

I'll just address one of the false premises. I don't want to exert myself.

"Conceding is refusing to let the game end normally."

Conceding is not only a "normal" ending. It's often the appropriate ending.

The only normal endings are those that are stated in the rules of the game. If conceding isn’t part of them, then the concept is just mental gymnastics to try to justify and give a way out to those who are incapable of taking a loss normally.

As a game developer yourself, how would you feel if people disregarded your end game rules just because their person can’t handle it?

[MarkSteere]

As a game developer yourself, how would you feel...

Conceding is a meta-level convention. It's not something a designer would mention in a rule sheet, either allowing or prohibiting it.

I generally don't like to continue playing in a game in which my loss is pretty much guaranteed.

I concede in my own games often enough. Herd is a territory game. Once the board fills up, whoever owns the most cells wins. On a 61 cell board, if my opponent has 40 cells and I only have 4 cells, there's no realistic chance of me winning, and I'll throw in the towel. If the board is almost completely filled already, and I'm certain to lose, it's almost as easy to finish it out as it is to concede, so in that case I'll just make the extra couple of moves needed to end it.

If my opponent has clearly lost early on, but wants to see it through to the end, I'm fine with that. Anyway, what can I do? I don't want to be rude and suggest that they concede.

In Blast Radius, it isn't clear who's winning until the last couple of turns. Apparent advantage can flip back and forth. As the name suggests, there's a degree of volatility. Explosions increase in magnitude until but one monocolored stack remains. No one ever concedes at Blast Radius.

[Andrei3009]

Because as has already been explained, it's not just about the fact of winning. It's about the context, the storytelling and the aesthetics in which it all went down.

Even if it was discussed, people didn't exactly come to a single conclusion, otherwise this topic wouldn't have lasted for years. During this time, a lot of different opinions have been expressed, including about competitive people. The fact that our opinions differ is not a problem, as the issue under discussion concerns everyone, not just us.
You can also look at the question from the surrendering side: let's say one player is not playing for the sake of storytelling and the aesthetics, and the other is mainly playing for the sake of winning. At some point, a competitive player realizes that he can no longer win. His right to end the game early is the same as the other player's right to continue it. In order not to choose either side, I suggested that each type of player should have its own format: the usual and more competitive arena.

How does not being able to concede make the place not comfortable? If it's turn based, it changes nothing about the experience. If it's real time, at worst it means you'll have to wait a few minutes in games you definitely lost. If you are competitive at a game, that shouldn't be a very common occurrence.

You answered your own question yourself - I don't want to waste time on a lost game if I can already start the next one. It's even worse in turn-based games because before each move I look at the position and remember that game is lost.

For example, the world cup final between France and Argentina was such a legendary game of football that it can be considered that France gained something of great value by being an actor of it, even though they lost.

Your example is not very suitable for the fact that you want to describe, but I agree that sometimes interesting and unusual events in the game can overshadow its result.

[Andrei3009]

Except I explained that it's the opposite, the more people care about games, the more they'll care about both winning and games being played properly, without conceding.

I'll add something else about your wording: caring about game and playing competitively are completely unrelatable things. A person who loves games doesn't have to want to win in it, he just likes the process. Conversely, a competitive person may not get pleasure from the gameplay itself, but mostly from winning

Then why did they pick this game to be competitive at? I agree that the two things are distinct, but they tend to be related in that the people who are the most competitive at a game, usually are also the ones who care the most about said game and the culture around it.

[tbhp]

As a game developer yourself, how would you feel...

Conceding is a meta-level convention. It's not something a designer would mention in a rule sheet, either allowing or prohibiting it.

A meta-level convention that makes sense in certain situations. Sometimes, you just don’t have time to finish a game, or would rather just start a new one, so you call it a day and the losing player acknowledges their loss. Sometimes, like in chess, the rules of the game make it possible for the winning player to delay the ending forever, so conceding serves as a way to prevent those situations that don’t fit the spirit of the game.

When on the other hand the end is near and a player decides to concede just because they don’t want their opponent to be able to properly execute their victory, this is an action that goes against the spirit of a game and of good sportsmanship. It’s sad that conceding in those situations is seen as a convention just so that we can accommodate the people with that sort of mentality. In other areas of life, we call out bad behaviors for what they are, so why is it that in gaming we let it slide and give power to those sorts of conceders by calling it a convention and making it sound honourable, when we all know the behavior doesn’t derive from noble sentiments?

[FrankJones]

As a game developer yourself, how would you feel...

Conceding is a meta-level convention. It's not something a designer would mention in a rule sheet, either allowing or prohibiting it.

I generally don't like to continue playing in a game in which my loss is pretty much guaranteed.

I concede in my own games often enough. Herd is a territory game. Once the board fills up, whoever owns the most cells wins. On a 61 cell board, if my opponent has 40 cells and I only have 4 cells, there's no realistic chance of me winning, and I'll throw in the towel. If the board is almost completely filled already, and I'm certain to lose, it's almost as easy to finish it out as it is to concede, so in that case I'll just make the extra couple of moves needed to end it.

If my opponent has clearly lost early on, but wants to see it through to the end, I'm fine with that. Anyway, what can I do? I don't want to be rude and suggest that they concede.

In Blast Radius, it isn't clear who's winning until the last couple of turns. Apparent advantage can flip back and forth. As the name suggests, there's a degree of volatility. Explosions increase in magnitude until but one monocolored stack remains. No one ever concedes at Blast Radius.

Some games do have a mechanism for a player dropping out. I think one such game is "Heat" or "pedal to the medal" or something like that?

To me, playing out a game to conclusi0in without conceding is part of good sportsmanship, unless the game is one that has a universally socially accepted concession such as Chess or Go.

At the very least, is it too much to ask the opponent, "Hey, I know I cannot win, and I would like to concede. But I realize you might wish to see the end game state or score or tats for various reasons. If you're cool with my conceding, I will concede. If you would prefer to finish it naturally ,I'll do so."

Is that really too much of a burden? Too much to ask?

For the people defending conceding, especially at the final move or turn, would it really not bother you if you have a historic game, a personal best, or a game that for some reason or another is magnificent or noteworthy in some way, and don't want it to be neutralized with a "1-0" and no stats or end-game stats ?

I really would find that difficult to believe, and if so, I really want a filter to set tables to forbid conceding, because honestly, I don't want to play ag me against any of you who actually feel this is appropriate "just to save one minute of my life" while disregarding all the various reasons why the opponent might wish the game to be completed naturally.

[FrankJones]

As a game developer yourself, how would you feel...

Conceding is a meta-level convention. It's not something a designer would mention in a rule sheet, either allowing or prohibiting it.

A meta-level convention that makes sense in certain situations. Sometimes, you just don’t have time to finish a game, or would rather just start a new one, so you call it a day and the losing player acknowledges their loss. Sometimes, like in chess, the rules of the game make it possible for the winning player to delay the ending forever, so conceding serves as a way to prevent those situations that don’t fit the spirit of the game.

When on the other hand the end is near and a player decides to concede just because they don’t want their opponent to be able to properly execute their victory, this is an action that goes against the spirit of a game and of good sportsmanship. It’s sad that conceding in those situations is seen as a convention just so that we can accommodate the people with that sort of mentality. In other areas of life, we call out bad behaviors for what they are, so why is it that in gaming we let it slide and give power to those sorts of conceders by calling it a convention and making it sound honourable, when we all know the behavior doesn’t derive from noble sentiments?

Hey,

Although I do not agree with you on everything, I very much agree with and respect this post of yours.

As you said: If it's a true emergency or time issue, sure. Concede, and the other player, while possibly disappointed, will likely understand.
If someone honestly said that to me, I WOULD GIVE THAT PERSON THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.

BUT.

BUT.

Let's be real. How often is that the ACTUAL reason? Never. Literally never. Let's not fool ourselves or live in a land of make-believe.

in 100% of cases where a player concedes on the final round or turn, that player has no time emergency or anything important. That player will be queueing up a new game immediately. Which to me is not cool. And very selfish.

And, I cannot stand the double standard in this thread.

Proponents of conceding: "You just want your ego stroked to see the final score and ho badly you beat your opponent." (in other words, assuming the very worst intentions).

Also proponents of conceding: "Someone conceding, even at last turn, likely has a good reason for doing so that has nothing to do with spite and malice." (In other words, assuming the best intentions.)

ummmm. No.