Please Penalize People Who Quit Games By "Conceding"

[Veggie Ninja]

I keep having people quit a game in the last round, even when it's tied so they still have a chance of winning, and it's extraordinarily frustrating to not get to finish games that I want to play. I primarily play two person games because it's easier to find people to play with, and the games move faster so I can play even if I have a shorter break in my schedule. I don't care about rankings, I am playing because I really enjoy the games I play. However, when someone concedes without letting the game finish, I find it Extraordinarily rude, and a sign that they only care about winning (because they quit when they think they can't win) not respecting the game and the other player. Not getting to finish games on a regular basis, because people quit by conceding, makes me not want to play online nearly as much.

Conceding a game is Just As Bad as leaving a game early! Maybe even worse, because usually when someone leaves early they've lost internet connection or something unavoidable happened around them. Thus, there should At Least be the same karma penalty (if not more) for people who concede as there is for other people who leave games early... because it's extra rude since they're quitting at the end of the game. Or perhaps there could be a filter created so that when someone opens a game to other players they can block people who have conceded a game in the last week or month.

[MrBeardy]

It's difficult as different games it matters more or less. Chess for example conceding is a valid part of the rules. Backgammon too IIRC. Then you have multi-round games like P.I. where it is possible for the game to be won by end of round 2 and thus entirely appropriate to concede at start of round 3 to save everybody time. ConnectFour you can end up in a trap where the outcome is set but you have 10 moves still to play. It's useful to be able to concede and not have to trudge through the turns.

Some games though perhaps should have concede blocked for the last round or once game end is triggered. It's really annoying to not find out your score because the opponent concedes at the last minute. (azul, race for the galaxy etc) It's difficult to implement this though as last turn in some games can be triggered at different times, or even postponed by careful play to avoid triggering it, so it would be incredibly difficult to prevent unless by simple addition of something like:
"if player X has triggered game end, preventing conceding on final turn"
OR "the player Y can concede and leave without penalty but the turn still completes so player X can find out their game score." ELO remains based on the concession ie full points awarded as current

Overall my view is that it is appropriate to have the ability to concede and I'm glad that we do. It's the only way to leave a game in a hurry without penalty if there is an emergency and I don't think it should become auto-penalised as you suggest. It's already giving the ELO to the other person. Sure, some people on here do abuse conceding as you say, but just red thumb them so you can avoid them in future. I find it to be a very small number who abuse it in this way. I imagine it's not worth the dev time reinventing the wheel so to speak.

Are there particular games you're having problems in?

[Remkar]

I agree with MrBeardy. Conceding is a useful (and acceptable) feature for many games, situations, and users.

I don't think there is any reasonable way (or justification) for blanket penalties for conceding.

[Kayvon]

Conceding a game to save several turns when you’ve already lost makes sense. Conceding on what would otherwise be your last turn anyway seems in poor taste.

The problem is that it’s difficult to detect whether this will be your last turn on many, maybe most, games. If this your last turn of chess? Only if you opponent makes the right move. Last turn on a euro game? Depends on what happens during scoring, but that won’t be determined until street it’s too late.

On games where it is reasonable to determine that it’s your last turn, BGA would need to add a last turn flag to their framework. At that point, rather than penalizing someone, the simple and clean solution is to turn a concede action into some sort of pass action automatically and let the next layer win.

[Veggie Ninja]

I personally don't understand the "save time" argument, because I'm playing the game to have fun, not minimize the amount of time I'm having fun by not completing the game. Even if I'm loosing I want to play the game to the end, and I consider it disrespectful to not let the winning player finish their strategy. Regardless, perhaps even better than penalizing people who concede would be if there was a a way to allow or not allow conceding when you open a game to other players (just like when you select the number of players allowed to join the game) that would be incredibly helpful. Then if someone who likes to concede often wants to join a game, they are playing with other people who don't mind when they do. And those of us who get really frustrated by not getting to finish their games are able to play with people who also want to actually finish the game.

The games that I have people concede at are things such as: Castles of Burgundy, Chakra, Via Magica, King of Tokyo, Welcome To, CuBirds, Potion Explosion, and La Granja. None of these are games where conceding is an option in their rules.

[Veggie Ninja]

As another (probably better) option - make is so that a player can request to concede the game, but their opponent has to accept the concession. That way if they both feel like it's over and they don't want to play out the last turn they can easily end the game without penalty. But if one of the players wants to get to finish the game they both committed to playing to, they have the option to deny the concession request and finish the game.

[Gulchen]

People are skipping the non-fun parts of the games. ​ When there are a dozen moves left for each player to
play and those won't affect the winner, the only ways I'm having fun with those moves being played out are

chat during that time
and
if there's some secondary objective which those moves might still affect

.


for the other option: ​ ​ ​ Only if that's still part of table creation. ​ I do not want to find myself
stuck spending a majority of the time control with someone who's gloating after I lost.

[Silene]

I personally don't understand the "save time" argument, because I'm playing the game to have fun, not minimize the amount of time I'm having fun by not completing the game.

For me, the fun in playing a game is similar to solving a riddle / logical problem. I want to find the best (or "a good") move, that is giving me the best chances to win the game. I might find this in increasing my own score or in reducing my opponnents score. Whatever it is, the fun for me is in trying to find the move that increases my chances the most. I don't play just because the board looks nice and it's fun to move some pieces around (it is nice too but that's secondary). What I enjoy is the challenge.

When someone gives me a sudoku riddle and says "the rules are - well just put any number in each box, nothing more" - I would find that unenjoyable. Also having a partially soved sudoku, that is obviously filled wrong in some cells and I can see that there is no solution for it anymore - this is also not fun to spend a lot of time with. (well - i'm not the biggest fan of sudoku, but you get the point ^^)

When a game is decided very early without a chance for a comeback, then the challenge is over. No matter if I'm on the winning or the losing side. When there is absolutely no chance to change the result anymore, then every move is the same and I'm just moving around pieces.

I'd rather cut off the rest of the game (if it has a significant duration) - which would only be moving around some pieces and not posing any fun - and start a new game, that is fun again. (unless one of us is still learning the game, so it would still be about finding out about some mechanics of the game)

This doesn't mean I only care about winning. I'm absolutely fine with being beaten and losing the game. Losing in a good challenge is also fun and I care about that game too. But whatever it is - it's the "road to the decision which of those 2 option it is", that is fun for me. Not the moving around pieces when the decision is already made.

[MrBeardy]

As another (probably better) option - make is so that a player can request to concede the game, but their opponent has to accept the concession. That way if they both feel like it's over and they don't want to play out the last turn they can easily end the game without penalty. But if one of the players wants to get to finish the game they both committed to playing to, they have the option to deny the concession request and finish the game.

The whole point of being able to concede is to take it out of the other person's hands. Otherwise you end up with the abort situation where you say "i have an emergency, the kid's just puked over the TV, please can we abort" and the miserable person who cares too much for their ELO (read inadequate size compensation) declines. The other person is automatically awarded full ELO when someone concedes. The balance is fine.

[Sheba-leila]

Früher war ein aufgeben nur möglich wenn der Gegner zustimmen. Ich möchte mein Spiel auch zu Ende spielen ob Sieg oder nicht. Man kann auch daraus lernen es besser zu machen. Ich finde es respektlos gegenüber den anderen Spieler.