Conceeding?

[WhiteAlien]

Well, to be fair, it's all contextual isn't it.

If a player clearly has no mathematical possibility to win and their actions cannot affect the game for other players, i.e. it's a two-player game, or it is impossible for anybody except for one player to win, then it's reasonable that the players should discuss this and can come to a resolution among themselves.

I have done that in real table games with two players where I have information my opponent does not have and have even said, "I can reach only 19 points so if you can get to 20 let's call it a win in your favour and begin again." This is so that we can both get more games in rather than having a long round where the conclusion is already known.

It depends a lot on why you are PLAYING games. I PLAY for fun, and to enjoy other people's company or to enjoy the game. I don't PLAY purely to have a win. I want to win, sure, but that's not the only reason to play. So if I am losing or likely to lose that does not dictate to me whether I am enjoying the game or not.

Especially in multiplayer games and here on BGA games are not handled particularly well when players abandon a game. You don't get a clearcut winner. There is no point in playing a game if everytime one person is falling behind they will leave the game.

There are so many situations where different outcomes are sensible, really, but in general there should be a very good reason for abandoning a game that you committed to playing with other people, having expected them to also committed to spend their time with you.

Ultimately it comes down to who you are and who you're playing with and how you enjoy games. For me, it isn't a big deal to ask someone to complete their turns in a game they chose to play, especially if leaving the game early is because they have a lower chance of winning or if their choice to leave affects more than one person.

[mare26]

Chiffa of Kettari wrote: ↑21 July 2023, 23:59
Well, I come here to play, not to win. I don't care if the win/loss is already clear, I want to see the cards shuffled around, to try more things (and to maybe be surprised by a sudden streak of luck, which turns "already decided" game 180°). I have no interest in rat race of emotionless "win-win-win" as fast as you can in as many games as you can, the treadmills belong to gym, not to relaxing hobby.
It's a pity we cannot really chose people based on such preferences. Unfinished game feels like it was a waste of my time, regardless of who wins.

What makes your motivations for playing the game the only valid one? If someone wants to concede, why should your desire to force them to play so you can enjoy yourself be more important then forcing them t play a game they don't want to play and be miserable?

If you want 100% control over the game, play solitaire. Otherwise the other players motivations for playing are just as valid as yours, and that could include not wanting to waste time on games they cannot win.

This poster wasn't saying that their motivation for playing was the only valid one, simply trying to explain their perspective to the 'conceders' who quit with one turn left and apparently fail to realize how frustrating this can be to those of us who enjoy the game for the game, not just the game for the win. When you've spent 30 or so minutes building an engine but most of the final points that influence stats play out in the last few turns, concessions that happen right at the end of the game take away the satisfaction of what we played for and are both rude and childish. It's like the kid playing monopoly who realizes he's lost and instead of finishing the game, throws the playing board off the table. Sure, the win/loss doesn't change but the human interchange experiences a vast shift--now both people are left with a bitter taste in what could have been an ending of calm camaraderie.

And I would argue this is what the conceders are trying to do--to 'get back' in an absurd, infantile way at the other player because they are sore losers. I have noticed a trend in the arena with player after player conceding a game in the very last turn, sometimes even the last move of the last turn. Any arguments that concessions should be allowed to 'save people's time' lose all their basis in this situation; conceding in the last few turns could only save a few seconds at most, a few seconds that anyone with a shred of decency and sportsmanship would see to the end. Conceding at 50% makes total sense, conceding over 90% reveals lack of sportmanship in the conceder.

You speak to 'forcing people to play' but the conceders that are irritating are those that choose to play up until the final seconds and then concede--no one forced them to start a game, no one forced them to play up to 90%, and no one forced them to finish the final seconds of the game, but the petty little tantrums players throw and quit seconds before the game ends is fairly telling as to their lack of what you describe as a 'valid motivation to play.' Ideally, people would express some basic understanding and play out the games they commit to, but unfortunately not everyone is considerate or mature. If people won't stop choosing to concede before the game reaches 90%, a rule to keep people behaving in a sportsmanlike fashion is a likely solution.

[mare26]

I don't think I would ever concede just because I always feel like I have a chance and/or have some stupid desire to see how well I can make an otherwise bad game turn out. Can I at least get to 80 in a game where everything went wrong from the start? Things like.

That said, I'm also convinced that all your bonus cards are maxed out regardless of how few birds you have because I'm paranoid. So, if you want to do me a solid and put that notion to rest by conceding, that's fine with me.

Agreed; and I think your perspective is a sign of maturity. Wanting to throw in the towel just because 'it isn't fun for you anymore' as the comments of those who agree with conceding say show immaturity. Yes, it is never 'fun' to lose, but finding other avenues to enjoy the game and the challenge is certainly available, and instead of throwing a petty tantrum and conceding with <30 seconds of gametime left, maybe there would be less of an argument about this if more people thought like you and played out the rest of the game with different goals in mind.

[Ze Monstah]

I don't think I would ever concede just because I always feel like I have a chance and/or have some stupid desire to see how well I can make an otherwise bad game turn out. Can I at least get to 80 in a game where everything went wrong from the start? Things like.

That said, I'm also convinced that all your bonus cards are maxed out regardless of how few birds you have because I'm paranoid. So, if you want to do me a solid and put that notion to rest by conceding, that's fine with me.

Agreed; and I think your perspective is a sign of maturity. Wanting to throw in the towel just because 'it isn't fun for you anymore' as the comments of those who agree with conceding say show immaturity. Yes, it is never 'fun' to lose, but finding other avenues to enjoy the game and the challenge is certainly available, and instead of throwing a petty tantrum and conceding with <30 seconds of gametime left, maybe there would be less of an argument about this if more people thought like you and played out the rest of the game with different goals in mind.

Can't you simply add up? Imagine how many points your last move would give you (when the "childish" one - as you call it - concedes)?
I mean, you most likely would have played grass or something.
So why not add up the points for a grass play + bonuses + whatever number you have then?

You don't need to see a number, in order to believe it.

[Jellby]

It's like the kid playing monopoly who realizes he's lost and instead of finishing the game, throws the playing board off the table.

To some extent, it depends on how you picture/imagine it. You could also think of the "loser" politely acknowledging that they lost, and shaking their opponent's hand. And the "winner" getting mad because "No, wait, I want to build three more hotels here and here, and buy the water company, and now you owe me 20 million more, and I'm the lord of the universe".

[detlefchef11]

I don't think I would ever concede just because I always feel like I have a chance and/or have some stupid desire to see how well I can make an otherwise bad game turn out. Can I at least get to 80 in a game where everything went wrong from the start? Things like.

That said, I'm also convinced that all your bonus cards are maxed out regardless of how few birds you have because I'm paranoid. So, if you want to do me a solid and put that notion to rest by conceding, that's fine with me.

Agreed; and I think your perspective is a sign of maturity. Wanting to throw in the towel just because 'it isn't fun for you anymore' as the comments of those who agree with conceding say show immaturity. Yes, it is never 'fun' to lose, but finding other avenues to enjoy the game and the challenge is certainly available, and instead of throwing a petty tantrum and conceding with <30 seconds of gametime left, maybe there would be less of an argument about this if more people thought like you and played out the rest of the game with different goals in mind.

You say that you're agreeing with me but you're not really for the most part. I actually don't mind if someone concedes. It's just that I wouldn't do it myself. I don't think it's childish. It happens in chess all the time. Toppling over your king in a lost game rather than going through the motions. Nobody seems to mind that.

[slimy_asparagus]

You say that you're agreeing with me but you're not really for the most part. I actually don't mind if someone concedes. It's just that I wouldn't do it myself. I don't think it's childish. It happens in chess all the time. Toppling over your king in a lost game rather than going through the motions. Nobody seems to mind that.

I think there is a vast difference between a fixed length somewhat random game with hidden information and an open perfect information non-random game with ending determined by a forseeable condition. What may seem polite in one may not be in the other.

[detlefchef11]

You say that you're agreeing with me but you're not really for the most part. I actually don't mind if someone concedes. It's just that I wouldn't do it myself. I don't think it's childish. It happens in chess all the time. Toppling over your king in a lost game rather than going through the motions. Nobody seems to mind that.

I think there is a vast difference between a fixed length somewhat random game with hidden information and an open perfect information non-random game with ending determined by a forseeable condition. What may seem polite in one may not be in the other.

But the person who is allegedly the victim of this act is being handed a win. Like I said in my quoted statement, I'm more than happy to put to rest my paranoid notion that you have 26 pts in bonus cards. Go ahead, concede. I won't, but go ahead and do it if you know you're beat.

[posymay]

I’ve had situations where people concede mid game and that’s fine. They obviously have something they want to move onto and think that they might not win.
I have also seen just a couple of people “petty” concede where they’ve taken their final turn then conceded during my final turn, seemingly just to deny me the satisfaction of seeing my score tot up. I’m honestly a little disgusted when I see that.
if you compare that to an in-person game (and I know it’s not the same, but if you DID compare it) then it’s like your opponent is standing up from the table and walking out the room. Not a good look, imo

[Lismy]

I don't like when people concede in the last round, it takes away the possibility to see the full score.
I, on my part, hardly concede a game unless it's a really obvious loss and/or I'm busy. When I'm not too behind I always believe in the possibility to win the game.
It also annoys me when someone asks me to concede.
I still remember a game where the other player kept telling me to concede, but that guy didn't expect me to have more than 20 objectives points and I won in the end. In most game you can't know if you win until the end.