>>44567311>I think forfeiting in a game should never be encouraged, particularly in games where you are meant to hide information.Why would this make sense? Since information IS important, you should reveal or keep information hidden as is advantageous to you. If you and your opponent go in both knowing everything, then the match is likely to be a lot more predictable both in how it will play out and how it will end. That's fucking boring.
In situations where the game in particular is played multiple games to a match, especially if alterations can be made between games, then the amount of information that you allow your opponent to acquire (and that you acquire) matters even more.
>In other words, forfeiting should be met with a much larger cost than losing.What you're proposing is basically to punish players for being smart about the information part of the interaction, in which a lot of interesting guesswork and mind gaming happens.
>Let's say you're in an environment where people forfeit upon realising they'll lose. Now say you're in a situation where it looks like you'll lose. If you don't forfeit, your opponent will KNOW you're up to something and act more cautiously. In other words, your attempt at stealth or a comeback has been ruined by the presumption that losers should forfeit. Such a practice has a negative effect on the whole landscape of the game.You can't just offer two options for how you think people are sure to behave and use that to defend your position. Many games allow players to forfeit, but they choose not to even at a certain loss just because they feel like playing the game out. This is equally valid, but it doesn't neatly fit into your assumption about how players would behave.
Also though, if people want to admit defeat, fucking let them. It's decent sportsmanship to let someone forfeit rather than be forced to slog through a lost match.
