[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[lancehoch]

Can you please re-post the idea that was being talked about as a way around the multi-issues, or was a way around abuse. I will then change the title to reflect where the idea at hand can be found.

[Ditocoaf]

Never mind this for now, actually... I've decided to leave the Suggs and Bugs forum alone for a while, until it finally gets some sort of organization. It's too frustrating and futile in its current state. (I'd comment in the suggestions for sub forums, but those threads, like most, get buried too quickly for anything positive to happen.)

[lancehoch]

Time is a huge issue in freestyle games.

[chasex]

Hell what do i know it was just a thought posed as a question and i was told i should put it up in the forum because i was told it was a good idea...i still think that the majority of people who want the quit button back are waiting fifteen minutes for 1 player to be out because they have abandoned the game in a sequential game and lord pray that two don't decide to abandon if you have 4 or more players...you will be there all day just waiting for their game to be ended for missed turns...but like i say what do i know i am just new and a girl...it was stupid to even suggest anything to the big strong smart all knowing men who play this game.

[cicero]

This suggestion for a Forfeit/Quit Button is currently being discussed in suggestion:Resign Button.
Please continue discussion on this idea in that thread.

Cicero


[Locked]

[jiminski]

I don't see the potential for abuse - what are they abusing exactly?

There is no point gain or loss?!

C.

i can't see that this system is abusable in any way and we have tailored it to not be, via much wrangling in the pages of this thread.

What i am exploring, (i am not even certain that it is an issue at all). .. is this intangible introduction of restarting the game due to an 'unfair' starting-board.
For example, if someone has had bad luck in games for a while and feels that they are due some, then they may not wish to be forced to restart.
And if they do not restart, the balance of players may feel that it is unsportsmanlike behaviour and disproportionately attack the dissenter.

This really is only a small point for consideration but one specifically related to the boxes being present from game initiation. (the clear vote leader )

[azezzo]

.



.


Concise description:

• create a surrender button to help stop deadbeaters, at least when its a 1 on 1 game

Specifics:

• I have taken 99% of my turns in 1949 games, but there comes a time in most games that you realize that you have no chance, so why drag the game out.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• this will help speed games up, and give habitual deadbeaters an option

[jiminski]

.



.


Concise description:

• create a surrender button to help stop deadbeaters, at least when its a 1 on 1 game

Specifics:

• I have taken 99% of my turns in 1949 games, but there comes a time in most games that you realize that you have no chance, so why drag the game out.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• this will help speed games up, and give habitual deadbeaters an option

a few people have put this forward i think Az... check on Lacks 'to do' list and i reckon this has been rejected.

Bring Back 'Surrender' Button

[retrocrush]

I think this would enhance the experience a lot, again, especially vs. 1 on 1 games. For multi-player games, you could have it function as a sort of auto-deadbeat utility that will instantly void the next round's turn for that player so the clock doesn't get eaten up with long wait time.

[cicero]

This suggestion contains the same basic ideas as the suggestion:Resign Button.
Please continue discussion on this idea in that thread.

Cicero


[Locked]

[azezzo]

in light of the automatic attendance feature in our profiles, i feal that a surrender button would be beneficial.

(1) this would only pertain to a game with only 2 players
(2) this would speed up alot of games
(3) a player wouldn't be penalized for having to leave a game, other than losing points.
(4) this could reduce the amount of deadbeats

I know, your supposed to play the game out, but in alot of cases when your losing no amount of luck or strategy is going to save you, so why drag out a game any longer than necesarry. just like in a real war, raise the white flag and surrender.

[timmytuttut88]

Can you please re-post the idea that was being talked about as a way around the multi-issues, or was a way around abuse. I will then change the title to reflect where the idea at hand can be found.

yo mod, you guys merged my topic called "surrender button without the abuse". Had the surrender with a twist, can you please put it back or something since its not the same as this stuff.

[lancehoch]

Timmy, is this the post you are looking for: Link. If so, please quote the post, and get discussion going again. However, I also refer you to the original post in this thread and andy's post halfway down page 1. [/mod] I would also like to state the following: As a player on this site, I would be really pissed if someone withdrew from a game. I worked hard to win that game and someone feels like they can just press a button and not let me finish killing them. This does not seem fair in my eyes. And I hate to sound like a broken record, but this will just let someone create a second account and literally drop hundreds of games in an hour or so. [mod] Back on topic, I am not going to split threads which were merged because they were the same idea, sorry.

[yeti_c]

<Subject>:
Concise Idea:I thought of away to avoid the abuse of the surrender button.

<Body>:
Suggestion Idea: bring back a new type of surrender button that can avoid abuse.

Specifics: Well people when about to be killed by a lower ranked person they would surrender so the lower ranker couldnt get their cards, turning all there armies neutral to give the game to a higher ranked person so they would lose less points. I was thinking to avoid this abuse when someone surrenders there armies dont go neutral. They just stay how they are and if you kill the person you still get the cards. All surrendring would do is make the person have there turns skipped.

Why it is needed:new players who can get out of a game can, and we dont have to deal with all the "how do i get out of a game" stuff.

This suggestion.

C.

PS - still no Multi abuse avoidance - can't see it coming back.

[Ramned]

not sure what the opinion is but my 2 cents:

Make a button so we dont have to waste a half hour cleaning the floor. A natural resignation / forfeiture would help avoid deadbeating!

[carmens]

here are my thoughts

casual games only (no need for this in speed games)
games that start off with 4 or more players
only 2 players left
maybe there could be some calculation based on the number of armies or countries of the remaining players before the button appears
increase the points lost by some % for the person who surrenders

[timmytuttut88]

<Subject>:
Concise Idea:I thought of away to avoid the abuse of the surrender button.

<Body>:
Suggestion Idea: bring back a new type of surrender button that can avoid abuse.

Specifics: Well people when about to be killed by a lower ranked person they would surrender so the lower ranker couldnt get their cards, turning all there armies neutral to give the game to a higher ranked person so they would lose less points. I was thinking to avoid this abuse when someone surrenders there armies dont go neutral. They just stay how they are and if you kill the person you still get the cards. All surrendring would do is make the person have there turns skipped.

Why it is needed:new players who can get out of a game can, and we dont have to deal with all the "how do i get out of a game" stuff.

This suggestion.

C.

PS - still no Multi abuse avoidance - can't see it coming back.

either way it helps get rid of half the problem, and if ou see a multi doing that its even easier to catch them...

[jpliberty]

A Resign/Surrender button is a good thing as long as it worked only when there were two players/teams remaining in a game. To resign sooner in a game with three or more players can screw up the game for everyone else.

It only makes sense to allow a surrender option when there are only two players/teams remaining.

[Halmir]

In my humble (though important !:)) opinion we could really use a facility that lets a player set up a future instruction when it becomes their go, but they know they won't be able to take it. The example I'm thinking of is when you'll be away for the weekend, I'm sure we've all noticed how games drag and turns are missed on a regular basis through lack of turns taken by other players! Yes you can miss a couple of turns but that's unfair on everyone else, why should they have to suffer a slow game?

Solutions:
1) Create a "when it's my turn, deploy automatically on xxx territory" function.

2) Create a "when it's my turn, skip my go" function

3) Create a Resign button (I believe this has got mentioned elsewhere?)

4) Ask for volunteers within the community to play your turns for a few rounds. Actually there's nothing stopping us doing this now, as Iunderstand the current rules? The process here would have to be that they can't be actually playing in any of your games to avoid accusations of being a multi, unfairness etc. I'd suggest that they'd need to be a paying member to demonstrate sufficient commitment to the game. Some form of records on how seriously they play would need to be maintained (kinda like a seller rating on eBay lol) so you'd know that this would be a GOOD thing to let them loose, not some foolhardy clown lol. And the player needs to retain ownership and be able to stop the substitute at any time - so really it'd need a second access password for the helper, with the master password still residing with the account holder. I'm willing to help out folks if they go on holiday etc, so long as they don't have 8000 games on the go, and also so long as they don't get abusive if I lose a few games (after all you were definitely going to lose them through time outs anyway!)

[lancehoch]

Option 1 sounds very appealing. This could be coded similarly to a poker site where you have options before your turn: "Check/Fold", "Call Any", "Fold" ...

[lanyards]

Option 1 sounds very appealing. This could be coded similarly to a poker site where you have options before your turn: "Check/Fold", "Call Any", "Fold" ...

What if someone else takes that territory before its your turn? I t wouldn't work out too well I think. The best solution is the resign button in my opinion.

--lanyards

[lancehoch]

I guess then the "fold" option would come in, either deadbeat or random deploy.

[ParadiceCity9]

Option 1 sounds very appealing. This could be coded similarly to a poker site where you have options before your turn: "Check/Fold", "Call Any", "Fold" ...

What if someone else takes that territory before its your turn? I t wouldn't work out too well I think. The best solution is the resign button in my opinion.

--lanyards

I had the same observation.

[blakebowling]

Option 1 sounds very appealing. This could be coded similarly to a poker site where you have options before your turn: "Check/Fold", "Call Any", "Fold" ...

What if someone else takes that territory before its your turn? I t wouldn't work out too well I think. The best solution is the resign button in my opinion.

--lanyards

I had the same observation.

It would have to have a second option, deploy x armies on xxxx or deploy x armies on yyyy

[blakebowling]

<Subject>:
Concise Idea:I thought of away to avoid the abuse of the surrender button.

<Body>:
Suggestion Idea: bring back a new type of surrender button that can avoid abuse.

Specifics: Well people when about to be killed by a lower ranked person they would surrender so the lower ranker couldnt get their cards, turning all there armies neutral to give the game to a higher ranked person so they would lose less points. I was thinking to avoid this abuse when someone surrenders there armies dont go neutral. They just stay how they are and if you kill the person you still get the cards. All surrendring would do is make the person have there turns skipped.

Why it is needed:new players who can get out of a game can, and we dont have to deal with all the "how do i get out of a game" stuff.

This suggestion.

C.

PS - still no Multi abuse avoidance - can't see it coming back.

What if when you pressed the surrender button, every time at the start of your turn, it would randomly place armies (alphabetically) for three turns, until you would have deadbeated and then you would be kicked from the game link normal, and a limit on how long you have to wait to take a turn after you surrender.