Conquer Club

Why would you ever really want a surrender button?

Yeah, I know there are games that are pretty much lost, but suck it up, cupcake.

Because you can get stuck in a game that you know you're going to lose, but will take forever to end. That's just annoying.

i love it

AK_iceman wrote:

Incandenza wrote:*copright 2006 jaydog all rights reserved

Fixed it.

I had a weird feeling that I wasn't crediting the initial author. Many thanks, noble penguin.

Oh, and if you're not premium, I can understand the desire to forfeit games to free up another slot, but call it another reason to fork over the $20. If you are premium and have a problem with playing out the string in games you have lost, just try and remember all those great games you've won. Besides, a tediously protracted endgame is pretty rare (save in no cards, of course), and not worth introducing an abusable element to the game.

fork over the $20

I would actually do it, but to be honest the reason I don't is because I know I would then play this game WAY too much. I like the restriction of 4 games. Okay, I don't like it when I get involved in drawn out games that I know I'm going to lose, though!

I'd like an abandon game option so we can avoid situations like Game 202278.

In this game a new player went to Peru half way through the game.

No, we're not playing World 2.0, he really went to Peru, the country - with his school, apparently. The greens left behind two full continents Rohan and Ruhn.

This totally fs-up the game.

The blue side now has in front of Eriador (+7) and Lindon (+2) a massive buffer of neutral armies which means he cannot be attacked as he was when green, the guy now in Peru, was playing.

I think we are all reasonable enough to know when a game should be abandoned and I'm sure the blue side would not object - in fact he's not pleased either as he wanted the greens to attack the reds.

If there were an "abandon game" option which would come into effect when all active players agree such situations would not affect ranking points.

there used to be a surrender button but thats gone.
i doubt they will allow a abandon button.

wcaclimbing wrote:there used to be a surrender button but thats gone.
i doubt they will allow a abandon button.

Why?

It's the best a change could be: popular & save bandwidth.

ED: Can I just add another thing? It's not exactly realistic is it. In real Risk one player doesn't get bored or in this case hop it to Peru half way through the game. Abandon game is needed.

Next search look at the to do list it says surrender is rejected meaning it has been sugguested and reject so it should NOT be sugguested again...

Why don't you find a dictionary and look up the meaning of surrender and then the meaning of abandoned?

I know it can be a lot of fun patronising new posters but two can play at that game.

Okay, to clarify because I'm unsure of the reading comprehension level of some on this forum -

"Abandoned" means the whole game comes to an end and is considered void.

"Surrendered" means a player within the game leaves and the game continues.

One of these has been rejected; the other hasn't.

That's even dumber than a surrender button. Obviously the person who is winning wants to keep playing. How would you feel if you had your opponent down to one territory and then they hit the "abandon game" button?

pancakemix wrote:That's even dumber than a surrender button. Obviously the person who is winning wants to keep playing. How would you feel if you had your opponent down to one territory and then they hit the "abandon game" button?

i think he meant that all the active players had to agree on abondaning the game

Then it would be pointless. The person winning wouldn't agree. Even if it was to a vote, there would be complaint and the button would get pulled anyway.


Beside, CC is designed for people with lives. If a player goes to Peru, that's unfortunate for everybody except the guy who goes to Peru.

Why wouldn't the person winning want to agree?

Nobody likes cheap wins. There's a certain thing called self-respect.

Plenty of people like cheap wins. There are tons of douchebags out there. (see also: JTKALLTHEWAY)

Yep - I'd love a cheap win or two myself. True - it may not be enjoyable but no matter what the situation is, if I'm playing in a game I will still want to win it.

this is just a suggestion to make it so you can surrender from a game to either free up space on your games currently played list or to just simply surrender because your going to loose

P.S.
smilees were for fun

Already rejected.

Despite the smilies he does have a valid point. That should not be rejected.
The option to quit should be implimented in instances where one gets a bad draw or is otherwise unable to win but can't wait around for it to happen.
When you can only play four games at once, you want to quit the boring ones.

Again merging this with the topic already open about it. If you get a bad draw suck it up and try to win. To me there is no bad draw you play with what your dealt.

pancakemix wrote:Then it would be pointless. The person winning wouldn't agree. Even if it was to a vote, there would be complaint and the button would get pulled anyway.


Beside, CC is designed for people with lives. If a player goes to Peru, that's unfortunate for everybody except the guy who goes to Peru.

Dude ... sometimes there are reasons. Wake up.

Like, an RT game where it's taking too long and they conclude it would be better to just abandon play.

spiesr wrote:Next search look at the to do list it says surrender is rejected meaning it has been sugguested and reject so it should NOT be sugguested again...

Just because something was rejected does not mean it shouldn't be suggested again. If support for an idea increased after it was rejected or someone came up with a better reason Lack could change his mind.

If you don't like it: Don't use it.
When you've got Australia and the other guy has everything else with 20 guys on Siam, there's no way you're going to win, let alone make any kind of come back.
But you've got to wait up to twenty four hours to be killed. Only being able to play four games at once, you're stuck with a game you can't even play where you could start a new one where you might have a chance.
Generally the winner can be seen early, and it's almost a certainty by midgame.

Just because something was rejected does not mean it shouldn't be suggested again. If support for an idea increased after it was rejected or someone came up with a better reason Lack could change his mind.

Fully agree. It is wrong that this idea has been rejected, and so it should continue to be argued until that is realized. This is true in any situation in which groups of people disagree over something.

This option should be available:
-It's an option. If you disagree with it, you don't have to use it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be available for the rest.
-There are instances in which one cannot win, this would simply speed up the inevitable.
-There are instances in which one will lose within one or two turns with no hope of coming back. Again, speed up the inevitable.
-That other player can take up to 71 hours to remove you from the game, assuming they do so and don't just stock up without finishing you off. All the while that slot you can not even really play in is taking up space that could be used for other games.
-With a four game limit, one has to have an option to quit a game that isn't worth taking up one of those slots.

While I agree that the surrender was a stupid idea, the idea of an Abandon Game option is a very good one. All parties must agree in order for the game to be canceled and if they do all agree, then why is there a problem with having this option?