[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[Forefall]

If a 6 player gets down to 3 players who are evenly divided (and sometimes even unevenly) it is often in the best interest of every player to not attack. If played well, this game should theoretically never end. But they do end, often by an alliance forming, a player dropping, a player becoming bored and suiciding, and player becoming bored and foolishly attacking in the hopes of breaking the stalemate.

Are any of those options good ones? Why does the game force such bad outcomes? In a three way stalemate the game is effectively over. Similar as in chess when a series of moves are repeated 10 times consecutively the game ends as a stalemate.

I feel like in a lot of these games it's like a chess game where the king is cornered and just moves back and forth. It goes on infinitely, but in CC we for some reason ask them to play forever or just give up out of futility.

[GreecePwns]

I say have a poll that can be proposed by each player only once, all agree (or all except 1 maybe), then the draw will be called and everyone gets their points back.

[Aerial Attack]

I say have a poll that can be proposed by each player only once, all agree (or all except 1 maybe), then the draw will be called and everyone gets their points back.

I assume the draw can only be proposed by remaining players? Would those who have already been eliminated get their points back? If not, do the remaining players share those points?

This leads to a potential for abuse. Say you have 2 friends who always decide to play 3 player games together. They work together to get rid of "fresh meat" - declared alliance. They then immediately declare a draw and split the points?

If draws are allowed, there need to be 3+ remaining players. And, ALL remaining players have to agree. Otherwise, with 3 remaining the 2 weaker players could agree to a draw if they thought they were losing.

[unriggable]

Yeah, they (remaining players) shouldn't get more than the amount of points they would otherwise lose.

[insomniacdude]

I say have a poll that can be proposed by each player only once, all agree (or all except 1 maybe), then the draw will be called and everyone gets their points back.

I assume the draw can only be proposed by remaining players? Would those who have already been eliminated get their points back? If not, do the remaining players share those points?

This leads to a potential for abuse. Say you have 2 friends who always decide to play 3 player games together. They work together to get rid of "fresh meat" - declared alliance. They then immediately declare a draw and split the points?

If draws are allowed, there need to be 3+ remaining players. And, ALL remaining players have to agree. Otherwise, with 3 remaining the 2 weaker players could agree to a draw if they thought they were losing.

It could be like team games: the winners' average score is taken as the basis for deducting the points form everyone. The points are deducted from each individual person eliminated, and those points are split evenly three ways (or four or five). Terminator games wouldn't be affected. Assassin games I guess would end in no points being transacted. Not sure how team games would be affected. If it's a trips game, should a draw really be declared since there are only two sides fighting? I mean, it doesn't make sense to declare a draw in a 2p singles game.


So it should only be implemented if it is unanimously voted upon by the players in the game (so long as there are at least three), and it only pops up after a long time, like round 40 or 50.

[MeDeFe]

I'm against this draw option, no matter how well it's planned, it will be abused, just like freestyle is being abused.

Out of 203 completed games I've only been in one game that sort of ended in a draw, Circus Maximus no cards. We asked Lack to delete it because we realized that the settings were utterly stupid by round 3 or 4.

Is 0.5% of the games really enough to warrant an option like this? And in that particular game the combination of the settings and the map practically begged for a draw.
I play almost exclusively flat rate and no cards games, the only times I've joined escalating was by mistake. I've learned that sooner or later every game ends, sometimes in very surprising ways. Furthermore a draw option would completely destroy the concept of "a game for world domination".

[insomniacdude]

a draw option would completely destroy the concept of "a game for world domination".

Because it's completely impossible for enemies to come to a cease-fire agreement or even an alliance

[Twill]

Keep the feedback consideration in mind.

If 3 players are left, 2 agree to draw and one says "hells no, I want your points" there is going to be a fair bit of bad blood there, no?

Is there a way to minimize that bad blood (I dont think even secret ballots would do it...too small a group of people, you'd still know)

Twill

[Forefall]

If 3 players are left and the game is at a stalemate and 2 players want to draw and 1 doesn't, then it should be up to that player to break the stalemate.

My request for a draw option is because unlike other players, and perhaps this only occurs in high level games, but nearly half or MORE of my no card / flat rate games eventually dwindles down to a 3 person draw. I'm on round 130 and 100 on two of my games, and it's annoying to have those games there. For the best 80+ rounds in both games NOTHING has happened. Do you realize how stupid a game this is? And the only way something is going to happen is due to frustration, boredom, or a lack of care. And that's a shitty way to end a game.

In my opinion, after 20 or 30 rounds of no territory being captured, a draw should be forced. And, if after 20 or 30 rounds of no player being eliminated, a draw option should be available that requires a unanimous vote.

In the case of a draw, either a) all remaining players should split the eliminated players lost points, similar to team games or b) the game should be voided. Either way, the state currently of how these stalemate games are handled is really bad and needs to change.

[Forefall]

I don't think there'll be much bad blood if draws are enforced after 20-30 rounds of inactivity. Either the player who doesn't want the draw attacks or he draws. Yes, he could just attack once and then sit around for another 20 rounds and repeat ad naseum, but that's a hell of a lot better than the current situation of a perpetual lack of activity.

[Rocketry]

a draw should never be forced on a game. i think if players want to play a 1000 round game then they should be able to. If all players agreed to a draw, i think that would be useful. Some games you just cant be bothered to finish lol.

ROcketry

[chephren]

How about an "I surrender" button... if you are in a "no win" situation, or are unable to take your turns for a few days there should be an option to surrender...this would save time for all.

[Skittles!]

Suggested many many many times, been rejected many many many times.

It used to be available until it got abused, which is why it'll never come back.

[chephren]

Sorry - am new on the forum.
Abused? How so?

[Wisse]

Sorry - am new on the forum.
Abused? How so?

quick points for multi's

[Backglass]

As opposed to the same points slowly? Whats the difference?

[yeti_c]

That's the point...

Imagine if you multi'd up - You could create about 50 games and win them all within minutes...

You could be the fastest multi up the leaderboard... until you get busted of course!!

Now with the speed games of course you can do this...

Multi up - create a load of games... play a turn with one of your players... then create another game... the player that played once - won't DB out - whilst everyone else will... then your points will start rolling in quickly!!!

C.

[firth4eva]

That's the point...

Imagine if you multi'd up - You could create about 50 games and win them all within minutes...

You could be the fastest multi up the leaderboard... until you get busted of course!!

Now with the speed games of course you can do this...

Multi up - create a load of games... play a turn with one of your players... then create another game... the player that played once - won't DB out - whilst everyone else will... then your points will start rolling in quickly!!!

C.

yes but you would need to buy 5 premiums

[Forefall]

Could this be discussed further? Or are games ending by suicide / frustration the intended design?

[Storm21]

after better thought i realized i won't get to kill the last player making the game so much more gratifieng don't bring it bak

[xeno]

Please make this an option. Some games i enter i later heavily regret. I doubt this is the first time a forfeit button is being suggested.

[hecter]

We've had it before, but it was abused.

[Russianfire8371]

Please make this an option. Some games i enter i later heavily regret. I doubt this is the first time a forfeit button is being suggested.

Dear Xeno,

Please understand when I say that I dont mean to sound rude, or angry, but what in the world? We have posted everywhere about how to post suggestions and how you should check before you post a suggestion to see whether or not its been suggested before. Lack and Andy have made it really easy for people like yourself who have ideas to just click once or twice and see whether or not it has been suggested. I understand you are new, but patience is a virtue. Before you begin to gripe about how you have joined a game for the wrong reason, try to think about how abusive that would become. Try to imagine the money that would be lost if you could forfeit games, because only if you buy premium would you be allowed to play unlimited games, but seeing how your new, you only have 4 games to spend and seeing how you want to take advantage of free games, you would like to end every game that you see not worth fighting.

Please think next time you want to suggest something, and dont forget to check whether or not it has been suggested before.

Enjoy your stay.

[AndyDufresne]

What Russianfire8371 said.


--Andy

[Gigantuar]

Couldn't find this idea anywhere in the lists so here goes:

Suggestion:
When a newbie that hasn't taken any turns in a game deadbeats they are sent an email that offers them the chance to opt out if they have no interest in continuing with their CC experience. This could be dealt with in the usual manner with their territories in all of the games they are involved in defaulting to neutral.

This would hopefully help to deal with the classic problem where a newbie joins CC, joins 4 games and is never seen again, leaving the genuine players in those games to wait for days for them to be eliminated via the 3 missed turns method.

A few points:
To promote use of the facility, the opt out method would need to be as simple as possible, i.e. click a link in the email.

The condition that the newbie have taken no turns in the game is necessary to avoid the problems that were encountered with the surrender button.

A lot of the newbie deadbeats will probably just ignore/delete the email but if even 1 in 5 of these people opt out then it would be worth implementing IMHO.