[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[yeti_c]

My main concern - is that Lack dislikes options that clutter the game making screen...

Thus regardless of the poll - he might go for option 2,3 or 4 - so that he doesn't have to add another input field onto the game maker...

Personally - I voted for option 2 -> As I like the ability for sporting people to identify an unfair drop and to reinit the game during the 1st round.

C.

[ParadiceCity9]

I think the game-freezing time should be able to be decided at a time the players want it to be frozen, not a set amount of rounds. What if the game's just starting to get good at, say round 100, then it's frozen and nobody wins?

hello Paradise, this vote is only for when the vote Boxes actually appear and the Freeze can then be voted upon. No one has to vote at any time.

Voting options:
1. Game Setting; Round to be selected prior to game start (i)
2. Present from start
3. Voting boxes appear after a set round for all games, all formats
4. Set rounds but different alternatives depending on type of card game (ii)

Option 1: the player who sets-up the game choses which round the voting boxes can appear (Voting is not obligatory if players wish to play on)
Option 2: voting boxes are always in play (Voting is not obligatory if players wish to play on)
Option 3: A round is decided upon in this thread, to set times for when boxes appear (Voting is not obligatory if players wish to play on)
Option 4. We decide in this thread on a variety of rounds for the boxes to appear: round of appearance will differ depending on game formats. (Voting is not obligatory if players wish to play on)

The main reason this section of the discussion is to avoid people whining about ending the game and trying to hassle the other player to vote within the game.
If we have a period where no boxes are available for vote the game can be relaxed and play-out completely as normal. Some concerns were voiced regarding 'No Card' games in particular and that the dynamics of the game could be altered with ever-present vote boxes (as in Option 2 above).

Ya that's why I voted for option 2.

[jiminski]

My main concern - is that Lack dislikes options that clutter the game making screen...

Thus regardless of the poll - he might go for option 2,3 or 4 - so that he doesn't have to add another input field onto the game maker...

Personally - I voted for option 2 -> As I like the ability for sporting people to identify an unfair drop and to reinit the game during the 1st round.

C.

It's all good Yeti and I like that Sporting aspect too! (we could, if we wished, include facility to vote once at the very start of the game and then voting boxes disappear after the game is initialised.)

However, I do very much like the idea of people being able to both set-up and go into a game with a 'vague' idea of how many rounds a game could be.
Whilst still leaving it as optional for players who wish to retain the old ways.

but i too completely see that Lacky-baby may not actually like any of it

[jiminski]

Monsieur Turtle,
Any way we could get Lacks attention .. and without implying that he would be up for this suggestion in any meaningful way... to say if he would agree to the user being able to chose the round in which 'Freeze vote boxes' appear, on the game set-up page?

I think it would add a nice indication of game longevity prior to people joining, whilst protecting the integrity of the long-haul game (as outlined by AAFitz)

[jiminski]

his lone voice echoed about the stone-walled catacomb, only dulled by the damp, moss-covered veneer which bearded the cobbled arches.

[yeti_c]

I've a feeling this may get buried under the avalanche of Wicked Vs Twill threads.

C.

[jiminski]

I've a feeling this may get buried under the avalanche of Wicked Vs Twill threads.

C.

we'll be back; Anger is ephemeral, good ideas Intranssient.

[jiminski]

voting is pretty close... not many are sold on Option 1. the idea of being able to roughly determine when a game would end?
I am a little surprised; i think it would be a way of gently shepherding players who wish a certain length of game towards each other.

anyway the leading option is the most flexible and as Yeti has indicated it adds the ability for people to restart if a game is blatantly unfair at set-up i am a little unsure about that the more i consider it; will people willingly kiss their advantage goodbye? and deciding an 'unfair' drop may be fraught with struggle.

[yeti_c]

voting is pretty close... not many are sold on Option 1. the idea of being able to roughly determine when a game would end?
I am a little surprised; i think it would be a way of gently shepherding players who wish a certain length of game towards each other.

anyway the leading option is the most flexible and as Yeti has indicated it adds the ability for people to restart if a game is blatantly unfair at set-up i am a little unsure about that the more i consider it; will people willingly kiss their advantage goodbye? and deciding an 'unfair' drop may be fraught with struggle.

If they don't - then they get less *'s for fair play...

And in a big game - starting with a good drop often means you get hammered first!!!

C.

[jiminski]

voting is pretty close... not many are sold on Option 1. the idea of being able to roughly determine when a game would end?
I am a little surprised; i think it would be a way of gently shepherding players who wish a certain length of game towards each other.

anyway the leading option is the most flexible and as Yeti has indicated it adds the ability for people to restart if a game is blatantly unfair at set-up i am a little unsure about that the more i consider it; will people willingly kiss their advantage goodbye? and deciding an 'unfair' drop may be fraught with struggle.

If they don't - then they get less *'s for fair play...

And in a big game - starting with a good drop often means you get hammered first!!!

C.

yeas i can see that Yeti, my slight concern (and this really is slight, as i a sure most will play fair) is that if a person refuses to relinquish an advantage and vote for a Freeze at initiation, the rest may at least subconsciously target them.

[yeti_c]

voting is pretty close... not many are sold on Option 1. the idea of being able to roughly determine when a game would end?
I am a little surprised; i think it would be a way of gently shepherding players who wish a certain length of game towards each other.

anyway the leading option is the most flexible and as Yeti has indicated it adds the ability for people to restart if a game is blatantly unfair at set-up i am a little unsure about that the more i consider it; will people willingly kiss their advantage goodbye? and deciding an 'unfair' drop may be fraught with struggle.

If they don't - then they get less *'s for fair play...

And in a big game - starting with a good drop often means you get hammered first!!!

C.

yeas i can see that Yeti, my slight concern (and this really is slight, as i a sure most will play fair) is that if a person refuses to relinquish an advantage and vote for a Freeze at initiation, the rest may at least subconsciously target them.

They'd do that anyway - as that person has an advantage?

C.

[timmytuttut88]

this was a good idea

[Ditocoaf]

Yes, but it's still going to be ignored.

I would call for a sort of "insta-deadbeat" button. The reason something like this is needed:

Scenario 1:) A group of people get ready to play a realtime game. Joe has every intention of sitting through the whole game, however, something happens outside of his foresight and control, requiring him to leave his computer (the horror!). Now everyone else is stuck waiting. If he could deadbeat instantly, without the pause for each of his turns, this would save a lot of trouble for the others in the realtime game.

Scenario 2:) Even in regular, 24-hour-per-turn game, it would save a lot of hassle if someone who intends to deadbeat would do so without the requisite 3 turns missed. Usually people don't take the full 24 hours to take a turn; this only happens when someone is MIA. On occasion, this could be prevented by someone who knows they have to quit the game, i.e. poor planning before a vacation.

The current rules for deadbeats seem pretty fair to the other players. All that's needed now is to make that available without the wait, hence, the "Insta-deadbeat" button.

The only complaint about this I've is that it makes cheating easier... but all it really would do is make it faster, and probably easier to catch.

I would really like an official response to this.

[jiminski]

voting is pretty close... not many are sold on Option 1. the idea of being able to roughly determine when a game would end?
I am a little surprised; i think it would be a way of gently shepherding players who wish a certain length of game towards each other.

anyway the leading option is the most flexible and as Yeti has indicated it adds the ability for people to restart if a game is blatantly unfair at set-up i am a little unsure about that the more i consider it; will people willingly kiss their advantage goodbye? and deciding an 'unfair' drop may be fraught with struggle.

If they don't - then they get less *'s for fair play...

And in a big game - starting with a good drop often means you get hammered first!!!

C.

yeas i can see that Yeti, my slight concern (and this really is slight, as i a sure most will play fair) is that if a person refuses to relinquish an advantage and vote for a Freeze at initiation, the rest may at least subconsciously target them.

They'd do that anyway - as that person has an advantage?

C.

hmm yeas eventually but i think if a person refused to restart when they had a good starting board it would focus the attention more immediately upon them .. heheh otherwise, if people universally sought to even things, the advantage of a restart would be to the person with the best board

I am answering you in slow stages Yeti it's better than a bump ^^

[PLAYER57832]

First, I have not read all 11 pages (sorry).

BUT, while I applaud the effort, I think this could have too much potential for abuse and, in the long run will cause folks more issues... for example, as was mentioned before (did read some, not all the thread), the initial deployment is not necessarily even.

Stalemates happen naturally with some games, but what we really need is a way to discourage intentional stalemates and allow unintentional stalemates to end without overly penalizing any player.

What if there were a small penalty associated with the draw. The game is re-started and 5-10 points are deducted from each player in the restart. Either the game can be reset exactly as it started, but with territories of eliminated players made neutral/randomly deployed OR simply restart randomly with the existing players.

To be fair (that is, to keep bullying out ... even anonymously it can be obvious who votes how), I think it should be an automatic option, after a set number of rounds.

[yeti_c]

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

There is no point gain or loss?!

C.

[WOTE]

A "resign" button was long ago in the past, but it was removed due to abuse. Though there are legit times a resign button could come in handy, for the most part it seems to encourage poor sportsmanship. A win from a resign seems to be a lot less fun than a win when you take someone's last territory.
--Andy

hum, abuse eh! I guess you could tag on a penalty to resigning, but i think it would be better than someone missing three turns. (72 hours of wait time) you could have a resign to the top player of the game, then your units become his units, but that would not be for all cases. As it is now players units that miss 3 turns become neutral, and there can be an advantage to that in some cases for a few of the remaining players.
I am wondering how one abuses resigning? There does not seem to be any advantage to that at all...

[cicero]

Threads merged:

Bring Back 'Surrender' Button - [url=http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51053&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p22542]original post - posts from 24 May 2006 to 2 December 2007 (this thread already included a few merges) + a bonus post on 24 January 2008
surrender button, without the abuse? - original post - posts from 23 February 2008 to 25 July 2008
suggestion: Resign Button - original post - posts from 11 May 2008 to 29 July 2008

Cicero

[Ditocoaf]

Threads merged:

Bring Back 'Surrender' Button - [url=http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51053&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p22542]original post - posts from 24 May 2006 to 2 December 2007 (this thread already included a few merges) + a bonus post on 24 January 2008
surrender button, without the abuse? - original post - posts from 23 February 2008 to 25 July 2008
suggestion: Resign Button - original post - posts from 11 May 2008 to 29 July 2008

Cicero

come on, cicero... "surrender button, without the abuse" was a clearly separate issue, designed to overcome the abuse problems with the usual suggestion. We'll never be able to develop a surrender button that works, if all surrender-related ideas are merged into the already-rejected topic.

[FabledIntegral]

This would completely trash escalating games.

[lancehoch]

The reason that resigning/surrendering was removed from the site was abuse. People would be able to start a ton of games with multiple accounts and quickly run through the ranks, because it takes two seconds to hit the surrender button. Next someone will say, how about you dont lose points when you surrender...bad idea. Then the second anyone thinks they are about to lose, "I surrender". About merging the threads, we as mods are supposed to merge all the threads about the same topic. If you really want this idea to go through, you are going to have to use this thread to create a big discussion and come up with a way to implement this without a possibility for abuse. If you do create more threads for this topic, please keep an eye on your inbox.

[Ditocoaf]

come on, cicero... "surrender button, without the abuse" was a clearly separate issue, designed to overcome the abuse problems with the usual suggestion. We'll never be able to develop a surrender button that works, if all surrender-related ideas are merged into the already-rejected topic.

The reason that resigning/surrendering was removed from the site was abuse. People would be able to start a ton of games with multiple accounts and quickly run through the ranks, because it takes two seconds to hit the surrender button. Next someone will say, how about you dont lose points when you surrender...bad idea. Then the second anyone thinks they are about to lose, "I surrender". About merging the threads, we as mods are supposed to merge all the threads about the same topic. If you really want this idea to go through, you are going to have to use this thread to create a big discussion and come up with a way to implement this without a possibility for abuse. If you do create more threads for this topic, please keep an eye on your inbox.

Did you actually read my post? Yes, I know about how a surrender button could be abusive. I've heard that hundreds of times. But one of the threads merged into this one was about a suggestion for a way to have a surrender button that works around that problem. Why does everyone seem to assume that whenever the word "surrender" is used, it's the exact same flawed suggestion that they've already heard?

And we can't have a discussion that will publicize this implementation without abuse, at least not in this thread. Because anybody looking at this thread sees that it's already been rejected. So no new ideas are allowed, but instead bunched in with a different, already rejected idea.

EDIT: And if you respond to this post by saying, "The surrender button was rejected, because it was too open to multi abuse" I will physically slam my head through my monitor.

[chasex]

Why not make it one minute turns...BUT add an extend button that the players could push up to five times if they are there and active for their turns?

[FabledIntegral]

Unneeded - you could push it with one second left in a freestyle and extend the round, etc. Huge disasters there.

[chasex]

i don't know much about freestyle games but it wouldn't apply to them because 1. i dont' think the time issue is such a big thing in them 2. it apparently would cause problems.