Conquer Club

Title states it all.

This suggestion was especially popular when the ability to surrender was still around- and as such, those topics have been merged in. This suggestion has been implemented, for all current intents and purposes. -JK

First of all, welcome to Conquer Club, SagxaZefiro
Your resigned game will finish and will eventually be too old to show in recent games. Untill then, I think you'll have to live with it in your face along with any other military defeats!

moo1poo and I wanted to play a new game, so we surrendered out of a game we didn't care about, but we still cannot join the new game. We have "five" games that we are in, "four" of which we are still active in. I want to join a new game.

This could also go in the suggestions, but I felt it was more of a complaint.

I already mentioned this. I'd like this too.

hold on - you want to be able to spoil somebody else's game so you can have a new one? Doesn't seem like a good reason!

Well, then surrendering shouldn't be an option.

Mostly, if I lose a game, I want to be able to join another one. That's all I really care about.

The limit is 5 games, whether you care about all 5 or not.

And here is a little secret: In the future there will be an option for unlimited games and much more, called "Premium membership"

Why must you always be after your money.... *sniff* poor poor money....

lackattack wrote:The limit is 5 games, whether you care about all 5 or not.

And here is a little secret: In the future there will be an option for unlimited games and much more, called "Premium membership"

There's the site secret!

I do so hope that my of my ~100USD that I'm getting this Chinese New Years I'll have enough left to pay for this after all the KFC and steaks I will be binging on.

well i am not sure if the is a programming restriction or a choice made by you lack, but i sometimes want to start a new game after I've been defeated or surrendered from a game. i mean, i wanted to leave a big game of a lot of people, but i know if i leave, it will just keep going and i still won't be able to replace it till it finishes.

sorry if its been said before

i agree, i think since there is the limit on the number of games it would be really nice to be able to have all 5 be active games.
BTW i dont think ive thanked you Lackattack yet for making this site, its great!

after we surrender or are out, it would be great if the games can get off our list so we can join some new games instead of wait till they are over.

But why would I want to encourage early surrendering? It makes the game less fun for the other players.

your not encouraging it, it is just annoying when you lose first in a game and you cant start another game until a week later when everyone finishes.

Ohh...that's a thought! Say you lost first in the game, without surrendering, and now you're waiting for the game to be finished. Could that not be part of the 5 game limit?

isn't the problem with the bandwidth right now why there is a 5 game limit?

I dunno... I totally disagree with the surrender thing. People would just be surrendering out of games left and right. Heck, I would. I see some possibility with the first-out thing, although then you might see some funny races with people just stretching themselves out all thin in the first turn in a rush to be the first eliminated. Heck, I'd do it.

I think you should just take the surrender option out completly I hate it when someone I'm about to take over surrenders and then I don't get their cards. You should always fight till someone eliminates you it's the honorable thing to do.

there wont be a problem with abnd with, we wont have more than 5 games. just once we are out of a game take it off our list so we can add another one.

moz976 wrote:I think you should just take the surrender option out completly I hate it when someone I'm about to take over surrenders and then I don't get their cards. You should always fight till someone eliminates you it's the honorable thing to do.

I am beginning to think the same thing i.e. get rid of surrender. People surrender too early. Surrender also complicates another problem I am facing - how to not give points for the deadbeats in your game.

Surrender is useful for deadbeats to signal "don't wait for me", so if we get rid of surrender it should be coupled with a quicker auto-kick (now we have to wait 96 hours to get rid of deadbeats)

Anybody have an arguement why surrender is necessary

There is one advantage to surrender, the fact that in a game w/ only two players, if you're obviously going to lose, there's no real point in fighting on. Still, given all the reasons for getting rid of surrendering, I think it might be a good idea. Maybe a poll...

I can not play another game until two of the other games that I surrendered in are finished. I can't wait for a game of six to end before I can play another game.

Hasn't this discussion been done to death? If this goes in it will make deadbeats look like pixie hamsters.

I can not play another game until two of the other games that I surrendered in are finished.

That's right.

I can't wait for a game of six to end before I can play another game.

Try. Try really hard.

For elaboration see the dozen other threads on this topic.

Shorty wrote:I can not play another game until two of the other games that I surrendered in are finished. I can't wait for a game of six to end before I can play another game.

you idiot it basically stops it from encouraging deadbeats and surrendering.

but if you get eliminated you shoiuldn't have to wait.

being eliminated and surrendering are equal.

play to win.

im in one 3 player game where the guy didnt take his card at the first attempt and surrendered.

now 1/3 of the world is white and the bloke im playing against has gone on holiday to Neptune.

This i find very funny