surrender/resign button

[ronsizzle]

i just came up with a great idea...

what if we had a surrender/resign button? ya know, when the game is over? like in speed games, when you cant come back?

just a thought.

[owenshooter]

When people are losing games in big maps or trench games, they find it much simpler to "resign". A resignation button is not offered, which does not matter to them, they resign by not playing. That is what I do in those settings and that is what 90% of my opponents do as well. Many tend to disregard the obvious contradiction here.
1. Deadbeating is forbidden
2. People cannot resign games, so they resign by deadbeating. Nobody reports them. Some people even thank them for their kindness to finish the game faster by deadbeating
3. Points 1 and 2 make a contradiction
That is the truth. We are hiding. We are pretending not to see what is going on in speed games. Those are facts. Whether we can reach the conclusion that a resignation button is needed is a different story, although the positive answer is obvious to me, but the rest are just simple facts.
I am a chess, risk and various other strategy games player. When I am losing a game beyond the point of no return, I resign. And that is what most people do. Resignation can mean clicking the resignation button, it can mean drop and end turn, it can mean deadbeating. For some reason, we are afraid that option 1 facilates cheating (and still NO ONE can explain why, which is natural...because it does not) The first option of resigning is not allowed in CC, so I am using the other two. If a speed game can be finished in 2-3 turns, I just drop. If not, I deadbeat. I confess. I have broken the rule of deadbeating thousands (not an exaggeration) of times. I have intentionally deadbeated thousand of rounds. Nobody ever reported me and nobody probably ever will, except for some "clever" guy who will read this "confession". But that would be a positive thing for the site, I wonder what would happen if such a report was filled. And if it is filled, my answer is simple. When I lose a strategy game that needs much time to be finished off, I resign. I do not care if you allow me the option of clicking a resigning button, I will resign anyway. By not playing. You cannot convince me that the "proper thing" to do is keep playing for 10 rounds a lost strategy board game and I will just laugh if you try to do so.
You cannot persuade me that "real life risk" does not have a resignation button, like people tend to say. It does. You do not throw all dices to the end. In fact it is in the board game that you resign mostly. When a couple of regions are left, you obviously do not throw the dice against your friend, you just retract the troops to the box. If you claim you do not, but instead keep dropping dice when opponent has 1 region and you have all the board, you are lying. At least in CC, it is just clicking 2 buttons to end the game. And certainly, if a hive map was offered in board risk and you would play trench, there is not a single pair of humanoids in the world that would clean up the map by throwing dice. Unless they are in jail for life perhaps.
Strategy games are just like that. They are not soccer that people are paying tickets to watch. When it is over, it is over. And no, "chess has the resignation option in its rules", is not an answer. If it claims that the ancient Indians who invented the game and decided that the rook moves straight, also decided that a player can resign, then you are wrong. The resignation option is not an "inside" rule of the game and it does not change the way a game is played. It is just the obvious thing to add to the official rules of the game federation. Because it is obvious. And all have done so. Except here.
The reality is that we have a non fuctional set of rules about forbidding dbing and not allowing resignation. They simply do not mix. You can yell to people that are deadbeating, but they will not stop, because that is the natural thing to do. We yell to them but we do not report them because...I do not why, perhaps because we cannot prove it. We cannot prove a thing that is happening in most of speed games (qualified by long cleaning up duration) hundreds of times per day, so we pretend it is not happening and we do not include a resignation button. I know the resignation option will not prevail for years to come. There is a strong tendency against it, completely unjustified. The site is hurting from its absence and people are wasting time because of it.-Jésus noir

[ronsizzle]

owen, i always appreciate the well thought out response. thanks

[owenshooter]

Pretty sure this is the only website I've ever heard of that refuses to allow people to stop playing a game, and actually penalizes people who do, because of potential "abuses."

Remember kids, CC is not about having fun, it's about super serious internet e-penis comparison. The only way to reliably compare e-penis size is if everyone holds their e-penis out for the entire length of the measuring. No quitting early, even if it's uncomfortable. Don't want your e-penis to be measured? Well then you shouldn't have fucking signed up for this site!-Jésus noir

[_sabotage_]

Ronc and Owen,

I'm sure there are some lucky girls out there, lucky enough not to be spending Christmas Eve with you. It's the best gift you could have got them.

[owenshooter]

Seems logical to pilot the resignation button (utilizing many of the suggestions above - ie. mutually agreed upon, frequency considerations, etc.) with a small part of site...perhaps premium 1v1/poly...and see how it goes. Expand it based on feedback received.

I don't play a ton of games on the site, and I don't take any of them overly seriously, but I am currently getting thumped in a poly USA 2.1 trench game, and in about 1 round I'll just tell my opponent that I will be stacking on place and calling it quits. It will still probably take 2 or 3 rounds (8-12 turns each) to complete.

Seems a bit ridiculous for both of us to waste or time achieving an inevitable result.

If the resignation button is implemented and abused THEN you will start seeing the influx of abuse reports, right (As opposed to the near complete lack of abuse reports for the REAL dead-beating violation Kaskavel indicates)? If that happens, we scrap it and we can all be happy that we tried it out, and forever point to "that one time way back when that we tried it and it failed miserably" whenever people bring it up. If it is successful, then you expand it to a different set of settings/users and re-evaluate.

Is there a downside to this?-Jésus noir

[ronsizzle]

Ronc and Owen,

I'm sure there are some lucky girls out there, lucky enough not to be spending Christmas Eve with you. It's the best gift you could have got them.

you have no idea....the plural is exactly right. i just dont want to go. i am actually leaving now to go do that shit. fml...

[Dukasaur]

When people are losing games in big maps or trench games, they find it much simpler to "resign". A resignation button is not offered, which does not matter to them, they resign by not playing. That is what I do in those settings and that is what 90% of my opponents do as well. Many tend to disregard the obvious contradiction here.
1. Deadbeating is forbidden
2. People cannot resign games, so they resign by deadbeating. Nobody reports them. Some people even thank them for their kindness to finish the game faster by deadbeating
3. Points 1 and 2 make a contradiction
That is the truth. We are hiding. We are pretending not to see what is going on in speed games. Those are facts. Whether we can reach the conclusion that a resignation button is needed is a different story, although the positive answer is obvious to me, but the rest are just simple facts.
I am a chess, risk and various other strategy games player. When I am losing a game beyond the point of no return, I resign. And that is what most people do. Resignation can mean clicking the resignation button, it can mean drop and end turn, it can mean deadbeating. For some reason, we are afraid that option 1 facilates cheating (and still NO ONE can explain why, which is natural...because it does not) The first option of resigning is not allowed in CC, so I am using the other two. If a speed game can be finished in 2-3 turns, I just drop. If not, I deadbeat. I confess. I have broken the rule of deadbeating thousands (not an exaggeration) of times. I have intentionally deadbeated thousand of rounds. Nobody ever reported me and nobody probably ever will, except for some "clever" guy who will read this "confession". But that would be a positive thing for the site, I wonder what would happen if such a report was filled. And if it is filled, my answer is simple. When I lose a strategy game that needs much time to be finished off, I resign. I do not care if you allow me the option of clicking a resigning button, I will resign anyway. By not playing. You cannot convince me that the "proper thing" to do is keep playing for 10 rounds a lost strategy board game and I will just laugh if you try to do so.
You cannot persuade me that "real life risk" does not have a resignation button, like people tend to say. It does. You do not throw all dices to the end. In fact it is in the board game that you resign mostly. When a couple of regions are left, you obviously do not throw the dice against your friend, you just retract the troops to the box. If you claim you do not, but instead keep dropping dice when opponent has 1 region and you have all the board, you are lying. At least in CC, it is just clicking 2 buttons to end the game. And certainly, if a hive map was offered in board risk and you would play trench, there is not a single pair of humanoids in the world that would clean up the map by throwing dice. Unless they are in jail for life perhaps.
Strategy games are just like that. They are not soccer that people are paying tickets to watch. When it is over, it is over. And no, "chess has the resignation option in its rules", is not an answer. If it claims that the ancient Indians who invented the game and decided that the rook moves straight, also decided that a player can resign, then you are wrong. The resignation option is not an "inside" rule of the game and it does not change the way a game is played. It is just the obvious thing to add to the official rules of the game federation. Because it is obvious. And all have done so. Except here.
The reality is that we have a non fuctional set of rules about forbidding dbing and not allowing resignation. They simply do not mix. You can yell to people that are deadbeating, but they will not stop, because that is the natural thing to do. We yell to them but we do not report them because...I do not why, perhaps because we cannot prove it. We cannot prove a thing that is happening in most of speed games (qualified by long cleaning up duration) hundreds of times per day, so we pretend it is not happening and we do not include a resignation button. I know the resignation option will not prevail for years to come. There is a strong tendency against it, completely unjustified. The site is hurting from its absence and people are wasting time because of it.-Jésus noir

I won't even ask why you decided to suddenly change sides; I'm just glad that you did. "Thank god for small mercies" is the popular expression.

Like you, I once opposed the resign option, and I've come around to see that it's the only logical choice. Asking people to waste their time clicking through every last tert to finish a game that's obviously over is a ridiculous waste of their time.

[owenshooter]

I completely agree this could be a very useful tool for time saving which could be beneficial in many aspects.

I think it could cause a lot of problems though if not 'setup' with strict, clear and concise parameters.

1.In team settings would every player on 'forfeiting' team have to push their 'concede' button?
2.What if 'concede' option is clicked accidentally? In any setting.
3.Obviously in a standard game it would take everyone's acknowledgement but it only takes one person with a false vision of grandeur and resilience to not want to 'concede'. So if others attack him and not the leader just to ixnay his vote, is that ok?

Just shooting from the hip these are the first three things that popped in my head. I do like the idea though. -Jésus noir

[JBlombier]

Brilliant, Owen!

[owenshooter]

Concise description:

• Would help get rid of the annoyance of having to spend so many rounds finishing off a clearly defeated opponent by allowing them to concede, thereby lifting the trench restriction of the person they are being defeated by.

Specifics/Details:

• There are times in games where it becomes obvious that there's no coming back but due to the trench restriction on the winning team it takes 10+ rounds for a stack of 50 troops to knock off 10 single territs.
  I propose that teams/ individuals that are clearly defeated should have the option of a concede button which would lift the trench setting, only from the would be victor (to avoid a concession and a hidden stack to run wild from the conceded team), so that the games can be closed out more quickly.
  
  Game 12860133 is a decent enough example to illustrate, we have 25 guys on Elslab stacked up against their singles to the West and they've conceded that there's no coming back

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This would help tournament organizers as they can move to the next rounds of their tournaments more quickly and in general all trench games from the nuisance of a delayed finish.

-Jésus noir

[ronsizzle]

Concise description:

• Would help get rid of the annoyance of having to spend so many rounds finishing off a clearly defeated opponent by allowing them to concede, thereby lifting the trench restriction of the person they are being defeated by.

Specifics/Details:

• There are times in games where it becomes obvious that there's no coming back but due to the trench restriction on the winning team it takes 10+ rounds for a stack of 50 troops to knock off 10 single territs.
  I propose that teams/ individuals that are clearly defeated should have the option of a concede button which would lift the trench setting, only from the would be victor (to avoid a concession and a hidden stack to run wild from the conceded team), so that the games can be closed out more quickly.
  
  Game 12860133 is a decent enough example to illustrate, we have 25 guys on Elslab stacked up against their singles to the West and they've conceded that there's no coming back

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This would help tournament organizers as they can move to the next rounds of their tournaments more quickly and in general all trench games from the nuisance of a delayed finish.

-Jésus noir

sounds reasonable enough...

[owenshooter]

Let's go through game types a few at a time.
Clan Games. When a player drops out, his armies go to his team-mate. What is to stop this from becoming the predominant strategy in team games?

For players playing 6p escalators, resignation probably won't hurt (except, that's the entire reason they got rid of the button since players would use it right before they were going to get cashed in on). For those of us who play real settings (and choose CC because of the plethora of settings and maps) it will drastically change things.

Have you even read the Suggestions thread? There's a number of proposed ways of solving problems like this. Not all of them are good, and maybe you don't agree with any of them, but that doesn't mean that the people who proposed this are completely unaware of these problems and that you've somehow found the flaw that no one else thought of. For example, you arbitrarily asserted that resigning implies that cards go to the teammate, but it doesn't have to be that way at all. Those of you who oppose resignation should at least be willing to see if there is a specific implementation you could live with.

50% of games on this site are 1v1. What is the first turn advantage (it's pretty large). Why not just keep restarting until you get 1st go? When you get first go, your opponent then resigns. Now you can't play 1v1 at all. (For those chess players, it's like as black you start thinking about how to force a draw).

As is evidenced from the fact that there's so much opposition to this change, there's a crapload of people on this site who care about their score. These people are not just going to straight up resign a 1v1 on the first turn, if they have a chance at winning. As for the others, well chess is a perfect example. No one resigns just because they got black. And while it's true that at higher levels black often plays for a draw rather than a win, it's simply false at the amateur level.

Assassin, I see a player who was critical of my monthly challenges has me as a target. I wait until he is online (I am often online for 24 hour stretches at a time) and right before he wins, I resign. Take that FUCKTARD!

Again, this can be fixed. Like, no resignations in assassin, or your troops go neutral and he can still win by eliminating them.

Conquest trench. If you get good dice first few turns, don't resign. Else, resign.
/quote]

So? If people want to resign, why shouldn't we let them resign. As you pointed out,

People dislike losing, that's why there are more frequent missed turns by players who are losing.

This is already happening. No amount of moralizing from you or anyone else is going to change that. So let's just accept that sometimes not everyone wants to finish playing a board game, and move on with our lives.

Make the resign accepted by all other players before a player is resigned. This deals with most of the issues brought up in the post.

True, and has been suggested before. (Though some still have lingering concerns even about this due to possible loopholes.) Unfortunately, it's the option that is also the hardest to implement in technical terms. In general the more complicated we make the system the less likely it is to happen.-Jésus noir

[DoomYoshi]

jefjef (v.): 1. To make or support spurious C&A claims 2. To copy words from one thread and use them verbatim in another thread

[ronsizzle]

jefjef (v.): 1. To make or support spurious C&A claims 2. To copy words from one thread and use them verbatim in another thread

idk why youre talking shit about jefjef, that is not your job. get back on topic asshole

[_sabotage_]

What topic? Your thread is nonsense.

[ronsizzle]

What topic? Your thread is nonsense.

Congratulations to all who have had threads posted, or posted threads themselves (in massively poor taste of course) with their self serving platitudes and mutual backslapping.....yawn....since I last posted on this thread....yawn

[BoganGod]

jefjef (v.): 1. To make or support spurious C&A claims 2. To copy words from one thread and use them verbatim in another thread

So why did you have a hand in the perma ban handed out to JefJef? Did he hurt your e-feelings? Tell uncle Bogan where you wish the naughty man had cared to touch you.