Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button [Rejected]

[Bobafett43]

ANOTHER suggestion for a surrender button (option). Help eliminate abuse:

1. Have all surrendered territories revert back to neutral.
2. Keep stats of players' "surrenders" separate from losses. Show times surrendered and percentage.
3. Make it cost double the points of a loss. (i.e. if a player was going to lose 15 points, a surrender makes it 30 points.)
4. Only allow a maximum number of surrenders per year. If you were able to program 50 per year for a paying member.
5. You have to be a paying member to get "surrender option".

What do you think?

[greenoaks]

what part of N O do you struggle to understand?

[agentcom]

what part of N O do you struggle to understand?

Greenoaks, I agree that this is never going to happen, but I do appreciate that we can at least talk about this in the appropriate place--here--as opposed to someone writing up a new suggestion that will just have to be merged here. Save your sarcasm for those who deserve it (those who don't try to find an on-point suggestion).

[darth emperor]

what part of N O do you struggle to understand?

Greenoaks, I agree that this is never going to happen, but I do appreciate that we can at least talk about this in the appropriate place--here--as opposed to someone writing up a new suggestion that will just have to be merged here. Save your sarcasm for those who deserve it (those who don't try to find an on-point suggestion).

I'm against of the surrender button, but what Bobafett43 is kind of interesting, mostly

3. Make it cost double the points of a loss. (i.e. if a player was going to lose 15 points, a surrender makes it 30 points.)

Also the others are interesting (Except for 2 & 4 to be together). But I'm sure that if that was applied at the time we had the surrender button, I'm sure it wouldn't have been abused, but aslo I'm wondering who would use this option(and more if its only for premium), apart from long games but now we have round limits, or people who wants to get down the score.

I also suppose that the winner gets double points, that means if there's a game where it's practically my win, I'll take you hostage of that game so you surrender and I get double points... definetly not a good idea altoguh interesting

Also let's me wonder if this idea respects the philosophy behind the current score system.

[Trephining]

This morning I was listening to some guy's lecture on WWI and WWII and he described why France surrendered early in WWII. Basically he said it was because the French had learned from WWI experience that going to war was highly damaging, expensive, and generally ended without any real benefit, so when WWII rolled around, they opted to just surrended, trying to minimize damage.

That made me think that Conquer Club should have some kind of surrended move (which could be an optional game setting).

So just like Fog or Trench, when you set up a game or search for one, you choose Surrender? Yes or No and check the Yes or No box.

If Surrender is available in a game, then at the beginning of your turn (or end, haven't thought through all the details and ramifications yet), you could make the decisions to Surrender or not.

If you choose to Surrender, all your cards are forfeited, your territories either get randomly redistributed to the opponents or revert to some form of neutral setting, and you lose half the points you otherwise would have if the game had legitimately ended at that same moment.

So say your ranking is 1200, and you're playing someone else whose ranking is 2400 in a 2-player game. Normally if you lose, you would lose 1200/2400 * 20 = 10 points. But if Surrender is an option, and you elect to Surrender, then the game ends and you lose 5 points to them right then and there.

To make the points work in a multi-player game, you apply a similar calc. Say you are playing a 4-player game and your ranking is 1200. Two opponents rankings are 2400, and the third opponent has a ranking of 1200. If at some point you decide to enact the Surrender option, right then and there you lose the average number of points you would have lost if you had individually surrendered to each opponent in a 1 vs 1 game. That means you would lose 1/2 * 1/3 * ( 1200/2400 * 20 + 1200/2400*20 + 1200/1200*20) = 6.67 points, which would ordinarily round to 7 points. But because we have to distribute whole numbers of points to the other 3 players, I'd propose that rather than each opponent getting 7/3 = 2.33 points which rounds down to 2, that when you Surrender, that number is always rounded up, so each opponent gets 3 points, and you lose 9 total.

[Trephining]

Some of you might recognize that in the game of blackjack, there is a move [only in some casinos, it has been removed from many of them in order to increase the house edge] called Surrender in which you simply forfeit half your bet to the dealer and your involvement in that hand ends.

The points adjudication (i.e. losing half what you normally would) was inspired by that.

[ender516]

Point 1: This forum is for suggestions regarding "tools": add-ons, plug-ins and scripts which are created outside the CC site. Your suggestion would require the site to make a modification, so it should be in the Suggestions forum: viewforum.php?f=4&start=0.
Point 2: The idea of any type of surrender feature for the site was long ago rejected: the feature existed, it was abused, and it was removed, never to be reinstated. Check the Archived Rejected Suggestions forum: viewforum.php?f=471&start=0.

[Trephining]

Ah, I hadn't gotten as far as thinking of how it would get abused (which would have instantly prompted me to think of how the abuse opportunity could be removed from the function preemptively).

Sorry for the repeat and the misplacement of the thread.

[Little Witt]

Only thing that would have a slim chance would be....

If the game has not gone past round 1 and no turns have started, and every player agrees to you leaving. In 1vs1, game is voided and no points or % is gained or lost. In more than 1vs1 player games, leaving player's territories are turned to neutral 3's or whatever the default neutral number is for that map(this shouldn't effect anything at all since it would be round one.

Otherwise, this Idea won't have much of a chance since it has been suggested and rejected many times.

EDIT:....they could also put in a little heads up warning like when a player is ending an assault or deployment or something. You guys all know what I'm talking about right? right. Except this would not be able to be turned off, and would be only for casual games, speed games should be speedy enough there should be no problem.

[tkr4lf]

It would be nice to have a surrender option that depended on one player holding a certain majority of the terits and/or troops. Say you're in a Das Schloss 1v1 game, and red has most of the board, 3-4 times as many troops as much as green. There is no chance for green to win. Yet, due to the map, it will still be 5-10 rounds before the game can be finished. I can't see something like this being abused much since it still requires a whole game being played, only allowing surrender when defeat was already inevitable.

[Little Witt]

It would be nice to have a surrender option that depended on one player holding a certain majority of the terits and/or troops. Say you're in a Das Schloss 1v1 game, and red has most of the board, 3-4 times as many troops as much as green. There is no chance for green to win. Yet, due to the map, it will still be 5-10 rounds before the game can be finished. I can't see something like this being abused much since it still requires a whole game being played, only allowing surrender when defeat was already inevitable.

I don't agree, there are some maps like you said where it would just prolong the game a few rounds, but there are other maps that might also take a while to finish when there seems to be a clear winner and it is just a matter of finishing off your opponent. But I have had a few games where I was on a map and my opponent and me both said gg "knowing" I was gonna win, when soon after that I had the worst dice ever and he came back to win from 5- territories. Who cares if it delays the game a couple of turns that's life.

What I posted above is not the same. I suggested we modify Trephining's idea to just the start of the game for the cases when a player made an error in the game joining and both players would like to end the game quickly without damage to their stats. Since I am well aware this happens a lot I would think my idea would be a lot less subject to abuse since there is no gain. And it would keep people from deadbeating games... like the player here

[TheBudMan]

As much as I love playing games on conquer club, and though I dislike losing, a surrender button/option should be implemented. While I've been on this site I've had games where you know for a fact that you're going to lose, but you have to go through every agonizing moment of losing space by space, being slowly pushed back. This is EXTREMELY prominent in Trench games, and it's just painful and boring to play like that. It would be appreciated for something to be implemented, thanks!

[chapcrap]

As much as I love playing games on conquer club, and though I dislike losing, a surrender button/option should be implemented. While I've been on this site I've had games where you know for a fact that you're going to lose, but you have to go through every agonizing moment of losing space by space, being slowly pushed back. This is EXTREMELY prominent in Trench games, and it's just painful and boring to play like that. It would be appreciated for something to be implemented, thanks!

This is rejected already.

MOVED and MERGED.

[ender516]

As much as I love playing games on conquer club, and though I dislike losing, a surrender button/option should be implemented. While I've been on this site I've had games where you know for a fact that you're going to lose, but you have to go through every agonizing moment of losing space by space, being slowly pushed back. This is EXTREMELY prominent in Trench games, and it's just painful and boring to play like that. It would be appreciated for something to be implemented, thanks!

It's been said before: if you don't have the patience for a long game, don't play Trench.

[Gillipig]

Suggested a hundred times, rejected a hundred times. When will people get it's a bad idea?