[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[greenoaks]

suggested 204548989343 times now.


Ignored 204548989344 times/


Come on... something that everyone wants and would make the game better... how dare you.

i don't want it

[ender516]

It hasn't been ignored, it's been rejected. It's been rejected because it would be a return to the situation when there was a surrender button and it was abused. It will never be reinstated.

[wannat8]

please, PLEASE include a forfeit button for players so after the 1st turn when you know you have already lost you can quickly end a game quickly. PLEASE!!!

[wannat8]

punish the abusers, not the countless many who would like this option. lastly, even if it does get absued i really believe it will do more good than harm.

[agentcom]

Hard to take someone seriously that can't even fill out a form ...

[Kaskavel]

Guess what a hive player thinks about this idea....I support.

[agentcom]

This common suggestion has been STICKIED to make it easier to find for both moderators and users.

[agentcom]

Another topic MERGED

[agentcom]

REJECTED and MERGED. Please try searching before posting suggestions.

[greenoaks]

REJECTED and MERGED. Please try searching before posting suggestions.

you could start handing out forum bans for being annoying.

[hmsps]

This was here, and it was abused. It won't be coming back. Rejected

So you make rules on implementation to stop it happening such as if you use this illegally (and define illegally) you will have a points reset or, stripped of premium, or warned etc.

Maybe rather than just blanket this its been tried before it will never work, try to be progressive and develop it. maybe let lack actually see it and see the support for it. some suggestions get no support and are implemented go figure!!

[hmsps]

It hasn't been ignored, it's been rejected. It's been rejected because it would be a return to the situation when there was a surrender button and it was abused. It will never be reinstated.

never is a long time, another progressive mod

[hmsps]

inb4 round limits

!

If you know the map is going to get one-sided soon enough, impose a round-limit to save your time. 20 is reasonable for something like Das Schloss, I think. Otherwise, you know you're taking the risk of a long game on those game types.

Regardless, resign buttons lead to abuse no matter the settings, and has been rejected time and time again. Moving to rejected.

-rd

So who was involved in the decision making process?

[hmsps]

I think this is a cracking idea especially in 1 v 1 speed games on maps like das schloss when it is obvious the game is won or lost, it just saves time

In 1v1 on Das Schloss, there are 3 pretty easy ways to make the game end quickly

1. If round limits are short enough, DB
2. Make clear to your opponent that you are conceding by either keeping your stack back on your paratroopers or moving large stacks into access point where they will be killed by the killer neutral there.
3. (My favorite) use your stacks to help knock down militarilager and Kom Wilhelm while opponent goes for the other 2 objectives.

If you know the map like you clearly do, when you play trench on speed, the game is usually over in 5 to 6 rounds but you still have to play 20 rounds, most people deadbeat which is against the rules so if all players agree in a game the button is pressed by all and ends game. Hardly rocket science

[Stoney229]

if all players agree in a game the button is pressed by all and ends game. Hardly rocket science

I agree. Alternatively, how can a forfeit button be abused if
1) it is only game *option* so it would likely only be used in game types where it is most needed
2) or it is only available to players who have only 1 remaining opposing player/team and no teammates.

How could this be abused? It's just one little option on the game creator page next to fog and trench.

[agentcom]

So you want an OPTION (i.e. a box you tick next to "Fog") that allows: "forfeit games when only one other player is left"? That seems like a lot of coding for a relatively rare problem.

[Stoney229]

So you want an OPTION (i.e. a box you tick next to "Fog") that allows: "forfeit games when only one other player is left"? That seems like a lot of coding for a relatively rare problem.

Yes, if there is fear that it would somehow be abused (how?), then just make it an option - a tick box.

But yeah, if only you and I are left and were playing a big map in a trench game*, then it can take many rounds to end the game after its already "over". I don't think it's a rare problem at all... in fact, it might even be a majority of trench games where this would be used, plus often on other game types too.
My question was, how could this be abused? If this system is one which could not be abused as feared, then shouldn't it be considered as an option if people really want it? People do seem to really want it... including some very prolific players. Again, I think this would be a very well-liked feature.

*Example: in King's Court II you could bombard me to death by trebuchets to the point that I have no way of coming back, but it you're so far away it could still be another 5-10 rounds before you are able to officially end the game. This is really annoying.

[SirSebstar]

it HAS been abused in the past, heavely abused. I can think of various ways it can be abuse in this day and age.
Trust me, there is no way this suggestion can ever work without heavy monitoring.
and also, suppose you are in that KC2 game, and the power goes out for the other guy. bazinga, you win...

but yea, pro tip, do not play trench in hives

[greenoaks]

wake up to yourselves. don't play maps that upset you.

CC shouldn't have to code an option because you can't lose fast enough.

[ender516]

inb4 round limits

!

If you know the map is going to get one-sided soon enough, impose a round-limit to save your time. 20 is reasonable for something like Das Schloss, I think. Otherwise, you know you're taking the risk of a long game on those game types.

Regardless, resign buttons lead to abuse no matter the settings, and has been rejected time and time again. Moving to rejected.

-rd

So who was involved in the decision making process?

Clearly, lackattack was involved, as he was the one who changed the site previously to remove the surrender button that had been abused.

For those who need more evidence that lack was involved see this old Announcement (and note the date):

[06-Feb-2006] Major gameplay changes

If over six years of discussion has not changed lack's mind on this topic, you had better have an amazing argument if you think can now. Have you read the whole of this topic? Have you got a new benefit of a surrender button which would override the cost of the abuse?

For anyone who does not see how a surrender button can be abused, I will spell it out.

1. Create a multi.
2. Start a game between your regular account and your multi.
3. Have your multi surrender to your regular account, thereby "earning" points
4. Repeat as scruples permit

Yes, I know multiple accounts are forbidden, but the multi hunters have to catch you before you can be punished. I bet a clever script could be written that would push any account to the top of the scoreboard before the hunters could stop it.

[Stoney229]

it HAS been abused in the past, heavely abused. I can think of various ways it can be abuse in this day and age.
Trust me, there is no way this suggestion can ever work without heavy monitoring.

If my suggestion has been abused in the past, then please explain to me how. I have yet to see an answer to this question.

and also, suppose you are in that KC2 game, and the power goes out for the other guy. bazinga, you win...

I don't understand. Are you arguing my point?

but yea, pro tip, do not play trench in hives

...just goes to show how this suggestion adds significant value to the site. You seem to concur with my assertion that the problem I speak of is not a rare problem, as agentcom suggests.

wake up to yourselves. don't play maps that upset you.

CC shouldn't have to code an option because you can't lose fast enough.

This is a silly argument, isn't it? I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to open my eyes here. If people are choosing to play a game, then that means they would prefer to play the game despite any potential annoyances. If people are choosing not to play a game because of the potential annoyances, that means they would prefer to play the game if it weren't for those problems. To argue "if you don't like it, you don't have to play" is to argue that no one should be offering any suggestions for improving this site, and all changes and improvements that have been made were unnecessary and meaningless. I'm offering a suggestion, like any other suggestion, that will *add value, enjoy-ability, and participation* in those site. The only thing to argue is balancing the costs vs benefits. The benefits seem to be accepted and understood (see above). The hang up seems to be the fear that the costs are too high due to potential abuse. I'm asking how the suggestion can be abused, because I do not understand how such an assertion is validated.

If over six years of discussion has not changed lack's mind on this topic, you had better have an amazing argument if you think can now. Have you read the whole of this topic? Have you got a new benefit of a surrender button which would override the cost of the abuse?

For anyone who does not see how a surrender button can be abused, I will spell it out.

1. Create a multi.
2. Start a game between your regular account and your multi.
3. Have your multi surrender to your regular account, thereby "earning" points
4. Repeat as scruples permit

Yes, I know multiple accounts are forbidden, but the multi hunters have to catch you before you can be punished. I bet a clever script could be written that would push any account to the top of the scoreboard before the hunters could stop it.

Thank you for providing an explanation of how it could be abused. As for "a new benefit of a surrender button which would override the cost of the abuse", I think the ability to overcome the new problems inherent in trench games (as described above) clearly fits this description.

As for your example of abuse, this would be *extremely* easy to spot, and could be identifiable by anyone looking at a players games. To me, the cost of a few people abusing the system to over-inflate their scores (which do not affect game enjoy-ability) is a small price to pay for the increased level of enjoyment, participation, and business that would be offered by the suggestion.

[ender516]

I don't see why anyone willing to put up with the slow pace of a trench game would not be able to tough out the end of the game. It is possible to speed the end of a casual (24 hr) game by agreeing to play it "in real time", that is, by finding a mutually agreeable time for the remaining players to be online and take their turns rapidly.

[Stoney229]

I don't see why anyone willing to put up with the slow pace of a trench game would not be able to tough out the end of the game. It is possible to speed the end of a casual (24 hr) game by agreeing to play it "in real time", that is, by finding a mutually agreeable time for the remaining players to be online and take their turns rapidly.

... or you could avoid the hassle and annoyance completely with a forfeit button!

[fidias]

im playing a feudal epic trench at 5 min.... and i have to go.... i asked the other player to miss 3 turns and he accepted..... but it would be easier for him and for me to just make an i surrender button for trench games ONLY..... seriously.... it makes no sense NOT to have it...

[drunkmonkey]

It makes no sense to start a speed trench game when you don't have time to finish. This isn't going to be implemented. Just finish out your games, it's not a big deal.