[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[Gen. Ramsarelli]

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.

[Swimmerdude99]

I think that there has to be some sort of control mechanism... like the opponent has triple the troops... or the opponent has triple the territories. THEN you can concede... but there would have to be some sort of way to KNOW someone is defeated before the option appears or it could be abused. For me I would agree with BG. Make it a clan and tournament only implementation. Those are games where there is no question about whether the opponents will be really trying to win.

[JJ41375]

I think this is a good idea....if somebody really wanted to lose a game for questionable purposes they could always miss three turns in a row. However, that looks bad for those of us who do not like to deadbeat.

With this button somebody could concede instead of either dead-beating or dragging a game out. The only question I would have is that in a team game do all members need to "push" the button. I think that would be best because it would not be inconceivable that one person would want to give up and the others don't want to. One would think they would agree on it....but you never know.

[DoomYoshi]

It is possible to deadbeat if there is a major issue. Very few maps will take 10+ turns to finish off an opponent.

REJECTED

[hmsps]

It is possible to deadbeat if there is a major issue. Very few maps will take 10+ turns to finish off an opponent.

REJECTED

So you are condoning deadbeating in cases like this? Will the rules be re-written?

[DoomYoshi]

It is possible to deadbeat if there is a major issue. Very few maps will take 10+ turns to finish off an opponent.

REJECTED

So you are condoning deadbeating in cases like this? Will the rules be re-written?

I don't think anyone has been punished for deadbeating out of a lenghty trench with 10+ rounds to go and no chance of comeback.

[Melkor52]

Yes they do. They get punished in the ratings.

[IanG7]

and that takes at least 72 hours plus to do, in a doubles game both players would have to DB thereby making it 144 hrs.

That's a terrible solution

[jeffbroomhead]

It sure would be nice to have a concede button so that you can gently give up without going through three dead beat turns

[Swifte]

Yeah....

That's the most rejected suggestion of all time. Sorry. http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=704&t=67152

[Frox333]

lol, really bad idea

[DoomYoshi]

REJECTED

[perchorin]

Wow, the resign button is up to 101 pages? lol

[brock-rock]

I would like to see the implementation of a surrender button. This button would be used if you know you are going to lose. This would help non-premium members increase the rate of games they can play and would make issues like, a player keeping another player hostage
non-existent. If you are playing a team game, one player can start a surrender vote and his teammates have 24 hours to either accept or decline the surrender. Surrendering is scored the same as a loss. Surrendering will not effect the nature of the game since it is optional, it will only help in speeding up games. Thank you for your time.

[Craig25]

I would like the draw suggestion rejection over turned. My idea is as follows;

On all games there should be a tick box on each players screen. If all active players in a game tick this box then the score is drawn. Points should be awarded (or subtracted) to from all active players in the game. Points should be subtracted from all players who have already been knocked out.

The calculations for this should be:

Knocked out players= the calculation of the average grade of all players left in the game is used to determine how many points they lose.
Remaining Players= split the total of the lost points from knocked out players. The split is dependant on your current ranking. A percentage should be worked out of what share of the points you take.

This function allows tactical draws when;

- active players think they are losing.
- active players think they will lose when a game round limit is approaching.
- active players think the game is a stale mate.


The only reason for previously rejecting this suggestion was that players can put a round limit on their games. I think this was solely to limit players getting into the stale mate position, however, it is not a viable reason for vito'ing the suggestion. I don't want to be hampered with a round limit when I play, I want to play out a game to the point where someone wins or everyone remaining is happy for the game to be drawn. I don't want to use game round limits in the event when we approach the round limit that there is a lot of play left in the game.

Please re-consider this suggestion and refer specifically to my points above.

p.s Round Limit games are very good and have tactics that is appropriate to them on there own. These same tactics would not be suitable to a game with no round limit. Therefor to force a player to play round limit when he doesn't want to (to solely avoid the stale mate situation) limits my tactical enjoyment of the game.

[Metsfanmax]

Why should only the active players get to make decisions that affect the points of players that are no longer in the game?

The main reason for rejecting this, and other related suggestions, has been the potential for abuse. For example, you could have a number of friends join a game, and allow one or two other people in -- then, knock them out and share the points.

[BoganGod]

And the reasons for not going with a resign button?

[MoB Deadly]

The resign button has been suggested and rejected multiple times. I suggest looking in that sub forum to find your answers

[Jdsizzleslice]

This would institute way much more Secret Diplomacy... 2 people left they check the boxes and split the points.

[Craig25]

I do not agree on the secret diplomacy. If 2 people are going to cheat, they are going to do it anyway. A function to make the game better is not going to deter cheats or encourage them.

[macbone]

It would need to be all players, not just the active two. Players in the past have been working together to be the last two in a game so that each has a 50% chance of winning. Something like this would just encourage that kind of behavior.

[Tenebrus]

It would also have a massive effect on gameplay even without the increased potential for cheating/collusion. People could take an easy knock-out of a player when it doesn't make overall sense if they've agreed beforehand to draw afterwards. It will encourage safe play instead of the necessary risk-raking to unbalance a position.

A resign button however is an awesome idea.

[clangfield]

Suggested multiple times (including by me before I found the search facility) and rejected for the same reason: humans are a bad species.
Set up a second account, loads of 1v1 games, resign every time. Repeat until conqueror.
Never going to happen.

[Tenebrus]

How is that different to setting up a second account and playing out lots of 1v1 games?

[clangfield]

How is that different to setting up a second account and playing out lots of 1v1 games?

It's quicker, and far less effort.