[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[AAFitz]

Jim, I know and understand the build games well. To play a true game of no cards, the way God intended with an actual winner, there can be no option for surrender. The option for surrender does change the game. Very subtle actions and movements change the game, and the weakest player asking for a surrender every 5th turn will indeed change it.

For those who hate stalemates, and there are many of them, I have no problem with a stalemate option similar to no fog. I imagine this would get clicked the majority of the time. Or better, have it default as a option, and click for no surrender option for the purests, but knowing the only way the game ends is by being the last one alive is a completely different game than one that can be stalemated on purpose by a losing player.

I have no problem with those that want a surrender option in their games, just dont make me have one, because while I play with a number of players that enjoy the subtleties of a long game, many do not.

As an option its great, just like no fog, and id play many that way, but as a requirement, it would ruin my no cards games fundamentally.

Its not drama, its simply how it is. Ive been in some of the longest real games around with the absolute most patient players on the site(in fact I just made a game with the 8 most patient players I know about all in one game).

[AAFitz]

Also, and I include this separately. The best quickest way to end most stalemates in games is to eliminate, or increase dramatically the 999 army restriction.

Ive been in many build games that drag on, only because of this. Its very easy to protect yourself with this feature on, but without it in an escalating game with cashins at 1000... it becomes much less possible.

Start there, and throw in an option, and long games will be more of a random event than the standard with players that just refuse to make a bad move

[jiminski]

Jim, I know and understand the build games well. To play a true game of no cards, the way God intended with an actual winner, there can be no option for surrender. The option for surrender does change the game. Very subtle actions and movements change the game, and the weakest player asking for a surrender every 5th turn will indeed change it.

For those who hate stalemates, and there are many of them, I have no problem with a stalemate option similar to no fog. I imagine this would get clicked the majority of the time. Or better, have it default as a option, and click for no surrender option for the purests, but knowing the only way the game ends is by being the last one alive is a completely different game than one that can be stalemated on purpose by a losing player.

I have no problem with those that want a surrender option in their games, just dont make me have one, because while I play with a number of players that enjoy the subtleties of a long game, many do not.

As an option its great, just like no fog, and id play many that way, but as a requirement, it would ruin my no cards games fundamentally.

Its not drama, its simply how it is. Ive been in some of the longest real games around with the absolute most patient players on the site(in fact I just made a game with the 8 most patient players I know about all in one game).

yeap I do actually agree with all that mate. And it could indeed be an option in game settings.

However, did you also see the voting option above where the setter of the game gets to determine the round at which the voting is possible? e.g. 'Round 20 voting boxes appear'
this is what i voted for out of the options, as I think it could become a standard setting on that basis (to make it more straightforward.)

It would need to be clearly marked in the Join Game page as to when the voting boxes appears! You, for example, could simply select 'vote box appears at round 10,000'*
that way you in effect get an almost indefinite game but other players get the chance to determine when enough is enough.


* i guess it would be just as easy to make a no Freeze option... as some eegit may be encouraged to try to make it to 10,000 rounds

[Haggis_McMutton]

I really like this idea, it should work nicely.
Maybe soon I`ll finally be able to get rid of the half dozen stalemates I`m in.

[jiminski]

I really like this idea, it should work nicely.
Maybe soon I`ll finally be able to get rid of the half dozen stalemates I`m in.

thank you Haggis, if you can see any holes or room for improvement, please do speak up.

In fact i think i got something from your post of support already:

We have not discussed a facility to Freeze existing games which are already in stalemate.
should there perhaps be the option in all existing games, given to player 1 perhaps (the setter of the game) to accept voting boxes?
(i do not even know if that is possible.. Yeti, do you know?)

[yeti_c]

(i do not even know if that is possible.. Yeti, do you know?)

Anything is possible.

C.

[Androidz]

i still dont think it will be right to call it a stalemate. A real stalmate is much better i think. (Draw)

[jiminski]

i still dont think it will be right to call it a stalemate. A real stalmate is much better i think. (Draw)

Sorry And, what do you mean: just stop the game and no one loses any points?

[Androidz]

No:D, In neverending matches (they do happen) you can ask the ohter players for a draw. The Elimnated players points will be divided.

[jiminski]

No:D, In neverending matches (they do happen) you can ask the ohter players for a draw. The Elimnated players points will be divided.

It's nice Androidz but we are trying to find the most fair way to end the game and still ensure that points only come through vicory.
The problem with your way is that it opens the game up to abuse.
Say for example 2 players decide to team up in chat then they just need to take out the other players, vote to 'Freeze' and share the points.

[Androidz]

No:D, In neverending matches (they do happen) you can ask the ohter players for a draw. The Elimnated players points will be divided.

It's nice Androidz but we are trying to find the most fair way to end the game and still ensure that points only come through vicory.
The problem with your way is that it opens the game up to abuse.
Say for example 2 players decide to team up in chat then they just need to take out the other players, vote to 'Freeze' and share the points.

There is 2 things which can solve this.

1. If the game has been going trough 20-30rounds then this option is possible, or haveing alot of 24 hours turns.

2. All players need to agrea even dead ones. they get a pm, saying they need to press Draw or not.

but other than that i agrea with you.

[yeti_c]

No:D, In neverending matches (they do happen) you can ask the ohter players for a draw. The Elimnated players points will be divided.

It's nice Androidz but we are trying to find the most fair way to end the game and still ensure that points only come through vicory.
The problem with your way is that it opens the game up to abuse.
Say for example 2 players decide to team up in chat then they just need to take out the other players, vote to 'Freeze' and share the points.

There is 2 things which can solve this.

1. If the game has been going trough 20-30rounds then this option is possible, or haveing alot of 24 hours turns.

2. All players need to agrea even dead ones. they get a pm, saying they need to press Draw or not.

but other than that i agrea with you.

I think the proposed solution is stronger than a "draw" idea.

C.

[jiminski]

There is 2 things which can solve this.

1. If the game has been going trough 20-30rounds then this option is possible, or haveing alot of 24 hours turns.

2. All players need to agrea even dead ones. they get a pm, saying they need to press Draw or not.

but other than that i agrea with you.

1. did you vote above Androidz? Your round limit, giving option to vote, is in there.

2. i do think it would be unlikely that many dead players would agree to a Stalemate ending in a draw as they would lose points. so i reckon it would render the system less effective.

Do you see what i mean mate?

[Androidz]

Yeah i do m8=) but i wont be useing this "feature" altough so i voted randomly.

[jiminski]

Yeah i do m8=) but i wont be useing this "feature" altough so i voted randomly.

well if you would use a 'Draw' option; Make a separate thread and post the idea.

I can help you with it if you would like.

[Androidz]

Yeah i do m8=) but i wont be useing this "feature" altough so i voted randomly.

well if you would use a 'Draw' option; Make a separate thread and post the idea.

I can help you with it if you would like.

Nah, if they say the same as you what is the point?;) I dont want people to use this for abuse...

[Haggis_McMutton]

We have not discussed a facility to Freeze existing games which are already in stalemate.
should there perhaps be the option in all existing games, given to player 1 perhaps (the setter of the game) to accept voting boxes?
(i do not even know if that is possible.. Yeti, do you know?)

Hmm, I didn`t think of that. But i agree, giving the option of freezing, to player one, for all ongoing games, at the time of the implementation seems like a good refinement.

The only potential problem would be tournament games, where player 1 is just the guy who joined first, but i don`t think it would be too "unfair".

[Gypsys Kiss]

There is 2 things which can solve this.

1. If the game has been going trough 20-30rounds then this option is possible, or haveing alot of 24 hours turns.

2. All players need to agrea even dead ones. they get a pm, saying they need to press Draw or not.

but other than that i agrea with you.

1. did you vote above Androidz? Your round limit, giving option to vote, is in there.

2. i do think it would be unlikely that many dead players would agree to a Stalemate ending in a draw as they would lose points. so i reckon it would render the system less effective.

Do you see what i mean mate?

Wouldnt they lose the points anyway, whatever the system used.

[jiminski]

There is 2 things which can solve this.

1. If the game has been going trough 20-30rounds then this option is possible, or haveing alot of 24 hours turns.

2. All players need to agrea even dead ones. they get a pm, saying they need to press Draw or not.

but other than that i agrea with you.

1. did you vote above Androidz? Your round limit, giving option to vote, is in there.

2. i do think it would be unlikely that many dead players would agree to a Stalemate ending in a draw as they would lose points. so i reckon it would render the system less effective.

Do you see what i mean mate?

Wouldnt they lose the points anyway, whatever the system used.

do you think that calling a Draw game and letting the dead players vote on whether to have a stalemate or not is a good idea then Gypsy?

[Gypsys Kiss]

Uncertain as yet, but still thinking about it. I suppose the issue is with freemiums. If you call it a draw and the game ends there and then(assuming they are already eliminated), they will get their game spot opened. On the other hand, if the game is remade with the remaining combatants, they are forced to wait until the new game is over. Or the game after that and so on. I realise that in the current situation they have to wait anyway, but this about a solution.

I like your idea, I dont get many stalemate games that go on and on, but it would be a useful option not to employ .

Oh and congratulations on the phrase 'semantically pedantic' from one of your earlier posts. Made me chuckle.

[yeti_c]

Uncertain as yet, but still thinking about it. I suppose the issue is with freemiums. If you call it a draw and the game ends there and then(assuming they are already eliminated), they will get their game spot opened. On the other hand, if the game is remade with the remaining combatants, they are forced to wait until the new game is over. Or the game after that and so on. I realise that in the current situation they have to wait anyway, but this about a solution.

I like your idea, I dont get many stalemate games that go on and on, but it would be a useful option not to employ .

Oh and congratulations on the phrase 'semantically pedantic' from one of your earlier posts. Made me chuckle.

No - As soon as you are eliminated - you have a free 'slot' for a game.

The rule is 4 games that you are active in.

C.

[Gypsys Kiss]

Was talking bollox(not a new experience)

I like your idea, I dont get many stalemate games that go on and on, but it would be a useful option not to employ .

Oh and congratulations on the phrase 'semantically pedantic' from one of your earlier posts. Made me chuckle.

No - As soon as you are eliminated - you have a free 'slot' for a game.

The rule is 4 games that you are active in.

C.

In that case I like your idea even more.

[jiminski]

Was talking bollox(not a new experience)

I like your idea, I dont get many stalemate games that go on and on, but it would be a useful option not to employ .

Oh and congratulations on the phrase 'semantically pedantic' from one of your earlier posts. Made me chuckle.

No - As soon as you are eliminated - you have a free 'slot' for a game.

The rule is 4 games that you are active in.

C.

In that case I like your idea even more.

good stuff Gypsy... up to this point i have not seen a problem which we can not resolve between us.

[ParadiceCity9]

I think the game-freezing time should be able to be decided at a time the players want it to be frozen, not a set amount of rounds. What if the game's just starting to get good at, say round 100, then it's frozen and nobody wins?

[jiminski]

I think the game-freezing time should be able to be decided at a time the players want it to be frozen, not a set amount of rounds. What if the game's just starting to get good at, say round 100, then it's frozen and nobody wins?

hello Paradise, this vote is only for when the vote Boxes actually appear and the Freeze can then be voted upon. No one has to vote at any time.

Voting options:
1. Game Setting; Round to be selected prior to game start (i)
2. Present from start
3. Voting boxes appear after a set round for all games, all formats
4. Set rounds but different alternatives depending on type of card game (ii)

Option 1: the player who sets-up the game choses which round the voting boxes can appear (Voting is not obligatory if players wish to play on)
Option 2: voting boxes are always in play (Voting is not obligatory if players wish to play on)
Option 3: A round is decided upon in this thread, to set times for when boxes appear (Voting is not obligatory if players wish to play on)
Option 4. We decide in this thread on a variety of rounds for the boxes to appear: round of appearance will differ depending on game formats. (Voting is not obligatory if players wish to play on)

The main reason this section of the discussion is to avoid people whining about ending the game and trying to hassle the other player to vote within the game.
If we have a period where no boxes are available for vote the game can be relaxed and play-out completely as normal. Some concerns were voiced regarding 'No Card' games in particular and that the dynamics of the game could be altered with ever-present vote boxes (as in Option 2 above).