[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[Donelladan]

I'm on the fence with this one.

Yes, I do think it's needed for some games that are clearly over and one player ends up deadbeating on, just to hurry the game along.

However, like Owen said, the potential is there for its abuse and misuse.

+0 for me.

Would be helpful for you to develop if you have any idea of what kind of possible abuse could happen.

[jusplay4fun]

WIthout reading ALL the discussion of WHY NOT, I am in favor of a resign or conceded button. Chess has it; why NOT CC for Risk?

Waiting at least 10 rounds seems to be a good idea, to discourage those looking for quick easy points.

Mike JP4Fun

[Dukasaur]

I'm on the fence with this one.

Yes, I do think it's needed for some games that are clearly over and one player ends up deadbeating on, just to hurry the game along.

However, like Owen said, the potential is there for its abuse and misuse.

+0 for me.

Would be helpful for you to develop if you have any idea of what kind of possible abuse could happen.

Damn, it would really help if people would read what is already written, instead of needing to re-invent the wheel.

Just a quick look at some of what has been discussed in this thread over the years:

Subject: [GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

The most common scenario is one where people use this for farming multis. (I should add that I agree with Don -- creating multis is still against the rules, and someone who is creating multis to farm them will eventually get caught and get a point reset.) The easiest solution to this abuse is that the Resign button does not become active until Turn 10.

Another possible abuse is freemiums using the resign button to circumvent the four-game limit. Just keep starting new games and quit them until you get one that's going the way you wanted it to. I think the point loss is enough to discourage that behaviour, but if it's not enough there are other safeguards possible. The Resign button could be a premium perk, or there could be limitations about freemiums using it only once a day or once a week. That can be tweaked, and again it's been discussed in the past in this thread and should have been copied to the OP.

Another possible abuse is in multiplayer games, where someone is about to lose and drops out just to spitefully prevent you from getting their cards. About this possible abuse, many people said the resign button should be used only in 1v1 games. I disagree, however. I think a simpler solution is just to make it like deadbeating from a Terminator game. Your cards and troops remain on the table, and players still in the game can fight over who gets to your cards first. Again, this was discussed in the past and should have been copied to the OP.

Now that we have bots, an even better refinement can be considered. If you resign in a multiplayer game, you are not out of it, but your game gets turned over to whambot. This is what happens when you quit a multiplayer game on a site like Pogo, and it works quite well. The remaining players get the satisfaction of finishing the game, they just have a somewhat dumber opponent. At least the bot will take his turns quickly and the other players don't have to wait longer than their own turns.

Subject: [GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

If there was a provision that would involve a certain threshold of ratios between army counts, then maybe the surrender button could be implemented with little risk of abuse.

Meaning, one couldn't surrender until their opponent had a 4 to 1 army ratio to their own army count. Or whatever ratio is deemed appropriate.

So if player A has 32 armies and player B has 8 armies then the system would allow player B to surrender.

OKAY, FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL, A LIST OF POSSIBLE ABUSES AND WAYS TO PREVENT THEM

1. Possible abuse: Multi-farming Guy creates multies, joins games with them all, has them all surrender and lose points, gains points on his main account.
   Possible solutions:
   1. It has been suggested that the threat of a multi-bust and point reset would be sufficient to curb this abuse. However, this wasn't the case in lackattack's time, which was why the original button was removed. Other sanctions may be needed.
   2. Do not enable the resign button until Turn 10. Most basic way to curb this abuse is to make it more time-consuming.
   3. Do not allow the resign button for NRs. This would mean a potential abuser couldn't just create a multi, have it join his games, and harvest its points. He would have to spend the time to at least finish their 5 games and bring them out of NR status. In conjunction with (1) and (2), this would probably be sufficient to deter 99.99% of the potential multi-farmers.
   4. Most rigorous possible check -- make the Resign button a premium-only perk. It would deter even more of this abuse that (1), (2) and (3) above, but in my opinion it's overkill, We don't need to go this far. However, it needs to be in this list for completeness.
2. Possible abuse: "Mulliganing" or "Mephistoing". Guy refuses to play until he gets a drop he's satisfied with. Starts a game, doesn't like the drop, resigns immediately, starts a new one.
   Possible solutions:
   
   1. It has been suggested that the point loss alone would be enough to discourage this behaviour. I doubt it, though. You'd be surprised how little people care about points sometimes, especially when they're really pissed off and determined that they deserve to drop Kowloon, just like that dickhead they were playing against yesterday.
   2. Once again, our best friend is probably making sure the Resign button doesn't pop up until Turn 10. This should be sufficient to prevent "Mulliganing" or "Mephistoing" from ever becoming commonplace. If you've already played ten turns, you're probably beyond whatever impulse you originally had to kill the game early.
   3. Another solution that has been suggested is to put a limit. You can resign a max of once a day or once a week or whatever.
3. Possible abuse: Penalty-free deadbeating: Guy likes to deadbeat games, but resigning is just so much easier and faster, and it let's him get away with not having his tendency show in his turns-taken percentage.
   Possible solution:
   
   • Only one, and quite obvious: Using the Resign button MUST count as three missed turns for the purpose of calculating missed-turn percentage.
4. Possible abuse: Disrupting tournaments and clan wars:
   There are situations where "number of rounds to win" and such things are used as tiebreaking criteria, etc.
   Possible solution:
   
   • It must be possible for a tournament organizer or clan war organizer to disable the Resign button in the tournament specs.
5. Possible abuse: ruined games: In a multiplayer game, guy who is about to die resigns to prevent you from getting his cards. You would have won by cashing his cards, but now you don't. Very nasty feeling. Luckily, easily solved.
   Possible solutions:
   
   1. First, it needs to be noted that some people have said this button will only be used for 1v1 speed games. That, to me, would be a total and absolute waste of the thousands of hours that have been spend discussing this over the years. The Resign button needs to be universal and applicable to all. Luckily, there are simple fixes possible.
   2. One simple solution is already coded for Terminator games. When a player deadbeats in Terminator, his cards and troops stay on the table, and can still be killed in order to cash those cards. This is pretty straightforward.
   3. A far more sophisticated, but entirely possible, solution is to have the resigning player's troops taken over by a bot. We already have bot games. Nothing more needs to be done than to make it possible to do a "hot swap" and bring in a bot in place of the live player. (It needs to be noted that the live player would still lose points. He couldn't insulate himself against a loss by turning the game over to a bot.) If I may be allowed to drift just a tiny bit off topic, I think if we are ever to grow past this tiny little community and have 20 million members or whatever Pogo has, we need to become more Pogo-like. In any game on Popo, if you're bored you simply stand up from the table and let a bot take over. The other players don't have their game ruined. Conversely, when someone is playing against a bot, you can jump into the game and take the bot's place, instead of waiting for a new game to start. This is to me one of the most crucial things needed to grow this site.

So there you have it. All the abuses possible, and solutions for each.

Mets, could you put a link to this in the OP, so I don't have to re-type it again?

[Donelladan]

Well, thanks Dukasaur, that's really nicely done, and helpful. But I wasn't speaking about that but about others thing could happen.

I am well aware of what you just summarized,( well I wasn't about 3 and 4 maybe ) and all of them are already avoided by the current implementation.
Since I already said earlier in this thread that the resign button was only for 1vs1 and poly games, and only speed and trench, and that it start only after round 10, the current resign button avoid all the things you mentioned.

I mean :
Problem 1 and 2, solution 1b and 2b has been taken, it appears about round 10.
Problem 3 : that's not a problem, that's one of the purpose of the resign button, to avoid deadbeating.
Problem 4 : Could possibly be an issue for the speed tournaments if they use number of round played as tie breaker. Auto tournament does it (as far as I know) and they are the most common speed tournament. We may want to disable it for the auto tournament - or not.
Problem 5 : multiplayers games won't have a resign button.

Which is why i was asking macbone ( and anyone else) what kind of possible abuse they are talking about. Because I have difficulty to imagine any with the resign button being tested in beta at the moment..

[clangfield]

Well, thanks Dukasaur, that's really nicely done, and helpful. But I wasn't speaking about that but about others thing could happen.

I am well aware of what you just summarized,( well I wasn't about 3 and 4 maybe ) and all of them are already avoided by the current implementation.
Since I already said earlier in this thread that the resign button was only for 1vs1 and poly games, and only speed and trench, and that it start only after round 10, the current resign button avoid all the things you mentioned.

I mean :
Problem 1 and 2, solution 1b and 2b has been taken, it appears about round 10.
Problem 3 : that's not a problem, that's one of the purpose of the resign button, to avoid deadbeating.
Problem 4 : Could possibly be an issue for the speed tournaments if they use number of round played as tie breaker. Auto tournament does it (as far as I know) and they are the most common speed tournament. We may want to disable it for the auto tournament - or not.
Problem 5 : multiplayers games won't have a resign button.

Which is why i was asking macbone ( and anyone else) what kind of possible abuse they are talking about. Because I have difficulty to imagine any with the resign button being tested in beta at the moment..

Personally, I don't see round 10 being that big a deterrent for the determined - deploy, end, deploy, end - it's still way quicker than trying to beat people if you're after cheap points.
However, making it premium only - now that is an idea. It's much harder to envisage people setting up multis as premium accounts. Even though I'm a freemium, it seems a sensible approach to dealing with that particular issue.
Replacing with bots... well, if one is winning, and it's an honest game, and your opponent resigns in a 1 v 1, do you really want to continue, or have it finish there and then? In multi player games, especially assassin, it would seem to be a good idea, but perhaps would drag out a 1 v 1. I suppose there's also the chance that the bot might beat you in a way that a human would not have, which could cause annoyance.

[Dukasaur]

Well, thanks Dukasaur, that's really nicely done, and helpful. But I wasn't speaking about that but about others thing could happen.

I am well aware of what you just summarized,( well I wasn't about 3 and 4 maybe ) and all of them are already avoided by the current implementation.
Since I already said earlier in this thread that the resign button was only for 1vs1 and poly games, and only speed and trench, and that it start only after round 10, the current resign button avoid all the things you mentioned.

Well, I can't accept that as a legitimate outcome. Hundreds of people have posted in this thread in favour of a Resign button. I'm sure not more that twelve of those people play 1v1 speed trench. If the outcome of this thread is to produce something that 99% of the members will never use, then that is a catastrophic waste of all the work that has gone into brainstorming this over the years.

Furthermore, it's fraudulent. When you were soliciting people to come here and vote in favour, did you tell them that their vote would only benefit a tiny subcommunity of like one-half-of-one-percent of the members? If not, then they've been defrauded.

We need a Resign button that applies to all game types and benefits ALL the members, not something to help a microscopic subcommunity.

[Donelladan]

Personally, I don't see round 10 being that big a deterrent for the determined - deploy, end, deploy, end - it's still way quicker than trying to beat people if you're after cheap points.

The fastest way to win point is to set up a 1 min freestyle game and let your multi deadbeat. Exactly 3min to get the points.
If you have to switch browser between your 2 multi to deploy/end turn it's not that fast.
Remember the resign button will only be for speed game.

Now let's imagine we later implement the resign button for 24h games. I have to do the test, but I am quite sure a doodle earth 1vs1 would be as fast as playing 10 rounds until it deadbeats. Also it would be less obvious to play a doodle earth than resign a game. Remember we may still catch them, if they simply play doing begin/end then resign the game, it will be very easy to spot multi.

However, making it premium only - now that is an idea. It's much harder to envisage people setting up multis as premium accounts. Even though I'm a freemium, it seems a sensible approach to dealing with that particular issue.
Replacing with bots... well, if one is winning, and it's an honest game, and your opponent resigns in a 1 v 1, do you really want to continue, or have it finish there and then? In multi player games, especially assassin, it would seem to be a good idea, but perhaps would drag out a 1 v 1. I suppose there's also the chance that the bot might beat you in a way that a human would not have, which could cause annoyance.

1) I don't see why it's harder for premium to set up multi, if the purpose is to have your multi giving you points it works as good for premium as for freemium.
2) Replacing with bots isn't envisaged at the moment and wouldn't be very interesting for the issue I was raising, namely that trench 1vs1 speed games need to have a resign button for reasons explained 7-5 pages before that one

@Dukasaur :
When I sent a wall message to the people asking them to vote, I specifically target people playing trench games, using trench games as an argument for this resign button.
The fact that the resign button will only be implemented for speed trench games is not my decision however. Therefore I do not think it was fraudulent at all.
In my suggestion ( bottom of page 72 ) I did not ask for a resign button for speed trench games only.

We need a Resign button that applies to all game types and benefits ALL the members, not something to help a microscopic subcommunity.

If we consider speed games, trench games are quite significant numbers of the games played.
If I search all finished speed games in the game finder, 1vs1 ( or poly) trench speed games represent 46 games among the first 100 that appeared.
And any time of the day, if I look for speed games, I almost always find a trench speed games waiting for players.

I'll admit that the speed community is probably way smaller than the 24h community though.

Also, note that I totally agree with you and I hope that the resign button will later be implemented for all speed games, not only trench, and also 24h games. As long as they are not available in multiplayers games though- that would be a big issue for me.
I can't tell you what are the plans of the developer /boss, but I hope that the resign button for trench speed will be used as a test, and that if it's going well and if we ( CC players in general ) are satisfied,resign button will be available for different game options as well.

[IcePack]

If this ever gets expanded to 24 hour games and doesn't have an option to refuse a resignation, it's probably the last day I volunteer / play on this site. If it's ever going to be considered for full use, it needs the ability for somebody to refuse the resignation. (Not resignation free games, it's hard enough with all the options to fill games but ability to flat out say no in game after someone wants it)

[Dukasaur]

If this ever gets expanded to 24 hour games and doesn't have an option to refuse a resignation, it's probably the last day I volunteer / play on this site. If it's ever going to be considered for full use, it needs the ability for somebody to refuse the resignation. (Not resignation free games, it's hard enough with all the options to fill games but ability to flat out say no in game after someone wants it)

You would deliberately force someone to waste their time playing a game that's obviously over?


Would you do that in real life, too? When the game has reached the point that it's obvious who is going to win, and everybody says "okay, time to wrap it up," would you demand that they stay until 3 in the morning mechanistically taking turns that can have only one final outcome?

[IcePack]

If this ever gets expanded to 24 hour games and doesn't have an option to refuse a resignation, it's probably the last day I volunteer / play on this site. If it's ever going to be considered for full use, it needs the ability for somebody to refuse the resignation. (Not resignation free games, it's hard enough with all the options to fill games but ability to flat out say no in game after someone wants it)

You would deliberately force someone to waste their time playing a game that's obviously over?

I'm sorry but I play the game to play it. Not to have people quit. I've had people give up very early on when it wasn't even that bad yet, and to have to deal with many more people giving up and resigning when they feel it's over when it's really not is very aggregating and takes the fun out of the game.

I get enjoyment actually completing the game and knowing I won, I lose that when someone kicks over the board and go I give up you win.

I'm sorry you look at it as forcing someone to play and if it was really that far gone it wouldn't take much to finish it. But w no control over it and being forced to have people quitting all the time, I look at it as pathetic quitting not me "forcing" someone to play something. If you don't wanna play it, don't? But let those of us who want to play it, to do so.

[Dukasaur]

However, making it premium only - now that is an idea. It's much harder to envisage people setting up multis as premium accounts. Even though I'm a freemium, it seems a sensible approach to dealing with that particular issue.
Replacing with bots... well, if one is winning, and it's an honest game, and your opponent resigns in a 1 v 1, do you really want to continue, or have it finish there and then? In multi player games, especially assassin, it would seem to be a good idea, but perhaps would drag out a 1 v 1. I suppose there's also the chance that the bot might beat you in a way that a human would not have, which could cause annoyance.

1) I don't see why it's harder for premium to set up multi, if the purpose is to have your multi giving you points it works as good for premium as for freemium.

If it's a premium-only perk to resign, all the multies would have to buy premium in order to donate their points. That would get expensive. No doubt some people would spend the money to have 100 premium multies, but not many.

[Dukasaur]

If this ever gets expanded to 24 hour games and doesn't have an option to refuse a resignation, it's probably the last day I volunteer / play on this site. If it's ever going to be considered for full use, it needs the ability for somebody to refuse the resignation. (Not resignation free games, it's hard enough with all the options to fill games but ability to flat out say no in game after someone wants it)

You would deliberately force someone to waste their time playing a game that's obviously over?

I'm sorry but I play the game to play it. Not to have people quit. I've had people give up very early on when it wasn't even that bad yet, and to have to deal with many more people giving up and resigning when they feel it's over when it's really not is very aggregating and takes the fun out of the game.

I get enjoyment actually completing the game and knowing I won, I lose that when someone kicks over the board and go I give up you win.

Well, you should know that among serious chess players, for instance, less that one game in 400 is actually played to the end. Almost always the losing player realizes that he's losing and has the decency to resign and not waste everybody's time playing turns that can't make a difference. I've never heard of anyone claiming that they lost any satisfaction this way. (And yes, I was the President of a university chess club and <very, very briefly> the local champion.)

I don't know if anyone has ever collected the stats for Risk, but I imagine they're similar, though maybe not quite that extreme. I've played tons of war games starting with Risk and proceeding from there to much more sophisticated games, and almost always if it's a long game and it's obvious who's going to win, everybody agrees it's time to either start a new game or break up the party.

The only time a game in real life is played to the very end is if there seems to still be some doubt who will win.

[IcePack]

If this ever gets expanded to 24 hour games and doesn't have an option to refuse a resignation, it's probably the last day I volunteer / play on this site. If it's ever going to be considered for full use, it needs the ability for somebody to refuse the resignation. (Not resignation free games, it's hard enough with all the options to fill games but ability to flat out say no in game after someone wants it)

You would deliberately force someone to waste their time playing a game that's obviously over?

I'm sorry but I play the game to play it. Not to have people quit. I've had people give up very early on when it wasn't even that bad yet, and to have to deal with many more people giving up and resigning when they feel it's over when it's really not is very aggregating and takes the fun out of the game.

I get enjoyment actually completing the game and knowing I won, I lose that when someone kicks over the board and go I give up you win.

Well, you should know that among serious chess players, for instance, less that one game in 400 is actually played to the end. Almost always the losing player realizes that he's losing and has the decency to resign and not waste everybody's time playing turns that can't make a difference. I've never heard of anyone claiming that they lost any satisfaction this way. (And yes, I was the President of a university chess club and <very, very briefly> the local champion.)

I don't know if anyone has ever collected the stats for Risk, but I imagine they're similar, though maybe not quite that extreme. I've played tons of war games starting with Risk and proceeding from there to much more sophisticated games, and almost always if it's a long game and it's obvious who's going to win, everybody agrees it's time to either start a new game or break up the party.

The only time a game in real life is played to the very end is if there seems to still be some doubt who will win.

I'm sorry but if I wanted to play chess I'd be on a chess site.

his also kinda proves my point I made a long time ago in this thread.

Even with the option to refuse the resignation, people would call you out / get mad and frustrated that you are "forcing them to play".

Not only that, the reverse can be expected where you can have people upset that you dare not resign when "you've clearly lost".

Play the game. Or don't. But let those of us who want to play the game play it. I don't think that's to much to ask.

[Metsfanmax]

Play the game. Or don't. But let those of us who want to play the game play it. I don't think that's to much to ask.

You're premium. You can play a virtually unlimited amount of games. If you and I are playing, and I resign, that doesn't stop you from playing CC. There's lots of other games out there for you to join or start. So yes, it kind of is a lot to ask that I fulfill your need to keep playing, at a point where I'm no longer enjoying the game, instead of someone who actually wants to be playing against you.

Or to put it more bluntly -- if such a resign option existed where you had to agree to let me resign, and you announced in advance that you would never agree, then I would just refuse to play with you at all. Are you then going to get upset with me for not letting you play the game by refusing to join in the first place? Actually, are you already upset with me now that I don't play with you? I could be increasing your CC playtime and I'm not. Does that make me an asshole?

[IcePack]

You might now be stopping me from playing CC, but you and others would be resigning and killing the enjoyment. Unlimited games with unlimited resigns just means I get forced to play thru more unfun games. At least w other settings it can be avoided by playing other settings. Not the same w resign

I'm not saying YOU must fulfill "my need" to play but if we are going to "fulfill" your need to resign you can set it up so that both types of players can enjoy the game. You can resign all your other games all day long. But if I'm playing I wouldn't.

And yeah, if that makes you not want to play guess what that falls under? FAMO. It won't upset me. I'm just asking for the same option to play the way I enjoy just like the resigners are.

[Metsfanmax]

You might now be stopping me from playing CC, but you and others would be resigning and killing the enjoyment. Unlimited games with unlimited resigns just means I get forced to play thru more unfun games.

No. The whole point is that the game never gets to the point where it's "unfun." If someone resigns before the end of the game, and you would have preferred to play it out, that doesn't make what happened to that point "unfun" unless it was already unfun for some other reason (and then it's not the resign option's fault). And at the point where they resign, the game is gone, so there's no possibility of the game being unfun.

At least w other settings it can be avoided by playing other settings. Not the same w resign

Except that you didn't even propose that the resign button be made a game option -- you skipped that and went all the way to "I need an option to be able to say no when someone asks to resign." So it makes your stance a little less credible.

I'm not saying YOU must fulfill "my need" to play but if we are going to "fulfill" your need to resign you can set it up so that both types of players can enjoy the game. You can resign all your other games all day long. But if I'm playing I wouldn't.

Because you enjoy playing the game after the point at which it's no longer intellectually interesting and you're just cleaning up? I came here to play a real strategy game, and when there's no more strategy left except "dump troops until I lose," the game is effectively over at that point. If you want mindless button clicking go play Candy Crush or something.

Anyway this debate has been rehashed a million times so I'm not going to continue it further after this post. If you want to quit CC because of a resign option then that's your right, but then you wouldn't get to play any CC at all. Your call.

[degaston]

If this ever gets expanded to 24 hour games and doesn't have an option to refuse a resignation, it's probably the last day I volunteer / play on this site.

Why couldn't you just FAMO for anyone that resigns?

[Jurasu]

If this ever gets expanded to 24 hour games and doesn't have an option to refuse a resignation, it's probably the last day I volunteer / play on this site. If it's ever going to be considered for full use, it needs the ability for somebody to refuse the resignation. (Not resignation free games, it's hard enough with all the options to fill games but ability to flat out say no in game after someone wants it)

You would deliberately force someone to waste their time playing a game that's obviously over?

I'm sorry but I play the game to play it. Not to have people quit. I've had people give up very early on when it wasn't even that bad yet, and to have to deal with many more people giving up and resigning when they feel it's over when it's really not is very aggregating and takes the fun out of the game.

I get enjoyment actually completing the game and knowing I won, I lose that when someone kicks over the board and go I give up you win.

Well, you should know that among serious chess players, for instance, less that one game in 400 is actually played to the end. Almost always the losing player realizes that he's losing and has the decency to resign and not waste everybody's time playing turns that can't make a difference. I've never heard of anyone claiming that they lost any satisfaction this way. (And yes, I was the President of a university chess club and <very, very briefly> the local champion.)

I don't know if anyone has ever collected the stats for Risk, but I imagine they're similar, though maybe not quite that extreme. I've played tons of war games starting with Risk and proceeding from there to much more sophisticated games, and almost always if it's a long game and it's obvious who's going to win, everybody agrees it's time to either start a new game or break up the party.

The only time a game in real life is played to the very end is if there seems to still be some doubt who will win.

I feel like the key wording here is "among serious chess players." That comparison might work for serious, experienced Risk players, but remember that this site isn't just serious, experienced Risk players. It has many newer and casual players as well.

I played chess on a team throughout high school and continued to play in tournament throughout college as well. Yes, many games end in one player resigning and games played out to the end may be because the end result is in doubt. However, I also saw many games played out to the end because players were not experienced enough to know when a game had been decided one way or the other. I also saw a great number of games where one player resigned in a position where the game was still unclear and had potential. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a group reviewing one player's game afterwards only to ask why he had resigned in the position that he did.

That would be one of my concerns that hasn't already been addressed. Undecided games can easily be resigned because a player doesn't know enough to realize that they still have a chance to win, even if they are currently at a disadvantage. Sure, something like a trench game on Eurasia should be very clear as to who is going to win the game even though it may take many more turns to actually close the game out. However, I've seen games on smaller maps like Doodle Earth where one player is reduced to a single territory and manages to fight back with some dice luck because the map has such low deployment numbers. Normally, if I am down to 1 territory and my opponent has 10, it seems likely that the other player will win, but it is still quite possible to win. My main fear is that players won't look at the situation and think "I can still win" but will simply give up instead. No resign button forces those games to played out and while some may lose in that sort of situation, others may be able to win. It is a situational example that you can't really program a rule to control for.

[Donelladan]

I understand and agree with what you are saying Jurasu, but I don't think the resign button would really be a problem for what you described.
I think the people that would press on resign,when the chances are low but in reality a come back would still be possible, they also wouldn't keep playing seriously without the resign button and therefore would lose.

I have seen it a lot of times already, people telling me gg and asking me to clear the map, while I know that if I was in their position, I'd keep playing for a while before giving up.
My point is, people already give up, they keep "playing" because they have no choice, but they give up.
I believe the people that would keep trying to win even though game is almost over, would also keep playing if we have a resign button.

[IcePack]

I'm sorry, but where in CC rules does it say you can quit a game because its unfun? Unfun does not mean unplayable or unwinnable. Otherwise starting a hive game on a unlucky random map selection I could deem as "unfun" and quit by deadbeat, right?!?

I didn't propose it as a game option, because I already know bigwham hates adding options. So doesn't make my stance less credible, just looking at it realistically. You should know that. And I was also very clear about the "if its going to be expanded, then add the OPTION of someone being able to say no" that way you get what you want and doesn't kill the fun for others. There was my proposed OPTION.

You aren't proposing that its only able to be used when no longer intellectually interesting and just cleaning up. Its being proposed for after 10 rounds. Lots of games are still ongoing after 10 rounds. So it can be used when theres still plenty of strategy and intelleuctually stimulating turns are left to be taken. (just like jurasu highlighted) If you want to be able to quit a game before its over, apparenlty you can go play chess!

Thats a great attitude to have, glad to see you are here helping suggestions out. Here I go trying to propose a alternative for something that i dont like, and instead you come here to blast me and tell me go play candy crush or leave if i dont like the suggestion thats being proposed and not tested? Great call, mets. Even on the OP the suggestions staff have outlined all the different versions which have been proposed and rejected for expansion to all games.

You might now be stopping me from playing CC, but you and others would be resigning and killing the enjoyment. Unlimited games with unlimited resigns just means I get forced to play thru more unfun games.

No. The whole point is that the game never gets to the point where it's "unfun." If someone resigns before the end of the game, and you would have preferred to play it out, that doesn't make what happened to that point "unfun" unless it was already unfun for some other reason (and then it's not the resign option's fault). And at the point where they resign, the game is gone, so there's no possibility of the game being unfun.

At least w other settings it can be avoided by playing other settings. Not the same w resign

Except that you didn't even propose that the resign button be made a game option -- you skipped that and went all the way to "I need an option to be able to say no when someone asks to resign." So it makes your stance a little less credible.

I'm not saying YOU must fulfill "my need" to play but if we are going to "fulfill" your need to resign you can set it up so that both types of players can enjoy the game. You can resign all your other games all day long. But if I'm playing I wouldn't.

Because you enjoy playing the game after the point at which it's no longer intellectually interesting and you're just cleaning up? I came here to play a real strategy game, and when there's no more strategy left except "dump troops until I lose," the game is effectively over at that point. If you want mindless button clicking go play Candy Crush or something.

Anyway this debate has been rehashed a million times so I'm not going to continue it further after this post. If you want to quit CC because of a resign option then that's your right, but then you wouldn't get to play any CC at all. Your call.

[IcePack]

If this ever gets expanded to 24 hour games and doesn't have an option to refuse a resignation, it's probably the last day I volunteer / play on this site.

Why couldn't you just FAMO for anyone that resigns?

Why can't the alternative I proposed be considered for those who dont want resign?

[hudds]

I havent read everything here about the surrender button. But I think its a good idea to have it. Maybe you can have it in the settings to start with. So the users can choose if they want it. Surrender or fight to the bitter end. You can choose what you like in settings when you set up your game. It would be great in some trench games mostly?

Then I can se a problem with users that surrender to earlie in a game. Maybe you need in team games that 2 users in the same team surrender? A single player in a game can´t take the decision. Or maybe all users in the same team have to accept it? Or even all users in the game have to accept it. If I use the button a question goes to next user if they accept it. Then it goes to everyone in the team or to all in the game that have to accept that a team want to surrender. If everyone is fine with it the game ends & the team who wanted to surrender loose the game.

I hope everything I wrote was understandable. A bit messy maybe?

/Hudds

[Captn B]

Just finished testing it in beta for the first time. It worked great, tho it didn't change my beta stats on my beta wall. Not sure that it is recorded anyway, but I noticed that it didn't change. lol I couldn't find the silly button on round 10. Pressed begin, just as I noticed it on round 11, so I had to wait till r12 to start, in order to tap the Resign button.

<pop my collar> Of course, I had DaBit beat, but to exercise the button, I forfeited.

I guess it's only at the beginning of your turn that you can resign? Now I'll have to do another bot game to see if the button is still there during play.

First use report: It seems to work as expected. GJ Team CC!

[Captn B]

Nope. You can't do it IN-TURN. I'd have maybe thought that if, after round nine you start r10 and see that it just wasn't going to happen (with more bad dice, or whatever), that you could surrender at any time during your turn, but I don't see that option. No big deal, I guess it would just cost you one more turn to resign after your opponent plays, at the beginning of your next turn.

Additionally, winning the game in R10 against a bot didn't add to the game stats either, as it does here in the live CC model.

Either way, again, great job, Team CC! I absolutely LOVE that this option will soon be available on a web-site near you!

btw, I do not feel that Don defrauded me. Any step forward is a good one. If successful and we're able to minimize abuse, then perhaps it will be implemented in other types of games. (As hudds said, everyone on the team would have to unanimously agree that the game should be forfeit before the team would resign, it couldn't just be one person on a team that decided for the whole team.)

Incremental progress is a positive thing.

All the best and again, Great Job!

[Metsfanmax]

(Switching from arguing about the resign option on the object level to discussing the more meta-level issue of how we can have productive conversations)

You aren't proposing that its only able to be used when no longer intellectually interesting and just cleaning up. Its being proposed for after 10 rounds. Lots of games are still ongoing after 10 rounds. So it can be used when theres still plenty of strategy and intelleuctually stimulating turns are left to be taken.

I think this argument would be more persuasive if it didn't feel a lot like shifting the goal posts. If you are okay with people quitting the game once you're just in the cleanup phase and you're mainly just concerned that the proposed suggestion won't achieve that correctly, then say that. If you are never okay with people quitting the game in any circumstance, then say that. But you can't pick and choose whichever one of those stances is more convenient for your position. If you are never okay with people quitting a game against you (and it sounds like this is the case) then you wouldn't be happy regardless of how close we got the policy to the point where people could only resign once things are in cleanup mode.

It would be totally understandable to say "I don't want this to happen, but if it's going to happen anyway, here's a way to make it less bad for me." (Though I would point out that those of us who have chosen to volunteer did so because we were interested in what is best for the site, not merely what is best for us as individuals.) But if that's your position, then you still need to be fair enough to understand the perspective of those who disagree with you. Most of us who support the resign button support it because we want to be able to stop playing a game that is no longer competitive (both on the winning and on the losing side). If there were any way to ensure that it only happened in those circumstances that would be one thing. (If we could even all agree on exactly what that means, it would be a miracle.) The thing being proposed is an approximation to it. It's not perfect, but we have discussed many times in the past more complicated mechanisms that enforce restrictions related to (say) the ratio of troops held by one player to another. These are really hard to establish for all combinations of maps and settings, and inevitably lead to unintended consequences. So the simpler the better in some sense. At any rate, the main point here is that the conversation would be a lot more productive if you would agree that we are trying to do the best job we can here, instead of complaining about us because we couldn't find the perfect solution.

So really, the only way I see you making progress with this line of argumentation is to find a way to make what we are proposing closer to what we really want without messing it up. What you are proposing isn't that -- as you've freely admitted, it's just a way for you to ensure that you never have to play a game where anyone resigns, and that's how you would use it.

Thats a great attitude to have, glad to see you are here helping suggestions out. Here I go trying to propose a alternative for something that i dont like, and instead you come here to blast me and tell me go play candy crush or leave if i dont like the suggestion thats being proposed and not tested? Great call, mets.

You're the one that said that you would stop playing CC if this rule were implemented without the ability to deny the resignation. I'm merely providing a suggestion for what you can play afterward if you enjoy the mindless button clicking phase of the game. I'm not exactly sure what else you would expect when you say something petulant like "if I don't get my way on this, I'm leaving." I know it sounds flippant but when you say something like that it is basically admitting that you don't want to compromise and are just finding ways to complain about the thing we are proposing, and I just don't have much interest in working with people who aren't interested in the spirit of compromise. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am compromising my personal view on this a lot. What I'd prefer is to allow people to resign unconditionally, with no built-in restrictions at all. I do not actively advocate this because many people have said that this is not what they want CC to be. I have accepted that and tried to work with the best compromise we can find, even though the thing actually being discussed now is very far from what I really want.)

The bottom line here is that if you want this dialogue to be meaningful, I urge you to start over and say what you think is actually best for the site, not what is best for IcePack. That's what this forum is about.

Even on the OP the suggestions staff have outlined all the different versions which have been proposed and rejected for expansion to all games.

Those were under previous administrations with administrators who were more averse to risk-taking and experimentation. bigWham has a better view on this, which is, let's try it; and if it works, great; if not, we can roll it back. It's been ten years since the last attempt, and things have changed a lot on the site since then. It's not an absurd idea to just try it out and see what happens. If it fails, it's not the end of the world, and we can either fix it or get rid of it.

Also, I should point out that there is no Suggestions staff anymore. I volunteered to help moderate this forum again but it has been a very long time since there was a process by which a Suggestions team helped the administration figure out what ideas to implement. Right now the system is basically "bigWham does what he wants to do." This current decision had nothing to do with me, so I cannot take any credit or blame for it (except insofar as the resign system being discussed is essentially the same as the one the suggestions team I led came up with back in 2013). At this point I am basically as much of an observer of what is going on as any of you.