[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[Dukasaur]

I'm sorry, but where in CC rules does it say you can quit a game because its unfun?

I think it's axiomatic that when the game is more like work than play, most people will quit. Which seems to be what has happened over the years.

[IcePack]

I'm sorry, but where in CC rules does it say you can quit a game because its unfun?

I think it's axiomatic that when the game is more like work than play, most people will quit. Which seems to be what has happened over the years.

And all this time I thought intentional deadbeating (quitting) was against the rules. Cool, there will be a lot more fun being able to quit unfun games and maps for no reason

[Donelladan]

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?!?

Maybe it has been lost somewhere in the discussion, or not so obvious sometimes, but the purpose of the resign button is not to allow you to resign "unfun" game.
It is to allow you to resign already 100% lost- no chance or return whatsoever- games.

Afterwards, it's a fact that finishing already lost trench game is boring - therefore not fun. But remember, it is boring, and not fun, because the game is already over and you are "playing" ( i.e. deploy / end fort / end turn) for no reason.



Concerning your idea, that the opponent should have the right to refuse/accept resignation.
I personally do not mind such a thing.
I think both options would give some issues.
If we take the option you are suggesting, it's possible as you said that some people might be pissed that you refuse their resignation. And if we don't do it, some will be pissed because their opponent resign too fast.
But in any case I am optimistic and think issues would be rare.

[Dukasaur]

I'm sorry, but where in CC rules does it say you can quit a game because its unfun?

I think it's axiomatic that when the game is more like work than play, most people will quit. Which seems to be what has happened over the years.

And all this time I thought intentional deadbeating (quitting) was against the rules. Cool, there will be a lot more fun being able to quit unfun games and maps for no reason

They are diametric opposites.

Intentional deadbeating is against the rules because it deliberately drags out a game and wastes the time of the eventual winner.

Resigning is a benefit because it shortens a game and saves the time of the eventual winner.

[mc05025]

In multiplayer games there should not be resign option.

But on 1v1 games its completely different.

From my experience even if I like to play complicated polymorphic games (like hive poly 4) I restrict the number of them because it takes too much time to finish a game even if when my opponents wants to resign (it takes more than an hour from my free time which I do not enjoy). It would have been easier to miss 3 turns (which I do in simple 1v1) but in polymorphic games the staff keep to be too lazy to fix the known problem.

So if there was a resign button on 1v1 (simple or polymorphic) I would have played much more complicated and challenging games like these and it would have been much more enjoyable for me and my opponents.

Speed and trench are not the only games that takes long to finish. The resign button could be an option for the players after a certain period of time in order to avoid abuse. (for example in speed games 15 minutes from the start of the game and for normal games 7 days after the start seems quite reasonable)

[clangfield]

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?

I am unclear as to why refusing, or not having, resign options benefits anyone (ignoring the abuse problem).
You're winning a game by miles, let's say deploying 200 vs their 3, you have 90% of the territory, and all that can happen is your slow inexorable march to wipe them out.
By denying the resign option, you're just prolonging their distress - and potentially the points you gain could be fewer if they win games in the mean time (although of course it could be greater).
Other than the satisfaction of making the last move, what are you actually gaining from prolonging the game?
If you were losing, you may wish to fight on, but isn't taking their points and moving on to another fun game just as satisfying as a winner?

I get that you don't want it, but would you please explain exactly what it is about it that's the problem?

[Donelladan]

well, you are assuming a 200 vs3. Quite extreme case
IcePack if afraid people might resign even if one deploy 5 and the other deploy 3 for example.
Let's take a classic game, round 10, I have the oceania bonus secured, and you have no bonus, you click on resign. You could try a bit harder, and maybe your opponent would be thinking that you deprive him of a true victory by giving up early.

[clangfield]

well, you are assuming a 200 vs3. Quite extreme case
IcePack if afraid people might resign even if one deploy 5 and the other deploy 3 for example.
Let's take a classic game, round 10, I have the oceania bonus secured, and you have no bonus, you click on resign. You could try a bit harder, and maybe your opponent would be thinking that you deprive him of a true victory by giving up early.

It has to be extreme to make the point. At 5 v 3 one may feel that there's still a game to be played; I can see why that would be disappointing; I can't see why it would be at 200 vs 3. I am therefore trying to understand whether it's the scale of the differential and whether there would be a point at which it becomes better to have it than not, for those who object to it.

[IcePack]

well, you are assuming a 200 vs3. Quite extreme case
IcePack if afraid people might resign even if one deploy 5 and the other deploy 3 for example.
Let's take a classic game, round 10, I have the oceania bonus secured, and you have no bonus, you click on resign. You could try a bit harder, and maybe your opponent would be thinking that you deprive him of a true victory by giving up early.

Exactly, there are too many scenarios you will never begin to be able to program the "what if's" for each scenario.
In fact, the "reject" resign button would help the suggestion by being another added layer of security to avoid rampant abuse.
If people keep trying to resign much to early, their opponent can reject it to prevent games that would otherwise fit the
engines profile as "resignable" when they shouldn't be resigning and provide additional assurances that it really is only being used
for those 200 vs 3's, or extra long clean ups etc.

[clangfield]

well, you are assuming a 200 vs3. Quite extreme case
IcePack if afraid people might resign even if one deploy 5 and the other deploy 3 for example.
Let's take a classic game, round 10, I have the oceania bonus secured, and you have no bonus, you click on resign. You could try a bit harder, and maybe your opponent would be thinking that you deprive him of a true victory by giving up early.

Exactly, there are too many scenarios you will never begin to be able to program the "what if's" for each scenario.
In fact, the "reject" resign button would help the suggestion by being another added layer of security to avoid rampant abuse.
If people keep trying to resign much to early, their opponent can reject it to prevent games that would otherwise fit the
engines profile as "resignable" when they shouldn't be resigning and provide additional assurances that it really is only being used
for those 200 vs 3's, or extra long clean ups etc.

Try looking at it from the other side though - if you were dropping 3 vs their 200, and tried to resign several times, and they kept on rejecting it, how would you feel?
Wouldn't that make you feel like deadbeating is your only way out? Isn't it somewhat akin to hostage taking?
I suppose the choice is have the button and FAMO those who use it to soon, or have the reject button and FAMO those who use it unsportingly. I can envisage an increase in C&A reports for those who don't accept the resignation in a similar situation to hostage taking, which it could easily be seen as.

Would one be correct in inferring from what you've just said, though, that you wouldn't be totally against a resign option if it were sufficiently safeguarded such that it wouldn't be used prematurely?

[IcePack]

well, you are assuming a 200 vs3. Quite extreme case
IcePack if afraid people might resign even if one deploy 5 and the other deploy 3 for example.
Let's take a classic game, round 10, I have the oceania bonus secured, and you have no bonus, you click on resign. You could try a bit harder, and maybe your opponent would be thinking that you deprive him of a true victory by giving up early.

Exactly, there are too many scenarios you will never begin to be able to program the "what if's" for each scenario.
In fact, the "reject" resign button would help the suggestion by being another added layer of security to avoid rampant abuse.
If people keep trying to resign much to early, their opponent can reject it to prevent games that would otherwise fit the
engines profile as "resignable" when they shouldn't be resigning and provide additional assurances that it really is only being used
for those 200 vs 3's, or extra long clean ups etc.

Try looking at it from the other side though - if you were dropping 3 vs their 200, and tried to resign several times, and they kept on rejecting it, how would you feel?
Wouldn't that make you feel like deadbeating is your only way out? Isn't it somewhat akin to hostage taking?
I suppose the choice is have the button and FAMO those who use it to soon, or have the reject button and FAMO those who use it unsportingly. I can envisage an increase in C&A reports for those who don't accept the resignation in a similar situation to hostage taking, which it could easily be seen as.

Would one be correct in inferring from what you've just said, though, that you wouldn't be totally against a resign option if it were sufficiently safeguarded such that it wouldn't be used prematurely?

Well to be clear, I'm 100% against a resign button. But in an effort to actually move past that and discuss the "if its going to be forced" then etc. Imo, the best way to mitigate possibility of abuse would be impose a few safeguards (like has been suggested) and a reject button. What you are saying (about having to deadbeat) is really no different then what it is now, yet it still "improves" 90% of the games for those who are wanting a resign button, and "having to deal with" the few who reject it (and can be foed) or those who stop it from being done to early. You're example is extreme and I get it, I don't think its really hostage taking by definition but I'm sure it would be viewed that way. Again, up until that point it had to be played out anyway. And the pros of the reject (helping curb abuse) outweigh the con (some get upset about someone not accepting it right away when they feel they've lost).

[Metsfanmax]

Exactly, there are too many scenarios you will never begin to be able to program the "what if's" for each scenario.
In fact, the "reject" resign button would help the suggestion by being another added layer of security to avoid rampant abuse.
If people keep trying to resign much to early, their opponent can reject it to prevent games that would otherwise fit the
engines profile as "resignable" when they shouldn't be resigning and provide additional assurances that it really is only being used
for those 200 vs 3's, or extra long clean ups etc.

It's not your place to decide whether it's "too early" for them to resign. It's a user's choice, at least insofar as they aren't blatantly abusing the system for point dumping or helping a friend gain points or the like. You may not have resigned at the same point they would have, maybe you would have fought a little harder, but it's their time and they get to decide whether it's worth it to them to try. It's just not your decision to make.

If they are point dumping or something, we already have a mechanism for reporting that and dealing with it. The resign button doesn't give a rulebreaker the ability to do anything more than intentional deadbeating could achieve.

[IcePack]

Exactly, there are too many scenarios you will never begin to be able to program the "what if's" for each scenario.
In fact, the "reject" resign button would help the suggestion by being another added layer of security to avoid rampant abuse.
If people keep trying to resign much to early, their opponent can reject it to prevent games that would otherwise fit the
engines profile as "resignable" when they shouldn't be resigning and provide additional assurances that it really is only being used
for those 200 vs 3's, or extra long clean ups etc.

It's not your place to decide whether it's "too early" for them to resign. It's a user's choice, at least insofar as they aren't blatantly abusing the system for point dumping or helping a friend gain points or the like. You may not have resigned at the same point they would have, maybe you would have fought a little harder, but it's their time and they get to decide whether it's worth it to them to try. It's just not your decision to make.

If they are point dumping or something, we already have a mechanism for reporting that and dealing with it. The resign button doesn't give a rulebreaker the ability to do anything more than intentional deadbeating could achieve.

In your scenario, they can resign if they are winning. In my scenario, there are checks and balances for abuse so we can limit C&A cases.
What exactly is the problem with that, you want to encourage abuse and make it easier?

[Metsfanmax]

In your scenario, they can resign if they are winning.

Someone can already "resign" if they are winning. They just have to stop taking turns for a few days. So this doesn't introduce unique harm that didn't already exist. The idea is that probably the only time you'd resign when you're winning is if you want to point dump. Well, maybe you can argue that people can resign a lot faster than they deadbeat, so it makes it harder for the C&A team. But we already thought of this and accounted for it -- in the original proposal I put in the staff lounge, you could only resign once per day. So it would be very difficult to have an extended point dumping session through resignations.

[IcePack]

In your scenario, they can resign if they are winning.

Someone can already "resign" if they are winning. They just have to stop taking turns for a few days. So this doesn't introduce unique harm that didn't already exist. The idea is that probably the only time you'd resign when you're winning is if you want to point dump. Well, maybe you can argue that people can resign a lot faster than they deadbeat, so it makes it harder for the C&A team. But we already thought of this and accounted for it -- in the original proposal I put in the staff lounge, you could only resign once per day. So it would be very difficult to have an extended point dumping session through resignations.

So deadbeating once per day is an acceptable limit for you?

[Metsfanmax]

In your scenario, they can resign if they are winning.

Someone can already "resign" if they are winning. They just have to stop taking turns for a few days. So this doesn't introduce unique harm that didn't already exist. The idea is that probably the only time you'd resign when you're winning is if you want to point dump. Well, maybe you can argue that people can resign a lot faster than they deadbeat, so it makes it harder for the C&A team. But we already thought of this and accounted for it -- in the original proposal I put in the staff lounge, you could only resign once per day. So it would be very difficult to have an extended point dumping session through resignations.

So deadbeating once per day is an acceptable limit for you?

The site-acceptable deadbeating limit is whatever it is. If people want to deadbeat there's already nothing built-in to the site stopping them from doing so. Perhaps you'd like to make a suggestion so that someone can never be kicked out of a game through missing turns? After all, the current system can be abused by people intentionally stopping playing their turns. If you support the status quo, you're basically asking for them to abuse it. Or maybe you'd compromise, and say that we can have an option so that the opposing player can refuse to allow you to deadbeat out of the game?

With that in mind, surely we can do better. You know how some people effectively quit by just dropping their troops and ending their turn? We should not allow that, it's basically begging for abuse by allowing people to concede the game. Maybe we should force them to have to attack once per turn, or require them to spend at least three minutes on their turn before ending it. Or maybe the opposing player can check a box determining whether you played your turn seriously enough to be able to continue.

[IcePack]

In your scenario, they can resign if they are winning.

Someone can already "resign" if they are winning. They just have to stop taking turns for a few days. So this doesn't introduce unique harm that didn't already exist. The idea is that probably the only time you'd resign when you're winning is if you want to point dump. Well, maybe you can argue that people can resign a lot faster than they deadbeat, so it makes it harder for the C&A team. But we already thought of this and accounted for it -- in the original proposal I put in the staff lounge, you could only resign once per day. So it would be very difficult to have an extended point dumping session through resignations.

So deadbeating once per day is an acceptable limit for you?

The site-acceptable deadbeating limit is whatever it is. If people want to deadbeat there's already nothing built-in to the site stopping them from doing so. Perhaps you'd like to make a suggestion so that someone can never be kicked out of a game through missing turns? After all, the current system can be abused by people intentionally stopping playing their turns. If you support the status quo, you're basically asking for them to abuse it. Or maybe you'd compromise, and say that we can have an option so that the opposing player can refuse to allow you to deadbeat out of the game?

With that in mind, surely we can do better. You know how some people effectively quit by just dropping their troops and ending their turn? We should not allow that, it's basically begging for abuse by allowing people to concede the game. Maybe we should force them to have to attack once per turn, or require them to spend at least three minutes on their turn before ending it. Or maybe the opposing player can check a box determining whether you played your turn seriously enough to be able to continue.

Can't respond if you keep editing and adding shit mets. Come on. You're right. We should allow as many people to deadbeat as they want right. We should do the same with resign. Hell, get rid of the round 10 limit too. Theres nothing to stop someone from deadbeating in 3 rounds, so why put it for your resign function?

Its because they aren't the same, and we can discuss one without it being compared with the other. Thats why. Which is why the idea to allow someone to reject an obviously stupid "resignation" isn't so stupid as you like to make it sound.

I get it, you aren't a fan of the idea. I know my position isn't the popular one in the room with basically everyone else arguing for something. I'm also the only one not patting themselves on the back and trying to find a compromise, trying to point out the fact that its not being tested, etc instead of testing one of two games by a handful of people and saying its cleared beta testing. (for the record, there was never a thread in beta area on the "feature" until I brought it up here. It still only has 9 views and zero posts about the ongoing testing or organizing. It still doesn't have an official description on how its supposed to work, only one from one of the people testing their own idea)

So yeah...maybe before we keep pushing for 24 hour expansion you know we sort out the shit fest thats already here? Just a thought.

[Metsfanmax]

I get it, you aren't a fan of the idea. I know my position isn't the popular one in the room with basically everyone else arguing for something. I'm also the only one not patting themselves on the back and trying to find a compromise, trying to point out the fact that its not being tested, etc instead of testing one of two games by a handful of people and saying its cleared beta testing. (for the record, there was never a thread in beta area on the "feature" until I brought it up here. It still only has 9 views and zero posts about the ongoing testing or organizing. It still doesn't have an official description on how its supposed to work, only one from one of the people testing their own idea)

So yeah...maybe before we keep pushing for 24 hour expansion you know we sort out the shit fest thats already here? Just a thought.

Your position isn't popular because you are complaining about it not being tested but not actually volunteering to help test it yourself.

[IcePack]

I get it, you aren't a fan of the idea. I know my position isn't the popular one in the room with basically everyone else arguing for something. I'm also the only one not patting themselves on the back and trying to find a compromise, trying to point out the fact that its not being tested, etc instead of testing one of two games by a handful of people and saying its cleared beta testing. (for the record, there was never a thread in beta area on the "feature" until I brought it up here. It still only has 9 views and zero posts about the ongoing testing or organizing. It still doesn't have an official description on how its supposed to work, only one from one of the people testing their own idea)

So yeah...maybe before we keep pushing for 24 hour expansion you know we sort out the shit fest thats already here? Just a thought.

Your position isn't popular because you are complaining about it not being tested but not actually volunteering to help test it yourself.

Actually, the popularity of my suggestion has nothing to do with testing. But thanks there mets, good try.

My comment about testing is because i used to (past tense) be involved and know what it takes, and know its not being done for this.
I also stopped testing, meaning, even if it was something I liked I wouldn't be involved. But i dont support this suggestion, so why would I help push it through?
If you want it, go test it. Make sure it doesn't f*ck everything else up. That should be on the people in charge (beta guy is MIA) or the people trying to rush a suggestion through.
So...yeah, next?

[Metsfanmax]

@Donelladan -- can you check whether the one-per-day restriction was part of what's on the beta site? If not, we should probably add that. It was something the Suggestions/Features team agreed was a good idea when we originally pushed for this back in 2013.

[Donelladan]

@Donelladan -- can you check whether the one-per-day restriction was part of what's on the beta site? If not, we should probably add that. It was something the Suggestions/Features team agreed was a good idea when we originally pushed for this back in 2013.

It is not on the beta site.

But I don't think allowing only 1 resignation per turn make sense at the moment because the resign button will be implemented only for speed games.
Therefore the resign button cannot be abused as you are imagining in speed game.

If ( when ?) the resign button is implemented for 24h, it might be that a limit on the number of games you can resign make sense.


@IcePack, I posted it myself in the beta forum, but this is official :


Conditions for this button to appears are :

• 2 Player games only
• Round must be 10 or higher (for the resign button to appear)
• Must be Trench and speed (except on beta, for testing purposes, this condition has been waived)

And just to be clear on my position, I support your idea IcePack, I think for 24h games it makes sense that the resignation has to be accepted by the opponent. It would be a better choice than limiting resignation to 1 per day in order to prevent abuse.
And I am quite sure most people would not refuse a resignation, only total dick would do that, just have to foe them once to be done with it

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Do people actually play trench and speed? Why would you combine a fast paced game with a slow format?

[IcePack]

Thanks don

[Metsfanmax]

@Donelladan -- can you check whether the one-per-day restriction was part of what's on the beta site? If not, we should probably add that. It was something the Suggestions/Features team agreed was a good idea when we originally pushed for this back in 2013.

It is not on the beta site.

But I don't think allowing only 1 resignation per turn make sense at the moment because the resign button will be implemented only for speed games.
Therefore the resign button cannot be abused as you are imagining in speed game.

You should be careful when saying something cannot be abused; people are creative, and not always in a good way. In principle there is nothing stopping someone from creating a ton of speed games that are joined by a multi, and then having all of them be resigned once you reach round 10, in the same way that this could be done for casual games. Would anyone want to do that? I don't know, but I suppose it's possible.

[Donelladan]

You should be careful when saying something cannot be abused; people are creative, and not always in a good way. In principle there is nothing stopping someone from creating a ton of speed games that are joined by a multi, and then having all of them be resigned once you reach round 10, in the same way that this could be done for casual games. Would anyone want to do that? I don't know, but I suppose it's possible.

It might be abused, but I don't think what you just described would ever happen.
If I want to win a lot of points, I create tons of 1vs1 game with a multi and let the multi deadbeat.
It's way more efficient than creating ton of games and playing 20 turns ( 10 for me, 10 for my multi) then making the multi resign !


Also, you suggested only 1 resignation per 24h to avoid someone deciding to drop a lot of points, if I got you correctly.
For 24h games, this would work, but for speed game, it's useless, because if someone want to lose a lot of points they can as well just deadbeat them. Works very well.
That's why I think preventing people to resign more than 1 speed game a day make no sense.

Also for 24h games, you may have a lot of them ongoing at the same time, like a 100. Ii you decide to resign all of them at once, you'll lose a tons of points.
But speed game, you can't have more than 3 ongoing at the same time, and play them effectively, so preventing you to resign all of them in the same day is, imo, kind of useless.