Conquer Club

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

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

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

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

SirSebstar wrote:but yea, pro tip, do not play trench in hives

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

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

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

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

ender516 wrote:If over six years of discussion has not changed lack's mind on this topic, you had better have an amazing argument if you think can now. Have you read the whole of this topic? Have you got a new benefit of a surrender button which would override the cost of the abuse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

ender516 wrote:I don't see why anyone willing to put up with the slow pace of a trench game would not be able to tough out the end of the game. It is possible to speed the end of a casual (24 hr) game by agreeing to play it "in real time", that is, by finding a mutually agreeable time for the remaining players to be online and take their turns rapidly.

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

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

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

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

Good point.

sometimes life gets in the middle, you know? for an online gaming site/community, you sure are reluctant to change.... dont you feel like burning books, or hunting down witches? the world is flat, right?

agentcom wrote:

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

Good point.

This is essentially an admission that this feature would add great utility to CC. Perhaps people should not be playing speed trench games... but even if that is the case, it proves that there are some great advantages to having a forfeit button - one, namely, is that people would be able to play speed trench games.

Like I said before, great enjoyment/utility potential to this proposal, at virtually no cost to site enjoyability.

I've played several online games with some sort of "quit" option, and it absolutely makes for a less enjoyable experience when your opponent quits in the middle of the game.

drunkmonkey wrote:I've played several online games with some sort of "quit" option, and it absolutely makes for a less enjoyable experience when your opponent quits in the middle of the game.

This is understandable. However, this cannot happen if resignation requires the consent of all parties. Alternatively, those who wish not to risk a person resigning can create a game without the option if it is made an option.

Stoney229 wrote:

agentcom wrote:

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

Good point.

This is essentially an admission that this feature would add great utility to CC. Perhaps people should not be playing speed trench games... but even if that is the case, it proves that there are some great advantages to having a forfeit button - one, namely, is that people would be able to play speed trench games.

Like I said before, great enjoyment/utility potential to this proposal, at virtually no cost to site enjoyability.

Errr ... nope. People already have the ability to play speed, trench games. Just like with any speed game setting, however, they have to take into account whether they have the time to finish those games. Yes, this may allow more users to have time to finish those types of games (and hence, start them), but the argument is that this benefit is outweighed by the disadvantages.

agentcom wrote:

Stoney229 wrote:

agentcom wrote:

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

Good point.

This is essentially an admission that this feature would add great utility to CC. Perhaps people should not be playing speed trench games... but even if that is the case, it proves that there are some great advantages to having a forfeit button - one, namely, is that people would be able to play speed trench games.

Like I said before, great enjoyment/utility potential to this proposal, at virtually no cost to site enjoyability.

Errr ... nope. People already have the ability to play speed, trench games. Just like with any speed game setting, however, they have to take into account whether they have the time to finish those games. Yes, this may allow more users to have time to finish those types of games (and hence, start them), but the argument is that this benefit is outweighed by the disadvantages.

I was basing my argument off the quote's assertion that people should not be playing speed trench games since they might not be able to finish. Either way, the proposal allows greater enjoyability of the game or more gametype options. The cost only comes in a few people's scores being artificially inflated. That does not affect how much a person can enjoy the games they play. Why is there even a comparison?

Concise description:

• An option to resign in trench 1vs1 games

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Seems pretty obvious to me, especially for speed games

Also, this might be a good idea for team games like 2vs2, 3vs3 and 4vs4.

Well, in team games this would raise the question of what happens to all your land when you resign. Do your spoils go away? If your teammates can benefit in any way from you resigning, it will probably get abused.

maxfaraday wrote:Concise description:

• An option to resign in trench 1vs1 games

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Seems pretty obvious to me, especially for speed games

Also, this might be a good idea for team games like 2vs2, 3vs3 and 4vs4.

It seems to me that if you're unwilling to muddle through a trench game to the conclusion, you probably shouldn't be playing trench games to begin with. I would suggest not playing trench games rather than opening up an avenue for abuse.

Another topic MERGED. Searching is your friend.

agentcom wrote:Another topic MERGED. Searching is your friend.

Did you take the time to read my suggestion or did you immediately merged it when you saw "resign" in the title?

I know it has been suggested before and always rejected.

What I suggest concerns ONLY 1vs1 trench games;
-no abuse possible (apart from sd and multis but that's already forbidden so...)
-no waste of time when the outcome of the game is already known

maxfaraday wrote:What I suggest concerns ONLY 1vs1 trench games;
-no abuse possible (apart from sd and multis but that's already forbidden so...)
-no waste of time when the outcome of the game is already known

please read bottom line of post #1

Marvaddin wrote:Note from Sully/TFO:

A surrender button has been suggested and rejected many times. In fact, this site used to have a surrender button but it was abused and hence the button was removed. This thread is a complilation of over 100 threads of people asking for Surrender Buttons or Resign Boxes or Forfeit Flags and the exasperated rejections of handfuls of moderators. It's not going to happen.

If you insist on wasting time by starting a unique thread, I insist you read through this one first to be certain your idea has not already been rejected.

No, it won't be added for certain game types either.

ANOTHER suggestion for a surrender button (option). Help eliminate abuse:

1. Have all surrendered territories revert back to neutral.
2. Keep stats of players' "surrenders" separate from losses. Show times surrendered and percentage.
3. Make it cost double the points of a loss. (i.e. if a player was going to lose 15 points, a surrender makes it 30 points.)
4. Only allow a maximum number of surrenders per year. If you were able to program 50 per year for a paying member.
5. You have to be a paying member to get "surrender option".

What do you think?

what part of N O do you struggle to understand?

greenoaks wrote:what part of N O do you struggle to understand?

Greenoaks, I agree that this is never going to happen, but I do appreciate that we can at least talk about this in the appropriate place--here--as opposed to someone writing up a new suggestion that will just have to be merged here. Save your sarcasm for those who deserve it (those who don't try to find an on-point suggestion).

agentcom wrote:

greenoaks wrote:what part of N O do you struggle to understand?

Greenoaks, I agree that this is never going to happen, but I do appreciate that we can at least talk about this in the appropriate place--here--as opposed to someone writing up a new suggestion that will just have to be merged here. Save your sarcasm for those who deserve it (those who don't try to find an on-point suggestion).

I'm against of the surrender button, but what Bobafett43 is kind of interesting, mostly

3. Make it cost double the points of a loss. (i.e. if a player was going to lose 15 points, a surrender makes it 30 points.)

Also the others are interesting (Except for 2 & 4 to be together). But I'm sure that if that was applied at the time we had the surrender button, I'm sure it wouldn't have been abused, but aslo I'm wondering who would use this option(and more if its only for premium), apart from long games but now we have round limits, or people who wants to get down the score.

I also suppose that the winner gets double points, that means if there's a game where it's practically my win, I'll take you hostage of that game so you surrender and I get double points... definetly not a good idea altoguh interesting

Also let's me wonder if this idea respects the philosophy behind the current score system.

This morning I was listening to some guy's lecture on WWI and WWII and he described why France surrendered early in WWII. Basically he said it was because the French had learned from WWI experience that going to war was highly damaging, expensive, and generally ended without any real benefit, so when WWII rolled around, they opted to just surrended, trying to minimize damage.

That made me think that Conquer Club should have some kind of surrended move (which could be an optional game setting).

So just like Fog or Trench, when you set up a game or search for one, you choose Surrender? Yes or No and check the Yes or No box.

If Surrender is available in a game, then at the beginning of your turn (or end, haven't thought through all the details and ramifications yet), you could make the decisions to Surrender or not.

If you choose to Surrender, all your cards are forfeited, your territories either get randomly redistributed to the opponents or revert to some form of neutral setting, and you lose half the points you otherwise would have if the game had legitimately ended at that same moment.

So say your ranking is 1200, and you're playing someone else whose ranking is 2400 in a 2-player game. Normally if you lose, you would lose 1200/2400 * 20 = 10 points. But if Surrender is an option, and you elect to Surrender, then the game ends and you lose 5 points to them right then and there.

To make the points work in a multi-player game, you apply a similar calc. Say you are playing a 4-player game and your ranking is 1200. Two opponents rankings are 2400, and the third opponent has a ranking of 1200. If at some point you decide to enact the Surrender option, right then and there you lose the average number of points you would have lost if you had individually surrendered to each opponent in a 1 vs 1 game. That means you would lose 1/2 * 1/3 * ( 1200/2400 * 20 + 1200/2400*20 + 1200/1200*20) = 6.67 points, which would ordinarily round to 7 points. But because we have to distribute whole numbers of points to the other 3 players, I'd propose that rather than each opponent getting 7/3 = 2.33 points which rounds down to 2, that when you Surrender, that number is always rounded up, so each opponent gets 3 points, and you lose 9 total.

Some of you might recognize that in the game of blackjack, there is a move [only in some casinos, it has been removed from many of them in order to increase the house edge] called Surrender in which you simply forfeit half your bet to the dealer and your involvement in that hand ends.

The points adjudication (i.e. losing half what you normally would) was inspired by that.

Point 1: This forum is for suggestions regarding "tools": add-ons, plug-ins and scripts which are created outside the CC site. Your suggestion would require the site to make a modification, so it should be in the Suggestions forum: viewforum.php?f=4&start=0.
Point 2: The idea of any type of surrender feature for the site was long ago rejected: the feature existed, it was abused, and it was removed, never to be reinstated. Check the Archived Rejected Suggestions forum: viewforum.php?f=471&start=0.