Conquer Club

In the map I'm currently working on, I wanted to place a feature that would allow players to surrender (We all have games where we have no chance of winning).
But I'm finding that this is something that CC is opposed to because of fear that it would be abused by players wanting to point dump or throw games.

My question is, if given the ability, would you favor or oppose a surrender button.

Please comment on the reason(s) you would like or dislike this feature.

Also, if you have a moment, check out my latest project. All input is important in the direction of this map.
viewtopic.php?f=241&t=86422

Thanks - Elijah

I really like the idea of a surrender tactic, it would definitely change the strategy of the game. Maybe others will use this in upcoming maps as well.

There's another RISK site online, it's quite shabby looking, sometimes as little as only 4-5 people on it at a time and sometimes they're not even at their computer. This game is completely mouse-click based. You join a game, wait for others when they join the game starts, you have 60 seconds to do your move and it moves onto the next person.

The reason this site doesn't do good? People join, they don't get a good start or someone attacks them that they hoped wouldn't. They simply exit the game and join another leaving 2 or 3 players left in the game to play it out.

I really like that in "ConquerClub" you are forced to play your game out to completion. There isn't that temptation to try something radical in hopes of getting lucky without thought because you know that you are in the game till it ends so you might as well do everything you can to play the best game you can.

In games that you feel you can't win... you are not the only one playing. You join a game for a solid performance don't you? You want to have a good competitive match against an opponent with the outcome preferably being your victory. Your opponent wants the same thing. To be able to surrender because you feel you cannot win is to take a fast way out of what you consider to be an "annoying" commitment. You're not thinking about winning or competing anymore, you just want the game to end so that you can play in games where you are doing better.

To the player who has the temporary advantage, this could severely damage their experience as well. Games can go up and down and while you may join a game feeling extremely pessimistic after a single round, your opponent still wants a fresh, competitive stimulating game. It's one thing to feel that you're the underdog and can't win... it's another to just be able to end the game because you fall behind and on the mirror effect, as soon as your opponent takes an advantage, the game ends. Sure they'll get points but they are robbed of the experience of the fight.

A few examples to think about?

- You join a 1 vs 1 game on classic shapes... your opponent gets to move first and has Africa from the start. Maybe be begins to attack elsewhere, maybe he just makes Africa even more solid. You may deploy, try to break it and fail, how often do you believe people would just surrender?

- You are playing a game and your opponent has 50% of australia while you have 50% of South America, your opponent moves first taking Australia with success and you move second killing the first 3 but only succeeding to bring his final 3 down to a 2. You now have 1 on each of your South American territs and your opponent has australia's bonus to deploy on his remaining 2 which will give him 7 men to attack your 3. After round 2, your opponent now has australia and south america.

With this current game type, you would either continue trying to regain South america, you might try to break australia, you might try to set up some sort of extra assault. With the new surrender rule proposed, as soon as your opponent outmatches you in South America because of your failed attack to take it, you can (and many will) simply cut your losses, "leave the game" and join another game hoping to have a better start.

I believe in current games as is, you have the similar effect of the constant attacking. Someone tries to break a bonus, fails, becomes disheartened and just attacks anything and everything that they can leaving a string of 1s. Some non-motivated players will just build and build on 1 territ until they are killed off. But even at that... the player with the advantage still has to hunt for the win.

Jasmine.

I agree, although it should be called the Resign button, not Surrender

I disagree with the idea of a surrender option, but if you're trying to tie it into a map idea, could you use something like the way objective wins work? I don't know if the XML will allow it, but if you have set starting points, and a territory next to each one, with a single neutral on it, where if you start you turn while holding it, you're eliminated, you could have a map-specific surrender option. Although, you would definitely run into a whole lot of people who didn't bother to read/understand the legend, and complain about losing.

There is a surrender tactic, it's called suiciding your armies at other players.

hoytdwow wrote:I agree, although it should be called the Resign button, not Surrender

Yes in some games I have found that people join and after a turn or two, just plain give up and don't play anymore, foricing the other people to wait days for the game to play out.

I think if you could resign from games, but it penalise your score on the site and also a limit to how many games you could resign from each week (say 3) would allow people to drop games if they didn't want to play it...

Or even a 'autoskip' option which if all other players have finished their turns, it automatical increments to the next turn if this opition is ticked, but that player is still playing. Thus it speeds the game up for the other players. Of course they still get kicked after two turns, but it allows them not to drag the game so to speak

Bob

Bob_1171st wrote:

hoytdwow wrote:I agree, although it should be called the Resign button, not Surrender

Yes in some games I have found that people join and after a turn or two, just plain give up and don't play anymore, foricing the other people to wait days for the game to play out.

I think if you could resign from games, but it penalise your score on the site and also a limit to how many games you could resign from each week (say 3) would allow people to drop games if they didn't want to play it...

Or even a 'autoskip' option which if all other players have finished their turns, it automatical increments to the next turn if this opition is ticked, but that player is still playing. Thus it speeds the game up for the other players. Of course they still get kicked after two turns, but it allows them not to drag the game so to speak

Bob

I would love the autoskip option, I hate deadbeating, but sometimes is has to come, like when I am forced to slave at school or maybe a hockey game. I don't like putting others through the pain of waiting through my turns.

Not this again surely. (i understand that it is part of a map Eli but surely this is just a backdoor operation to institute this universally)

'Surrender button', 'Quit button', 'Resign button', 'Roll-over I'm your buddy button', 'Sore loser button', 'Mincing Minnie button' - whatever the camouflaged terminology - it is wrong on so many levels.

here are a few:

- It is mean spirited, diminishing the glory of a players victory
- it is the perfect tool for the multi to quickly gain points
- It encourages early quitting when often the game is rescue-able
- It is mean-spirited (i put that in there twice as i thought is was quite important) and weak.


but on the whole go for it.. i think it would be a helpful addition to the site!

j hate the idea of a "i cant be arsed playing this game cos dice are poor" button
the site used to have one in the early days but was removed because of abuse then i think
now with an awful lot more members and quite a few idiots who make lots and lots of multis for petty reasons the surrender button would probably suffer that much abuse it would end up in a shelter

Yes, resigning from a game is so mean spirited and cowardly that even the world's greatest chess masters do it routinely.

Even one of the greatest games ever conceived by humans has a resign move. In chess, you're losing and don't feel you can win, you tip your king over and say, "I concede." Game over. Time saved. Set 'em up for another game.

A concede button is a good idea. How many games just linger at the end and go on and on and on?

hoytdwow wrote:Yes, resigning from a game is so mean spirited and cowardly that even the world's greatest chess masters do it routinely.

i am glad you admit that chess-players are generally mean-spirited, arrogant sociopaths with no class or empathy .. unless the pursuit of complete intellectual dominance is accepted as a form of empathy.

however, Chess is not a a good comparison as there is no element of chance .. other than heart-attack for the aging Grandmaster. They know they will lose long before they actually do.

In Risk, at the point where you know for sure, even with the most ludicrously streaky dice in history, that you will certainly lose, it is not long to wait. If it is a long time, you quit to early mate.

This option is exclusively for the mean-spirited quitter... and ailing Risk 'Grandmaster's' who can accurately postulate the exact return of the Random Dice generator orgasmatron machine, using their tongue to analyse fluctuations in atmospheric pressure etc.

Surrender button idea is a complete BS. Games with more then 2 players are highly corrolated with each players moves. Think of a 3 player sequential game. Player A - B - C. You are player B and player A made a defense line to protect himself both against you and player C. Then you quitted from game. Player C will strike on player A, will break his bonuses and will empty his own defense lines which he located to protect his lines against you and will fort them in player A's bonus zones he broke after your quitting. This is truely not a nice option.
Deadbeating, not nice one, but seems like to be a better way of leaving a game

How about a simple "Forfeit Turn" button. You do it three times in a row and you are out, as you would be if you deadbeated. Also, you would not be able to collect deferred armies on forfeited turns.

I've been in favour of a surrender button for countless months! It would be SO worthwhile.. Please search and revive some of the many threads about it in sugs and bugs!!

Rocket.

If you really want to surrender, attack neutrals and over-roll.

jiminski wrote:Not this again surely. (i understand that it is part of a map Eli but surely this is just a backdoor operation to institute this universally)

'Surrender button', 'Quit button', 'Resign button', 'Roll-over I'm your buddy button', 'Sore loser button', 'Mincing Minnie button' - whatever the camouflaged terminology - it is wrong on so many levels.

here are a few:

- It is mean spirited, diminishing the glory of a players victory
- it is the perfect tool for the multi to quickly gain points
- It encourages early quitting when often the game is rescue-able
- It is mean-spirited (i put that in there twice as i thought is was quite important) and weak.


but on the whole go for it.. i think it would be a helpful addition to the site!

Hear, hear!

I agree with this 100%! With that in mind I'd like to further emphasize the potential for abuse by posting a quote that I've specifically edited to reflect the most probable outcome of implementing this option.

Suzy1 (EDITED) wrote:I really like the idea of a surrender tactic, it would definitely change the strategy of the game for the worse. Maybe secret diplomats will use this in upcoming maps as well.

I haven't read this whole thing already, so maybe someone else said this. I could see people creating multi's and starting 50 1v1's. The abuse would be real easy. You could rack up a few thousand points in an hour.

There would be abuse of this button.

Who needs points? It only boosts your rank, not the fun of playing CC.

But, I support a surrender button although it does need alot of refining, I've been foed and rated badly these days when I'm needed, I do realise that I should plan my speed games better but besides the point is that a surrender button should come with heavy penalty.

:
When someone clicks the resign button, it must be approved by all players.

Georgerx7di wrote:I haven't read this whole thing already, so maybe someone else said this. I could see people creating multi's and starting 50 1v1's. The abuse would be real easy. You could rack up a few thousand points in an hour.

a very valid point that is one of the main reasons this will never happen on CC...-0

I envision a new form of attempted point farming. Freemie Farmers, would be the people who join 1v1 games against free members, hoping for them to surrender as soon as things look to be going against them. After all, with only 4 games at a time, why would someone stick around one they're probably going to lose?

I always thought that the "surrender button," was located around the lower pelvic area of a woman?

GENERAL STONEHAM wrote:I always thought that the "surrender button," was located around the lower pelvic area of a woman?

actually... that's just one of several distractions buttons that can be utilized just before a kill...