[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

by **Pedronicus** on Fri May 19, 2006 8:29 pm

its already an option. its the time bit that pisses me off... lets have it

We need more options when making a game... thats all

by **thegrimsleeper** on Sat May 20, 2006 3:11 am

Yeah, the wait is annoying, but it all comes back to the fact that the site was designed as a causal gaming experience. I know you know enough people that you could play games and never have to worry about deadbeats, so what's the problem?

by **Pedronicus** on Sat May 20, 2006 8:58 am

I started a 3 player game with two of my mates, and when i first looked at the board my heart sunk.

I was spread all over the place, with one friend in every territory bar one (that was me) in North America and my other friend in every territory bar one (that was me) in Africa.

I had 2 pieces in Oz, 3 in Europe and the rest dotted all over the place in Asia.

Now I'm not a quitter, but i could see that this game was never going to be won by me and i contemplated deadbeating it to preserve my leaderboard position.

Sure enough, I lost, and the guy who beat me had a very low score and i lost 32 points

There must be some people out there who have played enough games by now to know when its advantageous to not play.

Surely there comes a time in a regular CC players history that deadbeating becomes unavailable and this devious ploy is no longer an option.

Discuss please...

by **Derwiddle** on Sat May 20, 2006 12:43 pm

I've considered that sometimes as well... But then I remember how irritating it is when other people go deadbeat on me - so that always (hopefully) will keep me from doing it. :mrgreen:

by **wacicha** on Sat May 20, 2006 2:03 pm

I've finished 752 games I deadbeated not once I even went on an 8 day cruise and finished all the games i was in 2 days before cruise started after i got on cruse found out for $3 a minute i still could play but girlfriend said it might not be a good thing to do lol

by **Haydena** on Sat May 20, 2006 2:07 pm

Heh, I've played online games in a shopping centre in Scotland whilst on holiday before... However that's another story.

I never deadbeat, never have and never will... I know how much it pisses off other people, and don't see the point considering how hopelessly addicted to this game... I'll see every game out till the bitter end...

by **wcaclimbing** on Sat May 20, 2006 2:33 pm

i think people should still lose the points if they deadbeat that they would have lost if they got out of the game normally. that would keep people in their games and there would be much less high level deadbeating

by **UTGreen** on Sun May 21, 2006 12:31 am

The only time I've deadbeated (and I kinda felt bad about it, but not really) I had played my first turn in a team game, and then PMed my partner about strategy. He never responded, didn't play, had never played a game before, and I had fortified most of my pieces over to him already. So I didn't play again and even though I PMed him another time or two I never heard out of him and he didn't show up on CC again. Is that ethical?

I feel mildly bad, but I would have been playing me vs. 2 other teams of 2 and had already given up many of my armies. I felt bad for the others stuck in the game, but hey, I'm a big fan of adding the forfeit button and were it there I would have hit it, even if I would have lost the points. As it was, I forced the rest of the team to wait on me and my no-show partner for 144 hours and walked away unpunished in score. So if you want to berate me verbally I think that would be fair.

by **vanmaanj** on Wed May 24, 2006 11:10 am

**Rejection Reason**

**Removed Because Of Abuse, Will Not Be Coming Back**

I think there needs to be a surrender button for the last 2 people left in the game. Sometime there are moments where you know you are going to lose and you have to sit there and wait till the other person kills you.

by **kevinc** on Wed May 24, 2006 2:15 pm

Surrendering is for losers!!

by **ChaunceyMo** on Thu May 25, 2006 6:13 pm

It's very obvious that some people do what you described intentionally. Generally it's a (relatively) high rated player starting a game, who is fully active in other games they are playing, but mysteriously deadbeats when they find that their start is really poor. I've seen it happen in one six player sequential game, which was HORRIBLY annoying, because it made the first three turns take about a week. I think there needs to be a penalty, preferably a steep one, to discourage this.

Just having other players get the deadbeat's points would be bad, because it would promote very easy multiplaying to raise your score. A nice system, as wcaclimbing suggested already, would be for the deadbeat to lose the number of points (plus maybe a deadbeat penalty) they would've lost for losing the game, and just not have the other players get those points. They can go into the abyss. Then there'd be no advantage to deadbeating, so you'd at least stop some % of the deadbeats out there. And any improvement would be good... I'm about to swear off public games, particularly public team games, because somewhere around 1/3 to 1/2 of them end up with a deadbeat.

by **SonicStriker** on Sat May 27, 2006 5:52 pm

I agree with the surrender button, because let's say one person has all these continents and bonuses and is assured to win, but is not currently playing. The other two people, who would want to quit, would have to wait for the player to finish the game. This, in turn, would prevent them from playing any additional games if they had 4 games going (unless they were a member, in which case it wouldn't matter).

by **thegrimsleeper** on Sat May 27, 2006 5:54 pm

I've seen some pretty remarkable comebacks. Pushing a surrender button is selling yourself short.

by **Banana Stomper** on Sat May 27, 2006 6:13 pm

why not though. I wouldn't use it personally, but why not.

by **thegrimsleeper** on Sat May 27, 2006 6:42 pm

I'll tell you why not:

1. It's against the spirit of the game, which is kill or be killed. Not roll over and take one in the bum.

2. I know the rationale is that you will be saving yourself and others time, but honestly, if you've made it to the point where there's 3 people left in the game, and you're in such a poition that you feel you have no hope but to surrender, how much time are you really wasting? You can't wait another 24 hours?

3. Attacking as much as you can until you only have 1 army on each territory isn't hard (or time-consuming) to do, and it does things almost as effectively as a surrender button would.

4. The Cards. If you hit surrender, and you become neutral, your cards are lost. This was abused in the past for this reason, and it would be abused in the future if reinstated.

5. Multis. We had much less of a problem with multis (or at least so it seems) when the button was still a part of the site. If this were implemented now, with the multi situation being what it is, I guarantee multis will be wreaking even more havoc on our scoreboard.
[edit] This will make it even easier for multis to go undetected, because they will be able to play as seperate entities and just surrender at the end of the game, drawing less suspicion to themselves.

I could go on, but I think I'll just wrap things up by advising anyone who still thinks a surrender button is a good idea to search the forum for old threads regarding it. You'll see why we don't have one now, and likely never will again.

by **qeee1** on Sat May 27, 2006 6:48 pm

thegrimsleeper wrote:I'll tell you why not:

1. It's against the spirit of the game, which is kill or be killed. Not roll over and take one in the bum.

When did you change?

Are people talking about when there are two people left or three? Grim's point about multis is very valid though.

by **Marvaddin** on Sat May 27, 2006 6:58 pm

I believe we could have a way to get draws in some special conditions... It happened to me once in game 11817... By the game chat you can see... Me and vyvyan (now one of my partners) survived only because of our alliance. After eliminated the other players, we were both sad about have to kill the another, we would like a way where no one of us would lose points. So, maybe sometimes a draw would be good, but as its a hole to cheaters, maybe only a moderator could finish the game...

by **thegrimsleeper** on Sat May 27, 2006 7:11 pm

So maybe we could have a "Draw" button that would need everyone left in the game to work. You'd start your turn and it would say "Marvaddin wants to call it a draw." and you'd click ok, and then it would tell the other guy "Marvaddin and thegrimsleeper want to call it a draw." and the other guy would say:

Yes, and no one in the game would lose or gain points (even the people already eliminated), or

No, and we'd all have to keep fighting.

I'm not sure it'd get used too often, and it seems there may be a small amount of potential for abuse, but it's certainly a better idea than just a straight Surrender.

by **Marvaddin** on Sat May 27, 2006 7:17 pm

If no point taken of the eliminated, really low limit to abuse, but it would be never used, I believe... Im thinking about take points from eliminated players, and split them to survivors, but have a moderator to approve it... only approve due to game circunstances and after check the presence of multis.

by **thegrimsleeper** on Sat May 27, 2006 7:24 pm

Sounds like a really convoluted alternative to just taking out your opponent, which is what the game is all about. If you're taking points form anyone, even players already eliminated, then the chance for abuse is even greater. I doubt lack would ever approve either incarnation.

by **SonicStriker** on Sun May 28, 2006 8:24 am

thegrimsleeper wrote:I'll tell you why not:

2. I know the rationale is that you will be saving yourself and others time, but honestly, if you've made it to the point where there's 3 people left in the game, and you're in such a poition that you feel you have no hope but to surrender, how much time are you really wasting? You can't wait another 24 hours?
----
4. The Cards. If you hit surrender, and you become neutral, your cards are lost. This was abused in the past for this reason, and it would be abused in the future if reinstated.

5. Multis. We had much less of a problem with multis (or at least so it seems) when the button was still a part of the site. If this were implemented now, with the multi situation being what it is, I guarantee multis will be wreaking even more havoc on our scoreboard.
[edit] This will make it even easier for multis to go undetected, because they will be able to play as seperate entities and just surrender at the end of the game, drawing less suspicion to themselves.

The only reason I supported the surrender button is because it might be another way to save people time, but if there are any negative consequences of having it, like what thegrimsleeper mentions, then yes, another possible 24 hours of waiting is not unbearable.

by **pyro55** on Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:52 pm

i think it would be cool if after ur in a game if u dont like it u could somehow drop the game or somtin

--the true pyro

by **strike wolf** on Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:55 pm

Sounds like deadbeat talk to me.

by **pyro55** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:00 am

i think that was a little confusing so wut i meant is if someone is taking forever u can erase that game from ur my games list so u can go to another one

--the true pyro

by **AndyDufresne** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:02 am

There currently is no 'surrender' button, and most likely won't ever come back.

As for trying to get out of games, it is frowned upon to deadbeat, and you can gain many enemies that way. The most honorable thing you can do is simply play until you are defeated. Once you are eliminated from a game, it doesn't count toward your active game number, so you can start another up to the 4 game limit.

--Andy