[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[yeti_c]

This coupled with a "make speed games casual" thing would definitely solve a few of the issues people have with speed games & deadlock.

C.

[Gen. Ripper]

Would prefer the time/turn be 18 hours instead of 24.

[scottp]

Concise description:

• Improve game experience by incentivizing uninterested players to resign, if they've already chosen to, or must, skip their remaining turns.

Specifics:

• Deadbeating is my main complaint since I found/joined this site. It's frustrating waiting days for players to time out. Players should be penalized for deadbeating. Yes, it could be unavoidable, but over a large number of games, dedicated, considerate players will find themselves deadbeating much less than haphazard, thoughtless players.
• Players should have the option to resign if they know they won't/can't finish a game, thereby saving the remaining players 24 hour waits. There should be a slight penalty for resigning, but a smaller penalty than for deadbeating.
• Yes, there are "legitimate reasons" for missing turns. If someone is, for example called away on business and knows they won't be able to play their turns, they can resign, thereby reducing their penalty and saving the other players a lot of time. Everyone wins! Feedback is an insufficient tool to discourage deadbeating. The arguments that "sometime it's unavoidable" and "players know whether the reason was a good one or not, and will leave feedback appropriately" are somewhat contradictory. If a person is SUDDENLY called away or put in a situation where they can't finish a game, then it's also likely they will not be able to post their reason in game chat. Unexplained absences are not necessarily any more or less justifiable than explained absences. Players who care about their rank and play a large number of games will have low numbers of deadbeat or resignation losses. They will be affected by this MUCH LESS than haphazard undedicated players.
• This would encourage players who are in a game that they can't/won't finish, or have decided they don't want to play in anymore to: (in order of preference that I think we ALL agree on)
  1) play out remaining turns, anyway, to avoid any penalty beyond the loss of points that comes with losing a game
  2) resign at a small cost, saving the others time, and lastly
  3) deadbeat, at a larger cost than resigning
• The penalty could be applied in multiple ways, open for discussion and the decision of management:
  1) Points deducted from score
  2) Track/maintain stats on deadbeating and resignations, use these as tie-breakers for site score rankings
  3) Report deadbeating/resignation stats alongside a player's feedback

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• speeds play
• incentivizes players to play out their remaining turns, avoiding large blocks of newly created "neutral player" territories on the map

[n00blet]

viewtopic.php?t=1754

always check lack's to-do list before posting "new" ideas.

[scottp]

I read that. I don't see my suggestion as a repeat.

A surrender button by itself is one thing.

A comprehensive "program" to improve the game - including penalties for deadbeating, and an option to forfeit (at whatever point in the game, not just when it's down to 2 players, as in the rejected thread you cited) at a reduced penalty - is a far cry from "just a surrender button".

I think my idea has merit, and I know my experience here is reduced in quality because of the 24 hour wait for a player who is clearly not going to use his turn. 100% of players who are not me may agree that it's a bad idea... and that's okay. But it's NOT the same as the suggestion you referenced.

I hope to spend a lot of time here in the future, that's why I paid to join. I just HOPE I'll be spending more time playing my turns and less time waiting for my turn to come around...

[Thezzaruz]

A comprehensive "program" to improve the game - including penalties for deadbeating, and an option to forfeit (at whatever point in the game, not just when it's down to 2 players, as in the rejected thread you cited) at a reduced penalty - is a far cry from "just a surrender button".

There have been loads more ideas on the subject and all have been rejected, partly because of the possibility of abuse.

And you opinion of "Players should be penalized for deadbeating" is very different from the official stance. You are welcome to an opinion but I can't see you having any success of getting it implemented tbh.

[lancehoch]

[*]incentivizes players to play out their remaining turns, avoiding large blocks of newly created "neutral player" territories on the map

How does this occur. If people who would normally deadbeat are now going to resign instead, are you going to reset territory counts?
Also, beyond the fact that this is open for abuse. What about a freemium player (like myself) who is in a game that is being dragged on. I might want to just resign the game and eat the few extra points so that I have a game slot open to join a new game. This takes away from someone else's enjoyment because they are not allowed the chance to kill me and win fairly. This idea has been brought up so many times and rejected every time just due to the abuse, but there are other reasons behind this as well.

[scottp]

I hear you guys and bow to your experience here. Thanks for reading my suggestion, and giving your thoughtful counterpoints.

I really think deadbeating should be disincentivized somehow, regardless of the current official stance. Maybe I'm just impatient.

And I admit, I never thought of the resign option being used as a way to get around the 4 game limit for free players.

I am a new member, so I guess it's not surprising if I have "retread" ideas that have been considered more fully and thus rejected. However, I am convinced that if SOMETHING could be done to reduce the frequency of deadbeating, this place would be even more enjoyable.

Cheers, and I hope to get to kick your butts someday!

[jiminski]

New poll on Voter Anonymity

[jiminski]

I know you are all polishing your medals and working out how to score a mate a '4' without mortally offending them!.. but when the dust settles and you all 4.99 Michelin stars for being a nearly perfect guy, there will still be stalemates!

[MeDeFe]

Jim (and others), I've been in quite a few buildgames, but I have never experienced a true stalemate, there's always a way out. You don't have to eliminate someone to open it or suicide, a relatively small attack is usually enough to get things moving. I really do not see the need for calling it a draw and then playing a second game for the points of those unfortunate ones who were eliminated early.
Diplomacy is as much a part of this game as strategy, why not use it then if you're in a situation like this? The proposed system is open for abuse and, as I see it, completely unnecessary.

[jiminski]

Jim (and others), I've been in quite a few buildgames, but I have never experienced a true stalemate, there's always a way out. You don't have to eliminate someone to open it or suicide, a relatively small attack is usually enough to get things moving. I really do not see the need for calling it a draw and then playing a second game for the points of those unfortunate ones who were eliminated early.
Diplomacy is as much a part of this game as strategy, why not use it then if you're in a situation like this? The proposed system is open for abuse and, as I see it, completely unnecessary.

heheheheh MeD, Either you have read the thread and are taking the piss and if not, piss of and read the thread..

[Soloman]

Jim (and others), I've been in quite a few buildgames, but I have never experienced a true stalemate, there's always a way out. You don't have to eliminate someone to open it or suicide, a relatively small attack is usually enough to get things moving. I really do not see the need for calling it a draw and then playing a second game for the points of those unfortunate ones who were eliminated early.
Diplomacy is as much a part of this game as strategy, why not use it then if you're in a situation like this? The proposed system is open for abuse and, as I see it, completely unnecessary.

heheheheh MeD, Either you have read the thread and are taking the piss and if not, piss of and read the thread..

He knows the truth of the matter stalemate only exists in the minds of those who support this idea...besides him this thread was dead any ways...

[jiminski]

thanks for the bump Soli

[FabledIntegral]

Jim (and others), I've been in quite a few buildgames, but I have never experienced a true stalemate, there's always a way out. You don't have to eliminate someone to open it or suicide, a relatively small attack is usually enough to get things moving. I really do not see the need for calling it a draw and then playing a second game for the points of those unfortunate ones who were eliminated early.
Diplomacy is as much a part of this game as strategy, why not use it then if you're in a situation like this? The proposed system is open for abuse and, as I see it, completely unnecessary.

But those small attacks don't benefit you - once again you're suggesting that in order to get things moving, someone has to take *some* sort of dive. This time of necessity detracts from the spirit of the game, and involves singling someone out for elimination. For example, it would require people to work together to eliminate someone, aka "if you attack this person here I'll attack him here," etc. That's nothing more than ganging up.

[jiminski]

Yeah in addition to Fables explanation (i was not treating you out of hand MeD .. if you read the thread you will get the 'joke' 50% of this thread has been spent nursing Soloman on the same point)

I understand what you both mean .. however and talking specifically with regard to high Ranking escalator (although gridlock occurs in other forms too!); there are situations which arise where you can not make a kill to collect cards (which is the whole point of the escs) as to do so would be suicide; the cash value is not sufficient to protect you from the next player for example and you can not enter into domino chain of kills.
In effect you have opened the game for the next player to cash and win!

So by 'some' definitions this is not a stalemate and if we go back to the founding etymological root of the word and its basis in Chess, this is not a stalemate (but if English were so inflexible; Soloman would only represent the shortened version of Richard)
However, as to make attack is suicide and would hand the game to another a very real stalemate sometimes comes to fruition. Now strictly as someone could suicide and give the game up there is a way out but a ridiculous one and one we should waste no more time discussing!

'Diplomacy'
The reason that we play the Escalator games, is to avoid Ganging up, victimisation and the general bitching and sniping involved in reaching a 'diplomatic' resolution. (that may be for some but i hate that part of the game... personally it lessens me as a human being!)

However what we do do, in the way of diplomacy, is to agree on a fair way to end the game. What this thread is trying to do is automate one of the solutions which the players on the site have found.

Regarding abuse, Yeti's amendments have pretty much precluded the abuse factor. It means that there is no benefit to voting for the 'Freeze game' option other than ending a never-ending game .. or stalemate

[AAFitz]

This is fine, but it has to be an option at the beginning of a game...

the option to stalemate will fundamentally change the game strategy from the beginning, so there needs to be an option for those who prefer to let the game play out, no matter what, or how long, and those who simply dont want to be bothered with long games

[yeti_c]

This is fine, but it has to be an option at the beginning of a game...

the option to stalemate will fundamentally change the game strategy from the beginning, so there needs to be an option for those who prefer to let the game play out, no matter what, or how long, and those who simply dont want to be bothered with long games

But how do you know whether it'll be a stalemate at the beginning of the game?

C.

[AAFitz]

its not practical, but a stalemate option button.... in card games it might not be necessary, but in no cards, it would be essential... if theres a possibility of everyone just quitting with no points, it almost ruins the whole idea of a no cards game to begin with..

with flat rate or escalating, it probably wouldnt affect too many.

Problem is, this is a messy suggestion, and having an option would be even more so, but I striving to protect the no cards, no end in site game, that while many hate with a passion... others play with passion. Its the way the game was meant to be played. Allowing people to get out of it with no point dispersal is like making a bet, and having no stakes... it is no longer a bet.

[FabledIntegral]

This is fine, but it has to be an option at the beginning of a game...

the option to stalemate will fundamentally change the game strategy from the beginning, so there needs to be an option for those who prefer to let the game play out, no matter what, or how long, and those who simply dont want to be bothered with long games

No it won't. The option to stalemate will have utterly no effect on game strategy.

[oaktown]

there is nothing I would like to see more around here than a way to move out of stalemates (I'm stuck in half a dozen right now), but the suggestion at the top of this thread seems a bit too complex. It'd be far simpler to just have way to change a flat rate or no card game to an escalating cards game. The vote should have to be unanimous, as well as anonymous, and the set value should start at a low number (four?) so there's no advantage to the player who happens to take his turn after the switch-over.

It could even be coded so that this option isn't available until the game hits 100 rounds... let folks play it out for a while before changing the landscape.

[jiminski]

there is nothing I would like to see more around here than a way to move out of stalemates (I'm stuck in half a dozen right now), but the suggestion at the top of this thread seems a bit too complex. It'd be far simpler to just have way to change a flat rate or no card game to an escalating cards game. The vote should have to be unanimous, as well as anonymous, and the set value should start at a low number (four?) so there's no advantage to the player who happens to take his turn after the switch-over.

It could even be coded so that this option isn't available until the game hits 100 rounds... let folks play it out for a while before changing the landscape.

It has to be unanimous and anonymous, that is a given!.. and due to this, if someone does not wish to get out of the game they don't have to.

I don't quite see why it is more complex than changing from no cards or flat rate to esc. though? perhaps you could explain please?

To Fitz.. i know what you mean about the dead game and my original suggestion was based upon a carrying and doubling of the points for the winner of the replacement game. This however would be subject to abuse, so we moved after discussion to Yetis refinement.

but a 'messy' bloody suggestion!? sheeshe, i think it is so elegant you could put a sock down its pants and call it a ballet dancer.. so explain yourself this minute Michael Sean Fitzpatrick snr!! (cue: richard soloman)

[yeti_c]

there is nothing I would like to see more around here than a way to move out of stalemates (I'm stuck in half a dozen right now), but the suggestion at the top of this thread seems a bit too complex. It'd be far simpler to just have way to change a flat rate or no card game to an escalating cards game. The vote should have to be unanimous, as well as anonymous, and the set value should start at a low number (four?) so there's no advantage to the player who happens to take his turn after the switch-over.

It could even be coded so that this option isn't available until the game hits 100 rounds... let folks play it out for a while before changing the landscape.

Hmmm -> Methinks you need to goto this thread too viewtopic.php?f=4&t=50629

C.

[jiminski]

So we have no input at the moment... is it because we have perfected the idea and this should be implemented immediately?

[Androidz]

A Stalemate, could be a good idea for none Premies. Since it can end a game which take forever to end.

As i understand if one player don't want this stalemate the game continue so its just an option.

A Stalemate gives the remaining player a share of the points of the ones who lost.

I would like to have this expanision.xD (Im a None PremiexD)