[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[waseemalim]

speed games should have surrender options. Sometimes they last for too long and people have to leave and they just leave. The others are left waiting whole damn 5 mins.

In case you want to keep track of people who surrender. keep a track of how many games they surrender.

But have the option nonetheless. I think it adds an element of strategy and diplomacy to understand who might surrender and who may not.

[skryer]

I've played a lot of games here, largely 1v1, and what the game lacks in its current form is the 'deployment' phase of the original board game. As a result, almost all games I go first in (depending on the drop), are wins - and vice versa. To counter this there could be a couple of options:

1. The player who goes first can only deploy their armies, unable to attack or fortify, and battle begins with the person going secnod. Player 1 deploys, Player 2 starts.

2. There are X (e.g. four) rounds of deployment, before battle begins. P1 deploy, P2 deploy, .... P1 starts.

3. One round of deployment each, with unlimited forts, and then battle begins. P1 deploy -fort. P2 deploy - fort. P1 starts.

Cheers
Skryer

[AAFitz]

theres another option ive seen and as much as i hate it, its much more fair

first turn, no matter what, you get three armies...allows both to plan for whats to come, and not have it over on turn one...turn two..maybe, but it is more fair, and would limit noob hunting quite a bit...

i hate mentioning it though...its more fair, not necessarily more fun

[imcooler]

that wouldn't really help anything. If i was dropped aussie then having one round of deployment is not going to stop me. All it will do is make games longer.

[skryer]

If you start with Oz, of course you are likely to win, but with my proposed systems, you may at least have a chance, and as stated the ideas aren't really focused on results due to the drop, they are focused negating the massive advantage of going first in 1v1 games.

Ive been through all maps against the same opponent, almost all games went in favour of whoever went first... that took a lot of the fun out of it, I'm tryign to put the fun back in!

Cheers

[jnd94]

.......play freestyle....

[Sharps]

I have a few ideas for 1 v 1 games.

Firstly a resign button. If your playing real time and you know youv lost it would save a lot of time.

Secondly this idea might have been mention before (dont read alot of the forum except the new maps section). I think it would fun to be able to gamble your player points on a game, as many as you like. The other player has to agree of course. Example you could say i want this to be a 100 point game, and you both agree before hand, and whoever wins the games takes 100 points off thier opponent. It could work with any amount of players.

This gambling element could take away from the whole points system currently in use though and the player with the most points wont really be the best player. But you dont have to gamble if you dont want. Just an idea.

Also you could pay say 10 points to enter a tournemnt and the winner gets all the points.

[zindor]

I think it would be nice, to have a surrender/button ingame.

Sometimes you definately see that you have lost the game, but due timezones with your partners it takes a couple of more days to end. I suggest a surrender button which let you lose the game instantly and all your territories are changed to neutral (keeping the armies on them)

Z.

[cicero]

This suggestion duplicates the one made (frequently) in the SURRENDER OPTION!! thread.
Note that the thread has been marked *rejected* and is unlikely to change its status for the reason given in the first post. Any further discussion should nonetheless be continued in that thread.

This duplicate thread locked.

Cicero

[Environmentalist]

add a concede button. who wants to keep playing a game that is already over? both the winner and loser know what the outcome will be, so give the loser the option to make it so.

[lancehoch]

This suggestion duplicates the one made (frequently) in the SURRENDER OPTION!! thread.
Note that the thread has been marked *rejected* and is unlikely to change its status for the reason given in the first post. Any further discussion should nonetheless be continued in that thread.

This duplicate thread locked.

Cicero

[JimRocky]

Agree to draw option box.

• This would be a box that could be checked if a player feels that a game will never end and he would agree to a draw with the other remaining players. If a time came when all remaining players had checked the box the game would end with remaining players equally dividing the winners points. A visual indicator would show which players had checked their box.
  
  That way a never ending game could be agreed upon to be ended in a draw if everyone left feels that would be an option they could accept. Nothing would occur until everyone left had checked the box.
  
  I haven't thought in great depth on this. There might be abuse potentials that I have not considered.
  
  I do know I have some games that are way over turn 100 that are likely to never end unless someone is forced to deadbeat out or makes a critical error.

[

[Nanogram]

Why not have a surrender button in two-player games (or once a multi-player game has gotten down to two players)?

It's not fun chasing down every last little army on a map. You know you've won but you have to sit around for several turns to take care of the bookkeeping. This never happens in our real-life games. It's even less fun for the person who knows he has lost.

I used to play a lot of two-player speed games but I'm tired of spending up to 15 minutes doing mindless cleanup when I could be spending the time doing things I enjoy in life.

A person who surrenders would lose exactly the same number of points as he would have if he trudged on until the bitter end. Just give the poor sap a choice! Don't force him (or me) to do things that aren't fun. After all, "fun" is supposed to be the whole point of this game. Any idea that increases the fun and reduces the tedium should be given a fair chance.

Make it for premium players only if you want to give free players an incentive to upgrade. Have a pop-up confirmation box to eliminate the accidental button pushes. And eliminate any abuse potential by limiting surrender to games with just two players.

The only possible objection I can imagine is from folks who actually like to do the end-of-game tidying up. Maybe there is a way to let them continue to kill even after the game has been forfeited and the outcome (and the points distribution) have already been decided.

[lancehoch]

This suggestion duplicates the one made (frequently) in the SURRENDER OPTION!! thread.
Note that the thread has been marked *rejected* and is unlikely to change its status for the reason given in the first post. Any further discussion should nonetheless be continued in that thread.

This duplicate thread locked.

Cicero

[Nanogram]

This post does not propose a suggestion for changes in game play. It is, rather, a suggestion on how to handle rejected suggestions. It is Not a duplicate of any other post.

I believe the rejection of suggestions could be handled better. Here is an example of a rejected suggestion:

cicero wrote: "This suggestion duplicates the one made (frequently) in the SURRENDER OPTION!! thread.
Note that the thread has been marked *rejected* and is unlikely to change its status for the reason given in the first post. Any further discussion should nonetheless be continued in that thread."

No reason is given in the first post other than "Removed Because Of Abuse, Will Not Be Coming Back". Would it kill you to elaborate? Why not take the time to type a couple lines on that first post that explains your position. Why encourage us with the recommendation that "discussion should nonetheless be continued...", when you have no intention of acting upon those deliberations? Why do you want us to keep discussing it when you clearly state "Will Not Be Coming Back"? Is it to pacify us? Is it to give us a harmless way to vent our frustration?

It seems to me that the developer of this site is making himself quite a good living from the fees charged to the members. Why treat the members so poorly? Show your humble subjects a little mercy. Throw us a bone. Just take two minutes to read our suggestions and give a well-reasoned explanation for rejection - just a couple of lines of type.

A tyrant has no need to answer his subjects or even lift a finger to make them happy. I don't say that a suggestion MUST be implemented. I just think it is rude to answer a person's suggestion with, (as one fellow did), "Go f*ck Yourself, it's not coming back!"

Just a few lines explaining rejections will prove your benevolence. In the particular case of the suggestion that I made, please explain how the forfeit button could be abused when there is only two players in the game.

......the supplicant bows deeply and exits the room while carefully avoiding turning his back to the King.....

[Ditocoaf]

cicero's just following the rules placed on him from above. We've had talks about this... I'd go into more detail about the whole complicated issue, but I really don't have the mental energy atm.

[cicero]

Constructive response ... under construction . Bear with me please people ...

Cicero

This post does not propose a suggestion for changes in game play. It is, rather, a suggestion on how to handle rejected suggestions. It is Not a duplicate of any other post.

I believe the rejection of suggestions could be handled better. Here is an example of a rejected suggestion:

This suggestion duplicates the one made (frequently) in the SURRENDER OPTION!! thread.
Note that the thread has been marked *rejected* and is unlikely to change its status for the reason given in the first post. Any further discussion should nonetheless be continued in that thread.

No reason is given in the first post other than "Removed Because Of Abuse, Will Not Be Coming Back". Would it kill you to elaborate? Why not take the time to type a couple lines on that first post that explains your position.

Why encourage us with the recommendation that "discussion should nonetheless be continued...", when you have no intention of acting upon those deliberations? Why do you want us to keep discussing it when you clearly state "Will Not Be Coming Back"? Is it to pacify us? Is it to give us a harmless way to vent our frustration?

It seems to me that the developer of this site is making himself quite a good living from the fees charged to the members. Why treat the members so poorly? Show your humble subjects a little mercy. Throw us a bone. Just take two minutes to read our suggestions and give a well-reasoned explanation for rejection - just a couple of lines of type.

A tyrant has no need to answer his subjects or even lift a finger to make them happy. I don't say that a suggestion MUST be implemented. I just think it is rude to answer a person's suggestion with, (as one fellow did), "Go f*ck Yourself, it's not coming back!"

Just a few lines explaining rejections will prove your benevolence. In the particular case of the suggestion that I made, please explain how the forfeit button could be abused when there is only two players in the game.

...the supplicant bows deeply and exits the room while carefully avoiding turning his back to the King.....

[Simon Viavant]

This post does not propose a suggestion for changes in game play. It is, rather, a suggestion on how to handle rejected suggestions. It is Not a duplicate of any other post.

I believe the rejection of suggestions could be handled better. Here is an example of a rejected suggestion:

cicero wrote: "This suggestion duplicates the one made (frequently) in the SURRENDER OPTION!! thread.
Note that the thread has been marked *rejected* and is unlikely to change its status for the reason given in the first post. Any further discussion should nonetheless be continued in that thread."

No reason is given in the first post other than "Removed Because Of Abuse, Will Not Be Coming Back". Would it kill you to elaborate? Why not take the time to type a couple lines on that first post that explains your position. Why encourage us with the recommendation that "discussion should nonetheless be continued...", when you have no intention of acting upon those deliberations? Why do you want us to keep discussing it when you clearly state "Will Not Be Coming Back"? Is it to pacify us? Is it to give us a harmless way to vent our frustration?

It seems to me that the developer of this site is making himself quite a good living from the fees charged to the members. Why treat the members so poorly? Show your humble subjects a little mercy. Throw us a bone. Just take two minutes to read our suggestions and give a well-reasoned explanation for rejection - just a couple of lines of type.

A tyrant has no need to answer his subjects or even lift a finger to make them happy. I don't say that a suggestion MUST be implemented. I just think it is rude to answer a person's suggestion with, (as one fellow did), "Go f*ck Yourself, it's not coming back!"

Just a few lines explaining rejections will prove your benevolence. In the particular case of the suggestion that I made, please explain how the forfeit button could be abused when there is only two players in the game.

......the supplicant bows deeply and exits the room while carefully avoiding turning his back to the King.....

It's their site, you don't have to patronize it, and that suggestion was rejected many times before and this isn't going to change anything and frankly is a bit whiny. Is that a better way to express my feelings on this, cicero?

[Nanogram]

cicero's just following the rules placed on him from above.

This is not addressed to exclusively to cicero. If cicero's hands are tied it should be referred to a higher level.

that suggestion was rejected many times before

Wrong. This thread was a suggestion for a better way to handle suggestions. This suggestion has never been suggested in a suggestion thread before this suggestion suggested it in this very suggestion thread.

It's their site, you don't have to patronize it

Exactly! Why alienate your patrons and invite them to leave? It illustrates my point exactly. A person makes a suggestion and the response is that maybe that person should just get lost!

My idea is simply this: Just post a well-reasoned rejection of suggestions as they come up rather than dismissing them with what comes across as indifferent capriciousness.

[Simon Viavant]

the suggestion I was talking about was the one you whined about being rejected, not this one, and I don't even really know what you're suggesting here, it sounds like you want them to justify the rejection. It's their site, they don't have to justify how they run it and starting a thread to whine about your suggestion being rejected isn't going to do anything for you. They run the site, not you, if you don't like it, feel free to leave.

[lancehoch]

If you search through the threads, whenever an official ruling is made, there is a post by a moderator. In that case, the posts were fairly brief because of the nature of the suggestion. In that thread, for a more explicit description as to why the idea was rejected, please see my posts here and here.

[Ditocoaf]

If you search through the threads, whenever an official ruling is made, there is a post by a moderator. In that case, the posts were fairly brief because of the nature of the suggestion. In that thread, for a more explicit description as to why the idea was rejected, please see my posts here and here.

What I, personally, am interested in is this: When a suggestion is rejected, it seems that all variations on that suggestion are also pre-rejected. Sometimes, a suggestion might be rejected, due to some problems, but then later a variation is thought of that could potentially overcome the problems. Should this new, but similar suggestion be lumped in and merged with the original? How much thought will be given to such suggestions before merging the threads?

[lancehoch]

It depends on a lot of factors; how the suggestion is presented and when a mod sees it are the two biggest factors. If the new idea is by the same person who made the original post, it is likely to be merged because the OP can change the first post. Other circumstances determine how a mod will proceed, although it is hard to explain out of context. If you find a thread that I merged or locked I will try to explain why I did what I did.

[Ditocoaf]

It depends on a lot of factors; how the suggestion is presented and when a mod sees it are the two biggest factors. If the new idea is by the same person who made the original post, it is likely to be merged because the OP can change the first post. Other circumstances determine how a mod will proceed, although it is hard to explain out of context. If you find a thread that I merged or locked I will try to explain why I did what I did.

Well, mostly I'm referring to the surrender button issue. I've read a lot of the old discussions on that, and I have a few ideas... but I'm waiting to start a thread on it because I don't want a "already rejected, merged" response. Because I won't be able to get much discussion going in a thread titled "rejected," and I definitely won't get any ideas through (if they're even good ones). I've been thinking I'll just wait for the eventual S&B revamp, but since we're on the subject, I thought I'd mention it.

[lancehoch]

Send me a PM with the idea and we can try and work out the details so that it is an acceptable idea that will have its own thread.