[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[Darwins_Bane]

you have the form there....why not try filling it in? also....this has already been suggested

EDIT: fastposted

[TheForgivenOne]

Moving this to Rejected

[PLAYER57832]

I addressed this elsewhere. This exact suggestion has been rejected many times. To be approved, the details have to be significantly changed. I made the suggestion that this only be implemented after a game has gone on for a very long time -- say 6 months, perhaps.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=121449

I also made a parallel, but different suggestion that there be a "surrender" button JUST for newbies, with no points gained by opponent(s). viewtopic.php?f=4&t=121549

At any rate, we have so many pending suggestions right now, I am not sure anything more will be considered for some time.

[jammyjames]

well why don't you have it so they lose points when surrendering.. and say surrendering in the early rounds loses you double points... that way you will not get it abused much?

[TheForgivenOne]

You don't think that has been discussed?

[dyrtydog]

[dyrtydog]
PLACE THE NAME OF THE SUGGESTION IN THE SUBJECT LINE!

Not sure if this has been addressed before, I am sorry if it has...
but can there be an option to surrender, hence the player(s) (if team game) lose half the amount of points..or even 1/4?

[Darwins_Bane]

it was taken away because it was abused....it keeps getting suggested and rejected.

[jrh_cardinal]

the most recent one is at the top of the list in the submitted suggestions --> archived rejected suggestions forum


the problem with the half of the points thing is you would almost never lose full points, only in big escalating games. In most team games and all 1v1 games, it's obvious who's going to win before they actually do, so everyone would just resign

[edwinissweet]

a straight up surrender button will in all likelyhood never come back, but you can think up clever ways to make bring a long game to an end as a built in feature

example viewtopic.php?f=4&t=121087

[TheForgivenOne]

Abused too often. Was here way back in 2006, and won't be coming back. Moving this to Rejected.

[Metsfanmax]

Concise description:

• Allow players in a 1v1 match to resign after a specified number of rounds (I would say 5 or 10, but that can be a discussion point in the thread).

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

• The archived thread on resignation includes some reasons why this is bad, but limiting resignation to 1v1 games after X rounds solves those problems. After looking through the thread I found only three logical reasons why one might ban resignation in general, and here are my responses:
  
  1) People will resign so that their cards can not be taken.
  
  Clearly this is not an issue in 1v1 games.
  
  2) The spirit of the game is in playing the game out.
  
  The spirit of the game, simply put, is whatever we would like it to be. Plenty of other games of honor such as chess include the option to resign a clearly lost game, so I don't think it's unsportsmanlike to quit - in fact, it's considered quite dishonorable in chess to draw out an obviously lost position.
  
  3) This would cause people to hop games and would allow multis to abuse the feature.
  
  By restricting the resign option to after a specified number of rounds has passed, we prevent multis from starting games and resigning immediately, and we prevent people from resigning at the start because they had a bad drop. The only use of the feature, if implemented correctly, would be to quit a game that you know you've lost and don't want to draw out. I can understand that people would reject the idea of immediate resignation because it would take the fun out of the game - but I think there's not much that's less fun than having to wait for 30 minutes in a speed game to finish a game you've obviously won (or lost).

[Masli]

not going to happen.

[Metsfanmax]

Well, if people have a negative attitude about it, I'm sure that it won't happen. But don't you think that new arguments should at least be considered before they are shot down?

[wisemanpsemc]

I am not a big fan of playing a 1v1 that is clearly lost, but this idea is worse than that. I hope this one does not go far.

Additionally, the tide can turn if you will put the time into the game to play strategically. I have had it happen a few times as long as I didn't count it a lost cause and determined to at least go down fighting, which I would want from an opponent.

[Darwins_Bane]

Well, if people have a negative attitude about it, I'm sure that it won't happen. But don't you think that new arguments should at least be considered before they are shot down?

Its not just that. consider the lengths people already go to, to create multis and point boost. now add that you can get free points by resigning. someone with time on their hands can do that easily.

[TheForgivenOne]

Freestyle would be prime for this. Bring up two browsers. Play freestyle over and over with your multi. Get to round X. Have multi resign.

[Metsfanmax]

Freestyle would be prime for this. Bring up two browsers. Play freestyle over and over with your multi. Get to round X. Have multi resign.

The reason I am suggesting this idea is that if done correctly, this can be avoided. For example, let's say X = 20. In 20 rounds, a multi could easily actually win the game by defeating his alt account, instead of just dropping troops and ending the turn. If instead they just played until round 20 and resigned on one account, that would be a whole lot easier to catch than the way multis currently operate. And if we take it as a given that multis are going to cheat, then this isn't going to make it any more likely that it will happen, precisely because they could more easily win the game against themselves in five rounds than play for 20 and click resign.

Also, there's no need for it to be freestyle, if indeed you're correct. The same thing would happen in sequential games.

[JoshyBoy]

I'm sorry Metsfanmax, but this idea just will not be introduced.

[Metsfanmax]

Again, this idea has not yet been considered, so I don't think it's fair to sweep it aside without consideration.

[AndyDufresne]

The Cheating/Abuse issue alone doesn't sound too good. Say even if the round limit was set @ 30/40/50, in a couple of minutes a multi could blow through that. Indeed it wouldn't be very fun for someone to do, but I wouldn't put it past someone.


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

The Cheating/Abuse issue alone doesn't sound too good. Say even if the round limit was set @ 30/40/50, in a couple of minutes a multi could blow through that. Indeed it wouldn't be very fun for someone to do, but I wouldn't put it past someone.


--Andy

I agree that it's possible, but the fact is that multis will cheat either way. Provided the round limit was set correctly, it would not be easier for them to do it this way, and if they did decide to do it, I think it would be a lot easier to spot than the way multis currently do it.

[Darwins_Bane]

so you're basically saying give the multis a way to cheat....but itll make them easier to catch? won't it increase the amount of multis too? and if experience has anything to offer then multis will wise up quick and fine other back doors and way to cheat the new system. it wouldnt be the first time. And still....with 1v1 games its nigh impossible to lock into a stalemate. if it happens its much more likely to be someone not moving when they should have or mutual decision to build up. And thats to say nothing about statistically how many users this will affect. Most ppl want to get the games done quickly so they can get the points. thats part of the reason they play 1v1.

[Metsfanmax]

so you're basically saying give the multis a way to cheat....but itll make them easier to catch? won't it increase the amount of multis too? and if experience has anything to offer then multis will wise up quick and fine other back doors and way to cheat the new system. it wouldnt be the first time. And still....with 1v1 games its nigh impossible to lock into a stalemate. if it happens its much more likely to be someone not moving when they should have or mutual decision to build up. And thats to say nothing about statistically how many users this will affect. Most ppl want to get the games done quickly so they can get the points. thats part of the reason they play 1v1.

Not at all. I'm saying that multis will cheat no matter what we do, so as long as this doesn't make it easier for them to cheat (which I contend that it does not, if you made the option available only after a certain number of rounds), then you can't use that as an offensive reason why this is a bad idea, since multis will only increase in number/activity if it becomes easier to cheat.

I agree that in many circumstances, this will not be used. But the fact is, it often can happen that a game drags on a lot longer than you wanted to, and you no longer feel like playing; or, if a game is lost but it will take a player five rounds to finish it off, the losing player might just want to end the game immediately and save them both some time. Since I don't believe there are any negatives to adding it, and it could potentially help players in certain circumstances, that seems to be justification for adding it.

[Army of GOD]

The cons totally outweigh the pros.

If you don't feel like playing any more...just suicide.

If you already lost and are just waiting for them to kill you...just wait.

[Metsfanmax]

The cons totally outweigh the pros.

If you don't feel like playing any more...just suicide.

If you already lost and are just waiting for them to kill you...just wait.

I've established that there are exactly zero cons.