SirSebstar wrote:it HAS been abused in the past, heavely abused. I can think of various ways it can be abuse in this day and age.
Trust me, there is no way this suggestion can ever work without heavy monitoring.
If my suggestion has been abused in the past, then please explain to me how. I have yet to see an answer to this question.
I don't understand. Are you arguing my point?SirSebstar wrote:and also, suppose you are in that KC2 game, and the power goes out for the other guy. bazinga, you win...
...just goes to show how this suggestion adds significant value to the site. You seem to concur with my assertion that the problem I speak of is not a rare problem, as agentcom suggests.SirSebstar wrote:but yea, pro tip, do not play trench in hives
greenoaks wrote:wake up to yourselves. don't play maps that upset you.
CC shouldn't have to code an option because you can't lose fast enough.
This is a silly argument, isn't it? I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to open my eyes here. If people are choosing to play a game, then that means they would prefer to play the game despite any potential annoyances. If people are choosing not to play a game because of the potential annoyances, that means they would prefer to play the game if it weren't for those problems. To argue "if you don't like it, you don't have to play" is to argue that no one should be offering any suggestions for improving this site, and all changes and improvements that have been made were unnecessary and meaningless. I'm offering a suggestion, like any other suggestion, that will *add value, enjoy-ability, and participation* in those site. The only thing to argue is balancing the costs vs benefits. The benefits seem to be accepted and understood (see above). The hang up seems to be the fear that the costs are too high due to potential abuse. I'm asking how the suggestion can be abused, because I do not understand how such an assertion is validated.
ender516 wrote:If over six years of discussion has not changed lack's mind on this topic, you had better have an amazing argument if you think can now. Have you read the whole of this topic? Have you got a new benefit of a surrender button which would override the cost of the abuse?
For anyone who does not see how a surrender button can be abused, I will spell it out.
- Create a multi.
- Start a game between your regular account and your multi.
- Have your multi surrender to your regular account, thereby "earning" points
- Repeat as scruples permit
Yes, I know multiple accounts are forbidden, but the multi hunters have to catch you before you can be punished. I bet a clever script could be written that would push any account to the top of the scoreboard before the hunters could stop it.
Thank you for providing an explanation of how it could be abused. As for "a new benefit of a surrender button which would override the cost of the abuse", I think the ability to overcome the new problems inherent in trench games (as described above) clearly fits this description.
As for your example of abuse, this would be *extremely* easy to spot, and could be identifiable by anyone looking at a players games. To me, the cost of a few people abusing the system to over-inflate their scores (which do not affect game enjoy-ability) is a small price to pay for the increased level of enjoyment, participation, and business that would be offered by the suggestion.