[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

Jamie · Post by **Jamie** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:32 pm

I suggested this exact thing over a year ago, and I still agree with it. he whole reason that the surrender button was scrapped was because it cheated people out of getting your points, and cards. If surrendering simply causes all your turns to be skipped, this will speed up games, and reduce suiciding. Your cards and points could still be had.

Skeebo · Post by **Skeebo** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:22 pm

Or perhaps a waiting period for the person who clicked the button? such as not letting them join new games for a day or two?

insomniacdude · Post by **insomniacdude** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:30 pm

Skeebo wrote:Or perhaps a waiting period for the person who clicked the button? such as not letting them join new games for a day or two?

So premium players who can otherwise join dozens of games at a time are limited because of one game that uses the concede button?

Skeebo · Post by **Skeebo** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:09 pm

free players.

timmytuttut88 · Post by **timmytuttut88** » Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:08 pm

timmytuttut88 wrote:*cough*

TheScarecrow · Post by **TheScarecrow** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:59 am

Jamie wrote:I suggested this exact thing over a year ago, and I still agree with it. he whole reason that the surrender button was scrapped was because it cheated people out of getting your points, and cards. If surrendering simply causes all your turns to be skipped, this will speed up games, and reduce suiciding. Your cards and points could still be had.

i thought SURRENDER would mean you would be ELIMINATED from the game? and at then end of said game youd lose points as well? just like a standard game?

god... that would have sucked in the old days...

ZawBanjito · Post by **ZawBanjito** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:46 am

The problem you want to be solved would be better solved by a clearer introduction paragraph on the front page, rather than a bloody complicated button with a thousand rules of its own.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:11 am

I have to say - I've been playing a few games at http://www.weewar.com...

And it sucks when people surrender - and it can completely ruin someones game...

At least with Deadbeating - you have some warning of a suicide... (albiet a 72hour warning)

C.

Rocketry · Post by **Rocketry** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:17 am

would love to see this implemented.

Kemmler · Post by **Kemmler** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:40 pm

this idea's rubbish, we don't need a surrender

timmytuttut88 · Post by **timmytuttut88** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:49 pm

TheScarecrow wrote:
Jamie wrote:I suggested this exact thing over a year ago, and I still agree with it. he whole reason that the surrender button was scrapped was because it cheated people out of getting your points, and cards. If surrendering simply causes all your turns to be skipped, this will speed up games, and reduce suiciding. Your cards and points could still be had.

i thought SURRENDER would mean you would be ELIMINATED from the game? and at then end of said game youd lose points as well? just like a standard game?

god... that would have sucked in the old days...

if you click the surrender button, its basically your turns will be skipped, although the armies wont go nuetral.

timmytuttut88 · Post by **timmytuttut88** » Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:49 pm

Kemmler wrote:this idea's rubbish, we don't need a surrender

what if your going on a vacation and you dont want to make people sit and wait for you to take turns since you are deadbeating?

ZawBanjito · Post by **ZawBanjito** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:15 am

timmytuttut88 wrote:
Kemmler wrote:this idea's rubbish, we don't need a surrender

what if your going on a vacation and you dont want to make people sit and wait for you to take turns since you are deadbeating?

a) Don't start a game if you're going on vacation.
b) Get a friend to play for you.
c) Suck it up.

We've been doing these three things successfully for ages now.

timmytuttut88 · Post by **timmytuttut88** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:41 am

ZawBanjito wrote:
timmytuttut88 wrote:
Kemmler wrote:this idea's rubbish, we don't need a surrender

what if your going on a vacation and you dont want to make people sit and wait for you to take turns since you are deadbeating?

a) Don't start a game if you're going on vacation.
b) Get a friend to play for you.
c) Suck it up.

We've been doing these three things successfully for ages now.

a n00b who doesnt want to play the game can just surrender right out of the game. And we dont have to have him deadbeat.

FiveCardArmy · Post by **FiveCardArmy** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:09 pm

I like the idea of a surrender button when there are only two players left anything else is kind of lame.

timmytuttut88 · Post by **timmytuttut88** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:46 pm

Ditocoaf · Post by **Ditocoaf** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:44 pm

I would call for a sort of "insti-deadbeat" button. The reason something like this is needed:

Scenario 1:) A group of people get ready to play a realtime game. Joe has every intention of sitting through the whole game, however, something happens outside of his foresight and control, requiring him to leave his computer (the horror!). Now everyone else is stuck waiting. If he could deadbeat instantly, without the pause for each of his turns, this would save a lot of trouble for the others in the realtime game.

Scenario 2:) Even in regular, 24-hour-per-turn game, it would save a lot of hassle if someone who intends to deadbeat would do so without the requisite 3 turns missed. Usually people don't take the full 24 hours to take a turn; this only happens when someone is MIA. On occasion, this could be prevented by someone who knows they have to quit the game, i.e. poor planning before a vacation.

The current rules for deadbeats seem pretty fair to the other players. All that's needed now is to make that available instantly, hence, the "Insti-deadbeat" button.

Teutonics · Post by **Teutonics** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:21 am

I don't understand why the weaker of 2 players is forced to play to the bitter end. The weakest player often 'resigns' anyway by simply walking away from the game (deadbeating the last few rounds) causing a hassle for the stronger player or just deploys his armies and quits the round, without attacking. The current situation is a pain for both the stronger and weaker players, especially in the speed games. I've heard many comments from players in these situations, expressing frustration that they can't resign.

timmytuttut88 · Post by **timmytuttut88** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:18 pm

where are the mods?

KoE_Sirius · Post by **KoE_Sirius** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:48 pm

Multis would take advantage of this tool to increase rank faster

Kaplowitz · Post by **Kaplowitz** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:02 pm

multis...

TheTrust · Post by **TheTrust** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:07 pm

...not to mention the general concept of players who would quit when the going got tough and they had bad dice. Players like to join a game and have that solidified commitment from all members who join.

There is a site finalconquest.com and this site is instant play via clicking but you can exit the game anytime. The reason this site has so few players interested is that anytime a player takes advantage in a game, another player quits, if someone gets cornered, they quit and join another game hoping for a better drop...

To have an instant deadbeat button or surrender button or whatever you boys would like to call it would simply ruin the gaming experience for all gamers who join as a whole. Sure there are the occasional players who will only surrender when absolutely hopeless situations arise but for the most part this will be abused by players looking to get lucky drops. If you join the game and have to play it to the end, you are required to fullfill that commitment. Thats the way it should be and is. When a player takes australia and cant break a player who has just taken Europe, that person would in all likelyhood just quit instead of playing the game out for the other 3 or 4 rounds hoping to turn something around.

A famous quote from a player notorious for this pain in finalconquest:

"I am getting maximum enjoyment for my time playing. I would much rather be dominating a game then play a game that I know is a losing battle, why should I stick around in a game that someone else who is in good position can enjoy while I know I can never win. No thank you, I think I'll stick to finding games that are worth my time playing, if you all want to play games to the end then feel free to play a game where you are at the disadvantage and I at the advantage."

Ditocoaf · Post by **Ditocoaf** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:58 am

Well, as it is, if the game's going poorly, then people just deadbeat. This way, you don't have to wait around for 3 turns.

Keebs2674 · Post by **Keebs2674** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:22 am

timmytuttut88 wrote:<Subject>:
"Well people when about to be killed by a lower ranked person they would surrender so the lower ranker couldnt get their cards, turning all there armies neutral to give the game to a higher ranked person so they would lose less points.

Is this English?

Keebs2674 · Post by **Keebs2674** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:25 am

Ditocoaf wrote:Well, as it is, if the game's going poorly, then people just deadbeat. This way, you don't have to wait around for 3 turns.

I actually haven't run into very many who deadbeat for this reason. I've found deadbeating is way down from what it was many months ago, and that when it does happen it doesn't have anything to do with how well or poorly the deadbeat is playing.

[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

Re: surrender button, without the abuse?

Add "Resign" option for when only 2 players left

Re: surrender button, without the abuse?