Surrender Button

[Metsfanmax]

If the two other players are equal, the player playing right after the one resigning will win the game almost automatically, so the player resigning does choose a winner, but it's a stupid way of choosing, it's simply based on join order.
I'd much rather lose because I have been an ass to the 3rd player and he suicided on me, rather than because I happen to be on the wrong position according to turn order because he resigned.

How often are the two other players equal though?

In any case, it's time to increase the limits on Surrender. Perhaps all 2-player games (including polymorphic) should be added to the usage instead of the current silly array of conditions. I've never been in a game where I've even seen the resign button, so it's clearly too limited to be useful.

Yes, I agree with this, it should be expanded to all two player games. As before, if it is found to be abusive, we can roll it back. Nothing needs to be permanent.

That’s what’s always said about anything until you try to roll it back. Then it’s “well we made the changes and don’t want to spend more time removing stuff we’ve done”. Totally false argument.

Your argument is empirically denied by the fact that we have rolled back features before.

[Metsfanmax]

Also, in this case, bW already made the changes to implement the surrender button -- that was the hard part. Changing when it is applied is relatively easy in contrast.

[IcePack]

If the two other players are equal, the player playing right after the one resigning will win the game almost automatically, so the player resigning does choose a winner, but it's a stupid way of choosing, it's simply based on join order.
I'd much rather lose because I have been an ass to the 3rd player and he suicided on me, rather than because I happen to be on the wrong position according to turn order because he resigned.

How often are the two other players equal though?

In any case, it's time to increase the limits on Surrender. Perhaps all 2-player games (including polymorphic) should be added to the usage instead of the current silly array of conditions. I've never been in a game where I've even seen the resign button, so it's clearly too limited to be useful.

Yes, I agree with this, it should be expanded to all two player games. As before, if it is found to be abusive, we can roll it back. Nothing needs to be permanent.

That’s what’s always said about anything until you try to roll it back. Then it’s “well we made the changes and don’t want to spend more time removing stuff we’ve done”. Totally false argument.

Your argument is empirically denied by the fact that we have rolled back features before.

And others have not been rolled back for exactly the reasons I mentioned above.

[Metsfanmax]

If the two other players are equal, the player playing right after the one resigning will win the game almost automatically, so the player resigning does choose a winner, but it's a stupid way of choosing, it's simply based on join order.
I'd much rather lose because I have been an ass to the 3rd player and he suicided on me, rather than because I happen to be on the wrong position according to turn order because he resigned.

How often are the two other players equal though?

In any case, it's time to increase the limits on Surrender. Perhaps all 2-player games (including polymorphic) should be added to the usage instead of the current silly array of conditions. I've never been in a game where I've even seen the resign button, so it's clearly too limited to be useful.

Yes, I agree with this, it should be expanded to all two player games. As before, if it is found to be abusive, we can roll it back. Nothing needs to be permanent.

That’s what’s always said about anything until you try to roll it back. Then it’s “well we made the changes and don’t want to spend more time removing stuff we’ve done”. Totally false argument.

Your argument is empirically denied by the fact that we have rolled back features before.

And others have not been rolled back for exactly the reasons I mentioned above.

OK, but, this is one where it already happened. We literally had the surrender button back in lack's day and it was pulled due to (alleged) abuse. So you can't go around claiming that other unrelated stuff applies here.

[IcePack]

OK, but, this is one where it already happened. We literally had the surrender button back in lack's day and it was pulled due to (alleged) abuse. So you can't go around claiming that other unrelated stuff applies here.

Your talking about a roll back from 2 owners ago, years and years ago. I’m talking now present day. This owner. This coder. These roll backs. Talk about unrelated stuff getting claimed holy hell

[Metsfanmax]

OK, but, this is one where it already happened. We literally had the surrender button back in lack's day and it was pulled due to (alleged) abuse. So you can't go around claiming that other unrelated stuff applies here.

Your talking about a roll back from 2 owners ago, years and years ago. I’m talking now present day. This owner. This coder. These roll backs. Talk about unrelated stuff getting claimed holy hell

You're not talking about anything. You're just talking about generic reasons that some person might give for not rolling a feature back that is completely unrelated to the present situation. I've already pointed out that we already implemented the surrender option. It is almost trivial to change the conditions under which it is available. Your argument is so vague and unspecific as to be completely pointless in this context. bigWham is not going to say "but it's so HARD for me to change that conditional in the code where I had previously only limited it to two player trench, I just literally can't do it." If you think that, you don't know anything about development.

At this point you're just arguing because you don't like it, not because you have any good arguments.

[Metsfanmax]

It is almost trivial to change the conditions under which it is available.

I should add for full disclosure that while this statement is literally true, that doesn't mean there's zero development work associated with this expansion. For all I know this could mess up polymorphic something terrible unless one is careful...

[IcePack]

OK, but, this is one where it already happened. We literally had the surrender button back in lack's day and it was pulled due to (alleged) abuse. So you can't go around claiming that other unrelated stuff applies here.

Your talking about a roll back from 2 owners ago, years and years ago. I’m talking now present day. This owner. This coder. These roll backs. Talk about unrelated stuff getting claimed holy hell

You're not talking about anything. You're just talking about generic reasons that some person might give for not rolling a feature back that is completely unrelated to the present situation. I've already pointed out that we already implemented the surrender option. It is almost trivial to change the conditions under which it is available. Your argument is so vague and unspecific as to be completely pointless in this context. bigWham is not going to say "but it's so HARD for me to change that conditional in the code where I had previously only limited it to two player trench, I just literally can't do it." If you think that, you don't know anything about development.

At this point you're just arguing because you don't like it, not because you have any good arguments.

I’m sorry but I have worked closely with wham for a few years now. There have been multiple discussions about roll backs. Did I say it would “hard” for him to roll back? No. I said that his stance in the past was that he didn’t want to redo work he’s already done. So yes, I do know what I’m talking about. Yes it’s a total BS stance for you to take “oh it can get rolled back np!” BS.

Can it? Yes. Will it? Unlikely. Pointing to something YEARS ago not even done by the current owner is not proof you are right.

Sorry not sorry.

Saying I know nothing about development is laughable. Again I’ve helped wham for years, I was beta lead for a long time on many of whams projects, I’m still helping him develop new things, develop games on my own on the side, and have family in the game industry. So yeah, I can speak a little on the topic.

[Metsfanmax]

OK, but, this is one where it already happened. We literally had the surrender button back in lack's day and it was pulled due to (alleged) abuse. So you can't go around claiming that other unrelated stuff applies here.

Your talking about a roll back from 2 owners ago, years and years ago. I’m talking now present day. This owner. This coder. These roll backs. Talk about unrelated stuff getting claimed holy hell

You're not talking about anything. You're just talking about generic reasons that some person might give for not rolling a feature back that is completely unrelated to the present situation. I've already pointed out that we already implemented the surrender option. It is almost trivial to change the conditions under which it is available. Your argument is so vague and unspecific as to be completely pointless in this context. bigWham is not going to say "but it's so HARD for me to change that conditional in the code where I had previously only limited it to two player trench, I just literally can't do it." If you think that, you don't know anything about development.

At this point you're just arguing because you don't like it, not because you have any good arguments.

I’m sorry but I have worked closely with wham for a few years now. There have been multiple discussions about roll backs. Did I say it would “hard” for him to roll back? No. I said that his stance in the past was that he didn’t want to redo work he’s already done. So yes, I do know what I’m talking about. Yes it’s a total BS stance for you to take “oh it can get rolled back np!” BS.

Can it? Yes. Will it? Unlikely.

Your argument was specifically about not rolling back a change because of the time spent implementing it, and that is what I was responding to. In case you forgot what you said an hour ago, I'll quote it:

Then it’s “well we made the changes and don’t want to spend more time removing stuff we’ve done”.

The argument you are making now is different. It's fine to make this argument too, but don't pretend that it's the same argument that I was responding to. I've gotten to know bigWham a little too, and the argument you are making now is about political capital, not about implementation work. He doesn't want to be in a situation where he has to roll back a change because that means he has to spend time arguing about it with other people and taking flak for what he did or did not do right. That is not so much a stance against rollbacks as it is against implementing changes that are likely to need to be rolled back.

This isn't one of those times. All of the abuses that were specified about the surrender option were in 3+ player games. The abuse profile in 2 player games is virtually non existent. So you're right that it's unlikely to be rolled back, and that's because there's probably never going to be a need to roll it back. I didn't make the statement that "it can get rolled back np!" I made the statement that it can be rolled back, which is true. This would only happen in the case of severe abuse that we didn't predict. In that situation, bigWham would do the right thing if the problem was egregious enough.

[Metsfanmax]

In that situation, bigWham would do the right thing if the problem was egregious enough.

If you think the above is wrong, then you should probably stop working with him, because it's pretty damning to suggest he'd let abuse go on unchecked. I think I'll end my participation for now so other people can chime in.

[IcePack]

In that situation, bigWham would do the right thing if the problem was egregious enough.

If you think the above is wrong, then you should probably stop working with him, because it's pretty damning to suggest he'd let abuse go on unchecked. I think I'll end my participation for now so other people can chime in.

If I thought the above was wrong I would have said so. But I didn’t. Implying otherwise is false

[Metsfanmax]

In that situation, bigWham would do the right thing if the problem was egregious enough.

If you think the above is wrong, then you should probably stop working with him, because it's pretty damning to suggest he'd let abuse go on unchecked. I think I'll end my participation for now so other people can chime in.

If I thought the above was wrong I would have said so. But I didn’t. Implying otherwise is false

So we are in agreement that if we implement the surrender option for all two player games and it leads to rampant abuse, that this expansion would be rolled back?

[Extreme Ways]

Without reading any follow-up posts about Mets's post, comparing a surrender feature in the current live version with a surrender version in version 1.0 - if even 1.0 - is comparing apples and oranges.

[IcePack]

OK, but, this is one where it already happened. We literally had the surrender button back in lack's day and it was pulled due to (alleged) abuse. So you can't go around claiming that other unrelated stuff applies here.

Your talking about a roll back from 2 owners ago, years and years ago. I’m talking now present day. This owner. This coder. These roll backs. Talk about unrelated stuff getting claimed holy hell

You're not talking about anything. You're just talking about generic reasons that some person might give for not rolling a feature back that is completely unrelated to the present situation. I've already pointed out that we already implemented the surrender option. It is almost trivial to change the conditions under which it is available. Your argument is so vague and unspecific as to be completely pointless in this context. bigWham is not going to say "but it's so HARD for me to change that conditional in the code where I had previously only limited it to two player trench, I just literally can't do it." If you think that, you don't know anything about development.

At this point you're just arguing because you don't like it, not because you have any good arguments.

I’m sorry but I have worked closely with wham for a few years now. There have been multiple discussions about roll backs. Did I say it would “hard” for him to roll back? No. I said that his stance in the past was that he didn’t want to redo work he’s already done. So yes, I do know what I’m talking about. Yes it’s a total BS stance for you to take “oh it can get rolled back np!” BS.

Can it? Yes. Will it? Unlikely.

Your argument was specifically about not rolling back a change because of the time spent implementing it, and that is what I was responding to. In case you forgot what you said an hour ago, I'll quote it:

Then it’s “well we made the changes and don’t want to spend more time removing stuff we’ve done”.

The argument you are making now is different. It's fine to make this argument too, but don't pretend that it's the same argument that I was responding to. I've gotten to know bigWham a little too, and the argument you are making now is about political capital, not about implementation work. He doesn't want to be in a situation where he has to roll back a change because that means he has to spend time arguing about it with other people and taking flak for what he did or did not do right. That is not so much a stance against rollbacks as it is against implementing changes that are likely to need to be rolled back.

This isn't one of those times. All of the abuses that were specified about the surrender option were in 3+ player games. The abuse profile in 2 player games is virtually non existent. So you're right that it's unlikely to be rolled back, and that's because there's probably never going to be a need to roll it back. I didn't make the statement that "it can get rolled back np!" I made the statement that it can be rolled back, which is true. This would only happen in the case of severe abuse that we didn't predict. In that situation, bigWham would do the right thing if the problem was egregious enough.

No it was not political capital. My discussion w him was regarding time. Maybe you’ve had other discussions regarding political capital but has nothing to do w what I’m talking about. Discussing this w you will get nowhere and is pointless. And already said before I don’t want to get wrapped up in the same debate as before.

The abuse profile in 2 player games isn’t what we are discussing here. The discussion is about EXPANDING the current limits on resigning. (Tho I still think resigning in general is stupid which I’ve said all along)

The very fact you are saying “abuse would have to be severe that we didn’t predict” doesn’t encourage me to say “yeah let’s test it out, it can get rolled back if there’s problems!” It tells me that there’s abuse that would be allowed and still wouldn’t get rolled back and reinforces my argument that there would be resistance to rolling it back unless the abuse cases were “severe”. (Whatever that means)

[IcePack]

In that situation, bigWham would do the right thing if the problem was egregious enough.

If you think the above is wrong, then you should probably stop working with him, because it's pretty damning to suggest he'd let abuse go on unchecked. I think I'll end my participation for now so other people can chime in.

If I thought the above was wrong I would have said so. But I didn’t. Implying otherwise is false

So we are in agreement that if we implement the surrender option for all two player games and it leads to rampant abuse, that this expansion would be rolled back?

You keep saying “rampant”, “severe”. There’s no definition, no measuring system, no checks. It’s all based on what people think or C&A cases. Do you have any stats on its current use? Do you know it isn’t being abused currently? Is anyone bothering to even look at it before pushing forward new implementations?

My point being that people will just wave it off later when there are abuses saying “where’s YOUR stats for abuse” without doing any of their own before moving forward with their own. Then it becomes easy to deny any rollbacks. No stats, no problem. So no need for any roll backs!

Again, super easy to not roll something back because you just got to put a bunch of barriers in place for nobody to care enough to show that it is in fact a problem.

[Metsfanmax]

The abuse profile in 2 player games isn’t what we are discussing here. The discussion is about EXPANDING the current limits on resigning.

Expanding the current limits on resigning... to all two player games. (Right now it's only allowed in a small fraction of two player games.) So yes, it is what we are discussing here. (There's also a separate discussion to be had about 3+ player games. But it's a separate discussion.)

The very fact you are saying “abuse would have to be severe that we didn’t predict” doesn’t encourage me to say “yeah let’s test it out, it can get rolled back if there’s problems!” It tells me that there’s abuse that would be allowed and still wouldn’t get rolled back and reinforces my argument that there would be resistance to rolling it back unless the abuse cases were “severe”. (Whatever that means)

I said "so severe that we didn't predict" because I am intellectually humble enough to know that I cannot predict all of the possible ways that thousands of players can utilize a feature. I can only predict the ones that are obvious to me and the other people who have posted in Suggestions, and none of the obvious ones seem likely (since they are all specific to 3+ player games). I think abuse of resignation in two player games is very unlikely (I've said this clearly in this thread), but since I can't literally say it's impossible, I'm granting that we should have a plan for what to do if I was wrong. The fact that I'm planning for the remote possibility that I'm wrong should not be taken as evidence that I am likely to be wrong.

You keep saying “rampant”, “severe”. There’s no definition, no measuring system, no checks. It’s all based on what people think or C&A cases. Do you have any stats on its current use? Do you know it isn’t being abused currently? Is anyone bothering to even look at it before pushing forward new implementations?

Is your argument that we should do nothing because of some possible hidden problem that no one talks about or knows about but might possibly exist, but for some strange reason no one is posting about it in the forums or filing e-Tickets?

I have no statistics on its current use because I do not have any access to the tools for measuring them. You're the one who works with bigWham so closely, go figure out how to get them if this is something you're so worried about. If not, stop making noise about it.

[IcePack]

The abuse profile in 2 player games isn’t what we are discussing here. The discussion is about EXPANDING the current limits on resigning.

Expanding the current limits on resigning... to all two player games. (Right now it's only allowed in a small fraction of two player games.) So yes, it is what we are discussing here. (There's also a separate discussion to be had about 3+ player games. But it's a separate discussion.)

The very fact you are saying “abuse would have to be severe that we didn’t predict” doesn’t encourage me to say “yeah let’s test it out, it can get rolled back if there’s problems!” It tells me that there’s abuse that would be allowed and still wouldn’t get rolled back and reinforces my argument that there would be resistance to rolling it back unless the abuse cases were “severe”. (Whatever that means)

I said "so severe that we didn't predict" because I am intellectually humble enough to know that I cannot predict all of the possible ways that thousands of players can utilize a feature. I can only predict the ones that are obvious to me and the other people who have posted in Suggestions, and none of the obvious ones seem likely (since they are all specific to 3+ player games). I think abuse of resignation in two player games is very unlikely (I've said this clearly in this thread), but since I can't literally say it's impossible, I'm granting that we should have a plan for what to do if I was wrong. The fact that I'm planning for the remote possibility that I'm wrong should not be taken as evidence that I am likely to be wrong.

You keep saying “rampant”, “severe”. There’s no definition, no measuring system, no checks. It’s all based on what people think or C&A cases. Do you have any stats on its current use? Do you know it isn’t being abused currently? Is anyone bothering to even look at it before pushing forward new implementations?

Is your argument that we should do nothing because of some possible hidden problem that no one talks about or knows about but might possibly exist, but for some strange reason no one is posting about it in the forums or filing e-Tickets?

I have no statistics on its current use because I do not have any access to the tools for measuring them. You're the one who works with bigWham so closely, go figure out how to get them if this is something you're so worried about. If not, stop making noise about it.

I have no statistics on its current use

^^ that’s really all we need to know. Nobody’s tracking it. Nobody cares. Just keep expanding it. f*ck add it to all games. We aren’t going to track the abuse anyway so it’ll be easy to say there is none!

I don’t want the expanded resignation why would I put my time and effort towards expanding something I’m not in favor of? If you want it expanded show that it isn’t a problem or you can “stop making noise about it”.

You know damn well if it gets expanded and someone thinks it is getting abused the first thing that will be asked is where their stats are. Again, no definition of “rampant” or “severe” or a plan as to what it would take to roll it back so it becomes super easy later to defend and put up road blocks later.

[Metsfanmax]

I have no statistics on its current use

^^ that’s really all we need to know. Nobody’s tracking it. Nobody cares. Just keep expanding it. f*ck add it to all games. We aren’t going to track the abuse anyway so it’ll be easy to say there is none!

If you think I don't care, you can go f*ck yourself. I spent years pushing for this feature. Of the features that I felt I could actually have some role in helping to make happen, this is the one I wanted most. I literally resigned from the team when I pushed for its implementation and everyone came back at me and said that it was going to be a disaster. Years later, it actually got implemented, and I finally felt partially vindicated for all the mental effort, except not really because some bastardized version that applied in almost zero games got implemented. Finally we're having a discussion about expanding it to a meaningful section of games, the one thing I felt like I actually contributed to in the history of this site, and you think I don't care? f*ck off. I'm not refusing to track it because I'm lazy. I have no way to track it.

I don’t want the expanded resignation why would I put my time and effort towards expanding something I’m not in favor of?

Because, as a member of the CC team, and leader of the beta testers, you care about the quality of the features we implement even when you don't always agree with the decisions the site makes? Or is that not the case, maybe you only test the features you like?

If you want it expanded show that it isn’t a problem or you can “stop making noise about it”.

How do you suggest I do so? There's literally no way for me to search for games that have had resignations in it without administrator tools. And anyway I'll reiterate the point above, the burden of proof is not on me to show that invisible abuse does not exist. It's on the people who suggest that it might but somehow we never heard about it.

You know damn well if it gets expanded and someone thinks it is getting abused the first thing that will be asked is where their stats are. Again, no definition of “rampant” or “severe” or a plan as to what it would take to roll it back so it becomes super easy later to defend and put up road blocks later.

How can I define rampant abuse when no one has pointed out how it can be abused? You're asking me to speculate about things that I think can't happen (if I thought they could, then I wouldn't be pushing for this feature). I have no other recourse but to say I'll know it when I see it. Yes, of course there's wiggle room there. If your argument is that we should never do anything that could have possibly bad consequences unless we can give a quantitative and precise definition in advance about those consequences then you have no business being involved in the running of this site.

[Dukasaur]

It would be annoying to allow people to surrender in multiplayer games. I am all in favor of a resign button with less restrictions than currently and extended to more settings, but I think a resign button should only be for games with 2 teams / 2 players.

Games with 2 teams or 2 players will end soon enough. Multiplayer games are actually the only ones that really cry out for a surrender button, as they can stalemate and become long snoozefests.

Many multiplayer games (including, if memory serves me, the DOS version of Risk) give you the option to quit and let the AI take over your side. We have AI (bot play) on CC, so it should be perfectly straightforward to let players quit and have a bot take over their terts so the game dynamic isn't disrupted. And yes, the bots play badly, but no worse than a player who is bored out of his tree and is just dropping and running. The only reason this hasn't been implemented is lack of vision. There's no practical or moral reason why it wouldn't be.

If ppl wanted to play a bot they would join a bot game. Why would someone want to play a bot when they joined a multiplayer game? That isn’t what they signed up for I don’t see that as a good solution at all

People join a game expecting to somehow gain an early advantage and rolling to a clear-cut win within a reasonable time. When that doesn't happen, and the game starts rolling towards 30, 50, 100 turns with no obvious winner, they start to get sick of it. Allowing them to turn their troops over to a bot is a way of "getting up from the table" without changing the basic dynamic.

Many multplayer games have that option, precisely because different people have different attention spans. Some are willing to grind it out for weeks or months or years or all eternity if that's what it takes. Others just don't have that kind of patience and want to get up and leave. Right now there are only two options for someone who's fed up with a game and just wants out: he can deadbeat or he can suicide, both of which are unpalatable solutions to many, and both of which are against the rules. Turning over a game that you don't want to play any more to the AI allows you to get out without ruining it for everyone else.

[Metsfanmax]

It would be annoying to allow people to surrender in multiplayer games. I am all in favor of a resign button with less restrictions than currently and extended to more settings, but I think a resign button should only be for games with 2 teams / 2 players.

Games with 2 teams or 2 players will end soon enough. Multiplayer games are actually the only ones that really cry out for a surrender button, as they can stalemate and become long snoozefests.

Many multiplayer games (including, if memory serves me, the DOS version of Risk) give you the option to quit and let the AI take over your side. We have AI (bot play) on CC, so it should be perfectly straightforward to let players quit and have a bot take over their terts so the game dynamic isn't disrupted. And yes, the bots play badly, but no worse than a player who is bored out of his tree and is just dropping and running. The only reason this hasn't been implemented is lack of vision. There's no practical or moral reason why it wouldn't be.

If ppl wanted to play a bot they would join a bot game. Why would someone want to play a bot when they joined a multiplayer game? That isn’t what they signed up for I don’t see that as a good solution at all

People join a game expecting to somehow gain an early advantage and rolling to a clear-cut win within a reasonable time. When that doesn't happen, and the game starts rolling towards 30, 50, 100 turns with no obvious winner, they start to get sick of it. Allowing them to turn their troops over to a bot is a way of "getting up from the table" without changing the basic dynamic.

Many multplayer games have that option, precisely because different people have different attention spans. Some are willing to grind it out for weeks or months or years or all eternity if that's what it takes. Others just don't have that kind of patience and want to get up and leave. Right now there are only two options for someone who's fed up with a game and just wants out: he can deadbeat or he can suicide, both of which are unpalatable solutions to many, and both of which are against the rules. Turning over a game that you don't want to play any more to the AI allows you to get out without ruining it for everyone else.

I disagree. Part of the reason why I wanted a resign option is that I hate playing out obviously won games as much as I hate playing out obviously lost games. I have better things to do with my time than grind out the last 15 turns of a trench game hunting down every last territory. Having the bot take over defeats half of the point.

[IcePack]

I have no statistics on its current use

^^ that’s really all we need to know. Nobody’s tracking it. Nobody cares. Just keep expanding it. f*ck add it to all games. We aren’t going to track the abuse anyway so it’ll be easy to say there is none!

If you think I don't care, you can go f*ck yourself.

You first asshole.

I spent years pushing for this feature. Of the features that I felt I could actually have some role in helping to make happen, this is the one I wanted most. I literally resigned from the team when I pushed for its implementation and everyone came back at me and said that it was going to be a disaster. Years later, it actually got implemented, and I finally felt partially vindicated for all the mental effort, except not really because some bastardized version that applied in almost zero games got implemented. Finally we're having a discussion about expanding it to a meaningful section of games, the one thing I felt like I actually contributed to in the history of this site, and you think I don't care? f*ck off. I'm not refusing to track it because I'm lazy. I have no way to track it.

No, you didn't refuse to track it. You told ME to push wham to. I never told you to track it. So stop fucking putting words in my fucking mouth. My whole point was that nobody was tracking the statistics and continuing to push for its expansion without any information beyond saying "theres been no issues" by a handful of people is stupid. Now at least we know why youre so personally invested in continuing its expansion without any information on its current use whatsoever. Please dont talk to me about "knowing nothing about development". If this is how you suggest developing things, its a shitty method of development and I wouldn't want to be apart of it anyway. Maybe you should have stayed resigned.

I don’t want the expanded resignation why would I put my time and effort towards expanding something I’m not in favor of?

Because, as a member of the CC team, and leader of the beta testers, you care about the quality of the features we implement even when you don't always agree with the decisions the site makes? Or is that not the case, maybe you only test the features you like?

I have enough on my plate being part of a CC team. I'm not the lead of Beta anymore, I said I USED to be. Since you in other areas like to point out your the only suggestions guy left, maybe you should you know.....get information on potential suggestions. Like you know, stats and stuff. IDK. Maybe theres a thought for you.

If you want it expanded show that it isn’t a problem or you can “stop making noise about it”.

How do you suggest I do so? There's literally no way for me to search for games that have had resignations in it without administrator tools. And anyway I'll reiterate the point above, the burden of proof is not on me to show that invisible abuse does not exist. It's on the people who suggest that it might but somehow we never heard about it.

You went out of your way to point out you ALSO are bff's with wham. Maybe you should talk to him huh?
I didn't say abuse didn't exist. I said EXPANDING THE FEATURE WITH NO INFO IS FUCKING STUPID. Do you not get that, like at all?

How can I define rampant abuse when no one has pointed out how it can be abused? You're asking me to speculate about things that I think can't happen (if I thought they could, then I wouldn't be pushing for this feature). I have no other recourse but to say I'll know it when I see it. Yes, of course there's wiggle room there. If your argument is that we should never do anything that could have possibly bad consequences unless we can give a quantitative and precise definition in advance about those consequences then you have no business being involved in the running of this site.

You are the one saying it would get pulled back if it were rampant. What is rampant? 5%? 10%? Never? "know it when you see it" yeah, and a guy blinded by his own suggestion to the point he resigns TOTALLY will see the abuse and roll back his own feature. RIGHHTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.

I didn't say we shouldn't impliment anything if there can be bad consequences. I'm saying you are talking about an existing feature. Lets look at how the feature is being used before we expand it. You should be able to define both a success and failure of a feature prior to developing it. If you cant do that, maybe ...how did you say it...then you have no business being involved in the adding features on this site.

[IcePack]

It would be annoying to allow people to surrender in multiplayer games. I am all in favor of a resign button with less restrictions than currently and extended to more settings, but I think a resign button should only be for games with 2 teams / 2 players.

Games with 2 teams or 2 players will end soon enough. Multiplayer games are actually the only ones that really cry out for a surrender button, as they can stalemate and become long snoozefests.

Many multiplayer games (including, if memory serves me, the DOS version of Risk) give you the option to quit and let the AI take over your side. We have AI (bot play) on CC, so it should be perfectly straightforward to let players quit and have a bot take over their terts so the game dynamic isn't disrupted. And yes, the bots play badly, but no worse than a player who is bored out of his tree and is just dropping and running. The only reason this hasn't been implemented is lack of vision. There's no practical or moral reason why it wouldn't be.

If ppl wanted to play a bot they would join a bot game. Why would someone want to play a bot when they joined a multiplayer game? That isn’t what they signed up for I don’t see that as a good solution at all

People join a game expecting to somehow gain an early advantage and rolling to a clear-cut win within a reasonable time. When that doesn't happen, and the game starts rolling towards 30, 50, 100 turns with no obvious winner, they start to get sick of it. Allowing them to turn their troops over to a bot is a way of "getting up from the table" without changing the basic dynamic.

Many multplayer games have that option, precisely because different people have different attention spans. Some are willing to grind it out for weeks or months or years or all eternity if that's what it takes. Others just don't have that kind of patience and want to get up and leave. Right now there are only two options for someone who's fed up with a game and just wants out: he can deadbeat or he can suicide, both of which are unpalatable solutions to many, and both of which are against the rules. Turning over a game that you don't want to play any more to the AI allows you to get out without ruining it for everyone else.

Thats what round limits are for. If you can't wait for the round limit, dont play that game. And switching from playing a player to playing a bot DOES ruin for eveyrone else.

[Metsfanmax]

No, you didn't refuse to track it. You told ME to push wham to.

I didn't tell you to do anything. You're the one who jumped in this thread and opened your mouth with your feelings on the subject. If you're going to continually post about it, you should have something to contribute beyond "I don't like it." I am suggesting ways for you to contribute productively to the discussion. If you don't want to do so I certainly cannot blame you, but then I would ask you to kindly remove yourself from the thread so that the people who do have constructive things to say can continue to do so.

I never told you to track it. So stop fucking putting words in my fucking mouth. My whole point was that nobody was tracking the statistics and continuing to push for its expansion without any information beyond saying "theres been no issues" by a handful of people is stupid. Now at least we know why youre so personally invested in continuing its expansion without any information on its current use whatsoever.

Of course I have information on its current use. It was tested by the beta team and found to have no problems, it has been used by the player base, and no issues have been reported. That is the baseline by which every successful feature should be measured. What you're criticizing is the lack of information I have about problems with it, as though somehow that is a measure of its fallibility instead of a measure of the fact that it fucking worked like it was supposed to. When the original resign functionality existed, there was tons of discussion about in the forum and in C&A cases. It was incredibly obvious that there were problems; I'm not so dead set on this that I refuse to acknowledge that there are real implementation problems with the resign function in 3+ player games, and that we will have to solve some real problems to get there. But for the two player games we have now, we have no evidence of problems now. Aside from the fact that I have no easy way of finding any problems if they did exist, you continually refuse to define what the possible problems are. You literally have not suggested one thing in this thread that could be abused about two player resign options. So we have no known methods of abusing the system (and certainly not relative to what is already possible on CC without the resign option) and no reports of the system being abused, and you want to shitcan it anyway just because I cannot define what is 5% of abuse I have never heard of? That just makes you an obstinate asshole, not an enlightened thinker. I'm done with you.

[IcePack]

No, you didn't refuse to track it. You told ME to push wham to.

I didn't tell you to do anything.

You're the one who works with bigWham so closely, go figure out how to get them if this is something you're so worried about.

Right...you didn't tell me to do anything....

You're the one who jumped in this thread and opened your mouth with your feelings on the subject. If you're going to continually post about it, you should have something to contribute beyond "I don't like it." I am suggesting ways for you to contribute productively to the discussion. If you don't want to do so I certainly cannot blame you, but then I would ask you to kindly remove yourself from the thread so that the people who do have constructive things to say can continue to do so.

So I can't share my feelings on it? How is what I'm posting any less than you or anyone else. What you are saying is "we should expand it!" and I'm asking questions, but somehow me trying to question where the stats and facts are is my feelings. Yes, I said i didn't like it. I've said a lot more then that too. Ignoring that part and telling to "go f*ck myself" is certainly super productive tho. Your right, IM THE ONE not being productive.

I never told you to track it. So stop fucking putting words in my fucking mouth. My whole point was that nobody was tracking the statistics and continuing to push for its expansion without any information beyond saying "theres been no issues" by a handful of people is stupid. Now at least we know why youre so personally invested in continuing its expansion without any information on its current use whatsoever.

Of course I have information on its current use. It was tested by the beta team and found to have no problems, it has been used by the player base, and no issues have been reported. That is the baseline by which every successful feature should be measured. What you're criticizing is the lack of information I have about problems with it, as though somehow that is a measure of its fallibility instead of a measure of the fact that it fucking worked like it was supposed to. When the original resign functionality existed, there was tons of discussion about in the forum and in C&A cases. It was incredibly obvious that there were problems; I'm not so dead set on this that I refuse to acknowledge that there are real implementation problems with the resign function in 3+ player games, and that we will have to solve some real problems to get there. But for the two player games we have now, we have no evidence of problems now. Aside from the fact that I have no easy way of finding any problems if they did exist, you continually refuse to define what the possible problems are. You literally have not suggested one thing in this thread that could be abused about two player resign options. So we have no known methods of abusing the system (and certainly not relative to what is already possible on CC without the resign option) and no reports of the system being abused, and you want to shitcan it anyway just because I cannot define what is 5% of abuse I have never heard of? That just makes you an obstinate asshole, not an enlightened thinker. I'm done with you.

Beta testing only tests whether it works as planned, on beta. Nothing to do with live site. Irrelevant.
Its been used by the player base - great! How much? Any bugs? How often is it used? Other than lack of C&A reports, has any efforts been made to actually look to see if its been abused somehow UNEXPECTED? You kept saying it owuld have to be abused in unexpected ways, for one to know that one would need to look into that after the implimentation.

we have no evidence of problems now

Has ANYBODY looked, like, at all? Or blindly accepting that its working as intended, and not being abused?

You literally have not suggested one thing in this thread that could be abused about two player resign options.

I had no intent of suggesting and digging in to find out different ways. Im not the SUGGESTIONS guy. I'm the guy saying we shouldn't expand without having further info. Theres a pretty clear delination. Theres a lot of things you could say I haven't done in this thread, but when I have no intention of doing it pointing it out seems to be pretty pointless. I'm providing my OPINION on something thats being suggested and asking for the relevant facts to be presented by people who are wanting to expand something. That seems pretty reasonable.

you want to shitcan it anyway just because I cannot define what is 5% of abuse I have never heard of? That just makes you an obstinate asshole, not an enlightened thinker.

No, I want to shitcan the idea because I think its stupid. But I'm asking for what the definition of "rampant" and "severe" would be in order to identify what that is should it ever happen. but apparenlty, you dont want to look into it at all and just expand it anyway. And then when it happens, you'll "know it when you see it" and everyones supposed to trust that and that alone with no clear definition of what it is.

Enlightened thinker....hahahaha .....

I have no statistics on its current use

^^ that’s really all we need to know. Nobody’s tracking it. Nobody cares. Just keep expanding it. f*ck add it to all games. We aren’t going to track the abuse anyway so it’ll be easy to say there is none!

I go back to this, dont bother tracking it, just expand it to all games. If we aren't actually going to question anything or look into its actual use and just update whatever and "hope and pray" it works, everyone can go to bed knowing everythings a ok...nothing to see here. There aren't any problems if nobody looks for them. Let the enlightened thinkers handle it! With no data...they just KNOW IT WHEN THEY SEE IT...cuz their enlightened...amirite

I'm done with you.

[Metsfanmax]

Im not the SUGGESTIONS guy.

Indeed. So stay the hell out of future conversations involving suggestions, because you apparently have nothing to say that hasn't already been said a thousand times and that we aren't already perfectly aware of. That's the problem with this site, it's been around for over 10 years and everyone still thinks they have original things to say.