Conquer Club

So, the surrender button in its first iteration lasted until Feb 06, 2006. It was gotten rid of the same day that the 3-turn deadbeat rule was added (before it was 4-turns). At that point nobody had played more than 45 games (the game started with a 10-game limit which was dropped to a 5-game limit in the first couple of weeks; Feb 10 a player had 43 games and 30 was considered a feat; on Feb 16 1st place was 1600 points and 23 games complete). Premium wasn't added until Feb 23, 2006. The first person to become a major didn't happen until Mar 07, 2006 and the first general (although at the time that meant 3000 points, not the current 3500) wasn't until September 25, 2006. The first site moderator was added May 07, 2006.The game has changed so much in that time.

EDIT: Chained Reinforcements weren't added until July 10!!!!

Since the current rendition of the surrender button, there hasn't been any reports of abuse of it that I know of.

My point is: the game has changed so much since that initial test and the initial sample size was so small I think the entire logic behind "tried it, didn't work" is actually wrong. Lackattack had only played 8 games when he made his executive decision. If somebody joined this site and played 8 games today would you automatically assume he knew everything about the site? I think not. We haven't actually tried and found problems.

There were "problems" but at the time lackattack had no income stream for the website and there were no volunteers. The time he did have was devoted to programming (since the website was so new). He didn't want to arbitrate the C&A cases. Not that there were any. There was one suggestion about surrendering where lackattack brought up the only unaddressed problem of the button. It gives free games to freemium. Solution: premium-only button. There was another poll where the votes were 35% wanted the button gone and 65% wanted it to stay.

One of the problems listed was that people would surrender and then you couldn't get their cards. However, on July 10, 2006, we introduced Terminator games which allow you to clear an eliminated (deadbeat/guested) player and still get the cards and points. Another problem mentioned was that lackattack wanted to give no points for deadbeat games (he actually did implement this and knocked the scoreboard for a loop) and he wasn't sure how to treat surrender games. Now we give points to deadbeat games so the point is moot (the no-points for deadbeats was reverted when Terminator was introduced).

So, other than those 2 threads I posted, and a couple other off-hand comments there was no actual complaints. There were never any C&A cases about it or anything.

Well, all the Implemented Suggestions are gone and the threads I linked to don't exist. One kind of exists here: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1313

That was originally the poll. The other "implemented" suggestion was called games and it was a request for surrendered games to not count against the 5-game limit.

THX, VEGETABLE LASAGNE..
8/10 DY.

Agreed.

Thanks for the history, DY...
And also for illustrating another reason to vivo-bump: If you haven't vivoed it into the present, you'll have to rewrite it when that deleter-mod goes mad again.

Thorthoth wrote:Thanks for the history, DY...
And also for illustrating another reason to vivo-bump: If you haven't vivoed it into the present, you'll have to rewrite it when that deleter-mod goes mad again.

Actually, its way better if you don't necrobump so that when I'm looking through threads, they are grouped roughly by their date.

DoomYoshi wrote:

Thorthoth wrote:Thanks for the history, DY...
And also for illustrating another reason to vivo-bump: If you haven't vivoed it into the present, you'll have to rewrite it when that deleter-mod goes mad again.

Actually, its way better if you don't necrobump so that when I'm looking through threads, they are grouped roughly by their date.

Very roughly indeed... No. that's not a good reason to refrain. Try again.

So it turns out one of the most heated debates in the history of this website isn't actually heated at all. I'll forward this to bigWham for immediate implementation.

It’s still a shitty idea I’m just done wasting my time arguing about it

Thorthoth wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:

Thorthoth wrote:Thanks for the history, DY...
And also for illustrating another reason to vivo-bump: If you haven't vivoed it into the present, you'll have to rewrite it when that deleter-mod goes mad again.

Actually, its way better if you don't necrobump so that when I'm looking through threads, they are grouped roughly by their date.

Very roughly indeed... No. that's not a good reason to refrain. Try again.

is catching a ban for doing it a good reason, vl?

IcePack wrote:It’s still a shitty idea I’m just done wasting my time arguing about it

Your point was about a general dislike of people who resign and a particular enjoyment you get from escalating sweeps and finishing the game. On the first point there is nothing anybody can do to help you. I would much rather spend my time doing something useful in life than playing out a game that was won a few turns ago, but that is a difference in philosophy. It also goes back to my OP: because we have never actually tried it, you can have no idea how common resignation will be. It might change the meta or maybe it will only affect 1 in 10 games. I'm sure it will be illegal in clan games anyways.

The second point doesn't even make sense at all. a) people are unlikely to resign in escalators. There is always that chance that somebody falls flat halfway through the sweep and you get a recovery sweep. b) resigned players make a sweep easier since you can still get the cards for eliminating them but they aren't getting the +3 every turn. Think of it the same way the game is now, early sweeps are easier if somebody has missed a couple of turns.

My argument wasn’t about escalating games. But again I’ll just leave it as a dumb idea. I’m not debating this shit again

i think its a bad idea.

There's tons of scenarios that could occur causing unbalanced play.
And there's scenario for cheating/abuse.
There's scenarios in standard games where if someone surrenders it could steal a victory from somebody.

if you really want to surrender that bad then deadbeat.

gannable wrote:if you really want to surrender that bad then deadbeat.

That is against the rules.

DoomYoshi wrote:

IcePack wrote:It’s still a shitty idea I’m just done wasting my time arguing about it

Your point was about a general dislike of people who resign and a particular enjoyment you get from escalating sweeps and finishing the game. On the first point there is nothing anybody can do to help you. I would much rather spend my time doing something useful in life than playing out a game that was won a few turns ago, but that is a difference in philosophy. It also goes back to my OP: because we have never actually tried it, you can have no idea how common resignation will be. It might change the meta or maybe it will only affect 1 in 10 games. I'm sure it will be illegal in clan games anyways.

The second point doesn't even make sense at all. a) people are unlikely to resign in escalators. There is always that chance that somebody falls flat halfway through the sweep and you get a recovery sweep. b) resigned players make a sweep easier since you can still get the cards for eliminating them but they aren't getting the +3 every turn. Think of it the same way the game is now, early sweeps are easier if somebody has missed a couple of turns.

His second point still make a lot of sense to me.
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.
The 3rd player in a 3 players game has a huge influence, allowing him to resign would be a big mistake, completely changing the balance of the game.

gannable wrote:And there's scenario for cheating/abuse.

Cheating and abuse are already happening, a resign button doesn't change anything. The current resign button existing for trench speed games haven't bee used for any kind of abuse. The only complain I heard about the resign button is that it is available too late that's all.

Donelladan wrote: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.

Funny how we have a different CC experience. For me it's 1vs1 ( or poly ) in trench and on huge map such as Hive and USA 2.1 that really cry for a surrender button. Because on those settings once the game is already decided there is many turns to play before the actual end of the game.
But I have to admit I avoid games that tend to stalemate since a long time : you'll rarely ever see me playing multiplayer flat/no spoils without a round limit.

Still, I don't think giving a surrender button for games that aren't decided yet is a good idea. If you are in such a stalemate game and you want a way out, you can also suicide on several players and usually that does the trick, either break the stalemate or get yourself eliminated, no need for a surrender button. Also it would definitely unbalance games and change the outcome, I can't see that as a progress.
Surrender button shouldn't be the solution for stalemate games . If such games exist then settings ( compulsory 200 round limit on all games for example) should be put in place to prevent them, rather than having people surrendering out of boredom !

Dukasaur wrote:

Donelladan wrote: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

Donelladan wrote:Still, I don't think giving a surrender button for games that aren't decided yet is a good idea. If you are in such a stalemate game and you want a way out, you can also suicide on several players and usually that does the trick, either break the stalemate or get yourself eliminated, no need for a surrender button. Also it would definitely unbalance games and change the outcome, I can't see that as a progress.
Surrender button shouldn't be the solution for stalemate games . If such games exist then settings ( compulsory 200 round limit on all games for example) should be put in place to prevent them, rather than having people surrendering out of boredom !

Your own argument is the reason why we ought to do this. As you say, if you're in a three-player stalemate and want a way out, you're going to suicide on someone, which does unbalance the game. Usually it is the lowest ranked player, which we can all probably agree is an awful thing to have to do, but also rational. Since that can and does already happen anyway, that is to say, the unbalancing of the game is inevitable, we should enable the resign option so that at least some of the time the player can resign without being forced to pick a winner.

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.

Donelladan wrote:If the two other players are equal, the players playing right after the one resigning will win the game almost automatically, so the plawing 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.

OK, that's fair. Personally I'd rather lose due to something random but fair, but I can see how a person might disagree with that.

Donelladan wrote: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, increase the limits on it. Not increase its use

DoomYoshi wrote:

Donelladan wrote: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.

Metsfanmax wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:

Donelladan wrote: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.