A new look at resign button - Resign, but with Penalty

[stahrgazer]

A "resign" idea that just might work

Concise description:

• Establish a 'resign" button that penalizes the player who resigned but only awards half points to the other player.
• Add "Resigns too often" to the "cheating and abuse" violations.

Specifics/Details:

• Calculate the number of points the player who resigns would have lost and subtract 1.5x the normal points reduction.
• Calcuate half those points for the remaining player(s).
• If "Assassin" have the system put up a new target just as it does when someone deadbeats - but still incurring the resign penalty to the player who resigned.
• Program a pop-up "warning" if resign is hit indicating the points penalty (similar to the "you can only do this once do you wish to continue?" warning that comes up when making forts.

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

• "Resign" button is proposed by a variety of players, which indicates the idea is extremely popular with many players.
• As I understand it, the main reason a "resign" button seems to keep getting rejected is that it can lead to farming or encourage multis.
• If "resign" penalizes the player but gives only partial rewards to the remaining player(s) the potential for abuse goes way down.
  ---The resigning party loses more points, which discourages him/her from doing it.
  ---The remaining player(s) get less reward from the other player's resignation, which minimizes the "benefit" of using multi resignations to increase rank.
• If "resigns too often" is also added as a "cheating or abuse" violation further penalties could be imposed if someone is continually resigning when they are losing.

I think this suggestion brings the best of all worlds. Those who strongly want a "resign" button in a hopeless game, would get one.

Penalizing points lost by an additional 50% discourages using that option too much.

If the remaining player(s) only get half the points, the potential to use this for false rank-ups is minimized.

The points structure for "resign' games being "different" serves to show that the site preference is to play a game out.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm not sure abuse goes "way" down with this suggestion. Instead, a resigning player should have half their points vanish into thin air -- no one gets them. Helps point inflation too. Then you just have to deal with point dumpers, and not farmers and multis.


--Andy

[iAmCaffeine]

This doesn't solve the issue. It would still be abused, just more frequently because the points gained wouldn't be as great.

I can't see a resign button ever working unless it's limited to freemiums only. Premium players don't need it; they have an unlimited game count anyway, just drop and end if you don't want to play the game. If freemium players get stuck in a big stalemate then it's rather frustrating.

[betiko]

so if a player is about to lose, doesn't care about his points and wants to be an asshole to the guy that is about to beat him fair and square he just resigns so the winner only gets half the point while he was risking the normal rate of points?

this hasn't been thought much through.

[iAmCaffeine]

so if a player is about to lose, doesn't care about his points and wants to be an asshole to the guy that is about to beat him fair and square he just resigns so the winner only gets half the point while he was risking the normal rate of points?

this hasn't been thought much through.

+1

[dakky21]

The only system which can work is - when you resign, you lose your normal points without penalty, but the other player(s) must accept resignation. In wars there were capitulations, so something like that should exist here. It's just tricky to make it.

[Metsfanmax]

so if a player is about to lose, doesn't care about his points and wants to be an asshole to the guy that is about to beat him fair and square he just resigns so the winner only gets half the point while he was risking the normal rate of points?

That's my main objection to this proposal. The resign button is mainly there to end a lost game more quickly, so why take away points from the person who earned the victory fairly?

[stahrgazer]

This WAS thought through.

There are opposing positions which this idea balances.

You have those who just want a resign button:

so if a player is about to lose, doesn't care about his points and wants to be an asshole to the guy that is about to beat him fair and square he just resigns so the winner only gets half the point while he was risking the normal rate of points?

That's my main objection to this proposal. The resign button is mainly there to end a lost game more quickly, so why take away points from the person who earned the victory fairly?

You have those who are concerned with farmers/Multis:

I'm not sure abuse goes "way" down with this suggestion. Instead, a resigning player should have half their points vanish into thin air -- no one gets them. Helps point inflation too. Then you just have to deal with point dumpers, and not farmers and multis.
--Andy

My proposal balances these opposing positions, because both positions have merit. Rather than "no points" the non-resigning player gets at least some but the resigning player loses more.

Now, someone said it wont end farming; that resigns will simply be used more often because less points are involved. Disagree.
---First, because the resigning player loses points at 150% of the rate, any multi created for this purpose is going to get its points used up faster.
---Second, games ending in resign should be fairly easy to spot especially if they happen "more often because less points are involved."


As for the person who suggested the resign button should be for freemie only? No, I think this should be a feature for Premiums only, actually (those who support the site and its programming with cash.) Any freemie who gets "stuck" in an endless game can purchase membership to play more games.


Now, this proposal wouldn't eliminate "points dumpers" but if they're repeatedly resigning games that'd be a detectable abuse - in fact, more detectable than someone who's just playing badly to dump points.

[Serbia]

This WAS thought through.

Just not very well.

Horrible idea. Vehemently opposed, as I've been opposed to any and all versions of a "give up" button. Just finish the damn game. This suggestion is especially stupid, taking points away from a winner who was going to earn them fairly. I was going to win 20 points, but because this guy is a poor sport, he loses 30, and I'm punished for his attitude and only gain 15. Brilliant!

Bollocks.

[Metsfanmax]

You have those who just want a resign button:

so if a player is about to lose, doesn't care about his points and wants to be an asshole to the guy that is about to beat him fair and square he just resigns so the winner only gets half the point while he was risking the normal rate of points?

That's my main objection to this proposal. The resign button is mainly there to end a lost game more quickly, so why take away points from the person who earned the victory fairly?

I don't think you can just brush this away as one of many "opposing" views. If the only way to resign is at a cost that almost no one is likely to want to pay in legitimate circumstances, what is the point of having it? I would never lose 50% more points to end a lost game more quickly. So I can't see it ever getting used by the people who wanted it in the first place.

[BigBallinStalin]

Stahr, you're just making it cheaper for people to resign, so you'll get more resignations, thus more abuse. It doesn't make sense.

[stahrgazer]

Stahr, you're just making it cheaper for people to resign, so you'll get more resignations, thus more abuse. It doesn't make sense.

Is this proof that BBS can't read? Since when is paying 50% more for something, "cheaper"?

At any rate, from the comments in this thread, no one in either opposing view is willing to compromise.

Without compromise, the status quo - no button - remains.

Since those who want a resign button won't budge on something designed to help the site prevent resignation abuse in advance, go ahead and file this compromise idea under the othe REJECTED Resignation ideas and keep with the status quo of no resign button.

[Foxglove]

Stahr, you're just making it cheaper for people to resign, so you'll get more resignations, thus more abuse. It doesn't make sense.

Is this proof that BBS can't read? Since when is paying 50% more for something, "cheaper"?

At any rate, from the comments in this thread, no one in either opposing view is willing to compromise.

Without compromise, the status quo - no button - remains.

Since those who want a resign button won't budge on something designed to help the site prevent resignation abuse in advance, go ahead and file this compromise idea under the othe REJECTED Resignation ideas and keep with the status quo of no resign button.

I can't really think of any circumstances in which it would be appropriate to points-penalize the legitimate winner of a game. If a player is abusing a feature of the site, it should be that player who is somehow penalized.

This idea isn't really a compromise - it's just a punitive addition to the idea of a resign button.

I completely support the addition of a resign button to the site, by the way! If a person only plays small maps that tend to end in 5-8 rounds, it's probably easy to just play it out. But there have been quite a few times where I've been in the process of being slowly bludgeoned to death in a large map trench game, and if it wouldn't negatively affect my attendance percentage I would deadbeat in a second!

Anyway, I'll leave this here for a little while and we can see if anyone else supports the idea or has useful suggestions or comments.

[betiko]

This idea sucks. Unfair for both sides isn't what i would call a compromise stahr.

[jghost7]

I think a resign should just be that, a resign. If any check should be included, perhaps you could just have a limited number of resigns per month. I do think there should be an option to resign. Most gaming sites have this option. However, I do not think Stahrs version will work.

Thanks,

J

[dakky21]

Another idea is to implement region number check - you can only resign if you have like 10% territories and the opponent has like 80% (considering there may be 10% neutrals)... that would eliminate the need for that last turn or few turns in trench games.

[Dukasaur]

I'm not completely sure that this is a good idea, but at least someone is considering the options and weighing them.

I'm going to tentatively support this, and give it some more thought.

[Shannon Apple]

I don't like that penalty system because it does nothing for the real reason that people want one, nor does it prevent abuse. Point dumpers will love to get penalised more points.

I would love to see a resign button, but only once a game has passed x number of days and rounds. I don't see why someone should be able to resign right away. There is a special need for it in poly games on larger maps. When the game is decided, it takes several rounds sometimes to finish.

Under no circumstances should a resign button be available before the game has gone on for x number of rounds/days. Maybe it is 7 days or 10 rounds. Probably something like 10 rounds for 1v1, single, multiplayer, general standard games. 8 rounds for trips and quads games including poly 3/4. I dunno, but it would have to be annoying enough not to want to do abuse it.

How many times a week would the average player legitimately need to resign a game? Probably very few... so I agree with what was said by someone above. Cap it. "You already resigned 5 games this week..." There have been some games that I wish I could resign. Poly 4 on USA 2.1 at round 7 or 8 because at that point it's usually decided and it will drag on at least another 3 rounds. (that's actually 12 if you count having to move each colour)

[MagnusGreeol]

- I personally fight to the death, no white flag for Me, because I always give Myself benefit of doubt. But for those who wish to wave the white flag, I would say they def. lose more points and it should be the one who's winning the wars decision to accept white flag for more points, or not and crush opponent at free will? GL everyone ")

[clangfield]

- I personally fight to the death, no white flag for Me, because I always give Myself benefit of doubt. But for those who wish to wave the white flag, I would say they def. lose more points and it should be the one who's winning the wars decision to accept white flag for more points, or not and crush opponent at free will? GL everyone ")

Consider the situation of a multi though... set up loads of free accounts, and they resign all the games... lots of free points and they don't care about the extra accounts being run down to zero.
The only way I can see this not being abused is for all players concerned to be able to apply for a 'surrender' to someone independent (not in the game or clan), who can assess the game and see if it's hopeless.
Otherwise, whichever way you do it, it's open to abuse by farmers, multis, dumpers and other sad people whose life is defined by the points they can steal on CC.

[MagnusGreeol]

- I personally fight to the death, no white flag for Me, because I always give Myself benefit of doubt. But for those who wish to wave the white flag, I would say they def. lose more points and it should be the one who's winning the wars decision to accept white flag for more points, or not and crush opponent at free will? GL everyone ")

Consider the situation of a multi though... set up loads of free accounts, and they resign all the games... lots of free points and they don't care about the extra accounts being run down to zero.
The only way I can see this not being abused is for all players concerned to be able to apply for a 'surrender' to someone independent (not in the game or clan), who can assess the game and see if it's hopeless.
Otherwise, whichever way you do it, it's open to abuse by farmers, multis, dumpers and other sad people whose life is defined by the points they can steal on CC.

- The way I described or forsee it, if at all implemented, is Ones chance to raise a white flag, and to who or whom its raised to, has the control to accept or deny it. As for the multi's ( Those who wish to live lies and wear deceit as Their coat of arms), will do so and be rooted out as usual , but in any circumstance, there should be the option for Victor to accept or deny white flag.
l

[MagnusGreeol]

- I like Your idea about applying for surrender- As I sat and thought about it ") Just not sure if " the Mods" would have enough time to go through every surrender request in game timely fashion.