[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[kureejiieshi]

The fact that it keeps being brought up is reason enough to discuss it... I looked over the past discussions on the topic... and yes there are some valid points... I personally hate it when people quit a game because 'they think they cant win'... but I'm also not a fan of the lag created from people who quit the slow way.

I mean there are people who are basically surrendering.... they are just doing it in a way which eats at game time.

I think the suggestion which was made of it being a setable option may be one way to go... or the other player/players have to approve it... idk... something... there are enough people who want it that it's not a bad idea to have it setable... and enough who dont to have it not always allowed...

Does anyone have a conflict with it being one of the options... or somehow making it an option but having set stipulations on it?

[Chirondom]

In team games, I was thinking, maybe, at the end of fortification, you could surrender territories? Basically, the next time an allied nation attacked that territory, they would automatically take over the territory, keeping all armies there? If an enemy attacked, they would still have to fight those armies.

[maniacmath17]

wouldn't mind seeing that, I've played with that rule in my home games. nothin worse than losin a bunch attacking one of your teammates territories, lol.

[misterman10]

nope, thats how team games work, and I doubt it will be changed

[unriggable]

Yeah would be unfair for team to get an advantage like that. Has to be conquered old fashioned way.

[Herakilla]

so what if you lose 14 armies to your partners territory? so what if it loses you the game? at least you know that the dice dont like you!

and this point was raised, would be to powerful. if you could give away your territories then first turn one guys gives everything he has to his partner and when its that guys turn then boom, lots of troops

[misterman10]

so what if you lose 14 armies to your partners territory? so what if it loses you the game? at least you know that the dice dont like you!

and this point was raised, would be to powerful. if you could give away your territories then first turn one guys gives everything he has to his partner and when its that guys turn then boom, lots of troops

exactly

[Rocketry]

In team games, I was thinking, maybe, at the end of fortification, you could surrender territories? Basically, the next time an allied nation attacked that territory, they would automatically take over the territory, keeping all armies there? If an enemy attacked, they would still have to fight those armies.

I play this rule in the carboard game version. It might be too complicated for here though.

Rocketry

[d.gishman]

No this suggestion is terrible. You could just surrender all your territories or something if you and your partner collectively control a continent... it's better to fight for it

[Chirondom]

You could limit it like you do fortification, to say, one or two.

And why would it be too powerful? If every team has the same ability, it should balance out.

[Trainsrokg]

i like that idea, its more realistic, plus if both teams have it then its equal power. Or maybe they can make that an option for team games, for some you can make it so you cant do that

[cheapshots]

yeah if u started playing a game and halfway throughone of ur team can play cause hes goota go somewhere.. our tteam might lose now cause they will get through his defences. so u should b able to surrender or give in and the territories of that person who gave up goes to the team.. by the time he gets kicked out of that game for being missin to many turns we will have lost, plz make that for future games.

[jiminski]

the absentee should get someone else to play the go's for him. Most established players have one or 2 'babysitters' who will help out in this way.

(just be aware of the non multiple account rules)

[turtle32]

he could have even given you access to his account to babysit

Edit:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... c&start=30

sullys busting post, about halfway down says you can babysit someone's accout that you are playing a game in, but he could have gotten a babysitter as said above

[misterman10]

[sully800]

he could have even given you access to his account to babysit

Edit:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... c&start=30

sullys busting post, about halfway down says you can babysit someone's accout that you are playing a game in, but he could have gotten a babysitter as said above

Actually, I just didn't specify. You are not allowed to play someone else's turns when you are opponents in the same game. If you are teammates it would be allowed, but baby sitting implies its only for a short period of time (not a permanent account transfer).

[Christine]

I'd like to propose a rule change to allow for the possibility of DRAWS.

The proposal: Once a game has completed 60 rounds, all still surviving players would equally divide up the pot.

There is a current thread, ongoing in the General Discussion section, which I initiated, titled "LUCK vs SKILL" in which we are discussing ways to reduce randomness, and thus increase the "skill-to-luck" ratio. Not using cards is one idea, but several players have pointed out that No Cards option games have a tendency to go on forever. (Actually among higher ranked players, even the escalating cards option games also seem to have this tendency.) Several players have (rightly I think) complained that, beyond a certain point, games are: a) no fun any more; and b) subject to whimical endings (deadbeats, suicides, etc). So, introducing the possibility of a drawn ending would eliminate these annoyances. Additionally, it would add a very interesting dilemma for the players, in a game nearing 60 rounds: how far to go to "whittle the draw" (and thus increase their reward). Such considerations might even include negotiation (e.g.,: "I'll take Green out if you don't attack me afterwards.") It could add an enjoyable dimension?

If there is any objection to changing this rule, would it be possible instead to put it out there as an option: e.g., a Draw/No Draw option. That way players could choose the game they would most prefer to play, and all would know, going into it, what the prospective ending could include.

[AndyDufresne]

Game options for draws, in the past, weren't so heavily endorsed. A number of people didn't like the idea...due to the fact that say at Round 59 you had your opponent on the ropes...but damn...Round 60 rolls around and messes up your win. It's difficult to pick out a 'secure' number.

I think the best piece of advice Conquer Club has given in regards to games...is from the FAQ:

20. How do I surrender or drop out of a game?

Once a game has begun you can no longer drop that game. The only way to get out is to win or lose. We suggest winning.

--Andy

[Forefall]

Perhaps a better option would be that a draw occurs if it has been more than 50 rounds since a player was eliminated? Wouldn't that work?

These 150 round games of deployment are kind of stupid and I think most players would agree to a draw.

[Forefall]

Anyone?

[BeakerWMA]

I always play to win, even when I'm down to 1 army...why bother playing otherwise? And this would kill no card games.

[insomniacdude]

Don't force a draw. A draw is something that is agreed upon. It seems like everyone is talking about an auto-draw or surrender button. There could be a button at the bottom of the screen near the chat that just says "Vote for Draw". It announces it in the game log if someone presses it, and everyone who agrees for the draw will press the button. If there's any dissent, the draw doesn't go through.

I think this would be great if it's only available after 50 or 60 rounds. For a lot of people (mostly premiums) having a game last forever isn't a big deal. It's just a patience tester. But I think a freemie should have the option to drop from a ridiculously long patience tester after three months of play without losing points. That seems like a pretty fair thing for them.

[Simonov]

it could be made that game is drawn only when one player offer a draw (this would require a propose draw button) and other one accepts it. it only way i see this to be fairly done. drawing after 50 rounds is not fair (see above written reasons)
ps sorry just saw insomniac wrote basically the same thing...

[Wisse]

I always play to win, even when I'm down to 1 army...why bother playing otherwise? And this would kill no card games.

maybe? for fun?

[BeakerWMA]

well of course for fun *smacks head*

But winning is nice too, or losing in a well played game.