Conquer Club

is it the newest trend to simply deadbeat when you're losing in a speed game?

Whether it is or not, it's bloody annoying!

Lx

Lindax wrote:is it the newest trend to simply deadbeat when you're losing in a speed game?

Whether it is or not, it's bloody annoying!

Lx

Not a new trend, just now people can get away with it. In the past when you came upon a repeat offender deadbeat with a very low rating, you would foe and avoid. Now we can't afford to foe anyone because there are so few players on site. Bad behaviour is tolerated as playing with a quitter is better than playing with no one at all.

BoganGod wrote:

Lindax wrote:is it the newest trend to simply deadbeat when you're losing in a speed game?

Whether it is or not, it's bloody annoying!

Lx

Not a new trend, just now people can get away with it. In the past when you came upon a repeat offender deadbeat with a very low rating, you would foe and avoid. Now we can't afford to foe anyone because there are so few players on site. Bad behaviour is tolerated as playing with a quitter is better than playing with no one at all.

couldnt have said it better

ronc8649 wrote:

BoganGod wrote:

Lindax wrote:is it the newest trend to simply deadbeat when you're losing in a speed game?

Whether it is or not, it's bloody annoying!

Lx

Not a new trend, just now people can get away with it. In the past when you came upon a repeat offender deadbeat with a very low rating, you would foe and avoid. Now we can't afford to foe anyone because there are so few players on site. Bad behaviour is tolerated as playing with a quitter is better than playing with no one at all.

couldnt have said it better

I play with myself all the time.

Lindax wrote:is it the newest trend to simply deadbeat when you're losing in a speed game?

Could have been avoided with a resign button

Metsfanmax wrote:

Lindax wrote:is it the newest trend to simply deadbeat when you're losing in a speed game?

Could have been avoided with a resign button

so could untold abuses to the game... but go ahead and keep beating that drum...-Jésus noir

owenshooter wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Lindax wrote:is it the newest trend to simply deadbeat when you're losing in a speed game?

Could have been avoided with a resign button

so could untold abuses to the game... but go ahead and keep beating that drum...-Jésus noir

Pretty sure this is the only website I've ever heard of that refuses to allow people to stop playing a game, and actually penalizes people who do, because of potential "abuses."

Remember kids, CC is not about having fun, it's about super serious internet e-penis comparison. The only way to reliably compare e-penis size is if everyone holds their e-penis out for the entire length of the measuring. No quitting early, even if it's uncomfortable. Don't want your e-penis to be measured? Well then you shouldn't have fucking signed up for this site!

hawt

Mets, run for congress already.

"Assuming your an idiot, assuming your a member of congress. Sorry I repeat myself."

A long glance at my turgid e-penis for those who name the author of above quote.

Some people are not looking the whole picture. There are some settings where not deadbeating seems unpolite to me. Of course the resign button is the site's more important negative aspect. I am playing only hive, feudal trench polymorphic and conquer rome trench polymorphic during the last year. I ve played some hundreds of games, probably a thousand or so. I always deadbeat if I lose and my opponents deadbeat at 90% of the time. Some without saying a word except gg, some informing me they will db and some ask me what I prefer. 90%. And it is not a problem, in fact I feel bad when I have to clean up the whole hive map or advance in 4 castles in trench conditions. I assume that someone who enjoys the Luxemburg map cannot understand that, but that is how it is. There are settings where dbing is not just ok, it is cool. Now we could just sit and wonder why "bad" people are dbing all the time and claim that a resign button would...increase cheating (???) or we can accept reality and do the obvious, create a resign button in a strategy turn-based internet game, like all such sites already have done. Or you can go in a chess site and claim that the resign button is a bad idea, you may find 1 or 2 people in a million to support you, probably some people who just learned how to move the pieces of course.

Kas is right for his circumstances. But there are other circumstances which he hasn't brought up.

It doesn't resolve any of the deadbeating cheating issues, which I grant are few.

It doesn't resolve the disenchanted guide issues, where guides face players with an amazingly high deadbeat rate. It might address them, but...

It would open the door for freemium abuse. If this were to be implemented, there is the option for freemiums to try to get out of slow-paced games. Maybe that's a good thing for the site, rewarding premiums with freemium surrender points and allow freemiums access to more games. But this must be coupled with a clear ruling on the abuse that can be easily implemented or the benefits may be negated.

It doesn't resolve most issues, but provides an out for some, while potentially creating more than it solved.

Conclusion:

Soft opening for polymorphic and trench, 1-1, premium games and see how it goes.

Kaskavel wrote:you may find 1 or 2 people in a million to support you, probably some people who just learned how to move the pieces of course.

Or, like on this site, you may find every owner has felt that the feature would create more issues than resolutions... and that is more than 1 or 2 in a million...-Jésus noir

owenshooter wrote:

Kaskavel wrote:you may find 1 or 2 people in a million to support you, probably some people who just learned how to move the pieces of course.

Or, like on this site, you may find every owner has felt that the feature would create more issues than resolutions... and that is more than 1 or 2 in a million...-Jésus noir

It's true that 3 is bigger than 2. But I'd point out that the current owner doesn't believe that it would create more issues on the game level than it resolves; it didn't happen under the current administration because the vast majority of the staff were opposed to it on principle. So really it's just 2.

Metsfanmax wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

Kaskavel wrote:you may find 1 or 2 people in a million to support you, probably some people who just learned how to move the pieces of course.

Or, like on this site, you may find every owner has felt that the feature would create more issues than resolutions... and that is more than 1 or 2 in a million...-Jésus noir

It's true that 3 is bigger than 2. But I'd point out that the current owner doesn't believe that it would create more issues on the game level than it resolves; it didn't happen under the current administration because the vast majority of the staff were opposed to it on principle. So really it's just 2.

until it is changed by Big Wham, that counts as 3... sorry... he owns the site... if he truly believed in it, he would change it... sooo, three...-Jésus noir

p.s.-can you please link me where he publicly stated that he does not believe a surrender button would do more harm than good? THANK YOU!!!

owenshooter wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

Kaskavel wrote:you may find 1 or 2 people in a million to support you, probably some people who just learned how to move the pieces of course.

Or, like on this site, you may find every owner has felt that the feature would create more issues than resolutions... and that is more than 1 or 2 in a million...-Jésus noir

It's true that 3 is bigger than 2. But I'd point out that the current owner doesn't believe that it would create more issues on the game level than it resolves; it didn't happen under the current administration because the vast majority of the staff were opposed to it on principle. So really it's just 2.

until it is changed by Big Wham, that counts as 3... sorry... he owns the site... if he truly believed in it, he would change it... sooo, three...-Jésus noir

bw didn't really believe in it, it wasn't a personal crusade for him, he just agreed that it was a decent idea worth testing out. But the staff didn't even want to test it out.

p.s.-can you please link me where he publicly stated that he does not believe a surrender button would do more harm than good? THANK YOU!!!

No, because these discussions did not happen in public.

Metsfanmax wrote:No, because these discussions did not happen in public.

soooo, you have no proof of it, therefore, you can't really speak of it. that is called speaking out of school. sooo, it still stands that every site owner has agreed with those of us that believe a "surrender" button would be too easily abused and detrimental to the site. Thank you, no further questions, you may take your seat back in the gallery... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noirs

p.s.-you literally spoke FOR the owner of the site, who has never publicly stated that. so uncool... not cool to speak for someone as if it is from a place of authority, especially when it hasn't been publicly stated... just a little life lesson for you to carry forward with you, from this day on...

owenshooter wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:No, because these discussions did not happen in public.

soooo, you have no proof of it, therefore, you can't really speak of it. that is called speaking out of school. sooo, it still stands that every site owner has agreed with those of us that believe a "surrender" button would be too easily abused and detrimental to the site. Thank you, no further questions, you may take your seat back in the gallery... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noirs

p.s.-you literally spoke FOR the owner of the site, who has never publicly stated that. so uncool... not cool to speak for someone as if it is from a place of authority, especially when it hasn't been publicly stated... just a little life lesson for you to carry forward with you, from this day on...

I can't provide you proof of it because I am no longer a member of staff, and even if I was, those specific discussions are confidential and don't leave the staff forums, so there's no reason for you to see them. But it's not like I'm getting this information secondhand. When I was Suggestions lead, I asked bw if we could insert a resign button. He said he thought it was OK and worth giving a shot. When I informed the rest of the staff that this is what I wanted to do, almost all of them were quite strongly opposed to it, at which point the administration decided it wasn't worth the tension. (This situation was one of the major reasons why I decided to leave the team.) Unless you think I'm straight out lying about what happened while I was on staff (and I am sure any staff member who was there at the time would back me up), then quit it.

It's a bullshit idea. 70% of users are freemiums. They get 4 games. A resign button gives unlimited games.

No, a resign button gives 4 games, it just means that all 4 games are actual games and not a slaughter that is just in the process of being cleaned up.

But hey, y'all keep doing what you're doing. I am loving the Great Decline and wouldn't want to threaten it with anything that might make the CC experience more enjoyable for new members.

yes, i deadbeat....need a "concede" button and i won't have to deadbeat :{)

I do not know why my phrase of 1-2 people started that discussion, that was a reference to chess sites, where you cannot find anyone seriously believing that the resignation button (always existing of course in all chess sites of the world) is a bad thing that encourages cheating. If you propose something like that, they will all laugh at you. That is a fact. OK, you may have the dillusion that risk has something special as a strategy game compared to chess, leading to the conclusion that resignation possibility is harmful to risk much more than it is to chess. Do not expect me to agree with that though...
In fact, no one ever explains how cheating is encouraged by providing a resignation option. If you mean it is easier to click resignation instead of deadbeating, yes it is, the cheater will need 3 days to become conqueror, instead of 1. Not a significant achievement I have to say.
It is not necessarily bad for new players to be able to resign faster. In fact, it probably is an improvement. Check for example chat of this game.
https://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=15163742
The guy is new and has of course no chance to beat me in hive. I am always terrified when a new recruit joins one of my hives. He will find it boring, slow and difficult to finish off. He may get the wrong impression that CC is like that, hurting the site. A resignation button would allow him to unlock a new game and get rid of that slow death

By the way, any guy offering us information about similar situations in Go or Chinese chess sites?

DoomYoshi wrote:It's a bullshit idea. 70% of users are freemiums. They get 4 games. A resign button gives unlimited games.

i wouldn't pay for premium again, that's for sure... but hey, as long as these guys aren't inconvenienced on massive maps with lame/boring settings, it's all good... hive? trench? SERIOUSLY?! who would do that? that is a year long commitment at minimum... anyway, it will never happen... never, ever, ever... and i will bet anyone lifetime premium that it will never happen. why? the owner would get SLAUGHTERED by freemiums just playing non-stop... it will never happen... and keep comparing it to chess, resign is in the RULES of chess, it's not in the rules of CC or RISK... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

owenshooter wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:It's a bullshit idea. 70% of users are freemiums. They get 4 games. A resign button gives unlimited games.

i wouldn't pay for premium again, that's for sure... but hey, as long as these guys aren't inconvenienced on massive maps with lame/boring settings, it's all good... hive? trench? SERIOUSLY?! who would do that? that is a year long commitment at minimum... anyway, it will never happen... never, ever, ever... and i will bet anyone lifetime premium that it will never happen. why? the owner would get SLAUGHTERED by freemiums just playing non-stop... it will never happen... and keep comparing it to chess, resign is in the RULES of chess, it's not in the rules of CC or RISK... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

Enlight me how freemium would start playing unlimited?
I was freemium for 2 years before becoming premium. When I was freemium, I would join game, and play them to win. I think 99% of freemium join a game to win it too. Keeping that in mind, I don't think they would join games, resign, join a new game, resign, join a new game resign.

If you are playing 1vs1 games, and you already lost - except on trench or hive type map - the game will be finished extremely fast. So resign button won't change much.
If you are playing multiplayer game, well, according to suggestions topic it is more or less agreed by everyone that in multiplayer games we don't put a resign button so no topic to discuss.

Well, how resign increase amout of games for freemium?

owenshooter wrote: and keep comparing it to chess, resign is in the RULES of chess, it's not in the rules of CC or RISK... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

Yes, we're trying to put it in the rules of CC like it is in the rules of every single other game out there (most of which are vastly more successful than Risk).