peanut72 wrote:I hate escalating games - too short and not a lot of strategy needed.
I once thought as you do. Hopefully you will learn the error of your ways sooner rather than later.
Moderator: Community Team
peanut72 wrote:I hate escalating games - too short and not a lot of strategy needed.
insomniacdude wrote:peanut72 wrote:I hate escalating games - too short and not a lot of strategy needed.
I once thought as you do. Hopefully you will learn the error of your ways sooner rather than later.
peanut72 wrote:insomniacdude wrote:peanut72 wrote:I hate escalating games - too short and not a lot of strategy needed.
I once thought as you do. Hopefully you will learn the error of your ways sooner rather than later.
I still think surrender could be an option like Fog of War. The person who gets the highest cards that can then wipe out the entire map wins. Sorry thats not my idea of strategy.
So we are all denied something because someone might abuse it? There are cheaters on this site, does that mean none of us ever get to play games again?Risktaker17 wrote:But in escalating games the point is to kill someone to get their cards, if you could just surrender then...
timmytuttut88 wrote:<Subject>:
I was thinking to avoid this abuse when someone surrenders there armies dont go neutral. They just stay how they are and if you kill the person you still get the cards.
I have played games where people just stop taking their turns. That is the same thing in my book.cicero wrote:Another reason, for not implementing the suggestion, is that it can be downright annoying - for the winner - when a player decides 'oh stuff this, I'm only going to lose, I'm going to bed.'
In real life I hate that. It strikes me as unsporting.
And I don't think it would be much fun in virtual land either.
A win is a win. I don't care if a mod gives me the win.jakejake wrote:it would take the fun out of the game...if you're the one winning, you want to finish them off, it says so on the home page...something like "feel the thrill of victory as you eliminate you last opponent" - whenever i get the chance of winning, i wouldnt want the looser to "surrender" and take away my RARE moment of glory!!lol
Timminz wrote:and again, someone who won't/can't pay for a premium membership asking for a way to get more free games in.
sfhbballnut wrote:its a better concept, but i think this has been beaten so dead in the past, there's not gonna be much consideration here, that and it would suck to push surrender on accident
Users browsing this forum: No registered users