Conquer Club

TheForgivenOne wrote:So you are in pro of the resign button?

As i said, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

Yes. I created a variant of the suggestion a couple months ago that no one really ever refuted the efficacy of; specifically, I said that if you turn on resignation after X rounds, where X = 50, say, then you remove all of the practical disadvantages, because it would be faster for multis to simply play the game out as normal and win by eliminating other players than to go back and forth skipping 50 turns.

That being said, I agree that if resignation is turned on from Round 1, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I just don't think that specific disadvantage you listed, i.e. "taking the fun out of it," is actually a disadvantage.

your playing a conquer game, not a surrender game. if one of you is ready to surrender, then its likely that the game will be over soon either way.

Darwins_Bane wrote:your playing a conquer game, not a surrender game. if one of you is ready to surrender, then its likely that the game will be over soon either way.

Sure, but even if soon means five rounds, that might be a week's worth of time to actually finish it. That's a lot of time, to a free player who would want to have his or her slots as open as possible.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Darwins_Bane wrote:your playing a conquer game, not a surrender game. if one of you is ready to surrender, then its likely that the game will be over soon either way.

Sure, but even if soon means five rounds, that might be a week's worth of time to actually finish it. That's a lot of time, to a free player who would want to have his or her slots as open as possible.

good point. Except it still does no good. You agree that people shouldn't be allowed to resign early in the game.

Now, if thr final 5 rounds takes a week (which it doesn't at the end of the game when someone's just cleaning up, but doesn't matter), the first 50 rounds took 10 weeks or probably more, since there would be more people left. A freemie who can't stand to wait a week for a game to finish wouldn't be the type of freemie to sit through the first 50-3000 rounds of a stalemate game, 10 weeks-3+ years

jrh_cardinal wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Darwins_Bane wrote:your playing a conquer game, not a surrender game. if one of you is ready to surrender, then its likely that the game will be over soon either way.

Sure, but even if soon means five rounds, that might be a week's worth of time to actually finish it. That's a lot of time, to a free player who would want to have his or her slots as open as possible.

good point. Except it still does no good. You agree that people shouldn't be allowed to resign early in the game.

Now, if thr final 5 rounds takes a week (which it doesn't at the end of the game when someone's just cleaning up, but doesn't matter), the first 50 rounds took 10 weeks or probably more, since there would be more people left. A freemie who can't stand to wait a week for a game to finish wouldn't be the type of freemie to sit through the first 50-3000 rounds of a stalemate game, 10 weeks-3+ years

Agreed, but if it saves time, it's still a good thing to do. It would be optimal if people could resign whenever they wanted; I only do not support that because TFO was correct in saying that the potential for abuse is too great when done that way. My suggestion retains some of the positives of being able to resign (i.e. not being stuck in dead games you have no chance of winning, but must wait a few rounds to get knocked out), and avoids all of the negatives.

Hey Guys,

When it is obvious that the game is at an end, it would be nice to be able to surrender. That would speed the game up an avoid people skipping turns and making every one wait.
Check my account, i play 100% of my turns and would like to keep it that way. I also know when a game is over, so it would be honorable to be able to end it in a surrender.

Great game by the way!

Has been implemented before way back in early 2006 but removed because of mass abuse, and is likely to be rejected no matter how you justify it.
Next.

thanks for all the input. Bigger question that I first thought and there are obviously some entrenched positions here but I think this last point is valid. I have been playing Risk for 44 years and in the "real" world ( board game) resignation is common meaning someone doesn't have to sit out a lengthy defeat and can get off to the pub before closing time. The idea that it could be turned on after a certain number of turns is an excellent one and I believe answers most points. The multis are gonna cheat whatever but a multi that has to wait 20,30 50 rounds is probably goingto find quicker ways.

There's another point that hasn't been brought up; what's in it for CC to have a 'resign' button. Answer: nothing.

CC is a business. CC offers a small number of games to those who do not wish to pay to play. If a premium player gets stuck in a lengthy game, it may not be fun, but it doesn't hurt either. If a freemium player gets stuck in an lengthy game, that player may realize that $25 isn't too harsh a fee to play an unlimited number of games where getting stuck in one wouldn't matter.

Thus, the only player this change could really benefit, is the player who didn't cough up the $25 per year ($2.09/month, .59 cents a week, .07 cents/day) to play.

The only folks who can play CC have access to the 'net enough to play; and if they are in an area with internet access, chances are they receive birthday or holiday gifts throughout the year, in a value that exceeds $25/year... which means, they can probably afford to pay to play unlimited numbers of games so they don't get stuck, if they choose to ask for this as a gift instead of whatever else they asked for... or purchase a CC membership out of their wages, or allowance, or whatever, if they choose.

If paying for the privilege of not having to worry that 25% of your games might get stuck in an endless battle you have no hope to win is not worth it, why is it worth it to CC to spend the effort necessary to fix this for you?

A totally different aspect is: Some people enjoy "the kill". A resign button deprives that person of the glee of taking out an opponent's last troop.

When I was a 'free' player, I grant you, getting stuck in a battle I couldn't win was terribly frustrating. As a premium player, I still don't like it much (who really likes to lose?) but it matters less; I can always auto-attack down to 1's to make the opponent's victory quicker ... doesn't affect the rest of my games... but that still gives the opponent the glee of the final takedown.

Plus, if you're in a situation like that, you can always post a request that the opponent play rt for a while till the game is over.

stahrgazer wrote:There's another point that hasn't been brought up; what's in it for CC to have a 'resign' button. Answer: nothing.

CC is a business. CC offers a small number of games to those who do not wish to pay to play. If a premium player gets stuck in a lengthy game, it may not be fun, but it doesn't hurt either. If a freemium player gets stuck in an lengthy game, that player may realize that $25 isn't too harsh a fee to play an unlimited number of games where getting stuck in one wouldn't matter.

Thus, the only player this change could really benefit, is the player who didn't cough up the $25 per year ($2.09/month, .59 cents a week, .07 cents/day) to play.

The only folks who can play CC have access to the 'net enough to play; and if they are in an area with internet access, chances are they receive birthday or holiday gifts throughout the year, in a value that exceeds $25/year... which means, they can probably afford to pay to play unlimited numbers of games so they don't get stuck, if they choose to ask for this as a gift instead of whatever else they asked for... or purchase a CC membership out of their wages, or allowance, or whatever, if they choose.

If paying for the privilege of not having to worry that 25% of your games might get stuck in an endless battle you have no hope to win is not worth it, why is it worth it to CC to spend the effort necessary to fix this for you?

This is irrelevant; at the point where CC does offer free games to players, obviously lack has some reason why he wants to do something for nothing, for the free players. It's entirely possible that the only purpose of the free membership is to get you to sign up for the premium membership. Even if that's the case, though, the point remains because people are more likely to pay for a service if they perceive it as having lots of useful features. If the free members see the administration as catering to their needs, they are more likely to give back to the site that they enjoy (i.e. by buying a subscription).

Besides, that was just one reason why it's a good idea. I'm not a free player - obviously I wouldn't benefit from that, directly. However, I would benefit by not having to waste time playing games I have no chance of winning. I don't think I'm alone in saying that when there's a game that I see is hopelessly lost, I don't bother wasting time trying to figure out what the best move is, I just do the perfunctory actions and move on. I'd rather be able to save that time and play other games or do other things.

A totally different aspect is: Some people enjoy "the kill". A resign button deprives that person of the glee of taking out an opponent's last troop.

No one really enjoys "the kill" when it's been coming for five rounds and you've just been trying to break through neutrals to collect those last territories. If a significant number of people said that their enjoyment of the game would be diminished because they didn't get to finish games that they've functionally won by actually conquering all the opponents' territories, I would reconsider. But I don't think you'd find that many people, especially when they consider the potential benefits.

Speak for yourself, because I like finally crushing the opposition. As for your suggestion, my question is, how many games would it actually affect. Seeing as there aren't that many games where they last more than 50 rounds (relative to how many last less than 50), and of those games, the few where you would actually use this button. I think that the abuse outweighs the usefulness in this case. As well, it has already been repeatedly rejected, so i would rather see them come out with some other updates and add-ons.

Darwins_Bane wrote:Speak for yourself, because I like finally crushing the opposition. As for your suggestion, my question is, how many games would it actually affect. Seeing as there aren't that many games where they last more than 50 rounds (relative to how many last less than 50), and of those games, the few where you would actually use this button. I think that the abuse outweighs the usefulness in this case. As well, it has already been repeatedly rejected, so i would rather see them come out with some other updates and add-ons.

People keep on saying this, but there would be no abuses if done the way I suggested. You can't make the same argument as a retort to my suggestion if my suggestion shows why that retort is wrong.

Look all I'm saying is not that there will be tons of abuse, but every time there is a hole, someone will jump in. Its going to happen that someone abuses a hole if there is one. I'm just saying i think that the cons outweigh the pros.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Darwins_Bane wrote:Speak for yourself, because I like finally crushing the opposition. As for your suggestion, my question is, how many games would it actually affect. Seeing as there aren't that many games where they last more than 50 rounds (relative to how many last less than 50), and of those games, the few where you would actually use this button. I think that the abuse outweighs the usefulness in this case. As well, it has already been repeatedly rejected, so i would rather see them come out with some other updates and add-ons.

People keep on saying this, but there would be no abuses if done the way I suggested. You can't make the same argument as a retort to my suggestion if my suggestion shows why that retort is wrong.

Do you have any information on how often it would be used? I'd be curious to see an analysis of a snapshot of active games (say what we have right now) that would be effected. If it looks like few games and thus few players would benefit from it, Lack is more likely spend time coding something that has a larger impact. But if it looks like it will have enough effect on a large number of games and players, something like that gives more credence to cost/benefit spent towards coding it.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Darwins_Bane wrote:Speak for yourself, because I like finally crushing the opposition. As for your suggestion, my question is, how many games would it actually affect. Seeing as there aren't that many games where they last more than 50 rounds (relative to how many last less than 50), and of those games, the few where you would actually use this button. I think that the abuse outweighs the usefulness in this case. As well, it has already been repeatedly rejected, so i would rather see them come out with some other updates and add-ons.

People keep on saying this, but there would be no abuses if done the way I suggested. You can't make the same argument as a retort to my suggestion if my suggestion shows why that retort is wrong.

Do you have any information on how often it would be used? I'd be curious to see an analysis of a snapshot of active games (say what we have right now) that would be effected. If it looks like few games and thus few players would benefit from it, Lack is more likely spend time coding something that has a larger impact. But if it looks like it will have enough effect on a large number of games and players, something like that gives more credence to cost/benefit spent towards coding it.


--Andy

I've never spent much time trying to figure out how many players this would affect, because the prevailing attitude here seems to be "resigning will never happen." If I thought that there were enough people who were willing to consider new evidence, I might look into it. I don't think it would be too hard to do; we could take a look at, say, all active 1v1 games that are currently at Round 50 or above, and from that sample determine what percentage of those games have players that are so far behind that they would probably resign if given the option (of course, there will always be those few who do reject the idea because of their emotional response to it, but I think that if the option were available, they would use it anyway).

We could also expand that to all games, not just 1v1's, but we'd need to discuss what would happen to points in the event of resignation in a multiplayer game. I don't think there's a necessarily clean answer to it. Perhaps we could say that if you resign, you lose points equal to the number of points you would have lost if the lowest-ranked player eliminated you (and no one gains points on your resignation).

oh look the conquer is playing me resign that's what the game for the conquer will be like

Hell no, Just hell no.

So to avoid abuse - how about a resign button where all parties must agree to the player resigning?

Aka 4 player game:

Jim, Pete, Ally, Andy - Andy is about to have a baby early and resigns. It doesn't appear to Jim, Pete, and Ally to be a case of bad rolls, or bad start up. Andy has good ratings and solid feedback, they agree to let him drop.

Further down the line example:

Only Jim and Pete are left, Pete's got no cards and just 4 in aussie with 5 guys. Jim's got cards, and reinforces to boot. They can fight back and forth for as long as they want but Pete's gunna lose, so he resigns to jim as the winner. Jim accepts.

If someone doesn't accept - play goes on as normal?

PS - I'm not in favor of resign button - Just trying to find a solution for all. Cheers

IcePack wrote:So to avoid abuse - how about a resign button where all parties must agree to the player resigning?

Aka 4 player game:

Jim, Pete, Ally, Andy - Andy is about to have a baby early and resigns. It doesn't appear to Jim, Pete, and Ally to be a case of bad rolls, or bad start up. Andy has good ratings and solid feedback, they agree to let him drop.

Further down the line example:

Only Jim and Pete are left, Pete's got no cards and just 4 in aussie with 5 guys. Jim's got cards, and reinforces to boot. They can fight back and forth for as long as they want but Pete's gunna lose, so he resigns to jim as the winner. Jim accepts.

If someone doesn't accept - play goes on as normal?

PS - I'm not in favor of resign button - Just trying to find a solution for all. Cheers

And how would points be handed out?

TheForgivenOne wrote:

IcePack wrote:So to avoid abuse - how about a resign button where all parties must agree to the player resigning?

Aka 4 player game:

Jim, Pete, Ally, Andy - Andy is about to have a baby early and resigns. It doesn't appear to Jim, Pete, and Ally to be a case of bad rolls, or bad start up. Andy has good ratings and solid feedback, they agree to let him drop.

Further down the line example:

Only Jim and Pete are left, Pete's got no cards and just 4 in aussie with 5 guys. Jim's got cards, and reinforces to boot. They can fight back and forth for as long as they want but Pete's gunna lose, so he resigns to jim as the winner. Jim accepts.

If someone doesn't accept - play goes on as normal?

PS - I'm not in favor of resign button - Just trying to find a solution for all. Cheers

And how would points be handed out?

Why not what metsfanmax suggested?

We could also expand that to all games, not just 1v1's, but we'd need to discuss what would happen to points in the event of resignation in a multiplayer game. I don't think there's a necessarily clean answer to it. Perhaps we could say that if you resign, you lose points equal to the number of points you would have lost if the lowest-ranked player eliminated you (and no one gains points on your resignation).

good point!!

Metsfanmax wrote:
We could also expand that to all games, not just 1v1's, but we'd need to discuss what would happen to points in the event of resignation in a multiplayer game. I don't think there's a necessarily clean answer to it. Perhaps we could say that if you resign, you lose points equal to the number of points you would have lost if the lowest-ranked player eliminated you (and no one gains points on your resignation).

This suggestion sounds good on surface, to avoid farming: it does limit the ability for multis or secret alliances to benefit from the resign button; but a potential abuse exists with this as well. A bunch of people gang up to join a game. When 7 of them realize they can't win, they all resign. While they lose, the 8th player can't win anything. I doubt player 8 will find that "fun" for long. He might have preferred that no resign button existed so that he could win the points he joined the game to try for. It might discourage him from buying premium after all.

This has been suggested countless times. Unless I'm mistaken it was rejected last week once again, and that thread was substantial.

Perhaps a sticky thread should be made with links to the numerous threads concerning this issue & a notification that it has been rejected "100 times" & a request that all future discussions be held in said thread.

Arama86n wrote:This has been suggested countless times. Unless I'm mistaken it was rejected last week once again, and that thread was substantial.

Perhaps a sticky thread should be made with links to the numerous threads concerning this issue & a notification that it has been rejected "100 times" & a request that all future discussions be held in said thread.

Perhaps this has basically already been done ;P

This is a bad idea and I hope this will never be implemented.