clangfield wrote:Donelladan wrote:Silly Knig-it wrote:If the losing player cares at all about other people they will pay attention and play it out. It doesn't take long to hit deploy, end, end.
I am not speaking about an hypothetic ideal world. I am speaking about reality here. I've said it in my first post. Deadbeating trench speed game is the norm for regular trench speed players.
This is an issue. We should do something about it. And it's getting worse.
And no the losing player doesn't care most of the time. Lot of speed players aren't nice at all. But this isn't what we should be talking about. We are not going to be able to change that
IcePack wrote:I've always been against the concede button. The only instance where I go from against to neutral is trench games. But even then it's not something I really like the idea of
.
Why ?
In trench game we know when it's over and there is absolutely no point playing the game when it's over.
Try following : feudal epic poly (4) trench game - USA 2.1 poly(4) trench game. Those are quite terrible to deadbeat and took a lot of times to finish if you don't deadbeat them anyway
But sames goes for 1vs1 feudal epic trench game ( we are speaking of 23k speed games with those setting, so it's a relatively common game). The map is big, and it can take more than 10 turns to finish it. Yeah 10 turns aren't that long. But it's 10 turns for nothing. And when you play this map a lot it's quite boring to have to do that every fucking time you play the map.
This is true for speed, in which people deadbeat, and it's annoying for one of them. ( the one that stay).
But it's also true for 24h games, in which people don't deadbeat, but it's equally annoying to have to finish those game.
I believe you don't get it ( I see you only have a silver trench medal ) so just believe us - the trench players - we need it.
But give me a reason why in a 1vs1 game we shouldn't have a concede button ?
Because there are some pathetic people who will set up 1v1 games against their multi account, concede as soon as is permissible, and gain themselves "vital" points. Unfortunately it's the abuse of it that rules it out.
This has somehow gotten lost from the thread, but one of the things that many people agreed on when this was an active topic a few years back, was that not activating the Resign button until Turn 10 would prevent that kind of abuse.
riskllama wrote:Mets should get a 1 week ban for poor moderation.
buddhabelly wrote:Have to agree that the merging of a 10-year thread was pretty rough.
Merging of similar threads is normal policy. It reduces clutter in this forum. However, it does bother me that some mod in the distant past did not move important safeguards into the OP. I certainly won't bother to read 78 pages to find out who, but it should have been done. There was quite a bit of discussion back in 2012 or 13 that worked out all the possible abuses and solutions to them.
The most common scenario is one where people use this for farming multis. (I should add that I agree with Don -- creating multis is still against the rules, and someone who is creating multis to farm them will eventually get caught and get a point reset.) The easiest solution to this abuse is that the Resign button does not become active until Turn 10.
Another possible abuse is freemiums using the resign button to circumvent the four-game limit. Just keep starting new games and quit them until you get one that's going the way you wanted it to. I think the point loss is enough to discourage that behaviour, but if it's not enough there are other safeguards possible. The Resign button could be a premium perk, or there could be limitations about freemiums using it only once a day or once a week. That can be tweaked, and again it's been discussed in the past in this thread and should have been copied to the OP.
Another possible abuse is in multiplayer games, where someone is about to lose and drops out just to spitefully prevent you from getting their cards. About this possible abuse, many people said the resign button should be used only in 1v1 games. I disagree, however. I think a simpler solution is just to make it like deadbeating from a Terminator game. Your cards and troops remain on the table, and players still in the game can fight over who gets to your cards first. Again, this was discussed in the past and should have been copied to the OP.
Now that we have bots, an even better refinement can be considered. If you resign in a multiplayer game, you are not out of it, but your game gets turned over to whambot. This is what happens when you quit a multiplayer game on a site like Pogo, and it works quite well. The remaining players get the satisfaction of finishing the game, they just have a somewhat dumber opponent. At least the bot will take his turns quickly and the other players don't have to wait longer than their own turns.
