Conquer Club

How was it abused?

Somebody's about to take you out and you quit so the don't get your cards. It also makes it really easy for multi's to get points.

Next time read [Official] Suggestions Box (Lack's 'To-Do' List) on top of the forum it say surrender button is rejected...

hecter wrote:Somebody's about to take you out and you quit so the don't get your cards. It also makes it really easy for multi's to get points.

that could be fixed like the terminator now is
but what can't is that multi's would abuse it much and then become high ranked

If there is an option to do this, I don't know it.
I have been in a situation a couple of times where I needed to quit the game, and could not. So basicaly I punished the rest of the players for 3 turns because I wanted to leave.

It would be really nice to have a "drop this game" option on the my games board that also works for active games ( gives you a suitable warning and confirmation dialog too )

The outcome of dropping an active game would be that all your armies get turned "white". it might be interesting if you also allowed whoever killed all the white to take any cards white had before leaving ( as happens in real games ) or those cards could be forfit. Whatever the developers prefer. I just want a way out.

Priority= 3

There used to be a surrender button. It was done away with and isn't coming back.

For the reasons it isn't coming back CLICK here

It is also on the to-do list. Under Rejected Ideas.

I have seen people come back from tight spots many times, and go on to win. Why should they give up when they can still win?
Also, it ruins the spirit of the game for everyone. Would you like it if someone just said, "Oh I'm losing. I just going to give up now." Sure, you still get points, but this site shouldn't just be about points! It should be about having fun playing RISK with other people.

Guilty_Biscuit wrote:There used to be a surrender button. It was done away with and isn't coming back.

For the reasons it isn't coming back CLICK here

It is also on the to-do list. Under Rejected Ideas.

I understand now. Still it seems like there is no point in not having it... if I have to forfit a game I wait 3 turns and the outcome is the same. It can still be abused. The only people who suffer are the other players. I understand the "multi" thing. What if you make it so you can only forfit a limited number of times or it takes away points or if you forfit, you can't forfit again for x number of games or something.
No big deal I guess. Thganks for considering my request though and not flaming me for posting something already covered in the to-do list.

Wanted to come back to this - you should never surrender. I've just finished a game where in round 5 I was down to 2 territories, had about 4 armies, no chance of getting a continent and it was flat rate cards so no big bonuses to come from escalating cards.

I played my cards (3xred) to give ppl less reason to take me out and sat and waited until round 18 when I took a chance to grab a continent. At that point there were only 3 players left including myself. It was a cracking battle between the 3 of us until I got a chance and went on to win in round 46.

By far one of the best games I've ever played in, against 2 brilliant CCers, and I never would have been involved if I'd pressed a surrender button back in round 5.

LINK TO THE GAME

From the game log:

2007-05-05 17:02:42 - Guilty_Biscuit receives 3 armies for 2 territories
(Some time later...)
2007-05-22 08:08:04 - Guilty_Biscuit won the game

Why not introduce a suicide button. If a game is taking longer than you thought and you off for a week on holiday, you could spare your opps the waiting time...

Check the sticky topic at the top of the forum, the "surrender" button has already been rejected.

Dali6871 wrote:Why not introduce a suicide button. If a game is taking longer than you thought and you off for a week on holiday, you could spare your opps the waiting time...

A Vacation Setting is currently pending on the to-do list.

A "Resign" button wouldn't be too bad of an idea. It would cut down on deadbeats too.

maybe... , but that would mean the game is less fun, with everyone resigning all the time...

Already been suggested, and shot down I believe. If we didnt have such a problem with multis it would be fine. But someone could use two accounts, eliminate all players and resign one of them to get the win.

joon wrote:A "Resign" button wouldn't be too bad of an idea. It would cut down on deadbeats too.

i believe they used to have this feature here but it was abused and so got rid of. also now with 1 vs 1's it would be multies ga-lore.

Hmmm now you mentioned 1v1, I guess it might work if you could only surrender if it didnt directly give someone a win, eg. 2 people left in a 4 player, they cant resign, 3 people left in a 4 way, 1 can resign.

I like the idea of a resign button. Since apparently there was one and it was removed, there were perceived problems. I saw the mention of multis, but I'm not clear on that. Couldn't you just as easily use a multi to suicide against your main?

I would think that a resign button would making tracking multi-abuse easier. You could filter games where people resigned while holding a lot of armies/territories/cards. It could also find any cases where one player gets resigned-to a lot, or repeatedly by the same player, etc. You still want a human to check the games, but it would beat sifting through games looking for suicides.

I'm not saying it would wipe out multi-abuse, but I'd like to hear how it exacerbates it.

Edit
Suggestion: Have people log the reason for resigning. Add it to the chat log and make it easily viewable to people looking for patterns of multi-abuse.

Now where have I seen this before?

RobinJ wrote:Now where have I seen this before?

Everywhere?

-Surrendering

- You can choose to allow to let your teammates take over your territory without losing men.

- When your team owns a continent, and you choose to give it to one of the team members, you don't want him/her to lose armies.

-3.5

If I play at home, I don't get to take my armies out of the box and set them aside, skip my turn and add them to my next turn. I don't think it is in keeping with the spirit of the game. I think it is better to just wait for speed games or some other type of time limit on turns than to add a skip turn button.

On a side note, I think if there was fog of war, you could set up some sneak attack option. One could choose to allow or disallow when setting up the game. It could work something like this. You can essentially fortify at the beginning of the turn, but not after, and with a price. The price could be a modifier on the dice roll. Something like -1 to the highest die, or to all die. I think this would be a much more fun way to play, than with people skipping turns on purpose.

I am 100% against the Skip Turn Button!

The wait is annoying, but to suggest that this is a strategy of players is a bit weak.

The other players should realize that during that turn they can (and should , if they suspect ill behaviour) conquer that player's lands so that at the next turn his CURRENT number of lands and bonus zones is going to get multiplied.
So there IS the risk of loosing ground for this deadbeat player.

Unfortunately not many players realise this, or donot act accordingly.


So no urgent need to change this situation.

Dlakavi wrote:This button could REALLY be exploited

ok..if this idea is going to be worked on the following issues should be involved

1- each player has the right to skip 1 turn in all the game or else as Dlakavi said : every1 will be missing turns

2- this button only shows to ppl who are playing sequential game.....no skipping turns in freestyle...thats b/s!!!

3-I am not against this idea but neither am I for it....If it happens i just wish for CC players not to use it often...cuz missing turns sucks balls

Cheers

Chessplaya

I think its a good idea. Like you say, people will skip their turn anyway if it has a strategic advantage - why make other players wait 24 hours?