[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[Aladriel]

Nope. My advice? Play your heart out. Take as many armies from your enemies as you possibly can in the process.

[qeee1]

I never get people who want to quit mid way through a game. If I'm gonna get knocked out in the next turn or two then it's not going to take long. And if I'm not going to be knocked out that quickly I reckon I'm still in with a chance of winning... oh and comebacks are the sweetest.

[Twill]

The surrender button was removed intentionally because people would "steal" cards from players right before they would take them out. This was a bigger problem in doubles games than in singles, but was a problem all around.

If you can come up with a way to have surrenders in without this problem, feel free to suggest it

Have a great day, may it be fought to the last man
Twill

[juggalonw]

might be a stupid Idea, But could you make it so if a person surrendered that there controled land turned into white and allowed the other teams to fight over them, removing any unused cards from the surrendering player?

[Derwiddle]

We used to have that feature, but it was abused too much and really annoyed people who actually wanted to play a full game of RISK. So to the desires of the people, Lackattack removed it. Clicky

[Twill]

juggalonw, that is exactly what used to happen...see linky above.

[juggalonw]

RgR that, Thanks

[Banana Stomper]

I'm not sure if this type of play should be promoted, but how about a skip turn button for people strategically skipping for the sake of getting the doubled armies on their next turn?

I dont' immgine this would be popular, but i mean, if someone is going to skip, i don't want to sit there and wait 24 hours for them to do so.

I guess it all depends on whether or not this wants to be promoted as strategy, and if we don't want to do so, perhaps we might want to consider not multiplying troops....

[kingwaffles]

Okay, no offense Banana but people who use this as a strategy really piss me off and I think it would be a really bad move to promote people using that strategy. It would just make it that much easier for people to play cheaply.

Even though I'm very against this being used as a strategy I still say that the multiplication of armies should stay for the sake of the people who legitimately miss their turns.

[Banana Stomper]

Yea, i know its annoying, but so is the wait.

[Pedronicus]

its already an option. its the time bit that pisses me off... lets have it

We need more options when making a game... thats all

[thegrimsleeper]

Yeah, the wait is annoying, but it all comes back to the fact that the site was designed as a causal gaming experience. I know you know enough people that you could play games and never have to worry about deadbeats, so what's the problem?

[Pedronicus]

I started a 3 player game with two of my mates, and when i first looked at the board my heart sunk.

I was spread all over the place, with one friend in every territory bar one (that was me) in North America and my other friend in every territory bar one (that was me) in Africa.

I had 2 pieces in Oz, 3 in Europe and the rest dotted all over the place in Asia.

Now I'm not a quitter, but i could see that this game was never going to be won by me and i contemplated deadbeating it to preserve my leaderboard position.

Sure enough, I lost, and the guy who beat me had a very low score and i lost 32 points

There must be some people out there who have played enough games by now to know when its advantageous to not play.

Surely there comes a time in a regular CC players history that deadbeating becomes unavailable and this devious ploy is no longer an option.

Discuss please...

[Derwiddle]

I've considered that sometimes as well... But then I remember how irritating it is when other people go deadbeat on me - so that always (hopefully) will keep me from doing it.

[wacicha]

I've finished 752 games I deadbeated not once I even went on an 8 day cruise and finished all the games i was in 2 days before cruise started after i got on cruse found out for $3 a minute i still could play but girlfriend said it might not be a good thing to do lol

[Haydena]

Heh, I've played online games in a shopping centre in Scotland whilst on holiday before... However that's another story.

I never deadbeat, never have and never will... I know how much it pisses off other people, and don't see the point considering how hopelessly addicted to this game... I'll see every game out till the bitter end...

[wcaclimbing]

i think people should still lose the points if they deadbeat that they would have lost if they got out of the game normally. that would keep people in their games and there would be much less high level deadbeating

[UTGreen]

The only time I've deadbeated (and I kinda felt bad about it, but not really) I had played my first turn in a team game, and then PMed my partner about strategy. He never responded, didn't play, had never played a game before, and I had fortified most of my pieces over to him already. So I didn't play again and even though I PMed him another time or two I never heard out of him and he didn't show up on CC again. Is that ethical?

I feel mildly bad, but I would have been playing me vs. 2 other teams of 2 and had already given up many of my armies. I felt bad for the others stuck in the game, but hey, I'm a big fan of adding the forfeit button and were it there I would have hit it, even if I would have lost the points. As it was, I forced the rest of the team to wait on me and my no-show partner for 144 hours and walked away unpunished in score. So if you want to berate me verbally I think that would be fair.

[vanmaanj]

**Rejection Reason**

**Removed Because Of Abuse, Will Not Be Coming Back**



I think there needs to be a surrender button for the last 2 people left in the game. Sometime there are moments where you know you are going to lose and you have to sit there and wait till the other person kills you.

[kevinc]

Surrendering is for losers!!

[ChaunceyMo]

It's very obvious that some people do what you described intentionally. Generally it's a (relatively) high rated player starting a game, who is fully active in other games they are playing, but mysteriously deadbeats when they find that their start is really poor. I've seen it happen in one six player sequential game, which was HORRIBLY annoying, because it made the first three turns take about a week. I think there needs to be a penalty, preferably a steep one, to discourage this.

Just having other players get the deadbeat's points would be bad, because it would promote very easy multiplaying to raise your score. A nice system, as wcaclimbing suggested already, would be for the deadbeat to lose the number of points (plus maybe a deadbeat penalty) they would've lost for losing the game, and just not have the other players get those points. They can go into the abyss. Then there'd be no advantage to deadbeating, so you'd at least stop some % of the deadbeats out there. And any improvement would be good... I'm about to swear off public games, particularly public team games, because somewhere around 1/3 to 1/2 of them end up with a deadbeat.

[SonicStriker]

I agree with the surrender button, because let's say one person has all these continents and bonuses and is assured to win, but is not currently playing. The other two people, who would want to quit, would have to wait for the player to finish the game. This, in turn, would prevent them from playing any additional games if they had 4 games going (unless they were a member, in which case it wouldn't matter).

[thegrimsleeper]

I've seen some pretty remarkable comebacks. Pushing a surrender button is selling yourself short.

[Banana Stomper]

why not though. I wouldn't use it personally, but why not.

[thegrimsleeper]

I'll tell you why not:

1. It's against the spirit of the game, which is kill or be killed. Not roll over and take one in the bum.

2. I know the rationale is that you will be saving yourself and others time, but honestly, if you've made it to the point where there's 3 people left in the game, and you're in such a poition that you feel you have no hope but to surrender, how much time are you really wasting? You can't wait another 24 hours?

3. Attacking as much as you can until you only have 1 army on each territory isn't hard (or time-consuming) to do, and it does things almost as effectively as a surrender button would.

4. The Cards. If you hit surrender, and you become neutral, your cards are lost. This was abused in the past for this reason, and it would be abused in the future if reinstated.

5. Multis. We had much less of a problem with multis (or at least so it seems) when the button was still a part of the site. If this were implemented now, with the multi situation being what it is, I guarantee multis will be wreaking even more havoc on our scoreboard.
[edit] This will make it even easier for multis to go undetected, because they will be able to play as seperate entities and just surrender at the end of the game, drawing less suspicion to themselves.

I could go on, but I think I'll just wrap things up by advising anyone who still thinks a surrender button is a good idea to search the forum for old threads regarding it. You'll see why we don't have one now, and likely never will again.