[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[Tenebrus]

And much more obvious.

[dolomite13]

First I like to say that I see why the surrender button was removed ... however..

- The surrender button could be added for premium accounts only.
- You could attempt to surrender at the beginning of your turn only, before selecting to begin your turn and your turn would be skipped like missing a turn.
- The surrender would need to be accepted by all of the remaining players on their upcoming turn.
- If it made it through all of the players accepting your surrender it would be treated like a missed turn from now on.
- Your name would reflect your surrender "yourname [SURRENDERED]" possibly with a black circle icon to the left of your name where the green/red ones are.
- You would not be allowed to return to a game where you surrendered and would be considered to have lost that game.
- You would not be granted a win in assassin game if someone eliminated your target.
- Number of surrenders would be tracked and added to your profile alongside wins/losses.
- In team games your allies could reinforce your territories.

That's just my 13 cents worth.

=D13=

P.S. I would love to see a "Stalemate" button that would appear when there were only 2 players left (in games that start with more than 2 players) and grant both players a partial win, smaller bump in points than a full win. This could automatically trigger a post in a moderator only board with game number, game settings, and player names so that someone was aware that a given map might end in too many stalemates and possibly require modifications.

[loutil]

I am sure this has been discussed before but I cannot find it.


Concise description:
Create an option for a player or team to surrender. In a team game all members would have to select the option.

Specifics/Details:
Some maps take quite a while to finish even when the outcome is no longer in doubt. Maps like Conquer Rome, Kings II, Das, ect. Also, many trench games can drag on for quite a while. I suggest giving the players the option to surrender and declare the opponent the victor.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
This is primarily a player benefit but should also speed up the finish of clan wars and tournaments.

[spiesr]

MERGED: Surrender button

[chapcrap]

MERGED: A Draw, check box where if all players tick box game is draw

[Trevor33]

In all 1vs1 games actually... even multi player games that go down to 1vs1.

Much like a game of chess can be resigned as should in cc. What's the point in playing on in a lost position? Just wastes time.

[spiesr]

MERGED: Regin is polymorphc games

[RICHARDJOHN]

i was wondering if a new option could be considered. several times (a lot for me, lol) while playing a game, you realize there is no way someone could win. instead of death by a thousand cuts, we have an option available to surrender. it ends the game quicker and the players can move along to other games. let me know if this is possible.

[JamesKer1]

Look Here:
Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button [Rejected]

[spiesr]

MERGED: surrender option during game play
For the time being please keep all discussion of this idea in this thread.

[RICHARDJOHN]

possible surrender/resign/forfeit guidelines:

1. if you quit a 2-player game, it is an automatic win for the other player, scores are still calculated as usual and awarded.
2. if you quit a 3+ player game, your troops stay in place, scores are still calculated, spoils are still available to who ever knocks you out.
another option would be to convert the troops that belong to the surrender player back to neutral 3 and the spoils are removed. this is
similar to what happens if you miss 2 turns and get kicked out.

[Trevor33]

Normal and polymorphic, why needlessly extent the game when you know it's over? It's such a big waste of time starting a round, making the deploy, ending attacks, ending forts. Why not just have the quit the game option when it's lost?

Not for team games as people will think the game is lost at a different point so it's unfair to put pressure on people.

I know the counter argument, what if people abuse the system. Start a bunch of games and resign them, simply ban them, it's cheating.

[Anarkistsdream]

I still think it should have to be a mutual thing... But, especially with these Trench games, sometimes you know you are beat but you still have to play through multiple rounds because the opponent must advance so slowly.

[JamesKer1]

MERGED: Forfeit or resign option in all 1vs1 games.

[Trevor33]

I still think it should have to be a mutual thing... But, especially with these Trench games, sometimes you know you are beat but you still have to play through multiple rounds because the opponent must advance so slowly.

And now with poly games if a player deadbeats you have to wait 9 days and 9 turns to pick up the win. 9 turns wasted. Should be changed to 6. 3, they still have a chance but not after missing 6 turns in a row.

[JamesKer1]

I still think it should have to be a mutual thing... But, especially with these Trench games, sometimes you know you are beat but you still have to play through multiple rounds because the opponent must advance so slowly.

And now with poly games if a player deadbeats you have to wait 9 days and 9 turns to pick up the win. 9 turns wasted. Should be changed to 6. 3, they still have a chance but not after missing 6 turns in a row.

I believe a fix for that is in the making, not 100% sure though.

[nvrijn]

I know ... no one wants to hear it.

But how can having a resign button IN A 2-PLAYER game be subject to abuse? This allows a player to "tip over his king" in graceful fashion, instead of slogging it out or deliberately missing 3 turns in a row.

A two-player game "resign". Why not?

Nvrijn

[ender516]

I know ... no one wants to hear it.

But how can having a resign button IN A 2-PLAYER game be subject to abuse? This allows a player to "tip over his king" in graceful fashion, instead of slogging it out or deliberately missing 3 turns in a row.

A two-player game "resign". Why not?

Nvrijn

Because if a cheater adds a quick second account, he can drain it of all its points. The admins could likely reverse all that, but it would just be more work.

[agentcom]

Also ... implementing different rules/features for different game types should generally be avoided absent convincing need.

[chris.yfc]

I know this will most likely not be implemented but with all the stars being added, can we implement a costly Forfeit (maybe 3 stars) along with a skip 3 turns penalty (maybe 5 stars). That way if you quit playing a game you lose, but if you know you are going to quit, there is a cheaper option.

Any thoughts?

[battlemania]

Create a forfeit botton

I want a forfeit botton created so a player can leave without reprisals or deadbeating

It perhaps could be on all games, but in particular there is a need for it in one on one games, and especially in trench matches where upon defeat becoming obvious, it can take many turns to take all the opponents territories and further deployments by the player who is destined to loose only drags out the inevitable. Would save time, frustration and cc resources. If it was implemented in non trench, and non 1vs1 matches, the opponents troops could be entirely changed to nuetral, probably best to make them all 1's to so it couldn't be used as a cheap tactic to unfairly block another player.

This forfeit button would be of great benefit because it would save time, boring endings, frustration, and players missing turns to speed up the inevitable loss, and would free up some room on the servers


Cheers Battlemania

[Gabriel13]

This has been suggested many times already.

[BigBallinStalin]

1. Is your avatar photoshooped?

2. The standard argument is that forfeit buttons would encourage more 'gross abuse' of the game (e.g. easier to point dump). Another is that it ruins the spirit of the game.

3. Are resources reduced if a small portion of games are ended sooner? Sure--by some negligible amount. Freeing up a small amount of resources isn't likely to be worth the costs (see #2).

4. Some players would be harmed by the implementation of a forfeit button while some would gain in the few times it's needed. Most players probably don't care. If the costs of boredom/frustration are so great, one can always deadbeat or reduce themselves to one-man terries, so a forfeit button doesn't seem necessary. It would be necessary if the benefits were so great that it would increase CC's customer base and encourage customers to stay premium, but such benefits aren't obvious nor likely to emerge from having a forfeit button.

A forfeit button doesn't seem necessary.

[battlemania]

how about for 1vs 1 trench, it can save a huge amount of wasted time and energy only to see the inevitable happen. No one loses. If players want to point dump, there are easier setups for this.
People whinge about deadbeating far more often than point dumping . This only hurts that player, and not really cos they want it. It could be harmful in multi player matches, but not in one on one.
It is necessary. It has been suggested many times for this reason

[clangfield]

how about for 1vs 1 trench, it can save a huge amount of wasted time and energy only to see the inevitable happen. No one loses. If players want to point dump, there are easier setups for this.
People whinge about deadbeating far more often than point dumping . This only hurts that player, and not really cos they want it. It could be harmful in multi player matches, but not in one on one.
It is necessary. It has been suggested many times for this reason

...and always been rejected for the same reason: it will be abused.
Player sets up a second account, plays 1 v 1, forfeits straightaway, gains points for nothing.
There are some extremely sad players whose ego is defined by their ability to cheat their way to a higher score.
I naively suggested this myself when I first started; and the answer is always the same, you can't stop people abusing it. It's a sad commentary on the world in which we live, but such is life