that sounds good in theory, but this idea sounds alot like playing risk at another site where you open the games players join and you can surrender and leave anytime, players dont just leave if they cant win, they leave if they are not in good position.
If you want to play or join a game you should be committed to it 100% whether you are about to win or not. Even if your just there for the amusement of whoever IS winning.
The resign button issue would open door to hundreds of players just leaving after the first few rounds. Games wouldnt last much longer, best case scenario it would be down to 2 people for a few rounds and then a winner.
As it stands you are FORCED to stay in any game you join, so you might as well make something out of it. Thats how it should be, no change needed.
surrender button?
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.
Please read the community guidelines before posting.
well you are both right and wrong... why do you dont just make some list like this what will be good with this button and wrong sides of the button:
Good things:
-not spending time on playing games that you will lose 100 % sure
-if you are not premium you can surrender and start another game,1 of 4
-If you are with much of deadbeaters and you god bored in game which of (for example) 6 players 5 are deadbeaters so you can quit it.
-if you dont have time for playing and you know you wont be able to get on CC page to play in couple of days, so you know all games are loses anyway then you can surrender them to do a favor to other guy/s or girl/s
etc, etc.....
Bad things:
-possibility of using and abusing surrender button in wrong matters
-using it in the begining only if you got unlucky one time and in that way you destroy opponents pleasure of winning or your pleasure when/if you get lucky on next move and beat him at the end
-less hard victories
-less competetive games
-opportunity for multi accounts to gain points easily even if you can do surrender only once against each person
-when you are playing in 3-4 player game, standard for example, you are the worst, you can see your lose soon, you will probably surrender and in that way destroy other guys wall or you wont even try to ally someone who is also weak to get stronger...
etc, etc.....
But i think there are much more worse things, perhaps CC admins and CC creators had some reasons why they didn't put surrender button like a option, i think that they thought about it more then we all did together but in final decision they decided to not do so because they had more important bad things than good things,
regards to all:)
Good things:
-not spending time on playing games that you will lose 100 % sure
-if you are not premium you can surrender and start another game,1 of 4
-If you are with much of deadbeaters and you god bored in game which of (for example) 6 players 5 are deadbeaters so you can quit it.
-if you dont have time for playing and you know you wont be able to get on CC page to play in couple of days, so you know all games are loses anyway then you can surrender them to do a favor to other guy/s or girl/s
etc, etc.....
Bad things:
-possibility of using and abusing surrender button in wrong matters
-using it in the begining only if you got unlucky one time and in that way you destroy opponents pleasure of winning or your pleasure when/if you get lucky on next move and beat him at the end
-less hard victories
-less competetive games
-opportunity for multi accounts to gain points easily even if you can do surrender only once against each person
-when you are playing in 3-4 player game, standard for example, you are the worst, you can see your lose soon, you will probably surrender and in that way destroy other guys wall or you wont even try to ally someone who is also weak to get stronger...
etc, etc.....
But i think there are much more worse things, perhaps CC admins and CC creators had some reasons why they didn't put surrender button like a option, i think that they thought about it more then we all did together but in final decision they decided to not do so because they had more important bad things than good things,
regards to all:)
It's much more important how you deal with loses than with wins, because everyone can deal with wins, but only the greatest can deal with loses!
-
EmperorOfDaNorth
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:52 am
- Location: Chiang Mai, Siam
On second thought I say lets do it. I want to make 50 terminator games and when it looks like im going to be eliminated I'll just surrender and lose no points. It's genius!
Hello.. Didn't everyone prior to this comment just say that OF COURSE people who surrender will lose points just the same as when they were deadbeating?
Why would anyone even begin to think that a person who surrenders would somehow NOT be considered having 'lost' the game with all points penalties due?
Come on.
Alex..? Alexander the Great, my Commander, what's wrong? Did someone leave you negative feedback again?
-
EmperorOfDaNorth
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:52 am
- Location: Chiang Mai, Siam
wilderbeast wrote:This is a terrible idea in the sense that players would only stick around for games that they are doing good in, this wouldnt inspire people to try to pull out a tough win. just surrender again and again until the game where they get lucky, also not fun for whoever is dominating the game and looking to enjoy it.
This really is the best (and IMHO only) good argument against having it.
This could be softened though by requiring that there really exists an overwhelming advantage of a particular player. AND perhaps only in a 2 player situation? Because a third player who has effectively lost the game can still have a big influence on who eventually wins the game. If the third player just surrendered then this influence is largely lost.
But for two player sitations (either a 2 player game or near the end) it could be useful. It's not like the FIDE makes their grand masters sit through an hour of being slaughtered until an actual check mate occurs.
Alex..? Alexander the Great, my Commander, what's wrong? Did someone leave you negative feedback again?
-
Gustaf Wasa
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 1:32 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: The Swedish outpost of Atlantis
- Contact:
Re: surrender button?
gaunt773 wrote:how about adding a surrender button for the days when you are losing 70% of your attacks and your defense is france-like?
please?
Spoken like a true little history-ignorant loser. From "the ghetto" no less - wow, you da man, huh, huh!
It would tire me to list the countless wars and conquests where France has defeated its enemies, losing only to the equally skilled Germans, while the incompetent American army always fails when it cannot use air support to kill all its enemies - like Iraq. At West Point, the American cadets used to learn French, so they could read the manuals on war strategy and tactics - which were of course written in French, not in English, since the English and Americans were unable to produce such strategies and had to learn the art from France. The Brits never had any other tactics than to rely on being an island, much like the U.S.
Don't misunderstand me - I don't dislike Americans. Only those who know jack about military history, and rely on laughable propaganda to do their thinking for them. "Uh, uh, the French bad, uh uh, we numbah one!"
Oh, but now that France is run by a neocon who also pledges to sacrifice French interests for Israel's sake, just like American politicians, the jokes will suddenly disappear from the talk shows and neocon radio shows. And gaunty773 will follow the new cue. Funny, that.
-
ZawBanjito
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:25 am
- Location: Somewhere
EmperorOfDaNorth wrote:On second thought I say lets do it. I want to make 50 terminator games and when it looks like im going to be eliminated I'll just surrender and lose no points. It's genius!
Hello.. Didn't everyone prior to this comment just say that OF COURSE people who surrender will lose points just the same as when they were deadbeating?
Why would anyone even begin to think that a person who surrenders would somehow NOT be considered having 'lost' the game with all points penalties due?
Come on.
Hello.. Have you ever read the instructions? It says you have to ELIMINATE AN OPPONENT to get there points in terminator. there for you would not lose points while surrendering.
Come on.
Maybe they should make it so that if one person owns a large percentage of the map (90-99%), or you own a small percentage (1-10%), you could surrender to them. A case like this would be they missed one or two territories of you and you didn't want to drag it out another round.
This way would only work if there were only 2 people in a terminator left, or in any other game.
This way would only work if there were only 2 people in a terminator left, or in any other game.
-
pat_wobbly
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:36 am
if it were a game option i would not play it.
and why? because i am immune to irritation and frustration of a long and lingering loss?
nope they get me just as much as anyone else... i can sometimes find joy in a great and close battle but i can also see that a game has slipped away and wish it to be over.
so why am i against it ? because a game is not just about the pain of defeat! it is also about the joy of victory.
To rob someone of the full extent of that joy is mean spirited and does a disservice to your opponents skill.
and why? because i am immune to irritation and frustration of a long and lingering loss?
nope they get me just as much as anyone else... i can sometimes find joy in a great and close battle but i can also see that a game has slipped away and wish it to be over.
so why am i against it ? because a game is not just about the pain of defeat! it is also about the joy of victory.
To rob someone of the full extent of that joy is mean spirited and does a disservice to your opponents skill.