[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
And don't forget to search for previously suggested ideas first!
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
And don't forget to search for previously suggested ideas first!
- Optimus Prime
- Posts: 9665
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:33 pm
- Gender: Male
- Peaceful Warrior
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:54 am
- Location: Everywhere
- Contact:
but if people can't forfit they tend to just stop playing. and gthe game is delayed 15 min. before they get dropped. All I'm saying is that there should be a way for people to bow out in a more respectfull manner to the remaining players. As far as the cards go.. if they forfit thier armies become nutral and whom ever kills all the nutral could get the cards.
- Herakilla
- Posts: 4283
- Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:33 pm
- Location: Wandering the world, spreading Conquerism
gopher897 wrote:but if people can't forfit they tend to just stop playing. and gthe game is delayed 15 min. before they get dropped. All I'm saying is that there should be a way for people to bow out in a more respectfull manner to the remaining players. As far as the cards go.. if they forfit thier armies become nutral and whom ever kills all the nutral could get the cards.
omg thats ONLY for speed games.... ugh
Come join us in Live Chat!
sad truth
I will admit, I like the idea of allowing an unhappy player to step out of the game, but I am also aware that it is simply not feasible...
Think about it, there are really only two options, (1) the person who surrenders gets to keep his points, or (2) the player who forfeits gives points away.
With the first, players who strive to win would lose out.
With the second, people would generate faux games, simply to give points away, then quit, re-join CC, and do it all over again.
Sad, but simple truth...
Think about it, there are really only two options, (1) the person who surrenders gets to keep his points, or (2) the player who forfeits gives points away.
With the first, players who strive to win would lose out.
With the second, people would generate faux games, simply to give points away, then quit, re-join CC, and do it all over again.
Sad, but simple truth...
Resign Button
Sometimes, there's just no hope. A resign button would be nice. Or for people that have to drop out of a game for whatever reason, a way for them to quit without deadbeating out for 3 rounds.
-
baianosafado
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:34 pm
Disappointed - Why can't we have these?
Rejected Gameplay
1) Auto-Kick When Missed Turns Are Not Consecutive
2) Bring Back 'Surrender' Button
3) Exchange Countries Between Team Mates
4) Flexible Alliance
5) Fortify Through Team Members
6) Trade Cards
7) Unlimited Adjacent Fortification
These options would add a lot to the site/game!
Why were they rejected?
1) Auto-Kick When Missed Turns Are Not Consecutive
2) Bring Back 'Surrender' Button
3) Exchange Countries Between Team Mates
4) Flexible Alliance
5) Fortify Through Team Members
6) Trade Cards
7) Unlimited Adjacent Fortification
These options would add a lot to the site/game!
Why were they rejected?
- Fire Mario
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:47 pm
What is the point of Unlimited Adjacent Fortification? It is basically the same as unlimited fortification except it takes longer to move the troops.
Long story short, it wasts time.
I wouldn't mind the fortify through teammates though.
Long story short, it wasts time.
I wouldn't mind the fortify through teammates though.
Last edited by Fire Mario on Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Anarkistsdream
- Posts: 7567
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:57 am
- Gender: Male
[quote="Fire Mario"]What is the point of Unlimited Adjacent Fortification? It is basically the same as unlimited fortification except it takes longer to move the troops.
I should clarify: i was thinking armies that had been 'fortified' would somehow be locked until next turn.
Actually, i would prefer an option to have up to say six adjacent fortifications. Six because even in large maps (with the possible exception of World 2.1) this would enable you move most of your dormant/useless armies to the front line but you would still need to be strategic about which ones.
Your thoughts?
I should clarify: i was thinking armies that had been 'fortified' would somehow be locked until next turn.
Actually, i would prefer an option to have up to say six adjacent fortifications. Six because even in large maps (with the possible exception of World 2.1) this would enable you move most of your dormant/useless armies to the front line but you would still need to be strategic about which ones.
Your thoughts?
-
soundout9
- Posts: 4519
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 pm
- Location: Good ol' MO Clan: Next-Gen Gamers
- Contact:
PhoenixSF wrote:Fire Mario wrote:What is the point of Unlimited Adjacent Fortification? It is basically the same as unlimited fortification except it takes longer to move the troops.
I should clarify: i was thinking armies that had been 'fortified' would somehow be locked until next turn.
Actually, i would prefer an option to have up to say six adjacent fortifications. Six because even in large maps (with the possible exception of World 2.1) this would enable you move most of your dormant/useless armies to the front line but you would still need to be strategic about which ones.
Your thoughts?
Thats just pointless. The point of adjecent forts is so you to add some stratgy to where and when to attack/fort
- Anarkistsdream
- Posts: 7567
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:57 am
- Gender: Male
- Anarkistsdream
- Posts: 7567
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:57 am
- Gender: Male
-
soundout9
- Posts: 4519
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 pm
- Location: Good ol' MO Clan: Next-Gen Gamers
- Contact:
PhoenixSF wrote:soundout9 wrote:Thats just pointless. The point of adjecent forts is so you to add some stratgy to where and when to attack/fort
Not at all. It provides for a middle ground between flexibility and the need for strategy.
You cant really have a middle ground for all maps. if you had 6 forts for doodle earth and 6 for world 2.1. in doodle earth thats bassicly unlimited and world 2.1 thats bassicly just one fort.
When it all comes down to is lack has said no and he is not going to change his desiscion because either he does not think it is in the best interest of the site or there is too much coding to do or just not very popular with the general public
soundout9 wrote:PhoenixSF wrote:Not at all. It provides for a middle ground between flexibility and the need for strategy.
You cant really have a middle ground for all maps. if you had 6 forts for doodle earth and 6 for world 2.1. in doodle earth thats bassicly unlimited and world 2.1 thats bassicly just one fort.
When it all comes down to is lack has said no and he is not going to change his desiscion because either he does not think it is in the best interest of the site or there is too much coding to do or just not very popular with the general public
I can see i should have been more specific in my initial clarification. I was thinking that the game option would be in the form of a drop down box or similar which allowed the host to choose the number of adjacent fortifications allowed (up to say 6). Logically, smaller maps would need less to meet the middle ground as you say.
To be honest tho', i'm not losing any sleep over it. I just thought it would add to the gameplay.

