[GP] Surrender/Resign/Forfeit Button

[wcaclimbing]

wheres "none of the above" option?
i dont like any of those...

[Coleman]

Actually with the addition of speed games I don't find unlimited adjacent as pointless.

[bayou]

No those options would not. Some if not all of those would be abused and they dont make gameplay as smooth as it could be.

Surrender is the only one that I could be a used but people would abuse that and thats probly why it got taken off.

How would auto kick be abused?

[3seven1]

wheres "none of the above" option?
i dont like any of those...

Then just don't vote. That's the none of the above option.

The only one that I think needs to be reconsidered is fortify through teammate. That makes since. I have no idea why that one was rejected. Maybe the coding is too hard!

As for auto kick for non-consecutive missed turns, that's a tough one. Yes it's frustrating to have people miss turns, but some games I play last more than a month. 3-4 missed turns in a game like that isn't really that bad.

[PhoenixSF]

if people surrender in the first three rounds they should lose more points. they could either deadbeat like they would or lose more points so that might help stop the game hopping

This is a good idea for a tweak.

and yes, i think you should lose points regardless of when you surrender (of course).

[Shelter417]

Say you're playing a map such as San Francisco and you only have one territory left. That territory is Alcatraz. All you can do when it's your turn is to deploy your three armies on Alcatraz, click End Attacks, click End Fortification, and that's it.

Maybe the Surrender button could be only programmed to occur in situations such as the one mentioned above, or when you're outnumbered, say four to one in territory count?

[jennifermarie]

Say you're playing a map such as San Francisco and you only have one territory left. That territory is Alcatraz. All you can do when it's your turn is to deploy your three armies on Alcatraz, click End Attacks, click End Fortification, and that's it.

Maybe the Surrender button could be only programmed to occur in situations such as the one mentioned above, or when you're outnumbered, say four to one in territory count?

I agree with your first point about alcatraz, but not your second point. Some people can come back from crazy things, and whose to say that whoever you are playing won't deadbeat and you'll win anyway? Just finish the game until the end, and even if you don't win, you may learn valuable strategy for the next time

[khellendros]

However a surrender button stops the people who, because they need to leave in the middle of a speed match suicide on whatever player they don't want to win ie the lowest rank. I've seen that happen a few times to many

[PsyDev]

While I am undecided on the surrender button issue, I think at the very least you should have an "offer surrender" button, and if the opponent(s) accept, then you are dismissed from the game. People would probably typically accompany a surrender offer with a justification to get others to accept it.
I especially believe that this functionality is a definite necessity for 1vs1 games. It's often clear that a player has won a game of Doodle Earth and (especially when it's real time) why waste?

[Herakilla]

do you guys realize that pheonix revived a thread that was long dead and didnt offer anything new

or that there are WAY more detailed and debated threads talking about the same thing?

[turtleman]

Never surrender only submit

[Shelter417]

Say you're playing a map such as San Francisco and you only have one territory left. That territory is Alcatraz. All you can do when it's your turn is to deploy your three armies on Alcatraz, click End Attacks, click End Fortification, and that's it.

Maybe the Surrender button could be only programmed to occur in situations such as the one mentioned above, or when you're outnumbered, say four to one in territory count?

I agree with your first point about alcatraz, but not your second point. Some people can come back from crazy things, and whose to say that whoever you are playing won't deadbeat and you'll win anyway? Just finish the game until the end, and even if you don't win, you may learn valuable strategy for the next time

I tend to agree that it's best to stick it out. However, some people might not feel the same way. If they want to surrender and give up their points, that's their problem.

[Proximus Ventor]

I think this would be ideal in 1 on 1 games as some times dew to extremely unlucky board placement the game can be decided in the first turn and in no card games theres little hope for a lucky comeback.


Although for games with 3 or more i think it should not be allowed.

peace:]

[KoE_Sirius]

Can you insert a quit button into the game so when people have to leave then can quit instead of making everyone wait sometimes 72 hours or in a speed game 15 minutes.
Once they have quit All cards and points etc should remain in play for the 3 rounds they would have been there of course.

[Risktaker17]

Can you insert a quit button into the game so when people have to leave then can quit instead of making everyone wait sometimes 72 hours or in a speed game 15 minutes.

This has been rejected countless times

[Risktaker17]

This is another name for a surrendur button

[KoE_Sirius]

Why has it been rejected ?

[Risktaker17]

Why has it been rejected ?

Abuse. People would quit if a low rank was close to killing them so low rank wouldn't get cards they would lose fewer points.

[Risktaker17]

I like the idea but what can be done. This is a dictatorship, and Lack is the facist ruler.

[KoE_Sirius]

ok I edited the post.

[Areldyb]

I've seen a couple of games where a player loses interest in the game and simply stops playing, creating an annoying situation where everyone else sits there for 24 hours while this player skips his turn.

Any chance of adding a "forfeit game" button so that this happens less often? (It would probably need an "Are you sure?"-style dialog box or something for confirmation... forfeiting shouldn't be something that happens by accident.)

EDIT: Sorry, just noticed that a "surrender" button was rejected on different grounds... same idea though. Consider this another futile request to bring it back.

[R3POMAN]

Nothing is worse than when you only have a few armies left and the other guy takes a full 24 hours to finally take his turn to finish the game. What if the "Surrender" option appeared when the contest was down to two players and one player has 5 armies or fewer? Instead of putting three armies on a territory and waiting another 20 hours to be eliminated, you could surrender, thus freeing up a new game for people with free accounts.

[soundout9]

try checking the to-do list or using the search button. seen something like this before

[wicked]

A surrender button was on the site when it first started and was abused.

[GanonF]

I can see why "surrender" might cause problems, but I feel like there needs to be an automatic endgame option so that you can end a game automatically if everyone agrees on it. That wouldn't affect anyone's stats or anything, and you couldn't cop out of a game if you were losing.

Though, you know, an option to surrender at the cost of losing the game wouldn't be too bad either.