Page 22 of 82
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:52 am
by insomniacdude
peanut72 wrote:I hate escalating games - too short and not a lot of strategy needed.
I once thought as you do. Hopefully you will learn the error of your ways sooner rather than later.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:37 am
by peanut72
insomniacdude wrote:peanut72 wrote:I hate escalating games - too short and not a lot of strategy needed.
I once thought as you do. Hopefully you will learn the error of your ways sooner rather than later.
I still think surrender could be an option like Fog of War. The person who gets the highest cards that can then wipe out the entire map wins. Sorry thats not my idea of strategy.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:16 am
by insomniacdude
peanut72 wrote:insomniacdude wrote:peanut72 wrote:I hate escalating games - too short and not a lot of strategy needed.
I once thought as you do. Hopefully you will learn the error of your ways sooner rather than later.
I still think surrender could be an option like Fog of War. The person who gets the highest cards that can then wipe out the entire map wins. Sorry thats not my idea of strategy.
Don't want to derail the conversation, but there should be plenty of discussion about this in GD and/or Strategy if you're interested.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:52 am
by friendjonny
I say surrendering should only be an option when there are two players left in the game.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:15 pm
by peanut72
Risktaker17 wrote:But in escalating games the point is to kill someone to get their cards, if you could just surrender then...
So we are all denied something because someone might abuse it? There are cheaters on this site, does that mean none of us ever get to play games again?
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:20 pm
by Timminz
Just an idea here. I think you might not care so much about having to play out a guaranteed loss, if you weren't limited to 4 games at a time.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:32 pm
by cicero
Another reason, for not implementing the suggestion, is that it can be downright annoying - for the winner - when a player decides 'oh stuff this, I'm only going to lose, I'm going to bed.'
In real life I hate that. It strikes me as unsporting.
And I don't think it would be much fun in virtual land either.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:53 pm
by jakejake
it would take the fun out of the game...if you're the one winning, you want to finish them off, it says so on the home page...something like "feel the thrill of victory as you eliminate you last opponent" - whenever i get the chance of winning, i wouldnt want the looser to "surrender" and take away my RARE moment of glory!!
lol
conceded feature
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:14 pm
by Nimrod7
I would like the option to concede a game when you don't have a chance in hell of winning. i.e. the game i'm finishing now, I have six armies, no continent bonus, no cards for cash. My opponent has four continents and a ton of armies. Instead of drawing this out, why not have a way for me to press the concede button and just end it. Another game in which I won, I misclicked and dragged out the game for an extra turn or two. Thankfully, the other player was around, and it was over quickly.
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:24 pm
by lozzini
people hav said it before but it makes it too easy for multi's to win
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:38 pm
by jakejake
also it contradicts what the the home page says, you wouldnt have the thrill of eliminating your last opponent if they gave up...and also as someone before has said: it shows bad sportsmanship
surrender button, without the abuse?
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:22 pm
by timmytuttut88
<Subject>:
Concise Idea:I thought of away to avoid the abuse of the surrender button.
<Body>:
Suggestion Idea: bring back a new type of surrender button that can avoid abuse.
Specifics: Well people when about to be killed by a lower ranked person they would surrender so the lower ranker couldnt get their cards, turning all there armies neutral to give the game to a higher ranked person so they would lose less points. I was thinking to avoid this abuse when someone surrenders there armies dont go neutral. They just stay how they are and if you kill the person you still get the cards. All surrendring would do is make the person have there turns skipped.
Why it is needed:new players who can get out of a game can, and we dont have to deal with all the "how do i get out of a game" stuff.
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:45 pm
by jakejake
timmytuttut88 wrote:<Subject>:
I was thinking to avoid this abuse when someone surrenders there armies dont go neutral. They just stay how they are and if you kill the person you still get the cards.
you mean like on a terminater game and someone gets kicked out for deadbeating?...they dont go neutral
this post has improved my view on the button, generally i dont like it, but now.....
hmm...!
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:33 pm
by peanut72
cicero wrote:Another reason, for not implementing the suggestion, is that it can be downright annoying - for the winner - when a player decides 'oh stuff this, I'm only going to lose, I'm going to bed.'
In real life I hate that. It strikes me as unsporting.
And I don't think it would be much fun in virtual land either.
I have played games where people just stop taking their turns. That is the same thing in my book.
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:34 pm
by peanut72
jakejake wrote:it would take the fun out of the game...if you're the one winning, you want to finish them off, it says so on the home page...something like "feel the thrill of victory as you eliminate you last opponent" - whenever i get the chance of winning, i wouldnt want the looser to "surrender" and take away my RARE moment of glory!!
lol
A win is a win. I don't care if a mod gives me the win.
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:36 pm
by peanut72
I like your improvements to the idea. Thanks.
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:21 pm
by Timminz
and again, someone who won't/can't pay for a premium membership asking for a way to get more free games in.
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:28 pm
by Nimrod7
Worries about multi-reg cheating makes sense. Also, it has nothing to do with me wanting to get more games in. Heck, I don't always play the four i'm allowed now. It's a matter of finishing a game when there is an obvious winner instead of dragging it out.
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:21 pm
by Rocketry
really good idea i think. its been rejected over and over but hey, you knever know. this function would encourage new free players to return to playing, rather than getting bored stuck in a game they have lost and not coming back. Once players are into CC, they would be likely to but premium anyway for speed and private games.
Multi numbers are low, the average community member shouldn't 'not get' this feature, just because of a few abusers of the site. Thats my reasoning.
Rocketry
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:29 pm
by billval3
Timminz wrote:and again, someone who won't/can't pay for a premium membership asking for a way to get more free games in.
People don't always avoid premium because they're poor. I could afford it, but know that I wouldn't be able to control myself. I have too much of an addictive personality!
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:57 pm
by Herakilla
you actually could do this (im against it though) if you make a requirement like one player must hold 90% of the map before you can surrender. but like others have said there wouldnt be the thrill of killing your opponent then!
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:14 pm
by timmytuttut88
*cough*
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:24 pm
by sfhbballnut
its a better concept, but i think this has been beaten so dead in the past, there's not gonna be much consideration here, that and it would suck to push surrender on accident
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:36 pm
by Timminz
I think the surrender button should only be available to freemium members, and it should only work when they buy a premium membership.
Click "surrender" --> get taken to the "buy premium" page
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:17 pm
by timmytuttut88
sfhbballnut wrote:its a better concept, but i think this has been beaten so dead in the past, there's not gonna be much consideration here, that and it would suck to push surrender on accident
could be placed at the top of the screen away from all the other buttons