Add A Resign Button

[ORBOTRON]

If you want to give up in a game, you simply don't take your turns, and go AWOL. If you are worried about games taking too long, there are 2min and 5min RT games that would probably better suit your style. As has been said, there's simply too much room for abuse, and too little functionality beyond the current AWOL system to warrant a surrender option.

temudjin, I would advise you and everyone else to always play your best, regardless of circumstance. Never assume an AWOL player will not return, and never count yourself out of a game prematurely.

 

[mapguy]

Resign button, -NOT.
It is inevitable that cheaters WILL join this site. The leader-board WILL eventually become a joke, just like all of the other Risk sites. Try to keep this in mind as you ponder new rules and such.

 

[Shepherd]

we're getting off-topic... I believe the question was about implementing a Resign option in games, and I understand the desire to be able to bow out of games. But abuse aside, as a player I find it quite distasteful that somebody could opt out whenever they wanted to and disrupt the balance of the game. Imagine you are Player 3 in a three player stalemate, Player 1 quits with no warning, and it's Player 2's turn... since the balance of power has just been disrupted, P2 hammers the crap out of you and the game is over. This already happens when somebody AWOLs, but at least there are two rounds of warning and you can plan for it.

I think this is a case in which the benefits do not outweigh the potential negatives.

 

[zspBANNED]

Kinda like what happened between you, RedBridgeBeach, and someone else?


..Yeah, I saw that which clearly disrupted the outcome of the game. So yes, I agree with you. Quitting is lame.

 

[ORBOTRON]

split the thread to stay on topic. I'll just reiterate what I said earlier and Shep just mentioned, benefits do not outweigh negatives. Discussion is def. not closed though, as several people have voiced a strong desire for the option. Maybe we could find a more beneficial way to implement this idea?

 

[zspBANNED]

There have already been long enough discussions about the QUIT button. I think it's a relatively closed case. Click here and here. If it's still up for debate, then I'll dive in to a deeper discussion to why it's a...not-so-good idea.

 

[Shepherd]

I think it's a relatively closed case.

Well said... "relatively" closed. Perhaps someday a user comes up with a really compelling reason for having a resign button, but I personally haven't heard it yet in any discussion. But it's not as if we're locking this thread, so folks can go ahead and talk about it all year if they wish.

 

[Incandenza]

split the thread to stay on topic. I'll just reiterate what I said earlier and Shep just mentioned, benefits do not outweigh negatives. Discussion is def. not closed though, as several people have voiced a strong desire for the option. Maybe we could find a more beneficial way to implement this idea?

That's some good moderatin'. Thanks Orbo.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

surrender should be an option.

This has probably been suggested before, but I'm too lazy to look through all the other threads.....

Surrender should be an option when a game is hopeless.

(also I'm so pizzed at the 'dice' right now that I'm thinking going AWOL should be an option so that other players don't suffer.
I just lost 16 to 1 when attacking. My interest in continuing that game is pretty minimal.....)

 

[Avitray]

I know that feeling, when you are only left with 1 region, and they still don't kill you.
And, I also have attacked 21 to 3, left with 3 to 3

... But if you get a surrender option, there would be more possibilities of cheating.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I'm not sure I understand why a surrender option would lead to more possibilities of cheating. Please enlighten me.....

 

[Shepherd]

surrender has been suggested before, and the general consensus (with some dissent) has been that the negatives outweigh the positives.

Imagine you're playing a doubles game and your opponents are on the verge of gaining an advantage; important that you and your partner don't slip up. But your partner has a game limit and wants to open up a space to start a game with his housemates, so he surrenders from your game. you lose.

As for cheating, surrender could be used to dump a game to give points to a friend without wasting your time. Technically the surrendering player didn't actually "help" his friend, so it could be argued that it was a legit move.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

those seem like pretty weak arguments to me, but what do I know.

I'm right now in a triples game with an AWOL partner, so I understand the irritation of losing due to someone bailing, but I'm chalking it up to 'live and learn'. I'll never partner with that bozo again. I'll lose the points, but that's not really the end of the world, is it?

As far as giving points to a friend, that seems kinda silly to me. Are people here really so hung up on their scores? I'm down 200 points from a couple of weeks ago, but I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. This is just a fun diversion to me, winning the games is great, but I'm not going to be hung up on my 'score'.

 

[AngusJustice]

You could have a surrender option where the opposing team would have to agree before you could surrender that works well covering both ideas

 

[ORBOTRON]

Multiple threads merged

NOTE: There is a wealth of information contained in these forums already, a quick search can find relevant threads. This keeps things organised and on topic, as well as preventing ideas and discussion from being lost.


Anyone just entering this discussion (or any discussion for that matter) might find it helpful to read, or at least skim the thread up to this point.

As for the surrender button, I'm still against it.

 

[SirRyanGiggs]

Resigning games that are clearly over?

Can you resign a game that is clearly over, rather than going AWOL or taking a bunch of useless turns? if not, this is a feature request.

 

[masterjskye]

No you can't currently do this. I don't think it's being planned to be added either because people might game the system then, settting up games just to resign or whatnot. I agree though it would be a handy feature if there was some way to limit its misuse.

 

[Badorties]

well... we would need to define "clearly over" otherwise this would be an often abused feature.

 

[MrBenn]

Rather than "resign", how about a "concede" option that appears if the balance of power shifts overwhelmingly against you. In fact even if not overwhelmingly against you, an option to concede would forfeit any points, etc - sort of like an "auto-lose" option. Add a stat to your profile for No of concessions too, and it's instantly monitorable...

 

[Shepherd]

I think a concede option would be a good addition, but only with a lot of safeguards. If I'm in a three player game in which one opponent takes the lead and the other two of us need to work together to restore the balance of power, it'd piss me off mightily if player 3 just quits and forces me to lose.

I always come back to how many ways there are for a player to ruin a game by quitting. Yes, a player can already screw up a game by going AWOL, but by allowing somebody to quit and open up a game slot we'd be encouraging it.

Some of my caveats would include:
1. Only players who have unlimited game slots can concede (paying members).
2. You can only concede a 2p game, or a multi-player game in which only two players are still alive/not AWOL. Basically, the option should only be used in games that are pretty much over already.
3. No resigning Assassin games (or else a player could concede and throw points to an AWOL).
4. No resigning Team games (or else you could screw a team mate by ending a game early or prolonging a game unnecessarily).