IcePack wrote:I'm sorry, but where in CC rules does it say you can quit a game because its unfun?
I think it's axiomatic that when the game is more like work than play, most people will quit. Which seems to be what has happened over the years.
Moderator: Community Team
IcePack wrote:I'm sorry, but where in CC rules does it say you can quit a game because its unfun?
Dukasaur wrote:IcePack wrote:I'm sorry, but where in CC rules does it say you can quit a game because its unfun?
I think it's axiomatic that when the game is more like work than play, most people will quit. Which seems to be what has happened over the years.
IcePack wrote:I'm sorry, but where in CC rules does it say you can quit a game because its unfun? Unfun does not mean unplayable or unwinnable. Otherwise starting a hive game on a unlucky random map selection I could deem as "unfun" and quit by deadbeat, right?!?
IcePack wrote:Dukasaur wrote:IcePack wrote:I'm sorry, but where in CC rules does it say you can quit a game because its unfun?
I think it's axiomatic that when the game is more like work than play, most people will quit. Which seems to be what has happened over the years.
And all this time I thought intentional deadbeating (quitting) was against the rules. Cool, there will be a lot more fun being able to quit unfun games and maps for no reason
IcePack wrote:degaston wrote:IcePack wrote:If this ever gets expanded to 24 hour games and doesn't have an option to refuse a resignation, it's probably the last day I volunteer / play on this site.
Why couldn't you just FAMO for anyone that resigns?
Why can't the alternative I proposed be considered for those who dont want resign?
Donelladan wrote:well, you are assuming a 200 vs3. Quite extreme case
IcePack if afraid people might resign even if one deploy 5 and the other deploy 3 for example.
Let's take a classic game, round 10, I have the oceania bonus secured, and you have no bonus, you click on resign. You could try a bit harder, and maybe your opponent would be thinking that you deprive him of a true victory by giving up early.
Donelladan wrote:well, you are assuming a 200 vs3. Quite extreme case
IcePack if afraid people might resign even if one deploy 5 and the other deploy 3 for example.
Let's take a classic game, round 10, I have the oceania bonus secured, and you have no bonus, you click on resign. You could try a bit harder, and maybe your opponent would be thinking that you deprive him of a true victory by giving up early.
IcePack wrote:Donelladan wrote:well, you are assuming a 200 vs3. Quite extreme case
IcePack if afraid people might resign even if one deploy 5 and the other deploy 3 for example.
Let's take a classic game, round 10, I have the oceania bonus secured, and you have no bonus, you click on resign. You could try a bit harder, and maybe your opponent would be thinking that you deprive him of a true victory by giving up early.
Exactly, there are too many scenarios you will never begin to be able to program the "what if's" for each scenario.
In fact, the "reject" resign button would help the suggestion by being another added layer of security to avoid rampant abuse.
If people keep trying to resign much to early, their opponent can reject it to prevent games that would otherwise fit the
engines profile as "resignable" when they shouldn't be resigning and provide additional assurances that it really is only being used
for those 200 vs 3's, or extra long clean ups etc.
clangfield wrote:IcePack wrote:Donelladan wrote:well, you are assuming a 200 vs3. Quite extreme case
IcePack if afraid people might resign even if one deploy 5 and the other deploy 3 for example.
Let's take a classic game, round 10, I have the oceania bonus secured, and you have no bonus, you click on resign. You could try a bit harder, and maybe your opponent would be thinking that you deprive him of a true victory by giving up early.
Exactly, there are too many scenarios you will never begin to be able to program the "what if's" for each scenario.
In fact, the "reject" resign button would help the suggestion by being another added layer of security to avoid rampant abuse.
If people keep trying to resign much to early, their opponent can reject it to prevent games that would otherwise fit the
engines profile as "resignable" when they shouldn't be resigning and provide additional assurances that it really is only being used
for those 200 vs 3's, or extra long clean ups etc.
Try looking at it from the other side though - if you were dropping 3 vs their 200, and tried to resign several times, and they kept on rejecting it, how would you feel?
Wouldn't that make you feel like deadbeating is your only way out? Isn't it somewhat akin to hostage taking?
I suppose the choice is have the button and FAMO those who use it to soon, or have the reject button and FAMO those who use it unsportingly. I can envisage an increase in C&A reports for those who don't accept the resignation in a similar situation to hostage taking, which it could easily be seen as.
Would one be correct in inferring from what you've just said, though, that you wouldn't be totally against a resign option if it were sufficiently safeguarded such that it wouldn't be used prematurely?
IcePack wrote:Exactly, there are too many scenarios you will never begin to be able to program the "what if's" for each scenario.
In fact, the "reject" resign button would help the suggestion by being another added layer of security to avoid rampant abuse.
If people keep trying to resign much to early, their opponent can reject it to prevent games that would otherwise fit the
engines profile as "resignable" when they shouldn't be resigning and provide additional assurances that it really is only being used
for those 200 vs 3's, or extra long clean ups etc.
Metsfanmax wrote:IcePack wrote:Exactly, there are too many scenarios you will never begin to be able to program the "what if's" for each scenario.
In fact, the "reject" resign button would help the suggestion by being another added layer of security to avoid rampant abuse.
If people keep trying to resign much to early, their opponent can reject it to prevent games that would otherwise fit the
engines profile as "resignable" when they shouldn't be resigning and provide additional assurances that it really is only being used
for those 200 vs 3's, or extra long clean ups etc.
It's not your place to decide whether it's "too early" for them to resign. It's a user's choice, at least insofar as they aren't blatantly abusing the system for point dumping or helping a friend gain points or the like. You may not have resigned at the same point they would have, maybe you would have fought a little harder, but it's their time and they get to decide whether it's worth it to them to try. It's just not your decision to make.
If they are point dumping or something, we already have a mechanism for reporting that and dealing with it. The resign button doesn't give a rulebreaker the ability to do anything more than intentional deadbeating could achieve.
IcePack wrote:In your scenario, they can resign if they are winning.
Metsfanmax wrote:IcePack wrote:In your scenario, they can resign if they are winning.
Someone can already "resign" if they are winning. They just have to stop taking turns for a few days. So this doesn't introduce unique harm that didn't already exist. The idea is that probably the only time you'd resign when you're winning is if you want to point dump. Well, maybe you can argue that people can resign a lot faster than they deadbeat, so it makes it harder for the C&A team. But we already thought of this and accounted for it -- in the original proposal I put in the staff lounge, you could only resign once per day. So it would be very difficult to have an extended point dumping session through resignations.
IcePack wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:IcePack wrote:In your scenario, they can resign if they are winning.
Someone can already "resign" if they are winning. They just have to stop taking turns for a few days. So this doesn't introduce unique harm that didn't already exist. The idea is that probably the only time you'd resign when you're winning is if you want to point dump. Well, maybe you can argue that people can resign a lot faster than they deadbeat, so it makes it harder for the C&A team. But we already thought of this and accounted for it -- in the original proposal I put in the staff lounge, you could only resign once per day. So it would be very difficult to have an extended point dumping session through resignations.
So deadbeating once per day is an acceptable limit for you?
Metsfanmax wrote:IcePack wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:IcePack wrote:In your scenario, they can resign if they are winning.
Someone can already "resign" if they are winning. They just have to stop taking turns for a few days. So this doesn't introduce unique harm that didn't already exist. The idea is that probably the only time you'd resign when you're winning is if you want to point dump. Well, maybe you can argue that people can resign a lot faster than they deadbeat, so it makes it harder for the C&A team. But we already thought of this and accounted for it -- in the original proposal I put in the staff lounge, you could only resign once per day. So it would be very difficult to have an extended point dumping session through resignations.
So deadbeating once per day is an acceptable limit for you?
The site-acceptable deadbeating limit is whatever it is. If people want to deadbeat there's already nothing built-in to the site stopping them from doing so. Perhaps you'd like to make a suggestion so that someone can never be kicked out of a game through missing turns? After all, the current system can be abused by people intentionally stopping playing their turns. If you support the status quo, you're basically asking for them to abuse it. Or maybe you'd compromise, and say that we can have an option so that the opposing player can refuse to allow you to deadbeat out of the game?
With that in mind, surely we can do better. You know how some people effectively quit by just dropping their troops and ending their turn? We should not allow that, it's basically begging for abuse by allowing people to concede the game. Maybe we should force them to have to attack once per turn, or require them to spend at least three minutes on their turn before ending it. Or maybe the opposing player can check a box determining whether you played your turn seriously enough to be able to continue.
IcePack wrote:I get it, you aren't a fan of the idea. I know my position isn't the popular one in the room with basically everyone else arguing for something. I'm also the only one not patting themselves on the back and trying to find a compromise, trying to point out the fact that its not being tested, etc instead of testing one of two games by a handful of people and saying its cleared beta testing. (for the record, there was never a thread in beta area on the "feature" until I brought it up here. It still only has 9 views and zero posts about the ongoing testing or organizing. It still doesn't have an official description on how its supposed to work, only one from one of the people testing their own idea)
So yeah...maybe before we keep pushing for 24 hour expansion you know we sort out the shit fest thats already here? Just a thought.
Metsfanmax wrote:IcePack wrote:I get it, you aren't a fan of the idea. I know my position isn't the popular one in the room with basically everyone else arguing for something. I'm also the only one not patting themselves on the back and trying to find a compromise, trying to point out the fact that its not being tested, etc instead of testing one of two games by a handful of people and saying its cleared beta testing. (for the record, there was never a thread in beta area on the "feature" until I brought it up here. It still only has 9 views and zero posts about the ongoing testing or organizing. It still doesn't have an official description on how its supposed to work, only one from one of the people testing their own idea)
So yeah...maybe before we keep pushing for 24 hour expansion you know we sort out the shit fest thats already here? Just a thought.
Your position isn't popular because you are complaining about it not being tested but not actually volunteering to help test it yourself.
Metsfanmax wrote:@Donelladan -- can you check whether the one-per-day restriction was part of what's on the beta site? If not, we should probably add that. It was something the Suggestions/Features team agreed was a good idea when we originally pushed for this back in 2013.
Donelladan wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:@Donelladan -- can you check whether the one-per-day restriction was part of what's on the beta site? If not, we should probably add that. It was something the Suggestions/Features team agreed was a good idea when we originally pushed for this back in 2013.
It is not on the beta site.
But I don't think allowing only 1 resignation per turn make sense at the moment because the resign button will be implemented only for speed games.
Therefore the resign button cannot be abused as you are imagining in speed game.
Metsfanmax wrote:
You should be careful when saying something cannot be abused; people are creative, and not always in a good way. In principle there is nothing stopping someone from creating a ton of speed games that are joined by a multi, and then having all of them be resigned once you reach round 10, in the same way that this could be done for casual games. Would anyone want to do that? I don't know, but I suppose it's possible.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users