Conquer Club

clangfield wrote:

battlemania wrote:how about for 1vs 1 trench, it can save a huge amount of wasted time and energy only to see the inevitable happen. No one loses. If players want to point dump, there are easier setups for this.
People whinge about deadbeating far more often than point dumping . This only hurts that player, and not really cos they want it. It could be harmful in multi player matches, but not in one on one.
It is necessary. It has been suggested many times for this reason

...and always been rejected for the same reason: it will be abused.
Player sets up a second account, plays 1 v 1, forfeits straightaway, gains points for nothing.
There are some extremely sad players whose ego is defined by their ability to cheat their way to a higher score.
I naively suggested this myself when I first started; and the answer is always the same, you can't stop people abusing it. It's a sad commentary on the world in which we live, but such is life

That is an extremely dumb reason. If a player creates several accounts to create 1v1 and make 1 account benefit from it, i m sure there are maps/settings that could go just as fast, haven t thought about it but let s say manual drop with objectives, there is probably a few maps that can be won by round 2.

Also, you could always make this button available under certain conditions, let s say round 10 minimum, only trench and only when a player holds twice as much terts as his opponent, something like that..?

And lol at the op's avatar. What happened to that boom boom freak show?

clangfield wrote:...and always been rejected for the same reason: it will be abused.
Player sets up a second account, plays 1 v 1, forfeits straightaway, gains points for nothing.

I would like to clarify that this is not a very important argument for the current administration. We aren't concerned about hypothetical cheating that can't be proven before it happens, and we have come up with some ideas that would largely negate this problem. Rather, the most serious problem is how to integrate this into competitive play. Some of the biggest benefits can be obtained with a resignation button by speeding up tournaments, but many people in the tournaments community are concerned about the implications it would have on the competitive atmosphere.

Metsfanmax wrote:

clangfield wrote:...and always been rejected for the same reason: it will be abused.
Player sets up a second account, plays 1 v 1, forfeits straightaway, gains points for nothing.

I would like to clarify that this is not a very important argument for the current administration. We aren't concerned about hypothetical cheating that can't be proven before it happens, and we have come up with some ideas that would largely negate this problem. Rather, the most serious problem is how to integrate this into competitive play. Some of the biggest benefits can be obtained with a resignation button by speeding up tournaments, but many people in the tournaments community are concerned about the implications it would have on the competitive atmosphere.

What do you think of my parameters?
I think it depends a lot on the game settings. Different rules for different settings.

Have had a couple people over the last month or so asking if they can quit a bot game. That might be one scenario where flat out being able to quit should be allowed, to help free up a game slot or whatever.

if players setup several games against a cheat account they have set up, this should be obvious. In trench and 1 on 1 this would be of overall benefit. There is no loser here, and would save playing for over half an hour in some circumstances where both players just want the inevitable. Wake up

betiko wrote:

clangfield wrote:

battlemania wrote:how about for 1vs 1 trench, it can save a huge amount of wasted time and energy only to see the inevitable happen. No one loses. If players want to point dump, there are easier setups for this.
People whinge about deadbeating far more often than point dumping . This only hurts that player, and not really cos they want it. It could be harmful in multi player matches, but not in one on one.
It is necessary. It has been suggested many times for this reason

...and always been rejected for the same reason: it will be abused.
Player sets up a second account, plays 1 v 1, forfeits straightaway, gains points for nothing.
There are some extremely sad players whose ego is defined by their ability to cheat their way to a higher score.
I naively suggested this myself when I first started; and the answer is always the same, you can't stop people abusing it. It's a sad commentary on the world in which we live, but such is life

That is an extremely dumb reason. If a player creates several accounts to create 1v1 and make 1 account benefit from it, i m sure there are maps/settings that could go just as fast, haven t thought about it but let s say manual drop with objectives, there is probably a few maps that can be won by round 2.

Also, you could always make this button available under certain conditions, let s say round 10 minimum, only trench and only when a player holds twice as much terts as his opponent, something like that..?

And lol at the op's avatar. What happened to that boom boom freak show?

Abuse does your argument no favours.
However, abuse of the resignation option has always been the reason for its rejection.
That said, bot games are an obvious place where it could be applied (although losing to a bot raises its own questions ).
As mentioned, I have suggested this myself in the past, so personally would like to see it.
What I would prefer is that the button does not cause immediate resignation, but sends a requests to mods to be removed from the game. Logs can then be kept of who is resigning and who is benefitting from the resignation, thereby establishing patterns; maybe a limit could be set of 1 resignation per month or something, which would help to obviate the serial abuse.

Metsfanmax wrote:

clangfield wrote:...and always been rejected for the same reason: it will be abused.
Player sets up a second account, plays 1 v 1, forfeits straightaway, gains points for nothing.

I would like to clarify that this is not a very important argument for the current administration. We aren't concerned about hypothetical cheating that can't be proven before it happens, and we have come up with some ideas that would largely negate this problem. Rather, the most serious problem is how to integrate this into competitive play. Some of the biggest benefits can be obtained with a resignation button by speeding up tournaments, but many people in the tournaments community are concerned about the implications it would have on the competitive atmosphere.

Can a decrease in hypothetical competition be proven before it happens? I don't see how, and it could go the other way: e.g. if you can forfeit from nearly certain losses, then you can focus more on better games. It seems that your argument against imagined cheating also applies to imagined diminished competition.

The more I think about the forfeit button, the better it sounds. Some don't like that others can bug outta the game--depriving them of the joy of beating someone down, I guess; however, shouldn't we also be concerned about people who aren't enjoying the game?

I wouldn't mind if such a button was a configurable option upon game setup. Then you could still mostly play the games you want to, regardless of which side you were on. And C&A mods would get the handy ability likely to search for games where forfeiting was allowed, and they could keep an eye on any abuse easier perhaps.


--Andy

BigBallinStalin wrote:Can a decrease in hypothetical competition be proven before it happens? I don't see how, and it could go the other way: e.g. if you can forfeit from nearly certain losses, then you can focus more on better games. It seems that your argument against imagined cheating also applies to imagined diminished competition.

I believe this is accurate. To be clear, I wasn't saying that I believed it would negatively affect the competitive atmosphere. However, other people do, and do not want this to be implemented without some safeguards to protect competitive play. So they either need to be convinced not to worry, or we would need to find the appropriate compromise.

The more I think about the forfeit button, the better it sounds. Some don't like that others can bug outta the game--depriving them of the joy of beating someone down, I guess; however, shouldn't we also be concerned about people who aren't enjoying the game?

Yes. In particular, the people who are new to the site and may leave because they're frustrated by being stuck in a game. When you only have four games, it sucks to have one be taken up by an inevitable loss. Even if you don't, it sucks to play that all the way out.

All right. Now that the Forfeit Button has been settled, let's put it in the Things To Do Before 2017 box.

You are obviously correct battlemania. For some unknown reason though, there is a universal and unjustified illogical belief among the population of CC that a resignation button would hurt the site by fascilating cheating, which is obviously incorrect. I do not know why this belief is so spread and strong, I met it when I joined the site some years ago and amazingly it is still here. Of course, if you go into a chess playing site for example and suggest in their forums that the resignation button (which of course all chess playing sites have) should be removed, they will all laugh at you. It also seems that admins understand that cheating is not favoured by a resignation button, but they have worries about competition issues, which also sounds unimportant to me. Strategy games reach an end far before the real end appears. All strategy games. A serious chess player for example resigns 10-30 moves before he is to be checkmated. I predict that this suggestion is not going to be favoured for some years still, despite being obviously very beneficial
PS. Just because I play 1 vs 1 hives and 4 vs 4 polymorphic trench conquer romes does not mean that I am preoccupied with the subject ahem...

Kaskavel wrote:You are obviously correct battlemania. For some unknown reason though, there is a universal and unjustified illogical belief among the population of CC that a resignation button would hurt the site by fascilating cheating, which is obviously incorrect. I do not know why this belief is so spread and strong, I met it when I joined the site some years ago and amazingly it is still here. Of course, if you go into a chess playing site for example and suggest in their forums that the resignation button (which of course all chess playing sites have) should be removed, they will all laugh at you. It also seems that admins understand that cheating is not favoured by a resignation button, but they have worries about competition issues, which also sounds unimportant to me. Strategy games reach an end far before the real end appears. All strategy games. A serious chess player for example resigns 10-30 moves before he is to be checkmated. I predict that this suggestion is not going to be favoured for some years still, despite being obviously very beneficial
PS. Just because I play 1 vs 1 hives and 4 vs 4 polymorphic trench conquer romes does not mean that I am preoccupied with the subject ahem...

Your argument is a bit weird, you go to chess in real live, where its 1v1 and easy to surrender by throwing over your king, but where is the surrender button in RL risk? When I play with friends there has never been one....

On the further subject, I can see it work in 1v1 trench large maps style, but isnt the point of joining them trying to win and you know that it most likely gonna take a few turns before you die? People who love the map and like the setting wont shy away for that reason!

Like mentioned before it has been suggested a ton of times. I am still kinda against it, I can see it work in 1v1 for a bit, but I think it only comes up with more suicide attempts and feeding points to others. Nobody will notice if I play 2-3 1v1 games vs a friend, just forfeit the first round and get the points back through another game by winning more points in that, due to my score being lower!!

By implenting it there will just be more options for cheating or abusing it, then by using it for the reason it is there!

Urs

Koganosi

If a forfeit button is ever implemented, I hope it is obvious for everyone that it should never be available in multiplayer games as long as more than 2 players remains, right?

Its good to win so let the winner do that! I love to know victory is certain and march my trenchy troopers over people. its a bit annoying to wait to be eliminaterd but hey what goes around comes around.

Under certain circumstances a forfeit button could and would be of use! I would suggest u create a mod that u can file an application to, explaining your reasons for wanting to forfeit. If a guideline were created that CLEARLY stated who were eligble to put forward this request the work for the mod sshould ( i hope) be small... this would be a middle way. Im against it, but sometimes u can have reasons for forfeiting games, and u dont want the rating deadbeat....

5 cents added from sweden:)

Donelladan wrote:If a forfeit button is ever implemented, I hope it is obvious for everyone that it should never be available in multiplayer games as long as more than 2 players remains, right?

That's not obvious. For example, if we had a system where you could forfeit only as long as all surviving players agree to the resignation, that would remove the concerns, even though it's not a technologically simple solution.

If we have 3 players. And 1 want to resign, and both other players agree to it.
It means either that
1) One player is so strong that he will win anyway. -> Could probably wait he kills one of the 2 and then the remaining one use forfeit button.
2) the 2 others players are quite equal but they can't kill the 3rd one because it would make they lose. Then the 3rd definitely have chance of winning and could be tricked into resigning by the 2 others.

I insist, no forfeit button if more than 2 players remains.

Donelladan wrote:If we have 3 players. And 1 want to resign, and both other players agree to it.
It means either that
1) One player is so strong that he will win anyway. -> Could probably wait he kills one of the 2 and then the remaining one use forfeit button.

That's not a reason not to allow it.

2) the 2 others players are quite equal but they can't kill the 3rd one because it would make they lose. Then the 3rd definitely have chance of winning and could be tricked into resigning by the 2 others.

How exactly do you think that someone will "trick" someone else into resigning?

Let's say one player has 70 troops, and the 2 others players have 300 troops each. They can definitely tell him, he has no chance to win that game, and has the right to resign if he want. Then 3rd player with 70 troops, misleaded by the 2 others, could decide to click on the resing button.

Anyway, I fail to see a reason why we should implement resign button if more than 2 players. I think it would be a mistake.


To the mods. That you merged the idea here in rejected area, does it means the idea is from now automatically rejected and we should as well stop talking about it?

Donelladan wrote:To the mods. That you merged the idea here in rejected area, does it means the idea is from now automatically rejected and we should as well stop talking about it?

It does not mean you should stop talking about it. It is a means to keep all the discussion about the idea in one place.

Doesn't dumping this in the Rejected pile pretty much discourage feedback? Why bother talking about something when it's labeled as REJECTED?

I'm posting an idea that was brought up in chat.

Players would request a surrender. Other players would see a notice in their overview 'x has requested surrender [accept][decline]'. Players can ignore the request for as long as they like, the notice would just keep appearing. All the players would have to accept in order for someone to surrender.

A player can retract their request up until their request has been accepted by all. If their request is vetoed they will receive a notice that their request has been denied. It won't say who declined and the notice will disappear from all players overviews once someone has declined. If the surrender is approved before cards are taken from the player those cards disappear.

The player will still lose points as if he played the entire game and lost. The option to surrender would not be available in terminator games. In assassin games surrendering counts as if that player was eliminated.

This solves the issue of who gets the cards because players can ignore the request until that players cards have been taken.

The issue of people abandoning a game with a bad deploy becomes a nonissue because all the other players would have to accept his request. In team games since all players have to accept the surrender request one's own teammate can deny the request.

Real simple add an option to resign and end the game

This way people don't have to play a bunch of rounds in games that are clearly decided. especially trench games it becomes obvious the game is over but on some maps you have to play a bunch more turns afterwards. Just a waste of time.

Shinmen Musashi wrote:Real simple add an option to resign and end the game

This way people don't have to play a bunch of rounds in games that are clearly decided. especially trench games it becomes obvious the game is over but on some maps you have to play a bunch more turns afterwards. Just a waste of time.

Suggested and rejected many times, largely due to the potential for abuse (ie multi creates games and resigns to award himself quick points). Never likely to happen in the simple form.

what a wonderfully conceived and fully fleshed out idea... wow!!! how hasn't anyone ever come at this issue in such a cerebral and eloquent matter?!! this should further the discourse on this hot button topic, without fail... *eyes rolling*... search is your friend... mega thread on this already, it has been soundly rejected...-Jésus noir

real men don't surrender or wear underpants...