mybad wrote:all the whining over neutrals. I'd rather roll against neutrals than around cowards who just stack for months at a time then end up winning.
I see what you're saying. But what I'm hearing is "My strategy didn't take into account them stacking and I'm pissed off that they beat me because my strategy didn't account for it.".
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Well the game Supermax Prison when a player tries to get both the warden and the gas chamber then loses the Warden loses 5 chits a turn, its just better to extend the middle finger and leave the game suffering the other players to wait the 24 hours per your turn.
Colemanus wrote:Well the game Supermax Prison when a player tries to get both the warden and the gas chamber then loses the Warden loses 5 chits a turn, its just better to extend the middle finger and leave the game suffering the other players to wait the 24 hours per your turn.
Don't get me wrong...I absolutely understand the frustration of this situation. I've made the same sort of mistake myself on the WWII Ardennes and San Francisco maps. But while I understand, I still maintain that the benefits (being able to get out of that sort of pretty rare situation) are far outweighed by the negatives involved.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
mybad wrote:how is it abused if it requires unanimous consent? well, gentlemen, I'm defeated. handshakes all around, the game goes on without me.
To your credit, you're not thinking like a cheater. Think about how a multi could abuse it, for instance.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Also 2 players teaming up could then just agree not to fight eachother after finishing off the other players. In the very least they will have spent less time..
I'm for a resign button under strict rules! Rule number 1) Only premium users can use the resign button and the resign button can only be used if all players in the game have premium. Rule number 2) All other players would have to agree before a player is allowed to resign Rule number 3) The allowed to resign voting should be anonymus (so that a person refusing to allow someone to resign won't be suicided into)
That takes care of multis, regular idiots and poor sport players. PersonallyI would never use it, but I've been suicided into by far too many players who just wanted to get out of the game to ignore it's potential. This button should be reinstated with fitting restrictions!!!
iamkoolerthanu wrote:Two premium members can start a bunch of 1v1's and have one player resign them all
And two premium players can start a bunch of 1vs1's and have one player not take his turns as it is now! This isn't a new problem that will arise if the resign button comes into play!
iamkoolerthanu wrote:Two premium members can start a bunch of 1v1's and have one player resign them all
And two premium players can start a bunch of 1vs1's and have one player not take his turns as it is now! This isn't a new problem that will arise if the resign button comes into play!
the not taking turns is called intentional deadbeating, and this is against the rules. Considering that the surrender button actually has PROVED to lead to abuse in the past, there is no reason to assume things would be different now. Also it would not serve as a logical argument to say since people can cheat now, why not install a feature what will also be abused, it makes no difference right?!? Well it does make a difference. for the foreseable future there will be no surrender button
iamkoolerthanu wrote:Two premium members can start a bunch of 1v1's and have one player resign them all
And two premium players can start a bunch of 1vs1's and have one player not take his turns as it is now! This isn't a new problem that will arise if the resign button comes into play!
the not taking turns is called intentional deadbeating, and this is against the rules. Considering that the surrender button actually has PROVED to lead to abuse in the past, there is no reason to assume things would be different now. Also it would not serve as a logical argument to say since people can cheat now, why not install a feature what will also be abused, it makes no difference right?!? Well it does make a difference. for the foreseable future there will be no surrender button
My point was that it would fall into the same category and therefore not be a "new" way of cheating! I don't know if you read the post before his but in that one I stated the following;
Gillipig wrote:I'm for a resign button under strict rules! Rule number 1) Only premium users can use the resign button and the resign button can only be used if all players in the game have premium. Rule number 2) All other players would have to agree before a player is allowed to resign Rule number 3) The allowed to resign voting should be anonymus (so that a person refusing to allow someone to resign won't be suicided into)
That takes care of multis, regular idiots and poor sport players. PersonallyI would never use it, but I've been suicided into by far too many players who just wanted to get out of the game to ignore it's potential. This button should be reinstated with fitting restrictions!!!
CC has never tried to use a resign button with that much restrictions! I have a hard time seeing the resign button being abused when controlled that strictly!
Why would a 1v1 player have to do that? It increases the workload, sure, but right now, you can play on small maps and have one player suicide all the neutrals and open themselves up for another.
The exploit is still there.
Without a resign button, people are discouraged from playing this game because it makes it impossible for them to pack up and leave. Once they start a game, they get locked in and have to finish in order to avoid getting a poor rating.
If you can get a large moderator staff and automated cheating detection, for example, the system flags players who repeatedly win games via mass resignation, you should be able to implement a resign button.
Inst wrote:Why would a 1v1 player have to do that? It increases the workload, sure, but right now, you can play on small maps and have one player suicide all the neutrals and open themselves up for another.
The exploit is still there.
Without a resign button, people are discouraged from playing this game because it makes it impossible for them to pack up and leave. Once they start a game, they get locked in and have to finish in order to avoid getting a poor rating.
If you can get a large moderator staff and automated cheating detection, for example, the system flags players who repeatedly win games via mass resignation, you should be able to implement a resign button.
even quicker would be to just miss 3 turns, that the game is also over. Either way, no. A resign button is even quicker to abuse then anything else you have ever seen. It has been abuse in every way imagianable and a few the admins had not thought about it. When you see the turtle crying in his sleep he is reliving the surrender button epic fail all over again. no.
AndyDufresne wrote:people were rarely finishing games, which took away from the winner's enjoyment of the game.
Oh yes, because I just LOVE so much spending 15 to 20 extra minutes on a game that's over because my beaten opponent deadbeat instead of helping make it quick. *rolls eyes*
Who exactly takes such enjoyment from kicking opponents again and again when they're beaten and helpless instead of just ending it?
Delete it because it seems to have encouraged more and more poor people, sports --- very few people complete the game, which lasted from the winner of the game's fun....
luluxiu wrote:Delete it because it seems to have encouraged more and more poor people, sports --- very few people complete the game, which lasted from the winner of the game's fun....
yes, thank you, also quit spamming the boards with advertising links please
Just take, say, Chess tactics ladders, for instance. They can't really do anything about Rybka-backed bots; if there's enough computing power, someone can just leave their machine on with a connection and see how high it gets.
The only way they can stop that is to ban obvious abusers every time they're spotted. It's the same with flash games; since they can't stop cheating score submissions, they deal with abusers reactively.
===
Besides, the resign button only affects ladder players, who can be trusted to police their community for abusers. Casual players don't really have that problem.
At the very least, how about this? Allow players to mark a game unranked, which enables the resign button.
