what do u think about resign option? there is surrender option, but in games with lot of players where turn is 2 or 3 days it just took too long time.. i think that automatic eliminate (surrender) without accepting of opponents would be better. for example i want to play more fast (10 min) games but i can play 10 games at once, and i have 9 where is turn 2/3 days... so i must wait than long..

i'm new here and i didn't know that till now. sorry for my bad english gramatic, hope u understand all :)

Or you could pay for an inexpensive Premium Membership and play in as many games as you want.

Though I agree an immediate resign option would be nice, not for myself at all, but I see players all the time giving up and asking to terminate games and surrendering, etc..   They typically don't get either fulfilled and just go kamikazi on the closest person or whoever they think is winning which ruins the game for everyone else.

Viper wrote:

giving up and asking to terminate games and surrendering, etc..   They typically don't get either fulfilled and just go kamikazi on the closest person or whoever they think is winning which ruins the game for everyone else.

,.which gets them put on Enemy lists. 

I do however see some value in having a surrender feature.  No one really likes it when people surrender, but the alternative is that the "frustrated" player commits effective suicide (ike Viper said) or just as bad, just stops taking their turn, which ends up in their getting booted and slows the game down even more.  On the other hand, not having the feature makes it inconvenient for non-premium members who are just looking for "action" and want out of "slow" games.

This won't make Jumbolero happy, but I'm wondering if non-premium members should be penalized for abusing surrender and auto-boot features.  Penalties would be things like lowering the number of games they can be in at once.  The object here is two-fold.  Such a policy encourages players to buy premium memberships and simultaneously speeds up the average play time for many games.

If the stick sounds like a bad method, an alternative could be the carrot:

Non-members start with a maximum 5-game count which increases with "good behavior", which might be something like 10 games with no more than 1 boot or surrender.

None of these ideas address the kamikaze maneuver, but that's where enemy lists come in.  At least it's behavior that doesn't slow down games.

just make it a Premium member only feature.. Problem solved!

I'm against a Resign or an auto-surrender option as it could way to easily be used to sway a game negatively for other players.  If a player is definitely going to lose then they would just hit resign and possibly affect the rest of the game.  Depending on how it was handled the player that resigned could have Cards/Reserves that would have went to the person that eliminated him but instead were thrown out (if it's handled like a Surrender),  or the board would have to "freeze" that player's territories/cards/reserves and somehow show that even though the player is gone they are available for Elimination (and any bonuses associated).  This could possibly be an even bigger annoyance in Team games (especially if it was your teammate).

So while I see the potential good use of it, in my opinion the negative outweighs that.

And as far as the 10 game limit, as Viper pointed out, there are ways around that with Premium :)

You're absolutely right, that's why it should be severly limited just a few uses per week/month/year to Premium members only. 

The thing is if someone wants to basically do the same thing now they just don't take their turn and get booted or they kamikazi someone which also negatively effects the game.

If we had a player AI to take over from that point it would be even better so it could take over and it wouldn't turn into a neutral wall with wasted cards.

Allowing it but limiting it seems awkward to me.

Being booted gives other players at least 1-2 turns to make an elimination.  Kamikazi is a part of the game IMO.

Viper wrote:

Or you could pay for an inexpensive Premium Membership and play in as many games as you want.

Though I agree an immediate resign option would be nice, not for myself at all, but I see players all the time giving up and asking to terminate games and surrendering, etc..   They typically don't get either fulfilled and just go kamikazi on the closest person or whoever they think is winning which ruins the game for everyone else.

I can't recall many times where I've surrendered, but if someone politely requests a surrender and most people have accepted it, I always suggest they attack those who have not bothered to accept it. Helps the win odds too. :)

Viper wrote:

If we had a player AI to take over from that point it would be even better so it could take over and it wouldn't turn into a neutral wall with wasted cards.

With AIs, Tom would never hear the end of the "bad programming" everytime players were attacked by an AI. Everyone likes to interpret the boards favourably, thinking/hoping an enemy should be attacking a different party (though the experienced ones don't count on that). Djembe once lit into me cuz my strategy inconvenienced him (I kept my word on something to him), saying it was dumb etc... though it turned out to be a winning strategy as I anticipated. So if an AI is also attacking, people are gonna be even madder when they are the target, being attacked by "neutrals".

But for some balance of power games where it is pretty important (like My Kingdom or something) it could be helpful. But it would have to be optional, or maybe it could be voted on. But I think it is a huge project to do right with relatively little need, so I guess this was just for fun/philosophy.

How about an AI player specifically designed to play only for booted players?

I'm going to start a new thread on this subject so this one doesn't get hijacked.

Damn Gimli that was the exactly what I was thinking today... AI whining.

Although I understand Yertle's point of view, I believe you can't force someone to play and the "less worse" solution seems to me to be Jumbo's resign option. M57's idea of good behavior is interesting and should be developed according to me.

But there is a case I want to raise where I believe there can't be any debate, is the case of 1 vs 1 games. Why do you have to wait your opponent to accept your surrender ? It should be automatic. Also I believe a carrot could be given like M57's suggested to push players to surrender when all his lost. I know Yertle might not agree, but on 1 vs 1 games, you know when you don't have the slimest chance to win. Why making it last some more days or weeks for nothing ?

I can think of no good reason that "surrender" or "resign" (that doesn't show up on your record) shouldn't be an option for 1 v 1 games (or games that have come down to 1 v 1. It records as a loss.  Chess players do it all the time as a matter of courtesy.  In fact, these days you rarely see games played out to the end by pros.  They routinely resign 5 to 10 moves from a foreseen end.

On the other hand, on most boards, it rarely takes more than 2 or 3 moves to take someone out when a lead pipe cinch position has been achieved.  Furthermore, unlike chess, chance can and does turn around seemingly hopeless positions. 

Hmm.. Wouldn't you feel stupid if when playing a game of chess against a grandmaster you resigned and moments later he dropped dead?

True, this is the only reason I can see to keep playing an Antastic game when you bonus is below 10 and your opponents' one is above 50. It might take 3 or 4 more rounds to finish the game (and even more with total fog), and all you can hope is your opponent getting booted (whatever the dice are). You will see from my records that I have 54 surrenders, far above the average as I agree it's a matter of courtesy.

How about an auto-surrender option that acts just like an 'quick boot me' option. Instead of waiting for the time limit to be reached, you get skipped & booted as soon as your turn starts.  To help players get out of games they are not interested in, it could be irrevocable, and the game would no longer count against your played game list.  It's just a slightly politer way to get out rather than just sitting out your turns. 

I also really like M57s idea to penalize/reward players, by allowing them to play more/less games based upon their boot count. More generally this could tie into that wargear leveling system that has been kicked around for a while.  Have the level totally unrelated to your skill at wargear, but instead have it reflect your contributions to the site.  Simply playing games is the easiest way to contribute (i.e. go up levels), but releasing a map, or reporting a bug, etc. could also earn you higher levels.  Getting skipped/booted lowers your level.  The # of games a non-premium member  can play is limited by their level.  For premiums it is just 'bragging rights' (or maybe there is something they can get?)

How about allowing a surrender to take place without the other player accepting once the game is down to 2 players?

The rationale behind requiring the other players in the game to accept the surrender is it's possible to use a surrender tactically to disadvantage another player, e.g. to deny a player a game winning card set capture.

Although admittedly as there is no actual penalty for boots or surrenders (at least currently) there is no difference between a 'quick boot me' option, automatic boots and un-accepted surrenders other than the player's reputation.

tom wrote:

How about allowing a surrender to take place without the other player accepting once the game is down to 2 players?

I'd say that's a decent compromise (although the winner is awarded an Elimination, but that's not too big of a deal probably).   Would it still be a good idea to call this a "Resign" rather than a Surrender, ie would it be beneficial to see one over the other when investigating accounts?  Perhaps not, but just a thought.

Since the original intent was to allow players to exit a game they no longer want to be in, would it be possible to have a resign option that is automatic, but where the player's units and cards are still there.  That is, the player is still in the game, but resigns the ability to take turns from that point forward (automatic end turn flag is set to yes).  Then, the elimination potential is still there. 

I expect this would be harder to implement, but I think it would probably be a better compromise.  This could also be what happens when there is a boot, opposed to the current boot that happens.  Along with this, there would be the option for everyone to accept their surrender and then they would be booted with the neutral takeover.   If no one likes this, then we can pretend the suggestion was never made.

Alpha wrote:

Since the original intent was to allow players to exit a game they no longer want to be in, would it be possible to have a resign option that is automatic, but where the player's units and cards are still there.  That is, the player is still in the game, but resigns the ability to take turns from that point forward (automatic end turn flag is set to yes).  Then, the elimination potential is still there. 

I expect this would be harder to implement, but I think it would probably be a better compromise.  This could also be what happens when there is a boot, opposed to the current boot that happens.  Along with this, there would be the option for everyone to accept their surrender and then they would be booted with the neutral takeover.   If no one likes this, then we can pretend the suggestion was never made.

I still don't know what the difference between Resign and Surrender are (or should be).  There are three different ways a player can prematurely leave a game, and I will arbitrarily name the last two.

1. Player fails to take their turn: BOOT
2. Player gives up while there are still more than two players remaining in the game: SURRENDER
3. Player cedes the game to the last remaining player.  RESIGN

As far as consequence is concerned, there is no difference between 1 and 2.  In both cases, as Tom has mentioned, there are potentially players who will benefit in identical fashion as a result of these occurrences. 

As far as #3 is concerned.  The outcome of the game has already been decided.  A 1v1 resignation (whether or not it is a smart one) should not be penalized in any fashion.  It deserves no more mention than the line it occupies in the history section of the game.  A win is a win.  Resignations should not be tallied and posted somewhere.  What possible use would that have?  Does anyone know how many times Bobby Fisher resigned?  I'll take a guess.  It's roughly the same amount of times that he lost.  The stat is meaningless.

Now, regarding situation 1 and 2.  I'm sure there are a number of solutions that deal with the problem, but in my mind there is only one reasonably equitable solution ..Get your basic not too stupid bot to play out the position.   The SURRENDERING/BOOTED player gets what they want/deserve, and most importantly, the outcome of the game is minimally affected in an adverse manner.  As far as the stats are concerned, it'll be like nothing happened.  The player assumes responsibility for whatever stats the bot puts up.

There's a laundry list of other advantages of having a Boot Bot on the thread.  Tom has yet to weigh in on this but I've gotta believe that given the five or six simple rules of engagement proposed on the AI thread, it doesn't sound all that daunting to program.  Or I should say the tricky part is getting the system automated, not the AI programming.

We may have to implement some alternate solutions if Tom can't get around to this in the short term, but is there anyone who thinks there's a better solution?

Alpha wrote:

Since the original intent was to allow players to exit a game they no longer want to be in, would it be possible to have a resign option that is automatic, but where the player's units and cards are still there.  That is, the player is still in the game, but resigns the ability to take turns from that point forward (automatic end turn flag is set to yes).  Then, the elimination potential is still there. 

I expect this would be harder to implement, but I think it would probably be a better compromise.  This could also be what happens when there is a boot, opposed to the current boot that happens.  Along with this, there would be the option for everyone to accept their surrender and then they would be booted with the neutral takeover.   If no one likes this, then we can pretend the suggestion was never made.

I fully agree with this brilliant idea. This would make the automatic surrender/resign much less disturbing.

I only disagree about the option for an old-fashion surrender (neutral takeover). It would have not much interest and would still take (a lot of) time when 12 players have to agree on it. Let's make it simple and quick.