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 think we should pretend the suggestion was never made.  The value of the Booted/resigning player's cards could magnify the inequity that already exists with the current system. 

Obvious Example: Player A resigns or is booted during a turn while holding cashable cards worth gobs of armies. A is down to a territory or two with just a few units.  Player A's turn is skipped and Player B takes the everything.

A variation of the above example could be used by someone to cheat, but then I'm hoping that it wouldn't be too hard to prove.

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.

This is what I thinking with the "freeze" aspect

Yertle wrote:

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).

Personally I think I like it better than an AI taking over, but perhaps I could be swayed.  Either way though, it seems the player is removed but the territory/reserve/card/elimination potential still being present could be easier than an AI.  Seems like it would be as simple as not turning the player's territories Neutral, but showing this graphically could be where the difficulty is.

Yertle wrote:

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.

This is what I thinking with the "freeze" aspect

Yertle wrote:

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).

 

Personally I think I like it better than an AI taking over, but perhaps I could be swayed.  Either way though, it seems the player is removed but the territory/reserve/card/elimination potential still being present could be easier than an AI.  Seems like it would be as simple as not turning the player's territories Neutral, but showing this graphically could be where the difficulty is.

Yertle, I love it when you quote yourself. You was right.

Showing it graphically could be not necessary. The board could stay as it was, just the name of the player could be blinking in the list.

Toto wrote:

Showing it graphically could be not necessary. The board could stay as it was, just the name of the player could be blinking in the list.

That sounds like it could work IMO.  Something more than just the Booted (or whichever) status.  Of course that list is optional via a Setting, but there are perks to having it already (highlight player/team stuff).  Dunno if it would have to be blinking, but perhaps just highlighted or different color text somehow, then as you said, you may not have to touch the actual territories/player color/graphics.

As someone who has kamikaze'd his way out of a game more than once, I'm in favor of anything that makes it possible for me to say, "Over it" without having to get everybody's approval and without having to wait for a boot. I could see a "Boot Self" option being moderately effective, especially since boots don't have anywhere near the negative stigma or penalties here as they do on other sites.

Having said that, if I was playing a game, I would be no more thrilled if someone self-booted to avoid me eliminating them and capturing their cards than I would be if they suicided on me. Personally, I've just grown accustomed to accepting nihilistic behavior as part of the game.

M57 wrote:

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 think we should pretend the suggestion was never made.  The value of the Booted/resigning player's cards could magnify the inequity that already exists with the current system. 

Obvious Example: Player A resigns or is booted during a turn while holding cashable cards worth gobs of armies. A is down to a territory or two with just a few units.  Player A's turn is skipped and Player B takes the everything.

A variation of the above example could be used by someone to cheat, but then I'm hoping that it wouldn't be too hard to prove.

I fail to see how this applies, Player A kamakazi's on their turn, as does B and C eliminates both and wins the game.  This happens currently.  The resign option would only happen if a player selected it, regular skips and boots would be separate.

I potential ways to cheat are already there.

This is definitely a controversial subject with lots of good arguments. My main issue with this is that often time players "abuse" the surrender option, trying to start fast games and then surrenduring as soon as the scales tip in their opponents favor. Fortunately you don't have to accept, but it sucks if you can't take them out before they just let themselves get booted. So if there was an automatic boot self option, this would just be even easier to do. So it would have to be strictly regulated. There are too many players on this site that won't just man up and play the game through, and it wouldn't be an easy task trying to set enemies with all of them.

Also if the player resigns then it seems to me that the advantage would go to those whose turn falls afterwards. Who would obviously no longer need to defend against that player, and could take risks or move defensive units to attack that they normally wouldn't.