Resigning should be invisible

I think there is 1 big flaw with the way the resign button works. Because you can see that a player has resigned 2 turns in advance of his troops becoming neutral the player who comes 1st after the resignation has a disctinct and unfair advantage. Case in point: http://dominating12.com/?cmd=game&sec=play&id=295551 All went well until the red player decided to defeat my largest army, retreat his troops and resigned giving the light blue player the signal to go for an all out attack and decide the game. This kind of king-maker nonsens happens all to frequently on this site but there is really very little you can do about that BUT combine this with the resign funtion and that little white flag that appears and you get a very unfair advantage for the player who gets to react 1st. My proposal (if this is possible to programme) would to leave everything exactly as it is now but make it so that you don't see when a player has resigned until his or her armies turn neutral. You would have to programe it so that in the log it appears as if the player who has resigned has missed his or her turn but other than that it would work exactly as it does now. And you would have to get rid of the little white flag. I understand why there are 2 turns before the armies turn grey (to avoid players gettting an unfair advantage) but it has not worked the way it should. In the above case defaulting would have been the fair way to end this game in the case of the red player, that way the game would have ended in a proper way, now it's completely ruined and the resign button as it is now made this possible.

When the player resigned did that take the game down to just 2 players? Cause I can see this being a big problem if that was the case because the first player to have a turn after the flag goes up gets a huge advantage. But I don't see a problem if there are more than 2 players left. In that case it's better for everyone if you do see the flag so you don't get upset by wasting troops on a player who is just going to go neutral. I could program it to not show the flag if there are only two players left but you would be able to tell that they resigned because their turn was auto-missed without the timer running out. I would have to program it to make you wait their full turn too.

Can you program the following somehow: PlayerA begins turns PlayerA gets X troops for X territories Player A fortifies TerritoryY with X troops. Player A ends turn.

Although it's not any better once they do go gray. That is just as bad as a white flag going up. The next player will have the advantage in a 3 player game (now 2 players). So anyway you look at it, it's going to suck for someone.

Yes Vexer there where only 3 players left in that game. To answer cbt711. I agree that the armies going gray when a player defaults gives an advantage to the player who comes 1st after the default but the problem with the resign option is that it gives an extra advantage namely you know it's coming and you can start to move your troops. This was an unlimited fortification game and in those cases it's deadly. The 1st player who can put all his troops on the critical borders will win because the other player has no hope of breaking the 1st players's borders anymore.

I totally agree with you. Instead of the game being decided by turn order, it's just decided by when the person decides to throw up the flag. Especially coupled with a suicide or a mass attack, and then throwing up the flag on the other players' turn it gives the guy quitting the game way too much say in the winner. But it's still going to suck for the guy that is NOT next when the player does go gray. But turn order is at least part of the game we kind of accept as luck or unfair at times.

I can live with the consequences of turn order and other randomly decided factors. The random placement of the armies at the beginning of the game is sometimes a huge advantage for a player. That's just the way the game works but what happened in the last game I played was anything but random and unlucky. It was bad playing combined with an unfortunate side-effect of the current resign function.

There are already threads covering the "Resign" button and some of its inherent problems: http://dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&act=view&id=1455&board=20&lastpost=1#post-21552 http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=1045&board=20&page=2 (I'm sure there are probably others) Have fun :)

How about a compromise. Have it not show the white flag until they have missed the first turn.

@[url=http://www.dominating12.com//index.php?cmd=member&sec=profile&act=view&id=1774]Vexer[/url], I'm not opposed to that idea, as it should make the odds more even in a multi-player game. For instance, in an 8-player game, player 2 plays, then player 7 quits, giving players 3-6 a bit longer to make their moves. The only reservation I have is that it is nearing the "Instant Resign" sort of play that is also problematic [size=9](SEE ALSO: http://dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&act=view&id=1455&board=20&lastpost=1#post-21552)[/size], in which case 3 missed turns to Neutral might be better. (I'm still not a fan of "Resign" button in general, and even less so in fog, especially Fog Capitals.) The "Resign" button turns [url=http://www.dominating12.com/?cmd=tutorial&act=rules#6]Rule #6[/url] on its ear by making it less advantageous to weaken an opponent substantially when you are not ready to immediately capitalize on their weakness. The "Resign" button was sold as an "emergency" feature that keeps people from waiting in the (supposedly) unlikely event they had to suddenly leave a game due to a situation unbeknownst to them and generally out of their control. However, it has been the quitters' "Get out quick" button, where they feel, (rightly or wrongly) they have little, if any, chance of winning. They quit, taking the easy way out and no longer "play to win".

This may seem like a poor suggestion, but significantly increasing the price of the Resign Button would discourage people from the "Get out quick" mentality. I do realise however that this may be seen as unfair to the players who genuinely had no control over having to leave their game. On the other hand, it may be the lesser of two evils to stop players from destroying games in return for a few players being forced to pay tokens due to no fault of their own - what do you think?

@[url=http://www.dominating12.com//index.php?cmd=member&sec=profile&act=view&id=27182]Virtuosity98[/url], First, [b][size=14]Howdy & Welcome aboard [/size][/b]:D Your suggestion is a step in the right direction, but only works against players with a taste for rank afforded by tokens. I have over 31000 tokens that are essentially useless to me, so whatever the cost of resigning, it makes little difference to me (I also use the "Resign" button for its stated original purpose, if at all). Besides I tend to believe the same impatience that spawned the "Resign" button enjoys the fact that games finish sooner when people quit instead of trying to fight to the last. I would rather see weekly or monthly limits on the usage of the "Resign" button, maybe 3 per week or 5 per month. [i]Special, rare cases where quitting more than the allotted number of games might be necessary can be addressed by a [url=http://www.dominating12.com/?cmd=tutorial&act=staff]Moderator or Admin[/url], as they arise.[/i] Have fun :)

[i]How about a compromise. Have it not show the white flag until they have missed the first turn. [/i] Perfect.

Ok, lets try that 1.

Remember that players who abuse the resign button will be disciplined accordingly.